User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.2669 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Friday, April 12, 2002Replacement Level for 19th Century PlayersThis is to extend the discussion brought up earlier on the Win Shares thread w/Craig B and I about trying to peg the replacement level for 19th Century baseball. It’s something we’ll need to do, if we want to adjust win shares for replacement level. I’ve generally considered .325 a solid number for modern times, but it could definitely be lower as baseball matured. Does anyone have any thoughts or know of any existing studies on this issue? JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head
Posted: April 12, 2002 at 06:18 PM | 13 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsMost Meritorious Player: 1936 Discussion
(8 - 11:27am, Mar 01) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1935 Discussion (34 - 11:23am, Mar 01) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1935 Ballot (5 - 5:19pm, Feb 26) Last: Yardape 2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (145 - 8:27pm, Feb 16) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Mark Teixeira, Justin Morneau and Prince Fielder (6 - 9:15pm, Feb 15) Last: puck Newt Allen (20 - 12:26pm, Feb 04) Last: Carl Goetz Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Discussion (18 - 11:51am, Feb 04) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Results (1 - 6:14pm, Feb 03) Last: DL from MN Most Meritorious Player: 1934 Ballot (10 - 4:59pm, Feb 03) Last: DL from MN Jimmy Rollins (11 - 2:32pm, Jan 29) Last: Carl Goetz David Ortiz (53 - 11:37pm, Jan 28) Last: SoSH U at work 2021 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (651 - 1:45pm, Jan 25) Last: Bleed the Freak Jason Giambi (5 - 11:17pm, Jan 22) Last: The Honorable Ardo Hank Aaron (178 - 5:04pm, Jan 22) Last: Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight Peavy, Nathan, Papelbon, Lincecum, Kazmir and Danks (8 - 8:48pm, Jan 20) Last: The Honorable Ardo |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.2669 seconds |
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. KJOK Posted: April 15, 2002 at 03:48 PM (#509743)Take a look at the article (not sure where, don't have the book handy right now) where he discusses replacement level. I wouldn't really say that it's .200 (yet, need to read more), so much as he doesn't really account for it.
If it's .200, then we need to account for moving it up to .300 or .325, which is more realistic.
If it's .000, then we need to account for that also. I guess the key is figuring out where we are right now.
On another thread (the WS thread on Clutch Hits that's going right now), I posted some initial calcs, assuming WS repl. is set at .000. Those gave us about 6.5 WS/375 outs as replacement level for hitters, and about 7.5 WS/200 IP as replacement level for pitchers.
But Craig pointed out (in an e-mail I think) that we should be using PA as the context, not outs, based on the Crossing the Rubicon essays. I'm still trying to work through all of that in my head also.
So I guess I'm looking for some help in coming up with these answers. Sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense, that's probably because this thread is really a spin off from the Clutch Hits thread.
In a sense one could consider the definition of marginal runs as pegging a replacement offensive player at .52 times the league average of runs created, and a replacement defensive player (pitcher or fielder) at 1.52 times the league average of runs allowed, since these are the levels at which a player is credited with zero win shares.
I am finding (very preliminary right now) that "replacement levels" for the 19th century are in line with 20th century levels but haven't done the calculations to my liking.
1. Has anyone else tried to compare replacement levels for center and corner outfielders during this time period? Is my finding empirically correct?
2. What could be the potential reasons/explanations why the worst three CF would be consistently better than the worst three corner OF?
3. If this is the case, what is the best way to set replacement level for this time period? Should I just use one replacement level for all OF?
The best players/athletes in the 19th century generally played SS. Fielding wise, after Catcher, you had 3B/2B/1B as the more important defensive positions.
The OF mainly for guys that couldn't play the IF, but teams did tend to put their best fielder/athlete in CF, who would also tend to be their best offensive player.
You might want to break down RF & LF and see what you get. Teams generally put their absolute WORST player in RF as RF tended to be the short field in most parks back then (teams even played good hitting pitchers in RF just a few years earlier).
That definitely makes sense. So given that knowledge, what's the best way to calculate replacement level? I guess you would need to know the defensive "translations"--eg, a -5 in CF is equal to a +3 at RF or whatever--to put all outfielders on an equal footing, and then use the same rep level for all of them. Does anyone have that kind of data available?
I don't know of any data that would be readily available for this analysis.
I see that according to Tangotiger the gap is about 9 runs a season now...but that has probably changed over time, no?
Extremely likely that it has changed over time - but to what?
Also, KJOK, is that only true for the outfield, or all across the diamond? Would replacement level for SS in the 19th century be "artificially" high for the same reason?
Depends I guess on your philosophy of player analysis - but I would tentatively say yes, if you're measuring league replacement level vs. positional replacement level.
Yes - unless you think SS's weren't good fielders then. I don't have access to the Sabermetric Encyclopedia right now . . . but IIRC guys like Wagner, Davis, Tinker, Jennings (at SS) have 'positional average' OWPs (using entire ML, not just NL for NL/AL years) of around .470, whereas even with the SS hitting boom of the 1990s-2000s, Jeter's is something like .425.
When I get a chance, I'll post the numbers across positions - but as late as the Cobb/Speaker years, CF league average OWPs were typically in the .575-.580 range, for the corners it was around .600. I think that's one sign that we overrated the pre WW-II CFs (Averill, Carey) a little bit back when we considered them.
The CF as very important defensive position thing didn't really start to take hold until after WW-II . . . and what we remember from the 1970s and 1980s certainly isn't the historical norm. That was brought about by the huge stadiums of that era and artificial turf - you can already see CF becoming a less defensive and more offensive position over the last decade now that the stadiums are more 1950's-ish than 1980's-ish.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main