Hitter Debate Part 2 - A Sabermetric Approach
| 13
|
by user Jeeves
(If you haven't read the first part, I recommend checking it out, not only to see the use of more conventional stats, but also to read my disclaimer about it all)
As promised here is a more sabermetric approach to the question at hand. I'm not going to say that this set of data paints a clearer picture, but it does at least try to factor in a number of different variables the first set of data couldn't. I used 7 stats to come up with my rankings, BA diff, OBP diff, SLG diff, RC/27, OPS+, EqA, and Warp-3/season. Before you freak out on me, allow me to explain what each stat means and what each stat factors in.
BA, OBP, and SLG diff - Are the difference between a player's career BA/OBP/SLG compared to the league average BA/OBP/SLG. For example, to figure out Ruth's BA diff I took his career batting average, .342 and subtracted the league average for that time period, .285, and got a difference of .057.
It's hard to compare hitters from different eras; one person may have played during a time where high averages were expected with little power and another player may have been around during a time when the averages were down and pitching dominated. By comparing them to the league average, it's possible to see how far ahead of the pack they were. This is essentially my goal for this entire data set. In the first data chart I compared the players to eachother, but here I'm trying to quantify how much they outperformed players who were playing under similar circumstances and then comparing that to the other all-time greats.
RC/27 - RC on it's own is an estimator created by Bill James (of the Bill James Handbook). RC by itself doesn't help us much since it is a cumulative stat, so those players with longer careers would logically have high RC's, but if you take RC/27 which basically measures how many runs a lineup featuring 9 of the same player would produce per game; you have a good comparison stat.
Imagine 9 Babe Ruth's in one lineup; would you ever have him bunt?
OPS+ - An OPS+ is adjusted to compare the specific season(s) to which it is being applied to. OPS+ is just the OPS of a player measured against the league average for the same time period. Sort of what I did what BA/OBP/SLG diff, but it also accounts for park factors. An OPS+ of 100 is considered to be league average. An OPS+ of 125 means the player was 25% better than a a league average player.
EqA - I'm just going to straight quote Baseball Prospectus here, "A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching." EqA incorporates baserunning but not defense. EqA is derived from something called Raw EqA, which is calculated by the following formula: (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)"
It's an eye-sore, I will admit, but it's a damn good tool to compare hitters. EqA is set on a scale like that of batting average, so it's easy to tell what is good and bad. An average EqA is .260.
Warp-3/Season - Again this is straight from Baseball Prospectus "Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season."
Unfortunately this has a defensive component in it, but it is still a useful tool. I tweaked slightly for our purpose. Warp-3 is a cumulative stat over the span of a career, so I turned it into a players avg Warp-3 over a 162 game season. To get this, I took a players career WARP and multiplied by 162, and then divided by the total number of games he has played.
So enough talk, onto the data chart. Again, some of my thoughts follow the numbers.
-Ruth is almost across the board, number 1. Considering the fact that he dwarfed most his contemporaries, I'm not surprised.
-Teddy Ballgame, Ruth, Gehrig, and Hornsby all stayed in the top-5. Bonds jumped up into the top-5 this time knocking out Pujols.
-I'm most surprised by Hornsby staying in the top-5. I think Hornsby and Gehrig are now tied for the prestigious, Player that Jeeves' Underrated the Most Award.
-I personally think Bonds' numbers were terribly inflated by his steroid use, but again there's no denying how impressive his stats are.
-A-Rod was the big dropper from data chart 1 to data chart 2, falling ten spots.
-It's disappointing to see Mays so far down the list again. He was always near the top of my list of best players, but I may have to reconsider where I place him now. More on that coming later, when I try and take all these numbers into consideration and change around my personal top-10.
-Thoughts anyone? Who's in your top 5/10? Do these numbers impact your thinking? Still think I'm crazy? Think I'm onto something? Let me hear it.
