[Archive]

Posted By: PoorYorik

Steve, the reason why a guy like Browning, or David Orr sits very high upon the career OPS+ list is because OPS+ is a rate stat, and those guys didn't play after their prime years...Browning retired after age 33, orr after age 30! So they didn't have any old man years to bring down their OPS+, like most Hall of Famers go through. That is also why you see Dick Allen high on that list.

That is why you see those guys higher than somebody like Stan Musial, who played a very long time. A better stat to use are the linear weight stats, as those weight the TRUE value of each offensive event(BB, 1b, 2b, 3b, Hr, out). However, if you want to look at OPS+, and figure the value of a Browning vs. Musial, all you have to do to see who truly was the more dominant/better player was, is to look at how they ranked on a yearly basis in OPS+...The following list will tell a much clearer story between browning and Musial than what their career OPS+ number tells.

League Rankings in the top ten in OPS+
Musial...1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,6,7,7,7

Browning...1,1,2,2,2,3,5,6,6.

Browning was impressive, but as you can see Musial was much more impressive. Browning only has a higher OPS+ than Musial because he didn't play long enough for it to come down. His career rankings are actually pretty similar to a Dick Allen, who also didn't play very long, but was dominant when he did.


Can people manipulate the numbers any way they want? Yes, if they want to create an argument that is without merit they can. However, using the correct criteria which has been poured over, checked, re-checked, and re-checked again, you are gonna get their 95% of the way.

There has been considerbal debate on Sisler, and the people backing him are ignoring the context of his numbers. His best yearly rankings were 2,3,3,4,5,6, and 8. Good, but nowhere near the rankings I've seen him on these top ten lists. They are waaaay overvaluing NOT striking out. Here is a quick way to check how valuable Not striking out truly is...

Go through every game that Mike Schmidt played, and Bill Buckner played. "King K" vs. "NoN King K", and you will see how little Buckner's contact ability actually equated into moving runners up OR getting on base via error. One can check EVERY game of their career to see those results, and you will see what I mean. Then add in the fact more double plays will be hit because of more contact, and you will notice that striking out only costs a hitter(and team) about 2-3 runs per every 100 strikouts. There is a difference, but very small, and nothing remotely close to what I hear fans talk about. It's all in black and white.

Here is a teaser...Mike Schmidt Reached on error (ROE) 118 times in 8300+ at bats, Buckner 128 times in 9300+ at bats. Per at bat, virtually no difference between the K and NON K man. Buckner's contact netted him 247 GIDP, and Schmidt 156.

Reaching on error is more prevalent in Sislers time, but it is also more prevalent for all of Sisler's competitors as well .

Cross era comparisons? That is a book. That is for another day.


Sisler doesn't even come close to cracking the top ten in Pre War guys, let alone all-time. Yes, all those stats, even the relative to the league ones are slanted towards the 20's-30's, and this current era right now. They are skewed, as it is ridiculous that all those stats, as they presently sit, suggest that all of the best players ever came from the 20's or late 90's. Or that all the best pitchers ever came pre 1900, or late 90's, yet that is what those skewed stats say.

There are some adjustments to be made. When doing an all-time thing like this, always compare to their contemporaries, AMD THEN knock down even more the value any hitter or pitcher from the late 90's to now, any hitter from the 20's-30's, and any pitcher pre 1900. It can get involved, but if you want to know reality, as opposed to the lists that are normally posted, then make the proper measurements.

It was far easier for the superstars of the league to dominate pre war baseball, and to dominate this current time in baseball.

EVERYONE SHOULD FIND IT ODD THAT...If you just look at straight OPS that only ONE player from the late 60's trough the 80's cracks the top 100 hitting seasons of all time! So you should use OPS+ to make it relative to the league, well...

Only FOUR hitters from the late 60's through the 80's crack the top 100 OPS+ seasons of all time. Right there you should know something is wrong. It isn't just OPS+, all the best metrics do the same thing, unless they are corrected! ERA+ is only a smidge different, as pre 1919 has all the best, yes that is even relative to the league. Pre 1919 has about double the best seasons compared to 1966-1993!