User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3767 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Thursday, November 25, 2004Pennants Added Pitchers (updated for the 1949 Ballot)Here is the thread for the pitchers. I’ve set this up to divide them by era, but if you think I made a bad judgement call, or having a better idea for arranging them, please let me know. Pitchers (pre-1880) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Al Spalding 27.9 210-108 241
John Ward (total) 1.772 425 672 79.2
John Ward (1878-83) 1.256 276 423 152-114 125
Bobby Mathews 18.6 302-243 226
Tommy Bond 31.0 229-168 193
Pitchers (1880-1892) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Charles Radbourn 1.898 406 594 69.3 292-212 249
Tim Keefe 1.789 415 609 65.8 329-228 295
Pud Galvin 1.733 387 635 60.3 359-315 235
Jim McCormick 1.682 378 577 58.6 268-211 207
Tony Mullane 1.615 376 553 42.1 287-214 237
John Clarkson 1.527 355 506 76.9 299-207 269
Mickey Welch 1.434 341 536 37.2 302-215 263
Bob Caruthers 1.281 300 414 60.0 199-118 206
Jim Whitney 1.262 285 440 52.4 200-195 106
Charlie Buffinton 1.034 249 385 52.2 224-161 193
Dave Foutz .953 239 363 32.9 n/a n/a
Silver King .909 214 314 45.7 205-152 171
Kid Gleason (1888-94) .428 116 192 29.8
Elmer Smith (1886-89) .353 84 118 8.6
(sig. value pre/post 1893) PA WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Amos Rusie .943 235 353 79.1 245-174 214
Jack Stivetts .926 237 339 44.3 191-144 156
Bill Hutchison .667 167 264 40.5 191-155 141
Gus Weyhing .627 171 304 24.3 255-241 145
Frank Killen .520 141 219 41.8 n/a n/a
Bert Cunningham .260 77 159 15.7 n/a n/a
Pitchers (1890s-1900s) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Cy Young 1.977 510 731 176.7 509-318 504
Kid Nichols 1.615 405 560 106.4 363-206 389
Christy Mathewson 1.215 324 460 124.9 360-201 390
Eddie Plank .936 266 395 94.0 306-214 272
Mordecai Brown .821 227 315 65.6 219-150 199
Clark Griffith .774 216 320 72.1 231-152 218
Joe McGinnity .753 202 302 58.5 234-154 221
Ed Walsh .752 200 282 79.3 193-128 181
Vic Willis .743 207 322 62.7 251-203 187
Jack Powell .664 192 319 58.1 252-247 132
Rube Waddell .655 182 269 63.1 198-138 177
Jesse Tannehill .625 176 261 57.5 180-134 149
Nig Cuppy .597 161 232 39.7 n/a n/a
Al Orth .594 172 276 59.8 196-197 97
George Mullin .587 171 277 49.6 223-201 139
Ted Breitenstein .585 160 253 57.4 176-154 116
Jack Chesbro .561 150 235 44.8 188-142 153
Chief Bender .557 165 252 51.4 193-146 157
Pink Hawley .546 149 242 44.2 185-161 123
Deacon Phillippe .540 155 231 37.4 180-118 171
Sam Leever .534 157 233 42.0 174-119 158
Addie Joss .498 141 209 50.9 163-94 172
Noodles Hahn .426 120 180 45.8 n/a n/a
Pitchers (1910s-1920s) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Walter Johnson 1.678 436 604 188.9 433-263 439
Pete Alexander 1.342 363 507 145.1 369-212 391
Eppa Rixey .694 206 331 80.2 280-237 195
Carl Mays .681 193 279 71.5 188-146 148
Red Faber .674 198 312 83.7 256-213 183
Burleigh Grimes .672 191 309 73.2 255-227 163
Wilbur Cooper .671 191 290 61.4 217-177 160
Jack Quinn .661 198 308 79.6 256-209 188
Stan Coveleski .649 182 270 78.8 212-145 193
Ed Cicotte .619 177 268 67.0 200-157 155
Babe Adams .607 176 260 58.6 189-145 151
Urban Shocker .578 168 243 72.7 186-118 182
Dolph Luque .572 167 256 65.9 207-166 156
Bob Shawkey .529 155 237 60.8 185-161 123
George Uhle .528 155 245 69.6 193-173 122
Herb Pennock .524 156 255 61.8 230-173 188
Hippo Vaughn .520 148 225 53.5 178-137 142
Eddie Rommel .506 150 221 68.2 178-112 175
Rube Marquard .443 131 224 39.5 208-170 152
Babe Ruth ('14-17+P18/19).345 93 140 n/a n/a
Pitchers (1920s-1930s) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Lefty Grove 1.135 307 417 127.0 296-145 350
Ted Lyons .728 215 330 105.4 269-221 196
Dazzy Vance .610 174 256 79.4 209-128 211
Waite Hoyt .585 176 280 73.2 236-183 186
Sam Jones .507 153 262 62.6 228-218 127
Red Lucas .432 130 207 67.3 n/a n/a
Jesse Haines .427 131 219 49.2 203-165 150
Rube Walberg .366 111 185 43.9 n/a n/a
Pitchers (1930s) PenAdd WSaR WS WARP3 RSI RSI Fib.
Carl Hubbell .790 223 323 101.9 252-155 253
Wes Ferrell .620 173 248 81.2 188-133 165
Lon Warneke .539 156 233 72.8 178-135 144
Tommy Bridges .536 160 237 75.8 191-141 160
Dizzy Dean .500 138 193 62.0 142-91 138
Lefty Gomez .438 127 197 57.0 175-116 164
JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: November 25, 2004 at 10:49 AM | 49 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(16 - 5:52pm, Nov 28) Last: reech Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (12 - 5:45pm, Nov 28) Last: kcgard2 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan Battle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)! (381 - 1:13pm, Jul 14) Last: Chris Cobb Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: November 25, 2004 at 11:35 AM (#982235)My “RA+ Fib.” numbers are based on the equivalent record before roundoff, and thus aren’t exactly what you’d get from the record in whole numbers.
* An adjustment for defensive support has been done on this pitcher. In each cases, he would rank higher without this adjustment.
# An adjustment for defensive support has NOT been done, but probably should be. I suspect the RA+ record overrates him for that reason.
Chris and I are not getting the same number of decisions because he’s working from actual decisions and I’m working from IP. This is probably most significant for Griffith, who has the lowest number of IP per decision of any of these pitchers, by a considerable margin.
There are plenty of convincing reasons for not voting for Waddell. However, it is popular to cite his unearned runs as one reason. Note that the table above is RA, not ERA – I am already counting his unearned runs against him.
If I were to ask for one pitcher to be added to the table at the top of the page, it would be Babe Adams.
I also have data for Vance, Ruffing, Hoyt, Haines, and a few others, and could add that when appropriate.
Does anyone care to argue against the proposition that it is a horrible error for me to continue to exclude Carl Mays from my ballot?
Specifically, why isn't Mays overall superior to Coveleski? They have nearly the exact career stats. Almost identical league and era. Same number of innings. Coveleski had a few more Ks, but also a few more BBs. Similar win totals. Mays had a better Win%, but maybe for better teams. They even have nearly identical ERAs, but Coveleski gets park-factored into an extra 8 points of ERA+. So, give a marginal pitching edge to Coveleski.
Then, look at their hitting. In nearly identical PA, Mays has an OPS of .663, for an OPS+ of 82. Coveleski has an OPS of .407, for an OPS+ of 9(!).
Doesn't that more than obliterate any pitching advantage by Coveleski?
Look at it this way: 176 extra TB+BB for Mays. Assume that instead of Mays getting those extra hits, they were extra hits and walks given up by Coveleski. Assign of linear weight of, conservatively, 0.4 runs per TB+BB, and you get an extra 70 runs given up by Stan. Seventy extra runs lifts Coveleski's ERA to 3.10 and his ERA+ to . . . 118. One lower than Mays's 119.
Pre-1880 pitchers - none.
1880-1892 pitchers - Jim McCormick 1.532, Mickey Welch 1.308 (Bob Caruthers 1.308; John Clarkson 1.405 only pitching).
1893-1910 pitchers - Clark Griffith .713 (Joe McGinnity .689) Vic Willis .679
1910-1929 pitchers - Carl Mays .631, Eppa Rixey .630, Wilbur Cooper .615, Burleigh Grimes .609, Jack Quinn .605 (Stan Coveleski .598).
Pitchers, using Fibonacci-RSI
pre-1880 - none.
1880-1892 - Mickey Welch 302-215 (263), Tony Mullane 287-214 (237) (Pud Galvin 359-315, 235).
1893-1910 - Clark Griffith 231-152 (218), Vic Willis 251-203 (187) (Ed Walsh 193-128, 181)
1911-1929 - Eppa Rixey 280-237 (195), Herb Pennock 230-173 (188), Jack Quinn 256-209 (188), (Red Faber 256-213, 183) Urban Shocker 186-118 (182)
Eppa Rixey moved ahead of Carl Mays, but that was the only difference.
Pitchers moved up a bit, batters moved down. I had the replacement level off a bit. I had it too low for hitters and too high for pitchers.
As for pitcher batting - I set the replacement level at 0 WS. Pitchers get full credit for all of their hitting, as opposed to batters. For guys like Caruthers and Ward and I prorate their pitching/batting games out so their batting replacement is zero when pitching and regular when playing the field.
Also, I'd like to see Charlie Buffinton added to the 1880s, George Mullin, Jack Powell, Sam Leever, and Deacon Phillippe added to the 90s-00s, and Bob Shawkey and Hippo Vaughn added to the 10s-20s list. None are HOMers, but its helpful to see a gap between the HOMers and the good but not greats.
And Babe Adams.
Sam Leever
Babe Adams
Jack Chesbro
Rube Marquard
Charlie Buffinton
George Mullin
Jack Powell
Deacon Phillippe
Bob Shawkey
Hippo Vaughn
I should be able to get them up there by Tuesday morning.
Bobby Mathews
Tommy Bond
Tony Mullane
Silver King
Jim Whitney
Jack Stivetts
Jesse Tannehill
Gus Weyhing
Bill Hutchison
Pink Hawley
Ted Breitenstein
Al Orth
You have some data for that last list above, but not PA or WS data.
I updated for the new WARP3 numbers (which intuitively make a lot more sense.
I added all pitchers, and the 'pennant' calc is updated through 1943 (the part that figures out the pennant impact of a season, based on all seasons through the election).
Also, I made a major tweak in accounting for replacement level for pitchers that also played the field.
I'm hoping to get the hitters done tomorrow, but it might not be until later in the week.
1880-92: Jim McCormick
Mullane played in weak leagues (evidenced by bad WARP3); Welch (not sure why his WARP3 is so bad); Whitney was nearly as good as Caruthers, but I think the line was drawn too low with Bob.
1890s-1900s: Clark Griffith and Vic Willis
1910s-1920s: Eppa Rixey and Jack Quinn
Both have higher WARP3 and PA than Coveleski - not sure if that means the line is too low at Stan or not. Could also include Mays and Grimes but both have significantly lower WARP3 than Coveleski. Cooper is way behind Coveleski in WARP3, suggesting weak league. I'd probably drop Quinn as his PA is boosted by the Federal League.
When you give Rixey credit for missing a season and a half for the war, he's a no-brainer and clearly the best pitcher of the era, after Johnson and Alexander.
I'm torn on McCormick, but I think I'm pushing him past Welch unless someone can give me a good reason why. I'm back on big Jim's bandwagon. Right now I rank them 1. Rixey; 2. Griffith; 3. Willis; 4. McCormick.
Both have higher WARP3 and PA than Coveleski
Not to restate the results you posted above (which are, as always, very helpful), but the top two pitching candidates from this era are really Rixey and Carl Mays (as your results indicate).
Quinn's advantage is in career length, but Mays was a better pitcher in his 3000 innings, and had more value as a hitter in 3000 innings than Quinn had in 4000.
Rixey is at the top of my ballot, but if you're looking for another pitcher from that era, "peak" points toward Mays, not Quinn.
Also, I can't help you on Tommy Bond or Bobby Mathews, but their complete numbers would be nice eventually.
I can't see how anyone could support Vance and not Ferrell - they are extremely close.
Hoyt is an interesting case. Clearly doesn't have the peak of the other two, but he's much closer than I thought he'd be.
What this shows is that Ferrell actually had the higher peak, according to Win Shares. They have essentially equal WS above replacement, Vance leads 174-173. But Ferrell gets the edge on PA, .611 to .601, which means Ferrell had a higher peak.
On WARP3, Ferrell has a slight edge too.
So, did we overrate Dazzy because of his strikeouts? If we don't rank Ferrell highly, I think it's a major sign that Dazzy was overrated - or Wes' hitting is underrated.
A few other recent pitchers you might add are Tom Zachary, Firpo Marberry, Joe Bush, Hooks Dauss and Joe Wood.
Thanks Dan, will do on those guys too.
Here's the repeat . . .
OK - I need to get this thing updated somehow, this post is kind of a way to put it up front and hold myself accountable for it.
But I need to try to tackle in a managable way . . . if I try to do it all at once it isn't going to get done.
I'm thinking I should update it with all of the HoMers first, and then the top candidates, based on votes and Win Shares, and then finally lesser candidates that need to get a second look.
I'll see what I can do to get cracking on it . . . since the last update was before the war, I'm going to need to make a decision there too. I'm going to probably list two numbers for war-guys. The main list, will include what I estimate their war production would have been, which I will spell out clearly, so you can adjust from there. The other number will include the numbers without any war credit whatsoever.
If anyone wants to suggest a list of who to update, prioritized how I mentioned above; feel free :-)
I'm very skeptical about WARP1 because of the extensive timelining that is built into its replacement levels. I've run some rough estimates of the PRAR (pitching runs above replacement) for an average pitcher pitching 240 innings:
PRAR, average pitcher, 240 innings
Year NL AL
1885 20 --
1895 34 --
1905 35 34
1915 40 42
1925 45 49
1935 45 53
1945 51 51
1955 61 62
1965 56 60
As you can see, an average pitcher is considered to be worth about 50 percent more per inning (or about 2 wins per 240 innings) in 1955 than in 1915. The pre-1920 increases tend to offset the declining workload of the average pitcher, but the increases since 1920 are much larger than any changes in average innings pitched.
Also, note the large differential that develops between the two leagues during the 1920s and 30s. I wonder how much of the lack of support for NL pitchers from that period, and the recent enthusiasm for 1950s-era pitchers, is due to these shifts in WARP1 replacement levels? As I've argued before, WARP1's shifts in replacement level seem too large to justify based on changes in workload or importance of pitching. If you want to use WARP1, please make sure you understand and agree with its large timelining of replacement levels.
As far as I can determine, there is NO significant change in the WARP1 defensive replacement levels post 1900. The percentage of value that goes to offense remains approximately "constant", that is, it varies a little bit, but not by a lot. In the 19th century, the percentage of value that goes to offense varies a lot (relatively) and is usually higher than the 20th century percentage. To me, all of this indicates that WARP1's replacement level for defense (pitching/fielding combined) is higher in the 19th century, but has not changed significantly post 1900. As described in one of the glossaries at BP, the defensive replacement level is placed at the pythagorean inverse of the offensive replacement level.
What changes during the 20th century is the balance between fielding and pitching. Errors decline significantly, reducing the frequency of the only events that are primarily fielding. Home runs and strikeouts both rise significantly, increasing the frequency of events that are primarily pitching. Each of those three changes shifts defensive responsibility away from the fielders and onto the pitchers.
BTW Brent, I believe that you are misusing the word "timelining" when referring to this change in the fielding/pitching split in WARP. If we could change the rules to bring back deadball baseball to modern MLB (soft mushy baseballs, ban gloves with pockets to force fielders to catch with their hands, maybe limit pitching substitutions), then WARP's fielding/pitching split would revert back to that of the deadball era. OTOH, James' timeline would still be operative after that change, still asserting that modern athletes were superior.
A timeline is a function of time, WARP's fielding/pitching split is a function of the game's statistics. Those are not the same thing.
As jimd alluded to, I would say that WARP1 has no "timeline" and it's WARP3 that is "timelined", resulting in smaller WARP3's for older players than for more recent ones.
Plus, it's being used to calculate PENNANTS ADDED, which is a season by season measure, so it probably makes sense to use a basis that looks only at that season's statistics instead of one, like WARP3, that is calibrated to the history of baseball (in other words, for PENNANTS ADDED calculation for 1885, Monte Ward's defense IS more valuable than it would have been in 1985, so WARP1 is more "accurate")
Still not sure what to do. If you guys have anything else to add, I'm all ears.
Still not sure what to do. If you guys have anything else to add, I'm all ears.
I'll just re-iterate that whatever WARP1 does, it is NOT timelining, not even in "essential effect".
If defense was 90% of "winning" in 1875, then WARP1 would reflect that, defensive players would have been the most valuable players, and would have contributed to the most pennants, and should therefore get the most PENNANTS ADDED.
Timelining would be just the opposite, "adjusting out" the unique league/year balance to a more generic "all eras" measurement, which in my opinion would be 100% wrong for measuring "pennants added".
A few things, however, to keep in mind:
a) The magnitude of these adjustments is huge. For example, BP’s WARP1 split of defensive responsibility is 78 percent fielding, 22 percent pitching for the 1885 NL; 50 percent each for the 1925 NL; and 70 percent pitching, 30 percent fielding for the 1949 AL.
b) As far as I am aware, BP hasn’t published the formulas that they use for these adjustments or provided an explanation or rationale for how they were derived.
c) I worked out at an example comparing the 1925 NL with the 1949 AL, looking at the changes in frequency of the fielding-independent components and weighting them by their run values (see 1967 Ballot Discussion). My results suggested the effects on the fielding-pitching split should have been closer to 5 percentage points rather than the 20 percentage point difference apparent in the BP statistics.
If the adjustments that BP makes to WARP1 pitcher replacement values overstate the actual changes in the defensive environment, then I think it is fair to call the remaining effect a “timeline”--it devalues pitchers from earlier eras relative to pitchers from more recent times.
By the way, while we’re correcting the use of language, how about BP’s use of the term “replacement” for fielding and pitching, where it is clear that the changes in their replacement values over time have nothing to do with availability of “replacement-level” players?
I'm not at all sure how you derived your numbers. I looked at the stats for 1925 NL and 1949 AL and using the linear weights you provided came up with a shift of about 16-17% (back of the envelope estimate) from fielding to pitching. Majority of it was due to the pheomenal increase in BB's; HR's and K's were secondary components; errors were not that big a deal (I assumed an error had the same value as a single).
By the way, while we’re correcting the use of language, how about BP’s use of the term “replacement” for fielding and pitching, where it is clear that the changes in their replacement values over time have nothing to do with availability of “replacement-level” players?
They use a "theoretical" replacement level, both for offense and defense. IIRC, the offensive one has been researched and found to be fairly constant throughout the 20th century. The defensive replacement level is the pythagorean inverse of the offensive one (or so says one of their glossaries).
I've complained before about BP's use of the term "replacement" level for a portion of the fielding value which is really closely related to WS's "intrinsic weights". It has nothing to do with the availablity of replacement SS's and everything to do with why a team with 8 Barry Bonds'es would most likely trade 4 or 5 of them. There is an intrinsic value to playing "glove" positions which is represented by the amount of offense that managers are willing to sacrifice to get a capable fielder out there. Incorporating this value into "replacement level" is misleading, at least to me.
Is it timelining for an offensive measure to allow a greater percentage of offensive value to be concentrated in HR's over the years?
Then why is it timelining for a defensive measure to allow a greater percentage of defensive value to be concentrated in HR prevention over the years?
Because that's the driving force here, IMO. I did the 1955 NL in addition to the 1949 AL, and got a shift of about 24% from fielders to pitchers. They walked a lot less batters (walks were a secondary factor), and got more K's and gave up a lot more HR's (the dominant factor in the NL analysis). Apparently they were challenging the HR hitters, instead of working around them (the AL strategy), but in either case, considerably more run value was concentrated in HR, K, and BB than in 1925.
when comparing the 1955 NL to the 1949 AL (not the 1925 NL).
Sorry for any confusion. Someday I'll write more clearly.
Looking at the problem again, I’m not sure I really know what I should be doing. Because the linear weights formula uses _marginal_ run contributions, it doesn’t add up to total runs. Also, some components have a positive effect on runs, while others have a negative effect.
But at any rate here is how I did my calculations. First, here are the basic data I used:
Year Lg ___AB ____H __2B _3B _HR __BB _SO
1925 NL 42859 12495 2120 614 636 3460 3373
1949 AL 41669 10961 1737 391 769 5627 4369
Let’s split the calculation into two parts: the components with a positive effect on runs (singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and walks) and those with a negative effect (strikeouts and other outs, approximated as AB-SO-H).
I’ll start by using DIPS-type assumptions—looking just at the shares of the defense-independent components. For the components with positive contributions, that’s:
(1.40 HR + .33 BB) / (.47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 BB)
= 23.5 percent for 1925 NL
= 34.5 percent for 1949 AL.
For the components with negative contributions (outs), the formula is simply:
SO / (AB – H)
= 11.1 percent for 1925 NL
= 14.2 percent for 1949 AL.
So it seems the combined effect should be somewhere between 11 percentage points (the effect on the positive components) and 3 percentage points (the effect on the negative components). To combine the two, I decided to just take the absolute value of the effect of outs:
(1.40 HR + .33 BB + .25 SO) /
(.47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 BB + .25 (AB – H))
= 17.7 percent for 1925 NL
= 24.9 percent for 1949 AL.
This calculation suggests a shift of about 7 percentage points in defensive responsibility.
However, it is clear that BP does not use a pure DIPS-type model. So I ran the same calculations, except giving pitchers 50 percent of the responsibility for, and credit for, balls in play (1B, 2B, 3B, and AB – SO - H). In this second version, the share of responsibility for pitchers increased from 58.9 percent in the 1925 NL to 62.4 percent in the 1949 AL, or only about 3 1/2 percentage points.
As I said earlier, I’m not at all sure that this is the right way to do the calculations. But I don’t see a way of doing the calculations that would give a 16-17 percent shift (or the 20 percent shift that BP reports).
Hey Joe, since you are on a PA kick, any chance your results could be posted here?
Thanks.
Also, the new 'kick' I'm on is a complete, wholesale revision, the methodology above is basically obsolete.
Well, not the PA methodology, but I'm not using WARP or WS any more, I'm coming up with my own numbers. They resemble WARP, but I'm doing all of the calcs myself, using different exponents, different replacement levels, Runs Created Above Position for pitcher hitting, etc..
Actually thanks for bringing this up, there are a bunch of pitchers up there that I haven't calced yet, I can add them to the list - hopefully have it done within a week or so.
Well, I suppoes in some ways that's good because you like the numbers better, but in some ways I'm a bit worried that the numbers are too personalized to your taste and the calculations are a bit more obfuscated too to the fact that the algorithm is not published. I know it might be a bit much to ask, but could you report both the old PA as well as your new PA_JoeD? Where they differ might also be instructive.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main