Let the debate continue--Greatest Season Performance

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Can't take credit for the Hornsby/runner up numbers, that was Scott.

The approximate OPS for Hornsby was 1.100 from 1922-25

4 years spans for the league
Hornsby Bonds
OPS .747 .747
OBA .351 .327
SLG .396 .420

You can see that the league OPS for each is the same, yet the game style are totally different. In Hornsby's day, getting on base was still the thing to do, as reflected by the much higher OBA. Today, an OBA of .350 will get kudos and possible leadoff batting slot. The whole AL averaged that during Hornsby's 4 year span.

Today, it's all or nothing. The only time really see anyone take a walk anymore is when they are intentionally walked or pitched around. todays players swing for the fences and arent' concerned with getting on base, no matter how much stats pundits tell people that getting on base is as important as hitting that HR.

I'm a huge Bonds fan, but I'll still take Hornsby run over Bonds. Could imagine how todays managers would handle a batter that went 40-.400 the year before? He'd see even fewer pitches than Bonds does.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

this link is pretty good: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2640

Barry Bonds is a perfect example of the problem I have with using OPS to evaluate offensive worth - you get OPS simply by adding "on base %" to "slugging %". So Bonds gets credit for all the times he was intentionally walked, even though that was done INTENTIONALLY in order to lessen his potential offensive damage, i.e., he was put on base when it didn't matter...sometimes anyway.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Sorry about that, Scott. Thank YOU for posting the numbers.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Scott, great point. Never really thought about it that way before, but it makes sense. I'm too lazy today to crunch the numbers, but it would be interesting to see what Bonds OPs is if you remove the IBBs.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

To determine what Bonds's OPS would have been in a game without the IBB one shouldn't so much remove the 306 IBBs (all of which were, by defintion, successful plate appearances) as replace them with the outcomes expected on the basis of the 2428 plate appearances in which he was not intentionally walked: 566 BB (non-intentional), 310 1B, 140 2B, 12 3B, 258 HR, 316 SO, 16 SF, 40 HBP. In other words, assume that 33 of those 306 IBBs would have been home runs, 40 would have been strikeouts, etc. I'd be happy to calculate that OPS if you really are interested.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

All you need to do is refigure his OBA his SLG wouldn't change under that method. And there would be a big drop in OBA, thus OPS.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I'm not really interested in ANY of Bonds' statistics - I was just curious why OPS was so important to some people, and was bored, so I googled it.

But I think if you are going to recalculate Bonds' OPS, you should also estimate how many of those walks were "pitch arounds". It was smart to pitch around him and walk him, I'm sure, but it does add additional gas to an already flatulant statistic.

The other way you could look at this is that Bonds was certainly incredibly dangerous at the plate, or he wouldn't have gotten walked so much. I don't recall any batter since I've been watching ball that was as dangerous.

Earl Weaver had a philosophy that you never let a team's best hitter beat you - too bad more managers don't practice that. Anyone have stats on which manager has had Bonds walked the most times as a percentage of at bats?

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Well, if anyone does care, his OBP (including stats from the 2000 season) would drop from .535 to .520, so the OPS goes from 1.316 to 1.301. That's a 1.3% drop, which I wouldn't consider big, but reasonable people can disagree on that point I suppose.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

sorry if I sounded rude - I appreciate anyone's efforts crunching statistics, I just have a hard time getting excited about modern numbers, especially given the allegations that surround some of the players sporting the bigger numbers. It's just really tough to use stats to compare Hornsby to Bonds.

It's possible that baseball eras could be broken out based on major changes that occured in equipment or rules (underhand to overhand pitching, fouls as strikes, lively ball, lowering the mound, etc.) but you would still have to deal with changes in philosophy ("inside ball" thinking that gradually changed with the lively ball, relief pitchers, 5-man rotations, free agency, sky-rocketing salaries and media which resulted in "protecting the body" to absurdity, "I-me-mine" philosophy of players and the accompanying efforts to increase personal stats at all costs, the steroid age, etc.).

The best you could probably do is find players who crossed two eras during their primes and try to determine the effect of the changes on their personal stats, then create a factor to apply to everyone.

So how many home runs would Bonds hit in 1910, given a higher mound, dead ball, loss of incentive to hit so many HR's (and bulk up to do so), facing tired starters late in the game, spitballs. Plus, the first time he hit one out and took his leisurely walk toward first as he admired it, the pitcher would put one in his ear. Hate to think of what Gibson and Drysdale would have done to him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

No hard feelings. I didn't expect to change anybody's mind here, but I do enjoy the numbers and the debate. No doubt there are plenty of more in-depth analyses that I could do (and eventually will), and I think all of the factors you mentioned are important ones to include if I do attempt some grandiose Principal Components Analysis of every variable that has been proposed to relate to a player's offensive prowess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

While it was smart to walk Bonds in many cases, I can remember countless games where the Giants were already well in the hole. Bonds would get pitched around when the bases were empty. Shame on the other teams for not having the guts to go at him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

when comparing hornsby, bonds and sosa during the 5 year span. sosa most runs. sosa most home runs. sosa most rbi. sure he struck out more than bonds but he also had 200 more hits than bonds. its about generating and scoring runs. its clear that sosa did this better than bonds. bonds rbi in the 5 year span not 4 544 rbi. are you kidding sosa 705 rbi. that is 161 more rbi. hits bonds 720. sosa 920 thats 200 more hits than bonds. sure bonds is great but sosa had a better 5 year run. although i will agree hornsby had the best 5 year run but sosa number 2. the numbers do tell the story. sosa came to play and took more chances meaning more k"s bonds just decided to take the walks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Mickey Mantle 1956.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

"And I may be a bit simplistic, but the way I see it is ---> when you come up to bat, if you get a hit, you have been successful, if you don't, then maybe there is an alibi, such as a walk, got hit by the pitch, advanced a runner, or some other excuse, but you are supposed to get a hit."

I look at it differently. A batter is supposed to not make an out. I don't consider a walk or hit batter to be an "excuse" as it accomplishes the same purpose -- to not make an out.

If a batter doesn't make an out he is successful (due to hit, walk, or HB).

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well for some getting a walk or getting hit by a pitch is a deliberate method used for getting on base, this is true. But it isn't quite as common anymore.

But Brian, according to your logic: getting on due to an error is praiseworthy. Maybe it is.

Id like to see the statistics for true on base percentage which included all of the above as well as hits other than home runs. My guess is McGraw would top that list.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Trying to place your hits around weaker fielders ups your chances of getting on base.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Yes Scott. I think that there are several factors involved in getting on due to an error - other than luck. But I think that, in general, it is more difficult to get an out on a grounder than a fly ball; partially because there are typically two fielders associated with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I don't know the actual numbers, but I am willing to bet that players are HBP more today than anytime in the history of the game. The big reason for this is simple, body armor. Look at Bonds and Bagwell. I can't remember for sure if Biggio wears it too, am pretty sure he does. And he (Biggio) recently passed Baylor on the all-time HBP list. Players also hang out over the plate and lunge at pitches outside the plate all becuase the unpires have taken away the inside of the plate from pitchers and with the body, they have no fear of getting hit by a pitch today.

Take away that body armor and give the inside pitch back to the pitchers and I gaurentee you Biggio, Bonds, Bagwell, et al are no longer hanging their bodies over the plate waiting for a pitch. These same types of players would have spent a lot of time in the dirt until they got off the plate facing the likes of Gibson and Drysdale.

Players today also make no effort to get out of the way of a pitch, which the rules clearly state they muct. I work for the local minor league team in my town and was absolutely floored when the umpire told the hitter to get back in the batters box because he didn't make an effort to get out of the way of the pitch. It was also refreshign to see that at least one umpire still follows that rule.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Sometimes these threads get about 2-3 levels of depth more than the original poster intended - as with the "under-rated/over-rated" thread, this one wasn't that complicated.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

ChChChanges: There are so many changes over the years that it is impossible to derive a single factor that affects things: changes in mound heights, ball doctoring, use of old balls in games, artificial lighting, expanded schedules, new ballparks with better designed sight lines, sensitivity to inside pitching, relief pitching, etc.

Juice or Training: Setting aside the debate over whether steroids work, there has been an incredible expansion in the number of players capable of feats that were considered extraordinary in earlier years. For pitchers, throwing into the middle and high 90s; for hitters, reaching the fences. I think a lot of it has to do with the development of systematic training techniques and tools. Look at video: Tony Gwynn swore by it as a tool for sharpening his swing and most pitchers are coached in mechanics using video. It is a hell of a lot easier to make a player's technique better if you can show him exactly what he is doing and provide immediate feedback that he can study.

Older Player Performances: We are in a golden age of older player performances. As a newly-minted 40-year-old, I am particularly sensitive to the question of whether there are ballplayers older than I am. There are quite a few and they are playing at levels that lead me to believe that I still have a few good years before I am older than any MLB player. A lot of the change has to do with advances in surgery, training and nutrition. In the old days, a rotator cuff or elbow injury was all she wrote for a pitcher, a knee injury would destroy a career, there was no weight lifting, off season training consisted of whatever the dude was doing at the time, etc. A guy like Roger Clemens, who busts his ass every day, maintains his high level of fitness to complement his experience-increased skills. That, to me, is a lot of why we are seeing older players doing so well; they are able to maintain a much greater % of their physical skills to go with the increased expertise that a long career gives them. That is also why performance enhancing drugs disproportionately benefit the best players--it lets them hang on to the raw physical tools (speed, strength) that they need to complement their already superior skills. There also really isn't any substitute for experience. The two biggest examples of age improvement I can think of, McGwire and Bonds, both refined their batting techniques considerably as they got older. Look at film of their swings from early on and later; there are dramatic differences in the efficiency of their movements.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Scott, my recollection is that it is not uncommon for the posting to diverge from the initial subject somewhat over the course of fifty or more posts.

If your observation of my divergence is intended as criticism, and the board population or moderator also objects to this expansion in the scope of acceptable comments, I will make an effort to limit my response to the acceptable restrictions.

It is my feeling that the other thread (which you characterized as a semantic disagreement) was not off the original topic. However, in this thread there clearly has been substantial development of the subject.

And I no doubt am a bit biased here, but I think the exploration of new statistical analysis approaches is a subject of potential interest to some; although not directly related to the thread title.

Edited to add: identify7

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I feel like I'm getting my sentences parsed, when it's just a friendly thread about baseball. Personally, I don't care what anyone posts - if it gets unpleasant I'll move to another thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

"But Brian, according to your logic: getting on due to an error is praiseworthy."

I never mentioned error.




Per Wonka's instructions...

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I apologize Scott if I misinterpreted your statements.