Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard
Thank you for the well thought out response.
The reason I like modern sabermetric statistics with 19th century players is that a lot of their on-field contributions seem quite low when compared to modern players and this is a product of the times (lower amounts of games played per season, etc).
Modern sabermetric statistics are formed using their contemporaries and not modern players so it really gives a good insight as to how they compare to their 19th century peers. Even if we didn't want to go that route, we can see that Bennett had a .942 fielding percentage at catcher to a .909 league average during his playing days, which may be his most impressive state.
|
To the bold, I didn't say modern sabermetric's compare performance to players a century later instead of contemporaries; but it uses a set of value suppositions rooted in todays game, not the 19th century. There is not a different version of WAR that calculates value based on the way the game was played in a particular year or period, just a couple adjustment factors that exist mostly to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't come out on top. In order to find WAR an accurate account of a players performance, you must accept the value judgements it places on everything and think those reflective of the period in question. I do not think that it does. It's fictional replacement player it compares too is even less real in this period where there wasn't a highly regulated and developed feed system.