Comments on: Stats I Like

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:46:45 +0000

Joe,

I just re-read this post since the first time you posted it months ago. This is the first time I’ve commented here, but I wanted to say that your blog is a must-read for me. You really are the best baseball blogger out there. Keep up the good work.

By: G Young

G Young — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:43:35 +0000

I think it is fairly obvious that positioning is taken into account for this particular fielding stat.

The stat relies not on the movement of the player to get to the ball, but rather on the location of the ball relevant to the field as a whole and the “normal” position of a fielder.

For example, a batted ball hit 20 feet to the right of the “normal” position of a shortstop. If the shortstop has chosen for that pitch to position himself 20 feet to the right of the “normal” position of a shortstop, and he makes the play on a ball hit right at him, then he is credited as such and his plus/minus rating improves based not upon the athleticism of the play but on his positioning.

It appears to me that positioning is well accounted for.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:15:27 +0000

I’m was first shocked to see Clemens 1997 season rank so high, but then I checked baseballreference.com and noticed that he led his league in innings pitched and complete games, all while boasting a 221 ERA+. The winshares system credits him with 32 winshares, which is actually the highest total we’ve seen out of any modern pitcher. Granted, considering it was at age 34 he accomplished it, it’s likely he was dabbling with illegal drugs, but putting that aside for a second, I think Clemens 97 seasons seems to go underrated when discussing the “best” seasons by a pitcher ever. I was one of those people.

By: Sky

Sky — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:29:09 +0000

For fielding stats, I don’t think you want to account for the starting position of fielders. The anecdote is Cal Ripken’s ability to position himself well given the pitcher and hitter. He didn’t have the best movement at shortstop, but he still got to more balls that most. I agree do you somehow need to account for pitcher and hitter tendencies when computing expected results to use a baseline.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:39:44 +0000

In Springsteen’s song “The Angel,” what does The Boss mean by “baseball cards poked in his spokes?” We’re talking about a guy on a motorcycle, right? A modern day cowboy roaming the untamed, man-made, flatlands of Jersey. I get that people used to put cards in the spokes of their bicycles, but in the spokes of a motorcycle? That, I don’t get.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:04:22 +0000

In response to Pete Ridges: no Anson surely did not act alone. But there were black major leaguers (not a lot of them but some) prior to Anson being the first manager to refuse to play against them. That’s an historical fact.

By: Gene

Gene — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:58:37 +0000

I’ll second G. Young’s question about runs saved. First, it seems odd that only 6 of the top 20 seasons on that list occurred before the 1990s. And there is no question that one run saved in 1968 was more valuable than one run saved in 1997. Are these numbers normalized by era? Am I not reading this list the right way?

By: Paul L

Paul L — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:21:14 +0000

I learned a lot from the article about the different SABR stats, what they are, and how they are useful, but there is one huge, glaring mistake, in my opinion in evaluating the baserunning value. That being that the impact of good baserunning on run scoring is completely dependent on the type of players that hit behind, as well as perhaps in front of the player in question.

Papi may have been close to Crawford simply because for much of the year Crawford had Ty WIggington hitting behind him, whereas Pappy had Manny behind him. Obviously, you see how this difference can confound the effect of baserunning on scoring runs.

In addition, the value of baserunning has to be taken in the context of the team the player is on. I bet baserunning would be more valuable for a guy that has contact hitters behind him than a guy who has power hitters behind him.

Another factor is how the threat of a guy stealing second, for example, impacts the quality of pitches the next batter sees and therefore how their production is affected. It would only be human for any pitcher to be slightly less effective when he has to worry about the guy on first.

I am wondering whether there are more developed methods for evaluating the impact of baserunning that take into account some of the above considerations.

By: Dan Fox

Dan Fox — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:04:34 +0000

“Over a full season, the fastest guy might â€” again MIGHT â€” score 10 to 20 more runs than the slowest guy if given the same opportunities. ”

That’s a pretty good estimation of the value of baserunning (although not necessarily of actually scoring runs in the literal sense). The stats I developed add up the contribution across five different aspects of running and the greatest single season of the retrosheet era was at +20 runs for Maury Wills in 1962 (http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2008/02/baserunning-for-ages.html).

I also found Willie Wilson to be the best overall baserunner of the retrosheet era.

As far as James’ numbers are concerned, the problem is that he doesn’t take into consideration very much context and so looking at overall percentages on advancements for single seasons doesn’t necessarily give the complete picture. I talked about some of the issues in a column in 2006 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5774).

Great article though. Thanks

By: Jeff P.

Jeff P. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:15:57 +0000

Bret – Ellis Burks had a 149 ops+ in 1996. He had a monster year:
.344 /.408 /.639
142 runs
211 hits
45 doubles
8 triples
40 home runs
128 rbi’s
32 stolen bases