Spiritus: I didn’t say “traditional” statistics are meaningless at all. 
Runs scored, especially, is an extremely good measure. But on-base percentage and slugging percentage are more dispositive in determining a player’s overall worth. Those two stats shouldn’t be used exclusively, but they should be used.
…And we can have a debate about clutch hitting sometime, too. 
This may well be true.
quote
“The records I consider most untouchable right now are wins and complete games in a season. Today’s starters don’t come close to the number of appearaances necessary to challenge.”
First off, I would like to say hi, since this is my firsrt post.
Yeah, that is a good point. The five man rotation almost ensures that a pitcher will not get enough wins to break the record, and the importance placed on relief pitching means that complete games is also a safe record. Because of the importance of relief pitching and closers not only will the complete game record not be approached, it is, IMHO, one of the reasons that there have been no >.400 hitters since Ted Williams. In the older days of baseball, pitchers were expected to go the full nine, even if they were getting shelled. Case in point, Cy Young started 867 and finished a seemingly uncanny 751. If almost all of the pitchers pitched nine innings, they are bound to get tired, and that means more hits. Now, around the sixth or seventh inning, a batter has to face a fresh reliever and in the ninth of a close game, the closer. A fresh pitcher gives up fewer hits then a tired starter. Of course there are many other factors, like the free swinging style.
Oh yeah, Bonds is having one of the greatest, lets see if he can break the slugging record before we crown him.
Well, the word “worth” is where I quibble. Those stats are absolutely the best indicators of a player’s individual performance, which is why I believe they have become so important in personnel decisions. What I am less convinced of is that individual performance is necessarilt the best measure of “worth”. Games are won by runs scored, not total bases. I believe “worth” should reflect the win requirements of the game.
I’m not saying that runs scored or RBI’s are necessarily a better measure, just that they are not necessarily a worse one.
Oh, and I didn’t say that Bond’s home runs were “clutch”. I said that they represented significant value in winning (or not losing) the game. A solo HR in the 1[sup]st[/sup] is not particularly “clutch”, but if you win the game 1-0 it is very valuable.
And before I forget, hi Flying Brave Pack 86. Welcome to the SDMB.
Right, and OBP and SLG are most correlative to a team’s ability to score runs, and thus win games. Comparing the predictive value of on-base and slugging to that of runs scored and RBI isn’t that helpful because ability to create runs–either by scoring them or by driving them in–is exactly what makes OBP and SLG such important metrics (especially when taken together, in OPS). But the number of runs a player actually ends up scoring or driving in–or, more precisely, the degree to which these numbers deviate from what would be expected, given his OPS–is dependent on factors outside of that player’s control. Noting that Bonds is fourth in the league in RBI tells me only that he’s good at driving in runs–it doesn’t indicate that he’s necessarily worse at it than the three people in front of him.
When I made the remark about clutch hitting, I was referring to this comment of yours:
There isn’t really any evidence to show that certain players are naturally good or bad “clutch” hitters; that is, that they’re more likely to hit the grand slam in the blow out loss than the bases-loaded single in the tie game, or vice versa. Given that, while one may attach the label “more valuable” to a particular event–the single over the grand slam, in the above case–I don’t think that this value is really transferable in any cumulative sense to the players themselves. Certainly there are players who are singles hitters–Ichiro Suzuki, Tony Gwynn–as well as home-run hitters and even triples hitters (Cristian Guzman), but remember: while a single with a man on second in a close game is good, a home run with a man on second in a close game is even better.
(Congrats to Bonds tonight, by the way, for breaking the all-time single season walks record. Amazing, given how relatively few plate appearances he’s had, that he’s challenging McGwire’s record as well.)
By the way
Gadarene wrote:
Baseball terminology question:
If the batter is hit by a pitch, or gets a base on balls, does this not count as a “plate appearance”?
It counts as a plate appearance, but not as an at bat. I’m sure Gadarene mispoke, and meant to say at bats.
Ah.
So, lemme see if I’ve got this straight:
Your On-Base Percentage is the number of times you’ve reached base, divided by the number of plate appearances you’ve made;
whereas,
your Batting Average is the number of safe hits you’ve made, divided by the number of at bats you’ve had.
Is that right? If so, does a plate appearance count as an at-bat if you reach base on an error, or if you make a sacrifice RBI? Does a plate appearance even count as a plate appearance if you reach base on an error? Plus, I take it that if you step up to the plate, and then your buddy gets tagged out trying to steal second, and the inning ends, and you come up to bat again in the next inning (with your ball and strike counts reset to zero), those two still only count as one “plate appearance.”
Nanook’s right; I meant to say at-bats. I did that yesterday, too. Damn. Thanks for the catch, guys.
tracer:
Almost. (I hope I get this right; it’s late.) I’m pretty sure that reaching base on an error doesn’t count for you in your on-base percentage–so the formula is (H + BB + HBP)/ (AB + BB + HBP + SF). …SF here is sacrifice flies.
Yepper pepper.
Reaching base on an error counts as an official at bat. Lets say Barry Bonds went to bat four times tonight and singled once, flied out once, reached on an error once, and walked once. He’d have one hit in three at-bats for a .333 batting average, and will have reached base twice in four plate appearances for a .500 OBP.
What’s more, I believe that while sacrifice hits do count as plate appearances, they aren’t factored into on-base percentage. Plate appearances are calculated by adding AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + times reached on interference, at least according to this site.
Right.
Gadarene wrote:
Then, later, in the same post:
Um … wait a minute.
tracer: Sacrifice hits != sacrifice flies. Does that help? A sacrifice hit is one in which you’re trying solely to advance a runner, rather than reach base. Generally only bunts are counted as sacrifice hits (but not all bunts, obviously). A sacrifice fly occurs when a fly ball is hit which makes an out but which also happens to advance a runner. Presumably, the batter hitting a fly ball was trying to reach base–thus it’s counted against you in on-base percentage.
Sorry I didn’t make the distinction clear last night.
I don’t think I understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, OBP/SLG/OPS correlate highly with run production. Runs scored and RBI, however, directly reflect run production. Are you arguing that the correlation is somehow a more accurate reflection of value (as expressed by run production) than the actual run production? I’m not talking about predictive value for future performance. OPS is definitely a better metric for that. I am talking about a measurement of value produced.
Yes. Or rather, yes to the extent that situational hitting is a somplete fiction. I am not actually prepared to make that stipulation, but that is probably yet another digression. It really isn’t pertinent to the matter at hand. The fact that some components of “value” are not entirely under a player’s control is irrelevant. I have mnore value to my company today than a year ago, because we are understaffed. The fact that I cannot control the current staffing levels is irrelevant.
True. But the award is not “Most Potentially Productive Player”. RBI + runs scored measures the actual production of a player this year.
Again, you seem focused on measurements of potential or predictors of future success. I agree that there is little evidence that a hitter has ever really been “clutch” throughout a long carreer. Again, that’s irrelevant to the question “how much value did a player represent over X period.” I am talking about measuring past value not predicting future performance.
Even then it is usually the case that OPS correlated better to actual value, since runs scored and RBI are not entirely a reflection of a player’s relative contribution.
Consider the case of Player X and Player Y. If Player X drives in 100 runs and Player Y drives in 90, you might be inclined to state that Player X had more actual worth than Player Y.
However, that is not the case if Player X batted with 250 men on base over the course of the season and Player Y batted with only 160 men on base. If in this league half of all baserunners are driven in, driving in 100 RBI with 250 men on base isn’t really much of an accomplishment. The player is contributing nothing to his team any mediocre hitter couldn’t contribute; his net contribution to the team is actually NEGATIVE, since he’s leaving more men on base than an average player would. Player Y, on the other hand, is driving in more runs that would be expected of an average player.
Remember, the real question is: How many wins is this player helping his team get? Driving in 100 runs isn’t helping your team much at all if the average player would drive in 120 runs in your sitution; the superficially high total is the result of Players A, B and C getting on abse so much, and the fact that it shows up in your stats doesn’t mean you’re contributing more. But driving in 90 runs could be a much more impressive achievement if the average player would drive in only 80 in like circumstances.
Furthermore, you can contribute to the scoring of a run without getting a run or an RBI, either through base advancement or not using outs.
This statement might be more convincing if your succeeding example had actually used either of the components of OPS.
Even then, the debate becomes one of “relative contribution compared to the hypothetical contributions of other players in the league had they faced exactly the same batting situations” and “actual contribution”. I contend that “actual contribution” is the better standard for Most Valuable Player.
The example you used makes an issue of batting avg. with runners in scoring position and LOB. I actually thing avg. with runners on base (or in scoring position) is an essentially meaningless statistic for a nember of reasons (small sample size, fails to account for sac. flies or walks, insufficient correlation with those runners actually scoring), but I agree that LOB should be a factor when considering RBI.
That is my position. You seem to wish to add the clause, “compared to the hypothetical contribution of another player who faced the same situations.”
I disagree. Driving in 100 runs helps your team to 100 runs. If the average player “actually” drove in 120 runs, then this obviously was not a great value. If teh average player “might have” driven in 120 runs in your shoes but “actually” drove in 80 runs, then you have provided more value than the average player.
Yes, it does. It also means that your contribution is sometimes dependent upon the actions of other playuers. Thus the concept of a team.
Impressive? Absolutely. Valuable? No. There is no value to the team in runs which “would have been scored” had things been different. As a general principle, it is better to have 100 runs than 90.
Besides, what your argument actually seems to support is the idea not that Bonds’ and Gonzalez’ OPS should be used to evaluate their contributions–but that their contributions should be adjusted downward (or upward) based upon the statistical accomplishments of the other players on their teams.
Correct. None of the statistics mentioned thus far have tracked this, of course. RBI/RBI + LOB probably correlates fairly well with it, but a true metric would need to track RBI + runners on base who scored in any manner / runners on base.
Gadarene is right, because sacrifice hits means bunts, at least that is what I am getting fomr it. Sacrifice bunts are not factored into OBP, but sacrifice flys are.
RickJay:
Spiritus:
Actually, OBP and SLG track this quite well. Drawing a walk doesn’t use up an out, and is therefore intrinsically valuable even if it doesn’t result in your personally driving in or, ultimately, scoring a run.
Say, for example, that with a man on first and two outs, Player A draws a walk. Now there are two men on. The next batter, Player B, singles, driving in a run, and Player A advances to second. Player C then flies out, ending the inning. Here, Player A has neither driven in nor scored a run, and yet his walk contributed directly to a run being scored–a value reflected in his OBP, but not his RBI or runs scored. Had Player A grounded out to end the inning, the effectiveness of Player B’s subsequent single would be greatly reduced.
Similarly, a double with a runner on first may not score that runner, but it places him in far better position to be driven in. I’d also argue that a triple with the bases empty is valuable whether or not the man who hit it scores later from third, but that’s outside the scope of this particular debate.
Spiritus, to what degree do you feel park effects should be taken into account when evaluating the actual worth of a player’s statistics?
I’ll answer that. It is indeed a big factor in determining who is the best. That is why Larry Walker, although a very good player, is not as highly regarded as Mike Piazza, although Walker has as good stats. Walker spent much of his career in Colorado, which is universally acknowledged to have the best outdoor climate to hit a ball, especially the long ball. Mike Piazza spent his career playing in both Dodger Stadium and Shea Stadium, two of the worst places to hit. Statisticians such as Bill James I believe factored the home park in by comparing that park’s games’ stats with those of other parks at the time.
Upon reflection, it’s amazing that it took this long for someone to mention Bill James. Thanks, capacitor.
(I can’t wait for his Revised Historical Baseball Abstract to come out this year.)
After being walked many many times in the last couple days Bonds has finally hit number 70
This Giant is happy 