Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

We Provide Leverage: A Thought Experiment

Last week, when giving our playoff odds a quick once-over, I stumbled across something interesting. In translating from player statistics to our projections, we strip out the impact of reliever leverage. That seems intuitively weird, so I wanted to delve into the thinking behind it and see if I could find a workaround.

First, a quick recap of the issue. When we calculate WAR for relievers, we include the impact of leverage. This makes sense — the last reliever off the bench is mostly pitching in blowouts, so their contribution, good or bad, is less important than the closer’s. If you used a dominant reliever in a mop-up role, they’d be far less valuable than if they got to pitch in games where the outcome was uncertain.

How do we adjust for leverage? It’s reasonably straightforward. Take a reliever’s gmLI, which you can find in the Win Probability section. Kirby Yates, for example, had a gmLI of 2.16 last year. gmLI is the average leverage index when a pitcher enters the game. You can find a recap of leverage index here, but it’s essentially a measure of how important a given plate appearance is. A leverage index of 1 means that the situation is exactly as important as the average plate appearance, 2 means the situation is twice as important, and so on.

With a reliever’s gmLI in hand, we use a conversion formula. Take the gmLI, add one, and divide the result by two. That gives you the number to multiply the reliever’s “raw” WAR by to arrive at the WAR you’ll see in our stats. Let’s use Yates again as an example. His gmLI was 2.16. Adding 1 gives us 3.16. We then divide by 2 and arrive at 1.58. Yates’s “raw” WAR last year (which you can calculate using the method here), which isn’t displayed anywhere on our website, was 2.15. Multiply that by 1.58, and we get the 3.4 number you’ll see on his player page.

A consideration of a very delicate topic- and one that can be rather contentious indeed.

 

QLE Posted: February 25, 2020 at 01:14 AM | 52 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: leverage, relievers, war

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. Walt Davis Posted: February 25, 2020 at 04:33 PM (#5926410)
Huh, although the gmLIs are identical, b-r gets Yates to just 2.8 WAR. B-R does it slithly differently, multiplying WAA, not WAR, by 1.58. So fangraphs is rewarding performance that's above-replacement but below-average in high-leverage situations while b-r would "punish" such a pitcher. Not sure which one adds up better for team-win purposes.

I don't have an issue with including leverage when we are calculating WAR for "value" purposes -- some innings are more important than others. But it's really value generated by the manager ... or really just fate (an average team will have an average number of close 9th innings and, especially in fangraphs, their relievers will get credited for value there no matter who they use). I'm not a fan of using it when we are calculating WAR for "player quality" purposes.

As an example, I mentioned Mo the other day and that I find the most persuasive argument for him in the HoF being that his career was the equivalent of an awesome starter's peak (and obviously no starter filler). So how might I compare his career to an awesome starter's peak? Obviously we could just look at the "raw" numbers of nearly 1300 IP, a 205 ERA+, 56 WAR which is basically Pedro/Koufax territory. (and of course even better if we included his 140 postseason innings.)

But it's easier to put up good rate stats as a 1-inning reliever thn as a starter. Fortunately WAR already tries to capture this in its RA9role which is -0.35/9 for Mo's career -- so his RA9 goes up by 0.35 -- while the equivalent for a SP tends to be around +0.16. So all told, the RA9 advantage for a reliever is about half a run suggesting if Mo pitched the same except as a SP, his ERA would be about half a run higher and his ERA+ a lot lower. But like I said, that's already cooked into WAR so the 56 WAR still stands.

That's where the leverage stuff comes in. B-R also gives you WAAadj which is how much the WAA is increased by including leverage. For Mo's career, that's 10 WAA/WAR. Now obviously Mo just did what he was asked to do and did it possibly as well as it could possibly be done so it's not his "fault" but having managers (usually) save him for the 9th wasn't his achievement either. In terms of assessing quality -- which is what I think the HoF is about -- I'd just ignore that extra value, dropping him to 46 WAR.

That's still crazy good of course but it's more Scherzer 2013-18 (1300 IP, 148 ERA+, 41 WAR) than peak Pedro (1400 IP, 213 ERA+, 57 WAR). Of course add the postseason for Mo and he probably ends up slightly closer to Pedro than Scherzer (and about the same innings as Pedro).

So if Scherzer's 6-year peak is enough for you and you wouldn't care if he added anything outside of that, then Mo is in too. If you think that requires something like Pedro/Koufax then Mo might be in too. If you think it's somewhere between Scherzer and Pedro, Mo's probably in.

In the more pedestrian case of Yates, you end up with pretty much the same conclusion using bWAR. His WAAadj adds 0.8 WAR so we might consider him a "true 2 WAR in 60 innings pitcher". That would still suggest that 3.5 seasons like that would be the equivalent of a 7-WAR SP season which is obviously high quality but probably a more realistic estimate of the quality of his 2019 pitching than thinking it the equivalent of a 10-WAR SP season.
   2. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: February 25, 2020 at 05:57 PM (#5926424)
some innings are more important than others


No they're not. Some innings are more exciting than others.
   3. bobm Posted: February 26, 2020 at 08:23 AM (#5926488)
I don't have an issue with including leverage when we are calculating WAR for "value" purposes -- some innings are more important than others. But it's really value generated by the manager ... or really just fate (an average team will have an average number of close 9th innings and, especially in fangraphs, their relievers will get credited for value there no matter who they use). [...]

Now obviously Mo just did what he was asked to do and did it possibly as well as it could possibly be done so it's not his "fault" but having managers (usually) save him for the 9th wasn't his achievement either. In terms of assessing quality -- which is what I think the HoF is about -- I'd just ignore that extra value, dropping him to 46 WAR.


The best hitters over the long run compile the most value because their managers bat them 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the lineup, and thus they get more PAs than players batting lower in the order. By analogy, should we only look at rate stats and ignore or adjust season and career hit and home run totals when comparing two players because any player's manager sets his position in the batting order? (We already discount RBIs as context-dependent.)
   4. villageidiom Posted: February 26, 2020 at 12:46 PM (#5926547)
Point: The 9th inning is more important than other innings, which you can tell because most usage of relief aces happens in the 9th inning.

Counterpoint: Most usage of position players as relievers happens in the 9th inning.
   5. PreservedFish Posted: February 26, 2020 at 01:13 PM (#5926555)
No they're not. Some innings are more exciting than others.


So if your favorite team uses the mop-up guy in tight situations, and the ace reliever mostly in blow-outs, you're cool with that?
   6. PreservedFish Posted: February 26, 2020 at 01:23 PM (#5926556)
I don't have an issue with including leverage when we are calculating WAR for "value" purposes -- some innings are more important than others. But it's really value generated by the manager


Why is "value" in scare quotes?

I don't understand the effort to rigorously scrub all baseball statistics of any context in order to assess true ability. I mean, sure, if you're playing fantasy baseball, or if you're an armchair GM, that's a reasonable approach. But statistics primarily tell the story of what actually happened.
   7. . Posted: February 26, 2020 at 01:33 PM (#5926562)
I don't understand the effort to rigorously scrub all baseball statistics of any context in order to assess true ability.


I've been fascinated by this question, too, and my answer is that the people at the forefront of doing it yearn for life generally to work that way. In their eyes, life generally falls short when "context" matters too much and when judgments are made using more factors than stripped-away "true talent." Abstracting it even more, it reduces to ... they believe they would do better at the game of life if the game of life judged them only by their "true ability" in the way that they want baseball players to be judged only on their "true ability." Ultimately, when they insist that Joe Carter shouldn't get any "extra credit" for happening to hit his homer in the bottom of the ninth to clinch the World Series, they're bemoaning the "extra credit" others get and they don't in life more broadly. Or at the very least, their perception that that's going on in life more broadly.

Their preferred baseball of atomized individuals getting "credit" for those things and only those things they're definitively "responsible" for thus becomes an oasis from messier real life, and the creation of this oasis is the predominant aim of the insistence. No one can possibly be this strident about something like the RBI -- a simple and straighforward accounting measure of actual baseball and actual life -- without something deeper going on.
   8. bbmck Posted: February 26, 2020 at 01:49 PM (#5926567)
Yates’s “raw” WAR last year which isn’t displayed anywhere on our website

That's the puzzling decision, add one more column.
   9. PreservedFish Posted: February 26, 2020 at 01:58 PM (#5926570)
No one can possibly be this strident about something like the RBI -- a simple and straighforward accounting measure of actual baseball and actual life -- without something deeper going on.

I don't think that's true, or at least I have no reason to suspect that it's true.

At heart it's just an element of nerdiness - an inclination to strip away emotional factors and focus on the technical. This describes most of us here to some extent.

To be clear, I "get" the effort to scrub statistics of all context and to assess true individual contributions as accurately as possible. It makes sense in certain situations. I like armchair GM'ing too, and when I do, I want to have as clean an understanding of ability as possible. What I don't get is the attitude that this is the only perspective that matters, or that it's the best perspective, or that it should be the default perspective. For example, I cannot connect with Walt's comment that Rivera doesn't deserve his leverage bonus.
   10. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: February 26, 2020 at 02:21 PM (#5926574)
Point: The 9th inning is more important than other innings, which you can tell because most usage of relief aces happens in the 9th inning.

Counterpoint: Most usage of position players as relievers happens in the 9th inning.


Every inning has the same value on average, but since you have the most information about the rest of the game when you are in the 9th inning, it contains the most valuable and least valuable innings. The same is true for games in the season. Usually by the time game 162 comes around, the result is irrelevant in terms of winning the division or making the playoffs. But in the few cases in which it is relevant, the difference between winning and losing is enormous, but on average all games are equal.

Anyway, I thought the projections typically involved simulating the games. In that case the program should have parameters as to which pitchers get used in which situations which solves the leverage issue. Are they seriously just projecting player WAR and then using that to predict team wins without simulating the games themselves?!
   11. Karl from NY Posted: February 26, 2020 at 02:46 PM (#5926585)
I mean, sure, if you're playing fantasy baseball, or if you're an armchair GM, that's a reasonable approach.

That's exactly what we're doing, playing fantasy baseball and armchair GMing.
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 26, 2020 at 04:01 PM (#5926605)

Every inning has the same value on average, but since you have the most information about the rest of the game when you are in the 9th inning, it contains the most valuable and least valuable innings.

Right. The benefit of the 9th inning is that you already know whether the game is a close one, so you can use your best pitchers in close games and your worst pitchers in blowouts. But in any given game, whether it's close or not, the 9th inning is just as important as the 1st.*

* with potential for some variation depending on which hitters are up in each respective inning.
   13. . Posted: February 26, 2020 at 04:14 PM (#5926611)
It's all a matter of viewing point. If you've already got outs 1-24 and don't yet have outs 25-27, then virtually by definition outs 25-27 are "more important" than outs 1-24. It's only upon post-game reflection that the importance of the various outs converges. Simply concluding that the outs are of equal importance, even after they're all in the ledger, seems to elide and oversimplify this reality.
   14. PreservedFish Posted: February 26, 2020 at 04:17 PM (#5926612)
That's exactly what we're doing, playing fantasy baseball and armchair GMing.


Often. Not always.
   15. . Posted: February 26, 2020 at 04:22 PM (#5926617)
I don't think that's true, or at least I have no reason to suspect that it's true.

At heart it's just an element of nerdiness - an inclination to strip away emotional factors and focus on the technical. This describes most of us here to some extent.

To be clear, I "get" the effort to scrub statistics of all context and to assess true individual contributions as accurately as possible. It makes sense in certain situations. I like armchair GM'ing too, and when I do, I want to have as clean an understanding of ability as possible. What I don't get is the attitude that this is the only perspective that matters, or that it's the best perspective, or that it should be the default perspective. For example, I cannot connect with Walt's comment that Rivera doesn't deserve his leverage bonus.


Sad as you and the gods of the internet may be to hear it, we don't really disagree in any material way and you've described it very well.
   16. bobm Posted: February 26, 2020 at 05:16 PM (#5926651)
Right. The benefit of the 9th inning is that you already know whether the game is a close one, so you can use your best pitchers in close games and your worst pitchers in blowouts. But in any given game, whether it's close or not, the 9th inning is just as important as the 1st.*

2019 Inning-by-Inning W-L - Record when tied, leading or behind at the start of the inning

                                                       
                  Ahead            Tied          Behind
Inning      W   L     %    W    L     %    W    L     %
     1      0   0       2429 2429 0.500    0    0
     2    815 377 0.684 1237 1237 0.500  377  815 0.316
     3   1165 450 0.721  814  814 0.500  450 1165 0.279
     4   1425 459 0.756  545  545 0.500  459 1425 0.244
     5   1619 395 0.804  415  415 0.500  395 1619 0.196
     6   1753 333 0.840  340  340 0.500  333 1753 0.160
     7   1870 269 0.874  286  286 0.500  269 1870 0.126
     8   1993 182 0.916  248  248 0.500  182 1993 0.084
     9   2081  97 0.955  241  241 0.500   97 2081 0.045


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 2/26/2020.
   17. Walt Davis Posted: February 26, 2020 at 05:42 PM (#5926663)
The best hitters over the long run compile the most value because their managers bat them 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the lineup, and thus they get more PAs than players batting lower in the order. By analogy, should we only look at rate stats and ignore or adjust season and career hit and home run totals when comparing two players because any player's manager sets his position in the batting order?

That effect is trivial but, sure, counting stat differences that are primarily due to playing time differences when the playing time differences are small should be de-emphasized when judging the quality/HoF-ness of players.

Even a very low inning career SP like Halladay pitched twice as many innings as Mo. Many of them pitched three times as many innings as Mo. Since nearly all HoF position players (a few C, SS, etc. probably excepted) hit in lineup positions 1 through 5 for most of their careers, you are comparing like to like and major differences in PA are due to health/collapse not usage and still almost never exceed about 50% (12,000 PA vs 8,000 PA except in the most extreme cases).

In 2019 NL, the ratio of #1 PAs to all the way down at #9 was 1.23; the ratio of the #10 in IP to the IP of the saves leader was 3.4. Even for a 5-inning starter, it would be about 2.5. The analogy is absurd.

Why is "value" in scare quotes?

They aren't "scare" quotes, they are to draw attention to the fact that value and quality are not the same thing and that both are estimates not something we directly measure. You seem to have not noitced that "player quality" is also in quotes.

I am not arguing that we should strip away context. It is a matter of (a) what question are we trying to answer and (b) who deserves credit for context-specific value. WAR is not designed to measure quality, it is designed to measure value and most specifically it is intended to capture overall team value. It then parcels that value around to the individual players but does so without allowing for things such as manager/team/strategy value ... which is fine since it would be a pain to try to estimate and separate that out.

When the question shifts to "should this player be in the HoF" that is inherently a quality question and one that implies a comparison with other players. Since WAR is designed to measure value, not quality, it does not necessarily capture what we want. Value and quality are highly correlated of course but they are not the same thing.

So sure, getting back to the top bit, if there was a context-component to WARpos and if there were players for whom that context component was responsible for 18% of their WAR total, then I'd be arguing that measuring the quality of the players required a similar adjustment. I am reasonably certain that I have never referenced WPA in a HoF discussion (unless I was dismissing it) -- heck, I pretty much ignore playoff performance.

In baseball, that disconnect is at its most obvious when it comes to assessing the quality of relief pitchers and especially in comparison with starting pitchers. There's no question that context adds 10 WAR to Mo's total -- it's right there in his WAR table. There's no question that he could have pitched every bit as well except done more of it in the 8th inning or in 9th innings when his team was behind or 5 runs ahead or, heck, in the first inning as an opener and he would have less WAR. There's also no question that it was his manager's decision as to when he would pitch.

So yes, that is like the RBI totals of a batter who had the good fortune to frequently come up with men on base -- except with the added wrinkle that it is as if there was no set batting order and the manager could send Trout to the plate anytime he wanted to up to 5 times per 9 innings.

Now of course, some might think that the HoF is a matter of value, not quality. Nothing I can do about that really. Some might think the HoF is more a matter of fame or milestones, nothing I can do about that. Some might go the "reliever is a position so you only compare him to other relievers, not starters" or "relievers are in the HoF so, undeserving though they may be, those are the standards" (I agree at least in part with the latter argument) and, in comparing likely HoF reliever candidates, they will pretty much all have been saved for higher leverage situations and so that's not going to be an important part of the comparison.

So, if you want the story of what happened in game 57 for the 2008 Yanks, by all means include the leverage. IF you want to tell the story of why the 2008 Yanks won a more/fewer games than the data suggest, by all means look to see if leverage explains that. If you want to answer the question "how good of a pitcher was Mariano Rivera" then quality is (nearly) independent of context and so value derived from context should be de-emphasized if not ignored completely. If one wants to use WAR in a discussion of Rivera's quality, one must recognize that WAR is a measure of value, not quality. If you want to answer the question of "how good of a reliever was Rivera" then chances are the context pretty much evens out within the comparison group and so it won't matter much if you adjust for it or not -- but you might ask yourself whether an quality reliever used in lower levverage situations for most of his career belongs in the comparison group.

Who knows how many, if any, relievvers qualify in that sort of group. But I note that Steve Cishek has a career 151 ERA+ in 556 innings. Now that's not nearly a long enough career we'd be using him to compare with Rivera but we might want to compare him with Chapman, Kimbrel, Jansen (a comparison I assume he loses on a quality basis anyway but bear with me). Anyway, for his career, Cishek's WAAadj is 0.1. Not Jansen's is juat 1.1; Chapman's just 2.3 and Kimbrel's 2.8. Like I said, Cishek loses the comparison anyway but about 40% of the WAR gap to Kimbrel and to Chapman is due to WAAadj which is partly due to leverage.
   18. Rob_Wood Posted: February 26, 2020 at 11:04 PM (#5926689)
Nice post, as per usual, Walt.
   19. Adam Starblind Posted: February 27, 2020 at 07:54 AM (#5926718)
I've been fascinated by this question, too, and my answer is that the people at the forefront of doing it yearn for life generally to work that way. In their eyes, life generally falls short when "context" matters too much and when judgments are made using more factors than stripped-away "true talent." Abstracting it even more, it reduces to ... they believe they would do better at the game of life if the game of life judged them only by their "true ability" in the way that they want baseball players to be judged only on their "true ability." Ultimately, when they insist that Joe Carter shouldn't get any "extra credit" for happening to hit his homer in the bottom of the ninth to clinch the World Series, they're bemoaning the "extra credit" others get and they don't in life more broadly. Or at the very least, their perception that that's going on in life more broadly.


You're being mean, but I actually think you're heading in the right direction on the point you're making, and in fact you are not going far enough.

I don't think we give enough credit here to the psychological component of being an athlete. We rightly dismiss the notion that some players are "clutch" in the sense that their performance is better in high-leverage situations, but I have no trouble believing that maintaining your cool and performing at your "true talent" level under extreme pressure, when the game is on the line, let alone when the World Series is on the line.

So it's not that stripping away leverage or WPA is a "no fair" mentality. It's that discounting those things is excessively clinical in the sense that there probably are chokers in the game. Even if there aren't players who turn into Popeye on spinach.

Sure, it would be better if I had some evidence for this other than my knowledge of the human condition, but I rely on all of you for the math.
   20. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:24 AM (#5926758)
Sure, it would be better if I had some evidence for this other than my knowledge of the human condition, but I rely on all of you for the math.


There's plenty of evidence for it, and there's no need to downgrade "knowledge of the human condition" as evidence. That concedes the field to the tools of statistical inference, and there's no support for the proposition that something doesn't exist if it can't be definitively established by statistical inference.

Steve Blass and Rick Ankiel are evidence. Catastrophic physical failure brought on by psychological factors. Is it really plausible that the mind/physical connection is a totally binary thing where you're either "on," completely unaffected by the mind; or you're "off," catastrophic failure? Or is it far more likely that it's a continuum between no impact and catastrophic failure? Pretty clear, right?

Moreover, the lack of acknowledgement of the mind/body connection in baseball is nothing more than a cultural norm (*). Nothing of the sort pertains in its very close cousin, golf. In golf, every faction of the culture acknowledges the obvious -- that pressure very much can and does impact physical function and performance. Former players, current players, announcers, course walkers, major media like Golf Digest and Golf Channel -- each and every one of them. If anything, they talk and think about it as too big a factor -- "Yes, this is Joe Smith's first Sunday in contention, but I gotta tell you, I've been walking around with him and he looks like he's completely in the moment, laughing with his playing partners and caddie, it doesn't really look like it's getting to him at all" is the kind of thing frequently heard from course broadcasters. And the main color announcers -- Johnny Miller, Paul Azinger, Nick Faldo, all very successful former players -- are always on about the pressure and how a swing or a putt looked like it was influenced by the pressure. And each of them unwaveringly report the rapid heartbeats and the shaky hands even the best players in the world routinely feel. I played competitive golf, too, albeit at bush league levels, and that obviously happens.

What the baseball people retort with is typically (1) small sample size; and (2) being impacted by pressure gets weeded out by the time you hit the major leagues. Number 1 is true, but ultimately irrelevant as all it means is that statistical inference allegedly can't find the phenomenon; number 2 is comically absurd, belied entirely by experience and the testimony of the golf non-weeded out.

(*) Of uncertain provenance, though that's a very interesting question in its own right. Probably the remnants of something like the old-time baseball proles' (paraphrased) attitude that, "Only pussies feel pressure and you aren't going to find any pussies in baseball." And Bill James was right when he said 40 years ago or so that, "racists will insist that blacks can't hit in the clutch."
   21. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:58 AM (#5926769)
In golf, every faction of the culture acknowledges the obvious -- that pressure very much can and does impact physical function and performance. Former players, current players, announcers, course walkers, major media like Golf Digest and Golf Channel -- each and every one of them. If anything, they talk and think about it as too big a factor -- "Yes, this is Joe Smith's first Sunday in contention, but I gotta tell you, I've been walking around with him and he looks like he's completely in the moment, laughing with his playing partners and caddie, it doesn't really look like it's getting to him at all" is the kind of thing frequently heard from course broadcasters. And the main color announcers -- Johnny Miller, Paul Azinger, Nick Faldo, all very successful former players -- are always on about the pressure and how a swing or a putt looked like it was influenced by the pressure. And each of them unwaveringly report the rapid heartbeats and the shaky hands even the best players in the world routinely feel. I played competitive golf, too, albeit at bush league levels, and that obviously happens.
I, for one, have no problem with the notion that pressure can and does affect physical function and performance, and indeed I had some pretty notable chokes in golf tournaments in my teens. The problem is that it becomes a narrative in search of validation and a lazy go-to explanation by third-party commentators who are just making stuff up. At a general level, of course pressure can affect performance, but short of athletes coming out and saying they choked, there's no way of establishing it in any specific situation. Nick Faldo has no way whatsoever of knowing whether Sergio Garcia just hit a bad shot because of pressure or because of any of a million other possible factors. So it's the substitution of assumed psychological narrative for actual analysis that I (and a lot of others, I would imagine) find off-putting.
   22. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:15 AM (#5926776)
The problem is that it becomes a narrative in search of validation and a lazy go-to explanation by third-party commentators who are just making stuff up.


Right, but you can only get to "lazy" and "just making stuff up" through the insistence that statistical inference is all that matters.

So it's the substitution of assumed psychological narrative for actual analysis that I (and a lot of others, I would imagine) find off-putting.


Right, but that's kind of the topic under consideration. Why would you find that so "off-putting"? That's the attitude I can't begin to get my head around. You're literally telling people that non-players who analyze spreadsheets are more insightful about a sport than people who mastered the sport. One would hope there would be some understanding about how ludicrous that sounds, at least on its face, and how high the hurdle should be to overcome it. There is more to "actual analysis" than statistical inference.

I mean, really, it's a-ok if former players know more about the inner workings of current players than non-playing statisticians. Plagues and locusts aren't going to befell us all until eternity if that's the case. When and how and why did "disproving" that become such a cause celebre? It's kind of odd, right? Maybe this approach is part of the problem ...:

At a general level, of course pressure can affect performance, but short of athletes coming out and saying they choked, there's no way of establishing it in any specific situation.


...

Use of the verb "establish" says a lot here. None of the commentators are striving to "establish" what they're saying; they're just giving their best effort at analyzing the most likely thing they believe is going on. Are they vouching and warranting that it's the clear 100%, unimpeachable truth and no other explanation is even plausible? No, they are not. So maybe we shouldn't act as if they are. It's weird to insist on using the tools of establishing or disestablishing hypotheses when the people at issue aren't even offering up ... you know ... a hypothesis.
   23. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:33 AM (#5926779)
You're literally telling people that non-players who analyze spreadsheets are more insightful about a sport than people who mastered the sport.
No, not that, either literally or figuratively. What I'm saying has nothing to do with spreadsheets - it's simply that people aren't very good at reading the minds of others, regardless of how well they've mastered a sport. As far as it being off-putting, what can I say, I just don't like poor quality work product. If someone is being paid to comment and analyze, I want to hear something more useful and interesting than "they lost their momentum at halftime and came out playing tight" or whatever.
   24. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:41 AM (#5926784)
No, not that, either literally or figuratively. What I'm saying has nothing to do with spreadsheets


Then it's confusing as to why you used the term "actual analysis" as your contrasting term to "assumed psychological narrative." If a Nick Faldo believes Sunday pressure impacted a big putt on 16 and he muses something like "Sunday pressure" with a bit of wry and a bit of weary I've been there in his voice in the putt's wake, what's wrong with that? If it doesn't reach the vaunted "actual analysis" standard, he should just shut up?

it's simply that people aren't very good at reading the minds of others, regardless of how well they've mastered a sport.


Says who? It's not really "mind-reading" anyway; it's enunciating the impact of well-known and well-established psychological factors. Faldo isn't saying, "Sunday pressure is causing Joe Smith's mind to think these particular things," he's saying "Sunday pressure is causing Joe Smith's body to react differently than it otherwise would."

As far as it being off-putting, what can I say, I just don't like poor quality work product.


How is what we're talking about "poor quality work product"?
   25. Lassus Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:50 AM (#5926788)
Golfers who are happy, at ease, and comfortable also fuck up.
   26. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:55 AM (#5926790)
Faldo isn't saying, "Sunday pressure is causing Joe Smith's mind to think these particular things," he's saying "Sunday pressure is causing Joe Smith's body to react differently than it otherwise would."
How can Sunday pressure cause a bodily effect without first going through the mind?
   27. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:55 AM (#5926791)
Golfers who are happy, at ease, and comfortable also #### up.
Sadly, I can vouch for this in many, many ways.
   28. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:57 AM (#5926793)
How can Sunday pressure cause a bodily effect without first going through the mind?


It wouldn't, but the mind can be saying a zillion different things and working a zillion different ways and Faldo isn't speaking to which of the zillion is actually happening.

He really isn't even definitively saying with 100% certainty "Sunday pressure IS impacting this person." Not everyone in life or even sports is in perpetual hot take/strong opinion mode. They're only seen to be because places like BTF are that and attract that kind of person and the internet and all. Sometimes a dude sitting on a barstool saying "Joe Smith had 120 RBIs last year" means nothing more by the statement than Joe Smith had 120 RBIs last year.

As to RBIs and "value," the guy who hits a double with two outs in an inning with no one on followed by a strikeout really didn't create any "value." (*) On the other hand, a guy who knocks in a run with a double does create value. It's the functional equivalent of a guy coming up with a good proposal in a team meeting to modify his company's widgets. If Annette in Marketing ultimately doesn't give the required sign-off, proposal guy didn't really create any "value" for the company even though he came up with a good, potentially value-creating idea. This entire idea of players analyzed entirely removed from team or society based entirely on them as individuals, where other relevant humans are written out of the script, has an extremely Randian feel to it.

(*) Which isn't to say a double against major league pitching isn't a worthy accomplishment -- it is. It's just that its worth can't be rightly be found within the concept of "value."
   29. Lassus Posted: February 27, 2020 at 11:58 AM (#5926795)
Sadly, I can vouch for this in many, many ways.

I'm certainly not speaking out of ignorance of this situation myself.
   30. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:16 PM (#5926800)
As to RBIs and "value," the guy who hits a double with two outs in an inning with no one on followed by a strikeout really didn't create any "value."
He increased his team's chance of scoring a run. That has value, whether the run is ultimately realized or not.

It's the functional equivalent of a guy coming up with a good proposal in a team meeting to modify his company's widgets. If Annette in Marketing ultimately doesn't give the required sign-off, proposal guy didn't really create any "value" for the company even though he came up with a good, potentially value-creating idea.
Would a company rather have an employee who comes up with good proposals that may or may not be acted on, or one who doesn't have any good ideas at all? Clearly the former. Why? Because there is value in having a higher probability of favorable outcomes.
   31. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM (#5926803)
Funnily enough, I just finished reading a biography, and in the author's acknowledgements, I just read the following:

"I have tried to avoid the suppositional language that some biographers deploy, such as 'she must have felt' or 'she might have wondered.' If the text ascribes a thought or emotion to [the subject], the source is something that she has reliably said, told or written."
   32. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:22 PM (#5926805)
He increased his team's chance of scoring a run.


Yes, he did.

That has value, whether the run is ultimately realized or not.


Under the rules of baseball, only realized runs have value. Sometimes re-litigation of the obvious can be beneficial and I'd say this is one of those times in that "realized runs" is a valuable concept. Only realized runs have value in baseball. Many important insights follow from this correct premise and understanding.

Would a company rather have an employee who comes up with good proposals that may or may not be acted on, or one who doesn't have any good ideas at all?


What's more valuable -- a proposal that has a 100% likelihood of Annette in Marketing signing off, or one with a 5% chance?
   33. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM (#5926807)
What's more valuable -- a proposal that has a 100% likelihood of Annette in Marketing signing off, or one with a 5% chance?
Depends on the substance of the proposal, of course. If Annette is going to sign off on a bad idea, that's not a very valuable proposal.

Anyway, we've reached the fundamental disagreement. No need to belabor it further.
   34. Adam Starblind Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:39 PM (#5926813)
At a general level, of course pressure can affect performance, but short of athletes coming out and saying they choked, there's no way of establishing it in any specific situation.


Not in any specific situation, but the context here is that over the course of a career, someone like Mariano (there is only one Mariano) is pitching very disproportionately in high pressure (read leverage) situations and excelled at it. We can be very confident that Mariano was not generally somebody who let the situation get to him.
   35. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:45 PM (#5926817)
Not in any specific situation, but the context here is that over the course of a career, someone like Mariano (there is only one Mariano) is pitching very disproportionately in high pressure (read leverage) situations and excelled at it. We can be very confident that Mariano was not generally somebody who let the situation get to him.
Agreed.
   36. PreservedFish Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:50 PM (#5926820)
"I have tried to avoid the suppositional language that some biographers deploy, such as 'she must have felt' or 'she might have wondered.' If the text ascribes a thought or emotion to [the subject], the source is something that she has reliably said, told or written."


This sounds like a fun book.
   37. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 12:55 PM (#5926824)
Depends on the substance of the proposal, of course.


Both have the potential to increase marginal revenue by $10M, the hypothetically functional equivalent of a double.

And the answer is ... the proposal with the 100% chance of signoff by Annette in Marketing is more valuable ... just as the double that winds up either scoring a run or driving one in is more valuable. Yeah, the double hitter with the man on base isn't really "responsible" for happening to hit with men on base or being driven in, but then again the proposal writer isn't really "responsible" for what does and doesn't appeal to Annette in Marketing. Them's the breaks.
   38. Lassus Posted: February 27, 2020 at 01:01 PM (#5926825)
This sounds like a fun book.

You sound unconvinced (maybe?), but obviously while dry like death isn't necessarily what I'd be going for, I also don't think I really need my biographies to be fun, either.
   39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 01:02 PM (#5926826)
This sounds like a fun book.
Stevie Nicks biography - can't say I'm particularly proud to have read it, but it was reasonably entertaining. I read a lot, and sometimes the pickings get pretty slim because (a) I just don't seem to have any interest in reading fiction, and (b) a lot of nonfiction is just too dry (history, political analysis, etc.). It's tough to sustain a daily reading habit on a pretty (self-)limited menu.
   40. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2020 at 01:04 PM (#5926828)
the proposal with the 100% chance of signoff by Annette in Marketing is more valuable
All other things being equal, sure. But let's leave the goalposts where they are, thanks - you originally said the double had *no* value, not *less* value. Plus of course a batter can't double in a way that makes it more likely that the subsequent batter will get a hit, whereas the employee could try to tailor his proposal to Annette's taste. Not conceding that this is an apt analogy, though.
   41. Lassus Posted: February 27, 2020 at 01:05 PM (#5926829)
And the answer is ... the proposal with the 100% chance of signoff by Annette in Marketing is more valuable ... just as the double that winds up either scoring a run or driving one in is more valuable. Yeah, the double hitter with the man on base isn't really "responsible" for happening to hit with men on base or being driven in, but then again the proposal writer isn't really "responsible" for what does and doesn't appeal to Annette in Marketing.

I hope the discussion you've had with yourself has been enlightening.
   42. . Posted: February 27, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5926831)
I read a biography of Three Dog Night one hungover Sunday, pre-Internet. It was awesome. Can't remember the thought attribution rule. Actually, come to think of it, it might have been an autobiography but given the amount of substances involved, the band members were probably using suppositional language about their actual thoughts up the wazoo.
   43. bbmck Posted: February 27, 2020 at 04:45 PM (#5926890)
Except pressure did get to Mo:

High Leverage: 228/279/320
Medium Leverage: 197/248/279
Low Leverage: 193/243/257

Some of that can be explained by teams not bothering with pinch hitters in low leverage situations but he performed worse in high pressure situations, he was just a really effective pitcher.

Tom Henke didn't let the pressure or the pinch hitters get to him but he wasn't nearly as effective of a pitcher once you account for run scoring environment High 201/276/328, Medium 204/258/316 and Low 228/282/328.
   44. Adam Starblind Posted: February 27, 2020 at 07:42 PM (#5926950)
Except pressure did get to Mo:

High Leverage: 228/279/320
Medium Leverage: 197/248/279
Low Leverage: 193/243/257


How does that compare to other short relievers?
   45. bbmck Posted: February 27, 2020 at 08:23 PM (#5926955)
164 pitchers have 500+ games in relief and 100+ IP in high leverage situations. High leverage OPS as a percentage of overall OPS:

90.0 - Joaquin Benoit
90.5 - Darren O'Day
90.8 - Scott Sullivan
91.6 - Luis Vizcaino
92.6 - Braden Looper

107.7 - Mariano Rivera T152nd with Don McMahon and Rafael Betancourt

109.5 - Frank Linzy
111.3 - Luis Ayala
112.9 - Mike Timlin
115.8 - Russ Springer
116.3 - Jeff Nelson

Lowest high leverage OPS, no OPS+ in split finder:

.514 - Kenley Jansen 95.7%
.529 - Craig Kimbrel 104.3%
.554 - Darren O'Day 90.5%
.574 - David Robertson 93.9%
.574 - Jonathan Papelbon 97%
.580 - Sergio Romo 94.6%

.585 - Joakim Soria 95%
.592 - Joe Nathan 96.3%
.596 - Grant Balfour 94.9%
.597 - Mark Melancon 97.7%
.598 - Mariano Rivera 107.7%
.604 - Tom Henke 100.5%

.760 - Paul Quantrill 99.1%, 145th high leverage OPS, worst under 100%

.801 - Brandon Lyon 106.2%
.802 - Dan Miceli 106.6%
.802 - Darren Holmes 107.8%
.811 - Matt Herges 106.6%
.816 - Rick White 106%
.819 - Luis Ayala 111.3%
.865 - Russ Springer 115.8%

.589 - Mariano Rivera 108.9% if you remove his year as a starter
   46. bobm Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:20 PM (#5926969)
For entire career, High Lvrge (within Leverage), (requiring SV >= 300 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by least tOPS+ for this split

                                                   
Rk                Player      Split tOPS+  GS SVtot
1             Todd Jones High Lvrge    87   1   319
2           Rich Gossage High Lvrge    90  35   310
3          Kenley Jansen High Lvrge    92   0   301
4               Robb Nen High Lvrge    92   2   314
5             Joe Nathan High Lvrge    94  27   377
6      Jonathan Papelbon High Lvrge    94   3   368
7       Dennis Eckersley High Lvrge    96 308   390
8              Jose Mesa High Lvrge    97  89   321
9        Fernando Rodney High Lvrge    97   0   327
10       Jeff Montgomery High Lvrge    98   0   304
11           John Franco High Lvrge    99   0   424
12           Randy Myers High Lvrge    99  12   347
13             Tom Henke High Lvrge   101   0   311
14     Francisco Cordero High Lvrge   102   0   329
15   Francisco Rodriguez High Lvrge   102   0   437
16            Doug Jones High Lvrge   104   4   303
17    Jason Isringhausen High Lvrge   105  45   300
18          Jeff Reardon High Lvrge   105   0   367
19         Huston Street High Lvrge   105   0   324
20        Trevor Hoffman High Lvrge   107   0   601
21         Troy Percival High Lvrge   107   0   358
22         Rick Aguilera High Lvrge   108  74   318
23         Craig Kimbrel High Lvrge   109   0   346
24        Rollie Fingers High Lvrge   110  33   341
25          Bruce Sutter High Lvrge   110   0   300
26     Roberto Hernandez High Lvrge   111   3   326
27             Lee Smith High Lvrge   111   6   478
28        John Wetteland High Lvrge   113  16   330
29          Billy Wagner High Lvrge   114   0   422
30        Mariano Rivera High Lvrge   116  10   652


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 2/27/2020.

tOPS+ -- OPS for split relative to Player’s Total OPS
A number greater than 100 indicates this batter(pitcher) did better(worse) than usual in this split.
A number less than 100 indicates that the batter(pitcher) did worse(better) than usual in this split.
   47. bobm Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:26 PM (#5926970)
For entire career, High Lvrge (within Leverage), (requiring SV >= 300 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by least percentage of total batters faced in this split

                                                       
Rk                Player      Split   BF BFtot    %  GS
1       Dennis Eckersley High Lvrge 3151 13534 23.3 308
2          Rick Aguilera High Lvrge 1781  5391 33.0  74
3              Jose Mesa High Lvrge 2268  6804 33.3  89
4     Jason Isringhausen High Lvrge 1464  4322 33.9  45
5             Joe Nathan High Lvrge 1509  3771 40.0  27
6         Rollie Fingers High Lvrge 2921  6940 42.1  33
7           Rich Gossage High Lvrge 3168  7507 42.2  35
8          Kenley Jansen High Lvrge 1027  2400 42.8   0
9             Doug Jones High Lvrge 2050  4754 43.1   4
10     Roberto Hernandez High Lvrge 2054  4632 44.3   3
11            Todd Jones High Lvrge 2065  4650 44.4   1
12       Fernando Rodney High Lvrge 1849  4064 45.5   0
13              Robb Nen High Lvrge 1373  2983 46.0   2
14          Jeff Reardon High Lvrge 2199  4720 46.6   0
15             Tom Henke High Lvrge 1493  3194 46.7   0
16       Jeff Montgomery High Lvrge 1701  3637 46.8   0
17   Francisco Rodriguez High Lvrge 1910  4011 47.6   0
18     Francisco Cordero High Lvrge 1693  3551 47.7   0
19         Huston Street High Lvrge 1306  2718 48.1   0
20        John Wetteland High Lvrge 1524  3145 48.5  16
21             Lee Smith High Lvrge 2646  5388 49.1   6
22           Randy Myers High Lvrge 1847  3744 49.3  12
23     Jonathan Papelbon High Lvrge 1450  2938 49.4   3
24          Billy Wagner High Lvrge 1780  3600 49.4   0
25         Craig Kimbrel High Lvrge 1086  2183 49.7   0
26           John Franco High Lvrge 2666  5312 50.2   0
27        Mariano Rivera High Lvrge 2567  5103 50.3  10
28        Trevor Hoffman High Lvrge 2259  4388 51.5   0
29         Troy Percival High Lvrge 1517  2915 52.0   0
30          Bruce Sutter High Lvrge 2316  4251 54.5   0


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 2/27/2020.
   48. bobm Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:34 PM (#5926971)
Entire career, High Lvrge, (BF >= 1750), greatest % of total BF in this split

                                         
Rk                 Player   BF BFtot    %
1            Bruce Sutter 2316  4251 54.5
2          Trevor Hoffman 2259  4388 51.5
3          Mariano Rivera 2567  5103 50.3
4             John Franco 2666  5312 50.2
5            Billy Wagner 1780  3600 49.4
6             Randy Myers 1847  3744 49.3
7               Lee Smith 2646  5388 49.1
8     Francisco Rodriguez 1910  4011 47.6
9            Jeff Reardon 2199  4720 46.6
10        Fernando Rodney 1849  4064 45.5
11             Todd Jones 2065  4650 44.4
12      Roberto Hernandez 2054  4632 44.3
13             Doug Jones 2050  4754 43.1
14           Rich Gossage 3168  7507 42.2
15         Rollie Fingers 2921  6940 42.1
16            Bob Wickman 1897  4586 41.4
17          Mike Marshall 2373  5843 40.6
18         Ron Perranoski 1990  5022 39.6
19            Sparky Lyle 2296  5796 39.6
20         Darold Knowles 1837  4658 39.4
21         Roger McDowell 1759  4517 38.9
22           Gary Lavelle 1790  4604 38.9
23            Greg Minton 1855  4810 38.6
24           Kent Tekulve 2305  6001 38.4
25            John Hiller 1935  5206 37.2
26           Jesse Orosco 1977  5460 36.2
27          Dave Righetti 2153  5988 36.0
28        Steve Bedrosian 1810  5044 35.9
29            Gene Garber 2264  6328 35.8
30             Tug McGraw 2240  6313 35.5
31          Bill Campbell 1832  5239 35.0
32           Hoyt Wilhelm 3087  9173 33.7
33              Jose Mesa 2268  6804 33.3
34          Rick Aguilera 1781  5391 33.0
35           Clay Carroll 1825  5676 32.2
36               Roy Face 1804  5695 31.7
37             Stu Miller 2213  7085 31.2
38            Bob Stanley 2244  7238 31.0
39         Lindy McDaniel 2682  8961 29.9
40         David Weathers 1752  6071 28.9
41           Turk Farrell 1941  7098 27.3
42             Tom Gordon 2446  9058 27.0
43            Dave Giusti 1871  7248 25.8
44             Dick Drago 1986  7898 25.1
45          Moe Drabowsky 1763  7009 25.2
46     Johnny Vander Meer 2239  9061 24.7
47              Ron Kline 2133  8869 24.1
48           Sam McDowell 2537 10589 24.0
49          Harry Gumbert 2201  9213 23.9
50             Ken Forsch 2096  8851 23.7
51            Chris Short 2304  9802 23.5
52            Mike Garcia 2168  9233 23.5
53            Dean Chance 2092  8911 23.5
54       Dennis Eckersley 3151 13534 23.3
55            Lefty Grove 3858 16622 23.2
56               Ron Reed 2388 10304 23.2
57          Woodie Fryman 2384 10291 23.2
58           Shane Rawley 1849  8062 22.9
59            Diego Segui 1759  7739 22.7
60           Steve Barber 1908  8593 22.2
61              Gary Bell 1890  8559 22.1
62            Bill Singer 2017  9143 22.1
63           Don Robinson 1819  8252 22.0
64            Kirby Higbe 1860  8476 21.9
65            Johnny Sain 1976  9010 21.9
66           Juan Pizarro 1902  8688 21.9
67          Bucky Walters 2851 13156 21.7
68           Larry French 2912 13458 21.6
69         Dick Ellsworth 1976  9156 21.6
70             Bob Gibson 3448 16066 21.5
71             Sid Hudson 2059  9598 21.5
72           Dave Roberts 1915  8933 21.4
73               Bob Buhl 2368 11051 21.4
74              Van Mungo 1926  9029 21.3
75       Johnny Antonelli 1793  8414 21.3
76          Gaylord Perry 4651 21953 21.2
77            Pedro Ramos 2126 10038 21.2
78         Rick Honeycutt 1936  9141 21.2
79             Al Downing 2018  9537 21.2
80      Johnny Klippstein 1829  8661 21.1
81         Paul Derringer 3239 15400 21.0
82    Fernando Valenzuela 2605 12398 21.0
83          Willis Hudlin 2410 11495 21.0
84           Sandy Koufax 1991  9497 21.0
85            John Smoltz 2987 14271 20.9
86             Nolan Ryan 4709 22575 20.9
87              Bob Lemon 2521 12106 20.8
88           Mudcat Grant 2130 10292 20.7
89         Allie Reynolds 2201 10654 20.7
90            Wilbur Wood 2298 11154 20.6
91             Frank Lary 1871  9106 20.5
92             Pat Dobson 1821  8869 20.5
93        Mel Stottlemyre 2248 10973 20.5
94            Wes Ferrell 2364 11563 20.4
95          Jerry Koosman 3253 15996 20.3
96          Danny Jackson 1828  8986 20.3
97             Mel Harder 3018 14862 20.3
98            Lefty Gomez 2174 10711 20.3
99        Jack Billingham 1926  9487 20.3
100           Dazzy Vance 2512 12379 20.3
101          Jeff Fassero 1785  8810 20.3
102              Rudy May 2208 10904 20.2
103          Billy Pierce 2803 13851 20.2
104          Rube Walberg 2334 11532 20.2
105            Curt Davis 1972  9751 20.2
106            Jim Slaton 2326 11534 20.2
107         Mickey Lolich 3050 15139 20.1
108         Rick Reuschel 3000 14888 20.2
109              Bill Lee 2460 12207 20.2
110          Mike Cuellar 2318 11506 20.1
111          Warren Spahn 4341 21555 20.1
112          Lew Burdette 2566 12740 20.1
113            Dock Ellis 1804  8978 20.1
114          Carl Hubbell 2972 14810 20.1
115           Jerry Reuss 3121 15581 20.0
116            Joe Niekro 3031 15166 20.0
117         Claude Osteen 2886 14434 20.0
118         Larry Jackson 2717 13594 20.0
119          Steve Rogers 2338 11702 20.0
120         Virgil Trucks 2274 11381 20.0
121           Jim Bunning 3119 15615 20.0
122           Lon Warneke 2314 11609 19.9
123         Steve Carlton 4317 21682 19.9
124         Charlie Hough 3217 16168 19.9
125            Tommy John 3914 19691 19.9
126           Burt Hooton 2192 11027 19.9
127           Phil Niekro 4502 22677 19.9
128        Mike McCormick 1997 10058 19.9
129            Si Johnson 1968  9915 19.8
130        Camilo Pascual 2464 12418 19.8
131          Don Drysdale 2794 14097 19.8
132              Jim Kaat 3770 19026 19.8
133           Jon Matlack 1939  9789 19.8
134        Orel Hershiser 2603 13150 19.8
135           Whitey Ford 2577 13031 19.8
136           Mike Torrez 2600 13179 19.7
137         Ryan Dempster 2054 10412 19.7
138          Stan Bahnsen 2109 10701 19.7
139            Bob Feller 3184 16172 19.7
140         Sonny Siebert 1760  8953 19.7
141            Luis Tiant 2807 14366 19.5
142           George Uhle 2658 13606 19.5
143           Joe Coleman 2137 10949 19.5
144        Hal Schumacher 2062 10570 19.5
145            Dolf Luque 2625 13476 19.5
146            Derek Lowe 2210 11358 19.5
147             Al Leiter 2011 10334 19.5
148     Ken Raffensberger 1755  9027 19.4
149          Jamey Wright 1753  9038 19.4
150             Ted Lyons 3449 17806 19.4
151             Vida Blue 2679 13838 19.4
152      Andy Messersmith 1765  9119 19.4
153        Claude Passeau 2233 11645 19.2
154           Bobo Newsom 3157 16483 19.2
155              Guy Bush 2248 11739 19.1
156         Harvey Haddix 1785  9330 19.1
157             Rick Wise 2510 13157 19.1
158             Ed Brandt 1850  9733 19.0
159             Bob Welch 2461 12956 19.0
160            Ray Burris 1794  9441 19.0
161            Early Wynn 3685 19405 19.0
162          Charlie Root 2570 13533 19.0
163           Bob Knepper 2177 11488 19.0
164           Kevin Gross 2043 10791 18.9
165         Dwight Gooden 2215 11705 18.9
166          Tommy Thomas 1784  9455 18.9
167           Jim Lonborg 1977 10502 18.8
168            Jim Clancy 2025 10772 18.8
169       Burleigh Grimes 3373 17974 18.8
170           Steve Renko 2009 10704 18.8
171              Bob Rush 1918 10224 18.8
172           Ray Sadecki 2005 10694 18.7
173            Dave Stieb 2259 12072 18.7
174          Dave McNally 2101 11228 18.7
175         Mark Langston 2348 12562 18.7
176           Darryl Kile 1760  9429 18.7
177            Tom Seaver 3605 19369 18.6
178          Kenny Rogers 2656 14280 18.6
179       Paul Splittorff 2014 10831 18.6
180          Danny Darwin 2361 12716 18.6
181            Bob Friend 2822 15216 18.5
182   Freddie Fitzsimmons 2517 13570 18.5
183           Rick Rhoden 2022 10900 18.6
184         Johnny Podres 1771  9571 18.5
185           Tom Glavine 3434 18604 18.5
186         Juan Marichal 2627 14237 18.5
187           Kevin Brown 2496 13542 18.4
188            Jim Palmer 2969 16117 18.4
189        Fergie Jenkins 3389 18404 18.4
190           Joe Nuxhall 1805  9811 18.4
191         Mike Caldwell 1868 10156 18.4
192       Livan Hernandez 2539 13816 18.4
193          Mike Hampton 1803  9824 18.4
194          Jesse Haines 2499 13648 18.3
195             Jim Perry 2514 13738 18.3
196           Bump Hadley 2378 13012 18.3
197       Danny MacFayden 2145 11747 18.3
198        Rick Sutcliffe 2109 11548 18.3
199          Curt Simmons 2592 14203 18.2
200             Bob Smith 1760  9652 18.2
201         Bert Blyleven 3733 20492 18.2
202           Ron Darling 1816 10032 18.1
203         Mike Flanagan 2112 11684 18.1
204          Dave Stewart 2032 11251 18.1
205           Milt Pappas 2373 13195 18.0
206          Ken Holtzman 2169 12069 18.0
207            Don Sutton 3880 21631 17.9
208        Catfish Hunter 2516 14032 17.9
209         Robin Roberts 3444 19222 17.9
210          Frank Tanana 3160 17641 17.9
211         Dutch Leonard 2423 13535 17.9
212       John Candelaria 1855 10366 17.9
213              Vern Law 2006 11233 17.9
214          Chuck Finley 2433 13638 17.8
215           Tim Belcher 1854 10422 17.8
216       Felix Hernandez 2006 11284 17.8
217         Tom Candiotti 2054 11568 17.8
218           Jack Morris 2860 16120 17.7
219         Tommy Bridges 2158 12163 17.7
220         Roger Clemens 3586 20240 17.7
221         Murry Dickson 2294 12948 17.7
222          A.J. Burnett 2061 11665 17.7
223            Bobby Witt 1944 11003 17.7
224          Thornton Lee 1768 10003 17.7
225       Dennis Martinez 2959 16754 17.7
226      Terry Mulholland 1951 11060 17.6
227            Waite Hoyt 2832 16069 17.6
228            Mike Moore 2144 12203 17.6
229            Andy Benes 1870 10645 17.6
230           Bruce Hurst 1788 10204 17.5
231            Ned Garver 1850 10579 17.5
232          Eddie Rommel 1907 10913 17.5
233            Jimmy Ring 1802 10341 17.4
234           Frank Viola 2078 11933 17.4
235         Randy Johnson 2966 17067 17.4
236         Andy Pettitte 2443 14074 17.4
237            Tim Hudson 2240 13005 17.2
238           Doug Drabek 1796 10518 17.1
239       Doyle Alexander 2414 14162 17.0
240            David Cone 2074 12184 17.0
241           CC Sabathia 2547 14989 17.0
242           Red Ruffing 3144 18525 17.0
243           David Wells 2444 14413 17.0
244            Barry Zito 1865 11001 17.0
245           Cole Hamels 1879 11101 16.9
246           Greg Maddux 3450 20421 16.9
247             Red Lucas 1798 10649 16.9
248          John Burkett 1894 11324 16.7
249          Kevin Appier 1832 10958 16.7
250            Bob Forsch 1947 11715 16.6
251          Roy Halladay 1870 11287 16.6
252           Mike Morgan 1966 11872 16.6
253        Earl Whitehill 2598 15773 16.5
254             Jimmy Key 1764 10719 16.5
255           John Lackey 1977 12030 16.4
256        Kevin Millwood 1897 11616 16.3
257        Curt Schilling 2163 13284 16.3
258        Steve Trachsel 1754 10799 16.2
259        Javier Vazquez 1936 11935 16.2
260         Hal Newhouser 2044 12643 16.2
261        Pedro Martinez 1841 11394 16.2
262           Jeff Suppan 1796 11139 16.1
263          Mark Buehrle 2189 13705 16.0
264      Justin Verlander 1938 12193 15.9
265           Dizzy Trout 1843 11612 15.9
266         Sad Sam Jones 2646 16743 15.8
267          Zack Greinke 1843 11729 15.7
268         Wilbur Cooper 2258 14407 15.7
269          Bill Sherdel 1815 11603 15.6
270           Jamie Moyer 2684 17356 15.5
271         Bartolo Colon 2234 14655 15.2
272         Tim Wakefield 2117 13939 15.2
273          Mike Mussina 2164 14593 14.8
274           Lee Meadows 1987 13402 14.8
275        Stan Coveleski 1878 12867 14.6
276             Red Faber 2512 17280 14.5
277            Eppa Rixey 2709 18760 14.4
278           Tom Zachary 1937 13537 14.3
279          Herb Pennock 2151 15191 14.2
280            Jack Quinn 2125 15637 13.6
281        Pete Alexander 2039 20919  9.7
   49. bobm Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:38 PM (#5926973)
For entire career, High Lvrge (within Leverage), (requiring batters_faced >= 1750), sorted by greatest batters faced for this split

                                       
Rk     I              Player   BF tOPS+
1                 Nolan Ryan 4709   108
2              Gaylord Perry 4651   108
3      I         Phil Niekro 4502   102
4      I        Warren Spahn 4341   100
5              Steve Carlton 4317   114
6                 Tommy John 3914   100
7                 Don Sutton 3880   114
8      I         Lefty Grove 3858    93
9                   Jim Kaat 3770   103
10             Bert Blyleven 3733   106
11     I          Early Wynn 3685   106
12                Tom Seaver 3605    96
13             Roger Clemens 3586   100
14               Greg Maddux 3450   109
15     I           Ted Lyons 3449   103
16                Bob Gibson 3448   108
17     I       Robin Roberts 3444   101
18               Tom Glavine 3434   103
19     I      Fergie Jenkins 3389   107
20     I     Burleigh Grimes 3373   102
21             Jerry Koosman 3253   103
22     I      Paul Derringer 3239   103
23             Charlie Hough 3217   100
24     I          Bob Feller 3184   101
25              Rich Gossage 3168    90
26              Frank Tanana 3160   105
27     I         Bobo Newsom 3157   105
28          Dennis Eckersley 3151    96
29     I         Red Ruffing 3144   109
30               Jerry Reuss 3121   111
31     I         Jim Bunning 3119   104
32     I        Hoyt Wilhelm 3087   107
33             Mickey Lolich 3050    98
34                Joe Niekro 3031   103
35     I          Mel Harder 3018    95
36             Rick Reuschel 3000   105
37               John Smoltz 2987   108
38     I        Carl Hubbell 2972    96
39                Jim Palmer 2969    86
40             Randy Johnson 2966   101
41           Dennis Martinez 2959    98
42            Rollie Fingers 2921   110
43     I        Larry French 2912   110
44             Claude Osteen 2886   101
45               Jack Morris 2860   100
46     I       Bucky Walters 2851    99
47     I          Waite Hoyt 2832    98
48     I          Bob Friend 2822   110
49                Luis Tiant 2807   111
50     I        Billy Pierce 2803   102
51     I        Don Drysdale 2794    99
52     I       Larry Jackson 2717    99
53     I          Eppa Rixey 2709   122
54               Jamie Moyer 2684    99
55            Lindy McDaniel 2682   101
56                 Vida Blue 2679    93
57               John Franco 2666    99
58     I         George Uhle 2658    89
59              Kenny Rogers 2656   110
60     I       Sad Sam Jones 2646   113
61                 Lee Smith 2646   111
62             Juan Marichal 2627   100
63     I          Dolf Luque 2625   100
64       Fernando Valenzuela 2605    94
65            Orel Hershiser 2603   110
66               Mike Torrez 2600   102
67     I      Earl Whitehill 2598    97
68     I        Curt Simmons 2592   104
69     I         Whitey Ford 2577    96
70     I        Charlie Root 2570   100
71            Mariano Rivera 2567   116
72     I        Lew Burdette 2566    93
73               CC Sabathia 2547   105
74           Livan Hernandez 2539    99
75              Sam McDowell 2537    99
76     I           Bob Lemon 2521   105
77     I Freddie Fitzsimmons 2517   111
78            Catfish Hunter 2516   110
79                 Jim Perry 2514   101
80     I           Red Faber 2512    98
81     I         Dazzy Vance 2512    98
82                 Rick Wise 2510   111
83     I        Jesse Haines 2499   101
84               Kevin Brown 2496    97
85            Camilo Pascual 2464   113
86                 Bob Welch 2461   107
87     I            Bill Lee 2460   100
88                Tom Gordon 2446    97
89               David Wells 2444   103
90             Andy Pettitte 2443   103
91              Chuck Finley 2433   106
92     I       Dutch Leonard 2423   100
93           Doyle Alexander 2414   105
94     I       Willis Hudlin 2410   101
95     I            Ron Reed 2388   105
96     I       Woodie Fryman 2384   100
97     I         Bump Hadley 2378   102
98     I       Mike Marshall 2373   108
99     I         Milt Pappas 2373   104
100    I            Bob Buhl 2368    91
101    I         Wes Ferrell 2364    87
102             Danny Darwin 2361   100
103            Mark Langston 2348   103
104             Steve Rogers 2338   120
105    I        Rube Walberg 2334   111
106               Jim Slaton 2326    99
107    I        Mike Cuellar 2318   104
108             Bruce Sutter 2316   110
109    I         Lon Warneke 2314   100
110             Kent Tekulve 2305   115
111              Chris Short 2304    97
112    I         Wilbur Wood 2298   101
113              Sparky Lyle 2296    95
114    I       Murry Dickson 2294   111
115    I       Virgil Trucks 2274    98
116                Jose Mesa 2268    97
117              Gene Garber 2264   109
118           Trevor Hoffman 2259   107
119               Dave Stieb 2259   107
120    I       Wilbur Cooper 2258   110
121    I            Guy Bush 2248   111
122          Mel Stottlemyre 2248    98
123              Bob Stanley 2244   103
124               Tim Hudson 2240    96
125               Tug McGraw 2240    96
126    I  Johnny Vander Meer 2239    84
127            Bartolo Colon 2234    99
128    I      Claude Passeau 2233    99
129            Dwight Gooden 2215    85
130    I          Stu Miller 2213    93
131               Derek Lowe 2210   113
132                 Rudy May 2208   118
133    I       Harry Gumbert 2201   105
134    I      Allie Reynolds 2201    92
135             Jeff Reardon 2199   105
136              Burt Hooton 2192   107
137             Mark Buehrle 2189   106
138              Bob Knepper 2177   115
139    I         Lefty Gomez 2174   112
140             Ken Holtzman 2169    99
141              Mike Garcia 2168    90
142             Mike Mussina 2164   105
143           Curt Schilling 2163   109
144    I       Tommy Bridges 2158    96
145            Dave Righetti 2153   103
146    I        Herb Pennock 2151   107
147    I     Danny MacFayden 2145    87
148               Mike Moore 2144   103
149              Joe Coleman 2137    97
150    I           Ron Kline 2133    99
151    I        Mudcat Grant 2130   105
152              Pedro Ramos 2126    94
153    I          Jack Quinn 2125   100
154            Tim Wakefield 2117    98
155            Mike Flanagan 2112    97
156             Stan Bahnsen 2109    87
157           Rick Sutcliffe 2109   111
158             Dave McNally 2101   100
159    I          Ken Forsch 2096   104
160              Dean Chance 2092   108
161              Frank Viola 2078   114
162               David Cone 2074    94
163               Todd Jones 2065    87
164    I      Hal Schumacher 2062   108
165             A.J. Burnett 2061    89
166    I          Sid Hudson 2059    96
167            Tom Candiotti 2054   109
168            Ryan Dempster 2054    99
169        Roberto Hernandez 2054   111
170               Doug Jones 2050   104
171    I       Hal Newhouser 2044   105
172              Kevin Gross 2043    97
173    I      Pete Alexander 2039   124
174             Dave Stewart 2032    96
175               Jim Clancy 2025   109
176              Rick Rhoden 2022   104
177               Al Downing 2018   116
178              Bill Singer 2017   112
179          Paul Splittorff 2014    98
180                Al Leiter 2011   104
181    I         Steve Renko 2009   111
182          Felix Hernandez 2006    95
183    I            Vern Law 2006   101
184              Ray Sadecki 2005   110
185    I      Mike McCormick 1997   105
186             Sandy Koufax 1991    95
187           Ron Perranoski 1990   100
188    I         Lee Meadows 1987   116
189               Dick Drago 1986   106
190              John Lackey 1977   108
191              Jim Lonborg 1977   109
192             Jesse Orosco 1977   116
193    I      Dick Ellsworth 1976   108
194    I         Johnny Sain 1976    99
195    I          Curt Davis 1972   103
196    I          Si Johnson 1968   102
197              Mike Morgan 1966   113
198         Terry Mulholland 1951   109
199               Bob Forsch 1947   107
200               Bobby Witt 1944    98
201             Turk Farrell 1941    99
202              Jon Matlack 1939   107
203         Justin Verlander 1938   105
204    I         Tom Zachary 1937   103
205           Rick Honeycutt 1936    90
206           Javier Vazquez 1936   120
207              John Hiller 1935    96
208    I     Jack Billingham 1926   110
209    I           Van Mungo 1926   102
210    I            Bob Rush 1918   110
211    I        Dave Roberts 1915   113
212      Francisco Rodriguez 1910   102
213    I        Steve Barber 1908    91
214    I        Eddie Rommel 1907    97
215             Juan Pizarro 1902    96
216           Kevin Millwood 1897   120
217              Bob Wickman 1897   104
218             John Burkett 1894   117
219                Gary Bell 1890   106
220              Cole Hamels 1879   100
221    I      Stan Coveleski 1878    94
222    I         Dave Giusti 1871    96
223               Frank Lary 1871   103
224               Andy Benes 1870   106
225             Roy Halladay 1870    99
226            Mike Caldwell 1868   105
227               Barry Zito 1865   113
228    I         Kirby Higbe 1860   104
229          John Candelaria 1855   103
230              Greg Minton 1855   101
231              Tim Belcher 1854    97
232    I           Ed Brandt 1850   102
233    I          Ned Garver 1850   111
234             Shane Rawley 1849    98
235          Fernando Rodney 1849    97
236              Randy Myers 1847    99
237             Zack Greinke 1843    99
238    I         Dizzy Trout 1843   107
239           Pedro Martinez 1841   102
240           Darold Knowles 1837   103
241             Kevin Appier 1832   102
242            Bill Campbell 1832   109
243    I   Johnny Klippstein 1829    98
244            Danny Jackson 1828   109
245    I        Clay Carroll 1825   101
246               Pat Dobson 1821    93
247             Don Robinson 1819   107
248              Ron Darling 1816   100
249    I        Bill Sherdel 1815   106
250          Steve Bedrosian 1810   105
251              Joe Nuxhall 1805    96
252    I          Dock Ellis 1804   124
253    I            Roy Face 1804   112
254             Mike Hampton 1803    94
255    I          Jimmy Ring 1802    99
256    I           Red Lucas 1798   102
257              Doug Drabek 1796   112
258              Jeff Suppan 1796    87
259               Ray Burris 1794   102
260    I    Johnny Antonelli 1793   111
261             Gary Lavelle 1790   118
262              Bruce Hurst 1788   102
263             Jeff Fassero 1785   110
264    I       Harvey Haddix 1785   115
265    I        Tommy Thomas 1784   105
266            Rick Aguilera 1781   108
267             Billy Wagner 1780   114
268            Johnny Podres 1771    87
269    I        Thornton Lee 1768   112
270         Andy Messersmith 1765   118
271                Jimmy Key 1764    99
272    I       Moe Drabowsky 1763   102
273              Darryl Kile 1760    93
274            Sonny Siebert 1760   108
275    I           Bob Smith 1760    95
276           Roger McDowell 1759   108
277    I         Diego Segui 1759   105
278    I   Ken Raffensberger 1755   103
279           Steve Trachsel 1754    88
280             Jamey Wright 1753    94
281           David Weathers 1752   100


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 2/27/2020.
   50. Jay Z Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:05 AM (#5926984)
When the question shifts to "should this player be in the HoF" that is inherently a quality question


In your opinion.

Value between players can be compared just as easily as quality.

I deal with this in my work. Data scientists who don't care about the business. I care about the business.

Luck does not even out over an entire season's worth of games. What of it. Measure the results, ALL of the results, and pay out the bonuses accordingly.

I am very sorry, but this has gotten to the point of settled ground. Picking and choosing which results you are counting is an approach I no longer respect. Sorry.

   51. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: February 28, 2020 at 01:21 AM (#5926994)
In your opinion.

Congratulations on demonstrating your ability to not read something in its entirety:

Now of course, some might think that the HoF is a matter of value, not quality. Nothing I can do about that really. Some might think the HoF is more a matter of fame or milestones, nothing I can do about that. Some might go the "reliever is a position so you only compare him to other relievers, not starters" or "relievers are in the HoF so, undeserving though they may be, those are the standards"
   52. Jay Z Posted: February 28, 2020 at 08:39 AM (#5927006)
Congratulations on demonstrating your ability to not read something in its entirety:


What did I miss? Walt acknowledges there are other views, and that is all.

Walt complaining that "It's not fair that Mariano Rivera pitched in higher leverage innings" is a fairly out there view at this point. That everything a ballplayer does is just a statistical widget added to their total. Striking out an opponent in the last inning of an 8-1 loss that leaves your team at 73-89 for the season and out of the playoffs matters just as much as doing it in the seventh game of the World Series with the game tied in extra innings.

Value is coin. If you can't count coins, your end analysis is going to be off the mark.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(1239 - 5:33am, Apr 07)
Last: TomH

NewsblogThis Day in Transaction History: Yankees acquire Bucky Dent
(18 - 5:23am, Apr 07)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogUS-based pro sports leagues monitoring coronavirus outbreak
(4481 - 5:07am, Apr 07)
Last: Eddo

NewsblogOne reason why a quarantined baseball season could be a big win for MLB
(1 - 2:46am, Apr 07)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(2055 - 2:12am, Apr 07)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogHome Run Derby, Anyone? Eight Ideas to Shorten Extra Innings
(1 - 2:07am, Apr 07)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogCoronavirus: MLB debating playing games at spring training ballparks without fans, per report
(18 - 1:37am, Apr 07)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPirates pitcher Steven Brault releases showtunes album ‘A Pitch at Broadway’
(66 - 12:29am, Apr 07)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-6-2020
(11 - 12:10am, Apr 07)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogBaseball Question of the Day: Which historical game would you want to see?
(69 - 12:04am, Apr 07)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogAl Kaline, Detroit Tigers legend, dies at age 85
(10 - 11:17pm, Apr 06)
Last: Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April 2020)
(6 - 10:57pm, Apr 06)
Last: the Centaur Nipple Paradox (CoB).

NewsblogSunday Notes: Keston Hiura Can Hit, But The Book He’d Write Would Be Boring
(1 - 8:38pm, Apr 06)
Last: puck

NewsblogThese 10 legends' careers ended with a reunion
(14 - 8:05pm, Apr 06)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogD-Backs Minority Owners Suing Managing Partner Ken Kendrick over Buyouts
(3 - 5:43pm, Apr 06)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Page rendered in 0.8002 seconds
48 querie(s) executed