PCA Request Line

[SABR Matt]

Well I'm sorry csh...I don't focus on meaningless trivia.

[SABR Matt]

Matt - Quick question, having you done any analysis at all of fielders arms?

Not in isolation...that's part of the plan for the PBP analysis I've got drawn up (working with someone now who's throwing some funding into hiring coders to help implement some of my plans), but rating a fielder's arm is just a part of rating his overall skill in the PCA process.

[538280]

Each event doesn't have a specific value? YES THEY DO. :) With PBP metrics, you can quantify each event quite accurately. Each traditionally recorded defensive statistic (each PO, each A...etc) doesn't have a quantifiable value...that much is true.

You are correct, and now that I remember in that PCA Manifest you do talk about that. I was referring to traditional defensive stats that are widely available on a site like BBRef though. Someone can look at a player's BBRef page and with linear weights find the run value of all of a player's offensive accomplishments together. With fielding it's not that simple, you have to use PBP data.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It was public enough for me to stumble on it. Shamelessly cut and pasted....

Alltime Leaders:

Walk off Homeruns
Jimmie Foxx……….12
Mickey Mantle……. 12
Stan Musial……….. 12
Frank Robinson……12
Babe Ruth………….12
Tony Perez…………11
Dick Allen…………..10
Harold Baines …….10
Reggie Jackson……10
Mike Schmidt ……..10


And he should be leading with 13. His only Fenway homer in '18 was a walk-off blast but rules at the time, since there was a man on base, didn't allow for it.

Byrd did come in to run for Ruth in later years but it was more a situation of him simply replacing him in the outfield...but since Ruth got on base the inning before, he got a head start on the substitution. No matter really. Great nickname to have, eh.


...But I have to ask you, Sultan, why are you so negative on GGs? You always make a big deal over how contemporaries viewed the player...

You are confusing two issues. Gold gloves are won as much on reputation as anything else. They don't mean a thing to me, much like all-star appearances, and to a smaller degree, MVPs.

If you want to talk about gathering as much peer-account info as possible, and using that to help you form a more educated opinion after you've done tons of research, then I'm all for it. Looking at a list of gold gloves though? Today's managers don't see as much in person as they used to. Sure, they might see a highlight every now and then, but that doesn't cut it. Gold gloves are reputation based. As long as the guy doesn't become an absolute circus overnight, he'll get strong consideration no matter if he deserves it or not.

And say what you want, but fielding has become easier over the years with oversized gloves, smaller outfields, and less aggressive baserunners. Offense is the thing, and with this environment why wouldn't it be.

[SABR Matt]

Oftentimes, gold gloves are awarded based partly on offense, too. If you don't hit well enough to be generally considered a star player, they don't notice your glove either.

[538280]

You are confusing two issues. Gold gloves are won as much on reputation as anything else. They don't mean a thing to me, much like all-star appearances, and to a smaller degree, MVPs.

If you want to talk about gathering as much peer-account info as possible, and using that to help you form a more educated opinion after you've done tons of research, then I'm all for it. Looking at a list of gold gloves though? Today's managers don't see as much in person as they used to. Sure, they might see a highlight every now and then, but that doesn't cut it. Gold gloves are reputation based. As long as the guy doesn't become an absolute circus overnight, he'll get strong consideration no matter if he deserves it or not.

I agree they're reputation based, but I have to ask you, where do they get that reputation in the first place? From people watching them and thinking they're good fielders. I agree that there a lot of problems with Gold Gloves. I think offense (like Matt said) can play a big role. I think sometimes managers just go with the easy pick or the guy who wins it every year (though he had to be pretty good at some point to even get that rep in the first place, but he could have declined, I call that the "hanging reputation" and I think a lot of perenially GGers win more than they deserve). But, I still don't see why you would trust a lot of quotes accumulated over a real vote as to who was the best at the position. Quotes about fielding show the opinion of one person. You can never possibly reconstruct the total consensus opinion about a player's fielding because obviously we don't have comments from everyone involved in baseball at the time. With votes we have a record of a good amount of people who are knowledgeable in the managers. Are they perfect, absolutely not. I don't think they are all that reliable either; but I think they deserves at least some weight particularly if you have a huge reliance in peer opinion.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree they're reputation based, but I have to ask you, where do they get that reputation in the first place? From people watching them and thinking they're good fielders. I agree that there a lot of problems with Gold Gloves. I think offense (like Matt said) can play a big role. I think sometimes managers just go with the easy pick or the guy who wins it every year (though he had to be pretty good at some point to even get that rep in the first place, but he could have declined, I call that the "hanging reputation" and I think a lot of perenially GGers win more than they deserve). But, I still don't see why you would trust a lot of quotes accumulated over a real vote as to who was the best at the position. Quotes about fielding show the opinion of one person. You can never possibly reconstruct the total consensus opinion about a player's fielding because obviously we don't have comments from everyone involved in baseball at the time. With votes we have a record of a good amount of people who are knowledgeable in the managers. Are they perfect, absolutely not. I don't think they are all that reliable either; but I think they deserves at least some weight particularly if you have a huge reliance in peer opinion.

It's not just a matter of taking random quotes Chris. Who the quotes are from matters a whole hell of a lot. To give you one example, if Tris Speaker, in 1928, says of Ruth.....

"I have been asked my opinion of great outfielders I have known. By outfielders I mean solely the ability to play the position quite apart from batting or base running talent. I will say, without hesitation, that Babe Ruth is one of the half dozen greatest outfielders I ever saw.

This is aside from his slugging ability, which is unrivaled, and his base running ability which is much greater than is commonly supposed. Purely as an outfielder, Babe will rank among the game's greatest. He was not always so.
When he first shifted from the pitching slab to the outfield, he did not seem to take his work seriously. His thoughts were mainly devoted to his batting. No doubt they still are. But for all that, Babe has become a great outfielder. He covers a lot of ground, primarily because he plays the batter correctly.
He has a sure pair of hands, a wonderful throwing arm and he always knows exactly what to do with the ball when he gets it."

Then it means a bit more than other quotes might. Not just because Speaker was a tremendous outfielder himself, but because if you know anything about the the Sox team when Ruth first got there, him and Speaker were never close.

I am willing to meet you halfway on this issue Christopher. Gold gloves and all-star appearances are next to meaningless, but not completely meaningless, and MVP's have their issues as well. I would say the same thing if Ruth's baseball-reference page showed what it should show...definitely 10, probably 11 MVP's, 20 all-star appearances, at least a couple gold gloves as an outfielder and at least one as a pitcher. Wouldn't matter really. Why you of all people would bother to put much weight in a voted on, reputation based award is beyond me. You don't put any faith in black ink, which has it's own issues but nothing like awards that are voted on by various people with various agendas who have only seen certain things.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

From what I've seen in the many years I've been watching this game. Not speaking of Bonds, just in general terms, if you win a few than it's almost an automatic you will get some that are questionable.

You would have to have a terrible year on defense not to be considered. As long as you can maintain a high level on defense not even Gold Glove level, you may still be rewarded.

[538280]

It's not just a matter of taking random quotes Chris. Who the quotes are from matters a whole hell of a lot. To give you one example, if Tris Speaker, in 1928, says of Ruth.....

"I have been asked my opinion of great outfielders I have known. By outfielders I mean solely the ability to play the position quite apart from batting or base running talent. I will say, without hesitation, that Babe Ruth is one of the half dozen greatest outfielders I ever saw.

This is aside from his slugging ability, which is unrivaled, and his base running ability which is much greater than is commonly supposed. Purely as an outfielder, Babe will rank among the game's greatest. He was not always so.
When he first shifted from the pitching slab to the outfield, he did not seem to take his work seriously. His thoughts were mainly devoted to his batting. No doubt they still are. But for all that, Babe has become a great outfielder. He covers a lot of ground, primarily because he plays the batter correctly.
He has a sure pair of hands, a wonderful throwing arm and he always knows exactly what to do with the ball when he gets it."

Then it means a bit more than other quotes might. Not just because Speaker was a tremendous outfielder himself, but because if you know anything about the the Sox team when Ruth first got there, him and Speaker were never close.

I agree that that quote is important. It means about the same to me as a Gold Glove won. To be honest I'm not that big on Gold Gloves either. I think they go to an undeserving player probably about half of the time and I think a lot of the time the managers just give it to the "easy" pick to deflect criticism. If you voted for a player who had won it for the past five years you don't have to explain your vote much. I think that a lot of time the managers who vote are just lazy and don't think about it much, they have a busy job and more important things to do with their own team. I agree generally that they don't mean much. I just think they mean at least something, if a guy wins close to a 10 GGs I'm pretty sure he's at least a solid fielder.


I am willing to meet you halfway on this issue Christopher. Gold gloves and all-star appearances are next to meaningless, but not completely meaningless, and MVP's have their issues as well. I would say the same thing if Ruth's baseball-reference page showed what it should show...definitely 10, probably 11 MVP's, 20 all-star appearances, at least a couple gold gloves as an outfielder and at least one as a pitcher. Wouldn't matter really. Why you of all people would bother to put much weight in a voted on, reputation based award is beyond me. You don't put any faith in black ink, which has it's own issues but nothing like awards that are voted on by various people with various agendas who have only seen certain things.

I don't put much weight in awards at all Sultan. I probably look a little more at GGs than other awards because I think eyewitnesses are more important for fielding than they are for hitting or a player's overall game. MVPs I really couldn't care less about, I think the writers often don't care about anything but HR and RBI (look at the two winners last season). I just would think that someone like yourself who seems to care so much about contemporary observation would care about them more than I do.

I just think that GGs mean at least as much as a singular quote you may find. You say above that awards are voted on by people with agendas. I agree, but you can't say that the same isn't true of quotes. If anything the votes for GGs may be better than singular quotes because it represents a lot of people, maybe a consensus, rather than just one opinion.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This might be an interesting read for ya Chris.

www.holycross.edu/departments/economics/website/honors/Buonome.pdf

[The Kid]

This might be an interesting read for ya Chris.

www.holycross.edu/departments/economics/website/honors/Buonome.pdf

A very interesting read indeed.... BTW, Matt, do you have Mickey Cochrane's gold glove estimates, according to your PCA system?

[SABR Matt]

Cochrane's defensive record:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1925 101 0.78 0.247
1926 104 2.75 0.351 GG
1927 117 1.18 0.261
1928 126 1.90 0.288
1929 132 2.32 0.302 GG
1930 120 1.41 0.270
1931 116 1.52 0.277
1932 131 3.61 0.358 GG
1933 119 0.64 0.235
1934 107 1.31 0.273
1935 105 1.21 0.269
1936 38 0.16 0.228
1937 25 0.19 0.247

[Myankee4life]

Matt. how do Sammy Sosa, Mel Ott and Roberto Clemente compare to each other?

[SABR Matt]

Odd mix of different right fielders...

General comparisons first...

Career defensive PCA-BA figures:

Sosa (CF) .235 (216 EqG)
Sosa (RF) .283 (1857 EqG)
Ott (3B) .212 (253 EqG)
Off (RF) .246 (2124 EqG)
Clemente (RF) .301 (2309 EqG)

Career offensive PCA-BA:

Ott: .340 (11333 PA)
Sosa: .299 (9452 PA - thru 2005)
Clemente: .300 (10212 PA)

Ott rates as the best player of the three by PCA...coming in 5th all time among right fielders. Clemente comes in 8th (but the gap between 5th and 8th is pretty small). Sosa comes in a distant 14th.

[STLCards2]

Matt- How much if any does a pitcher's PZR come into play in your batted ball data? Can you also show a season by season DNRA for Jim Palmer?

[SABR Matt]

Since I have no idea what a PZR is (not a stat I have had a particular interest in studying to date...perhaps you could enlighten me), I doubt it plays a direct roll in rating him...unless PZR is a fielding measure (like UZR for pitchers or something).

Jim Palmer's DNRA line:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+
1965 AL BAL 271 93
1966 AL BAL 629 102
1967 AL BAL 144 108
1969 AL BAL 529 119
1970 AL BAL 894 109
1971 AL BAL 835 107
1972 AL BAL 805 104
1973 AL BAL 858 123
1974 AL BAL 519 88
1975 AL BAL 937 129
1976 AL BAL 940 127
1977 AL BAL 930 130
1978 AL BAL 875 124
1979 AL BAL 453 114
1980 AL BAL 660 91
1981 AL BAL 382 100
1982 AL BAL 678 123
1983 AL BAL 231 94
1984 AL BAL 50 43

Remember that DNRA+ and ERA+ are on essentially the same scale. Palmer was among the most consistent, inning eating work horses of his generation...the kind of guy you can build a franchise around.

[STLCards2]

Since I have no idea what a PZR is (not a stat I have had a particular interest in studying to date...perhaps you could enlighten me), I doubt it plays a direct roll in rating him...unless PZR is a fielding measure (like UZR for pitchers or something).

Jim Palmer's DNRA line:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+
1965 AL BAL 271 93
1966 AL BAL 629 102
1967 AL BAL 144 108
1969 AL BAL 529 119
1970 AL BAL 894 109
1971 AL BAL 835 107
1972 AL BAL 805 104
1973 AL BAL 858 123
1974 AL BAL 519 88
1975 AL BAL 937 129
1976 AL BAL 940 127
1977 AL BAL 930 130
1978 AL BAL 875 124
1979 AL BAL 453 114
1980 AL BAL 660 91
1981 AL BAL 382 100
1982 AL BAL 678 123
1983 AL BAL 231 94
1984 AL BAL 50 43

Remember that DNRA+ and ERA+ are on essentially the same scale. Palmer was among the most consistent, inning eating work horses of his generation...the kind of guy you can build a franchise around.

PZR is very similar to UZR, but tries to single out how much a pitcher's BABIP was affected by efense vs. ability vs. luck. The pitchers' PZR is compared to his teams UZRs to determine how much defense was involved. Just wondering.

[538280]

If Sultan is reading, I remember him asking about estimates of groundballs (which I could swear was on this thread, but I don't see anymore). I recenty found data on assists and putouts per game in the major leagues by decade. Most assists (though obiviously not all and it's just a fairly accurate way to estimate) are ground balls. So a formula to estimate flyballs could be PO-SO-A. Using that, the estimated flyballs per game (on outs, but it can still show the overall trend) by decade is like this:

1870s: 13.1
1880s: 10.2
1890s: 10.8
1900s: 10.6
1910s: 10.6
1920s: 11.4
1930s: 11.7
1940s: 11.9
1950s: 11.3
1960s: 10.3
1970s: 10.7
1980s: 10.6
1990s: 10.1
2000s: 10.0

[SABR Matt]

PZR is very similar to UZR, but tries to single out how much a pitcher's BABIP was affected by efense vs. ability vs. luck. The pitchers' PZR is compared to his teams UZRs to determine how much defense was involved. Just wondering.


OK...then DNRA is very similar to PZR except that it doesn't rely on zone data because I believe that is a faulty starting point for defensive analysis. Fielders don't always stand in the same places, and they work together as a unit to cover plays....it's not one-fielder / one-region (group of zones) as UZR and +/- would have us believe. DNRA does essentially the same work though...trying to figure out how pitchers and fielderws contributed to the pitcher's total line.

[SABR Matt]

If Sultan is reading, I remember him asking about estimates of groundballs (which I could swear was on this thread, but I don't see anymore). I recenty found data on assists and putouts per game in the major leagues by decade. Most assists (though obiviously not all and it's just a fairly accurate way to estimate) are ground balls. So a formula to estimate flyballs could be PO-SO-A. Using that, the estimated flyballs per game (on outs, but it can still show the overall trend) by decade is like this:

1870s: 13.1
1880s: 10.2
1890s: 10.8
1900s: 10.6
1910s: 10.6
1920s: 11.4
1930s: 11.7
1940s: 11.9
1950s: 11.3
1960s: 10.3
1970s: 10.7
1980s: 10.6
1990s: 10.1
2000s: 10.0

That's a fairly decent estimate of flyball rate, yes. The drop in flyballs coincides with a BIGGER drop in groundballs though...both of them are dropping because the K rate is rising by a LOT. All of which is to say that although the FB rate is dropping, the GB/FB is also dropping.

[538280]

That's a fairly decent estimate of flyball rate, yes. The drop in flyballs coincides with a BIGGER drop in groundballs though...both of them are dropping because the K rate is rising by a LOT. All of which is to say that although the FB rate is dropping, the GB/FB is also dropping.

You're right. The GB/FB now is probably as high as its ever been, but because the K rate is higher, the raw number of FBs is down.

BTW, could I see PCA for Larry Jackson, Dick Ellsworth, and Ron Perranoski? Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Rather you mean the GB/FB ratio is as LOW as it's ever been (or the FB% per BIP at an all time high) I assume.

PCA on Larry Jackson:
Defensive Wins

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1955 26 0.09 0.238
1956 15 0.18 0.295
1957 32 0.36 0.293
1958 20 0.07 0.237
1959 32 -0.01 0.211
1960 33 0.30 0.277
1961 30 0.23 0.267
1962 32 0.73 0.373
1963 39 0.46 0.296
1964 45 0.80 0.338
1965 34 0.33 0.282
1966 38 0.26 0.262
1967 46 0.40 0.274
1968 34 0.14 0.242

Pitching Wins

Yr Wins DIO PCA-BA
1955 0.91 536 0.241
1956 1.07 253 0.266
1957 4.11 619 0.291
1958 2.97 610 0.273
1959 6.05 793 0.300
1960 5.37 855 0.287
1961 5.05 630 0.304
1962 2.93 764 0.262
1963 4.86 827 0.283
1964 8.68 879 0.323
1965 3.12 780 0.264
1966 -0.07 27 0.197
1966 3.82 736 0.276
1967 4.95 781 0.287
1968 4.60 734 0.287

PCA for Dick Ellsworth
Defensive Wins

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1960 19 0.09 0.246
1961 24 0.20 0.271
1962 25 0.13 0.250
1963 37 0.42 0.293
1964 32 0.46 0.315
1965 27 0.27 0.284
1966 36 0.20 0.252
1967 21 0.17 0.269
1968 24 0.10 0.244
1969 20 0.12 0.255
1970 8 0.05 0.260

Pitching Wins

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1958 -0.04 8 0.171
1960 1.84 531 0.258
1961 1.61 575 0.252
1962 0.97 650 0.239
1963 10.94 844 0.354
1964 2.24 778 0.253
1965 2.56 676 0.262
1966 1.67 848 0.243
1967 0.30 396 0.231
1968 1.95 594 0.257
1969 -0.02 39 0.218
1969 0.36 423 0.232
1970 0.63 133 0.271
1970 0.79 45 0.400
1971 -0.14 50 0.195

WOW...you don't see that every day. Ellsworth evidently had exactly ONE good season his whole career..and that good season, he was truly GREAT. The rest of the time, he was significantly below average. I have no idea what happened that year.

Ron Perranoski:
Defensive Wins

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1961 14 -0.01 0.211
1962 13 0.04 0.236
1963 16 0.13 0.269
1964 19 0.14 0.267
1965 10 0.14 0.311
1966 16 0.16 0.283
1967 14 0.08 0.256
1968 9 0.07 0.265
1969 17 0.08 0.246
1970 10 0.05 0.250
1971 6 0.06 0.279

Pitching Wins

Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1961 2.54 274 0.317
1962 2.01 330 0.285
1963 1.82 382 0.272
1964 0.80 388 0.244
1965 1.41 306 0.270
1966 0.93 252 0.261
1967 1.64 331 0.273
1968 0.53 269 0.243
1969 5.06 341 0.373
1970 1.27 334 0.262
1971 -0.43 142 0.193
1971 0.34 52 0.290
1972 -0.06 59 0.213
1972 0.04 52 0.231
1973 0.09 34 0.250

Relievers are notoriously volatile...tend to peak high, hard and fast and die young. Perranoski is no exception. This is a pretty typical line for a heavily used dominant relief ace.

[STLCards2]

OK...then DNRA is very similar to PZR except that it doesn't rely on zone data because I believe that is a faulty starting point for defensive analysis. Fielders don't always stand in the same places, and they work together as a unit to cover plays....it's not one-fielder / one-region (group of zones) as UZR and +/- would have us believe. DNRA does essentially the same work though...trying to figure out how pitchers and fielderws contributed to the pitcher's total line.

I know that in your Detect-O-Vision DNRA thread that you said you were making changes having to do with GB% vs FB%,etc., situational stats, and other things. Have you completed these changes? I would love to see how the top 50 pitchers stack up now compared to that artice.

[SABR Matt]

I have not completed those changes yet, but I am close. I have programmers working on building me a new model as we speak that will combine play type analysis with trajectory analysis to produce a totally new kind of PBP metric. And believe me...I'm just as excited about these changes as anyone reading this would be...if not more so.

[STLCards2]

I have not completed those changes yet, but I am close. I have programmers working on building me a new model as we speak that will combine play type analysis with trajectory analysis to produce a totally new kind of PBP metric. And believe me...I'm just as excited about these changes as anyone reading this would be...if not more so.

Will your new model still focus on the how the pitcher's BABIP prevention compares to that of his teamates as has your previous work?

[SABR Matt]

Yes...the difference is that the old model used just event types (single, double, double play, HR etc)...this method will use a combined model wherein I track the rate that a pitcher allows groundball singles, flyball singles, line drive singles, bunt singles etc...all of the trajectory types combined with all of the ball in play event types...because each trajectory comes with a slightly different run value...plus doing trajectories gives the system more of a chance to pick up on where a team defense is weak relative to the league (say...their infielders aren't that rangey so gorundball pitchers are more likely to give up singles...but their outfielders are awsome so their overall single rate is pretty good because the outfielders are catching all of those bloopers and liners...I know examples of this happening).

[STLCards2]

Yes...the difference is that the old model used just event types (single, double, double play, HR etc)...this method will use a combined model wherein I track the rate that a pitcher allows groundball singles, flyball singles, line drive singles, bunt singles etc...all of the trajectory types combined with all of the ball in play event types...because each trajectory comes with a slightly different run value...plus doing trajectories gives the system more of a chance to pick up on where a team defense is weak relative to the league (say...their infielders aren't that rangey so gorundball pitchers are more likely to give up singles...but their outfielders are awsome so their overall single rate is pretty good because the outfielders are catching all of those bloopers and liners...I know examples of this happening).

As you and others have mentioned, despite most flyball pitchers typical having better BABIP and GB pitchers typicaly having worse BABIP, how will you factor in those GB pitchers who are better than average at BABIP and those FB pitchers who are worse than average at BABIP? It seems to me like thos guys who do the "opposite" from what is expected could look worse in this system than they are (Maddux, Lowe, Glavine, etc.). Maybe not - I might be missing something here.

Either way, I can't wait to see it! By the way, are you including any situationals stats as well? I know you aren't a huge fan, but have recently aknowledged that some sit. stats are relevent since some pitchers do pitch a lot different from the stretch.

[SABR Matt]

My new model will include two situational considerations:

1) Leverage Index - If a player is clutch in even a small way, I want to know that. LI is the perfect tool for looking to see if a pitcher (or a batter for that matter) hits differently when the game is on the line.

2) Stretch vs. Wind-Up (since there is a change in mechanics, a physical reason to look at the situation mandates that I do so).

Most other situations don't have a physical explanation for why said situation should produce different results and I therefore discount them as being relevant to the analysis unless someone can make a strong case for one I'm not considering.

As for your other question...a groundball pitcher who gives up a lower BABIP than normal will be looked at as a better than average pitcher by this system assuming his other relevant accomplishments are in line (the benefit of being a GB pitcher is that you usually give up fewer HR, fewer XBH and fewer run-producing or baserunner advancing outs and get more DPs...the cost is that your BABIP on grounders is usually higher and you get fewer Ks). A flyball pitcher whose BABIP is higher than normal is probably a bad pitcher (because not only is he giving up lots of hits...but more of them are likely to be for extra bases, more of them are clearing the wall, and he's giving up a lot of Sac Flies, baserunner advances, and the like while getting few DPs). Either way, the pitcher iwll be scored on his accomplishments relative to his team and to the league in the manner I have previously described without prejudice for his GB/FB tendencies (other than the differences revealed in the data itself).

[STLCards2]

My new model will include two situational considerations:

1) Leverage Index - If a player is clutch in even a small way, I want to know that. LI is the perfect tool for looking to see if a pitcher (or a batter for that matter) hits differently when the game is on the line.

2) Stretch vs. Wind-Up (since there is a change in mechanics, a physical reason to look at the situation mandates that I do so).

Most other situations don't have a physical explanation for why said situation should produce different results and I therefore discount them as being relevant to the analysis unless someone can make a strong case for one I'm not considering.

As for your other question...a groundball pitcher who gives up a lower BABIP than normal will be looked at as a better than average pitcher by this system assuming his other relevant accomplishments are in line (the benefit of being a GB pitcher is that you usually give up fewer HR, fewer XBH and fewer run-producing or baserunner advancing outs and get more DPs...the cost is that your BABIP on grounders is usually higher and you get fewer Ks). A flyball pitcher whose BABIP is higher than normal is probably a bad pitcher (because not only is he giving up lots of hits...but more of them are likely to be for extra bases, more of them are clearing the wall, and he's giving up a lot of Sac Flies, baserunner advances, and the like while getting few DPs). Either way, the pitcher iwll be scored on his accomplishments relative to his team and to the league in the manner I have previously described without prejudice for his GB/FB tendencies (other than the differences revealed in the data itself).


Thank you! That clears it up for me.

[The Kid]

Matt, do you have Nap Lajoie, Jimmy Collins, and Charles Comiskey's gold glove estimates? (seperately)

[SABR Matt]

Nap Lajoie's Defense:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1896 37 0.16 0.236
1B 1897 129 2.22 0.310
2B 1898 147 2.18 0.250
2B 1899 83 1.70 0.279
2B 1900 106 2.90 0.305
2B 1901 138 3.62 0.302
2B 1902 97 1.96 0.274
2B 1903 123 3.72 0.319 GG
2B 1904 142 3.17 0.288
2B 1905 68 1.10 0.256
2B 1906 159 5.46 0.348 GG
2B 1907 139 4.62 0.338 GG
2B 1908 158 6.47 0.364 GG
2B 1909 129 3.49 0.307 GG
2B 1910 156 3.32 0.281
1B 1911 76 1.36 0.293
2B 1912 115 2.34 0.281
2B 1913 121 4.50 0.348 GG
2B 1914 101 1.44 0.255
2B 1915 127 0.87 0.218
2B 1916 112 1.02 0.224

Jimmy Collins:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
3B 1895 110 1.03 0.252
3B 1896 90 2.08 0.335 GG
3B 1897 133 3.80 0.367 GG
3B 1898 152 4.17 0.360 GG
3B 1899 151 3.79 0.346 GG
3B 1900 142 3.90 0.360 GG
3B 1901 138 3.82 0.361 GG
3B 1902 108 2.67 0.344 GG
3B 1903 133 3.65 0.360 GG
3B 1904 157 3.29 0.322 GG
3B 1905 131 2.11 0.293
3B 1906 34 0.21 0.234
3B 1907 133 1.22 0.251
3B 1908 118 0.90 0.243

Charlie Comiskey

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1882 79 1.26 0.309
1B 1883 97 1.71 0.320
1B 1884 107 1.99 0.326 GG
1B 1885 81 1.18 0.300
1B 1886 132 2.04 0.301
1B 1887 123 2.28 0.324 GG
1B 1888 134 2.68 0.336 GG
1B 1889 134 2.15 0.310 GG
1B 1890 90 0.68 0.256
1B 1891 138 3.02 0.346 GG
1B 1892 141 0.72 0.240
1B 1893 63 0.40 0.248
1B 1894 55 0.35 0.248

[iPod]

My new model will include two situational considerations:

1) Leverage Index - If a player is clutch in even a small way, I want to know that. LI is the perfect tool for looking to see if a pitcher (or a batter for that matter) hits differently when the game is on the line.

2) Stretch vs. Wind-Up (since there is a change in mechanics, a physical reason to look at the situation mandates that I do so).


Excellent idea about the stretch vs windup comparison. Really interesting idea. The book on young pitchers is obviously that they are less comfortable in the stretch and can get into trouble with runners on base, but that after a while they are comfortable enough with both that it doesn't matter. I'd be extremely interested in seeing if that conventional wisdom pans out.

[Don Quixote]

SABR MATT:

The joy is in the journey ---
not the destination!

[Myankee4life]

Matt,

Many metrics are in agreement with Robinson Cano being one of the premier fielders in the game. How does PCA-BA see him defensively?

[SABR Matt]

Cano was average in 2005 by PCA (.272 PCA-BA), but as you probably know...he improved a great deal in 2006 and 2007 (I don't have data for those two seasons yet..working on that as we speak).

[Myankee4life]

Ok thanks.

BTW..What is your opinion on Mel Ott defensively?

[SABR Matt]

Mel Ott's defensive career by PCA:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1926 10 0.15 0.285
CF/RF 1927 23 0.17 0.240
RF 1928 107 0.89 0.248
RF 1929 149 2.31 0.279
RF 1930 145 2.19 0.278
RF/CF 1931 147 1.34 0.247
RF 1932 154 1.38 0.251
RF 1933 142 1.00 0.244
RF 1934 152 0.83 0.235
RF 1935 156 1.90 0.229
RF 1936 148 1.28 0.250
RF/3B 1937 147 0.42 0.218
3B/RF 1938 149 0.68 0.224
RF/3B 1939 114 0.53 0.230
RF/3B 1940 151 0.33 0.219
RF 1941 148 0.43 0.224
RF 1942 150 0.88 0.237
RF 1943 109 0.40 0.228
RF 1944 99 0.57 0.237
RF 1945 113 0.56 0.233
RF 1946 12 0.14 0.263

Career PCA-BA by Position:

RF (2126 EqG): .242
3B (253 EqG): .212

PCA is very much unimpressed with Ott's defense. He was truly horrific when it comes to fielding at third and barely better than the margin even in right field.

[Steffo]

I don't know if this has been asked; I really don't have the time to search through the 20 pages.

But is it possible for you to take johnny bench's career defensive wins with the pre-30s formula and place it side by side with his caught stealing stats formula? So we can compare the effectiveness of the formula without perfect data with one that has pretty good data?

[SABR Matt]

Hey Steffo...that hasn't been previously asked and even if it had, I should be the guy searching the 20 pages, not you. :)

First, here's Johnny Bench's defensive line:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
C 1967 25 0.53 0.321
C 1968 145 3.50 0.339 GG
C 1969 138 3.24 0.335 GG - PBP Era Begins Here
C 1970 141 3.21 0.335 GG
LF 1970 14 0.03 0.219
C 1971 146 1.62 0.268
C/RF 1972 148 2.89 0.322 GG
C/3B 1973 147 2.49 0.304
C/3B 1974 159 2.79 0.310 GG
C/OF 1975 140 3.38 0.346 GG
C 1976 120 2.62 0.327 GG
C 1977 129 1.39 0.265
C 1978 106 1.67 0.295
C 1979 120 1.29 0.264
C 1980 90 0.39 0.229
1B 1981 45 0.25 0.241
3B 1982 91 0.77 0.248
3B/1B 1983 70 0.59 0.252

Notice the early seasons of his career (1967-1968) are quite in line with the rest of his career. The PBP Era begins in 1969 as of this rendition of PCA...it now begins in 1957, so expect minor improvements in accuracy in those years in future releases of PCA. This is where catcher baserunning statistics appear in full including CS%.

Also notice the smooth career arc in defensive skill from his youth to his decline, interrupted only by the severe injury he suffered in 1970 that messed him up for most of the 1970/1971 seasons (some people say that injury prevented him from having a long career and may have stunted his offensive development). It seems like the approximations used prior to the PBP era do a pretty good job with Bench at least.

[Steffo]

Thanks!

The major problem with what you gave, though, is that only 2 seasons of Bench's career are represented, and they aren't really the most representative of his career. However, he surely shows and arc and his first two seasons really do seem to be about equal with his other peak defensive seasons, so I have to say the formulas are pretty darn close.

[538280]

Matt, I have a question. The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia has CS data for catchers going back to the start of the 20th century, including pre-1930s. Are you aware of this data, because it does exist. For instance Ray Schalk allowed 30% less SB per inning than the average catcher of his time, as shown in the encylopedia. And they show stolen bases and caught stealing allowed by each team in the team stats section as well.

[SABR Matt]

No...I was not aware of this data. Who the heck has it? Because it's not available anywhere online.

Perhaps they painstakingly reproduced CS/SB data from the official daily summary records...if so I need to see this data.

[538280]

No...I was not aware of this data. Who the heck has it? Because it's not available anywhere online.

Perhaps they painstakingly reproduced CS/SB data from the official daily summary records...if so I need to see this data.

I don't know of any place online either. You should pick up the ESPN Encyclopedia. The editors are Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette so the research was probably done by them. It says in the book that the individual catcher numbers were estimated based on team data. However it says that they do have definite data for opponents' SB and CS for every team 1890-1956.

[SABR Matt]

all i would need would be team data to make PCA work...I rate team positions and then divide credit based on a claim system among the players...I wouldn't need catcher specific data.

The only problem is...I would need to digitize their data or somehow get them to let me see it in digital form.

[Bozerg]

Matt I was wondering who you rank as the best relievers since 1969 and also the top 10 or so seasons of all time for a relief pitcher

[RuthMayBond]

Matt I was wondering who you rank as the best relievers since 1969 and also the top 10 or so seasons of all time for a relief pitcherGreat, I would love to see if we have any in common

[SABR Matt]

Top 10 relief seasons since 1957 by DNRA+ (minimum 150 Defense Independent Outs to qualify)

First Last Year Lg Team DIOuts DNRA+
Frank Williams 1986 NL SFN 153 414
Eric Gagne 2003 NL LAN 239 342
Mariano Rivera 1996 AL NYA 325 325
Mariano Rivera 2005 AL NYA 240 301
Fran. Rodriguez 2004 AL ANA 257 287
Dennis Eckersley 1990 AL OAK 215 282
Rob Murphy 1986 NL CIN 153 274
Ted Abernathy 1967 NL CIN 324 261
Tom Gordon 2004 AL NYA 267 261
J.J. Putz 2006 AL SEA 235 260

Top 10 seasons by DNRA-based Runs Created

First Last Year Lg Team DIOuts RC DNRA+
Mariano Rivera 1996 AL NYA 325 162.35 325
Fran. Rodriguez 2004 AL ANA 257 101.95 287
Eric Gagne 2003 NL LAN 239 101.74 342
Mariano Rivera 2005 AL NYA 240 94.93 301
Tom Gordon 2004 AL NYA 267 93.14 261
Ted Abernathy 1967 NL CIN 324 87.08 261
Todd Frohwirth 1991 AL BAL 291 80.96 241
Mariano Rivera 2001 AL NYA 241 78.18 253
Bruce Sutter 1977 NL CHN 319 77.43 222
Tim Burke 1987 NL MON 272 75.13 238

[Bozerg]

I was wondering if I could get a basic explanation of DNRA. For example in 2001 Mariano Rivera was fifth in the league in VORP among pitchers who made at least 50% relief appearances. What about DNRA favors Rivera that season over say Keith Foulke in 1999 or even 2001? I'm not doubting you I just don't have a basic understanding of DNRA or how it compares to statistics like VORP? Sorry for my obtuseness I just really want to understand this. In 2001 mariano rivera's VORP was the lowest of any year between 1999 and 2006 excluding 2002 during which he pitched only 46 innnigs. I was also wondering how WXRL might work for comparing reliever seasons/careers. Also thanks Matt for going back further than 1969 I just picked that as a relatively arbitrary date due to the inception of the save, which as i think about it probably isn't that relative to the best relief pitcher debate

[SABR Matt]

Here's the thread (I posted on it at a Mariners blog for which I write) in which I explain how DNRA is calculated.

http://detectovision.com/?p=803

Feel free to give it a read. The big difference between DNRA and VORP is that VORP is not DIPS compliant, while DNRA is...DIPS (defense independent pitching statistics) can't provide a full explanation of a pitcher's genious, but the basic idea that you must consider a pitcher's fielding team as a part of the context in which his success (or failure) occurred remains correct and DNRA takes a novel and IMHO logically sound route to incorporating that understanding.

[SABR Matt]

By the way...the runs created leaderboard is MARGINAL runs created (runs created above the .350 W% threshold).

Oh...also note that Keith Foulke might belong on that leaderboard in 1999, but I wouldn't know for sure because DNRA can't be found for 1999 because we don't have play by play data for that season yet...that's the only missing season from 1957 to 2006.

[Bozerg]

I wanted to see what made Rivera's 2001 stand out compared to other seasons, the defense that backed him up was terrible, Soriano and Jeter alone hurt the Yankees 36 runs below replacement level on defense (Baseball Prospectus) I'm new to finding data and don't have many resources the rest of the Yankees players I do have don't look too good Posada and Bernie Williams both at -4... I don't have data on O'Neill or Brosius. I suspect O'Neill was sub par while Brosius was league average or slightly above despite it being his final season but I don't have actual data here. The only bright spot I see is Tino Martinez at +9. The Prospectus I'm using was published in 2004 and has stats back to 2001. Anyhow there's probably more accurate data out there I just dno't have it or the tools to properly analyze it. By the way on a side note Foulke's VORP in 1999 was 51.2 highest in the league and 15 points higher than Rivera's highest between '99 and '06. I assumed a gap in VORP that big would translate to some degree to DNRA. I also assume Boston's defense was stronger than the Yankees during that span although probably not by too much. It's also worth noting that from '99 to '03 Foulke had a higher VORP every year than Rivera (They were close in 2000, 2001, and 2003 Foulke leading by 3-5 each of those years) (I assume this speaks to the superior defense of the Red Sox that DNRA ranks Rivera ahead of Foulke in these seasons) and while 2002 wasn't good for Foulke VORP wise (15th in the league) Rivera only had 46 IP and came in 45th in the league in VORP... Sorry I'm asking for so much, it'd also be interesting to see how DNRA compares Foulke and Rivera from 2000 to 2003 so i can get a rough sense of how much Jeter and company killed Yankee Pitching.

[SABR Matt]

Here are Foulke's DNRA lines and Rivera's for comparison:

Keith Foulke

Year Lg Team DIOuts MR DNRA2+
1997 AL CHA 87 8.60 127
1997 NL SFN 137 -1.64 65
1998 AL CHA 192 18.87 126
2000 AL CHA 259 50.92 174
2001 AL CHA 239 62.60 218
2002 AL CHA 229 35.14 159
2003 AL OAK 259 38.55 156
2004 AL BOS 250 42.54 165
2005 AL BOS 137 1.00 77

Mariano Rivera
Year Lg Team DIOuts MR DNRA2+
1995 AL NYA 204 7.27 92
1996 AL NYA 325 162.35 325
1997 AL NYA 218 27.04 141
1998 AL NYA 179 26.88 154
2000 AL NYA 229 51.38 188
2001 AL NYA 241 78.18 253
2002 AL NYA 140 29.26 190
2003 AL NYA 216 59.72 227
2004 AL NYA 238 74.85 243
2005 AL NYA 240 94.93 301

Foulke was an outstanding reliever. He was not, however, nearly as effective as Rivera despite the protestations of VORP. His career ERA+ of 140 is a far cry from Rivera's 197 and this is partially explained by Foulke's much higher HR rate and partially explained by his lesser ability to induce weak contact and therefore prevent hits on balls in play..

Mo Rivera's career TTO as a reliever (three true outcomes) line:

8.05 K/9
2.25 BB/9
0.39 HR/9

Keith Foulke's TTO:

8.28 K/9
2.16 BB/9
1.04 HR/9

Note that Foulke was around the strikezone a little more than Rivera and as a result he got a better control ratio and way more longballs. The HRs just KILL relief pitchers if they don't control them. Also note that Foulke's career BABIP (.263) is about the same as Rivera (.268), but yet, Rivera's H/9 is somewhat lower (7.18 for Mo, 7.43 for Foulke)..this despite the better defenses usually fielded by the ChiSox compared to the Yankees. I can only speculate at the moment that Rivera was better at producing GIDPs than Foulke, meaning fewer hits per inning while having a slightly higher BABIP.

The Yankee defense from 1999 onward was dreadful...one of the worst ongoing stretches of defensive ineptitude in major league history. Their terrible fielding has always been offset by Steinbrenner's ability to buy starters who excel in the three true outcomes until recently (and only by his own stupidity has he made Chien Ming Wang, Kei Igawa, Carl Pavano type pitchers the centerpieces of his pitching plans). Yankee pitching will look as much as a run worse than it actually is (per game) in the 21st century...this includes Rivera.

Bernie Williams is much worse than -4 runs even in 2001...Williams was last a competent center fielder back in 1999...he fell apart as he aged and his arm went from subpar to downright 9-year-old-girl-caliber while his range dropped from above average to horrid in the same period. By 2001 he was barely a marginal fielder and by 2004 he was costing the Yankees 10 or more runs against the margin (not average...the MARGIN) every year he stayed in center...at least...that's the result I get from PCA.

The whole Yankee outfield has been atrocious ever since Williams and O'Neil lost their zip and Steinvador forgot how to build a defense. That includes today's experiments with Johnny Damon (who hasn't been a good fielder since 2002), Bobby Abreu (who has NEVER been a good fielder), and Hideki Matsui (who is an average left fielder when healthy).

As good as Rivera's public record looks, it's being somewhat masked by the Yankees themselves. Rivera is the superior arm at first glance and the gap just gets wider the more you look at the in depth metrics.

[RuthMayBond]

Top 10 relief seasons since 1957 by DNRA+ (minimum 150 Defense Independent Outs to qualify)

First Last Year Lg Team DIOuts DNRA+
Frank Williams 1986 NL SFN 153 414
Eric Gagne 2003 NL LAN 239 342
Mariano Rivera 1996 AL NYA 325 325
Mariano Rivera 2005 AL NYA 240 301
Fran. Rodriguez 2004 AL ANA 257 287
Dennis Eckersley 1990 AL OAK 215 282
Rob Murphy 1986 NL CIN 153 274
Ted Abernathy 1967 NL CIN 324 261
Tom Gordon 2004 AL NYA 267 261
J.J. Putz 2006 AL SEA 235 260

Top 10 seasons by DNRA-based Runs Created

First Last Year Lg Team DIOuts RC DNRA+
Mariano Rivera 1996 AL NYA 325 162.35 325
Fran. Rodriguez 2004 AL ANA 257 101.95 287
Eric Gagne 2003 NL LAN 239 101.74 342
Mariano Rivera 2005 AL NYA 240 94.93 301
Tom Gordon 2004 AL NYA 267 93.14 261
Ted Abernathy 1967 NL CIN 324 87.08 261
Todd Frohwirth 1991 AL BAL 291 80.96 241
Mariano Rivera 2001 AL NYA 241 78.18 253
Bruce Sutter 1977 NL CHN 319 77.43 222
Tim Burke 1987 NL MON 272 75.13 238
Thanks, I picked up a few to add to my list. Kinda surprised the following didn't make it

Eichhorn '86
Kern '79
*Hiller '73
Hammond '02
Gossage '77 (or '75)
*Quisenberry '83
Corbett '80
Bob Lee '64 ...

[538280]

A question, Matt. How has Chien Ming Wang been able to be successful, especially if he had such a terrible defense behind him, and I agree that he does. Wang obviously almost never strikes guys out so he has to rely on the defense to turn balls in play into outs. With such a terrible defense how can he be successful? He doesn't walk many guys, but his walk rate isn't unbelieveable. He doesn't give up many home runs, which helps, but it's still hard to see how that can make up for the big lack of punchouts. Do you have Wang's DNRA data?

[Bozerg]

Here are Foulke's DNRA lines and Rivera's for comparison:[code]


Foulke was an outstanding reliever. He was not, however, nearly as effective as Rivera despite the protestations of VORP. His career ERA+ of 140 is a far cry from Rivera's 197 and this is partially explained by Foulke's much higher HR rate and partially explained by his lesser ability to induce weak contact and therefore prevent hits on balls in play..

Mo Rivera's career TTO as a reliever (three true outcomes) line:

8.05 K/9
2.25 BB/9
0.39 HR/9

Keith Foulke's TTO:

8.28 K/9
2.16 BB/9
1.04 HR/9




I assume Rivera is more effective due to his cutter (which I also assume is largely respnosible for the increased DP's and weak contact you mentioned). If I remember right Foulke wasn't dominant in the same way... He threw more pitches but his fastball topped out in the low 90's for example in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankee's the highest he hit on the gun was 87 mph and none of his pitches were as effective as the cutter. That said it's hard to argue that any reliever had a rougher 2004 ALCS than Rivera.

[Bozerg]

I don't think there's any debate that the NL East has the best shortstops in the majors. But I was wondering who you felt the best of the three (Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins, and Jose Reyes) was this year and who of the youunger two (Hanley and Jose) has the brighter career prospects. I hear loads of people all over baseball including General Managers saying that if they had to pick one young player to build a franchise around they'd pick Reyes (over people like Pujols, Santana, and Cabrera) much less Hanley Ramirez. (Sports Illustrated front office poll of major league baseball executives). I don't have any solid statistical data to back myself up but I think Ramirez has the better future as well as having much better career comparables. Compare Cristian Guzman, Jimmy Rollins, Bert Campaneris, Luis Aparacio (Reyes' comparables)... to Paul Molitor, Ryne Sandberg, and Barry Larkin (durable Hall of Famers). I recognize that Hanley is having a terrible defensive start to the year but at one time he was the highest rated defensive prospect in the Red Sox system, and while that's not saying as much as say being the best fielder in the leather happy Twins system of 2000 it should still say something. Plus Reyes' fielding last year was pretty terrible (-16) compared to Jeter's (-17). Anyhow just wanted your thoughts. What am I missing that everyone else seems to be getting loud and clear.

[SABR Matt]

Thanks, I picked up a few to add to my list. Kinda surprised the following didn't make it

Eichhorn '86 - 466 DIOuts, 104.99 MRC, 205 DNRA+
Kern '79 - 425 DIOuts, 83.11 MRC, 186 DNRA+
*Hiller '73 - 376 DIOuts, 70.60 MRC, 191 DNRA+
Hammond '02 - 225 DIOuts, 38.01 MRC, 225 DNRA+
Gossage '77 (or '75) - 383 DIOuts, 70.63 MRC, 183 DNRA+
*Quisenberry '83 - 413 DIOuts, 74.34 MRC, 181 DNRA+
Corbett '80 - 399 DIOuts, 65.81 MRC, 181 DNRA+
Bob Lee '64 - 405 DIOuts, 52.48 MRC, 158 DNRA+ ...

Wow...you named a lot of RP seasons that I missed due to the way I tried to search the DNRA file for relievers only (I limited the DIOuts to between 150 and 400, trying to eliminate the starters from the group...of course that's problematic because I know there are many relievers who got more innings than that in a season (more than 133). All good seasons in that lit...only two of them should make my top ten list (Eichhorn, '86, Kern '79).

As reliever seasons go, it doesn't get much more valuable than the 200+ innings thrown by Mike Marshall in 1974...that season was worth 606 DIOuts, but only 43.49 MRC and a DNRA+ of 119. So I guess innings aren't everything...nor is ERA+

[SABR Matt]

A question, Matt. How has Chien Ming Wang been able to be successful, especially if he had such a terrible defense behind him, and I agree that he does. Wang obviously almost never strikes guys out so he has to rely on the defense to turn balls in play into outs. With such a terrible defense how can he be successful? He doesn't walk many guys, but his walk rate isn't unbelieveable. He doesn't give up many home runs, which helps, but it's still hard to see how that can make up for the big lack of punchouts. Do you have Wang's DNRA data?

Wang induces way more double plays than he should given the Yankee defense, but despite his ERA seeming decent, there is every indication he will fold like a cheep tent in a hurricane before long. If he goes on to have a long and successful career, I will eat my hat. He needs to get Erickson like K/9 rates (above 5 at least) to sustain his current success. His DNRA+ is a good measure lower than his ERA+ in 2006 though.

[SABR Matt]

I assume Rivera is more effective due to his cutter (which I also assume is largely respnosible for the increased DP's and weak contact you mentioned). If I remember right Foulke wasn't dominant in the same way... He threw more pitches but his fastball topped out in the low 90's for example in the 2004 ALCS against the Yankee's the highest he hit on the gun was 87 mph and none of his pitches were as effective as the cutter. That said it's hard to argue that any reliever had a rougher 2004 ALCS than Rivera.

Yes, the cutter is the primary way in which Mo gets so many tappers back to the mound and broken bats. Foulke's batted balls were more typical...lots of crisp grounders and flyballs (and hence, a MUCH higher HR rate).

[The Kid]

Matt, do you have the PCA Gold Glove estimates for Stuffy McInnis?

[SABR Matt]

Here is McInnis's defensive career:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1909 17 0.24 0.252
SS 1910 15 0.20 0.245
1B 1911 110 1.55 0.281
1B 1912 153 2.54 0.313 GG
1B 1913 146 2.05 0.297 GG
1B 1914 150 2.05 0.295
1B 1915 119 -0.12 0.202
1B 1916 141 0.00 0.208
1B 1917 150 0.69 0.237
1B 1918 119 2.18 0.322 GG
1B 1919 119 0.87 0.254
1B 1920 148 1.56 0.275
1B 1921 151 3.29 0.346 GG
1B 1922 135 1.01 0.255
1B 1923 151 1.89 0.287
1B 1924 143 0.98 0.251
1B 1925 40 0.29 0.253
1B 1926 31 0.31 0.272

Does anyone have an explanation for why he had a three year period where he was downright awful back in the period between 1915 and 1917?

[AstrosFan]

Matt, can I get defensive PCA stats for Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra, as well as where they ranked in the league in those various stats, like PCA-BA and defensive wins?

[SABR Matt]

Just the league or all of baseball? I'll give you both for your reading pleasure.

Bill Dickey's defensive summary:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA W-Rk BA-Rk
C 1928 2 0.05 0.352 NA (NA) NA (NA)
C 1929 116 1.22 0.263 4 (2) 8 (4)
C 1930 87 0.47 0.235 10 (5) 13 (6)
C 1931 121 1.46 0.272 5 (3) 10 (6)
C 1932 105 0.63 0.238 12 (5) 13 (6)
C 1933 124 0.90 0.245 8 (4) 9 (4)
C 1934 100 0.81 0.250 7 (4) 12 (5)
C 1935 111 1.20 0.265 9 (5) 8 (5)
C 1936 103 1.04 0.261 7 (3) 10 (4)
C 1937 136 3.31 0.340 1 (1) 2 (1)
C 1938 121 1.46 0.272 3 (2) 4 (3)
C 1939 123 1.86 0.289 3 (2) 4 (2)
C 1940 97 1.26 0.277 6 (4) 7 (4)
C 1941 93 0.82 0.254 10 (5) 10 (5)
C 1942 71 1.81 0.346 2 (1) 1 (1)
C 1943 62 0.61 0.259 NA (NA) NA (NA)
C 1946 41 0.58 0.283 NA (NA) NA (NA)

Next post will have Berra's career.

[SABR Matt]

Yogi Berra's defensive career summary:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA W-Rk BA-Rk
C 1946 6 0.07 0.268 NA (NA) NA (NA)
C 1947 50 0.32 0.241 NA (NA) NA (NA)
C 1948 61 0.83 0.280 NA (NA) NA (NA)
C 1949 104 2.19 0.321 3 (2) 3 (2)
C 1950 144 1.51 0.263 5 (3) 8 (3)
C 1951 141 1.40 0.260 6 (2) 7 (3)
C 1952 141 0.91 0.241 10 (7) 13 (6)
C 1953 121 1.85 0.290 4 (1) 7 (4)
C 1954 139 1.99 0.284 4 (3) 6 (4)
C 1955 139 0.87 0.239 10 (5) 14 (7)
C 1956 132 1.48 0.267 3 (2) 5 (2)
C 1957 113 2.60 0.332 1 (1) 3 (2)
C 1958 89 1.38 0.291 5 (3) 5 (3)
C 1959 113 2.46 0.326 1 (1) 2 (1)

Hopefully that's helpful. Numbers in parens BTW represent league rank, first number is overall for that season.

[skyking162]

Mo Rivera's career TTO as a reliever (three true outcomes) line:

8.05 K/9
2.25 BB/9
0.39 HR/9

Keith Foulke's TTO:

8.28 K/9
2.16 BB/9
1.04 HR/9

Note that Foulke was around the strikezone a little more than Rivera and as a result he got a better control ratio and way more longballs. The HRs just KILL relief pitchers if they don't control them. Also note that Foulke's career BABIP (.263) is about the same as Rivera (.268), but yet, Rivera's H/9 is somewhat lower (7.18 for Mo, 7.43 for Foulke)..this despite the better defenses usually fielded by the ChiSox compared to the Yankees. I can only speculate at the moment that Rivera was better at producing GIDPs than Foulke, meaning fewer hits per inning while having a slightly higher BABIP.

Damn that's an impressive career HR rate for Rivera. His lower H/9 relative to Foulke is probably all due to his HR/9 being lower. HRs count as hits, too.

And Rivera in '96? Wow.

[AstrosFan]

Matt, thanks for your help. It looks like they're pretty even, who does the GI see as being the superior defender?

[SABR Matt]

Ah...good point SkyKing...forgot that HRs would factor into the hit rate but not the BABIP. :) Basically...Foulke got hit harder when he got hit even though he usually had slightly better fielders behind him than Rivera.

[SABR Matt]

AF, GI catching ranks:

First Last HOF Rank EqG Career Rate Mastery TOTAL Ps
Yogi Berra Y 23 1860 34.06 36.30 26.37 96.74 C
Bill Dickey Y 47 1613 27.30 33.69 18.54 79.53 C

Berra and Dickey are fairly similar in terms of scoring rates in the "typical Dickey and Berra catching season" but Berra had a better peak performance (because he didn't just have his two GG seasons, he also had several good years in his youth) and lasted longer, so he gets the edge. The rank gap looks big but the GI score gap is not that large.

[SABR Matt]

ChrisLDuncan requested info on the best five seasons for Morgan and Mays.

This is why PCA has to say about that. Here are Mays' seasons ranked in descending order of total wins created, broken down into offensive and defensive wins for his five best seasons:

Yr Lg Wins OWC DWC
1955 NL 19.98 15.66 4.32
1965 NL 19.55 13.80 5.75
1962 NL 18.19 13.42 4.77
1958 NL 18.11 14.14 3.97
1964 NL 17.46 13.25 4.21
1954 NL 17.21
1960 NL 16.89
1963 NL 15.78
1961 NL 15.36
1957 NL 15.33
1959 NL 14.67
1966 NL 14.22
1971 NL 13.00
1968 NL 12.52
1956 NL 10.60
1970 NL 9.15
1967 NL 8.35
1951 NL 7.04
1969 NL 6.16
1972 NL 3.99
1973 NL 2.25
1952 NL 1.83

Here are Morgan's

Yr Lg Wins OWC DWC
1975 NL 22.16 17.83 4.33
1973 NL 19.17 13.82 5.35
1974 NL 17.31 14.90 2.41
1972 NL 17.30 14.36 2.94
1976 NL 17.19 15.40 1.79
1971 NL 13.51
1977 NL 13.12
1982 NL 11.28
1965 NL 10.61
1970 NL 9.51
1967 NL 9.41
1969 NL 8.62
1979 NL 7.61
1983 NL 7.45
1966 NL 7.35
1980 NL 6.60
1978 NL 6.07
1981 NL 5.48
1984 AL 4.17
1968 NL 0.91
1963 NL 0.35
1964 NL 0.17

[skyking162]

Matt, can you give a rough estimate of how many wins a replacement-level player (74% of average offensive production, league-average fielding, more or less) is worth in your system over a full season? Somewhere around 5? Just trying to put a "19-win season" on a scale I'm more familiar with.

[ChrisLDuncan]

ChrisLDuncan requested info on the best five seasons for Morgan and Mays.

This is why PCA has to say about that. Here are Mays' seasons ranked in descending order of total wins created, broken down into offensive and defensive wins for his five best seasons:

Yr Lg Wins OWC DWC
1955 NL 19.98 15.66 4.32
1965 NL 19.55 13.80 5.75
1962 NL 18.19 13.42 4.77
1958 NL 18.11 14.14 3.97
1964 NL 17.46 13.25 4.21
1954 NL 17.21
1960 NL 16.89
1963 NL 15.78
1961 NL 15.36
1957 NL 15.33
1959 NL 14.67
1966 NL 14.22
1971 NL 13.00
1968 NL 12.52
1956 NL 10.60
1970 NL 9.15
1967 NL 8.35
1951 NL 7.04
1969 NL 6.16
1972 NL 3.99
1973 NL 2.25
1952 NL 1.83

Here are Morgan's

Yr Lg Wins OWC DWC
1975 NL 22.16 17.83 4.33
1973 NL 19.17 13.82 5.35
1974 NL 17.31 14.90 2.41
1972 NL 17.30 14.36 2.94
1976 NL 17.19 15.40 1.79
1971 NL 13.51
1977 NL 13.12
1982 NL 11.28
1965 NL 10.61
1970 NL 9.51
1967 NL 9.41
1969 NL 8.62
1979 NL 7.61
1983 NL 7.45
1966 NL 7.35
1980 NL 6.60
1978 NL 6.07
1981 NL 5.48
1984 AL 4.17
1968 NL 0.91
1963 NL 0.35
1964 NL 0.17

How is Morgan's 76 (.356 or something EqA 189 OPS+ both or which supplant Mays' career high) worse than Mays' best season?

[SABR Matt]

Matt, can you give a rough estimate of how many wins a replacement-level player (74% of average offensive production, league-average fielding, more or less) is worth in your system over a full season? Somewhere around 5? Just trying to put a "19-win season" on a scale I'm more familiar with.

My 0-win level is at around 58% of league average ((.250/.750)^(1/1.83) would give you an estimate of where it is). The average hitter gets 4.5 wins on offense and the average fielder gets between 1 and 2.7 wins depending on his position. A 74% player - (.350/.650)^(1/1.83) roughly - would be worth a win or so on offense...not much more than that (this BTW is assuming the hitter gets 650 PA and the fielder gets 162 Equivalent Games).

[SABR Matt]

How is Morgan's 76 (.356 or something EqA 189 OPS+ both or which supplant Mays' career high) worse than Mays' best season?

Morgan's 76 is only 0.26 wins short of Mays' best season (1955) offensively...the difference between the OPS+/EqA type measure of offensive production rate and PCA's win counts can be explained by playing time. Mays had 670 PA (and a PCA-BA of .375) in his best season. Morgan had only 599 PA (with a .390 PCA-BA BTW so PCA sees him as the more productive hitter per unit playing time).

[AstrosFan]

Matt, will you ever be incorporating PCA losses?

[SABR Matt]

Any wins not created are essentially losses...all you would accomplish by doing both wins and losses (separately) would be creating a system based on a baseline of average (.500) instead of the margin.

[baseballPAP]

Hiya Matt....I've been working on my pet defensive analysis project, and for comparison sake, could you give me the top 5 seasons for each position, in the AL from 1901-1920? If this is too much to ask for (it is quite a lot), whatever you can give is appreciated.

For my part, here is my own(broken down only as far as TEAMS...as far as I have gotten as of yet). I have tried to account for every factor I can without PBP data.
1B-1918 BoSox, 1906 Browns, 1915, 1912, 1917 BoSox
2B-1910 A's, 1908 Naps, 1909 A's, 1903 Naps, 1912 A's(3 Collins seasons, and 2 Lajoie)
3B-1916 Tigers, 1904 ChiSox, 1917 ChiSox, 1911 Browns, 1913 A's
SS-1913 ChiSox, 1912 Sens, 1914 Sens, 1911 ChiSox. 1915 Sens (3 years of George McBride, maybe the most surprising player highlighted so far)

I have also noticed:
Nap Lajoie probably WAS as good as his numbers
Pitchers were much more important defensively in this period than I realized
1B isn't as hard to quantify as I thought, but analyzing catchers is beyond me
A good firstbaseman can lift an entire defense
Honus Wagner is as good as advertised
There is a strong corelation between good teams and good defense. About 75% of the World Series reps were one of the top 3 defenses in their league. Teams that overperformed also were very strong in team BABIP for the season, implying luck is a big factors as well.

Thanks Matt.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Can you give me a run down of Jeff Bagwell's and Frank Thomas' careers by PCA?

[SABR Matt]

First I'll handle the easier question.

Here ya go Chris...here are Jeff Bagwell's offensive numbers first...then defensive numbers:

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1991 650 8.04 0.307
1992 697 7.96 0.301
1993 609 7.19 0.304
1994 479 12.57 0.393
1995 539 7.66 0.319
1996 719 14.51 0.356
1997 717 12.91 0.342
1998 661 10.07 0.325
1999 729 13.20 0.343
2000 719 9.71 0.314
2001 717 8.33 0.303
2002 691 8.24 0.305
2003 702 7.01 0.293
2004 679 5.75 0.283
2005 123 0.78 0.259

Bold indicates PCA Gold Glove

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1991 148 1.90 0.289
1992 157 2.25 0.299
1993 140 2.39 0.316
1994 105 2.47 0.356
1995 115 0.98 0.262
1996 160 1.65 0.273
1997 158 0.68 0.235
1998 143 1.89 0.292
1999 157 0.41 0.225
2000 155 1.38 0.265
2001 160 1.28 0.259
2002 152 1.04 0.252
2003 155 1.74 0.279
2004 146 0.62 0.235
2005 24 -0.19 0.191

Bagwell made his reputation as one of the great all-around players at first base in the first few years of his career. In actuality, he lost his well roundedness around the same time as he gained his power. I hate to throw dirt on Houston area legend's baseball grave, but the man is one of the most overrated men of the last thirty years. Especially defensively. Still a very good player...in the top 15 first basemen of all time to be sure..probably even the top 10.

Now...let's deal with the man who is catastrophically UNDERRATED by many. Mr. Frank Thomas.

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1990 240 6.34 0.394
1991 700 16.00 0.372
1992 711 17.11 0.379
1993 676 14.93 0.367
1994 517 14.37 0.402
1995 647 13.71 0.362
1996 649 14.05 0.365
1997 649 17.65 0.399
1998 712 7.93 0.300
1999 590 6.49 0.299
2000 707 13.57 0.349
2001 79 0.48 0.269
2002 628 6.23 0.292
2003 662 9.94 0.324
2004 311 6.80 0.366
2005 124 -0.09 0.202

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1990 48 0.17 0.230
1991 51 0.42 0.260
1992 157 0.33 0.222
1993 145 0.30 0.221
1994 99 0.10 0.215
1995 88 0.28 0.228
1996 136 0.84 0.247
1997 95 0.56 0.245
1998 13 0.10 0.256
1999 47 0.30 0.248
2000 30 0.40 0.291
2001 2 0.04 0.339
2002 5 0.04 0.257
2003 24 0.19 0.258
2004 4 0.04 0.273

Thomas was always a DH playing first base...when he played 1B that is. He rates as the third worst defensive first baseman of all time using a minimum of 800 EqG at the position (below him are Ryan Klesko in the 2 spot and Dr. Strangeglove in the cellar). But offensively, Thoomas was equal in value to Barry Bonds until the moment when Bonds decided to use steroids at the same time that age was destroying Thomas slowly but surely. Thomas aged the way Bonds should have.

Thomas is the only designated hitter who I think can argue his way past Edgar Martinez on the career DH leaderboard. He deserves more admiration than he gets.

I don't have 2006 or 2007 figures yet...sorry about that...but Thomas did return to being above average with the bat when healthy, despite a decaying K/BB and BABIP.

[SABR Matt]

Top five defensive seasons of all time at each position...

I actually gave top 20s for each some time ago so if you want more, you can go back through this enormous thread and try to find that...LOL I really need to organize this thread into subtopics and break it up.

Catchers:
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Brad Ausmus 2000 AL 143 4.81 0.391
Gary Carter 1982 NL 151 4.70 0.378
Ivan Rodriguez 1996 AL 138 4.59 0.389
Gary Carter 1983 NL 140 4.41 0.380
Tony Pena 1985 NL 143 4.39 0.375

First Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Keith Hernandez 1980 NL 155 4.10 0.375
John Olerud 1999 NL 155 4.08 0.374
Todd Helton 2004 NL 149 3.98 0.377
Pete O'Brien 1988 AL 148 3.94 0.376
Will Clark 1989 NL 154 3.86 0.366

Second Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Bobby Grich 1973 AL 158 7.26 0.386
Bobby Grich 1975 AL 148 6.77 0.385
Pokey Reese 1999 NL 141 6.66 0.392
lNap Lajoie 1908 AL 157 6.44 0.364
Bobby Lowe 1898 NL 145 6.32 0.376

Third Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Greg Nettles 1976 AL 159 4.75 0.375
Darrell Evans 1974 NL 161 4.75 0.372
Greg Nettles 1971 AL 162 4.73 0.370
Brooks Robinson 1968 AL 162 4.60 0.366
Buddy Bell 1983 AL 153 4.48 0.371

Shortstops
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Neifi Perez 2000 NL 160 7.45 0.395
Mike Bordick 1999 AL 154 6.52 0.376
Tony Fernandez 1985 AL 157 6.11 0.361
Everett Scott 1921 AL 154 6.04 0.362
Dave Bancroft 1922 NL 154 6.03 0.362

Left Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Rick. Henderson 1980 AL 152 5.18 0.383
Bernard Gilkey 1996 NL 147 4.71 0.372
Joe Vosmik 1932 AL 153 4.58 0.362
Warr. Cromartie 1978 NL 149 4.52 0.363
Luis Gonzalez 1993 NL 141 4.47 0.37

Center Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Andruw Jones 2001 NL 162 8.36 0.398
Andruw Jones 1998 NL 153 8.08 0.403
Andruw Jones 1999 NL 162 7.95 0.389
Andruw Jones 2000 NL 162 7.69 0.383
Paul Blair 1969 AL 153 7.65 0.392 (WOW!)

Right Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Dave Parker 1977 NL 157 6.43 0.391
Jesse Barfield 1985 AL 148 5.77 0.382
Jermaine Dye 1999 AL 155 5.74 0.374
Jose Cruz Jr. 2003 NL 157 5.69 0.370
Brian Jordan 2001 NL 142 5.61 0.385

[SABR Matt]

I have also noticed:
Nap Lajoie probably WAS as good as his numbers
Pitchers were much more important defensively in this period than I realized
1B isn't as hard to quantify as I thought, but analyzing catchers is beyond me
A good firstbaseman can lift an entire defense
Honus Wagner is as good as advertised
There is a strong corelation between good teams and good defense. About 75% of the World Series reps were one of the top 3 defenses in their league. Teams that overperformed also were very strong in team BABIP for the season, implying luck is a big factors as well.

Nap Lajoie had a great peak. When he decided to run his own defense and manage from the field, he demonstrated a level of intelligence that had not been seen in baseball. He was ALWAYS in good position to make the maximum number of plays he could without making the infield defense suffer for his gluttony. :) He made the other fielders on his team better. He was a great fielder even if you agree that he was getting a lot of the plays a shortstop normally would get.

Pitchers were integral parts of the infield defense and the running game back when bunts were king. That makes logical sense and is borne out in the PCA numbers. Pitchers took about 80% more wins from the pie than they do today.

As it turns out, my defensive rating for first basemen are among my most stable and logical. Defense at first base can and does help change the way the other infielders choose to play...mainly, a great fielding first baseman seems to make the other infielders more aggressive...thus improving "range" by increasing the odds that an infielder will throw the ball on a borderline play.

Honus Wagner is the second greatest fielding shortstop of all time by the defensive GI method with PCA. Behind only Ozzie Smith and just ahead of Mark Belanger. Yes...he is THAT good. :)

BTW, I just noticed that you wanted 1901-1920 only...so here are top fives for just that period

Catchers
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Frank Snyder 1915 NL 133 3.12 0.335
Ray Schalk 1916 AL 118 3.08 0.350
Red Dooin 1908 NL 127 2.87 0.330
Bill Rariden 1915 FL 142 2.86 0.317
Cy Perkins 1920 AL 134 2.81 0.321

1st Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Ed Konetchy 1915 FL 153 3.63 0.358
George Sisler 1920 AL 154 3.31 0.344
Charlie Grimm 1920 NL 146 3.26 0.349
Harry Davis 1905 AL 151 3.26 0.344
Tom Jones 1906 AL 142 3.18 0.349

2nd Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Nap Lajoie 1908 AL 157 6.44 0.364
Eddie Collins 1910 AL 153 6.29 0.365
Del Pratt 1916 AL 158 5.82 0.346
Johnny Evers 1907 NL 149 5.79 0.355
George Cutshaw 1915 NL 154 5.64 0.346

3rd Basemen
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Tommy Leach 1904 NL 149 4.01 0.357
Ossie Vitt 1916 AL 155 3.94 0.348
Jimmy Collins 1900 NL 142 3.90 0.360
Jimmy Collins 1901 AL 138 3.82 0.361
Hobe Ferris 1908 AL 150 3.67 0.343

Shortstops
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Rab. Maranville 1914 NL 157 5.63 0.347
Joe Tinker 1908 NL 158 5.49 0.342
Terry Turner 1906 AL 145 5.39 0.353
Joe Tinker 1905 NL 149 5.29 0.346
Joe Tinker 1906 NL 145 5.21 0.348

Left Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Fred Clarke 1909 NL 149 4.30 0.356
Jesse Burkett 1902 AL 140 4.15 0.360
Matty McIntyre 1908 AL 150 4.11 0.348
Jimmy Sheckard 1911 NL 155 4.08 0.343
Zach Wheat 1914 NL 144 4.02 0.351

Center Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Tris Speaker 1914 AL 154 6.47 0.363
Tris Speaker 1915 AL 151 6.20 0.359
Tris Speaker 1912 AL 154 6.19 0.356
Charlie Hanford 1914 FL 151 6.13 0.357
Tris Speaker 1913 AL 145 5.97 0.359 (WOW AGAIN!)

Right Fielders
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Harry Hooper 1915 AL 148 5.03 0.360
Ty Cobb 1907 AL 150 5.01 0.358
Chief Wilson 1914 NL 152 4.70 0.347
Chief Wilson 1911 NL 145 4.63 0.352
Billy Maloney 1905 NL 140 4.60 0.356

Pitchers
PlayerID Yr Lg PT Wins PCA-BA
Ed Walsh 1907 AL 57 1.23 0.364
Ed Walsh 1911 AL 56 1.07 0.347
Ed Walsh 1908 AL 54 1.04 0.348
Joe McGinnity 1904 NL 49 1.01 0.357
Chr. Mathewson 1904 NL 45 0.92 0.356

[baseballPAP]

Many thanks Matt.....nice to have something to compare my results so far to!

The tops seasons you have may not match up exactly, but I do have every one of those seasons as being at least GG caliber. I must be doing something right :)

[SABR Matt]

Note...that list is ranked by best individual player performance (most PCA-Wins)...I could produce a different list that's ranked by best team performance (and since game counts are essentially all equal, I would rank that by PCA-BA) and you would get a different list. For example, Honus Wagner's teams do better at short than Wagner himself because sometimes he played other positions if his team needed it.

Unfortunately, I stupidly did not include the team variable when creating my normalized PCA database, which makes creating such a list hard to do.

[SABR Matt]

Here's a little experiment. I had to go back and grab team data from my non-normalized tables so there are some slightly-off game counts caused by a tiny bit of double-counting players who only played part-time and did so for multiple teams at the same position in the same league and happened to get the same number of equivalent games at each stop. But here are the top 25 teams at each position from 1901-1920.

Catchers
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1909 PHA 153 4.44
1920 BSN 153 4.37
1916 CHA 155 4.06
1907 PHI 149 3.96
1907 PHA 150 3.94
1904 BOS 157 3.89
1905 WS1 154 3.88
1901 BOS 138 3.87
1908 BOS 155 3.85
1910 PHA 155 3.81
1914 NYA 157 3.80
1910 BRO 156 3.77
1903 BOS 141 3.72
1915 SLN 157 3.68
1912 WS1 153 3.68
1911 WS1 154 3.65
1902 PHA 137 3.62
1919 WS1 143 3.61
1916 SLN 152 3.61
1914 BSN 158 3.61
1908 BRO 154 3.56
1915 WS1 155 3.54
1909 BRO 155 3.53
1908 PHI 155 3.50
1904 CIN 157 3.43

1st Basemen
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1915 PTF 156 3.70
1914 SLN 156 3.61
1909 NY1 158 3.56
1920 PIT 155 3.46
1906 SLA 154 3.45
1912 CHA 157 3.43
1920 SLA 154 3.31
1905 PHA 152 3.29
1902 PIT 143 3.21
1916 BSN 158 3.17
1911 NYA 153 3.14
1913 BRO 152 3.12
1909 CHA 160 3.12
1908 CLE 157 3.11
1914 BUF 155 3.04
1917 SLN 154 3.03
1914 WS1 158 3.02
1907 BOS 155 2.96
1908 CIN 155 2.95
1909 DET 158 2.94
1919 PIT 138 2.92
1911 SLN 158 2.91
1905 BSN 157 2.89
1910 BRO 156 2.86
1917 BOS 157 2.85

2nd Basemen
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1908 CLE 157 6.44
1910 PHA 155 6.38
1907 CHN 155 6.07
1906 CLE 157 5.86
1915 PTF 156 5.84
1916 SLA 158 5.82
1913 CLE 155 5.80
1920 BRO 154 5.73
1910 BSN 157 5.70
1915 BRO 154 5.64
1914 NYA 157 5.63
1904 CHN 156 5.63
1905 CHN 155 5.62
1915 NYA 153 5.60
1907 CLE 158 5.56
1919 NYA 141 5.51
1917 SLN 154 5.51
1914 BUF 154 5.48
1917 CLE 156 5.33
1903 PIT 141 5.29
1909 CIN 157 5.28
1906 CHN 155 5.09
1912 PHA 153 5.07
1919 CIN 140 5.05
1908 PHI 155 5.04

3rd Basemen
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1904 PIT 156 4.17
1916 DET 155 3.94
1912 NY1 154 3.88
1913 NY1 156 3.88
1906 CHA 154 3.87
1903 BOS 141 3.86
1916 CHN 156 3.85
1901 BOS 138 3.82
1908 SLA 155 3.81
1914 IND 157 3.81
1914 BRO 154 3.76
1915 DET 156 3.71
1914 PHA 158 3.58
1917 NYA 155 3.57
1915 SLF 159 3.57
1911 CHN 158 3.48
1909 CHN 155 3.46
1911 DET 155 3.44
1906 NY1 153 3.43
1909 NYA 153 3.43
1905 CHA 158 3.43
1915 CIN 160 3.40
1910 PHA 155 3.40
1910 CHN 154 3.40
1902 BOS 138 3.39

Shortstops
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1906 CLE 158 5.87
1911 CHA 154 5.76
1916 SLA 158 5.71
1920 NY1 155 5.68
1914 BSN 158 5.67
1919 NYA 141 5.65
1906 CHN 155 5.58
1905 CHN 155 5.52
1919 NY1 139 5.49
1908 CHN 158 5.49
1907 CHN 154 5.48
1914 CHF 155 5.45
1905 CHA 159 5.42
1904 CHA 157 5.37
1912 WS1 154 5.35
1913 CHA 154 5.34
1912 PIT 152 5.32
1917 BOS 158 5.26
1909 CHA 159 5.23
1913 PHI 159 5.22
1910 DET 155 5.20
1915 CIN 160 5.19
1915 SLF 159 5.19
1917 NY1 158 5.18
1914 DET 157 5.11

Left Fielders
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1907 DET 153 4.53
1905 DET 154 4.43
1909 PIT 154 4.43
1906 NYA 155 4.38
1914 BRO 154 4.34
1917 BRO 155 4.26
1920 NY1 155 4.23
1908 DET 154 4.20
1912 CHN 152 4.20
1911 CHN 157 4.16
1902 SLA 140 4.15
1916 BRO 156 4.02
1904 CIN 157 4.00
1905 PHI 155 3.84
1916 WS1 159 3.82
1906 CHN 155 3.80
1907 PHI 149 3.80
1919 PIT 139 3.76
1908 PIT 155 3.74
1912 BOS 154 3.74
1904 DET 162 3.63
1915 BRO 154 3.63
1903 BRO 139 3.61
1915 WS1 155 3.61
1917 WS1 157 3.56

Center Fielders
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1914 BOS 159 6.68
1913 PHI 159 6.60
1904 CIN 157 6.56
1915 BOS 155 6.34
1914 BUF 155 6.26
1913 BOS 151 6.22
1912 BOS 154 6.19
1916 PIT 157 6.17
1909 BOS 152 5.92
1917 CHA 156 5.83
1910 BOS 159 5.80
1917 PIT 157 5.78
1908 CLE 156 5.74
1905 PHI 155 5.74
1911 PIT 155 5.66
1911 DET 154 5.61
1915 CHF 155 5.52
1901 DET 136 5.47
1914 BSN 158 5.47
1901 BSN 141 5.46
1916 WS1 159 5.36
1906 CIN 155 5.33
1905 WS1 154 5.30
1910 PIT 154 5.23
1920 BRO 154 5.04

Right Fielders
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1912 CLE 155 5.31
1915 BOS 155 5.28
1908 SLA 155 5.24
1904 CIN 158 5.12
1905 PHA 152 5.11
1905 CHN 155 5.11
1907 DET 153 5.09
1914 BOS 159 5.06
1907 CIN 160 5.05
1911 PIT 155 4.99
1913 NY1 156 4.92
1914 SLN 157 4.85
1912 NY1 154 4.79
1901 BLA 135 4.71
1906 SLA 154 4.71
1902 PHA 137 4.69
1916 BRO 156 4.69
1917 BRO 156 4.66
1910 BOS 158 4.59
1904 CHA 157 4.57
1916 CHA 155 4.50
1920 PIT 155 4.49
1901 PHI 140 4.47
1909 DET 158 4.47
1906 CHN 155 4.45

Pitchers
Yr Tm EqG Wins
1907 CHA 158 3.38
1904 NY1 158 3.26
1917 BOS 157 3.16
1906 CHN 156 3.14
1905 NY1 154 3.12
1915 DET 156 3.10
1910 CHA 157 3.05
1912 PIT 151 3.04
1908 CHA 156 3.02
1911 NY1 154 2.92
1915 KCF 153 2.89
1905 CHA 157 2.87
1913 PHI 159 2.86
1920 BRO 155 2.84
1909 CHN 157 2.82
1911 CHA 154 2.82
1909 CHA 159 2.81
1908 NY1 157 2.81
1914 CHA 158 2.79
1915 PHI 153 2.79
1918 CHN 131 2.75
1912 BOS 155 2.74
1914 BUF 155 2.69
1920 DET 157 2.68
1906 CHA 154 2.67

It actually worked pretty well (the query by team)...and that will give you more of an idea how PCA compares to your research.

[AstrosFan]

Not a request, just a question. On the George Sisler thread, some of us speculated that the value of the first baseman defensively may have been a lot greater than it is today, perhaps as high as the modern third baseman. Does PCA show any statistical evidence toward this? Thanks in advance, Matt.

[SABR Matt]

Well, the entire INFIELD had more defensive value in Sisler's day. Infield defense was something like 64% of the pie back in the deadball era, whereas nowadays, it's cloer to 50%. It wasn't just that first basemen had more value...all of the positions did (on the infield). PCA shows no evidence that first basemen were worth more relative to the infield unit itself...but yes, the win scoring rates have changed.

Modern 1B score an average of 1.4 W/162 EqG
Modern 3B score an average of 1.8 W/162 EqG
Deadball 1B scored an average of 1.7 W/162 EqG
Deadball 3B scored an average of 2.0 W/162 EqG

Rounded to the nearest 0.1 W of course.

One should also note that these are non-normalized values. The PCA values you'll see me quote throughout this thread are normalized to correct for these kinds of era biases...the average scoring rate of adjusted wins is a constant through time as is the standard deviation.

[AstrosFan]

Era biases? I don't see what the problem is with giving a player more credit if the position he played was more important defensively in his day than in the modern era. I expect the importance of infield defense in Sisler's day is tied to the amount of bunting going on back then. With more bunting going on, there was more responsibility given to the infield. It seems to me that if you have two players doing their job at equal effectiveness, in equal playing time, but the second player was given more responsibility, he should be given more credit than the first.

[SABR Matt]

No, see...I thought that for a long time too, but comparing George Sisler to other first basemen requires an honest assessment of what he did that the other first basemen wouldn't have done if put in his place. It's an era bias because Sisler showed no particular skill just by being at a position that was more involved.

If your interest is merely in determining raw value, then no, you don't normalize to account for era biases...but my interest it to use my evaluations of raw value to assess how great a player was and more importantly down the road assess how great the next group of players will be. Sisler isn't greater than (say) Keith Hernandez simply because he got more chances to make the plays.

[AstrosFan]

So are you attempting to assess skill or value? If you're going for the former, then I would agree with you. But if you're trying to measure the impact of a player on his team, then I think the added responsibility should be taken into account.

[SABR Matt]

Short answer: BOTH!

Long answer: First I assess value (and PCA does give Sisler more credit than your typical gold glover in 1995 would get), then I adjust away as many contextual biases as possible so that I may also assess skill.

[baseballPAP]

Thanks for the added lookup Matt....exactly what it is I was looking for! Looking it over quickly, of your top 25 2Bmen, 19 were in my top 25(I didn't include the FL) and 2 were not rated. The others were also good seasons, just outside my top 25. Now I'm certain I'm off to a good start.

My major outlier at this point is George Sisler's 1920 season, which is somehow showing a little BELOW average. I'm looking for a mistake I may have made, but nothing so far.

[Ghost of Hans]

I was looking at some excerpts from The Fielding Bible and noticed that the plus/minus system rates Chipper Jones as a slightly above average third baseman (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/three-years-register-third-basemen3.gif) for the 2004-2005 seasons. On the other hand, your metric gives Chipper a .212 and .199 PCA-BA (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=30337&page=17) for those years. Most metrics agree with yours, ranking Chipper as a consistently awful third sacker.

I wonder if there are any biases working for or against Chipper?

[SABR Matt]

Visually, Jones looks TERRIBLE ion the field. And there's no logical reason why he should stink up the joint for years and then become good in his twilight. If there are biases working against Jones...I have a hard time seeing what they'd be...I'm curious if you have any ideas what I might be missing.

[RuthMayBond]

Visually, Jones looks TERRIBLE ion the field. And there's no logical reason why he should stink up the joint for years and then become good in his twilight.See
Jeter, Derek

[Ghost of Hans]

Visually, Jones looks TERRIBLE ion the field. And there's no logical reason why he should stink up the joint for years and then become good in his twilight. If there are biases working against Jones...I have a hard time seeing what they'd be...I'm curious if you have any ideas what I might be missing.

Actually, I haven't seen much of him lately, but I recall "prime" Chipper and he definitely did have untapped athletic ability. He cultivated bad habits such as looking at the outfield as he was rounding second, but had enough raw speed and acceleration to swipe 20+ bags in his youth. On defense, he played the perfect matador....but I never got the impression that Chipper didn't have the tools.

Of course, his athleticism is gone.

Still, the plus/minus system is based on visual evidence, so that's why I'm surprised by the conclusion it draws.

[SABR Matt]

Ultimately, I think the +/- system is flawed to its' very core. It's another in a long line of zone based metrics and the Atlanta Braves are famous for breaking those systems by doing a good job of combining the pitcher's game plan with the pre-play positioning of their infielders. I think team-based defensive metrics will do a better job of telling you how good an Atlanta Braves fielder is than zone metrics...and I still think no fielding metric is going to be tolerable until it combines the power of PBP analysis with the logical correctness of top-down team-based analysis (which is why I'm working in that direction as we speak).

[Ghost of Hans]

Ultimately, I think the +/- system is flawed to its' very core. It's another in a long line of zone based metrics and the Atlanta Braves are famous for breaking those systems by doing a good job of combining the pitcher's game plan with the pre-play positioning of their infielders. I think team-based defensive metrics will do a better job of telling you how good an Atlanta Braves fielder is than zone metrics...and I still think no fielding metric is going to be tolerable until it combines the power of PBP analysis with the logical correctness of top-down team-based analysis (which is why I'm working in that direction as we speak).

Are you saying that pitchers who allow plenty of balls to low percentage zones will inflate the numbers for well-positioned fielders because these plays are weighted higher than plays in higher percentage zones? I'm confused.

Of course, the Brave staff in 2004-2005 has struggled with its control relative to the 90's staffs (they finished in the middle of the pack for unintentional walks if I'm not mistaken), so I wonder if positioning helped Chipper very much during those years anyway.

Would be interesting to study whether teams featuring control pitchers outperform other teams under plus/minus except for the fact that the quality of a team's defense interacts with the pitchers' control.

[SABR Matt]

In a sense, yes, that's what I'm saying. +/- uses a static zone method and Chipper Jones doesn't play in the standard zones all the time. I've watched enough Braves games to know that the Braves like to play shifts and fielding clusters a lot based on what their pitchers are trying to do. They don't have the fine control they used to, but they're still run a very smart defensive scheme over there...there's a reason so many of their control-type pitchers out-performed expectations over the years.

[Ghost of Hans]

In a sense, yes, that's what I'm saying. +/- uses a static zone method and Chipper Jones doesn't play in the standard zones all the time. I've watched enough Braves games to know that the Braves like to play shifts and fielding clusters a lot based on what their pitchers are trying to do.

The Braves do very well as a team under the plus/minus sytem, so this very well might be a source of bias. I wonder if this holds for other teams.

[SABR Matt]

when I get to finishing PBP defensive analysis on other squads, I think you'll find it held true for Lou Piniella's Mariners and Earl Weaver's Orioles. Some managers have a better feel for defensive positioning than others.

[STLCards2]

In a sense, yes, that's what I'm saying. +/- uses a static zone method and Chipper Jones doesn't play in the standard zones all the time. I've watched enough Braves games to know that the Braves like to play shifts and fielding clusters a lot based on what their pitchers are trying to do. They don't have the fine control they used to, but they're still run a very smart defensive scheme over there...there's a reason so many of their control-type pitchers out-performed expectations over the years.

Lets say Glavine causes a well above normal amount of righty hitters to hit opposite field year after year, which is true. Look at where all of his outs have gone-more to second than third, way more to right than left, etc. If the Braves defense shifts towards 1st base, shouldn't Glavine be given some credit at least, instead of all of the credit be given to his defense? He doesn't have to throw the ball in those location after all.

I know that Glavine os given BABIP credit beyond how his defense helps him, but should some of the "defense" prevented BABIP be partialy his too? If the fileders know the ball is more likely to be hit on that side, and they are always in position, coudn't that slightly skew how "good" their defensive abilities are.

[SABR Matt]

STLCards2...the beauty of DNRA is that it does that automatically. If Glavine causes the Braves to be able to shift predictably and get more outs that way because of his consistency, then the BABIP for Glavine should be lower than the average Brave and the difference will get credited to Glavine.

[STLCards2]

STLCards2...the beauty of DNRA is that it does that automatically. If Glavine causes the Braves to be able to shift predictably and get more outs that way because of his consistency, then the BABIP for Glavine should be lower than the average Brave and the difference will get credited to Glavine.

Gotcha! I am a huge fan of DNRA and have touted it to others I know. I hope to see it published soon! I'd like to think (in my own crazy head) that our lengthy debate a few years ago helped contribute (if even slightly) to DNRA.

Just for rememberance, you have Glavine's DNRA at 114, but that doesn't include runs prevented for situational stats, correct? How do you factor in a pitcher's hitting? Would you ever consider throwing in offensive production into DNRA to get a bigger picture of a pitcher's contributions. Glavine, for example has created 30 runs above average.

[SABR Matt]

Glavine being an outstanding hitter (as pitchers go) would show up in his PCA totals...DNRA is the pitching componant to the planned new release of PCA for modern players (post 1957)...it will also help divide between fielding and pitching credit in the PBP era. Hitting is dealt with when I break down each player's offensive contribution, but that difference would indeed surely show up when comparing the "whole pitcher" between a guy like GLavine and a guy like Moyer (who never hit well when he was hitting).

You are correct that DNRA+ for Glavine's career is 114 without a situational analysis...I think the only situational analysis I'm particularly interested in is the one that can actually impact the pitcher's gameplan and mechanics...and that would be runners on vs. bases empty...or more precisely, throwing from the stretch vs. throwing from the wind-up.

Glavine's 114 career DNRA+ makes him approximately the sixth highest-DNRA lefty starter since 1957, which is a pretty good credential for the HOF.

[Ghost of Hans]

Could I please get the offensive and defensive PCA-BAs for J. D. Drew? Thanks.

One more question about Chipper -- any reason for the weird fluctuations in his LF PCA defensive rankings (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=30337&page=17)? He started out well, tanked, and then was doing great by your metric before the hamstring injury.....perhaps his mind really does start to wander in the outfield. :confused:

[SABR Matt]

Re: Chipper...I suspect what you're seeing there is small sample noise. He didn't play a huge number of games in left field in any of those seasons except I think one...like any stat, the more games you have...the bigger the sample and the better the metric is going to be at presenting a good picture. Chipper's "good" periods might have been partially because he shared left field with other Braves who didn't suck nearly as badly as he did.

Now...J.D.Drew:

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1998 41 1.17 0.408
1999 430 3.10 0.276
2000 486 4.46 0.288
2001 443 8.03 0.343
2002 496 4.50 0.287
2003 328 3.27 0.293
2004 645 11.78 0.344
2005 311 5.02 0.329

Defense
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF/RF 1998 9 0.14 0.289
CF 1999 94 1.12 0.252
OF 2000 116 1.21 0.257
RF/CF 2001 106 1.30 0.263
RF 2002 101 1.75 0.288
RF/CF 2003 62 1.16 0.294
RF 2004 142 4.86 0.360
RF/CF 2005 70 1.49 0.311

[Ghost of Hans]

Thanks for the numbers, Matt.

One question: do you find that immobile runners tend to score much fewer runs than their lineup position, run environment, and OBPs predict? I'm talking about cases like Barry Bonds getting on base 60% of the time and not even leading the league in runs scored (or even scoring a particularly huge amount of runs for that matter). Mark McGwire is another example.

[SABR Matt]

Bonds wasn't that immobile though...he stole like 20 bases in some of those years. His problem was that the guys hitting behind him sucked. A lot.

But yes, fast runners score runs at a somewhat higher pace than expected given their line-ups and slow runners score runs at a somewhat slower pace than their line-ups would suggest.

I did a test once to measure run scoring efficiency relative to the team's run scoring efficiency and the guys on the bottom were Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza types while Ichiro, Jeter etc were on top.

[Ghost of Hans]

But yes, fast runners score runs at a somewhat higher pace than expected given their line-ups and slow runners score runs at a somewhat slower pace than their line-ups would suggest.

I did a test once to measure run scoring efficiency relative to the team's run scoring efficiency and the guys on the bottom were Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza types while Ichiro, Jeter etc were on top.

Do you find yourself giving an extra "speed bonus" in your metric?

Most studies conclude that baserunning ability doesn't lead to many runs, and yet the speedburners with low OBP% often score as many runs as high OBP% slugs, even after adjusting for lineup position and other factors. I think many metrics underrate speed. For example, homers get double-counted as runs scored and RBIs in trad stats, and this makes the McGwires and Thomases look more productive than they really are. Meanwhile, some of the more sophisticated measures only use stolen bases in their speed metrics. Does your method consider the probability that a certain runner will score from second on a single, etc.? Run efficiency (runs scored per times on base) seems worth tracking even with the noise associated with different lineups, parks, and leagues.

[SABR Matt]

PCA in its' current form overrates the value of a stolen base compared to other PBP metrics. I didn't do that intentionally, but the result may actually be beneficial on the larger scale because I didn't have the data when I created PCA to make any conclusions about the other things speedier players do to create runs so it might act as a counter-balance.

When PCA gets re-done (I'm working on fixing the FSIA Matrix first...once that's done, expect new results from the play by play era very quickly), baserunning skill will be much more than stolen bases...it will factor in how well players did taking extra bases that don't go into the traditional score card.

[Ghost of Hans]

Thanks for your answer.

Many people think that the basic stats account for a player's speed and nothing else is needed. I've always been skeptical. Heck, just look at the runs scored vs RBI for offensive-oriented catchers; I'll bet you see a larger separation for catchers than for equally competent batters at other positions.

[SABR Matt]

That's partially because catchers...even good hitters...tend to hit lower in the order.

My study basically took team run scored per baserunner and each player's run scored per time on base, took out the home runs from both...and compared the two. Line-up position wasn't factored out because the data I had didn't include line-up position, but it gives a rough idea.

[Ghost of Hans]

I have a feeling both have been done before, but would you mind doing the offensive and defensive PCAs for Albert Belle and Jackie Robinson? I remember James's essay about Robinson's surprising defensive rating under Win Shares, and I'm curious if your system agrees.

[SABR Matt]

Here's Albert Belle (who I don't think has been done actually):

Defense
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
RF 1989 27 0.80 0.342
LF 1989 13 0.21 0.292
LF 1991 71 1.12 0.289
LF 1992 43 0.40 0.256
LF 1993 149 2.51 0.294
LF 1994 105 1.43 0.278
LF 1995 137 1.71 0.272
LF 1996 149 2.76 0.303
LF 1997 151 1.96 0.275
LF 1998 156 1.22 0.248
RF 1999 149 1.28 0.249
RF 2000 99 0.88 0.251

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1989 234 0.30 0.239
1990 25 -0.22 0.176
1991 496 5.47 0.299
1992 650 5.48 0.283
1993 693 10.29 0.323
1994 480 11.64 0.381
1995 629 12.58 0.354
1996 715 10.33 0.320
1997 701 5.04 0.275
1998 706 15.66 0.368
1999 722 9.01 0.308
2000 622 4.24 0.273

It is interesting to note that despite his reputation as a hulking slugger, Belle was surprisingly adept defensively. As long as he stayed healthy, he made for an outstanding two-way player. The degenerating hip was probably caused by steroid abuse or something similar, so it's a shame that Belle blew up the end of his own career or he could have been a hall of famer.

Here's Jackie Robinson:

Defense
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1947 149 1.35 0.266
2B 1948 142 3.61 0.302
2B 1949 156 3.69 0.289
2B 1950 134 3.71 0.306
2B 1951 141 4.47 0.324
2B 1952 137 4.64 0.333
LF/3B 1953 126 2.54 0.315
LF/3B 1954 101 1.23 0.271
3B 1955 81 2.07 0.352
3B 1956 92 2.54 0.359

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1947 701 7.18 0.294
1948 646 7.37 0.301
1949 704 14.04 0.354
1950 613 8.68 0.318
1951 642 12.73 0.353
1952 636 10.70 0.335
1953 574 7.17 0.308
1954 465 5.26 0.301
1955 390 2.77 0.275
1956 431 4.22 0.291

Robinson was good wherever you put him defensively. He had a really nice stretch at second base in his prime...I'm not sure why he was moved off of his primary position.

[Railsplitter]

Hi just stumbled across PCA today, so I'm a bit new to it. Plus, this is my first post on Baseball Fever. I'm intrigued by PCA as I am with Win Shares, VoRP and other statistical rating systems.

Is there a database or book of this PCA information available now or in the near future? Thanks

[Ghost of Hans]

Thanks for the info. Yeah, I always wonder why Robinson was moved off Second.....but he apparently played a great Third.

What about defensive PCAs for Darin Erstad and Raul Mondesi?

[SABR Matt]

Hi Railsplitter! Welcome to Fever...glad you could join us. :)

Unfortunately, PCA has not been made publicly available yet. I have in the past run into the limitation of not being a good enough web designer to post it myself and perhaps not marketing it aggressively enough to those who are. :)

I am also in the process of updating PCA with better information from the play by play database among other new sources as well as improving the methods used to calculate PCA win data.

I'm hoping some day soon to get my information published through Baseball Reference or THT or one of the other big statistical warehouses.

[SABR Matt]

To GoH:

Here's Raul Mondesi...

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1993 13 0.23 0.299
CF 1993 3 0.06 0.278
RF 1993 13 0.03 0.222
CF 1994 11 0.12 0.249
RF 1994 102 0.6 0.237
RF 1995 117 2.09 0.29
CF 1995 28 -0.11 0.194
RF 1996 154 4.05 0.327
RF 1997 157 3.20 0.301
RF 1998 61 0.43 0.242
CF 1998 88 0.86 0.244
RF 1999 152 1.86 0.265
RF 2000 96 1.14 0.264
RF 2001 142 1.27 0.251
RF 2002 53 0.51 0.254
RF 2002 60 0.46 0.245
CF 2002 10 0.08 0.239
RF 2003 44 0.39 0.250
CF 2003 3 0.05 0.268
RF 2003 99 1.36 0.272
LF 2004 13 0.11 0.250
CF 2004 8 0.05 0.229
RF 2004 14 0.07 0.234
RF 2005 36 0.29 0.240

Career totals per position:

LF TOTAL 26 0.34 0.275
CF TOTAL 151 1.11 0.239
RF TOTAL 1300 17.75 0.271

Now Darin Erstad:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1996 9 0.07 0.246
CF 1996 38 0.40 0.247
1B 1997 123 1.43 0.282
CF 1998 3 0.04 0.253
LF 1998 59 0.40 0.243
1B 1998 57 0.58 0.272
CF 1999 3 0.07 0.294
LF 1999 85 1.51 0.299
1B 1999 75 1.19 0.309
LF 2000 107 3.71 0.386
CF 2000 27 0.49 0.275
1B 2001 7 0.16 0.348
CF 2001 144 4.86 0.332
1B 2002 1 0.00 0.196
CF 2002 139 7.02 0.394
CF 2003 65 1.43 0.289
1B 2004 120 0.98 0.260
1B 2005 141 1.61 0.292

Position Summary

1B TOTAL 524 5.95 0.284
CF TOTAL 419 12.25 0.334
LF TOTAL 260 5.69 0.320

FWIW. :)

[AstrosFan]

Every metric seems to assess Adam Everett as a brilliant defensive shortstop, perhaps the best in baseball. What does PCA say about it? Can I get a full report? Thanks Matt.

[SABR Matt]

PCA is slightly less impressed with Everett than PMR or RZR or ZR or +/-...it may have something to do with some park factor PCA does not consider...Enron is a weird park sometimes.

But here's what PCA sees:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2002 31 0.39 0.244
2003 117 3.34 0.315
2004 99 1.25 0.244
2005 144 4.94 0.318

To be fair...Everett's two best seasons by UZR were 2005 and 2006 and PCA caught 2005 pretty well. :) He's definitely a very good fielder, but 2004 I think you see the problem with part-time play sometimes creating some wonky results because Everett's partner at SS wasn't nearly as good as he was. PCA gives Everett 99 EqG, but I have DI data for that year and he only played 842 innings which is 94 EqG. If you adjust his PT in 2004 to 94 EqG, you get a PCA-BA of .261.

FWIW.

[AstrosFan]

Hmm. Considering that basically every other advanced metric has him as a brilliant shortstop, and the Fans Scouting Report says the same, I find your report hard to swallow. Is PCA data only available through the 2005 season? Regardless, thank you for providing your data.

[SABR Matt]

I would agree that PCA is currently underrating Everett...but it does call him a well above average fielder. I mean a .315 and .318 PCA-BA in his only full-ish seasons is pretty darned good.

[SABR Matt]

And yes...PCA data is currently limited to 2005...I'm hoping to have it updated through 2007 by the end of the off-season, depending on whether my hired coder can finish repairs on the FSIA-Matrix by them.

[Ghost of Hans]

Thanks for the numbers, Matt.

Erstad probably had all-star potential, but he was forced to learn first base in the majors and then fought the wall......and the wall won. If the Angels would have left him alone at center, he could have put up Max Careyish numbers. Oh well, 2000 gave a glimpse into what might have been.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt,

If I can get editing priveliges from Sean, I'm willing to organize this thread to help us find info on specific players more quickly. Unless you're still working on the new and improved PCA, in which case that would be pointless. Let me know, k.

[SABR Matt]

I am still working, but it's going to take some time. My main problem is that every time I want to incorporate new data I have to do everything all over again from square one, which takes forEVER.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I am still working, but it's going to take some time. My main problem is that every time I want to incorporate new data I have to do everything all over again from square one, which takes forEVER.

Okay, no prob. Take your time.

How much new stuff are you adding?

Did you ever find info on Ballgame's fielding away from Fenway compared to at home?

[SABR Matt]

It'll be a similar initial concept to the original PCA but with far better input data, especially for the modern era (but team analysis will be enhanced for all seasons by the Fiato/Souders matrix - which will also allow me to run some very advanced strength of schedule analysis...not to mention the imminent availability of daily summary data allowing for enhanced split analysis and things like Ted Williams' home/road fielding splits (I can't do that yet...not until I have his PO/A/E/DP line for each game...once I have that, I can tell you something about how Fenway impacted his glove work)).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt,

I'm curious why Ruth's 1923 PCA-BA is only his sixth best season, behind, '20, '21, '24, '19, and '26. In terms of wins, '23 is behind '20, '21, and '24. Could you elaborate a bit on this for me.

[SABR Matt]

In terms of raw PCA offensive win rate, 1923 is Ruth's third best season. However, when the data becomes normalized to account for the mean and standard deviation of the league's spread of win scoring rates, Ruth's 1923 season gets adjusted down a bit more than some of his other seasons. 1923 was evidently a league possessing an unusually large spread of player performance and Ruth is more heavily impacted by this since he's at the very top of the pool.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Cool, thanks Matt. Does his fielding in '23 get adjusted down also, or is it just not a big factor in the grand scheme?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt,

GI shows Williams at 700.31 and Musial at 576.80. Is that just offense? If not, how big of a gap is that really? If so, how much does it close when you factor in fielding and running?

When you get a chance, can you break those two players down as in-depth as possible? I don't think Williams' fielding can be taken at face value given Fenway was his home park. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Cool, thanks Matt. Does his fielding in '23 get adjusted down also, or is it just not a big factor in the grand scheme?

Each skill component (offense, pitching, and the defense at each position) has a unique distribution of win scoring rates in each league. There was a downward adjustment for his fielding wins at all of his defensive positions throughout his career, but the adjustment was much more uniform. His '23 season got corrected down from 4.23 wins to 3.71 wins (he was actually a VERY good corner outfielder that year), but his other good seasons had similar proportional adjustments.

Ruth actually rates as a solid fielder overall...among the top 50 corner outfielders in defensive GI all time. But those PCA-BAs are separate from the PCA-BAs you were looking at for offense.

[SABR Matt]

Matt,

GI shows Williams at 700.31 and Musial at 576.80. Is that just offense? If not, how big of a gap is that really? If so, how much does it close when you factor in fielding and running?

When you get a chance, can you break those two players down as in-depth as possible? I don't think Williams' fielding can be taken at face value given Fenway was his home park. Thanks.

The GI figures you found are offensive GIs only it appears. This is what I have for Williams and Musial:

Williams' total GI is 761.8 - good for 4th all time. 700.3 of that is offense and 61.5 of that is defense. That 61.5 mark is very weak considering how long he played left field. You may be correct that Fenway is confusing the issue defensively...in fact I would be willing to bet Williams would rate as an even worse fielder in any other stadium (because he would have had to cover more ground and because he'd lost a lot of outfield assists playing deeper in any other park). There are worse fielders...his career defensive PCA-BA of .263 is below average but not offensively so. You ca safely assume that if he plays anywhere else, that number would go down.

Musial, however is a FAR inferior hitter. His career GI line is 576.8 for offense and 133.6 for defense for a total of 710.4 (good for 8th all time in total GI).

That 133.6 is, BTW, a FANTASTIC defensive score, especially for a corner outfielder. Musial was a vastly underrated fielder according to PCA, picking up a .286 PCA-BA in 950+ games at 1B, a .253 PCA-BA in CF (260+ games) a .289 PCA-BA in left in 810 games and a .290 PCA-BA in right in 670+ games. Dude logged a lot of field time and was good at every position he tried except center, though he mastered none of those positions at any extreme.

It helps him close a lot of ground on Williams that he lost due to being a merely awsome hitter instead of a historically great one. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The GI figures you found are offensive GIs only it appears. This is what I have for Williams and Musial:

Williams' total GI is 761.8 - good for 4th all time. 700.3 of that is offense and 61.5 of that is defense. That 61.5 mark is very weak considering how long he played left field. You may be correct that Fenway is confusing the issue defensively...in fact I would be willing to bet Williams would rate as an even worse fielder in any other stadium (because he would have had to cover more ground and because he'd lost a lot of outfield assists playing deeper in any other park). There are worse fielders...his career defensive PCA-BA of .263 is below average but not offensively so. You ca safely assume that if he plays anywhere else, that number would go down.

Musial, however is a FAR inferior hitter. His career GI line is 576.8 for offense and 133.6 for defense for a total of 710.4 (good for 8th all time in total GI).

That 133.6 is, BTW, a FANTASTIC defensive score, especially for a corner outfielder. Musial was a vastly underrated fielder according to PCA, picking up a .286 PCA-BA in 950+ games at 1B, a .253 PCA-BA in CF (260+ games) a .289 PCA-BA in left in 810 games and a .290 PCA-BA in right in 670+ games. Dude logged a lot of field time and was good at every position he tried except center, though he mastered none of those positions at any extreme.

It helps him close a lot of ground on Williams that he lost due to being a merely awsome hitter instead of a historically great one. :)

Great break-down. Thanks.

I'm going to assume, and I may be off here because I'm not sure how much value each point has in GI, that had Williams had to roam left field in a park other than Fenway, that his total defensive score would go down to like a 40. I also think that his home park helped him, with the changed dimensions and lack of foul territory. Jenkinson estimates that Williams gained about 50 career homers just due to Fenway's altered dimensions from Ruth's time. He always said that Yankee Stadium had the worst hitters backdrop in the league...so if you put him there, who knows. Not really fair to Ted to play so many what-if scenarios though. He put up the numbers he did in that Fenway and so be it. So bottom line, just Ted's hitting value alone at 700 is only slightly behind Musial's TOTAL value at 710. That's what I needed to know. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Hard to quantify the exact value of a GI point...which is why I've been trying to come up with a way to turn wins directly into an evalutation of a player's career greatness in one objective function rather than a series of metrics combined.

But yes...Fenway probably helped Williams both offensively and defensively...I still think it's relatively clear that he was a greater player than Musial...as good as Stan the Man was.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956-part-2/

Left field: Yastrzemski is still the No. 1 player, but the corrected park factors drop him down significantly, from +115 to +81. The next best left fielders are between +79 and +68: Jose Cruz, Willie Wilson, Roy White, Rickey Henderson and Barry Bonds. At the bottom, Gary Matthews Sr. (-86) falls just below Luzinski (-78). Adam Dunn (-53) and Pat Burrell (-55) are working on catching them. Philadelphia obviously views left field as the NL designated hitter spot.

[SABR Matt]

Of course those are career totals relative to average so the extremes bias toward players with longer careers. In order to compare players accurately, you need to convert those figures to runs above margin and then calculate run created rates.

Your main point however is that Fenway does have a left left field park factor that is making Ted Williams look better than he was...among the many left fielders who've played there/

[RuthMayBond]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956-part-2/

[i]Left field: Yastrzemski is still the No. 1 player, . The next best left fielders are between +79 and +68: ...Barry Bonds. And here I thought they were overrated :rofl:

[RuthMayBond]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956-part-2/

Left field: Yastrzemski is still the No. 1 player, but the corrected park factors drop him down significantly, from +115 to +81. The next best left fielders are between +79 and +68: Jose Cruz, Willie Wilson, Roy White, Rickey Henderson and Barry Bonds. At the bottom, Gary Matthews Sr. (-86) falls just below Luzinski (-78). Adam Dunn (-53) and Pat Burrell (-55) are working on catching them. Philadelphia obviously views left field as the NL designated hitter spot.Dang, ya didn't mention THIS little bombshell

"Center field: Blair (+140) still tops the list, followed by Curt Flood (+115) and Willie Mays (+109). Mays might actually be the real leader; we’ll find out as Retrosheet adds back seasons. If Willie was +10-15 per year for 1951, 1954 and 1955 it’s going to be close. Andruw Jones (+102) has joined them in the +100 club. Matty Alou (-85 before) is now -45. I think he was a victim of missing plays. Rick Monday is at -84, but has been surpassed as the greatest center field defensive liability by Ken Griffey Jr. (-94)"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dang, ya didn't mention THIS little bombshell

"Center field: Blair (+140) still tops the list, followed by Curt Flood (+115) and Willie Mays (+109). Mays might actually be the real leader; we’ll find out as Retrosheet adds back seasons. If Willie was +10-15 per year for 1951, 1954 and 1955 it’s going to be close. Andruw Jones (+102) has joined them in the +100 club. Matty Alou (-85 before) is now -45. I think he was a victim of missing plays. Rick Monday is at -84, but has been surpassed as the greatest center field defensive liability by Ken Griffey Jr. (-94)"

Wow RMB. Didn't even see that.

[RuthMayBond]

Wow RMB. Didn't even see that.I'm not saying he's the worst, just get tired of those who claim he's the best. My rankings are mostly "in the ballpark" with the article's

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not saying he's the worst, just get tired of those who claim he's the best. My rankings are mostly "in the ballpark" with the article's

How many on here have stated that they think Griffey Jr. is the "greatest defensive" centerfielder ever? Maybe one or two? And who would take them seriously? I would certainly agree that defensively, he is over-rated by quite a few though. And to a much smaller degree, I think Mays is in the same boat. I have seen many on here refer to him as the greatest defensive centerfielder of all time and he's not even close imo.

[SABR Matt]

PCA rates Griffey as a slightly below average defensive center fielder. I doubt he's really THAT bad (the worst ever? Nah...) but he's definitely not deserving of even one of his gold gloves.

[RuthMayBond]

And to a much smaller degree, I think Mays is in the same boat. I have seen many on here refer to him as the greatest defensive centerfielder of all time and he's not even close imo.Waiting to hear the long list ahead of him of who is close

[SABR Matt]

Well...here's the PCA list:

First Last HOF Rank EqG Car. Rate Dom. TOTAL Ps
Max Carey Y 1 2440 68.81 62.06 66.93 197.79 CF
Tris Speaker Y 2 2740 78.96 66.48 50.97 196.41 CF
Andruw Jones A 3 1251 52.03 64.48 74.07 190.58 CF
Curt Flood N 4 1651 54.96 60.86 58.07 173.89 CF
Richie Ashburn Y 5 2095 59.77 58.19 51.64 169.60 CF
Tommy Leach N 6 2131 46.65 44.74 61.66 153.04 CF
Paul Blair N 7 1643 46.98 52.97 47.72 147.67 CF
Willie Mays Y 8 2855 64.12 49.85 30.47 144.44 CF

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Waiting to hear the long list ahead of him of who is close

Well hello there good buddy :)

If you read what you quoted me as saying, you will notice the term "to a much smaller degree" which does in fact imply that I do not feel there is a "long list" ahead of him. ;) Just that many routinely place him as the best or among the top three when that just isn't the case.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Here they are by Year/League:

Yr Lg PlayerID First Last
1876 NL devliji01 Jim Devlin
1877 NL bondto01 Tommy Bond
1878 NL bondto01 Tommy Bond
1879 NL wardjo01 John Ward
1880 NL mccorji01 Jim McCormick
1881 NL ansonca01 Cap Anson
1882 AA brownpe01 Pete Browning
1882 NL whitnji01 Jim Whitney
1883 AA keefeti01 Tim Keefe
1883 NL whitnji01 Jim Whitney
1884 AA heckegu01 Guy Hecker
1884 NL buffich01 Charlie Buffinton
1884 UA dunlafr01 Fred Dunlap
1885 AA morried01 Ed Morris
1885 NL clarkjo01 John Clarkson
1886 AA carutbo01 Bob Caruthers
1886 NL baldwla01 Lady Baldwin
1887 AA carutbo01 Bob Caruthers
1887 NL clarkjo01 John Clarkson
1888 AA kingsi01 Silver King
1888 NL buffich01 Charlie Buffinton
1889 AA stoveha01 Harry Stovey
1889 NL clarkjo01 John Clarkson
1890 AA stratsc01 Scott Stratton
1890 NL collihu01 Hub Collins
1890 PL kingsi01 Silver King
1891 AA hoydu01 Dummy Hoy
1891 NL hamilbi01 Billy Hamilton
1892 NL childcu01 Cupid Childs
1893 NL delahed01 Ed Delahanty
1894 NL duffyhu01 Hugh Duffy
1895 NL burkeje01 Jesse Burkett
1896 NL delahed01 Ed Delahanty
1897 NL keelewi01 Willie Keeler
1898 NL jennihu01 Hughie Jennings
1899 NL delahed01 Ed Delahanty
1900 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1901 AL lajoina01 Nap Lajoie
1901 NL burkeje01 Jesse Burkett
1902 AL delahed01 Ed Delahanty
1902 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1903 AL lajoina01 Nap Lajoie
1903 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1904 AL lajoina01 Nap Lajoie
1904 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1905 AL wadderu01 Rube Waddell
1905 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1906 AL stonege01 George Stone
1906 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1907 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1907 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1908 AL walshed01 Ed Walsh
1908 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1909 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1909 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1910 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1910 NL mageesh01 Sherry Magee
1911 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1911 NL sheckji01 Jimmy Sheckard
1912 AL speaktr01 Tris Speaker
1912 NL wagneho01 Honus Wagner
1913 AL collied01 Eddie Collins
1913 NL adamsba01 Babe Adams
1914 AL collied01 Eddie Collins
1914 FL kauffbe01 Benny Kauff
1914 NL burnsge01 George Burns
1915 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1915 FL kauffbe01 Benny Kauff
1915 NL alexape01 Pete Alexander
1916 AL speaktr01 Tris Speaker
1916 NL alexape01 Pete Alexander
1917 AL cobbty01 Ty Cobb
1917 NL burnsge01 George Burns
1918 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1918 NL burnsge01 George Burns
1919 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1919 NL burnsge01 George Burns
1920 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1920 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1921 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1921 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1922 AL willike01 Ken Williams
1922 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1923 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1923 NL luquedo01 Dolf Luque
1924 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1924 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1925 AL simmoal01 Al Simmons
1925 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1926 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1926 NL wanerpa01 Paul Waner
1927 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1927 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1928 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1928 NL wanerpa01 Paul Waner
1929 AL myerbu01 Buddy Myer
1929 NL hornsro01 Rogers Hornsby
1930 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1930 NL terrybi01 Bill Terry
1931 AL ruthba01 Babe Ruth
1931 NL terrybi01 Bill Terry
1932 AL foxxji01 Jimmie Foxx
1932 NL ottme01 Mel Ott
1933 AL westsa01 Sam West
1933 NL hubbeca01 Carl Hubbell
1934 AL gehrilo01 Lou Gehrig
1934 NL vaughar01 Arky Vaughan
1935 AL gehrilo01 Lou Gehrig
1935 NL vaughar01 Arky Vaughan
1936 AL gehrilo01 Lou Gehrig
1936 NL hubbeca01 Carl Hubbell
1937 AL dimagjo01 Joe DiMaggio
1937 NL medwijo01 Joe Medwick
1938 AL greenha01 Hank Greenberg
1938 NL vaughar01 Arky Vaughan
1939 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1939 NL mizejo01 Johnny Mize
1940 AL greenha01 Hank Greenberg
1940 NL mizejo01 Johnny Mize
1941 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1941 NL reisepe01 Pete Reiser
1942 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1942 NL slaugen01 Enos Slaughter
1943 AL whitejo01 Jo-Jo White
1943 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1944 AL stirnsn01 Snuffy Stirnweiss
1944 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1945 AL stirnsn01 Snuffy Stirnweiss
1945 NL holmeto01 Tommy Holmes
1946 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1946 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1947 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1947 NL kinerra01 Ralph Kiner
1948 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1948 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1949 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1949 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1950 AL dobyla01 Larry Doby
1950 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1951 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1951 NL musiast01 Stan Musial
1952 AL dobyla01 Larry Doby
1952 NL robinja02 Jackie Robinson
1953 AL rosenal01 Al Rosen
1953 NL matheed01 Eddie Mathews
1954 AL willite01 Ted Williams
1954 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1955 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1955 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1956 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1956 NL snidedu01 Duke Snider
1957 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1957 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1958 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1958 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1959 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1959 NL bankser01 Ernie Banks
1960 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1960 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1961 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1961 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1962 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1962 NL robinfr02 Frank Robinson
1963 AL allisbo01 Bob Allison
1963 NL aaronha01 Hank Aaron
1964 AL mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle
1964 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1965 AL olivato01 Tony Oliva
1965 NL mayswi01 Willie Mays
1966 AL robinfr02 Frank Robinson
1966 NL allendi01 Dick Allen
1967 AL yastrca01 Carl Yastrzemski
1967 NL santoro01 Ron Santo
1968 AL yastrca01 Carl Yastrzemski
1968 NL gibsobo01 Bob Gibson
1969 AL jacksre01 Reggie Jackson
1969 NL mccovwi01 Willie McCovey
1970 AL yastrca01 Carl Yastrzemski
1970 NL jenkife01 Fergie Jenkins
1971 AL murcebo01 Bobby Murcer
1971 NL stargwi01 Willie Stargell
1972 AL allendi01 Dick Allen
1972 NL morgajo02 Joe Morgan
1973 AL jacksre01 Reggie Jackson
1973 NL morgajo02 Joe Morgan
1974 AL jacksre01 Reggie Jackson
1974 NL morgajo02 Joe Morgan
1975 AL lynnfr01 Fred Lynn
1975 NL morgajo02 Joe Morgan
1976 AL carewro01 Rod Carew
1976 NL morgajo02 Joe Morgan
1977 AL carewro01 Rod Carew
1977 NL parkeda01 Dave Parker
1978 AL riceji01 Jim Rice
1978 NL parkeda01 Dave Parker
1979 AL lynnfr01 Fred Lynn
1979 NL winfida01 Dave Winfield
1980 AL henderi01 Rickey Henderson
1980 NL schmimi01 Mike Schmidt
1981 AL henderi01 Rickey Henderson
1981 NL schmimi01 Mike Schmidt
1982 AL yountro01 Robin Yount
1982 NL guerrpe01 Pedro Guerrero
1983 AL henderi01 Rickey Henderson
1983 NL murphda05 Dale Murphy
1984 AL murraed02 Eddie Murray
1984 NL gwynnto01 Tony Gwynn
1985 AL henderi01 Rickey Henderson
1985 NL raineti01 Tim Raines
1986 AL boggswa01 Wade Boggs
1986 NL raineti01 Tim Raines
1987 AL boggswa01 Wade Boggs
1987 NL raineti01 Tim Raines
1988 AL cansejo01 Jose Canseco
1988 NL gibsoki01 Kirk Gibson
1989 AL yountro01 Robin Yount
1989 NL clarkwi02 Will Clark
1990 AL henderi01 Rickey Henderson
1990 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
1991 AL thomafr04 Frank Thomas
1991 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
1992 AL thomafr04 Frank Thomas
1992 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
1993 AL olerujo01 John Olerud
1993 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
1994 AL thomafr04 Frank Thomas
1994 NL bagweje01 Jeff Bagwell
1995 AL salmoti01 Tim Salmon
1995 NL maddugr01 Greg Maddux
1996 AL knoblch01 Chuck Knoblauch
1996 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
1997 AL thomafr04 Frank Thomas
1997 NL walkela01 Larry Walker
1998 AL belleal01 Albert Belle
1998 NL mcgwima01 Mark McGwire
1999 AL jeterde01 Derek Jeter
1999 NL jonesch06 Chipper Jones
2000 AL giambja01 Jason Giambi
2000 NL heltoto01 Todd Helton
2001 AL giambja01 Jason Giambi
2001 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
2002 AL thomeji01 Jim Thome
2002 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
2003 AL delgaca01 Carlos Delgado
2003 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
2004 AL guerrvl01 Vlad Guerrero
2004 NL bondsba01 Barry Bonds
2005 AL rodrial01 Alex Rodriguez
2005 NL pujolal01 Albert Pujols

FIXED NOW

Something look funny about AL 1929 to you Matthew? :eek:

[SABR Matt]

I have no idea how that happened...his PCA line is not impressive in 1929...there must be something wrong with the query process that finds the top win producers each year...or at least...there was at the time of that post.

The MVP I have (the CORRECT MVP list I believe), gives the MVP to Babe Ruth, with Jimmy Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Al Simmons, Tony Lazzeri, and Charlie Gehringer joining him in the >10 wins club for that league.

Buddy Myer is nowhere to be seen. LOL

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I have no idea how that happened...his PCA line is not impressive in 1929...there must be something wrong with the query process that finds the top win producers each year...or at least...there was at the time of that post.

The MVP I have (the CORRECT MVP list I believe), gives the MVP to Babe Ruth, with Jimmy Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Al Simmons, Tony Lazzeri, and Charlie Gehringer joining him in the >10 wins club for that league.

Buddy Myer is nowhere to be seen. LOL

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Well, that was his 15 minutes :dance

[Sultan_1895-1948]

By the way Matt...since you're a Mariner fan....how do you think the Ichiro move to center has been going? I watched a game the other night, where their right fielder (Wilkerson?) cost them two runs on back-to-back plays. Base hits through the hole. Ichiro would have thrown the dudes out by 10 feet but instead I saw 6 hoppers. I love the Ichiro move to center. Him covering that ground is never a bad thing. But at what cost? I really only like the move if you get a strong arm to replace him in right. What say you?

[SABR Matt]

The numbers say he's doing a solid job in center, but not substantially more than he did in right. Visually, I'm actually somewhat disappointed in Ichiro out there. He's covering ground plenty well...got outstanding "easy" range (meaning he gets to balls he shouldn't and makes it look easy), but he doesn't get as many chances to use his impact arm out there. Brad Wilkerson is an idiot as well as being spectacularly inaccurate with his arm. He throws home with Chone Figgins trying to score from second on a routine grounder through the hole (i.e. when it's impossible to throw out the runner) way too much...constantly misses the cut-off man. Very aggravating.

I think Ichiro's greatness would be maximized if the Mariners could find just one more defensively gifted outfielder. Then Ichiro could cheat deep into the opposite gap and cover for the third outfielder.

[RuthMayBond]

Well...here's the PCA list:

First Last HOF Rank EqG Car. Rate Dom. TOTAL Ps
Max Carey Y 1 2440 68.81 62.06 66.93 197.79 CF
Tris Speaker Y 2 2740 78.96 66.48 50.97 196.41 CF
Andruw Jones A 3 1251 52.03 64.48 74.07 190.58 CF
Curt Flood N 4 1651 54.96 60.86 58.07 173.89 CF
Richie Ashburn Y 5 2095 59.77 58.19 51.64 169.60 CF
Tommy Leach N 6 2131 46.65 44.74 61.66 153.04 CF
Paul Blair N 7 1643 46.98 52.97 47.72 147.67 CF
Willie Mays Y 8 2855 64.12 49.85 30.47 144.44 CFI was asking for SULTAN'S list. What's the big deal about Leach?

[RuthMayBond]

Well hello there good buddy :) How's it shaking? :dance:waving

<If you read what you quoted me as saying, you will notice the term "to a much smaller degree" which does in fact imply that I do not feel there is a "long list" ahead of him. ;) Just that many routinely place him as the best or among the top three when that just isn't the case.>

Doesn't look like a list to me
;)

[RuthMayBond]

Something look funny about AL 1929 to you Matthew? :eek:Am I reading the 1933 & 1943 AL choices right?

[SABR Matt]

I recommend ignoring that list...it's screwed up (the MVP list I mean)...something went wrong with that query.

Here's the correct list:

Lg Yr PlayerID Wins
AA 1882 brownpe01 9.57
AA 1883 stoveha01 10.97
AA 1884 orrda01 11.84
AA 1885 brownpe01 11.83
AA 1886 orrda01 14.58
AA 1887 brownpe01 16.61
AA 1888 stoveha01 15.04
AA 1889 stoveha01 14.61
AA 1890 childcu01 14.16
AA 1891 hoydu01 12.65
AL 1901 lajoina01 21.51
AL 1902 delahed01 14.24
AL 1903 lajoina01 13.75
AL 1904 lajoina01 20.58
AL 1905 davisge01 13.95
AL 1906 stonege01 18.13
AL 1907 cobbty01 20.94
AL 1908 mcintma01 15.04
AL 1909 cobbty01 21.50
AL 1910 cobbty01 22.33
AL 1911 cobbty01 22.70
AL 1912 speaktr01 23.01
AL 1913 collied01 18.63
AL 1914 collied01 19.02
AL 1915 cobbty01 18.91
AL 1916 speaktr01 18.45
AL 1917 cobbty01 23.63
AL 1918 cobbty01 12.80
AL 1919 ruthba01 17.55
AL 1920 ruthba01 23.86
AL 1921 ruthba01 25.73
AL 1922 willike01 14.64
AL 1923 ruthba01 24.31
AL 1924 ruthba01 23.06
AL 1925 simmoal01 15.73
AL 1926 ruthba01 20.97
AL 1927 ruthba01 19.20
AL 1928 ruthba01 19.11
AL 1929 ruthba01 15.74
AL 1930 ruthba01 16.66
AL 1931 ruthba01 17.80
AL 1932 foxxji01 20.57
AL 1933 westsa01 13.49
AL 1934 gehrilo01 19.94
AL 1935 gehrilo01 18.93
AL 1936 gehrilo01 18.67
AL 1937 dimagjo01 18.06
AL 1938 greenha01 17.92
AL 1939 willite01 14.79
AL 1940 greenha01 13.91
AL 1941 willite01 18.73
AL 1942 willite01 19.48
AL 1943 whitejo01 11.81
AL 1944 stirnsn01 15.76
AL 1945 stirnsn01 14.26
AL 1946 willite01 21.12
AL 1947 willite01 20.78
AL 1948 willite01 20.07
AL 1949 willite01 19.73
AL 1950 dobyla01 13.81
AL 1951 willite01 15.33
AL 1952 dobyla01 13.59
AL 1953 rosenal01 17.08
AL 1954 willite01 15.20
AL 1955 mantlmi01 17.49
AL 1956 mantlmi01 23.10
AL 1957 mantlmi01 20.44
AL 1958 mantlmi01 17.58
AL 1959 mantlmi01 13.46
AL 1960 mantlmi01 13.91
AL 1961 mantlmi01 19.06
AL 1962 mantlmi01 16.05
AL 1963 allisbo01 15.75
AL 1964 mantlmi01 14.73
AL 1965 olivato01 15.66
AL 1966 robinfr02 17.65
AL 1967 yastrca01 19.71
AL 1968 yastrca01 18.03
AL 1969 jacksre01 17.06
AL 1970 yastrca01 17.31
AL 1971 murcebo01 14.97
AL 1972 allendi01 17.32
AL 1973 jacksre01 16.39
AL 1974 jacksre01 16.56
AL 1975 lynnfr01 15.65
AL 1976 carewro01 14.86
AL 1977 carewro01 22.92
AL 1978 riceji01 16.97
AL 1979 lynnfr01 17.50
AL 1980 henderi01 20.07
AL 1981 henderi01 12.67
AL 1982 yountro01 18.01
AL 1983 henderi01 17.35
AL 1984 murraed02 15.98
AL 1985 henderi01 24.42
AL 1986 boggswa01 15.72
AL 1987 boggswa01 16.86
AL 1988 cansejo01 20.13
AL 1989 yountro01 18.97
AL 1990 henderi01 23.30
AL 1991 thomafr04 16.42
AL 1992 thomafr04 17.44
AL 1993 olerujo01 16.45
AL 1994 thomafr04 14.47
AL 1995 salmoti01 16.77
AL 1996 knoblch01 17.00
AL 1997 thomafr04 18.21
AL 1998 belleal01 16.88
AL 1999 jeterde01 15.75
AL 2000 giambja01 20.60
AL 2001 giambja01 21.59
AL 2002 thomeji01 19.48
AL 2003 delgaca01 16.11
AL 2004 guerrvl01 14.96
FL 1914 kauffbe01 18.78
FL 1915 kauffbe01 18.39
NL 1876 barnero01 10.06
NL 1877 whitede01 7.12
NL 1878 shaffor01 7.71
NL 1879 hinespa01 9.91
NL 1880 gorege01 10.26
NL 1881 ansonca01 11.38
NL 1882 broutda01 9.66
NL 1883 broutda01 11.91
NL 1884 hinespa01 12.43
NL 1885 connoro01 11.70
NL 1886 connoro01 14.73
NL 1887 fogarji01 15.58
NL 1888 connoro01 14.25
NL 1889 tiernmi01 13.26
NL 1890 collihu01 13.30
NL 1891 hamilbi01 19.31
NL 1892 childcu01 14.54
NL 1893 delahed01 16.09
NL 1894 duffyhu01 19.78
NL 1895 burkeje01 15.99
NL 1896 delahed01 17.26
NL 1897 keelewi01 15.80
NL 1898 jennihu01 14.08
NL 1899 delahed01 18.30
NL 1900 wagneho01 17.21
NL 1901 burkeje01 15.40
NL 1902 wagneho01 14.87
NL 1903 wagneho01 15.94
NL 1904 wagneho01 19.20
NL 1905 wagneho01 18.28
NL 1906 wagneho01 17.16
NL 1907 wagneho01 18.97
NL 1908 wagneho01 23.85
NL 1909 wagneho01 18.06
NL 1910 mageesh01 18.85
NL 1911 sheckji01 14.59
NL 1912 wagneho01 15.51
NL 1913 careyma01 11.74
NL 1914 burnsge01 15.04
NL 1915 cravaga01 14.67
NL 1916 wheatza01 12.67
NL 1917 burnsge01 14.45
NL 1918 burnsge01 11.30
NL 1919 burnsge01 13.73
NL 1920 hornsro01 16.34
NL 1921 hornsro01 19.90
NL 1922 hornsro01 20.58
NL 1923 careyma01 13.14
NL 1924 hornsro01 21.10
NL 1925 hornsro01 18.81
NL 1926 wanerpa01 13.58
NL 1927 hornsro01 17.69
NL 1928 wanerpa01 16.59
NL 1929 hornsro01 17.50
NL 1930 terrybi01 16.13
NL 1931 terrybi01 14.52
NL 1932 ottme01 17.81
NL 1933 bergewa01 11.50
NL 1934 vaughar01 14.75
NL 1935 vaughar01 14.96
NL 1936 wanerpa01 14.75
NL 1937 medwijo01 16.86
NL 1938 vaughar01 14.32
NL 1939 mizejo01 14.96
NL 1940 mizejo01 14.04
NL 1941 reisepe01 15.55
NL 1942 slaugen01 15.35
NL 1943 musiast01 17.79
NL 1944 musiast01 17.53
NL 1945 holmeto01 16.88
NL 1946 musiast01 19.39
NL 1947 kinerra01 17.10
NL 1948 musiast01 21.71
NL 1949 musiast01 17.78
NL 1950 musiast01 14.93
NL 1951 musiast01 17.42
NL 1952 robinja02 15.34
NL 1953 matheed01 17.46
NL 1954 mayswi01 17.21
NL 1955 mayswi01 19.98
NL 1956 snidedu01 13.43
NL 1957 mayswi01 15.33
NL 1958 mayswi01 18.11
NL 1959 bankser01 15.44
NL 1960 mayswi01 16.89
NL 1961 mayswi01 15.36
NL 1962 robinfr02 19.56
NL 1963 aaronha01 17.51
NL 1964 mayswi01 17.46
NL 1965 mayswi01 19.55
NL 1966 allendi01 16.68
NL 1967 santoro01 16.04
NL 1968 mccovwi01 14.36
NL 1969 mccovwi01 16.86
NL 1970 mccovwi01 13.19
NL 1971 stargwi01 16.70
NL 1972 morgajo02 17.30
NL 1973 morgajo02 19.17
NL 1974 morgajo02 17.31
NL 1975 morgajo02 22.16
NL 1976 morgajo02 17.19
NL 1977 parkeda01 14.74
NL 1978 parkeda01 14.81
NL 1979 winfida01 15.31
NL 1980 schmimi01 16.59
NL 1981 schmimi01 12.25
NL 1982 guerrpe01 15.16
NL 1983 murphda05 16.32
NL 1984 gwynnto01 14.82
NL 1985 raineti01 15.80
NL 1986 raineti01 14.26
NL 1987 raineti01 15.35
NL 1988 gibsoki01 15.30
NL 1989 clarkwi02 17.56
NL 1990 bondsba01 15.81
NL 1991 bondsba01 14.09
NL 1992 bondsba01 18.80
NL 1993 bondsba01 20.54
NL 1994 bagweje01 15.04
NL 1995 bondsba01 13.63
NL 1996 bondsba01 19.69
NL 1997 walkela01 16.83
NL 1998 mcgwima01 16.97
NL 1999 jonesch06 15.25
NL 2000 heltoto01 19.39
NL 2001 bondsba01 19.63
NL 2002 bondsba01 22.48
NL 2003 bondsba01 18.16
NL 2004 bondsba01 22.75
PL 1890 duffyhu01 13.93
UA 1884 dunlafr01 14.25

[SABR Matt]

I was asking for SULTAN'S list. What's the big deal about Leach?

He's good?

LOL

[RuthMayBond]

I recommend ignoring that list...it's screwed up (the MVP list I mean)...something went wrong with that query.

Here's the correct list:

Lg Yr PlayerID Wins

AL 1908 mcintma01 15.04
AL 1996 knoblch01 17.00
NL 1890 collihu01 13.30

Well, I never woulda thunk it (this is MVP list, vs. Best Player?)
How do we know that more things didn't go wrong with other queries? ;)

[SABR Matt]

Because this time I verified that the win counts were in fact the max win counts.

Warning...this is only MVP among position players...pitchers aren't on this list.

And I stand behind those three that you pointed out. Chuck Knoblauch had a HUGE year in 1996 both offensively and defensively.

[SABR Matt]

BTW, for those of you worrying about McIntyre in 1908...he had a big year defensively that season (his hitting was good too by deadball standards wwith 10-ish offensive wins created and 5-ish defensive wins created out of left field)...Cobb was a better hitter but had a bad year defensively...he also finished about 2 tenths of a win behind McIntyre...two top notch seasons on the same club.

[RuthMayBond]

BTW, for those of you worrying about McIntyre in 1908...he had a big year defensively that season (his hitting was good too by deadball standards wwith 10-ish offensive wins created and 5-ish defensive wins created out of left field)...Cobb was a better hitter but had a bad year defensively...he also finished about 2 tenths of a win behind McIntyre...two top notch seasons on the same club.I'm assuming Hub Collins was awesome defensively since his OPS+ was 124

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I recommend ignoring that list...it's screwed up (the MVP list I mean)...something went wrong with that query.


Except now 1918 is messed up :dance

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I was asking for SULTAN'S list.

I agree with Matt's list :cap:

[RuthMayBond]

I agree with Matt's list :cap:Too easy. You agree with a list that you say is messed up :rolleyes:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Too easy. You agree with a list that you say is messed up :rolleyes:

My "messed up" comment referred to the MVP list where he has Cobb over Ruth in 1918. His reasoning is that pitching is not included. I would agree with not including full-time pitchers, however Ruth was anything but in that year. His pitching should be included imo.

[SABR Matt]

1918 isn't messed up really...if you add the pitching in, things change around. But you can keep that in mind separately...I just chose not to include anything from the pitching wins table. :)

And he was agreeing with my Center Field defense table.

Now...as for Hub Collins:

3.08 defensive wins, 10.22 offensive wins...a lot of that coming from stolen bases (not included in OPS+). 85 steals...granted those numbers are probably inflated...1890 exaggerates the stolen base over-estimation PCA included...one of the many things that'll get fixed with the new version.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1918 isn't messed up really...if you add the pitching in, things change around. But you can keep that in mind separately...I just chose not to include anything from the pitching wins table. :)

I understand your position. Again, I would agree that full-time pitchers should not be included. I think Ruth's 1918 is a unique case where pitching numbers need to be included. He was the definition of an MVP that year, filling in wherever needed, and performing brilliantly.

Matt...on a side note...can you discuss Ruth's 1924 and how it stacks up with his other years. I think this is pretty much his "forgotten" great year, since it's smack dab in the middle of 1923 and 1925, which get all the attention for very different reasons.

A bit on 1924.

----------WINS------PCA-BA(off)

1921-----23.23-------.438
1920-----22.36-------.455
1924-----21.03-------.421
1923-----20.60-------.413

Asked before the season whether he would try for a home run title or a batting title, he said both.

In January of 1924 Ruth paid fines in Massachusetts for not having a driver's license for
ten years, for speeding, and for not registering his car for four years. Total cost: 70 bucks.

Before the season, Honus Wagner gave out his all-time team and named Babe as an extra outfielder.

Ruth was a speaker at the Baseball Writers of America New York chapter.

During the off-season Babe had gotten up to around 240 pounds and as usual, went to Hot
Springs to burn it off, where he once again got influenza. On March 1st his temperature was 104 degrees and he was bedridden for a few days. On the 5th he was up walking around at 220 pounds. Three days later he played 36 holes of golf and felt weak.

Jocko Conlan tells a story to Robert Creamer regarding a 1924 exhibition:

"At Mobile there was a large crowd. After the game the teams went to their hotel and had dinner and Ruth still hadn't come back. He finally came in about eight o'clock without his cap; his shirt was torn, his fielding glove was tied to his belt with a cord, and his baseball suit was all muddy with Alabama clay up above his knees.

The reporters asked Ruth, "Where were you?" Ruth said, 'there were about seventy-five kids who stayed in the park and wanted to play ball. I spent all the time since the game hitting flies and shagging flies with the kids.'"

April 25th, Ruth was tossed out of a game by Billy Evans, for tossing his bat in the air after a third strike call.

Waite Hoyt accused Ruth of loafing after a fly ball and the two fought in the clubhouse after the game. They did not speak to eachother for a year until Ruth offered Hoyt a beer and suggested they forget out it.)

In Philadelphia on April 27th, Herb Pennock was asked by some friends to dinner. Pennock went and brought Ruth, Dugan, and Meusel along. Much drinking was done and Ruth hit on one of the serving maids. Ruth and a couple others left and they spent the night on the town, ending up at a get-together. As 5am approached, Ruth was reminded about the game at Shibe that day and how he should get back to the hotel. Apparently Babe was "sitting in an easy chair, a girl on each knee. He held an open bottle of champagne upside down over his head." Babe made it clear he didn't want to leave just yet. That afternoon at Shibe, Fred Merkle noticed that Ruth didn't look too well. So he decided to make a bet. Ruth bet him 2 to 1 that he'd hit a home run. Ruth hit two.

On May 14th, Babe was presented with his 1923 MVP award on Ruth day at Yankee Stadium. It was a big occasion with the Championship flag being raised, a large band, men in service uniforms, etc...the Browns beat the Yanks 11-1 that day and Ruth had only a single.

Ruth enlisted as a private in the New York National Guard. It was the Army's way of getting more public interest in Citizens Military Training Camps. Although a trim 215 pounds, Ruth was 6'2" and large for the times. A uniform could not be found that fit him. He was sent to Washington to be fitted. While there he met with General Pershing for some PR pictures. On May 20th he officially enlisted and it was Ruthian as usual. He mounted a horse in Times Square...enough said.

By the third week in June, Ruth was hitting .368. Just ahead of Cobb's .359.The Yanks went to Detroit. There were 18,000 rowdy fans on hand. In the ninth inning, Ruth told Meusel that he saw Cobb give Detroit pitcher Bert Cole a sign for a beanball. Sure enough, Meusel was plunked and immediately went after Cole. A brawl took place with the fans eventually getting involved. After rushing the mound, Ruth was pulled away by an umpire and Miller Huggins. His fielding glove was stolen in the confusion.

Franklin Roosevelt asked Ruth to endorse Al Smith for President. Babe agreed and accepted a place on an Al Smith for President Committee despite having never voted in his life.

On July 4th, Ruth had 21 homers and was hitting .351. On August 18th his average was .397.

A laundry driver crashed his truck into Babe's car in New York on August 20th. Helen had been driving and Mike McNally was her passenger. Nobody was injured. The truck driver was fined fifty dollars and he had only thirty-five. It was either thirty days in jail for him or come up with the money. Babe offered to pay the entire fine but the man would only accept fifteen dollars.

Even though he had an incredible year, even winning the batting title with a .378 average, well ahead of Cobb's .338, the Yanks finished two games back. The widely held opinion was that Huggins sending Carl Mays off the the Reds was the difference.

Babe covered the 1924 World Series with Christy Walsh as his ghost-writer.

He then went barnstorming out West. According to Christy Walsh, who kept track of such things, Ruth traveled 8500 miles and played in fifteen cities in front of 125,000 fans. His team (the Ruths) won all fifteen games against their competition (the Meusels). Babe hit seventeen dingers. In the very last game, on October 31st, Ruth took the mound against Walter Johnson in Walter's home town of Brea California. Population 3500. The attendance that day was 15,000. Both players pitched a complete games and Ruth hit two homers winning 11-1. The second home run was reported as landing 550 feet from home plate.

During the trip, Ruth reportedly autographed five thousand baseballs, most of which were sold to charity. He made twenty-two scheduled speeched, headed four parades, refereed a boxing match, drove a golf ball 353 yards, visited eighteen hospitals and orphanages, and played in a Los Angeles theater. He was back in New York on December 5th.

[SABR Matt]

that's a lot of specific details I had not heard about Babe Ruth's 1924 season.

There's no doubt in my mind that Ruth was still a tremendously impactful player in 1924. That years sits a solid third in Ruth's career despite that string of nagging problems he ran into...

I'm curious what kind of information you're looking for from me that wasn't already in that very interesting historical perspective...there are various ways I can display his numbers from that season but I don't know what details you're interested in studying.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

there are various ways I can display his numbers from that season but I don't know what details you're interested in studying.

I'm interested in why 1924 gets overlooked so easily. Perhaps it's just because it was another ho-hum season amongst many great ones?

Of the top 25 PCA hitting seasons of all-time, 1924 is topped by only sixother seasons (not including his own of course) and maybe only five if Henderson's 1990 gets adjusted down for the SB issue.

[SABR Matt]

Henderson's 1990 was an all time great season even if you adjust it down some due to the SB problem...that problem is worse for the 19th century steals which are actually worth less relative to the other events because of the high run scoring context than 1990 steals are...but yes...I doubt he stays about Ruth's peak seasons once I fix that little bugagboo.

I guess 1924 is getting ignored because if you're going to talk about great Ruth seasons, there are other seasons that look aesthetically greater for one reason or another (he hit more homers, had a higher BA or whatever). Ruth was so good that his third best season is getting ignored...LOL

Barry Bonds' 2002 and 2003 seasons are not commonly discussed either...they get well overshadowed by his 2001 (73 HR) and 2004 (200+ walks) campaigns.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Barry Bonds' 2002 and 2003 seasons are not commonly discussed either...they get well overshadowed by his 2001 (73 HR) and 2004 (200+ walks) campaigns.

I see no reason why any of them should be discussed. His true peak seasons get talked about quite a bit, and rightly so. He was a great all-around player. We saw what he was capable of naturally.

[RuthMayBond]

I see no reason why any of them should be discussed. His true peak seasons get talked about quite a bit, and rightly so. He was a great all-around player. We saw what he was capable of naturally.As if we didn't know THAT was coming :rolleyes:

[SABR Matt]

*sigh*

I had a feeling mentioning the steroidally enhanced part of Bonds' career woudl cause that kind of reaction.

[Stat One Author]

Do you have access to college statistics? I'm trying to get numbers for Pete Incaviglia and Robin Ventura when they starred at Oklahoma State to calculate their season-by-season and career P/E Averages...thanks.

[Stat One Author]

FYI--Babe Ruth's Production & Efficiency Average for 1924 was 1.423, which is just a shade lower than his 1.436 career number but a far cry from his personal high of 1.714 in 1921.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

*sigh*

I had a feeling mentioning the steroidally enhanced part of Bonds' career woudl cause that kind of reaction.

lol, why the sigh? Just pointing out FACTS Matt. If you want to take his late-career numbers that topped even Ruth/Williams' peak seasons at face value, then all the more power to you. I'll ignore them once you include them in your results. I understand that you need to just report what was produced on the field, but on this end, the responsible thing to do is put them in context.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

As if we didn't know THAT was coming :rolleyes:

Likewise ;)

[SABR Matt]

In the context of assuming that Bonds had inflated numbers in 2001-2004, he was STILL a great player and oh BTW...his 2001 and 2004 would still have been better seasons minus the steroid assist than all but maybe one or two of his early-peak years...and his 2002 and 2003 would have been close behind.

[RuthMayBond]

Do you have access to college statistics? I'm trying to get numbers for Pete Incaviglia and Robin Ventura when they starred at Oklahoma State to calculate their season-by-season and career P/E Averages...thanks.Best I can do

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/V/Robin-Ventura.shtml

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In the context of assuming that Bonds had inflated numbers in 2001-2004, he was STILL a great player and oh BTW...his 2001 and 2004 would still have been better seasons minus the steroid assist than all but maybe one or two of his early-peak years...and his 2002 and 2003 would have been close behind.

I think he still would have put up very good numbers, but the rest of this is all speculation. You're taking the wrong approach if you look at what he produced on steroids, then try subtracting for some "steroid assist" factor. His numbers are more than "inflated." They are miles from where he would have been naturally.

It's like if someone is slowly going bald but still has some hair. Say they get a hair transplant and now have a full head. You can say, well, he didn't gain that much hair, look at where he was when he got the transplant. But that's looking at it wrong. You need to look at what he gained compared to where he would have been over time, which is bald.

If you look at this chart, you can't look at the difference between Bonds' year 15 compared with 16-19...you need to look at 16-19 compared with where he would have been...which is declining. THAT difference is the impact. The natural path his career should have taken is all we need concern ourselves with. What he did on steroids matters not.

[STLCards2]

I think he still would have put up very good numbers, but the rest of this is all speculation. You're taking the wrong approach if you look at what he produced on steroids, then try subtracting for some "steroid assist" factor. His numbers are more than "inflated." They are miles from where he would have been naturally.

It's like if someone is slowly going bald but still has some hair. Say they get a hair transplant and now have a full head. You can say, well, he didn't gain that much hair, look at where he was when he got the transplant. But that's looking at it wrong. You need to look at what he gained compared to where he would have been over time, which is bald.

If you look at this chart, you can't look at the difference between Bonds' year 15 compared with 16-19...you need to look at 16-19 compared with where he would have been...which is declining. THAT difference is the impact. The natural path his career should have taken is all we need concern ourselves with. What he did on steroids matters not.


Is there some common ground we can all agree on with Bonds? Bonds was a historicaly fantastic player from 1990-1998 - likely the best in baseball -who clearly obtained an even higher level of production due to performance enhancements from 1999-2004, not ignoring the fact that he would had still been very productive during those years baring injury even without enhancements. Without 'roids, Bonds is an all-time great. With 'roids, he took the next step up, becoming a statistical freak in the same realm of Gretzky and Chamberlain.

Is there anything in that statement that anybody disagrees with?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Is there some common ground we can all agree on with Bonds? Bonds was a historicaly fantastic player from 1990-1998 - likely the best in baseball -who clearly obtained an even higher level of production due to performance enhancements from 1999-2004, not ignoring the fact that he would had still been very productive during those years baring injury even without enhancements. Without 'roids, Bonds is an all-time great. With 'roids, he took the next step up, becoming a statistical freak in the same realm of Gretzky and Chamberlain.

Is there anything in that statement that anybody disagrees with?

Sounds about right, except for he didn't just obtain an even higher level, he became a completely different type of player on another planet. Look, I have been more than fair to Bonds. Both in terms of how great he was before steroids, and in my natural decline projections for him. I do think he would have aged well. My only issue is when people look at his late career numbers....numbers which are more productive than Ruth or Williams put up in their primes, and try subtracting from there for some steroid discount. That misses the whole point.

[Ghost of Hans]

If you're still doing the request thing.....would you mind showing Brian Jordan's defensive PCAs? Also Gary Sheffield's defensive PCAs at third base? I believe you only have his outfield numbers.

Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Brian Jordan...one of the most underrated fielders of the last three decades...outstanding glove man:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1992 44 0.79 0.311
CF 1993 60 0.51 0.244
LF 1994 47 0.34 0.239
RF 1995 123 2.41 0.296
RF 1996 137 4.33 0.349
RF 1997 41 0.64 0.274
RF 1998 125 2.77 0.308
RF 1999 141 3.70 0.326
RF 2000 127 4.07 0.352
RF 2001 142 5.61 0.385
LF 2002 122 1.59 0.275
LF 2003 63 0.51 0.240
RF 2004 42 1.25 0.342

Positions shown above are primary position...data combines all of the outfield positions together when he played multiple positions.

His career PCA-BA by outfield position:

RF: 0.333 (870 EqG)
CF: 0.277 (165 EqG)
LF: 0.261 (228 EqG)

Gary Sheffield at third base:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1988 19 0.3 0.259
SS 1989 80 0.71 0.234
3B 1990 125 0.54 0.224
3B 1991 41 0.24 0.232
3B 1992 140 1.14 0.246
3B 1993 65 0.99 0.288
3B 1993 65 0.34 0.230

Career PCA-BA at 3B: .243 (456 EqG)

[Ghost of Hans]

Wow, that was quick!

Thanks as always.

[SABR Matt]

As always...at your service.

[brett]

I am interested in Defensive PCA

a) Cobb
b) Ruth
c) Raines
d) Devon White
e) Lonnie Smith

Thanks for everything!

[brett]

Almost forgot about Reese and Rizzuto

:hp

And Cuyler
VanSlyke
Gwinn
Willie Davis
Flood
Ichiro
George Scott

[SABR Matt]

Rizzuto and Reese are in my post at the other thread in which I ranked shortstops.

Cobb

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
CF 1905 38 0.68 0.274
CF 1906 85 2.30 0.315
RF 1907 150 5.01 0.358 GG
RF 1908 154 1.67 0.259
RF 1909 158 4.47 0.336
CF 1910 154 3.24 0.293
CF 1911 145 5.28 0.342 GG
CF 1912 142 1.37 0.243
CF 1913 117 0.95 0.238
CF 1914 98 0.60 0.230
CF 1915 153 2.64 0.271
CF 1916 151 1.76 0.251
CF 1917 170 2.36 0.262
CF 1918 94 0.92 0.244
CF 1919 125 1.06 0.239
CF 1920 120 0.66 0.228
CF 1921 126 2.13 0.270
CF 1922 142 0.61 0.224
CF 1923 135 2.07 0.265
CF 1924 152 2.38 0.266
CF 1925 99 0.86 0.240
CF 1926 33 0.13 0.223
RF 1927 112 1.46 0.264
RF 1928 73 2.54 0.364

The first half of his career...a talented right fielder who played out of position in center a lot...even managed to play decently in center (one really good year) early on...underrated defensively by some metrics...PCA thinks a lot more kindly on his glove early on, but concurs he was a lousy fielder after a certain age.

Babe Ruth:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
P 1915 26 0.29 0.292
P 1916 33 0.52 0.323
P 1917 35 0.72 0.358
LF 1918 80 0.56 0.249
LF 1919 100 1.28 0.274
RF 1920 119 1.32 0.261
LF 1921 131 2.43 0.303
LF 1922 112 2.13 0.303
OF 1923 159 3.52 0.314
RF 1924 159 1.53 0.262
RF 1925 103 0.91 0.250
LF 1926 148 1.48 0.257
RF 1927 155 2.91 0.291
RF 1928 146 1.29 0.253
RF 1929 105 1.88 0.291
RF 1930 130 1.01 0.247
RF 1931 110 1.32 0.266
RF 1932 101 1.25 0.268
RF 1933 100 0.90 0.254
RF 1934 84 2.15 0.327

Underrated glove, especially early in his career before he got too fat on hot dogs and beer. :)

Tim Raines:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1981 82 0.67 0.250
LF 1982 155 1.90 0.261
LF 1983 142 2.02 0.281
CF 1984 161 2.10 0.256
LF 1985 142 2.29 0.291
LF 1986 141 1.62 0.267
LF 1987 138 3.02 0.320
LF 1988 114 1.92 0.295
LF 1989 132 1.32 0.259
LF 1990 114 1.22 0.263
LF 1991 132 2.43 0.302
LF 1992 129 3.08 0.331
LF 1993 98 2.03 0.314
LF 1994 92 1.94 0.316
LF 1995 95 1.03 0.263
LF 1996 47 -0.04 0.204
LF 1997 45 0.22 0.234
LF 1998 30 0.56 0.304
LF 1999 30 0.20 0.242

The oncoming Lupus probably didn't help his fielding in the 5 years of his career...as a left fielder he was above average overall but notably lacking in great seasons. Still...not bad considering it comes attached to some darned good hitting.

Devon White:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1987 166 4.54 0.323 (RF)
1988 122 1.47 0.252
1989 155 6.53 0.363 GG
1990 125 2.03 0.268
1991 156 6.92 0.371 GG
1992 149 4.03 0.307
1993 148 3.99 0.307
1994 98 2.20 0.290
1995 99 1.70 0.271
1996 135 1.15 0.239
1997 67 1.30 0.279
1998 134 2.85 0.286
1999 115 1.36 0.252
2000 29 0.31 0.248
2001 70 0.61 0.240

GREAT peak...he'll show up in my top 15 for CF I believe...or come darned close.

Lonnie Smith:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1980 43 0.07 0.217
RF 1981 23 0.21 0.251
LF 1982 142 1.22 0.249
LF 1983 104 0.97 0.256
LF 1984 111 0.77 0.244
LF 1985 94 0.78 0.251
LF 1986 110 1.54 0.280
LF 1987 31 0.17 0.236
LF 1988 28 0.29 0.262
LF 1989 130 1.78 0.278
LF 1990 112 0.68 0.239
LF 1991 69 0.30 0.230
LF 1992 30 0.04 0.215
LF 1993 44 0.26 0.239

I know folks thought well of Smith...but...PCA doesn't even see one good season...not one. Wow.

[brett]

I know folks thought well of Smith...but...PCA doesn't even see one good season...not one. Wow.


Actually Lonnie Smith was talked about as being a terrible fielder. I remember him being discussed as the second worst outfielder in baseball to Dave Kingman, with the main difference being that Smith could occasionally make a play with his speed. I was expecting something along the lines of Jeter.

And Matt, by the way, when you give Bonds a grade like a C over 20 years and someone else has an A over a 10 year career, these are based on rates, am I correct?

A guy like Mays who has several A seasons in his first 13 years (and may have missed 2 due to the war) and then plays at a lower level for several more, I think should rate as high as a guy who has 13 great years and then disappears.

[SABR Matt]

And Cuyler
VanSlyke
Gwinn
Willie Davis
Flood
Ichiro
George Scott

Kiki Cuyler:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
LF 1924 112 2.14 0.300
RF 1925 153 3.37 0.307
CF 1926 146 4.38 0.340
CF 1927 49 0.57 0.251
RF 1928 106 1.32 0.266
RF 1929 107 1.18 0.260
RF 1930 167 3.50 0.311
RF 1931 154 0.83 0.233
RF 1932 107 1.03 0.249
LF 1933 30 0.38 0.273
CF 1934 134 1.35 0.245
CF 1935 85 0.81 0.245
CF 1936 117 0.71 0.229
LF 1937 73 0.33 0.227
RF 1938 36 0.48 0.270

Andy Van Slyke:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
UT 1983 56 0.67 0.270
UT 1984 76 0.66 0.253
RF 1985 106 2.05 0.296
RF 1986 88 2.43 0.339
CF 1987 151 2.11 0.259
CF 1988 147 3.65 0.300
CF 1989 125 2.62 0.285
CF 1990 138 1.82 0.256
CF 1991 123 1.64 0.257
CF 1992 155 3.13 0.282
CF 1993 82 0.18 0.216
CF 1994 101 0.92 0.242
CF 1995 53 1.34 0.301

Why did Van Slyke start as a third baseman...then move ot right...then move to center? That's the reverse of a normal pattern. Some talent in there but couldn't stay healthy and ran out of gas at a young age.

[SABR Matt]

The underrated Tony Gwynn:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1983 70 1.85 0.331
1984 149 5.01 0.359 GG
1985 153 3.85 0.322 GG
1986 156 3.03 0.297
1987 151 2.11 0.273
1988 131 0.89 0.240 (a lot of CF mixed in)
1989 160 2.52 0.275 (here too)
1990 142 3.48 0.319
1991 132 3.53 0.329
1992 122 2.93 0.317
1993 110 0.96 0.250
1994 100 0.73 0.244
1995 124 2.15 0.288
1996 108 0.37 0.227
1997 131 0.27 0.221
1998 89 0.05 0.214
1999 83 0.51 0.239

Gwynn was a TERRIBLE center fielder, but an extremely good right fielder before he got fat. Underrated to the extreme.

[SABR Matt]

Willie Davis:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1960 27 0.05 0.215
1961 105 0.85 0.238
1962 156 3.02 0.279
1963 143 3.31 0.293
1964 159 5.14 0.327
1965 142 3.50 0.299
1966 152 3.60 0.295
1967 137 0.94 0.233
1968 159 1.54 0.244
1969 128 2.73 0.287
1970 135 5.93 0.370 GG
1971 156 4.77 0.320 GG
1972 148 3.48 0.295
1973 148 4.13 0.311
1974 152 1.99 0.256
1975 104 1.26 0.261 (RF)
1976 130 1.65 0.255

Never fails...player gets a minor injury and he defense goes right in the toilet for two years. Other than that...a very solid consistently good center fielder for quite a while.

Curt Flood:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1958 124 4.12 0.330
1959 83 0.03 0.209
1960 120 2.95 0.299
1961 106 3.07 0.315
1962 159 6.04 0.348 GG
1963 160 5.54 0.335 GG
1964 159 5.60 0.338 GG
1965 152 3.21 0.286
1966 156 6.08 0.351 GG
1967 126 4.90 0.351 GG
1968 149 6.18 0.361 GG
1969 151 7.20 0.383 GG

Guess who's gonna make my top 5? :D I have him ahead of Mays defensively despite the brevity of his career.

Ichiro:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 155 4.27 0.332 GG
2002 147 3.60 0.319
2003 158 4.25 0.329 GG
2004 160 2.13 0.270
2005 159 5.02 0.361 GG

No data on the most recent two years yet...but it's a shame we misse dhis age 20-26 period...he really IS that good.

George Scott:

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1966 156 1.07 0.252
1B 1967 149 2.98 0.334 GG
1B 1968 92 0.70 0.256
3B 1969 158 2.16 0.286
3B 1970 123 1.74 0.291
1B 1971 144 1.68 0.282
1B 1972 151 1.50 0.268
1B 1973 152 1.98 0.290
1B 1974 148 1.43 0.269
1B 1975 138 0.71 0.241
1B 1976 154 3.83 0.365 GG
1B 1977 155 1.00 0.249
1B 1978 111 0.33 0.227
1B 1979 77 0.96 0.287

[brett]

Thanks. I asked about Cuyler because I read a (simple) book in '87 published in '82 that listed Cuyler as one of the 50 greatest players of all time (as well as Dave Parker and George Foster). It cited Cuyler's defense, particularly his arm I believe.

[SABR Matt]

PCA sees the talent in Cuyler...it would help if he had stayed healthy and picked a position.

[The Kid]

Matt, do you have the Gold Glove estimates for Mike Lowell?

[SABR Matt]

Only through 2005:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1999 75 0.72 0.255
2000 133 1.75 0.276
2001 144 2.40 0.297
2002 159 2.35 0.285
2003 128 0.86 0.238 (injured)
2004 146 2.13 0.284
2005 123 2.59 0.311

No gold gloves through 2005...A glance at the statistics for the Sox in 2006 and for Lowell specifically leads me to believe he seriously contended for a PCA-GG that year if I'd done the analysis on the '06 season.

[Solrac]

Matt one request (or question actually):

Was Sammy Sosa's defense severely UNDERRATED??

[SABR Matt]

Yes. Well let's put it this way...when he was focusing on defense and not just the HR hitting, he was a very good right fielder. Never had the chops for center, but he could play right:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1990 139 4.98 0.369 GG
1991 84 2.32 0.333
1992 72 0.10 0.213 (CF)
1993 162 0.94 0.234 (RF/CF)
1994 93 1.13 0.265
1995 141 4.58 0.354 GG
1996 123 1.78 0.275
1997 162 2.06 0.267
1998 151 2.09 0.272
1999 174 2.80 0.279
2000 151 1.17 0.245
2001 160 2.20 0.272
2002 150 0.79 0.235
2003 127 1.09 0.249
2004 121 2.86 0.315
2005 63 0.45 0.250

Hope that helps.

[Solrac]

Thanks...so he was underrated at RF :think:

[SABR Matt]

Yep. At least it appears so.

[Solrac]

And another Question: KG jr
Overrated CF??
I read somewhere he's one terrible CFer

[SABR Matt]

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1989 121 1.47 0.253
1990 149 2.73 0.275
1991 144 2.69 0.277
1992 136 0.89 0.232
1993 138 1.53 0.249
1994 101 0.91 0.241
1995 81 0.41 0.227
1996 132 2.21 0.270
1997 150 2.14 0.260
1998 155 1.07 0.233
1999 148 1.88 0.255
2000 138 3.30 0.296
2001 78 0.63 0.238
2002 37 0.61 0.269
2003 36 0.12 0.220
2004 62 0.24 0.222

EXTREMELY overrated IMHO. This is of the more annoying differences between the sabermetric consensus (mine is not the only system that rates Jr. as a bad fielder) and the media consensus.

[Solrac]

Wow :eek:
NO GGs?? :faint:

BTW can i get a list of all the awards winner in history??
It will be really interesting to see who shouldv'e won the MVP in 2000 or the CYA in 2006 etc.

Thanks for the Griffey eye-opener and thanks in advance for any other request i have :cap:

[Ghost of Hans]

Matt, four questions:

1) How much and what type of adjustments do analysts need to make for the Rockies outfielders' defensive statistics? Do you do anything differently from other analysts when adjusting for the dimensions of the Colorado homepark?

2) Speaking of which, could you give the defensive PCAs for Larry Walker? I know that most metrics rate him as an excellent defender.

Thanks!

[Solrac]

Or maybe a list of CF defensively??

OR individual list of:
Bernie Williams
Ichiro
Barry Bonds
Clemente
Mays??

[SABR Matt]

For some perspective on Walker:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1990 103 3.22 0.349
1991 127 1.71 0.276
1992 134 3.03 0.311
1993 131 1.94 0.277
1994 101 1.90 0.311
1995 119 0.64 0.235
1996 74 0.54 0.237 (injured)
1997 139 0.32 0.222
1998 116 2.13 0.292
1999 105 1.54 0.276
2000 88 1.22 0.274
2001 124 1.42 0.262
2002 112 2.28 0.301
2003 124 0.58 0.232
2004 69 0.47 0.241

No PCA-GG but if he'd had a full season his rookie year, he would have gotten that one. PCA sees Walker is a very good, but unspectacular outfielder. Now your question is a very good one. Coors Field is treated like any other park by PCA...and that goes as follows:

I found the park factor -
I found the park HR factor -
I found the resulting park "in play" factor (by subtracting out the runs associated with HRs the way James did)

Unlike James, I gave the full in play factor to the outfielders and James' square rooted in play factor to the infielders. Which means, Walker SHOULD be getting a lot of positive credit during his years as a Rockie...afterall, Coors plays as one of the ugliest in-play parks EVER.

In the future though, rather than "deducing" the in play factor, I intend to use the Fiato/Souders Matrix to actually FIND the park factor for each type of event...I suspect Coors influences different event types differently...it must play as an extreme triples park, an extreme BABIP park and a moderate HR park...it would be good to know exactly how that looks.

Coors field is definitely at the extreme end of the scale when it comes to parks messing with fielding data...most places aren't going to do much to the fielders that inhabit them regularly.

[SABR Matt]

You know...I never answered the request for award winners. My apologies, Solrac...I meant to get back to that and it slipped my mind.

I always kinda hate posting just a list of the winners because most of the time it's more informative to see the top several in each season. I'd kinda like to prepare a series of charts in Excel that I'd make available that would show win counts, HOF Marker scores, PCA-BA and other relevant data for the top five at each position defensively in each league, the top 10 or 20 hitters in each league, the top 20 players overall in each league and the top 10 pitchers.

Or something like that.

Then you could scan through the spreadsheet and get a very clear history of the star players and how they fall within their peer groups.

[AstrosFan]

If you do that, I will build a shrine to honor you, which I will light candles around.

[SABR Matt]

LOL!!

That's all the incentive I need...

I'll work on that tomorrow. :)

[SABR Matt]

http://rapidshare.com/files/136369031/AwardShares.xls.html

Go here if you want to download "AwardShares.xls"...an Excel file including the top 25 batting seasons, top 10 fielding seasons at each position, top 20 pitching seasons, and top 25 total-win seasons for each league in history from 1876-2004 by PCA.

Those tabs are called "SilverSluggers" "Gold GLoves" "Cy Youngs" and "MVPs"...also included is the master table so you can figure out who's who in the player codes.

This will answer many questions you folks have had. 2005 was not included becasue that's actually in a separate setof tables...my 2005 update was jus a one-year quick-fix...if you have questions about 2005 I'll answer them separately...I didn't want to screw with combining things.

An example of what you can do with this data...

Ty Cobb's fielding record with ranks at each position (if you come in less than 10th, it's no-rank or NR)


Lg Year PlayerID Ps Rank EqG Z-Sc. PCA-BA Wins HOF-M
AL 1905 cobbty01 CF 8 38 0.105 0.274 0.68 0.72
AL 1906 cobbty01 RF 9 31 1.051 0.310 0.70 0.98
AL 1906 cobbty01 CF 6 54 1.235 0.317 1.60 2.28
AL 1907 cobbty01 RF 1 150 2.316 0.358 5.01 8.01
AL 1908 cobbty01 RF 3 154 -0.290 0.259 1.67 1.29
AL 1909 cobbty01 RF 1 158 1.728 0.336 4.47 6.83
AL 1910 cobbty01 RF 8 38 -0.024 0.269 0.50 0.49
AL 1910 cobbty01 CF 3 116 0.657 0.295 2.74 3.53
AL 1911 cobbty01 CF 1 145 1.901 0.342 5.28 8.12
AL 1912 cobbty01 CF 5 142 -0.705 0.243 1.37 0.34
AL 1913 cobbty01 CF 8 117 -0.855 0.238 0.95 -0.08
AL 1914 cobbty01 CF 10 98 -1.052 0.230 0.60 -0.46
AL 1915 cobbty01 CF 3 153 0.033 0.271 2.64 2.69
AL 1916 cobbty01 CF 5 151 -0.511 0.251 1.76 0.96
AL 1917 cobbty01 CF 4 131 -0.188 0.263 1.96 1.71
AL 1918 cobbty01 CF 8 94 -0.696 0.244 0.92 0.24
AL 1919 cobbty01 CF 7 125 -0.822 0.239 1.06 0.00
AL 1920 cobbty01 CF 8 120 -1.106 0.228 0.66 -0.70
AL 1921 cobbty01 CF 4 126 0.000 0.270 2.13 2.13
AL 1922 cobbty01 CF 9 142 -1.223 0.224 0.61 -1.17
AL 1923 cobbty01 CF 5 135 -0.149 0.265 2.07 1.87
AL 1924 cobbty01 CF 2 152 -0.124 0.266 2.38 2.18
AL 1925 cobbty01 CF 8 99 -0.795 0.240 0.86 0.06
AL 1927 cobbty01 RF 6 67 0.451 0.287 1.16 1.42
AL 1928 cobbty01 RF 1 73 2.488 0.364 2.54 4.11

[Brad Harris]

If you do that, I will build a shrine to honor you, which I will light candles around.
*holds lighter over head and sways to the rising chorus of praise*

[RuthMayBond]

*holds lighter over head and sways to the rising chorus of praise*Classic, YOU will have to sing Kum Ba Ya :bowdown::candle::candle::candle::candle::candle: :candle: :candle::candle::dance

[SABR Matt]

You folks can let me know if you have any questions about that data or how to interpret it. But that should help for a lot of big player-specific questions people have.

[AstrosFan]

*holds lighter over head and sways to the rising chorus of praise*

And now the chorus is getting louder
As we sing praise to Matthew Souders

[RuthMayBond]

And now the chorus is getting louder
As we sing praise to Matthew SoudersGood, you're starting to break the 10 things you've "learned" here

[SABR Matt]

I don't know what that means (RMB) but you're welcome AF. :)

[AstrosFan]

See the BI thread: 10 Things I've Learned...

[SABR Matt]

Ah...now it's becoming clearer. :)

[Brad Harris]

Earlier today someone called me "exotic" for the first time (I was an ex-pat as a youngster) and I log on tonight to find I'm a trendsetter. This old man feels like dancing. :dance:dance:dance

[Ghost of Hans]

Thanks for the Walker info, Matt.

[reviewboy]

Matt -

Hopefully, this question is not overly mundane, but I'm trying to find the percentage of runners who score from first on a single. I'd be happy if I can find this stat by year, or for any particular year, or averaged over seasons.

Thanks.

RB


This is your sbaermetric DJ coming to you LIVE from the monotone jungle that is suburbia, USA....I've got all the hits...and the errors, and the strikeouts too right here at my fingertips! Send in your calls to 1-800-PCA-HITZ (legal disclaimer: this phone number does not exist!) or post them here and i'll do my best to lay down the baseball trax!!

Seriously though...anyone want info from the PCA database...I can do my best to provide a critical overview of my findings to answer any question you can chuck at me. :)

[SABR Matt]

That question is not mundane...but (a) I only have that data back to 1954 and (b) I don't have it right now because my computer is in a state of transition (I am incrementally upgrading it and until I'm finished, I can't rebuild my database).

Tom has a complete database on file...if you want an answer quickly, you should drop your question in the "Looking for Data" sticky thread where he's more likely to see it.

[reviewboy]

Matt -

Thanks very much for the reply.

I will post the question in the Looking for Data thread.

Good luck with the computer upgrade. I hope it goes smoothly!

Thanks.

RB


That question is not mundane...but (a) I only have that data back to 1954 and (b) I don't have it right now because my computer is in a state of transition (I am incrementally upgrading it and until I'm finished, I can't rebuild my database).

Tom has a complete database on file...if you want an answer quickly, you should drop your question in the "Looking for Data" sticky thread where he's more likely to see it.

[AstrosFan]

Matt, if we took the best season at each position defensively by PCA-BA among qualifiers, pro-rated it to 162 games, assumed each player was dead average offensively, and gave the team an average pitching staff, how many games could we expect that team to win?

[SABR Matt]

A little envelop math here:

The top seasons at each position are

Ps Wins W/162 Player
1B 4.10 4.29 Keith Hernandez
2B 7.26 7.44 Bobby Grich
3B 4.75 4.78 Dan Evans
SS 7.45 7.54 Neifi Perez
LF 5.18 5.52 Rickey Henderson
CF 8.36 8.36 Andruw Jones
RF 6.43 6.63 Dave Parker
C 4.81 5.45 Brad Ausmus
FP 1.91 1.91 1994 Braves
PP 21.52 Average

That's 40.5 offensive wins, 22.5 pitching wins, and 51.9 fielding wins for a total of 114.9 (115) wins.

That would be with the best fielding team ever even remotely conceivable to create if you could somehow find players from different time periods and paste them together all having their best years simultaneously.

It should be noted that at 2B, SS, CF, RF and C, there is a very steep drop between the record holders and the merely "99th percentile" group. LF, 1B and 3B (and fielding pitchers) don't have that kind of steep drop...but if you put together a team that was all 99th percentile seasons defensively with the assumed 63 wins worth of averageness elsewhere, you get this:

Ps W/162
OF 40.5
PP 22.5
FP 1.7
CA 4.1
1B 3.5
2B 5.6
3B 4.0
SS 5.8
LF 4.3
CF 6.5
RF 5.0
TOT 104.5

The best defensive team you could possibly muster with any tiny portion of realism would win you 105 games if they were average offensively and on the mound.

[AstrosFan]

Ah, but if you take the best PCA-BA seasons (min 100 games), and project it to 162 games (using the wins per 162 technique you used), you get 57.1 wins. Add that to 40.5 offensive and 22.5 pitching. and you get 120 wins.

[SABR Matt]

I steered clear of doing that because PCA-BA seasons for players producing a extremely high levels over 100-120 games mean less statistically than for players that actually finished the season in full.

I think the realistic answer would be the second one I gave. If you take the best fielding seasons, you get a distorted picture since typically a historically great fielding season implies that the guy was taking chances away from other fielders...a 99th percentile team might be possible, albeit very hard to maintain.

[weskelton]

If you take the best fielding seasons, you get a distorted picture since typically a historically great fielding season implies that the guy was taking chances away from other fielders...a 99th percentile team might be possible, albeit very hard to maintain.
Matt, I'd be curious to know how many chances/game these 99th percentile fielders are getting and what that might imply about the teams DER. I suspect that there is a significant amount of cannibalizing going on. If you put all of these players together, there just wouldn't be enough fieldable balls in play to go around.

[SABR Matt]

Right, weskelton...I mentioned that problem above.

There's an internal conflict between the ability of any one position to deviate quite a bit from the average rate of plays per chance and the maximum ability of defense to contribute to winning games which limits the possible utility of fielding...it's like the diminishing returns problem the Yankees face wherein they can spend as much as they want, but adding one all star to a group of 9 others makes little difference.

I can go in and look at how many plays each of the top-season fielders made...

Brad Ausmus (2000)

PO - K: 64
A: 68

Keith Hernandez (1980)

1BUPO: 394 (!)
A: 115

Bobby Grich (1973)

PO: 431
A: 503

Darrell Evans (1974)

PO: 185
A: 376

Neifi Perez (2000)

PO: 288
A: 524

Rickey Henderson (1980)

PO: 412 (!!)
A: 17 (!)

Andruw Jones (2001)

PO: 461
A: 10

Dave Parker (1977)

PO: 381
A: 26 (!!!!!!)
E: 15 (wow...very aggressive...just thought I'd point that out)

2616 putouts between them + 1576 infield assists (which we assume the first baseman would get as putouts not to his unassisted credit) - (not shown above) an estimated 185 cooperative double plays, which will double count those assists gives us 4007 defensive plays.

There are about 4400 outs available in a season so in order for that to work, the team would have to be spectacularly inept at recording Ks which would lower the pitching score from average to something well below average.

Of course...this does *NOT* invalidate my defensive method...in fact, it's a strong argument in favor of it. The zone based metrics will have the same problem when you combine all the greatest fielders onto one team because the zone based metrics don't do ANYTHING to take into account how fielders cooperate in a real-game situation. Each fielder is treated as an independent system. If you put the 8 greatest fielders at each position, they would cooperate and share the load...all those discretionary plays between each fielder's zone would be shared according to who had the position to make the play...and that positional interdependency is the very reason why a team-based top-down approach to defensive analysis is absolutely required to get a real sense of how fielders are combining to make team wins.

[SABR Matt]

To boil all of that down...

at the extremes of performance, marginal wins become NON-CUMULATIVE because of the law of diminishing returns. Normal teams have combinations of players that place them within the near-linear part of the performance spectrum which is why the math in systems like PCA and Win Shares works on simple linear division of marginal runs.

A pitching staff which is average in every respect except it records only 393 Ks instead of the average (which is 950 Ks in the modern era) will be worth approximately 557 * 0.3 (BABIP) * 0.65 (Linear weight value of a generic in play hit) = 109 fever marginal runs (about 13 fewer marginal wins)...which gives you a fairly good idea of how many wins you actually lose the ability to create defensively as you approach the "perfect" defense...as defined by our selection of the best defensive seasons of all time.

So rather than estimating that the "perfect" team would score 114 wins, we must estimate instead that they would score 99-101 wins with "average hitting and pitching and the best fielding possible"...in reality, the pitching would score averagely and the fielding would score 13-14 wins fewer than linear math suggests.

Incidentally...we have three case studies for teams that derived a huge chunk of their PCA value from defense that suggest my 100 win estimate is close to accurate.

The 1906 Cubs (114 PCA wins, above average but unspectacular offense, team defense DOMINATING by fielding excellence though the pitching was marginally better than average)

The 2003 Mariners (96 PCA wins, nearly dead-on average offense, slightly below average pitching, and SPECTACULAR defense...particularly in the outfield)

The early 70s Orioles (94-109 PCA wins...distinctly average offense, pitching ranging from a little above average to moderately above average, defense highlighted by four players in the 99th percentile: Belanger, Grich, Blair and Brooks Robinson)

Building a defensive juggernaut appears to be one of the most cost-effective ways to make your team immediately competitive. Why more major league teams haven't caught on to this is beyond me.

[AstrosFan]

What? You mean Moneyball is wrong? My world has been shattered!

[SABR Matt]

Moneyball is not a baseball strategy...it's a market strategy. Moneyball isn't about how to best create a lot of wins with low money...it's about how to spot player market weaknesses and exploit them. So technically, Moneyball is not wrong...it's just that no one has spotted this market weakness...or alternatively...people know about it, but are too afraid to gamble because they don't really know how to quantify fielding to an acceptable degree of accuracy and predictability.

Oakland's version of moneyball was right in its' time...the market was weak for high-walk, low-BA types. Now the market is actually weaker for slap hitters (everyone caught up and figured out that BB+HR = yay) and fielders. Things change...Beane hasn't done a good job of rolling with the changes...other GMs are stepping up to take his place.

[AstrosFan]

I was actually making a crack referring to the part in Moneyball where someone says defense is only worth about 5% of team performance. I'm well aware of what Moneyball is about; I am a graduate student in economics after all.

[SABR Matt]

I figured as much. Somewhere in moneyball, they claimed that defense was 5% of the game?

If so, that would explain why Beane has never adjusted to the changing market. :)

You can get 6 wins of defense from Adam Everett for the league minimum. How much does it cost to get 6 wins of offense at short (hint...Jeter makes it).

Of course Everett is AWFUL offensively, so some of those wins get canceled out...but not ALL of them.

[AstrosFan]

Actually, it wasn't the Moneyball group. It was Eric Walker, who played a large part in starting the sabermetric revolution in Oakland under Sandy Alderson.

By the way, would it be worth the Astros money to pursue Mark Ellis as a free agent? They have Kaz Matsui signed through 2010, but he's very injury prone. Ellis is looking for $6-7M a year, from what I've read.

[SABR Matt]

It would be better to pursue Orlando Hudson. O-Hud is a better than average hitter AND a legit 4 win defensive second baseman...Kaz Matsui is not IMHO starter material either way...how much are you wasting per year on that turd?

If it's not too much per year...then I'd turn him into a supersub and make him learn some outfield and play a little short and third.

Not that he'd be a good fielder no matter where he plays...he's average at best over at second...and will be below average pretty much anywhere else but LF...but you need a real defensive star on the middle infield to replace Adam Everett. Miggy Tejada ain't it.

[SABR Matt]

To actually answer your question though...Mark Ellis at 6 or 7 mil would be a smidge steep if he doesn't hit at or above average for a second baseman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea...but...he's not THAT good a fielder...good...but not 4-5 wins good.

[AstrosFan]

Yeah, but I heard Hudson's asking price is steeper. He might go ask for $30M for 4 yrs.

[AstrosFan]

Furcal's the best defensive SS on the market, but I hear he's asking for a lot.

[SABR Matt]

Well you're stuck with Tejada at short for another year...so you need to add a top flight glove at second. Ellis would be a solid glove...I just have never liked him as a hitter and I don't think he's as good defensively as his reputation suggests. It'd be an OK signing...not horrible. O-Hud may well be worth that 8 mil/year...probably the best defensive second baseman in the NL right now...and a good hitter to boot.

[AstrosFan]

Well you're stuck with Tejada at short for another year...so you need to add a top flight glove at second. Ellis would be a solid glove...I just have never liked him as a hitter and I don't think he's as good defensively as his reputation suggests. It'd be an OK signing...not horrible. O-Hud may well be worth that 8 mil/year...probably the best defensive second baseman in the NL right now...and a good hitter to boot.

Plus/Minus had Ellis about dead even with Hudson in 2007. UZR had Ellis easily the best defensive 2B in baseball last year. PMR rates him lower. Still the extra investment in Hudson might be worth it because Hudson is probably the better offensive player.

[skyking162]

Things change...Beane hasn't done a good job of rolling with the changes...other GMs are stepping up to take his place.

Seriously, Matt? The A's have been one of the best fielding teams over the past many years. That's not an accident -- Beane realizes how underrated it is, and even has built a strategy of flipping overrated pitchers for new parts around it.

Also, Mark Ellis, accounting for ballpark and league, is every bit the hitter than Hudson is. And the zone ratings have him about +20 runs per season, with Hudson taking a step or two down recently -- what do your own stats say about them?

[SABR Matt]

My own stats don't say anything about the recent models of Hudson and Ellis...they stop in 2005.

I am skeptical about the zone ratings as you know SK...I never trust a stat that is not grounded in real data and the zone ratings are not grounded in the data we can trust most (team defensive proficiency as defined by runs allowed)...Ellis has always struck me watching him as a guy who gets a lot out of a little...those usually aren't the types that sustain defensive prowess as they age. Quickly scanning THT's defensive metrics, we have Ellis at .884 and .897 RZR and 8.3 and 4.9 win shares the last two years with O-Hud at .798 and .784 RZR and 6.2 and 5.1 win shares...which would support the idea that Ellis is the better fielder now...the concern is...can he continue to do that as he crosses 30?

As for the A's...the Oakland Colosseum is causing a lot of the "great" DER figures IMHO. HUGE foul territory, wide open spaces in the outfield and dead Pacific air to kill the deep flies and you get park-biased high DER totals. But yes...in recent years, Beane has been dumping pitchers in exchange for prospects, figuring he can invent new pitchers out of nothing given the environment...and of course he's right...the pitching isn't the problem with Oakland...but I don't think his strategy has been to look for low-priced great fielders...his strategy is to throw spaghetti against the wall and hope it works...otherwise Jack Cust wouldn't be getting so much playing time in the outfield...at the moment, the prospects teams are willing to part with have tended to be speedy outfielders who can't hit (and he's gotten a bunch of those and most of them have never amounted to anything)...

Beane's strategy right now I would describe as "get as many players with some small chance of success as you possibly can and hope you can find 25 of them out of the field of 50+ that do succeed"

Given his limitations, it's not a bad strategy...but there's a reason the A's have slipped from perennial west-champion to up-and-down volatility...and that reason is that he can't buy cheap offense anymore so the A's can't hit.

[skyking162]

but I don't think his strategy has been to look for low-priced great fielders...his strategy is to throw spaghetti against the wall and hope it works...otherwise Jack Cust wouldn't be getting so much playing time in the outfield...at the moment, the prospects teams are willing to part with have tended to be speedy outfielders who can't hit (and he's gotten a bunch of those and most of them have never amounted to anything)...

Beane's strategy right now I would describe as "get as many players with some small chance of success as you possibly can and hope you can find 25 of them out of the field of 50+ that do succeed"

Given his limitations, it's not a bad strategy...but there's a reason the A's have slipped from perennial west-champion to up-and-down volatility...and that reason is that he can't buy cheap offense anymore so the A's can't hit.

The spaghetti on the wall strategy just began recently -- a bit with Haren/Swisher before the season and then big time mid-season when Beane decided to rebuild. They have a lot of good prospects, not just a lot of mediocre ones -- it's grandma-made spaghetti, if you will.

Part of the reason Cust was playing the field is that he's not completely awful out there. Part of the reason was that Thomas and Sweeney were DHing. And he's such a good hitter that he still has some value while playing the field.

Signings/acquisitions for fielding: Kendall, Emil Brown, Bradley, re-upping Mark Ellis, Mark Kotsay, Chavez (to get old-school), Hannahan (well, farm system, but that's why he plays), Rajai Davis, Matt Murton, and many of the recent prospects.

[SABR Matt]

Kendall is a terrible fielder, not a good one.

Emil Brown is above average but not special.

Mark Kotsay was acquired because Oakland felt they needed a lead-off hitter.

Rajai Davis isn't playing much.

Matt Murton was acquired because he was a Beane "old school" player...walks and occasional power for cheap.

[Ghost of Hans]

Matt,

Could you give me the offensive and defensive PCAs for:

Terry Pendleton (didn't see season-by-season breakdowns earlier)

Kenny Lofton

Ron Gant (PCAs for all positions, including second base)

Jeff Blauser (Broken down by position)

Thanks a lot!

[SABR Matt]

Terry Pendleton:

Yr Lg Off Def O-H D-H Wins
1984 NL 3.42 1.30 5.0 1.8 4.72
1985 NL 1.23 3.64 -1.4 5.6 4.87
1986 NL 1.09 4.26 -1.8 6.6 5.35
1987 NL 5.14 2.69 6.1 3.5 7.83
1988 NL 1.42 1.62 0.2 2.0 3.04
1989 NL 3.89 4.41 3.6 6.9 8.30
1990 NL 0.12 1.61 -2.8 1.8 1.73
1991 NL 8.21 3.65 12.4 5.5 11.86
1992 NL 7.44 2.79 10.5 3.7 10.23
1993 NL 3.49 3.76 2.7 5.6 7.25
1994 NL 1.01 1.21 0.0 1.5 2.22
1995 NL 4.08 2.68 4.6 3.8 6.76
1996 NL 0.92 1.42 -2.1 0.9 2.34
1997 NL 0.41 0.17 0.0 0.1 0.58
1998 AL -0.14 -0.01 -1.9 -0.3 -0.15

O-H = Offensive HOF-Marker (2 * Off - Avg. Off Rate * PA)
D-H = Fielding HOF-Marker (2 * Def - Avg. Def Rate * EqG)

As you can see, Pendleton was always a defense-first kinda guy except for his peak in 1991 and 1992 with the bat. He's got the 11th highest defensive win-scoring rate of all time among third basemen with at least 1000 EqG at the position.

Just to put the HOF-Marker scores into a context with which you're previously familiar, here's the traditional player profile:

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1984 283 3.42 0.306
1985 602 1.23 0.244
1986 626 1.09 0.242
1987 667 5.14 0.279
1988 421 1.42 0.252
1989 661 3.89 0.267
1990 484 0.12 0.233
1991 644 8.21 0.310
1992 689 7.44 0.298
1993 682 3.49 0.263
1994 324 1.01 0.250
1995 557 4.08 0.276
1996 441 1.25 0.249
1996 177 -0.33 0.220
1997 125 0.41 0.251
1998 254 -0.14 0.228

Defense
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1984 68 1.30 0.311
1985 141 3.64 0.350
1986 153 4.26 0.362
1987 152 2.69 0.303
1988 105 1.62 0.290
1989 161 4.41 0.360
1990 118 1.61 0.279
1991 144 3.65 0.348
1992 156 2.79 0.304
1993 157 3.76 0.340
1994 74 1.21 0.295
1995 128 2.68 0.322
1996 48 0.12 0.213
1996 107 1.30 0.270
1998 21 -0.01 0.197

Kenny Lofton:

Yr Lg Off Def O-HOF D-HOF Wins
1991 NL -0.12 0.09 -0.7 -0.2 -0.03
1992 AL 7.44 4.92 10.8 7.4 12.36
1993 AL 10.73 2.86 17.3 3.3 13.59
1994 AL 9.19 2.49 15.1 3.2 11.68
1995 AL 5.04 0.74 6.7 -0.5 5.78
1996 AL 6.18 1.80 7.7 1.0 7.98
1997 NL 5.12 5.27 6.7 8.7 10.39
1998 AL 6.06 2.67 7.7 2.9 8.73
1999 AL 5.59 1.18 7.6 0.6 6.77
2000 AL 4.26 2.58 4.5 3.0 6.84
2001 AL 2.77 0.90 1.9 -0.3 3.67
2002 AL 3.77 1.82 5.0 2.3 5.59
2002 NL 1.51 1.63 1.7 2.6 3.14
2003 NL 5.92 2.38 8.0 2.5 8.30
2004 AL 2.28 0.26 2.6 -0.8 2.54

All of his defensive work was in CF, including GGs in 1992 and 1997.

Now...it looks like you're more interesting in position-by-position stuff for Gant and Blauser...so I'll use the classic format for those two (the new format is good because you get offense and defense on the same page and it gets related to HOF credentials...the old version is good because you get more detail).

Jeff Blauser:

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1987 187 0.56 0.250
1988 74 0.44 0.268
1989 507 4.46 0.285
1990 429 3.52 0.282
1991 415 3.28 0.280
1992 403 4.50 0.300
1993 710 7.32 0.295
1994 434 2.01 0.260
1995 504 1.52 0.250
1996 312 2.12 0.273
1997 623 6.87 0.299
1998 435 1.58 0.253
1999 238 1.65 0.274

Defense
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1987 46 0.90 0.275
3B 1989 67 0.38 0.232
2B 1989 26 0.34 0.242
SS 1990 91 0.34 0.205
SS 1991 44 1.22 0.312
2B 1991 22 0.61 0.307
SS 1992 62 1.02 0.261
SS 1993 145 3.38 0.291
SS 1994 100 1.43 0.251
SS 1995 116 2.07 0.267
SS 1996 71 0.86 0.242
SS 1997 138 1.98 0.252
SS 1998 96 0.48 0.210

One good year defensively...generally mediocre to horrible wherever and whenever he played. The lone weakness in an otherwise bulletproof Braves defense...unless you count Javy Lopez who was pretty blah.

Ron Gant:

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1987 86 0.04 0.234
1988 618 7.47 0.306
1989 285 0.44 0.241
1990 631 10.12 0.330
1991 642 7.46 0.303
1992 602 5.25 0.285
1993 682 7.00 0.294
1995 493 6.04 0.307
1996 500 5.51 0.299
1997 562 2.76 0.261
1998 438 3.24 0.277
1999 605 4.54 0.277
2000 103 0.93 0.286
2000 384 2.35 0.269
2001 93 0.80 0.284
2001 199 1.15 0.267
2002 353 3.60 0.294
2003 44 -0.52 0.159

Defense
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
3B 1988 22 0.17 0.244
2B 1988 121 1.41 0.236
3B 1989 52 0.29 0.231
LF 1990 38 0.22 0.238
CF 1990 114 0.00 0.208
CF 1991 146 2.96 0.283
LF 1992 114 0.13 0.214
LF 1993 156 0.67 0.230
LF 1995 90 1.64 0.302
LF 1996 115 1.86 0.291
LF 1997 126 2.70 0.318
LF 1998 91 1.09 0.269
LF 1999 125 2.65 0.317
LF 2000 93 1.01 0.264
LF 2001 45 0.27 0.239
LF 2002 69 0.33 0.233

Gant was a DREADFUL infielder who eventually learned to be a solid above average left fielder...his problem was...he could not stay healthy.

[AstrosFan]

Looks like instead of improving defense, the Astros players are making a pitch for Ben Sheets, who will be a free agent in '09. Sheets will likely command $16-17M a year. I love when my team thinks about shelling out that kind of money for a talented but injury prone pitcher when they already have four gigantic contracts on the roster (Berkman, Lee, Oswalt, and Tejada). I think Sheets is a terrific pitcher when healthy, but can we really afford another huge multi-year contract?

Yeah, I realize this has nothing to do with PCA, but I thought I'd bring it up since we were discussing ways to improve the Astros earlier.

[SABR Matt]

Sheet sis not the kind of guy I'd want to spend big bucks on...ESPECIALLY not with the Astros' payroll constraints.

Fix the defense for practically no cost and you'll reap the same benefits.

[AstrosFan]

Ellis is the best we can get for cheap bucks. Hudson's better, but his asking price is too high. I'd love to find cheap defense at SS, but it looks like we're stuck with Miggy for a while. I think they should sign Ellis and Kyle Lohse on the free agent market, since they need another starter. They can get both for about Sheets's asking price, maybe less.