PCA Request Line

[SABR Matt]

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. :)

[RuthMayBond]

Um, was Jim Kaat really the best defensive pitcher?
Was Connie Mack the best manager?
Where do you rank Blyleven among pitchers?
How do you adjust rankings for 19th century players?
How do you trade off longevity/dominance? (Clemens/Pedro, Wilhelm/Rivera)
How do you evaluate catcher defense before 1965?
Does Hornsby's fielding significantly downgrade him?
A complete list of your PCA Gold Glove awards :D :lookitup :lookitup

[Imapotato]

gonna move this to the Statistics, Analysis and Sabermetrics Forum

[SABR Matt]

eek!

Let's take these one at a time...

Was Jim Kaat really tghe best defensive pitcher?

I am missing some data...I son't know for isntance how many of Kaat's assists were pickoffs. this makes a difference in how valuable he might be. But here is what PCA suggests about Kaat. I have him as being relatively pedestrian defensively. This is one area where I think my defensive analysis could use a little bit of tweaking...I believe I am successfully figuring out how much value each pitching staff on the whole has in preventing runs. But I think there may be a better way to measure individual pitchers' defense than to divide that value up based on claim points. I think a claim point per playing time (since we have exact measurements of how many defensive innings each pitcher pitched) approach would be a little more effetive. Nonetheless good defensive pitchers generally come out on top and bad defensive pitchers come out on the bottom...

The top ten fielding pitchers by PCA in terms of wins/162 games:

First Last Ps W/Y Full G (9-innings)
John Clarkson SP 3.74 575
Carl Mays SP 3.21 459
Freddie Fitzsimmons SP 2.69 471
Hooks Dauss SP 2.66 405
Cy Young SP 2.41 841
Charley Radbourn SP 2.4 630
Charlie Buffinton SP 2.26 606
Greg Maddux SP 2.22 760
Harry Howell SP 2.16 461
Jack Quinn SP 2.14 490

I know of 8 of those 10 pitchers directly and they all had good defensive reputations...in fact great reputations in most cases. Anyway I can improve pitchings' individual fielding ratings probably...that's not an area I focused on this time around.

Was Connie Mack the best manager...OK I think the way I would approach that question is compare a team's pythagorean win total to its actual win total and figure out which managers consistantly got more wins for their production...this isn't a foolproof way to go about it, but managerial skill is something that's hard to put into numbers...I'll build a query to answer this question the best way I know how and get back to you. :)

Where do I rank Blyleven amongst the pitchers all time?

In terms of total wins created, he is 19th all time...however this probably isn't the best way to rank players by greatness. I have come up with an index to rate greatness that combines the player's total wins created, a prorated total wins created over the course of a standard full career (this is to measure career scoring efficiency on something liek the same scale as career wins), and the total number of wins a player scored above and only above his career scoring average in individual seasons (if a player's average scoring rate over his career is 6 wins per 162 games, and in a full 162 game season he scored 11 wins, he'd get credit for 5 peak wins...whereas if he scored 5 wins in hat 162 game season, it would be entered as a zero)...this is designed to measure a player's capacity for great performances above and beyond what his scoring efficiency already tells us...

And by this ranking method, Blyleven drops to 43rd all time.

Presently I make no adjustment for the 19th century except to say that the entire system is dynamic...allowing me to see for instance that although pitchers threw many more innings, they were less important (per inning) to the prevention of runs because of the way in which they pitched (hence 19th century guys aren't getting too much credit simply because they pitched insane numbers of innings).

I also dynamically era adjust fielding ratings so that the average scoring rate at each position in any given season is the same for the purpose of comparing fielding skill.

How do I trade off longevity/dominance?

In the past here at BBF and over at MLBC I've been relying on the principle of the supermargin to give players enough credit for peak performance that I could count up the wins and rank players based on total win counts. I have come to the conclusion recently that even though the supermargin accurately depicts peak performance...it will always be dwarfed by the mass of long careers. Which is what propelled me to invent my "greatness" index as described above. Using the greatness index, Wilhelm still beats big Mo...but Rivera moves up to third on the all time reliever list...and using the greatness index Pedro Martinez is third behind only Greg Maddux and Walter Johnson.

How do I evaluate catchers prior to 1965?

Even without SB/CS data, there are still catcher elements that make fielding analysis of catchers possible and even with good solid accuracy. I still have complete records of PO, A, E, DP, and PB...and I still have team strikeout records to subtract out from PO score to find non-K putouts...and I have offensive records of sac hits and steals so I can give the catchers a league average rate of runs allowed by stolen base and sac hit (I realize this isn't perfect...but it's the bes we can do with the data we have...and you can still see differences in catching skill because even with constant stolen base rates, the assist count changes as does the non-K putout count)...it works fairly well although if you'd like to confirm that, make some requests for catchers whose careers spanned the period where that SB/CS data suddenly becomes available... :)

DOes Hornsby's fielding significantly dongrade him...

Well...he's a below average fielder by PCA...scored a C- letter grade for his fielding, but I don't think it's so bad that it relaly has a massive impact on his overall rating.

He earned about 34 dewfensive wins while the great defensive second basemen were earning as many as 75 defensive wins (72 wins for Bid McPhee)...so there is a difference...but it's rare to get a good defensive second baseman who can also hit...Eddie Collins...that's about it...and Collins wasn't as far ahead of Hornsby on defense as McPhee.

A complete list of PCA gold glovers...

I have a file made with all of the PCA gold glovers in each year and league (some of these may change as the new data gets processed obviously)....

I make that file available to anyone who wants it...can't really post it all here because it would take al ot of work to format it correctly but if you want to leave an e-mail address I'll send you this file...it also contains a complete listing of defensive, pitching, and offensive letter grades based on mean/standard deviation of era adjusted scoring rates...and a complete listing of League MVPs and Cy Youngs.

[Imapotato]

Matt

Fundemental flaw in that P list

The eye opener is that pre 1921, may bunts were laid down, thus more Opportunities for Pitchers to bolster stats

I love Cy Young, but he was mearly above average, as was Harry Howell and Jack Quinn

Maybe you should try and find a way to negate the effect of small ball and MANY grounders/Bunts/Bunts for hits during the deadball and 19th century

One guy I think should be on the list is the man with the best pickoff mover of all time

Terry Mulholland

[SABR Matt]

Fair point Potato...

The fact that there were more bunt-for-hits, sac bunts, and groundballs to get the pitcher involved in would however mean that *all* pitchers should expect to have a larger share of the plays made by infielders...the way I divide up a unit score (units being pitching, catching, infield defense including the defense of the pitchers, and outfield defense) amongst the positions in that unit is to determine the league average ratio of plays made by each position on the unit to the plays made by the unit itself for each year and league...and use those to rate the magnitude of each position on each team in each year and league...if the pitchers were getting more bunts...then pitchers as a group would be scoring more plays per infield play...so I don't think I see that as an issue.

[NickG]

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. :)

Just how good was Barry Bonds for the last three years?

[SABR Matt]

Just how good was Barry Bonds for the last three years?

Extremely. :)

The Giants were sabermetrically worth 369.9 Wins as a team in the four years from 2001-2004. Barry Bonds was worth about 85.1 of those wins! That's the difference between a team sabermetrically winning 57.1% of its games and a team winning 43.9% of its games! Barry Bonds made a team that was not even remotely competitive into a team that nearly won a world series and appeared in three of four post-seasons.

Those 85.1 Wins occured while Bonds consumed 1105 batting outs out of the team's approximately 17,400 total batting outs...roughly 6.4% of his team's chances to score! His 85.1 Wins per 1105 batting outs (now thi includes his defensive contribution as well...those aren't just batting wins...nonetheless) are a rate of about 37.4 Wins per full season (486 Batting Outs = Full Season)...which is third only to Ted Williams and Babe Ruth for the greatest scoring average in 4 consecutive seasons. That is an extraordinary accomplishment...clouded though it may be by the likelihood that his good physical health and increased strength were related to his use of performance enhancing drugs. (no...steroids cannot make you into a walk taking machine nor can they raise your batting average...they give you health and raw power and nothing more)

BTW Bonds won the PCA National League MVP in all four of those seasons and the runner up was generally never close.

[NickG]

Incredible. Every time I see Bonds's dominance measured, I'm simply amazed.

I would even dispute that he was healthy - I think Stan (not Victor) Conte did a hell of a job keeping him in playing order, given the condition of his hamstrings and knees, and that the surgeries he is going through now are an almost direct result of the past few years. This was bound to happen sooner or later, although I'm surprised it's taking as long as it is.

[RuthMayBond]

Was Jim Kaat really tghe best defensive pitcher?

I am missing some data...I son't know for isntance how many of Kaat's assists were pickoffs. this makes a difference in how valuable he might be. But here is what PCA suggests about Kaat. I have him as being relatively pedestrian defensively.I knew it!

The top ten fielding pitchers by PCA in terms of wins/162 games:

First Last Ps W/Y Full G (9-innings)
John Clarkson SP 3.74 575
Carl Mays SP 3.21 459
Freddie Fitzsimmons SP 2.69 471
Hooks Dauss SP 2.66 405
Cy Young SP 2.41 841
Charley Radbourn SP 2.4 630
Charlie Buffinton SP 2.26 606
Greg Maddux SP 2.22 760
Harry Howell SP 2.16 461
Jack Quinn SP 2.14 490

Does seem strange that almost all are old-timers

<Was Connie Mack the best manager...OK I think the way I would approach that question is compare a team's pythagorean win total to its actual win total and figure out which managers consistantly got more wins for their production...this isn't a foolproof way to go about it, but managerial skill is something that's hard to put into numbers...I'll build a query to answer this question the best way I know how and get back to you. :)>

Sounds good, thanks!

<Where do I rank Blyleven amongst the pitchers all time?

In terms of total wins created, he is 19th all time...however this probably isn't the best way to rank players by greatness. I have come up with an index to rate greatness that combines the player's total wins created, a prorated total wins created over the course of a standard full career (this is to measure career scoring efficiency on something liek the same scale as career wins), and the total number of wins a player scored above and only above his career scoring average in individual seasons (if a player's average scoring rate over his career is 6 wins per 162 games, and in a full 162 game season he scored 11 wins, he'd get credit for 5 peak wins...whereas if he scored 5 wins in hat 162 game season, it would be entered as a zero)...this is designed to measure a player's capacity for great performances above and beyond what his scoring efficiency already tells us...

And by this ranking method, Blyleven drops to 43rd all time.>

Wait'll I tell ElHalo!

<How do I evaluate catchers prior to 1965?

Even without SB/CS data, there are still catcher elements that make fielding analysis of catchers possible and even with good solid accuracy. I still have complete records of PO, A, E, DP, and PB...and I still have team strikeout records to subtract out from PO score to find non-K putouts...and I have offensive records of sac hits and steals so I can give the catchers a league average rate of runs allowed by stolen base and sac hit (I realize this isn't perfect...but it's the bes we can do with the data we have...and you can still see differences in catching skill because even with constant stolen base rates, the assist count changes as does the non-K putout count)...it works fairly well although if you'd like to confirm that, make some requests for catchers whose careers spanned the period where that SB/CS data suddenly becomes available... :)>

Ooh, like Sherm Lollar, Paul Richards, maybe Phil Masi?

<DOes Hornsby's fielding significantly dongrade him...

Well...he's a below average fielder by PCA...scored a C- letter grade for his fielding, but I don't think it's so bad that it relaly has a massive impact on his overall rating.

He earned about 34 dewfensive wins while the great defensive second basemen were earning as many as 75 defensive wins (72 wins for Bid McPhee)...so there is a difference...but it's rare to get a good defensive second baseman who can also hit...Eddie Collins...that's about it...and Collins wasn't as far ahead of Hornsby on defense as McPhee.>

Boy, do the History viewers need to hear this

<A complete list of PCA gold glovers...

I have a file made with all of the PCA gold glovers in each year and league (some of these may change as the new data gets processed obviously)....

I make that file available to anyone who wants it...can't really post it all here because it would take al ot of work to format it correctly but if you want to leave an e-mail address I'll send you this file...it also contains a complete listing of defensive, pitching, and offensive letter grades based on mean/standard deviation of era adjusted scoring rates...and a complete listing of League MVPs and Cy Youngs.>

I'll PM you my e-mail addy, mucho gracias

[SABR Matt]

Sherm Lollar's season by season era adjusted defensive wins:

Age Yr Full G ADWC
21 1946 15 0.07
22 1947 8 0.04
23 1948 7 0.04
24 1949 76 0.40
25 1950 99 0.29
26 1951 82 0.54
27 1952 103 1.66
28 1953 91 1.44
29 1954 77 1.23
30 1955 125 1.87
31 1956 126 0.61
32 1957 93 1.69
33 1958 111 2.45
34 1959 129 2.38
35 1960 108 1.77
36 1961 86 0.94
37 1962 53 0.32
38 1963 16 0.18

Career W/162: 2.07, 50th of 148 eligible catchers, C+ Fielding Rating

Paul Richards' Catching Wins:

Age Yr PRG ADWC
23 1932 5 0.07
24 1933 18 0.22
25 1934 21 0.36
26 1935 72 0.54
34 1943 98 5.48
35 1944 90 1.98
36 1945 76 1.84
37 1946 48 0.68

Wow...we have an obviously fluky 1943 here but even without it, he was an excellent back-up catcher...never got to player regularly though...

You managed to pick guys who did NOT straddle the line between the 1960s and the 1970s when catching data because avaiable...LOL Pick again Ruth. :)

[Brad Harris]

I'd like to know where Sean Casey stacks up in PCA from 1998-2004 among NL first basemen.

[WJackman]

Matt,

Couple of questions of evaluation of catcher's.

From The Ferrell Brothers of Baseball, page 163, from the 1935 chapter.

"New York - in town for a four-games series that opened on August 5 - pounded six Boston hurlers in a 10-2 abbreviated game that was halted after five innings due to a heavy rain. The fifth inning was farcical. 'With another downpour imminent,' noted The Sporting News, 'the Yanks endeavored to make three outs, but the Sox endeavored just as much not to retire them. During this period the Yanks stole four bases.' The Boston Globe used a photograph of Rick Ferrell purposely juggling the ball at home plate, and Myril Hoag, who stole both second and home in the inning, waiting just short of home plate for Rick to tag him out. 'Finally Ferrell had his way and they gave Hoag a stolen base, of all things!' Both managers - Cronin and McCarthy - were fined $100 for their stalling tactics."

So, Matt, how would your system allow for this? I realize you do not have catchers' SB caught/attempt for that period, but if you had, how would you adjust for this? Held against Ferrell or not?

How also do you allow for doubleheaders in the period?

Page 14 of the same book. Also 1935.

"Boston dropped the next two games to St. Louis before traveling to Philadelphia where Cronin started Grove and Ferrell in a doubleheader on July 27. The first game was a 7-6 Philadelphia victory in 15 innings. Grove went the distance, allowing 21 hits and 6 walks....Johnny Marcum, the Athletics' ace, faced Wes in the second game, and Mack's only lineup change was a different catcher. Rick Ferrell, who caught all 24 innings, handled his brother's 2-0 three hit shutout. Wes was dominant, allowing only an infield single through the first seven innings."

I am wondering because most of the anecdotal data from the era claimed Rick Ferrell to be an incredible fielding catcher.

TSN in the Spring of 1933: "Ferrell's catching form in near perfection. There isn't a better thrower in either big league, and at bat, he's a line drive batter of the most dangerous type."

Ben Chapman in the Spring of 1933: "Well, everybody knows you don't steal on the catchers, as a rule, but the fellow I find the hardest to steal against is Rick Ferrell of the Browns. He gets the ball down there where the second baseman wants it."

Most observers of the day had similar views of Rick Ferrell, yet Bill James WS formula has Ferrell a B- defender while Dickey and Cochrane get an A. Does Ferrell's handling of the knuckleballers post 1938 hurt his evaluation. Shirley Povich, plus several of knuckleballers, said that the reason they were so successful was the Ferrell was not concerned about his own defensive reputation and thus was willing to repeatedly call for the knuckler, despite the fact that it often made him look bad; something other catchers wouldn't do.

Johnny Niggling on Dutch Leonard: "He was lucky enough to have a fellow like Ferrell who wasn't afraid to call for it. There were other catchers in the big leagues, supposed to be good catchers, who wouldn't risk their reputations by calling for the knuckler because it was so hard to handle. But when Leonard came up from Atlanta and found out he could pitch to Ferrell and win, the whole league got knuckle-ball conscious."

Povich on Leonard: "...may never have made good in the majors except for the help he got from Rick, who, unlike the catchers Leonard had in his trial with Brooklyn, kept calling for Leonard to throw his knuckler. Ferrell didn't care about his own catching record. In fact, in the same years he was acknowledged as one of the great catchers of the league, he was charged with the most passed balls, due chiefly to that butterfly ball of Leonards."

Povich on Niggling: "It's more that a coincidence, too, that Johnny Niggeling developed as a knuckleballer with the Browns when Ferrellwas the Browns' catcher these two seasons. He couldn't win in his previous trials in the majors, but when he found a catcher who could handle his knuckler and wasn't afraid to call for it, Niggeling blossomed as one of the best pitches in the league."

Matt, I have been impressed with your thoughts about how difficult it is to separate a player's stats from the team, but how can I believe that a 24 year-old is any more knowledgable and has a better system than the rest of the sabrmetric wizards who evalute history by a couple of computer strokes?

How do you adjust for team and managerial desicions. Both Ferrell's played on very middle of the road teams and thus did not have the advantages of players on better teams; IE more rest and platooning. Rick often was hitting .330 into mid to late August for the years 1931-1938 only to tail off badly in the last six weeks.

And how would you adjust for managerial decisions like this one. In 1935 and 1936, Cronin started Wes Ferrell and Grove on days of rest between starts this many times. (subtract two, one of each's first start of the seasom).

0 days of rest: Ferrell 1, Grove 0
2 days of rest: Ferrell 11, Grove 1
3 days of rest: Ferrell 36, Grove 27
4 days of rest: Ferrell 19, Grove 11
5 days of rest: Ferrell 4, Grove 9
6 and (+) days of rest: Ferrell: 3, Grove 10.


Just wondering?

[SABR Matt]

I do think Ferrell's exceedingly high passed ball counts are the primary reason for his defensive demise statistically...some sabermetricians are attempting to find ways to make adjustments for caatching uncatchable pitchers like Wakefield and Sparks in the modern era (quoth Bob Euker: "The best way to catch a knuckleball is to wait for it stop rolling and pick it up"), but that is something I'm not sure how to alter without subjective adjustments...I would need a complete database of pitch types caught by every catcher to adjust for pitching difficulty....either than or I'd need complete wild pitch data...(if a pitcher is throwing a lot of wild pitches then he's probably not making it easy on the catcher)which dosn't exist until 1955.

Cochrane and Dickey were both excellent defensive catchers by PCA...I made the mistake of not looking up their letter grades and calling Dickey a poor fielder in another conversation...it is apparent that I was wrong.

Cochrane: A
Dickey: A-
Ferrell: C

BTW had I had stolen base data available, those four steals would probably not have gone into the books as steals but Fielder Indifferences which don't go against a catcher's record.

[chisoxrule]

Matt,

I was wondering:
Who has the most walk-off home runs?
Can you make a top ten list for the best baseball players and top ten pitchers?

[SABR Matt]

Walk Off HRs I couldn't tell ya...not somethingb that is tracked statistically..

top ten players and pitchers I'll post here once the new PCA is finished...I am just getting new data this week and I'm hoping to post a lot of new information here, so stay tuned.

[chisoxrule]

OK, Thanks :)

[Imapotato]

In regards to pitchers

I am surprised Ed Walsh is not there...from what I gather, he was the best all around fielder at P in deadball (some were better, but Walsh pitched longer)

[SABR Matt]

In regards to pitchers

I am surprised Ed Walsh is not there...from what I gather, he was the best all around fielder at P in deadball (some were better, but Walsh pitched longer)

Walsh is pretty highly rated defensively...he's got an A letter grade...

[SABR Matt]

I'd like to know where Sean Casey stacks up in PCA from 1998-2004 among NL first basemen.

Casey has quietly been pretty good...let's see how he compares

Age Yr BaO TWC
22 1997 8 0.04
23 1998 235 3.56
24 1999 419 9.18
25 2000 351 6.22
26 2001 388 6.41
27 2002 329 1.2
28 2003 428 5.05
29 2004 408 9.63

That's a pretty nice though badly inconsistant career for Casey...here's what Todd Helton has looked like:

Age Yr BaO TWC
23 1997 69 0.53
24 1998 387 7.94
25 1999 417 9.97
26 2000 389 22.86
27 2001 415 14.94
28 2002 392 17.49
29 2003 404 18.39
30 2004 375 19.11

That gives you a bit of an idea of how Casey compares to an elite first baseman...don't let that magnitude of difference fool you though...Casey is still a very good player...the average production from his position is about 4 wins in a season...so his 6-9 wins in most years is outstanding.

[BoSox Rule]

How much does defense hurt Manny?

[chisoxrule]

Who has the most consecutive ABs with a Home run; triple; double; single?

[TKD]

Who has the most consecutive ABs with a Home run; triple; double; single?
I think that you're missing the (current) intent of PCA, which is to provide information about a player's worth. To answer this question within the framework of our database would require play-by-play data, which isn't readily available for much of baseball's history. We do eventually plan to integrate play-by-play data when it becomes feasible and practical to do so, but this won't be immediate by any means.

[RuthMayBond]

Who has the most consecutive ABs with a Home run?I'm pretty sure the answer to this is four, by several people

[chisoxrule]

Origanilly posted by TKD
I think that you're missing the (current) intent of PCA

I think you're right.

[iPod]

My requests:

Your defensive grades for (just in the order I'm thinking of them)...

1) Matt Williams
2) Jeff Kent
3) Mickey Mantle
4) Wes Westrum
5) Dick Stuart
6) Hal Chase
7) Kirk Rueter
8) Vlad Guerrero
9) Ivan Rodriguez
10) Babe Ruth
11) Derek Jeter
12) Pepper Martin
13) George Sisler
14) Gil Hodges
15) Ernie Lombardi
16) Reggie Jackson
17) Willie McCovey
18) Jackie Robinson
19) Ray Schalk
20) Nap Lajoie

[SABR Matt]

My defensive grades for...

1) Matt Williams - B (hung around through some injuries and struggled defensively at the end of his career...otherwise would have been an A)
2) Jeff Kent - C
3) Mickey Mantle - D (a little anechddote here...Mantle started out as a brilliant fielder, several time posting above average fielding win seasons...but he deteriorated so fast and so young that his career value is shot)
4) Wes Westrum - C
5) Dick Stuart - F (second worst first baseman of all time)
6) Hal Chase - D+
7) Kirk Rueter - B
8) Vlad Guerrero - C- (but rapidly improving...Vlad has gotten a LOT better at taking routes to the ball and making accurate throws with his cannon)
9) Ivan Rodriguez - A+
10) Babe Ruth - C
11) Derek Jeter - F (4th worst SS of all time)
12) Pepper Martin - C
13) George Sisler - C (ran off 6 straight years of very good defense at first as he approached his prime...then hurt his eye and was never the same)
14) Gil Hodges - C+
15) Ernie Lombardi - D+
16) Reggie Jackson - C+
17) Willie McCovey - D
18) Jackie Robinson - B (it's a shame we missed the early years of his career, becasue I suspect they would have heped his defensive letter grade...nonetheless, a B is a good score the way I have chosen to scale things)
19) Ray Schalk - C
20) Nap Lajoie - A

[iPod]

If I could just ask a few more; I'm just curious about your system. It sounds like it's a lot different from defensive win shares.

1) Barry Bonds
2) Mike Matheny
3) Keith Hernandez
4) Joe Morgan
5) Scott Rolen
6) Omar Vizquel
7) Mark Belanger
8) Jose Offerman
9) Jim Rice
10) Joe DiMaggio
11) Dom DiMaggio
12) Bill Russell
13) Mike Piazza
14) Ted Kluszewski
15) Dode Paskert
16) Jim Ray Hart
17) Chuck Knoblauch
18) Bob Boone
19) Christy Mathewson
20) Billy Williams

[Imapotato]

My defensive grades for...

1) Matt Williams - B (hung around through some injuries and struggled defensively at the end of his career...otherwise would have been an A)
2) Jeff Kent - C
3) Mickey Mantle - D (a little anechddote here...Mantle started out as a brilliant fielder, several time posting above average fielding win seasons...but he deteriorated so fast and so young that his career value is shot)
4) Wes Westrum - C
5) Dick Stuart - F (second worst first baseman of all time)
6) Hal Chase - D+
7) Kirk Rueter - B
8) Vlad Guerrero - C- (but rapidly improving...Vlad has gotten a LOT better at taking routes to the ball and making accurate throws with his cannon)
9) Ivan Rodriguez - A+
10) Babe Ruth - C
11) Derek Jeter - F (4th worst SS of all time)
12) Pepper Martin - C
13) George Sisler - C (ran off 6 straight years of very good defense at first as he approached his prime...then hurt his eye and was never the same)
14) Gil Hodges - C+
15) Ernie Lombardi - D+
16) Reggie Jackson - C+
17) Willie McCovey - D
18) Jackie Robinson - B (it's a shame we missed the early years of his career, becasue I suspect they would have heped his defensive letter grade...nonetheless, a B is a good score the way I have chosen to scale things)
19) Ray Schalk - C
20) Nap Lajoie - A


Nah...don't like it

Nap an A?
Rodriguez A+?
Schalk a C???


The encylopedia of Catchers website has a much better method of ranking catchers, some surprised me, but many proved my feelings correct, such as I-Rod being not so great and Charles Johnson being the 2nd best defensive C after Schalk

[SABR Matt]

1) Barry Bonds - C
2) Mike Matheny - A+
3) Keith Hernandez - A+
4) Joe Morgan - C-
5) Scott Rolen - A+
6) Omar Vizquel - C+
7) Mark Belanger - A
8) Jose Offerman - D
9) Jim Rice - C
10) Joe DiMaggio - C+
11) Dom DiMaggio - A-
12) Bill Russell - C
13) Mike Piazza - D
14) Ted Kluszewski - D-
15) Dode Paskert - B-
16) Jim Ray Hart - D-
17) Chuck Knoblauch - C
18) Bob Boone - A-
19) Christy Mathewson - B+
20) Billy Williams - D-

[SABR Matt]

Nah...don't like it

Nap an A?
Rodriguez A+?
Schalk a C???


The encylopedia of Catchers website has a much better method of ranking catchers, some surprised me, but many proved my feelings correct, such as I-Rod being not so great and Charles Johnson being the 2nd best defensive C after Schalk

The only way you could possibly NOT think Pudge was a great defensive catcher would be if you were attempting to rate him as a pitch caller...which is something that I don't think is particularly possible to do with nay great accuracy...I attempted it at one point a while back but found it a rat's nest of problems. On the merits of holding down the baserunning game...Pudge Rodriguez is a brilliant defensive catcher...no way around it.

I won't claim my catcher defensive ratings are perfect...but I think I'm a lot closer than you seem to think.

As for Nap Lajoie...yes I sand by my A rating for Lajoie..an A rating places him in the top 20 but out of top ten...I think that's reasonable.

[SABR Matt]

Of course being the eternally curious type...I checked out the Encyclopedia of catchers site...the fielding analysis there was startlingly simplistic for it to curry your favor...they use CERA for instance which abermetricians have long since proven worthless for compaing catchers.

[cubbieinexile]

Nah...don't like it

Nap an A?
Rodriguez A+?
Schalk a C???


The encylopedia of Catchers website has a much better method of ranking catchers, some surprised me, but many proved my feelings correct, such as I-Rod being not so great and Charles Johnson being the 2nd best defensive C after Schalk

Maybe I missed it but where do they have Ray Schalk and Charles Johnson number 1 and 2 in defense all time?

[SABR Matt]

I don't see an obvious "here are our rankings right here!!!" link...I just see a lot of poorly conceived statistics that make no sense to use in the analysis of catching defense.

[Imapotato]

http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/great_cards5.htm

the rankings

[iPod]

Hodges: C+
Schalk: C
Bonds: C
Morgan: C-
Vizquel: C+
J. DiMaggio: C+
Mantle: D

I dunno, Matt, those are pretty tough to stomach.

[SABR Matt]

I would agree there are some disappointing marks on that list...though some of them have obviosu explanaions. I do believe some of these things will change as the defensive part of PCA is reworked...(much as the offensive part of PCA was reworked recently)...bear with us for a bit...we're bringing the new PCA forward in stages.

and still learning as we go...

I just made a rather lengthy post in the History forum (under my New PCA Top 25 Hitters" thread) about my study of of error patterns in linear weights Runs Created and in win based analysis.

it will likely precipitate significant changes to all aspecs of the system.

[Electric City]

How do the PCA rankings stack up in Wins as regards to the best all-time for Father/Son combos? The Bonds, Griffeys, Boones, etc. And the same for brother combos? The Niekros, Bretts, Boones, etc.

Thanks. I've been reading The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract and find it fascinating.

Anthony

[zman]

I'd like defensive grades for the following, please...

Carl Furillo

Al Kaline

Roger Maris

Roberto Clemente

Johnny Callison

Rocky Colavito


Thanks very much

[RuthMayBond]

My defensive grades for...

6) Hal Chase - D+
13) George Sisler - C (ran off 6 straight years of very good defense at first as he approached his prime...then hurt his eye and was never the same)
19) Ray Schalk - CBurgess, are you listening about Chase & Sisler? (although I'm surprised about Schalk)

[RuthMayBond]

it will likely precipitate significant changes to all aspecs of the system.Hm, you had said things wouldn't change much

[RuthMayBond]

The encylopedia of Catchers website has a much better method of ranking catchers, some surprised me, but many proved my feelings correct, such as I-Rod being not so great and Charles Johnson being the 2nd best defensive C after Schalk
I-Rod's defensive SB% thrown out thru '04 - 48%
CJohnson defensive SB% thrown out thru '04 - 40%

[SABR Matt]

I-Rod's defensive SB% thrown out thru '04 - 48%
CJohnson defensive SB% thrown out thru '04 - 40%

As I said...Schalk could only move ahead of a lot of other catchers (as could CJ) if some false analysis of CERA were applied...CERA doesn't work...it's been proven...

[SABR Matt]

Hm, you had said things wouldn't change much

When did I say "things wouldn't change much"...Ruth you have to understand that when I make changes it's after thorough research has tought me more about the game...rather than acting like changes to PCA are some sign that I'm a fool...you should be acting like changes to PCA are a sign that I am an open minded scientist doing good research and learning valuable lessons about the game.

[SABR Matt]

Burgess, are you listening about Chase & Sisler? (although I'm surprised about Schalk)

I've already had this debate about Sisler with Bill...he understands why Sisler doesn't rate well defensively...he was a very good fielder before his eye injury...then he fell to below average...Bill knows that.

[RuthMayBond]

As I said...Schalk could only move ahead of a lot of other catchers (as could CJ) if some false analysis of CERA were applied...CERA doesn't work...it's been proven...I'm surprised they have CERA as far back as Schalk, but I'm not sure he needs it. The man led his league in A twice, DP four times, fielding% six times and PO nine times (never in E or PB). Do you have him winning any PCA Gold Gloves?

[SABR Matt]

Carl Furillo - C+

Al Kaline - A

Roger Maris - C

Roberto Clemente - B

Johnny Callison - C+

Rocky Colavito - B

All good fielders in their primes...Maris' career went right in the crapper after his 61 HR season both offensively aned defensively..it's a shame he broke down so quickly.

[SABR Matt]

I'm surprised they have CERA as far back as Schalk, but I'm not sure he needs it. The man led his league in A twice, DP four times, fielding% six times and PO nine times (never in E or PB). Do you have him winning any PCA Gold Gloves?

F% for catchers is nearly meaningless.

PO are not relevetn either...not by themselves...you should try subtracting team strikeouts from each team's PO data and then perhaps prorating the reamining non-K putous amongst the PO on a team.

PCA rewards Schalk with gold gloves in 1914, 1916, and 1922 for what it's worth.

[zman]

Carl Furillo - C+

Al Kaline - A

Roger Maris - C

Roberto Clemente - B

Johnny Callison - C+

Rocky Colavito - B

All good fielders in their primes...Maris' career went right in the crapper after his 61 HR season both offensively aned defensively..it's a shame he broke down so quickly.

Thanks much

[RuthMayBond]

F% for catchers is nearly meaningless.

PO are not relevetn either...not by themselves...you should try subtracting team strikeouts from each team's PO data and then perhaps prorating the reamining non-K putous amongst the PO on a team.

PCA rewards Schalk with gold gloves in 1914, 1916, and 1922 for what it's worth.Seems kinda odd for a three-time GG to be average defensively

[chisoxrule]

Matt,
What is your defensive grade for Tris Speaker and Willie Mays?

[Imapotato]

F% for catchers is nearly meaningless.

PO are not relevetn either...not by themselves...you should try subtracting team strikeouts from each team's PO data and then perhaps prorating the reamining non-K putous amongst the PO on a team.

PCA rewards Schalk with gold gloves in 1914, 1916, and 1922 for what it's worth.


I agree PO are meaningless, but PO's are what usually make I-Rod look like a GREAT defensive C

F% is not really meaningless, you throw it over the 2nd baseman's head on a steal attempt he goes to 3rd....F% is VERY important for a C, maybe moreso then any other player, with maybe 1B being the exception

The DEFENSIVE Categories used were: Games Caught as a Percentage of Team's Games Played (GC), Assists per Game (A/G), Errors per Game (E/G), Fielding Average Minus League Fielding Average for Catchers (F-LFLD%), Doubleplays per Game (DP/G), and Passed Balls per Game (PB/G).

I trhink that is the best method so far, and it isn't skewed by made up formulas

[SABR Matt]

Speaker is an A
Mays is a B-...primarily because he tried to hang around in CF far too long...PCA suggests that Mays was all-world defensively until about 1963...and then declined rather badly.

[Imapotato]

Matt maybe that is the problem

When discussing how good defensively a player is...peak value should be key

Schalk, Bonds, Mantle...all had invariables, maybe split it to what they WERE before their downfall as well as career?

[SABR Matt]

I agree PO are meaningless, but PO's are what usually make I-Rod look like a GREAT defensive C

Not true...what makes Pudge look like a great defensive catcher is the lack of steals he alloows and the rate at which he makes assists per runner at first base.


F% is not really meaningless, you throw it over the 2nd baseman's head on a steal attempt he goes to 3rd....F% is VERY important for a C, maybe moreso then any other player, with maybe 1B being the exception

Not really true...Fielding % as currently calculated more measures STRIKEOUT RATE than anything else for catchers because PO (which include Ks) way overpower anything else the catcher does to build his fielding %.

Errors are important...passed balls are important...F% is nonsense.

[SABR Matt]

The DEFENSIVE Categories used were: Games Caught as a Percentage of Team's Games Played (GC), Assists per Game (A/G), Errors per Game (E/G), Fielding Average Minus League Fielding Average for Catchers (F-LFLD%), Doubleplays per Game (DP/G), and Passed Balls per Game (PB/G).

I trhink that is the best method so far, and it isn't skewed by made up formulas

Games caught as a percentage of team games is a factor in PCA...it measures playing time...that's fine.

Assists per game however is severely biased...teams with more baserunners will have more chances for the catcher to make an assist...also great defensive catchers don't necessarily make a lot of assists because people DON'T RUN OFF OF THEM.

Errors per game doesn't vary much from catcher tgo catcher.

F%-League F% is biased to favor cathcers who catch pitchers that strike a lot of poeple out.

Most DP turned by Catchers are of the 1-2-3 variety or similar and are not signiicantly more valuable than a Catcher Assist.

I personally think that "analysis" is a joke...a ludicrous joke.

[SABR Matt]

Matt maybe that is the problem

When discussing how good defensively a player is...peak value should be key

Schalk, Bonds, Mantle...all had invariables, maybe split it to what they WERE before their downfall as well as career?

Perhaps...ubt how would you go about defining where the peak occured.

I measure career efficiency...it generally works OK...but I agree with you that it doesn't really mesaure fielding "talent"...

[chisoxrule]

Matt,
What is your defensive grade for Royce Clayton?

[cubbieinexile]

I agree PO are meaningless, but PO's are what usually make I-Rod look like a GREAT defensive C

F% is not really meaningless, you throw it over the 2nd baseman's head on a steal attempt he goes to 3rd....F% is VERY important for a C, maybe moreso then any other player, with maybe 1B being the exception



And how often does that happen? And when he does happen the effect is dampened because of all the strikeout being added to his total.

[SABR Matt]

We actually agree on a lot Cubbie...it's a shame we don't often get to see that.

[SABR Matt]

Matt,
What is your defensive grade for Royce Clayton?

Clayton: C+

Again he was a better fielder 8 years ago...he's gotten quite old and quite ineffective of late.

[cubbieinexile]

We actually agree on a lot Cubbie...it's a shame we don't often get to see that.


Of course we agree on a lot of things. I think you will find that most baseball fans agree on a lot of things in regards to baseball, and that most stat-oriented fans agree on a lot of things as well. We all learned from the same book.

[iPod]

And how often does that happen? And when he does happen the effect is dampened because of all the strikeout being added to his total.

So why can't you look at fielding percentage independent of strikeouts? I seem to remember James talking about something like that when talking about Johnny Bench; that his fielding % is lower than it should be because the Reds pitchers weren't strikeout guys.

[cubbieinexile]

Of course you can. For instance at the Encyclopedia of Catchers there is another article in which they attempt to evaluate the defensive value of modern catchers and one of the 5 or 6 criteria is fielding percentage in which IPO is used. Independant Put outs. By the way in that rating system Ivan Rodriguez is number one and Charles Johnson number 3. Origianlly when Imapotato posted his note I thought he was referring to this system and I wrote a post responding to it, after I wrote it I realized that he was not talking about that system so I erased it and asked a question instead.

Since I erased it once I don't feel like writing it again other than to say I had plenty of problems with its criteria.

Even with IPO fielding % doesn't deal well with variables that are not common to all pitchers on all teams.

[SABR Matt]

and the other criteria in the "analysis" are poorly managed as well...for instance...A/G...which we KNOW doesn't work.

[moneyballs]

i'm a huge SABRmetrician and a huge giants fan (yes, brian sabean is an idiot). anyways, how does darren lewis rank defensively in his prime? i know he had the long errorless streak, but was it because of stellar play or rather lack of range?

[cubbieinexile]

I would love to be an idot like Brian Sabean, as far as GM's go he is above average.

[538280]

Matt, how do you rate each of the following players defensively?

Johnny Bench
Hal Chase
Steve Garvey
Bill Buckner
George Sisler
Brooks Robinson
Ron Santo
Mike Schmidt
Derek Jeter

[SABR Matt]

Johnny Bench - A-
Hal Chase - D+
Steve Garvey - B
Bill Buckner - C
George Sisler - C+
Brooks Robinson - A+
Ron Santo - C
Mike Schmidt - B
Derek Jeter - F

[Bill Burgess]

In creating my thumbnail sketches of great hitting seasons, I would very much appreciate the "hitting only" component of PCA, to add to my vital stats, for the following seasons. Remember, only hitting, no defense/running.


Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever:



-----------------Rel.SLG--Rel.OBP---Rel.BA.-OPS+--INK---WS---PCA
Bonds, 2001-------2.04 ----1.57------1.27---262---09
Ruth,1921---------2.07-----1.43------1.29---239---16
Gehrig,1927-------1.91-----1.34------1.30---221---07
Mantle,1956-------1.78-----1.36------1.35---210---18
Hornsby,1922------1.78-----1.31------1.37---207---23
Foxx,1932---------1.85-----1.35------1.31---205---14
Wagner,1908-------1.76-----1.38------1.48---205---19
Musial,1948-------1.83-----1.35------1.44---200---20
Cobb,1911---------1.73-----1.38------1.53---196---22
Yaz,1967----------1.77-----1.38------1.38---195---21
T.Williams,1949---1.71-----1.38------1.30---192---19
Sisler,1920-------1.63-----1.29------1.43---181---08
Wilson,1930-------1.61-----1.26------1.17---178---13
Simmons,1930------1.68-----1.20------1.32---176---07
B. Herman,1930----1.51-----1.26------1.29---170---00
DiMaggio,1937-----1.62-----1.16------1.32---168---07
Klein,1930--------1.53-----1.21------1.27---159---06
Brett, 1980-------1.44-----1.38------1.66---202
Cash, 1961--------1.41-----1.46------1.37---201
Lajoie, 1901------1.53-----1.38------1.73---200---23
F.Robinson, 1966--1.28-----1.31------1.68---199---18
J. Jackson, 1911--1.49-----1.38------1.49---193
Vaughan, 1935-----1.38-----1.48------1.31---190
Delahanty, 1899---1.44-----1.33------1.59---189
Speaker, 1912-----1.44-----1.39------1.54---188
Kiner, 1951-------1.18-----1.31------1.60---184
Burkett, 1901-----1.42-----1.35------1.49---181
Aaron, 1959-------1.36-----1.24------1.59---181
Al Rosen, 1953----1.28-----1.23------1.60---180
Medwick, 1937-----1.37-----1.24------1.42---180---24
Carew, 1977-------1.45-----1.35------1.40---178
H.Duffy, 1894-----1.42-----1.26------1.58---177
Mays, 1954--------1.30-----1.22------1.63---175
Wagner, 1900------1.36-----1.28------1.56---175
Greenberg, 1937---1.19-----1.22------1.60---172
Mize, 1937--------1.33-----1.24------1.55---172
Clemente, 1967----1.13-----1.24------1.52---170
Snider, 1954------1.28-----1.20------1.58---170
Zimmerman, 1912---1.36-----1.19------1.54---169
Heilmann, 1921----1.34-----1.24------1.51---167
Reiser, 1941------1.32-----1.18------1.54---165
Ott, 1929---------1.11-----1.22------1.49---165
Keeler, 1897------1.42-----1.28------1.49---164
K.Williams, 1922--1.16-----1.13------1.57---164
Z.Wheat, 1924-----1.32-----1.25------1.40---163
Crawford, 1911----1.38-----1.23------1.46---163
Averill, 1936-----1.30-----1.16------1.48---159
J.Robinson, 1949--1.30-----1.23------1.35---159
O'Doul, 1929------1.35-----1.30------1.46---159
Terry, 1930-------1.32-----1.25------1.38---158
J.Rice, 1978------1.20-----1.08------1.55---158---16
Rose, 1969--------1.39-----1.27------1.38---158
Colavito, 1961----1.13-----1.17------1.46---157
P.Waner, 1927-----1.27-----1.22------1.33---155
Manush, 1928------1.34-----1.15------1.44---154
Oliva, 1964-------1.30-----1.10------1.45---150
T.Davis, 1961-----1.31-----1.13------1.34---148
Trosky, 1936------1.14-----1.01------1.46---148
B.Williams, 1970--1.24-----1.10------1.49---147
Gehringer, 1936---1.22-----1.15------1.31---142
Z.Wheat, 1925-----1.22-----1.13------1.30---142
Cuyler, 1930------1.13-----1.15------1.17---133
Lindstrom, 1930---1.25-----1.07------1.28---132
J.Tobin, 1921-----1.20-----1.05------1.19---119

Bill Burgess

[therealnod]

Can I put in a request that any requesting folks take heed of previously requested players and their already posted stats? I mean as much as I like seeing "F" next to Jeter's name, at some point it becomes redundant. If a guy you want to know about is already listed, please take note.

[SABR Matt]

Agreed nod. :)

I don't mind digging any info you guys want out of the vault...but I'd rather only do it once. :D

[SABR Matt]

that's a lot of players. :)

I may take thise a handful at a time, Bill, but I can give you that info.

[moneyballs]

I would love to be an idot like Brian Sabean, as far as GM's go he is above average.
mike matheny 3yr, $10.5 mil
omar vizquel 3yr, $12 mil
armondo benitez 3 yr, $21 mil
latroy hawkins for 2 23 year old pitchers who are very good


brian sabean is not a good GM. he has just had the luck of having barry bonds for years which has masked how bad of a GM he is.

[cubbieinexile]

Here is an article (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/inside-the-mind-of-brian-sabean) that looks into Sabean

He has some good trades as well, he traded for Kent, he traded for Jason Schmidt, Felix Rodriquez, Robb Nen, Livan Hernandez, signed Ray Durham.

Not saying Brain Sabean is the greatest but he has gotten a lot without spending a lot and that is saying something. It appears this year he overplayed his strategy. It happens sometimes the game passes you by if you don't change. Billy Beane went with young and cheap and ride the stud pitchers he didn't the results he wanted last year and he forced himself to make a change now, fearing that it would get worse later on. Whether his changes are right or not remain to be seen. Sabean went with old and cheap and that has worked for from the get go, this year it broke down. Personally I think he stuck with it one year too long and some of his signings right now are very questionable. But in terms of Money both the Matheny and Vizquel signings are negligible. Bonds contract is up after next year I believe, I also believe that next year he will get paid around 18 million dollars and it I still believe it is possible that Giants if they wanted to could void Bonds contract due to not enough PA in 2005. But even if they don't the Giants don't have any albatross contracts hanging around their neck not allowing them to do something next year or the year after that, besides obviously Bonds. Vizquel and Matheny are not crippling, plus a lot of the contracts are up after this year freeing up tons of money. SO Brian has successfully avoided handcuffing the Giants to bad contracts that they have to eat for years to come, while at the same time competing by exploiting a market inefficiency.

[cubbieinexile]

Contracts that are there for next year:
Bonds, maybe no if they can void and do void
Benitez
Alou, if Alou picks up option
Alfonzo
Durham, if player picks up option
Hawkins, if player option
Vizquel
Feliz
Christiansen, team option
Matheny

and that is it as far as I can tell, next year they are on the hook for 59 million dollars if all options are picked up. Much less if Bonds can be voided and does, or if Alou and Durham leave.

But even if they all stay going into next year the Giants should have an above average second basemen (Durham), an above average RF (Alou), an above average LF (Bonds), a decent catcher in Matheny, and if the pixie dust Omar is inhaling then a decent enough SS. Alfonzo hopefully managing to pull off something close to average at third. Leaving only first base and CF to be addressed in the offseason for hitters. Theoretically the bullpen should be in good shape with Armando healthy and closing and Hawkins setting up. I know that is an if and that some people would laugh at this. Fill out the rest of the bullpen with youngsters and retreads and you have your bullpen without a lot of extra cost. Which leaves the starting staff which is going to need a lot of money put into it but the Giants are going to have that money, whether their will be players to be bought remains to be seen.

[SABR Matt]

There aren't 5 starfters worth signing becoming available this off-season...the Giants be lucky if they get one or two...which means their pitching is going to powerfully suck...and if they'e on the hook for 59 million dollars already, they're in deep trouble because their payroll can't exceed 80 or 85 million...

[SABR Matt]

In creating my thumbnail sketches of great hitting seasons, I would bery much appreciate the "hitting only" component of PCA, to add to my vital stats, for the following seasons. Remember, only hitting, no defense/running.

Hey Bill...I'm gonna want to get Randy to give you our new offensive Wins for those seasons rather than giving you the data I currently have because I know there's been some changes.

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks, Matt, that's cool, but I hope offensive wins doesn't include running values. In this particular exercise, I'm trying to isolate the hitting component only. To keep it clean of other tools.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

hrrrmm...well that I don't actually have...my offensive metric includes all mannor of run producing modes...which means it includes baserunning...we can attempt to break it into componants but that will take a long time to set up...we're trying to get the whole system working before we start doing stuff like that.

[iPod]

Mays is a B-...primarily because he tried to hang around in CF far too long...PCA suggests that Mays was all-world defensively until about 1963...and then declined rather badly.

Mays is a B-?! Matt, come on, buddy, I love what you're trying to do, but, jeez, man, some of these rankings are just really off.

[cubbieinexile]

There aren't 5 starfters worth signing becoming available this off-season...the Giants be lucky if they get one or two...which means their pitching is going to powerfully suck...and if they'e on the hook for 59 million dollars already, they're in deep trouble because their payroll can't exceed 80 or 85 million...


I don't expect them to sign 5 starters nor should they have to. You don't have to win with 5 good or better starters. All they really need is two, heck the Giants have managed to win for along time without even two very good starters. If they resign Schmidt then all they really need is one other pitcher and they fill out the rest with the cheap trash heap and youngsters. I don't think Noah Lowry is going to be this bad, so right there you have a 4th or 5th starter, throw in a guy like Estes or Rueter at the back on the cheap and all you need is a number 2 guy and you haven't really broken the bank at all.

[iPod]

Guys, no offense, but could we not turn this into a thread about Brian Sabean?

Matt, how about these guys; all first-basemen, all with excellent defensive reputations, none of whom (I think) have been mentioned:

Charlie Grimm
George Scott
Vic Power
Bill White
J.T. Snow
George Kelly
Wes Parker
Frank McCormick
Bill Terry
Don Mattingly
Wally Pipp
Todd Helton

[SABR Matt]

Mays is a B-?! Matt, come on, buddy, I love what you're trying to do, but, jeez, man, some of these rankings are just really off.

That one has bothered me for over a year ipod. I think there are two possible culprits for the low grade for Mays...

1) I have up until recently been forced to assume that team defenses gave up the league average rate of singles, soubles, and triples per in play hit (H-HR) prior to 1969 becasue that data doesn't exist further back than that. It works fairly well but we know that Mays' outfield probably didn't give up the league average rate of 2B and 3B per IPH...the in play hits they did allow were probably more the fault of the infield than I currently claim.

I have been developng a better method for estimating 2B and 3B allowed based on my dynamic linear weights and the idea that I can subtract out the other defensive events and their associated run values and isolate doubles and triples that way...the new defensive statistics/ratings have not yet been calculated but that's coming within the next few days.

2) Mays did in fact start out as a great defensive center fielder but he layed the position longer than almost anyone in major league history and probably stayed there too long...there is evidence that he became a pretty average outfielder after 1965.

Now your first basemen:

Charlie Grimm - C-
George Scott - C+
Vic Power - A
Bill White - B+
J.T. Snow - D (This one really surprised me...it is likely this one will change with new data as I think the error here was in how I was analyzing left handed pitching, another flaw I found a few months ago when Randy was just getting ready to start coding the new PCA)
George Kelly - B
Wes Parker - A-
Frank McCormick - A
Bill Terry - C (two different errors at the same time..left handed pitching and the pre-1969 infield/outfield blurring caused by bad estimates of doubles and triples allowed)
Don Mattingly - C+ (this one I believe...when his back started acting up he became pretty lousy fielder)
Wally Pipp - A
Todd Helton - A+

[Imapotato]

Well Helton has no decline, and probably never will as he will become a DH

Pipp is a little overrated, but he sort of disappeared after going to Cincy

Maybe take out their last 2 years???
and compensating for abrupt end of career guys and guys who became platoon/defensive replacements, which lowers their rate stats significantly


Oh and I don't think the C Encylopedia is ludicrous, much as I think your attempt is not.

I always thought comparing to peers is the lesser of two evils in Baseball, too many invariables due to eras otherwise

[538280]

Johnny Bench - A-
Hal Chase - D+
Steve Garvey - B
Bill Buckner - C
George Sisler - C+
Brooks Robinson - A+
Ron Santo - C
Mike Schmidt - B
Derek Jeter - F

All of those grades seem to correspond with my thoughts, except for Hal Chase. Chase probably had more support from more baseball men than anyone in history. Even if his stats don't show it, I still have to say that Chase was a great defensive first baseman, since almost everyone from that era was constantly praising his fielding. I have never, ever, in looking through old baseball lists, heard any criticism of Chase's fielding. Lawrence Ritter and Daniel Honig even listed Chase among their top 100 players ever, due to his fabulous glove work. He certainly doesn't deserve to be one of the top 100 players ever, but even if the stats don't agree, I still go with the overwhelming opinions of many of Chase's contemporaries.

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

I guess I will take those PCA values for those hitting seasons. I'll take what I can get. Thanks in advance.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

To Bill...you should probably know that baserunning can't really be excluded from Win Shares either so if you get offensive Win Shares for those guys...you're gonna get baserunning roo.

What you can do though is just remember that baserunning is included and include some basic baserunning stats in that table to people know who on that list got some value from his legs.

And eventually I will be able to provide baserunning-free hitting ratings as well...that'll just take some time.

To Mr. October..I would agree with you on Chase...as would most people...he's definitely not a D+ first baseman...that rating is off...I've seen a few examples here of ratings of mine that I don't like...hopefully some of them will be alleviated by our work on the new PCA...we're making a LOT of changes to the defensive method moreso than any of the other pieces.

One other flaw with hese ratings...they include the defensive ratings and Full Games played of all of the positions manned by each player...the position lable is simply the player's majority position...so when Mays shifts to first base and does poorly for a first baseman...he's looking REALLY bad by CF standards...as an example...when we recalculate the letter grades that won't happen.

[therealnod]

I want to at least put some form a post up; the long version was eaten;

Hal Chase was a cheater; he threw games.That has no effect on his defensive value...maybe. His numbers suck, maybe because he threw games; who knows for sure?

[SABR Matt]

OUCH...interesting Nod...hadn't heard that about him

I don't think he's as bad a fielder as I currently have him listed though...FWIW

[SABR Matt]

Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever:



-----------------Rel.SLG--Rel.OBP---Rel.BA.-OPS+--INK---PCA
Bonds, 2001-------2.04 ----1.57------1.27---262---09--20.82
Ruth,1921---------2.07-----1.43------1.29---239---16--24.79
Gehrig,1927-------1.91-----1.34------1.30---221---07--17.17
Mantle,1956-------1.78-----1.36------1.35---210---18--22.96
Hornsby,1922------1.78-----1.31------1.37---207---23--20.37
Foxx,1932---------1.85-----1.35------1.31---205---14--18.54
Wagner,1908-------1.76-----1.38------1.48---205---19--18.42
Musial,1948-------1.83-----1.35------1.44---200---20--20.30
Cobb,1911---------1.73-----1.38------1.53---196---22--20.74
Yaz,1967----------1.77-----1.38------1.38---195---21--16.81
T.Williams,1949---1.71-----1.38------1.30---192---19--17.24
Sisler,1920-------1.63-----1.29------1.43---181---08--15.40
Wilson,1930-------1.61-----1.26------1.17---178---13--15.81
Simmons,1930------1.68-----1.20------1.32---176---07--12.94
B. Herman,1930----1.51-----1.26------1.29---170---00--16.26
DiMaggio,1937-----1.62-----1.16------1.32---168---07--12.78
Klein,1930--------1.53-----1.21------1.27---159---06--14.17
Brett, 1980-------1.44-----1.38------1.66---202-------12.43
Cash, 1961--------1.41-----1.46------1.37---201-------17.30
Lajoie, 1901------1.53-----1.38------1.73---200---23--18.94
F.Robinson, 1966--1.28-----1.31------1.68---199---18--16.48
J. Jackson, 1911--1.49-----1.38------1.49---193-------17.13
Vaughan, 1935-----1.38-----1.48------1.31---190-------15.72
Delahanty, 1899---1.44-----1.33------1.59---189-------16.36
Speaker, 1912-----1.44-----1.39------1.54---188-------18.13
Kiner, 1951-------1.18-----1.31------1.60---184-------15.64
Burkett, 1901-----1.42-----1.35------1.49---181-------15.21
Aaron, 1959-------1.36-----1.24------1.59---181-------15.21
Al Rosen, 1953----1.28-----1.23------1.60---180-------15.33
Medwick, 1937-----1.37-----1.24------1.42---180---24--17.47
Carew, 1977-------1.45-----1.35------1.40---178-------15.74
H.Duffy, 1894-----1.42-----1.26------1.58---177-------16.44
Mays, 1954--------1.30-----1.22------1.63---175-------12.11
Wagner, 1900------1.36-----1.28------1.56---175-------16.05
Greenberg, 1937---1.19-----1.22------1.60---172-------12.38
Mize, 1937--------1.33-----1.24------1.55---172-------14.95
Clemente, 1967----1.13-----1.24------1.52---170-------12.59
Snider, 1954------1.28-----1.20------1.58---170-------12.33
Zimmerman, 1912---1.36-----1.19------1.54---169-------13.16
Heilmann, 1921----1.34-----1.24------1.51---167-------12.13
Reiser, 1941------1.32-----1.18------1.54---165-------10.22
Ott, 1929---------1.11-----1.22------1.49---165-------13.15
Keeler, 1897------1.42-----1.28------1.49---164-------11.28
K.Williams, 1922--1.16-----1.13------1.57---164--------8.95
Z.Wheat, 1924-----1.32-----1.25------1.40---163-------10.67
Crawford, 1911----1.38-----1.23------1.46---163-------11.49
Averill, 1936-----1.30-----1.16------1.48---159-------12.86
J.Robinson, 1949--1.30-----1.23------1.35---159-------12.22
O'Doul, 1929------1.35-----1.30------1.46---159-------11.83
Terry, 1930-------1.32-----1.25------1.38---158-------14.46
J.Rice, 1978------1.20-----1.08------1.55---158---16--10.08
Rose, 1969--------1.39-----1.27------1.38---158-------11.94
Colavito, 1961----1.13-----1.17------1.46---157-------10.10
P.Waner, 1927-----1.27-----1.22------1.33---155-------10.45
Manush, 1928------1.34-----1.15------1.44---154-------11.08
Oliva, 1964-------1.30-----1.10------1.45---150--------9.43
T.Davis, 1962-----1.31-----1.13------1.34---148-------11.70
Trosky, 1936------1.14-----1.01------1.46---148--------9.66
B.Williams, 1970--1.24-----1.10------1.49---147-------11.88
Gehringer, 1936---1.22-----1.15------1.31---142-------10.37
Z.Wheat, 1925-----1.22-----1.13------1.30---142-------10.61
Cuyler, 1930------1.13-----1.15------1.17---133--------9.82
Lindstrom, 1930---1.25-----1.07------1.28---132-------10.78
J.Tobin, 1921-----1.20-----1.05------1.19---119--------8.24

Bill Burgess

Hope that helps.

[Imapotato]

All of those grades seem to correspond with my thoughts, except for Hal Chase. Chase probably had more support from more baseball men than anyone in history. Even if his stats don't show it, I still have to say that Chase was a great defensive first baseman, since almost everyone from that era was constantly praising his fielding. I have never, ever, in looking through old baseball lists, heard any criticism of Chase's fielding. Lawrence Ritter and Daniel Honig even listed Chase among their top 100 players ever, due to his fabulous glove work. He certainly doesn't deserve to be one of the top 100 players ever, but even if the stats don't agree, I still go with the overwhelming opinions of many of Chase's contemporaries.


Well the D+ probably shows how crooked he truly was, you know he was banned for life because of dealing with gamblers? In fact, he knew all the gamblers in the Black Sox Scandal, and set Gandil up with them

Before that,
Christy Mathewson as Manager of the Reds saw that, and got rid of him

When Chase became manager of the Highlanders, they "mysteriously" plummeted in the standings, despite having almost exactly the same team

on a scale of 1-100 I have Chase's range at 44, but his F% is pretty decent, shows that if he didn't boot balls, he might have been .998% at 1st


The hitting seasons look good

[SABR Matt]

The problem is that F% isn't all that critical for first basemen since most of their plays are catching a throw to first...errors obviously count...but in Chase's case, his downfall is an apparent SEVERE lack of range.

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

Hope that helps.

Oh, you bet it does. I must thank you profusedly, since you have been unbelievably generous in the giving of your time to not only me here and my defensive players, but to everyone else here as well. I realize that this and the defensive values you so generously provided must have taken a bit chuck out of your time!

So on behalf of Fever, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MATT SOUNDERS!!!

Bill Burgess

[538280]

It is true that Chase did throw games, and that is probably why his fielding stats don't look so good. But, on an honest day, Hal Chase may have been the best defensive first baseman ever.

[SABR Matt]

Matt,

Hope that helps.

Oh, you bet it does. I must thank you profusedly, since you have been unbelievably generous in the giving of your time to not only me here and my defensive players, but to everyone else here as well. I realize that this and the defensive values you so generously provided must have taken a bit chuck out of your time!

So on behalf of Fever, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MATT SOUNDERS!!!

Bill Burgess

That's...SOUDERS. :)

And you're welcome. :D

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

Oops! What was the old saying? No such thing as bad publicity, just spell my name right? I broke the first rule!

Bill Burgess

[SABR Matt]

everyone does...you're not the exception. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Hi Matt,

Just as I did Great Hitting Seasons, so I'm back with Great Pitching Seasons. Need PCA values for these seasons. Doncha' think these are cool?

Bill


Greatest Pitching Seasons:

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc.


------Name----------yr.---ERA+--Inn.---W-L---ShO--CG-Ratio*-WS--TPR--PCA

Pedro Martinez-----2000---285---217---18-6----7----4--.617--29--7.3
Greg Maddux--------1995---259---209---19-2---10----3--.673--30--6.2
Walter Johnson-----1913---258---346---36-7---11---29--.665--54--8.0
Bob Gibson---------1968---258---305---22-9---13---28--.771--36--7.0
Mordecai Brown-----1906---253---277---26-6---10---27--.812--35--4.9
Dwight Gooden------1985---226---276---24-4----8---16--.679--33--7.0
Grover Alexander---1915---224---376---31-10--12---36--.754--43--7.0
Christy Mathewson--1909---223---275---25-6----8---26--.834--34--5.8
Lefty Grove--------1931---218---289---31-4----4---27--.785--42--6.3
Cy Young-----------1901---217---371---33-10---5---38--.768--41--5.7
Ron Guidry---------1978---208---273---25-3----9---16--.759--31--5.7
Addie Joss---------1908---205---325---24-11---9---29--.738--35--5.0
Jack Taylor--------1902---203---324---22-11--10---33--.824--32--5.1
Dean Chance--------1964---199---278---20-9---11---15--.823--32--4.6
Spud Chandler------1943---197---253---20-4----5---20--.810--29--5.0
Hal Newhouser------1945---194---313---25-9----8---29--.861--36--6.6
Mort Cooper--------1942---193---279---22-7---10---22--.808--29--5.0
Carl Hubbell-------1933---193---309---23-12--10---22--.817--33--5.1
Tom Seaver---------1971---193---286---20-10---4---21--.793--32--5.7
Randy Johnson------2002---190---260---24-5----8----4--.827--29--6.3
Ed Walsh-----------1910---189---369---18-10---7---33--.733--36--5.8
Warren Spahn-------1953---187---266---23-7----5---24--.803--31--5.3
Lefty Gomez--------1934---185---281---26-5----6---25--.803--31--4.3
Luis Tiant---------1968---185---258---21-0----9---19--.776--28--3.6
Vida Blue----------1971---183---312---24-8----8---24--.787--30--4.8
Jack Coombs--------1910---182---353---31-9---13---35--.886--37--4.2
Steve Carlton------1972---182---346---27-10---8---30--.814--40--6.8
Rube Waddell-------1905---180---328---26-11---7---27--.880--35--5.7
Orvie Overall------1909---179---285---20-11---9---23--.845--30--4.5
Joe Wood-----------1912---178---344---34-5---10---35--.816--44--6.9
Joe McGinnity------1904---178---408---35-8----9---38--.833--42--4.3
Dazzy Vance--------1924---176---309---28-6----3---30--.798--36--6.0
Dizzy Dean---------1934---170---324---30-7----3---29--.867--37--5.3
Stan Coveleski-----1917---167---298---19-14---9---24--.820--29--2.4
Roger Clemens------1986---166---254---24-4----1---10--.759--29--4.9
Jack Chesbro-------1904---158---454---41-12---6---48--.851--53--4.6
Denny McLain-------1968---157---336---31-6----6---28--.810--33--4.4
Sandy Koufax-------1965---156---335---26-8----8---27--.728--33--4.8
Dave McNally-------1968---154---273---22-10---5---18--.780--26--3.2
Bob Feller---------1946---145---371---26-15--10---36--.887--32--4.7
Nolan Ryan---------1972---120---284---19-16---9---20--.948--24--2.0
Whitey Ford--------1961---117---283---25-4----3---11--.879--22--0.9


*ratio = Relative Onbase Ave.; Opponent's Onbase Ave. / League onbase ave.
WS = Bill James Win Shares, obtained from Total Baseball, 8th edition, pp. 2470.
TPR = Total Player Wins - Pitchers, from Total Baseball, 8th edition, pp. 2470.

[SABR Matt]

when I have new pitching data I'll post. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

I would like the PCA value for the following seasons.

Babe Ruth - 1923
Babe Ruth - 1924
Barry Bonds - 2002
Barry Bonds - 2004
Ty Cobb - 1917
Ted Williams - 1941
George Sisler - 1922

For offense only, and to the second hundred decimal point, such as 20.86.
Thanks a million.

Bill Burgess

[TKD]

Bill (and others):

Our research is not dead. We are still working on it, and the reason that we have not posted anything new here in some time is that what originally was supposed to be a tweaking of the Pythagorean formula has burst into a series of discoveries, leading to critical re-examination of many tenets of traditional sabermetric theory, *including* PCA. As such, any results that we've previously generated are somewhat in question until we can determine the impact of this research.

[SABR Matt]

Playing add on here...

Without going into the kind of detail that's lible to cause heads to explode...I just wanted to let all of you know that what started out as a system based on many of the guiding principles of standard sabermetric theory has been completely and totally blown up. We've discovered that many of the things sabermetricians assume to make traditional statistical modelling work are simply not true...for instance...the stability of the pythagorean (the P in PCA...yeah...boy is my face red) or even its' goodness of fit with team data.

We've spent the last month or so working very hard on the pure mathematical and logical foundations of the game and have come up with some very promising new directions that may have a drastic impact on our futures in sabermetrics

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

So all the defensive rankings of my guys are now . . . left hangin'?

I had installed them into so many of my Ty Cobb Thread postings. Oh well. Get back to us with the new work when it's seems pretty stable again. Regardless of how long that takes. I guess theoretical math work is like that.

Jeffrey, not a word! Matt is doing the best he can with a slippery situation.

Bill Burgess

[SABR Matt]

PCA defensive rankings were my proudest achievement in the old model...I am very much hoping a new method will back up my prior results...many of the concepts I used in defensive analysis probably won't change as that was where a lot of my best thought went into planning it out...

My apologies for seeming done and learning I wasn't...advanced scientific research takes time and requires you to learn from your mistakes and grow.

[RuthMayBond]

Matt,

So all the defensive rankings of my guys are now . . . left hangin'?

I had installed them into so many of my Ty Cobb Thread postings. Oh well. Get back to us with the new work when it's seems pretty stable again. Regardless of how long that takes. I guess theoretical math work is like that.

Jeffrey, not a word! Matt is doing the best he can with a slippery situation.

Bill BurgessYeah I know, you can criticize Matt, I can't. Matt can insist he had found it, I can say "Not so fast", but now we must forget that took place :waving :waving :waving :waving

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

You can say whatever you like, but why would you want to? You are supposed to like stats, and a statman has the humility to say his system still has bugs.

When's the last time you heard a statman say that? He's trying to fix it. What can we do but hope he fixes it well?

Bill

[leecemark]

--I wish Matt well in improving PCA (or whatever it gets called when its overhauled). Its unfortunate that he was so forcefully confident in telling us all he had found THE solution and then almost immediately after says "oops, maybe our formula wasn't so good after all" though. I can see where RMB and anybody else who didn't buy into it might be saying I told you so.

[SABR Matt]

Mark...

When did I ever say I believed I had found "THE" system? seriously...I said I believed PCA was a step up from other traditional seasonal sabermetric analysis...and I *STILL* believe this to be the case...the fact that I'm overhauling it now does not negate my belief that the original method was an improvement...it just means I believe there are MORE improvbements to be made.

If anything, my willingness to overhaul a system over which I was so pleased in the past should tell you that I am not willing to settle for "better"...and that I never believed PCA was the final step.

Please get your facts and accusations accurate before you sling mud.

[SABR Matt]

I think needs to be said one more time with feeling.

I'm growing very disturbed by the apparent misunderstanding or miscommunication between me and people who read my posts on sabermetric topics and my own sabermetric research.

I'm a little tired of people taking my strenuous defense of PCA and other efforts in my history of sabermetric research as some indication that I believe whatever the current model I'm working on to be the end-all and be-all of analysis...I never have believed that...such a thing is impossible to achieve...I have always been striving toward "matriculating the ball down the field" to use a football phrase...making progress...advancing sabermetric thought...when I claim I have made progress that is NOT a claim I have THE answer.

Mark apparently sees no gradation between me claiming I have made progress over other advanced seasonal methods and me claiming I have found the holy graile...something I have NEVER claimed.

He also apparently sees no difference between admitting you can do BETTER than you've done...and admitting what you've done in the past was completely wrong and flawed and therefore worthless.

I still consider PCA a very good working model in traditional seasonal sabermetric thought...the fact that I have chosen to take a whole new direction now is not some admission that I was way off...it is a realization that there are other ways of seeing the same data that may reach ever STRONGER conclusions than the ones I've previously reached.

You all NEED to understand that good scientific research follows a learning curve...as you pick up more insight and knowledge, you will constantly be seeing ways to advance your research...when I adjust PCA or whatever we end up calling the new model in the future...it is an expression of my undying thirst for knowledge...for objective truth...it is not an expression of incompetance and I resent the implication.

[TKD]

I think that part of the reason for this hiccup in the development process is the differing backgrounds that Matt and I possess. PCA as you last saw was mostly Matt's creation, whereas I came onto the project with much more of a purely technical (i.e., computer-science-related) background. Indeed, even though I was into the concept of sabermetrics, my knowledge of its current state was rather incomplete, and Matt had to explain a lot of concepts to me.

At some point not too long ago, I reached the point where I was capable of more independent, original sabermetric thought and research. Originally this was focused on "slightly" improving various specific aspects of PCA -- specifically, the Pythagorean. However, as I mentioned above this ended up revealing some unexpected, and rather fundamental, problems in traditional seasonal sabermetric analysis. This is NOT to say that these analyses are entirely inaccurate in practice, but the logical underpinnings are not as secure as we would like. There are ways to mitigate these shortcomings, and PCA employs several of them, as do other systems. But a few disturbing cases slip through the cracks, and have been discussed at length here.

I hesitate to go into more detail, or even to mention what I already have mentioned, because at this point all that Matt and I have are the beginnings of a highly experimental model. I don't have a full "better suggestion" to offer, so it sort of makes me look like I'm shouting in the darkness rather than lighting a candle. But Matt and I are working to refine this as quickly and accurately as we can.

Let me stress that the sabermetric innovations that Matt himself introduced into PCA were sound under the framework of Pythagorean analysis.The problem is that we are not completely confident in that framework's optimality.

[SABR Matt]

I can't emphasize enough that the changes taking place now are not tweaks to correct inadequacies with PCA...they will stand as a logical condemnation of *ALL* previous seasonal sabermetric analysis...the last form you saw of PCA was IMHO near the pinnacle of possible achievement in sabermetrics based on empirical (correlational) relations and Jamesian sabermetric thought.

The new model we are crafting is totally and completely different in every impotant way...all previous seasonal sabermetrics have been based on either:

1) Probabilistic Run/Out Tables and line-up modeling

or

2) A combination of Pythagorean-like logic and correlational analysis.

This includes PCA...my dynamic linear weights were the result of multilinear regression. My systemic framework was pythagorean/Jamesian. My defensive analysis was similar to the most recent version of Davenport Translations though significantly more advanced/detailed. It was all very imperically based.

The new model (whose working title is Souders-Fiato Baseball Translations - SFBT) will be notibly LACKING in all of that.

[Ubiquitous]

So what is it based on?

[NickG]

Matt - I think you could learn a lesson or two from political speechwriting. :)

When you say you're making an "overhaul", it implies a major, fundamental problem. Same with saying things like you're going "in a whole new direction".

You would be better off saying something like, "We're taking what we learned from the first versions of PCA, and asking some serious questions about the basic underpinnings of seasonal sabermetric theory based on some of the more unexplainable findings of the system."

Making an "overhaul" means the problem is with the system itself - asking questions about your assumptions means that while you may have made a mistake here and there, so did everybody else. :)

Boast of your successes, minimize and explain your failures - otherwise, your failures end up being overemphasized.

[SABR Matt]

Ubiquitus...let me just say that

a) I would prefer not to go too nuts with all the details until we're further along in the process of building our model...but...

b) The new system will be based heavily on the concepts of Linear Algebra...You may or may not be familiar with what goes into the ranking of college football teams...we've begun our new approach by adapting team analysis to use similar ideas to the matrix modelling of NCAA team strength pioneered by a Dr. Colley several years ago but as of yet not applied to baseball research.

We have determined the critical logical flaw in the pythagorean formula based on its' derrivation...I'll let Randy comment on the derrivation we found posted to Baseball Think Factory a couple of years ago that ended up unfortunately overlooked...I'll simply state that the pytahgorean as we know it comes with the assumption that the standard deviation (spread) of run scoring and run allowing is the same no matter what the actual conditions were for either on each team. If you score 6 runs a game and allow 3, it is clear that the standard deviation of the number of runs you allow in each game will be less than the standard deviation of the number of runs you score unless you are unbelieveably consistant offensively...this has an impact on how often teams actually win games that needs to be addressed.

[TKD]

Actually, to correct Matt, the derivation of the Pythagorean that sparked a still-ongoing search for a better way was posted to the Usenet group rec.puzzles in 2003 by someone named Hein Hundal. Here's the link to the full article: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.puzzles/browse_frm/thread/3be0e6ad49631ddb/bfb52d16b12955ac?lnk=st&rnum=1&hl=en#bfb52d16b12955ac .

Basically, if RS-per-game and RA-per-game are lognormally distributed, then the resulting area under the RS/RA distribution to the right of 1 (in other words, the part of the distribution representing a win) has a Taylor series very similar to that of the Pythagorean with a fixed exponent of 1.83.

A couple of assumptions/shortcuts are made in getting the Taylor series to match:

- The geometric mean of RS/RA is replaced with the arithmetic mean.
- In the derivation, only one standard deviation number is used for both the initial RS- and RA-per-game distributions. This is the flaw that Matt was pointing out. Actually, since, as the article explains, getting the Taylor series to match involves fixing a variable, the flaw causes the Pythagorean to be more applicable to teams who score and allow runs with a certain amount of consistency.

Another problem with this method is that lognormal distributions have a probability of 0 at 0; this causes the probability of shutouts to be underestimated.

Now, the article isn't fully rigorous, but in general, it does strongly suggest mathematically that the spreads of RS and RA, which aren't considered by the Pythagorean, do probably play a role in determining winning percentage. This probably holds even though the RS/RA distributions may not be lognormal. And since, thanks to the efforts of Retrosheet, we have RS/RA records for every game in MLB history, there's no reason why we can't incorporate more information into our attempts to explain wins.

Another thing that you may have noticed is that, in determining the variability of RS and RA, no attempt is made at accounting for the relative strengths or weaknesss of the opponents. For example, if a team scores 8 runs against the Royals and 2 against the White Sox, intuition suggests that a good part of that difference is due to the difference in opponent strength, rather than being solely attributable to random chance or an instrinsic lack of consistency. Then, there are parks to consider, as well.

A while back, Dr. Wes Colley began applying the principles of linear algebra and the rule of succession to determine a team's "true" winning percentage, even with the highly imbalanced and short schedules of NCAA football; his method is detailed in http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf .

Most traditional strength-of-schedule calculations involve some sort of linear combination of a weighted average of the winning percentages of a team's opponents, and a weighted average of of the opponents' opponents. Dr. Colley's method involves solving a system of linear equations; the equations are set up under the assumption that finding a team's "true" winning percentage (or "rating," as Dr. Colley calls it), and then solves the system to find those winning percentages.

My recent research has been involved with adapting his ideas to address RUN scoring and allowing (instead of winning percentage) in the face of differing opponent strengths and parks. Consider that, in baseball, the offensive and defensive (to clarify, by "defensive" in the sense, I include both pitching and fielding) abilities of a team are pretty much independent of each other, and should be considered separately. Extending the concepts in Dr. Colley's paper has proved to be rather difficult, although I believe that I have a model that works well; however, I have not yet had the time to write the code to test it on actual MLB data.

Now, solving of this (opponent strengths, parks) was a prequisite to my first issue above: finding a better way to explain wins. I would have to do more in-depth research on RS and RA distributions, because I'm not yet sure what the best way is to model them. I imagine that I'll know more once I've looked at real team strengths and have had time to do chi square tests.

[Bill Burgess]

Hi Matt,

Over in history, we're doing a Pie Traynor thread. Could you give me the latest PCA values for his career, both offense/defense, and the same for Heinie Groh.

We're embroiled in a Traynor/Groh debate. And I need your PCA values to help me sort it all out. Lots of energy zinging around over there.

Thanks a lot.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

I'll seewhat I can do. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you old friend. Much obliged.

Bill

Good luck with your next PCA values.

[SABR Matt]

I await your annoyedresponse to the PCA evaluation of Traynor. :D

[Bill Burgess]

My grateful response is, "Thank you." Your time has value, and I appreciate anyone sharing any of it with me.

Old buddy

[SABR Matt]

Gee...I thought you'd give me a harder time with ranking Traynor 26th instead of in the top 10.:)

[Bill Burgess]

I didn't say I agree, but if old friends can't disagree, who can?

[SABR Matt]

That's why I respect you so much Bill...you handle differing opinions so much better than most folks I know.

Question for ya...what do you thinkI'm missing about Pie? I would never maintain that the sabermetrics see all and know all...I find it hard to imagine I'm missing enough to get us all the way into top ten territory, but I'm picking your brain here...what elements did he contribute that can't be seen in the data?

[RuthMayBond]

Gee...I thought you'd give me a harder time with ranking Traynor 26th instead of in the top 10.:)Gee Bill, at least I've got him about . . .
. . . twenty-THIRD :D

[Bill Burgess]

Question for ya...what do you think I'm missing about Pie? I would never maintain that the sabermetrics see all and know all...I find it hard to imagine I'm missing enough to get us all the way into top ten territory, but I'm picking your brain here...what elements did he contribute that can't be seen in the data?

Matt,

Thank you so very much for your kindness. I really appreciate it when others are as graciously cordial as yourself. A true gentleman.

Now. Let's get to work here. As far as you "missing" anything on Pie Traynor, I don't think you've missed a thing on him, as far as hitting is concerned. That's where stats are their most precise.

It's the defensive side of matters where the hidden problems lie in wait. I am re-posting for your personal benefit, an article by Willie Kamm, a 1920's defensive 3B star. He articulates the truly difficult, exasperating, frustrating task of measureing fielding with any degree of insight.

After you're read it, please get back to me with your feedback.

Measuring offense is easy.

Measuring defense might be the hardest thing in the world.

I think Traynor was a Legend of the Glove for good reasons. He was rangy. And further believe that a less than stellar gloveman might record better defensive stats by refusing to attack the tough shots, and thereby protecting their FA. Like I said. A ton of errors in stopping balls is no vice, and a lack of errors by not pursuing balls is no virtue. Here's the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------What the Baseball Records Mean to the Player
The Public Rates a Ball Player Upon His Batting Average and Upon Brilliant Fielding Player, Both are Inaccurate and Deceptive, The Players Realize This and are Inclined to Protest, but Few of Them Can Suggest Improvements

-------------------------From an Interview with William Kamm----------------------
-------------------------(Baseball Magazine, February, 1928, pp. 387, 388)

"The breaks decide" is a common saying among ball players, and that is true very often of a game or even a series. No doubt pennants have been won in a close race by the breaks, the element of luck that no one can forsee or prevent. Certainly the breaks are of the utmost importance in winning or losing ball games. But when you come to discuss a player's reputation, his general standing with the writers and the public, I would say that the dope decides. After all, it is the dope which separates good players from those who are just fair, and in particular, the dope decides who shall be known as baseball's stars.

Why is Ty Cobb called the greatest player who ever lived? There are a number of answers. His grand batting average is better than that of any other player. He hit over .300 for twenty-two years, a record. He made over four thousand hits. These and similar items of statistics come readily to any fan who is discussing the game's best. But such figures are plain dope. Was Cobb a better hitter than Joe Jackson? He himself has admitted that Rogers Hornsby was the greatest hitter he ever saw. Was Cobb a better player, say than Tris Speaker? What is the foundation of Cobb's great reputation? It's the dope.

I'm not offering any criticism of dope. I understand too well the value of dope to the ball player. It's really his stock in trade, the gauge of his ability. The public has eyes for the .300 hitter when it will virtually ignore the .290 hitter. Certain artificial standards have grown up in baseball. They are all drawn from the accepted dope. They have a value, but after all, rating players on the dope is a good deal like measuring brains by the circumference of a man's skull. Dope is an indication, but it's not necessarily proof.

The particular averages that baseball players prize the most are batting averages. When the weekly figures come out during the season, you'll find most of the players in the hotel lobby scanning the column to see what they're hitting. And literally millions of other people are scanning those columns. I doubt if there is any one thing printed in the papers during the summer time that attracts such widespread attention as the batting averages of Big League ball players.

But just what do the batting averages tell the reader? Something, to be sure, but how much? Batting averages are not only the most popular of baseball statistics, but I believe they're the most accurate. And still they're only half accurate, at best. To a considerable extent they are the sport of circumstance. They give a crude idea of a player's ability with the stick at the precise moment when they are issued. But they are, for all that, colored by other considerations than batting eye or timeliness of swing.

Take the one factor of ball parks, for instance. In some ball parks a right field hitter would get most of the breaks. Such parks might not help a left field hitter a particle. They might even be a handicap to a straightaway hitter. But the batting average don't say anything about that. Not that the situation isn't pretty well understood by the baseball public. They know that the shape and size of the ball park has a considerable influence on the batting of certain ball players. They also know that other players far from being helped, are handicapped by the same conditions. But who will undertake to say how many batting points a particular park will add to one player's average or subtract from another player's average?

The condition of the infields in various parks is also a factor to be reckoned with. Some infields are as hard as a brick. The ball is much more apt to break through the inner defense at such parks than at certain other parks. A hard line hitter is a good deal more apt to come through with a single on certain fields than he is on other fields, simply because the nature of the infield is suited to his particular style of batting. Such an infield might be a positive detriment to the fleet runner who beats out infield hits. Such an infield would not help the fellow whose average drive is a long belt to the outfield. But what expert goes through the records with a fine toothed comb and decides how many points he should allow on some batter's average for a particularly favorable infield?

Even the climate has some influence on batting. At Salt Lake City slugging records, due to the altitude, the light air and a variety of other factors, became something of a joke. At Chicago where I have played for several years, the strong lake wind which blows usually from one direction, is a thing to be treated with respect by a lot of hitters. Veteran players have told me that their averages suffered thirty points or more because of this peculiar condition at Chicago.

A batter's position in the line-up colors his average considerably. Everyone knows that the lead-off man suffers somewhat from his position. He can't always hit, because he is expected to wait the pitcher out. The second man in the line-up is also handicapped. He is supposed to sacrifice. Hazen Cuyler complained, I understand, because he was called upon to bat in the two-hole. There is no doubt that batting in that position would cut down the average player's mark a number of points. But just what credit do the league statistics give the fellow who led off the batting list or hit in the two-hole?

Batting averages are open to even graver criticism than any I have hinted at. For one thing, they fail to take into consideration the length of a hit. I am aware that a player gets a certain credit for total bases. Of late years there has also been a disposition to figure out a slugging average which would rate players according to the force, as well as the frequency of their hits. But the time honored old system of dividing number of hits by times at bat is still the prevailing one.

It is this system which determines the .300 hitter. But what, after all, does that tell you about a batter's ability? If he made twenty homers and forty-five two-baggers, how would you contrast him with a fellow who, say, made two homers and eighteen two-baggers? It would not take the opposing pitcher long to size up those two batters, even though they both hit for exactly the same average. Nor would it cause the rival managers much study to decide which of the two was the better hitter. But records are silent on that point.

Babe Ruth, this year, hit around .350. [.356] That is a good average. But there were a number of other fellows who hit around .350. [5 hit above Ruth in AL that yr. 1. Heilmann, .398, Simmons, .392, Gehrig, .373, Fothergill, .359, Cobb, .357] There were several who hit far above that figure. Were they better hitters than Babe Ruth? You would get a laugh anywhere if you claimed any such absurdity. But the batting averages do that very thing and get away with it.

And here again any attempt to rate slugging averages, though a step in the right direction, would bring you face to face with fresh difficulties. Certain ball parks unquestionably favor the sluggers. Where would justice draw the line between a pop fly that just floated over the fence, beyond the reach of the waiting outfielder, and a solid smash that would be good for four sacks on an open field?

Personally I have always felt that a base on balls should be recognized in batting averages. It is now, but in a purely negative way. A player gets a certain amount of credit for the number of passes given him during a season. But these passes do not help to fatten his batting average any. They should, in simple justice, for a batter is passed usually either because the pitcher fears him, is which case he has won his transportation to first, by his acknowledged batting ability, or else he is crafty enough and has a keen enough batting eye to wait the pitcher out, in which case he has certainly earned his base.

Firmly as I am convinced, however, that passes should figure in a batting average, I would be at a loss to explain how. They are not hits. Are they half as valuable as hits? Just what value would you assign to a base on balls? Who know? I'm sure I don't.

There is another conspicuous weakness in batting averages. The batter who advances the runner get no particular credit, unless he drives that runner home. Even there that credit does not affect his own batting average any. A certain negative credit is given him for a sacrifice, but a sacrifice does not help a batter's average. It merely doesn't work against that average.

A batter may be retired himself, but at the same time advance one or two runners, perhaps drive home a winning run. You'd never know this from looking at his average. Take a good hit and run player. Even when such a player fails to come through, he will generally advance the runner or runners, though he is thrown out himself. He batting was really important, in some cases decisively so, but he gets no credit. Is this fair to him?

Give me the names of two players I never saw before. Tell me that one fellow hit .310 and the other .290. Ask me which is the better hitter and I would say, "I don't know." Aren't the records there? Surely .310 is better than .290. Is it? Who knows? The .290 hitter might be, for all practical purposes, far the better hitter of the two. Everybody who ever saw a ball game knows that. And yet the dope decides. The .310 hitter would outrank the .290 man with nine-nine out of one hundred.

Whatever you can say against batting averages, and you can say plenty, goes double when you discuss fielding averages. Fielding averages are so notoriously unfair that few people pay any attention to them at all. Ball players, among themselves, never even discuss fielding averages. Why should they? They unusually mean nothing, because if you follow them literally, you are pretty sure to go astray in your estimates.

The system of rating fielding averages, as everyone knows, is to divide the chances accepted by the total chances offered. The errors that a player makes are the black marks against his record which bring down his average. Take third Base, for example. That is my position and I know more about third base than any other position on the field. Pick out of a hat the names of two Minor Leaguers that I never heard of. Tell me both are third baseman, that one of them fielded .960 and the other .930. Ask me to pass judgment upon their respective class As a fielders. Could I do it? Could anyone else do it? It is perfectly possible in any league for a second baseman, say, to field 1.000 and be fired for incompetence. If he stands in his tracks, handles only easy chances and keeps his mind on his record, he may go on from day to day, as long as the manager tolerates his presence in the line-up, without ever making an error.

There are not a few outfielders every year who have a fielding average of 1.000. That is, they have accomplished their work without an error. Are they the best outfielders in the game? You can give odds of one hundred to one that they are not. The best outfielders in the game never have a perfect fielding average. Very often you will find their names rather well down toward the bottom of the list.

The system of reckoning fielding averages is so unjust that a number of other systems have been suggested. The number of chances accepted is perhaps a better gauge of a player's ability than the present fielding average. But even that is open to grave criticism. The underlying theory seems plausible enough. A hustling player who covers a lot of ground will handle more chances, other things being equal, than a fellow who doesn't. But how can you be certain that other things are equal?

The type of pitching makes a profound difference to a fielder's chances. When Thurston wore a White Sox uniform and toed the slab for us, I might get seven or eight chances in a single game. Thurston depended very largely upon the screw ball and the batters naturally pounded that towards third. When Al Thomas is on the slab with his fast ball, I'm lucky to get one or two chances in a game. Batters connecting with the fast ball generally drive it to the outfield or through the box. They seldom pull it to third base.

Over a period of years it might very well follow that a fielder's ability could be determined roughly by the number of chances he handled. But there would be grave inequalities along the line and the final summing up would be far from exact.

I have even heard it suggested that a fielder should be rated on the number of difficult or brilliant plays he makes. I think the crowd is inclined to rate him that way. They see a fellow pull a phenomenal play one day and perhaps toward the end of the week they see him pull another. They are convinced that he is a great fielder. They talk about him and the impression gains ground that he is an uncommon fielder. But such plays, however they may thrill the spectators, are very misleading. More often than not a difficult play was really the result of bad judgment. The fielder either neglected to play the batter properly or he misjudged the ball.

The underlying principle is much the same as in championship billiard matches. A great billiard player will run off a long string of easy shots with monotonous regularity. Once in a while he'll make a difficult shot. But even a mediocre player can do that, once in a while. What the great player did was to assure himself a lot of easy shots, because he played the game as it should be played.

A great fielder will generally do the same. He may not have a particularly difficult chance to handle throughout a whole series. Some other player of far less ability, covering the same position, may have three or four difficult plays. And yet his work may be ragged and inefficient in contrast with the player who knew his job, who played his batters properly and who by his superior generalship, avoided the necessity of risking difficult plays.

Personally, I would say, without hesitation, that an indifferent fielder would make more brilliant plays in a season, that looked good to the stands, than a capable fielder.

Besides, there are certain tricks in the trade which wise fielders understand. Baseball has become an acknowledged show business. The player must advance himself and he often does by playing to the galleries. When he knows he has a play well in hand, he may start a little late, take a spurt at the finish and make an easy play really look hard. A certain amount of speed and flashy effort will make one player look like a million dollars in contrast with another fielder as good, who does his work in a more methodical, less spectacular way.

Sometime ago was discussing averages with a man of long experience. He gave his advice with a good deal of conviction. "Let the manager decide," was his vote. "The manager knows his own players better than anyone else. He knows which are the valuable players, what fellows are underrated and those who are inclined to be overrated. His judgment should rule."

There's no fault with his logic, so far as it goes. But I'm afraid in practice such a system would not go very far. In the first place the manager is handicapped at the outset. He can't really tell all he knows. It wouldn't be fair to his men, if he did so. Besides, managers are human. They can make mistakes. Some of the greatest players who ever lived have been passed up by wise managers. No doubt managers aim to be fair, but they can't wholly get away from preferences and bias any more than other people. Managers occasionally get down on a player. Besides, managers see the faults in their own men a little too clearly and are inclined to magnify the good points of players on other clubs that they do not know so well. It's the old case of distant pastures looking the greenest. Many a manager has traded a player because he has certain faults for a player on another club who had far more serious faults that he knew nothing about.

What can be done for fielding averages? I have no definite suggestions to offer. But I imagine that an improved system, if there ever is any such system, will be a combination of several things. It isn't just to rate a fellow on the errors he makes. It isn't just to rate him wholly upon the number of chances he accepts. But if you tell me that an unknown third baseman in a league that I never saw had fewer errors than any of his fellow third basemen, and at the same time handled more chances, I'd say, without knowing any more about him, that he was a good fielder.
(Baseball Magazine, February, 1928, pp. 387, 388)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Note on Willie Kamm.

Born: February 2, 1900, San Francisco, CA
Died: December 21, 1988, Belmont, CA

5'10 1/2", 170 lbs. B/R, /T/R

AL 3B:
White Sox, 1923 to May, 1931
Indians, 1931 1935.

Hit .308 in 1928. Known as sharp glove. career BA .281. 1,692 games, 1,643 hits, 347 doubles, 85 triples, 29 HRs, 802 Runs, 826 RBIs, 126 SB, single until 1955, died of Parkinson's disease.

[SABR Matt]

Kamm was ahead of his time.

One of the MAJOR problems with most attempts to evaluate defense is that bad fielders often get more credit than good ones.

First there's the visual perception.

People who evaluate defensive skill based on the visual appeal of a player's fielding efforts are IMHO sure to make the wrong choices because bad defensive players look visuallymore impressive than good ones. I've written many times here and elsewhere about the flashbulb bias in human memory. We tend to remember the moments that caused the most intense emotion...the diving catches...the leaping grabs, the eye popping double plays turned from hard grounders, the best of times...and the most embarrassing mistakes.

The problem is that poor fielders have to compensate for a lack of range by making more spectacular efforts. Jeter by every defensive metric currently in use is a poor defensive player. Then why does he look so good? Why does everyone think he's such a skilled fielder? He's perfected the art of making spectacular plays where good fieldersmake routine ones. Particularly his trademark into-the-hole spin move. He makes routine two hoppers look difficult.

Meanwhile people don't know how good a fielder Jacque Jones is, because he makes liners into the corner look like routien fly balls. And humans don't remember the routine.

But this isn't the end of our problems.

Ordinary defensive metrics like range factor and even zone rating have serious problems. Bad fielders get morechances to make plays...every time they miss, they create for their whole team more chances to hit or miss a defensive play. And bad fielders make fewer errors on average, because the most likely cause of an error is a difficult play.

That's why top-down approaches that start with something that can't be biased...team defensive production(runs allowed) are so crucial.

And of course...PCA agrees with the general impression that Traynor was a goodfielder. I think the reason his performance is limited to 24th instead of where many have him(2st or 2nd all time...right with Jimmy Collins and Brooks Robinson) is that the era in which he played was not conducive to high scoring for infielders. I've attempted to adjust for this problem, but I still don't think I've quite captured the limitations of being a fielder in the 20s compared to now. The fields weren't as nice...the gloves weren't as helpful, and this was the height of an extreme flyball era.

Obviously, research is ongoing...and dynamic linear weights might significantly alter the disposition of fielding wins...I tend to think that because HRs were at an all time low in value (because they were so common) in the 20s...in play hits will become more important, and the range of fielding wins will increase from the worst to the best fielders.

[RuthMayBond]

Meanwhile people don't know how good a fielder Jacque Jones is, because he makes liners into the corner look like routien fly balls.One problem is he has split his time among the three OF positions so he doesn't look "great" at any single one. If he had spent his whole career in RF . . .

<And of course...PCA agrees with the general impression that Traynor was a goodfielder. I think the reason his performance is limited to 24th instead of where many have him(2st or 2nd all time...right with Jimmy Collins and Brooks Robinson)>

I think people are saying Traynor is 24th all-around or offensively, not defensively. I hope they don't have him that low defensively, nor as high as 1st/2nd defensively.

[SABR Matt]

No...I had him 24th defensively in termsof Wins per 162 games. In termsof career total value, he's at 9th, and in terms of his peak-5 and peak-10 he's in the upper teens (15th and 19th respectively)

[RuthMayBond]

No...I had him 24th defensively in termsof Wins per 162 games.I don't do that because of wide ranges in longevity

<In termsof career total value, he's at 9th>

I've got him a little lower but in that general ballpark

<and in terms of his peak-5 and peak-10 he's in the upper teens (15th and 19th respectively)>

And I'd be best to not attempt this :laugh

[SABR Matt]

Peak-5 and Peak-10 really help separate out the good-for-a-few-years crowd from the consistantly good for a while crowd...even moreso than career averaging which can work against guys with long careers because time kills all skills.

There'sahuge difference between Omar Vizquel (who had a furiously good but very short defensive peak followed by rapid decline after age 27) and Ozzie Smith (whose peak was about the same magnitude but was insanely consistant for 13 straight years with defensive win totals of 5.2 or greater at a position where averaging that for a career average season puts you in the top three all time)

Same for Keith Hernandez' consistant greatness vs. say...DonMattingly's three good years.

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

Could I have your PCA value for Ruth in 1920, and Sisler in 1922. Not for offense only, but overall, for the season.

[SABR Matt]

Ruth 1920: 28.83 (that's both offense and defense)
Sisler 1922: 14.08

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

Could I have Tip O'Neil's 1887 season, overall? Thanks.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

Offense: 13.45
Defense: 1.99
Total: 15.44

[SABR Matt]

Bill (and anyone else who might still be checking here)...I will continue to operate the 2004 database and I am willing to give answers to requests...but I am about to begin the painful process of building the 2005 database and incorporating many changes that were intended to be automated by Randy for the "new" PCA...but his attention has shifted to our focus on team-level probabilistic analysis of intrinsic strength, and I feel that I can meet him from the other direction, so I'm working on player level analysis using the PCA model and will hopefully meet him in the middle...so if there is a delay in my responses Iapologize..and you need to be aware that I do not fully endorse the accuracy of the ratings/rankings by "old" PCA...they're pretty solid, but they can be better.

[Bill Burgess]

Matt,

I need Reggie Jackson's 1969 PCA, and Joe Morgan's 1976 PCA.

I believe we always did Offensive PCA values only, if memories serves correctly.

In the History forum, on Gehrig/Thomas, I'm doing a little exercise to show Chris the Younger some of his lessons.

Bill Burgess

[SABR Matt]

Reggie Jackson's 1969 Offense: 19.07 OWC in 677 PA

Joe Morgan's 1976: 16.82 OWC in 599 PA

Pretty close in terms of wins per PA...

[iPod]

Matt,

What does PCA think of Todd Helton? His 2000 season in particular has always just blown me away; won the percentage triple crown, as well as led the NL in hits, TB, doubles, RBI, RC, times on base, and extra base hits. But his OPS+ was only 158, the fourth best total of his career. You put together Coors Field and the 2000 NL, though, and the sky's the limit.

[SABR Matt]

Todd Helton's career line:

Age Yr OWC PA ADWC SumOfPRG
23 1997 0.49 101 0.04 16
24 1998 5.32 595 2.73 134
25 1999 9.03 656 0.97 149
26 2000 19.11 697 3.90 154
27 2001 11.16 696 3.86 154
28 2002 14.57 667 3.00 154
29 2003 15.28 703 3.18 157
30 2004 14.39 683 4.72 149

He's not only one of the great hitters of our generation (even with a harsh park adjustment), but one of the top five defensive first basemen of all time. And PCA has his 2000 season standing out as hi "big year" unlike OPS+

[RuthMayBond]

Todd Helton's career line:

Age Yr OWC PA ADWC SumOfPRG
23 1997 0.49 101 0.04 16
24 1998 5.32 595 2.73 134
25 1999 9.03 656 0.97 149
26 2000 19.11 697 3.90 154
27 2001 11.16 696 3.86 154
28 2002 14.57 667 3.00 154
29 2003 15.28 703 3.18 157
30 2004 14.39 683 4.72 149

He's one of the top five defensive first basemen of all time.With a little fudging (and certainly by the end of this year), WE AGREE :clapping

[SABR Matt]

fudging? who's doing the fudging? LOL

[RuthMayBond]

fudging? who's doing the fudging? LOLOh, that would be moi

[SABR Matt]

Ah OK. :D

Anyone else? I'm on fire this last week or so...have at it!

[iPod]

How good is 19.11? I have nothing really to compare it to.

[SABR Matt]

Oh..yeah that could be a problem...

creating 19 wins on offeense is pretty darned good...I have records of maybe three seasons in the history of the game that were better among first basemen...(Ruth's best seasons created like 24 wins)

[538280]

Matt,

I saw on another thread you have Carlton Fisk rated as the greatest catcher of all time, and that you're "going with PCA's evaluation on that one". I'm interested-why exactly does your system see Fisk as being the best catcher ever? Or, in other words, what is your system seeing in Fisk that other systems (and other people) haven't been able to see?

[SABR Matt]

There've been other catchers who were a little better in their prime...but no one has sustained their level of performance for as long as Carlton Fisk. A lot of folks don't seem to believe my argument on this one and I guess I can understand why since his overall career batting line doesn't look that incredible, but this is what Fisk's career looks like.

Age Yr OWC ADWC Tot PA PRG
29 1977 8.54 4.16 12.70 632 151
30 1978 7.79 3.26 11.05 658 151
24 1972 8.05 1.65 9.70 514 132
37 1985 8.09 1.16 9.25 620 121
42 1990 5.92 3.22 9.14 521 112
35 1983 7.12 1.50 8.62 545 122
28 1976 4.23 2.92 7.15 557 135
34 1982 4.80 1.76 6.56 536 127
25 1973 4.01 2.32 6.33 558 131
32 1980 5.13 1.01 6.14 530 115
40 1988 5.28 0.75 6.03 298 68
39 1987 3.86 2.10 5.96 508 111
41 1989 4.57 1.35 5.92 419 80
27 1975 4.38 0.82 5.20 294 68
26 1974 3.67 0.67 4.34 216 52
33 1981 2.81 0.94 3.75 394 88
43 1991 1.87 1.83 3.07 501 101
36 1984 2.73 0.94 3.67 395 77
31 1979 2.17 0.07 2.24 340 31
38 1986 0.04 2.09 2.13 491 96
44 1992 0.79 0.56 1.35 214 48
23 1971 0.60 0.04 0.64 49 13
45 1993 -0.26 0.45 0.19 58 12

(I'm presenting the data a little differently now...instead of chronologically displaying it, I'm displaying it in descending order of performance so you can quickly see how good a player was at his best).

Obviously, Fisk had a number of ineffective seasons when he was an old man and when he first came up he had one bad year...but the pattern that saves him is that when he sucked...he didn't play much. Some of the sucking was probably due to injuries related to catching (especially those years in his early 30s before he'd really lost his skills), but you can see, he produced 2 10-win seasons, 7 7-win seasons, and FOURTEEN (!) 5 win seasons while catching essentially his whole career. He DH'ed a little when he was older, (hence the low PRG counts when the PA counts suggest a slightly longer season) but that was only when he was hurt too much to catch.

Compare that to Johnny Bench:

Age Yr OWC ADWC Tot PA PRG
24 1972 11.61 4.95 16.56 652 148
22 1970 9.74 2.66 12.40 671 155
26 1974 8.84 2.66 11.50 708 159
21 1969 7.64 3.37 11.01 592 138
27 1975 7.23 2.74 9.97 605 140
20 1968 4.20 4.61 8.81 607 145
29 1977 6.11 1.61 7.72 560 129
25 1973 5.62 1.95 7.57 651 147
31 1979 6.11 1.12 7.23 538 120
28 1976 3.71 2.59 6.30 552 120
30 1978 4.23 1.57 5.80 451 106
23 1971 4.68 1.05 5.73 613 145
32 1980 3.75 0.04 3.79 407 90
33 1981 2.21 0.26 2.47 196 45
35 1983 1.80 0.59 2.39 334 70
34 1982 1.65 0.64 2.29 439 91
19 1967 -0.82 0.45 -0.37 93 25

While Fisk had his peak seasons scattered around his career a bit, with gaps between his best efforts too large for all of them to fall within a five-year span (one of the key span lengths in James' assessment of players), Bench had all of his best seasons right next to each other from 1969 through 1974. Counting against Bench as well is his lack of consistency outside of his peak and his short, ineffective decline phase. 1 15-win season, 4 10-win seasons, 9 7-win seasons but only 12 5-win seasons and goes down hill real quick from there. The average performance of a catcher is something like 3.4 wins (total) by PCA, so Fisk's ability to run up bunches and bunches of 5 and even 4 win seasons is helping him in the assessment of both his career total score and his prorated score (especially since it's prorated to 10,000 PA and 2000 PRG and Fisk is one of only two (Berra) catchers who exceeds both of those totals...and missing wins are filled in by adding league-average production, so Bench isn't getting credit for his lost time the way many systems credit him...the fact that he tended to score wins at a slightly higher rate overall doesn't raelly help him much here).

I think, however, that the main factor that's causing me to see Fisk as a superior catcher is the "span of years" problem. If you have your best years all in a row..does that make you more valuable than if you have them spread around? I don't really think that's a legitimate way to rate and rank players. Most people seem to think that it's valuable to get your production consistantly over a span of years, but I tink production is production whenever you get it. The result is that Idesigned my system to capture peak performance in terms of wins above twice the average scoring rates rather than viewing it as some kind of time-related quantity. When you add it all up, Fisk edges Bench by the GI method...more career wins (thanks to a significantly longer career), prorated wins close to even, Bench has more career volatility (gives him an extra few wins to counteract his short painful decline phase), and bench has a slightly greater peak, but it doesn't add up enough to catch Fisk.

[RuthMayBond]

Is Carter right up there near him?

[Ubiquitous]

I would say that having your years one after the other is better then spread out. In terms of team building having a player with his peak years spread out between 20 seasons and having good, bad, and average sprinkled in between harmful to team building.

Do I sign this guy to this contract at this length? Is this his established level? Is he going to decline, improve?

Whats more lets say you have a guy who is a 9, 5, 7, 3, 2, a 7. By being inconsistent in the middle it forces a team to play a player with sub-optimal production. Whereas if a player has a normal career, a build-up, a peak, a decline then a team can plan accordingly. Optimally they have a player who is in their peak approaching decline, and another player who is in buildup approaching peak. When one sinks low enough and the other rises high enough you replace one for the other, and so on in a continuous cycle. Either through trades, player development, or free agency. By being inconsistent you throw a serious monkey wrench into planning and building a team. You end up forcing a team to spend resources on areas that might not need that level of resources. A team looks at a players and says well this the level we can expect out of him for awhile now, we need to develop or get a player to replace him or to get us more production. They draft a player or trade for a player or sign a player but then poof it turns out they could have spent the resources on something else because the old players has a couple of good years out of the blue.

[SABR Matt]

Fair enough, Ubi...that's certainly one way to look at it. I still have a problem with selecting an arbitrary length of years that signifies "peak" because the length you choose will have a direct and significant impact on the ratings. If you choose a 5-year peak, you might end up thinking a player is a god when if you choose 8 years or 10 years, not so much. But if you choose the higher year ranges you're starting to measure career efficiency more than specifically peak performance...

I'm not sure I completely buy the idea that the team-building problems caused by a player who is inconsistant are quite what you've pictured them to be...especially when that player is inconsistant to the point of putting up 14-16 above average seasons (it's not like in his down years he was HORRID except when he got hurt). In the case of Fisk, you've got a guy with an established above average production level that lasted a very long time, only periodically interrupted by crippling injuries related to catching..I don't think an organization would look at his bad year and go "well crap, we need to draft and sign catchers!"...they'd look at it and go "well that's unfortunate that he got hurt...hopefgull he'l stay healty this year". I've seen that kind of thinking ROUTINELY out of big league organizations especially when it comes to catchers.

Nonetheless I do understand your point...it just seems to me that if you've got two players...one who does this:

2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 10, 12, 6, 2, 1, -2

and one who does this:

2, 8, 15, 15, 6, 15, 10, -2, 15, 12, 5, 15, 10, 2, 1

The second player is NOT lesss valuable than the first. THat down year in the middle was probably an injury, and es he was less consistant in his prime but he was still good even when he wasn't quite AS good. But if you take any range of years...the first player looks better than the second...I don't think that's really measuring anything useful.

[SABR Matt]

To RMB:

Carter ranks I believe 5th or 6th by the GI method with PCA...here's his career:

Age Yr OWC ADWC Tot PA PRG
28 1982 7.16 5.54 12.70 653 151
29 1983 4.42 7.72 12.14 609 141
26 1980 6.03 4.46 10.49 617 146
30 1984 7.75 2.21 9.96 669 158
25 1979 5.88 3.93 9.81 559 133
31 1985 7.08 2.47 9.55 633 141
23 1977 7.31 2.21 9.52 595 140
24 1978 5.99 3.33 9.32 607 148
21 1975 5.39 1.05 6.44 590 131
32 1986 4.83 0.75 5.58 573 131
27 1981 2.88 2.47 5.35 419 95
33 1987 2.32 1.09 3.41 573 130
34 1988 2.58 0.41 2.99 503 114
36 1990 2.02 0.34 2.36 272 65
37 1991 1.12 0.86 1.98 280 61
22 1976 0.30 1.09 1.39 347 83
20 1974 0.94 0.11 1.05 29 5
38 1992 0.37 0.67 1.04 325 77
35 1989 -0.34 0.26 -0.08 166 39

You can see he wasn't nearly the hitter Fisk was and CERTAINLY didn't approach bench in terms of hitting, but in his prime, he was one heck of a fielder. It results in a bunch of good solid years at the top of his career value spectrum, but he only managed 11 above average seasons whereas Fisk managed 16...and his decline phase was just plain awful...worse than Fisk's and at a younger age.

[RuthMayBond]

Nonetheless I do understand your point...it just seems to me that if you've got two players...one who does this:

2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 10, 12, 6, 2, 1, -2

and one who does this:

2, 8, 15, 15, 6, 15, 10, -2, 15, 12, 5, 15, 10, 2, 1

The second player is NOT lesss valuable than the first. THat down year in the middle was probably an injury, and es he was less consistant in his prime but he was still good even when he wasn't quite AS good. But if you take any range of years...the first player looks better than the second...What about the first four or last four?

[SABR Matt]

LOL...not what I meant RMB. :) I meant if you pick any number of years to range...(let's say you choose the number 4)...you can choose that number of consecutive years from player one's line that exceeds the best range from player 2.

If you choose 4 years, then player one has 4 15s...the best player 2 has is 51. If you pick three...player 1 has 45, the best player two has is 36...if you pick 5, player one has 75, and the best player two has is 61...etc It doesn't IMHO mean that player 1 was really "better" or more vlauable.

[SABR Matt]

GI-Figures for the top catchers of all time:

Defense
Ps-Rk DP-Rk First Last Ps PRG PsPRG CAREER PRORATE PEAK RANGE INDEX
1 9 Carlton Fisk C 2142 2087 35.57 33.21 4.85 5.92 79.55
2 6 Johnny Bench C 1973 1631 32.86 33.18 6.89 7.88 80.81
3 1 Ivan Rodriguez C 1620 1620 49.31 53.79 23.11 11.46 137.67
4 16 Yogi Berra C 1860 1626 26.17 27.82 3.17 5.45 62.61
5 139 Mike Piazza C 1389 1334 11.33 18.53 0.48 4.36 34.71
6 2 Gary Carter C 2089 1931 40.97 39.22 13.16 11.54 104.89
7 83 Bill Dickey C 1613 1613 16.11 20.67 0.31 3 40.09
8 161 Ted Simmons C 1880 1665 14.15 15.56 0.1 3.43 33.24
9 15 Gabby Hartnett C 1712 1684 26.06 29.45 2.74 4.62 62.87
10 34 Mickey Cochrane C 1341 1341 18.32 26.09 1.65 3.58 49.64
11 4 Thurman Munson C 1261 1239 32.38 41.09 11.96 6.94 92.38
12 3 Lance Parrish C 1738 1716 36.09 39.18 12.28 10.04 97.59
13 77 Bill Freehan C 1645 1500 17.19 21.37 0.49 2.93 41.98
14 74 Roy Campanella C 1152 1152 14.62 24.62 0.95 2.16 42.35
15 160 Mickey Tettleton C 959 774 9.22 21.49 0.32 2.22 33.26
16 69 Darrell Porter C 1416 1415 15.73 22.61 1.35 3.1 42.79
17 123 Wally Schang C 1516 1274 13.47 19.18 0 3.12 35.77
18 33 Sherm Lollar C 1405 1385 18.62 25.63 1.25 4.24 49.74
19 168 Roger Bresnahan C 1259 902 10.71 19.44 0.11 2.09 32.35
20 167 Smoky Burgess C 1019 1019 9.11 20.67 0.42 2.16 32.36
21 8 Jim Sundberg C 1776 1774 31.3 33.94 7.18 7.21 79.63
22 36 Rick Ferrell C 1713 1713 20.04 23.42 1.49 4.18 49.13
23 22 Charlie Bennett C 977 879 16.73 28.79 4.36 4.62 54.49
24 79 Jason Kendall C 1194 1166 13.35 22.85 1.42 3.31 40.93
25 80 Tim McCarver C 1409 1321 14.85 21.82 0.67 3.48 40.82

Offense
Ps-Rk OP-Rk First Last Ps PA CAREER PRORATE PEAK RANGE INDEX
1 2 Carlton Fisk C 9848 96.19 97.15 18.84 17.46 229.65
2 5 Johnny Bench C 8669 88.31 96.74 16.52 13.42 214.99
3 15 Ivan Rodriguez C 7215 61.72 79.36 4.35 8.19 153.62
4 3 Yogi Berra C 8364 94.75 105.11 18.16 9.83 227.85
5 1 Mike Piazza C 6535 91.45 113.4 31.57 12.66 249.08
6 9 Gary Carter C 9019 74.03 80.24 6.7 13.02 173.99
7 4 Bill Dickey C 7060 81.38 100 20.62 14.88 216.88
8 6 Ted Simmons C 9681 91.18 93.2 14.88 15.23 214.49
9 8 Gabby Hartnett C 7297 71.78 88.9 12.01 10.98 183.67
10 7 Mickey Cochrane C 6206 72.17 96.2 15.67 8.76 192.8
11 23 Thurman Munson C 5903 50.57 76.52 3.7 5.74 136.53
12 29 Lance Parrish C 7797 51.34 65.29 1.8 10.24 128.67
13 10 Bill Freehan C 6899 64.1 83.74 10.02 10.85 168.71
14 12 Roy Campanella C 4816 51.35 84.19 14.55 11.44 161.52
15 11 Mickey Tettleton C 5745 60.1 87.05 11.31 7.86 166.32
16 14 Darrell Porter C 6570 58.41 80.14 7.78 9.3 155.62
17 13 Wally Schang C 6423 60.44 83.1 7.84 8.14 159.52
18 24 Sherm Lollar C 6218 50.78 74.74 3.72 7.19 136.43
19 16 Roger Bresnahan C 5372 53.45 82.76 8.82 7.53 152.56
20 17 Smoky Burgess C 5013 50.37 81.96 9.76 8.17 150.26
21 61 Jim Sundberg C 6898 34.6 54.25 0.88 11.28 101.01
22 27 Rick Ferrell C 7072 51.24 69.79 1.47 7.41 129.91
23 31 Charlie Bennett C 4310 36.38 72.42 6.86 8.82 124.48
24 21 Jason Kendall C 5282 46.64 76.52 6.42 7.7 137.28
25 22 Tim McCarver C 6206 49.93 73.96 4.87 7.81 136.57

Just so you guys can see the full spread

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt,

Can I get Ted Williams' year by year "DEFENSIVE PCA BA" and where his total ranks among other left fielders, or all corner outfielders, whatever you want.

And is there any way I can get splits for Walter Johnson's numbers in Griffith, and away from Griffith? That would be cool. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

I can't give you exact inning counts and exact RA lines for Walter Johnson Home/Road, but I can give you how his teams as a whole did in games in which he started when that team was the home team and the away team.

That's the limit of the info I have from before 1957...the game logs from retrosheet have complete records of who started every game (pitcher-wise I mean) and how many runs each team scored in every game.

When Walter Johnson was the home starter (336 times), the visiting team scored 925 runs.

When he was the away starter (outside of Griffiths - 330 times), the home team scored 1115 runs.

That's a pretty large difference...interesting.

Now...Ted Williams' defensive line:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1940 123 1.20 0.258 (11th among LFers)
1941 124 0.45 0.227 (<20th)
1942 145 3.20 0.321 (1st)
1946 142 2.92 0.313 (2nd)
1947 152 1.78 0.268 (6th)
1948 129 1.03 0.249 (12th)
1949 155 1.05 0.243 (13th)
1950 82 0.52 0.241 (<20th)
1951 149 0.64 0.230 (18th)
1953 16 0.05 0.225 (NR)
1954 102 0.49 0.233 (dead last)
1955 75 2.13 0.354 (NR - I only ranking you if you have 81 games)
1956 90 0.89 0.259 (<20th)
1957 110 1.13 0.261 (9th)
1958 84 0.20 0.220 (Dead Last)
1959 46 0.95 0.314 (NR)
1960 63 0.39 0.240 (NR)

He wasn't without physical ability defensively, he just lacked focus. Hence the periodic bursts of fielding performance amid a mediocre career.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I can't give you exact inning counts and exact RA lines for Walter Johnson Home/Road, but I can give you how his teams as a whole did in games in which he started when that team was the home team and the away team.

That's the limit of the info I have from before 1957...the game logs from retrosheet have complete records of who started every game (pitcher-wise I mean) and how many runs each team scored in every game.

When Walter Johnson was the home starter (336 times), the visiting team scored 925 runs.

When he was the away starter (outside of Griffiths - 330 times), the home team scored 1115 runs.

That's a pretty large difference...interesting.

Now...Ted Williams' defensive line:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1940 123 1.20 0.258 (11th among LFers)
1941 124 0.45 0.227 (<20th)
1942 145 3.20 0.321 (1st)
1946 142 2.92 0.313 (2nd)
1947 152 1.78 0.268 (6th)
1948 129 1.03 0.249 (12th)
1949 155 1.05 0.243 (13th)
1950 82 0.52 0.241 (<20th)
1951 149 0.64 0.230 (18th)
1953 16 0.05 0.225 (NR)
1954 102 0.49 0.233 (dead last)
1955 75 2.13 0.354 (NR - I only ranking you if you have 81 games)
1956 90 0.89 0.259 (<20th)
1957 110 1.13 0.261 (9th)
1958 84 0.20 0.220 (Dead Last)
1959 46 0.95 0.314 (NR)
1960 63 0.39 0.240 (NR)

He wasn't without physical ability defensively, he just lacked focus. Hence the periodic bursts of fielding performance amid a mediocre career.

Cool Matt, thanks.

I was always curious about just how much Griffith helped Walter out. With that left field, he could pretty much say "here buddy, see how far you can hit this...." and then of course buckle down with runners on. That IS a pretty large difference, especially given that the away starts are six fewer.

So those are Williams' defensive numbers? What would you say to someone who says that Williams and Ruth were equal defensively? Do these numbers take into account 1) His arm strength and accuracy 2) The ease of covering left field in Fenway?

And on a side note: when searching for an already existing list of Williams' defensive PCA, and combing through this thread, I came across you ranking Schalk a C for defense? Has that changed? Please tell me its changed Matt. I have faith in your numbers and don't want that to change. ;)

[SABR Matt]

I have Schalk as the 20th greatest defensive catcher of all time, but of course as I've said many times, catcher is the most difficult position to rate with seasonal statistics since there's no way to account for game-calling skill. It may well be that Schalk's greatest asset is not seen in the data and as such that he is underrated by PCA.

And no...I don't think Ted Williams is Ruth's defensive equal. As my post in the Babe Ruth thread indicates, I consider Ruth to have been an above average fielder for most of his career until he started to get fat. He finishes in the top 15 among right fielders.

[SABR Matt]

BTW, yeah...arm strength is factored into that...Ruth had a CANNON in his prime...he was a power pitcher afterall. Williams' arm was pretty lame. The ease of covering LF in Fenway wasn't covered really...only way to really do that would be to use play by play data if it existed to see how many balls he got to compared to how many he should have and PBP data doesn't go back that far.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Good lord.

Now, compare that to what Grove went through in Shibe and Fenway. AND, you don't need to do one stitch of work on that, because we've already seen Jimmie Foxx's comprehensive--and preposterous--career home/road splits, both in his Shibe years and in his Fenway years.

I'll never forget the first time I saw those numbers. I knew Fenway had to have helped him a lot, of course, but in his last great year, 1938, his slugging average at Fenway was about 350 points higher at home than on the road. And the rest of his Fenway years, though nowhere near that outrageous, were real * material, too. I mean, the guy deserves nearly Chuck Klein type demerits for some of those years.

The real shockers, though, were the Shibe years. I'd always known Shibe had to help Foxx and hurt Grove, because the LF fence wasn't sky high, like the RF fence, and it went out in a straight line--like many did then--making it reasonable at the foul line and extremely deep in dead center and the deeper parts of LCF, but very cozy for hitters in straightaway left AND the shallower parts of LCF. If you find/know the post that has Foxx's career home/road splits, take one look at those superstar Shibe years and how that park bloated his stats, too. No, not like Fenway, but it helped him a ton.

If Grove had been allowed to come up in 1921, if some team had paid Dunn a fortune THEN, instead of Mack's waiting until early 1925, and if he'd pitched for the Senators in Griffith, then he'd have helped the aging Johnson make history's greatest 1-2 combo in the 1924-1925 Series, and they might have gotten to a couple of others, but then I'm not sure how soon he'd have returned. And in the long run, OF COURSE he wouldn't have had anywhere near that fabulous W-L record (300-141).

But he won NINE E.R.A. titles as it was--80% more than Johnson, Koufax, Alexander, Pedro or any other pitcher in MLB history until Clemens, and 22.2% more than Clemens. SO... can you imagine how many ERA titles he'd have won, had he pitched in that park, with generally lousy hitting but strong fielding? As it is, he won 9 ERA titles in 17 years--a phenomenal feat--and he did so in the same two parks where RH-hitter Foxx super-fattened up his stats as shown in his career H/R splits.

Put Grove in Griffith, give him the same kind of strong-fielding, horrible-hitting teams Johnson had during many of his prime years, and those fabulous W-L records of Grove's would be enormously diminished. BUT... in a career that was then 21 years long (1921-1941), instead of 17, and spend entirely in that pitchers' dream of a park, he might have won 15 ERA titles.

Then all discussions about the greatest pitcher ever would be like the ones about the greatest shortstop ever: "OK, we know who #1 is, so let's just get down to arguing over #2"--which, at SS, is one hell of an interesting matter to debate, since there are a lot of candidates whose qualifications legitimately can be argued.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

Carefully though, I'll point out that one hitter's dramatic splits don't tell you anything about a park really. They tell you that player took advantage of the park, yes...but that's at least 50% skill on the player's part to aim for a park's weaknesses. And pitchers have to face hitters of every type.

And of course, park factoring is already embedded in Grove's and Johnson's traditional sabermetrics...not that that is a complete picture...but additional adjustments aren't likely to be huge.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I have Schalk as the 20th greatest defensive catcher of all time, but of course as I've said many times, catcher is the most difficult position to rate with seasonal statistics since there's no way to account for game-calling skill. It may well be that Schalk's greatest asset is not seen in the data and as such that he is underrated by PCA.

And no...I don't think Ted Williams is Ruth's defensive equal. As my post in the Babe Ruth thread indicates, I consider Ruth to have been an above average fielder for most of his career until he started to get fat. He finishes in the top 15 among right fielders.

No amount of stats will enable us to rate Williams' defense accurately. The guy often made no effort to hustle. He had an awful arm, awful foot speed and took a before-his-time DH's attitude that he was just there to hit. He'd practice hitting forever, but wasn't troubled by his horribleness in LF or on the bases, and boy did it show.

He was, of course, supremely lucky to play in Fenway. I wouldn't mind seeing his range figures for Griffith and Yankee Stadiums, compared to other contemporary A.L. starting LF's who played for the 5 remaining A.L. teams. But those might be hard to get.

The Nats often had 2 CF's or 2 RF's in the line up, one of whom started in LF, where it was over 400 FT down the LF LINE!!! Can you imagine Williams out there? And the rest of the field wasn't much better. It was also very deep to LCF and deepest CF. As for the basepaths, we all know about that subject and Williams.

But I doubt your stats, or any other statistical historian's defensive stats, will show just how bad Ballgame was on defense. I've looked at baseball-reference.com's stats and they don't begin to show it. IF you could get his career road stats against the Nats and the Yankees, and then those for the starting LF's for the other 5 AL teams during his time, it would be very illuminating.

With all of this said, the ineluctable fact is Fenway DID mitigate a great amount of the damage caused by having him in LF... just as it has for them with their current version of Teddy Ballgame, one Manny Ramirez, who, though not in Williams' unique class, is one of the greatest hitters of my lifetime.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Carefully though, I'll point out that one hitter's dramatic splits don't tell you anything about a park really. They tell you that player took advantage of the park, yes...but that's at least 50% skill on the player's part to aim for a park's weaknesses. And pitchers have to face hitters of every type.

And of course, park factoring is already embedded in Grove's and Johnson's traditional sabermetrics...not that that is a complete picture...but additional adjustments aren't likely to be huge.

All very good points, Matt. There's no denying the fact what Grove did in Fenway, during his post-injury renaissance in 1935-1939, at ages 35-39, including winning ERA titles #'s 6 thru 9, was phenomenal. And that's because there's no denying what THAT park did to him and for RH-hitters.

But I DO recall reading somewhere in Bill James a discussion of Shibe Park, wherein he said that one year in the (early, I think) 30's, it was a good hitters' park, but the next year, it was a pitchers' park. He has always said, with regard to Grove, that it was a bad park for lefties, and for the reasons I described, there's no doubt it was as a general rule. But how much of that is because of the stats of Jimmie Foxx and Al Simmons--a RH-hitter who actually was better than Foxx in their dynasty years, 1929-1931?

B U T.....

You've made a very good point. A truly great, epic hitter--and that's for sure what Foxx was--could learn to hit the ball to that specific area of the park, LF or shallow LCF, in a way normal hitters could not. And Foxx had another two big edges I've learned to recognize from other posters here: (1) Johnson was retired by the time he became seriously good; and (2) he didn't have to face Grove, in all but a few of his great years. Those two things had to help him a ton, no? How'd you like to know you averted those two guys?

So I get your point and I think it's a good one. A great hitter could do what you're talking about at the MLB level. And however much one downgrades Foxx for: (1) laughable home parks, (2) retiring young, (3) self-destruction penalty or whatever; he was one of the all-time great hitters in his prime. So yeah, he probably possessed an ability to place hard-hit balls on the left half of the diamond, in specific areas, to an extent no RH power hitter in the AL could match, until at least Greenberg or Joe D. (dubious).

There is no doubt on the Fenway years. I'd like to know more about how RH-hitters--home and road, separately--fared at Shibe from 1920-1940.

Again, Matt, thanks for the insight. It helped a lot.

Jim

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I have Schalk as the 20th greatest defensive catcher of all time, but of course as I've said many times, catcher is the most difficult position to rate with seasonal statistics since there's no way to account for game-calling skill. It may well be that Schalk's greatest asset is not seen in the data and as such that he is underrated by PCA.


Even though it doesn't pick it up and there's nothing you can do about it, I feel very good that you acknowledge that issue. There will never be a truly accurate way to measure the actual value of a great catcher imo. Just have to accept it and come as close as possible.



And no...I don't think Ted Williams is Ruth's defensive equal. As my post in the Babe Ruth thread indicates, I consider Ruth to have been an above average fielder for most of his career until he started to get fat. He finishes in the top 15 among right fielders.


You show Ruth at 31.08 career defensive wins and Williams at 22.18 career defensive wins, right.

Does that factor in his fielding from the mound at all? If it doesn't, I think you should adjust for at least three more seasons ('16-'18) at his '19 fielding level. Would only be fair, considering he didn't start playing the outfield full time until 24/25.

Do you have a peak defensive wins number? Like they do with win shares, ya know....best 10 years, 5 years, all that good stuff.


BTW, yeah...arm strength is factored into that...Ruth had a CANNON in his prime...he was a power pitcher afterall. Williams' arm was pretty lame. The ease of covering LF in Fenway wasn't covered really...only way to really do that would be to use play by play data if it existed to see how many balls he got to compared to how many he should have and PBP data doesn't go back that far.


Yup. And that cannon was with him til the end. Took the ball for the last game in '30 after not having pitched in what, like 9 years. Against the Sox he beat them 9-3 going the distance, allowing only five hits through seven innings, and they didn't get a runner past second through 5.2 innings. Then he took the ball again in '33 and threw another complete game. Yeah the arm was great throughout.

I am convinced that left field in Fenway helped mask Williams' defensive efforts. That 22.18 looks more like 17 or 18 in my book. Oh well. I appreciate the info, especially the Walter stuff. Always wondered about that. Granted, we can only take that info so far in our assumptions, but there's something there. Ftr, I'm still a huge Walter fan.

Last question: Do you have, or are you working on a baserunning PCA BA? One that is stolen base independent.

[RuthMayBond]

I have Schalk as the 20th greatest defensive catcher of all timeI've got him 16th with my crude little rating system :clapping

[RuthMayBond]

But I DO recall reading somewhere in Bill James a discussion of Shibe Park, wherein he said that one year in the (early, I think) 30's, it was a good hitters' park, but the next year, it was a pitchers' park.Pitching park factors (over 100 favors batters)
1925 Shibe 106
1926 Shibe 104
1927 Shibe 103
1928 Shibe 99
1929 Shibe 100
1930 Shibe 101
1931 Shibe 103
1932 Shibe 101
1933 Shibe 100
1934 Fenway 107
1935 Fenway 107
1936 Fenway 106
1937 Fenway 103
1938 Fenway 103
1939 Fenway 102
1940 Fenway 103
1941 Fenway 101

[SABR Matt]

Even though it doesn't pick it up and there's nothing you can do about it, I feel very good that you acknowledge that issue. There will never be a truly accurate way to measure the actual value of a great catcher imo. Just have to accept it and come as close as possible.



You show Ruth at 31.08 career defensive wins and Williams at 22.18 career defensive wins, right.

Does that factor in his fielding from the mound at all? If it doesn't, I think you should adjust for at least three more seasons ('16-'18) at his '19 fielding level. Would only be fair, considering he didn't start playing the outfield full time until 24/25.

Do you have a peak defensive wins number? Like they do with win shares, ya know....best 10 years, 5 years, all that good stuff.



Yup. And that cannon was with him til the end. Took the ball for the last game in '30 after not having pitched in what, like 9 years. Against the Sox he beat them 9-3 going the distance, allowing only five hits through seven innings, and they didn't get a runner past second through 5.2 innings. Then he took the ball again in '33 and threw another complete game. Yeah the arm was great throughout.

I am convinced that left field in Fenway helped mask Williams' defensive efforts. That 22.18 looks more like 17 or 18 in my book. Oh well. I appreciate the info, especially the Walter stuff. Always wondered about that. Granted, we can only take that info so far in our assumptions, but there's something there. Ftr, I'm still a huge Walter fan.

Last question: Do you have, or are you working on a baserunning PCA BA? One that is stolen base independent.

Ruth's defensive wins include his fielding wins earned as a pitcher, but of course, it's a LOT harder to earn fielding wins as a pitcher than a right fielder. If he'd played RF his whole career he'd probably have a few more defensive wins than he does.

I don't believe in peak measures that grab exclusively a group of years "in a row", the number of said years chosen arbitrarily. The way I measure peak performance is by counting the wins a player earns above a dominance threshold, and by measuring how a player did in the best half of his career (and by best half I mean the x number of top seasons from any point in his career as determined by his win-scoring rates such that all of those seasons add up to half his career playing time). The combination of those two things is the Mastery element you see me post here when I discuss GI results.

[Myankee4life]

May I please get

Denfensive PCA-BA of:

Manny Ramirez
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
Bernie Williams
Ken Griffey JR
Carlos Beltran
Torri Hunter
Vernon Wells
Jim Edmonds
Alex Rodriguez
Albert Pujols
Jimmie Foxx


Thanks

[SABR Matt]

One at a time:

Manny Ramirez

RF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1994 76 0.68 0.251
1995 115 0.65 0.237
1996 144 1.68 0.263
1997 141 1.12 0.246
1998 151 1.45 0.254
1999 133 1.35 0.256
2000 78 0.36 0.232
2002 7 0.08 0.262

LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 51 0.57 0.265
2002 58 0.42 0.246
2003 115 0.70 0.239
2004 122 0.46 0.227
2005 130 -0.55 0.197

Career Defensive PCA-BA at all positions is .241 which is near the bottom all time among career right fielders.

Gary Sheffield

RF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1994 82 0.74 0.251
1995 54 0.09 0.219
1996 146 0.84 0.237
1997 129 1.88 0.276
1998 86 0.58 0.241
1998 33 0.25 0.245
2002 115 3.15 0.332
2003 143 1.31 0.252
2004 129 0.54 0.230
2005 131 0.08 0.219

LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1995 3 0.01 0.217
1999 137 1.22 0.254
2000 132 1.07 0.25
2001 133 1.03 0.248

Career Defensive PCA-BA is .253...still well below average of .270.

Sammy Sosa

CF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1989 19 0.09 0.225
1989 6 0.10 0.269
1991 9 0.31 0.337
1992 72 0.10 0.213
1993 61 0.11 0.214
1994 16 0.10 0.232
1998 6 0.07 0.251
1999 27 0.69 0.302

RF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1989 7 0.08 0.260
1990 139 4.98 0.369
1991 84 2.32 0.333
1993 101 0.83 0.248
1994 93 1.13 0.265
1995 141 4.58 0.354
1996 123 1.78 0.275
1997 162 2.06 0.267
1998 151 2.09 0.272
1999 147 2.11 0.274
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 60 0.58 0.267

Career Defensive PCA-BA = .281 Sosa always had the fielding talent...he just incosistently applied it and periodically needed a good kick in the rear to get himself applied to his fielding work.

Bernie Williams

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1991 94 0.78 0.239
1992 59 0.75 0.254
1993 146 1.54 0.247
1994 108 1.23 0.250
1995 145 5.38 0.344
1996 134 1.88 0.260
1997 118 1.43 0.253
1998 121 2.59 0.287
1999 152 2.24 0.262
2000 134 2.03 0.264
2001 144 1.92 0.257
2002 149 1.21 0.238
2003 113 1.29 0.250
2004 87 0.30 0.221
2005 104 -0.95 0.166

Career Defensive PCA-BA: .258 He was pretty solid early in his career with the glove but man did it fall apart later on...the nearly one win he lost below the fielding margin in 2005 represents the lowest a player has ever sunk in a season with at last 100 equivalent games since the 19th century.

Ken Griffey Jr

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
2005 124 0.60 0.229

Career PCA-BA is .254

If the 10 Gold Gloves he won, PCA suggests he deserves ZERO. If this is right, then Griffey was all flash and no substance. I have a feeling he isn't as good a fielder as he's cracked up to be, but I doubt he's quite this lame.

Carlos Beltran

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1998 17 0.30 0.273
1999 157 2.14 0.258
2000 80 2.03 0.301
2001 156 4.09 0.305
2002 145 2.84 0.280
2003 134 2.37 0.273
2004 167 1.49 0.241
2005 151 1.78 0.255

Career PCA-BA is .274 Beltran has definitely demonstrated superior ability in the past but I'm not convinced the Mets can really ever expect a glove phenom in CF...as he's aged, he's possibly lost a step or two.

Torii Hunter

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1998 3 0.04 0.253
1999 84 2.44 0.315
2000 93 4.25 0.376
2001 149 4.82 0.327
2002 142 1.68 0.252
2003 145 3.02 0.285
2004 122 4.46 0.342
2005 89 1.57 0.273

Career PCA-BA is .311 (in the top 0.3% all time among fielder/position records with at least 200 Equivalent Games). Feel free to ignore '05 which was plagued with injuries and recognize that Torii Hunter is one of the best fielders of this era.

Vernon Wells

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1999 19 0.34 0.273
2001 27 0.16 0.229
2002 137 1.71 0.254
2003 160 1.60 0.245
2004 129 3.00 0.294
2005 155 2.92 0.287

Career PCA-BA is .268 but he appears to have slowly matured his way into a player who will be an above average if unspectacular fielder.

Jim Edmonds

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1994 3 0.05 0.274
1995 138 4.74 0.334
1996 106 0.93 0.240
1997 109 3.19 0.316
1998 150 2.24 0.263
1999 41 1.22 0.318
2000 139 1.72 0.254
2001 134 2.03 0.264
2002 127 3.53 0.310
2003 119 3.44 0.314
2004 143 2.10 0.262
2005 134 2.77 0.288

Career Defensive PCA-BA is .285. He's had some ups and downs and shown bursts of fielding greatness in the past, but injuries have always been around to slow him down. Had he stayed healthy his whole career we might be talking about one of the all time fielding greats...instead, he's just above average.

Alex Rodriguez

SS
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1994 16 0.22 0.248
1995 39 0.4 0.233
1996 141 1.87 0.247
1997 142 1.13 0.223
1998 161 2.21 0.249
1999 125 1.87 0.254
2000 146 3.98 0.309
2001 157 2.47 0.258
2002 158 4.63 0.318
2003 155 2.4 0.257

3B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2004 154 1.33 0.249
2005 159 0.65 0.229

Career Defensive PCA-BA is .258. Rodriguez is poorly suited for third base. He's got the strong arm, but he's too big to be "quick" which you need to be even more at third than at short. He's compensating for his lack of quickness now by trying to throw harder and more perfectly every time he merely blocks the ball instead of catching it cleanly and it's resulting in dozens of throwing errors. He's simply not fine enough with his hands or fast enough with his reflexes to play the hot corner and this is routinely true of big guys. Cal Ripken also made a HORRID third baseman and an inconsistent SS who flashed success from time to time.

Albert Pujols

1B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 33 0.07 0.221
2002 16 0.22 0.296
2003 40 0.43 0.277
2004 151 1.36 0.265
2005 158 2.00 0.290

3B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 54 1.50 0.362
2002 32 0.70 0.327

LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 39 0.66 0.294
2002 94 1.12 0.269
2003 99 1.25 0.273

Career Defensive PCA-BA is .277. Pujols has made a very solid athelete at any of the corner positions. He'd probably do OK in RF too although he seems to have found his permanent home at first base for now. I expect Pujols to be very consistent and very solid with the glove wherever he plays at least into his early thirties, at which point his slugging may take priority.

Jimmie Foxx

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1927 26 0.32 0.286
1928 28 0.36 0.290
1929 140 2.68 0.329
1930 153 2.78 0.323
1931 109 1.56 0.299
1932 140 3.09 0.348
1933 148 1.67 0.280
1934 141 1.40 0.271
1935 120 1.24 0.273
1936 139 2.84 0.337
1937 150 2.78 0.325
1938 147 0.34 0.223
1939 122 0.31 0.224
1940 92 0.62 0.251
1941 126 1.51 0.284
1942 49 0.21 0.236
1942 27 0.02 0.214
1945 32 0.00 0.208

Career Defensive PCA-BA is .288. That would have been a bit higher had he not turned into a TERRIBLE ballplayer starting around 1938 when his knees started to go, he started have back issues, and he started getting drunk a lot. In his prime he was absolutely the best fielding third baseman of the early 30s.

[Myankee4life]

Thank you very much Matt.

May I request Offensive PCA-BA for:

Joe Dimaggio
Manny Ramirez
Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Gary Sheffield
Charlie Gehringer
Stan Musial
Willie Mays

Thanks

[SABR Matt]

Joe DiMaggio

Yr SumOfPA Wins PCA-BA
1936 668 7.16 0.297
1937 692 13.3 0.350
1938 660 9.15 0.317
1939 524 11.77 0.369
1940 572 11.47 0.355
1941 621 13.95 0.370
1942 680 8.81 0.311
1946 567 6.81 0.305
1947 601 10.49 0.339
1948 669 11.84 0.340
1949 329 7.84 0.378
1950 606 10.17 0.335
1951 482 4.54 0.289

Career Off. PCA-BA: .333 (24th out of 825 players with at least 5000 PA)

Manny Ramirez

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1993 55 -0.34 0.193
1994 336 2.42 0.275
1995 571 7.11 0.308
1996 647 6.58 0.294
1997 651 8.05 0.307
1998 663 7.87 0.304
1999 640 14.22 0.368
2000 532 12.70 0.378
2001 620 10.38 0.334
2002 518 12.02 0.374
2003 679 9.37 0.316
2004 663 9.61 0.320
2005 650 9.02 0.314

Career Off. PCA-BA: 325 (32nd all time - same qualifications)

Lou Gehrig

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1923 29 0.74 0.389
1924 13 0.30 0.374
1925 497 5.02 0.293
1926 696 9.30 0.314
1927 717 16.60 0.374
1928 677 15.77 0.375
1929 692 11.69 0.335
1930 703 15.41 0.366
1931 738 14.49 0.352
1932 708 14.67 0.359
1933 687 10.04 0.321
1934 690 17.39 0.386
1935 672 16.63 0.384
1936 719 16.60 0.373
1937 700 15.09 0.364
1938 689 8.27 0.305
1939 33 -0.12 0.208

Career Off. PCA-BA: .351 (8th all time)

Jimmie Foxx

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1925 9 0.50 0.500
1926 35 0.18 0.263
1927 146 1.64 0.300
1928 473 5.85 0.307
1929 638 12.19 0.349
1930 673 11.11 0.333
1931 593 6.24 0.296
1932 701 17.40 0.384
1933 670 11.80 0.340
1934 652 14.11 0.365
1935 649 14.08 0.365
1936 693 12.05 0.338
1937 673 7.74 0.302
1938 685 16.31 0.378
1939 563 12.70 0.370
1940 618 7.70 0.308
1941 582 4.91 0.283
1942 120 1.17 0.291
1942 227 0.17 0.236
1944 22 -0.24 0.163
1945 248 2.43 0.291

Career Off. PCA-BA: .333 (just a tick below DiMaggio at 25th all time)

Gary Sheffield

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1988 89 0.30 0.252
1989 405 1.80 0.259
1990 547 6.85 0.308
1991 203 0.11 0.234
1992 618 9.35 0.324
1993 557 6.08 0.306
1994 384 4.22 0.299
1995 274 6.98 0.388
1996 677 14.63 0.364
1997 582 6.77 0.303
1998 549 10.77 0.364
1999 663 8.73 0.312
2000 612 11.76 0.350
2001 618 11.07 0.342
2002 579 6.62 0.302
2003 678 12.06 0.341
2004 684 9.80 0.319
2005 675 7.98 0.300

Career Off. PCA-BA: .321 (45th all time)

Charlie Gehringer

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1924 13 0.11 0.281
1925 20 -0.19 0.172
1926 517 2.70 0.263
1927 571 4.55 0.280
1928 691 7.60 0.299
1929 715 10.78 0.324
1930 699 7.91 0.301
1931 414 2.96 0.275
1932 692 7.99 0.302
1933 705 6.47 0.288
1934 708 12.24 0.338
1935 709 10.06 0.319
1936 731 11.74 0.330
1937 660 9.22 0.317
1938 688 9.18 0.313
1939 486 5.99 0.307
1940 629 6.00 0.290
1941 537 2.19 0.256
1942 52 0.51 0.292

Career Off. PCA-BA: .302 (in a multi-way tie for 142nd all time wiht about 12 other hitters)

Stan Musial

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1941 49 1.36 0.402
1942 536 8.33 0.327
1943 701 12.85 0.344
1944 667 13.35 0.354
1946 702 17.97 0.389
1947 677 8.28 0.307
1948 694 20.11 0.410
1949 721 14.29 0.353
1950 645 13.22 0.357
1951 678 15.13 0.369
1952 676 12.60 0.346
1953 698 13.86 0.353
1954 705 13.28 0.347
1955 656 10.78 0.332
1956 682 9.31 0.315
1957 579 11.82 0.357
1958 549 7.51 0.315
1959 404 2.49 0.269
1960 378 3.88 0.294
1961 431 4.37 0.294
1962 505 7.15 0.318
1963 379 2.97 0.279

Career Off. PCA-BA: .340 (14th all time)...check out that 1948 season!

Willie Mays

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1951 524 4.62 0.285
1952 144 1.23 0.284
1954 640 12.65 0.353
1955 670 15.66 0.375
1956 650 8.86 0.315
1957 668 13.15 0.352
1958 685 14.14 0.358
1959 648 12.04 0.346
1960 669 13.20 0.353
1961 659 12.31 0.346
1962 706 13.42 0.348
1963 671 12.50 0.346
1964 665 13.25 0.354
1965 638 13.76 0.364
1966 629 11.02 0.339
1967 544 5.56 0.294
1968 573 9.37 0.332
1969 459 4.27 0.289
1970 566 7.26 0.310
1971 537 10.78 0.355
1972 309 3.41 0.307
1973 239 1.06 0.258

Career Off. PCA-BA: .336 (18th all time)

The top seven in career PCA-BA, if you're curious are:

Ruth (.385)
Williams (.381)
Bonds (.369)
Mantle (.360)
Cobb (.356)
Hornsby (.354)
F. Thomas (.352)

[538280]

Matt, while you're taking requests, I know you've probably given it before but I'm working on charts for WS, WARP3, and I'd like to add your PCA. Could I please have total (offense and defense) for Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Tris Speaker, Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, and Nap Lajoie. If you're already given them on this website you could just provide links. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

By total..you mean per year or career total?

[Skin & Bones]

This is not a request, but just something I've always believed to be a flaw in your system. That's your ranking of Ty Cobb. I can't fathom how your system sees him as having the second most valuable career of all-time. If anything, your old ranking of Cobb ( around what 5th, 6th alltime ?) was more in line with what pretty much every other system believes, even without LQ adjustements. In a sense, your systems top three players all-time( I'm assuming, no LQ adjustment ?) is exactly like WinShares. Ruth, Cobb, then Bonds.

[Skin & Bones]

Joe DiMaggio

Yr SumOfPA Wins PCA-BA
1936 668 7.16 0.297
1937 692 13.3 0.350
1938 660 9.15 0.317
1939 524 11.77 0.369
1940 572 11.47 0.355
1941 621 13.95 0.370
1942 680 8.81 0.311
1946 567 6.81 0.305
1947 601 10.49 0.339
1948 669 11.84 0.340
1949 329 7.84 0.378
1950 606 10.17 0.335
1951 482 4.54 0.289

Career Off. PCA-BA: .333 (24th out of 825 players with at least 5000 PA)

Manny Ramirez

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1993 55 -0.34 0.193
1994 336 2.42 0.275
1995 571 7.11 0.308
1996 647 6.58 0.294
1997 651 8.05 0.307
1998 663 7.87 0.304
1999 640 14.22 0.368
2000 532 12.70 0.378
2001 620 10.38 0.334
2002 518 12.02 0.374
2003 679 9.37 0.316
2004 663 9.61 0.320
2005 650 9.02 0.314

Career Off. PCA-BA: 325 (32nd all time - same qualifications)

Lou Gehrig

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1923 29 0.74 0.389
1924 13 0.30 0.374
1925 497 5.02 0.293
1926 696 9.30 0.314
1927 717 16.60 0.374
1928 677 15.77 0.375
1929 692 11.69 0.335
1930 703 15.41 0.366
1931 738 14.49 0.352
1932 708 14.67 0.359
1933 687 10.04 0.321
1934 690 17.39 0.386
1935 672 16.63 0.384
1936 719 16.60 0.373
1937 700 15.09 0.364
1938 689 8.27 0.305
1939 33 -0.12 0.208

Career Off. PCA-BA: .351 (8th all time)

Jimmie Foxx

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1925 9 0.50 0.500
1926 35 0.18 0.263
1927 146 1.64 0.300
1928 473 5.85 0.307
1929 638 12.19 0.349
1930 673 11.11 0.333
1931 593 6.24 0.296
1932 701 17.40 0.384
1933 670 11.80 0.340
1934 652 14.11 0.365
1935 649 14.08 0.365
1936 693 12.05 0.338
1937 673 7.74 0.302
1938 685 16.31 0.378
1939 563 12.70 0.370
1940 618 7.70 0.308
1941 582 4.91 0.283
1942 120 1.17 0.291
1942 227 0.17 0.236
1944 22 -0.24 0.163
1945 248 2.43 0.291

Career Off. PCA-BA: .333 (just a tick below DiMaggio at 25th all time)

Gary Sheffield

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1988 89 0.30 0.252
1989 405 1.80 0.259
1990 547 6.85 0.308
1991 203 0.11 0.234
1992 618 9.35 0.324
1993 557 6.08 0.306
1994 384 4.22 0.299
1995 274 6.98 0.388
1996 677 14.63 0.364
1997 582 6.77 0.303
1998 549 10.77 0.364
1999 663 8.73 0.312
2000 612 11.76 0.350
2001 618 11.07 0.342
2002 579 6.62 0.302
2003 678 12.06 0.341
2004 684 9.80 0.319
2005 675 7.98 0.300

Career Off. PCA-BA: .321 (45th all time)

Charlie Gehringer

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1924 13 0.11 0.281
1925 20 -0.19 0.172
1926 517 2.70 0.263
1927 571 4.55 0.280
1928 691 7.60 0.299
1929 715 10.78 0.324
1930 699 7.91 0.301
1931 414 2.96 0.275
1932 692 7.99 0.302
1933 705 6.47 0.288
1934 708 12.24 0.338
1935 709 10.06 0.319
1936 731 11.74 0.330
1937 660 9.22 0.317
1938 688 9.18 0.313
1939 486 5.99 0.307
1940 629 6.00 0.290
1941 537 2.19 0.256
1942 52 0.51 0.292

Career Off. PCA-BA: .302 (in a multi-way tie for 142nd all time wiht about 12 other hitters)

Stan Musial

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1941 49 1.36 0.402
1942 536 8.33 0.327
1943 701 12.85 0.344
1944 667 13.35 0.354
1946 702 17.97 0.389
1947 677 8.28 0.307
1948 694 20.11 0.410
1949 721 14.29 0.353
1950 645 13.22 0.357
1951 678 15.13 0.369
1952 676 12.60 0.346
1953 698 13.86 0.353
1954 705 13.28 0.347
1955 656 10.78 0.332
1956 682 9.31 0.315
1957 579 11.82 0.357
1958 549 7.51 0.315
1959 404 2.49 0.269
1960 378 3.88 0.294
1961 431 4.37 0.294
1962 505 7.15 0.318
1963 379 2.97 0.279

Career Off. PCA-BA: .340 (14th all time)...check out that 1948 season!

Willie Mays

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1951 524 4.62 0.285
1952 144 1.23 0.284
1954 640 12.65 0.353
1955 670 15.66 0.375
1956 650 8.86 0.315
1957 668 13.15 0.352
1958 685 14.14 0.358
1959 648 12.04 0.346
1960 669 13.20 0.353
1961 659 12.31 0.346
1962 706 13.42 0.348
1963 671 12.50 0.346
1964 665 13.25 0.354
1965 638 13.76 0.364
1966 629 11.02 0.339
1967 544 5.56 0.294
1968 573 9.37 0.332
1969 459 4.27 0.289
1970 566 7.26 0.310
1971 537 10.78 0.355
1972 309 3.41 0.307
1973 239 1.06 0.258

Career Off. PCA-BA: .336 (18th all time)

The top seven in career PCA-BA, if you're curious are:

Ruth (.385)
Williams (.381)
Bonds (.369)
Mantle (.360)
Cobb (.356)
Hornsby (.354)
F. Thomas (.352)


F. Thomas (.352)

Not suprising. I'm assuming this " PCA-BA " stat is a rate stat right ? No surprise How high Thomas ranks.

The man truly was a great great hitter.

[Myankee4life]

Matt using your system may I be able to see the top 20 teams of all time?
(If its not too much of a hassle)

Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

S&B...I doubt anynoe will EVER be satisfied with the ranking of Ty Cobb...when you rate him 7th, people call you a fruit-bat nut...when you rate him 2nd...people call you a fruit-bat nut.

There are good arguments for and against Cobb's place in the top three all time...he created runs that don't show up in the stat line by his baserunning exploits...he played in an empty league compared to today...that's been argued to death at Fever.

I'll say this much...I haven't completed my research into league quality, but I would not be surprised if Cobb and many others dropped down with a more thorough LQ study complete. *shrug*...we'll see.

[SABR Matt]

F. Thomas (.352)

Not suprising. I'm assuming this " PCA-BA " stat is a rate stat right ? No surprise How high Thomas ranks.

The man truly was a great great hitter.

In a sense...yes. PCA-BA takes the player's performance (in terms of wins created per playing time) and places it on the same distribution as batting average. The all time average BA among players with at least 100 PA is .270 with a standard deviation of .032. Once you figure out how each season compares to the win-scoring distribution, you can give it a BA-like figure that follows the same rules.

And yes...Frank Thomas is one of the greatest hitters of all time...it's a shame his career was interrupted by injuries so early.

[SABR Matt]

Top 50 teams post 1900 in terms of Intrinsic Run-Differential by the FSIA:

Team Year IRD
NYA 1939 344.3
NYA 1927 340.5
NYA 1936 301.5
SEA 2001 289.9
NYA 1931 289.7
NYA 1998 287.1
PIT 1902 284.0
NYA 1937 267.2
CHN 1906 267.1
PHA 1929 248.2
NYA 1932 247.3
NY1 1905 246.8
NYA 1942 241.4
BAL 1969 241.3
SLN 1944 240.2
SLN 1942 237.9
NY1 1904 237.6
HOU 1998 234.4
BRO 1953 231.3
CHN 1935 229.7
OAK 2001 228.4
PHA 1931 228.0
CIN 1975 226.9
CLE 1948 224.6
DET 1934 221.8
ANA 2002 221.2
PHA 1911 220.0
LAN 1974 216.4
ATL 1998 215.2
NYA 1938 210.2
ARI 1999 209.8
NYA 1921 209.4
BRO 1949 207.4
PIT 1901 206.5
DET 1935 206.5
BOS 1912 205.8
PHA 1910 205.3
NY1 1912 204.9
BOS 1903 204.7
BRO 1942 204.7
PHA 1932 202.6
PIT 1909 199.9
CHN 1905 199.6
SLA 1922 198.5
BRO 1955 198.0
BAL 1970 196.8
NYA 1950 196.6
BOS 1949 194.8
CLE 1995 194.5
CHN 1909 193.8

Top 20 teams prior to 1900...obviosuly these teams have some advantages (the leagues were weaker and the RS/G was higher so it was easier to get larger differentials.

Team Year IRD
SLU 1884 488.5
BLN 1895 373.4
BS2 1891 371.8
SL4 1887 371.2
BLN 1894 368.6
BSN 1897 356.3
NY4 1884 343.9
CHN 1885 343.6
SL4 1886 339.2
CHN 1876 338.8
BLN 1896 336.5
CHN 1886 327.7
CNU 1884 323.8
BR3 1889 321.9
BLN 1898 317.2
BLN 1897 305.2
CN2 1884 296.9
DTN 1886 294.3
SL4 1889 293.0
SL4 1888 288.6

[Myankee4life]

Wow, 6 out of the top 8 teams are Yankees. In the history forum you said the 1927 Yankees were 4th. On this list there 2nd.

[SABR Matt]

I remembered incorrectly. :) Sorry.

[Myankee4life]

I remembered incorrectly. :) Sorry.

lol ok no problem.

Thanks.

So from this we can assume that the Yankees Dynasty in the late 30's were the greatest of all time.

Also why are the 1937 Yanks below the 1936 Yanks when the '37 team finished first in ERA+ while the '36 team finished 2nd in ERA+.

[SABR Matt]

I'm on a role...anyone else? :D

[SABR Matt]

The '37 team and '36 team are very close in appearance but the '37 team faced a slightly weaker strength of schedule than the '36 team did...the FSIA measures (very accurately IMHO, though it hasn't been thoroughly peer reviewed yet) park effects, strengths of schedule, intrinsic skills of teams and the unique reactions of teams to the parks in which they play...Here are the profiles of the two teams.

[Bill Burgess]

This is not a request, but just something I've always believed to be a flaw in your system. That's your ranking of Ty Cobb. I can't fathom how your system sees him as having the second most valuable career of all-time. If anything, your old ranking of Cobb ( around what 5th, 6th alltime ?) was more in line with what pretty much every other system believes, even without LQ adjustments. In a sense, your systems top three players all-time( I'm assuming, no LQ adjustment ?) is exactly like WinShares. Ruth, Cobb, then Bonds.
If the great majority of both SABR/FEVER members believe that Cobb is #2, and Win Shares/PCA say the same thing, how can the stat systems, which only represent the beliefs of around 10-20 individuals at the most, outweigh the considered judgments of so many others?

Side 1 - Wins Shares, PCA, majority SABR/Fever

Side 2 - 15 developers of stat systems, yourself

Which is the more reasonable position? Which position can more reasonably claim to be 'mainstream'?

Don't get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in the minority opinion. But it seems that this opinion of yours that Cobb is #5-6, is most definitely the minority opinion in the baseball community of 2006.

Since I believe that Cobb is #1, I also think that opinion is wrong, but I am closer to the majority than you are at the present.

Matt sits right in the mainstream.

[SABR Matt]

We don't see you arouned here much Bill. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Appearance fees are a little light.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

I'll say this much...I haven't completed my research into league quality, but I would not be surprised if Cobb and many others dropped down with a more thorough LQ study complete. *shrug*...we'll see.
Over my dead carcas! Throw Bones under the bus I say! A one, and a two . . .

[SABR Matt]

LOL!!

I go where the data leads (and adjust only when I feel it absolutely necessary), and I have no agenda...we shall see Bill. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Let me lay it out for the younguns. You start off clean, fresh, untainted by bias of any kind.

You spend your life doing the work, following where the work leads, without leading it, and when you arrive on the shores of the results, you plant your flag. If you must defend the work, so be it. And if you must, you go down with the ship.

That's it.

Bill

[SABR Matt]

LOL! Indeed Bill...I haven't come to a point where I feel satisfied that I have contributed all I can. When I do, I'll be where you are now Bill. :) At this moment though...I have no agenda, and no concrete answers.

[Myankee4life]

Matt why arent the 1961 Yankees on the list.

[SABR Matt]

I don't really see any strong evidence to support the idea that the '61 Yankees were a top 50 team...I have them in 68th all time...still very good (remember the difference between 50 and 70 is something like 11 runs of differential so differences at that level are going to be subtle.

[BoSox Rule]

Where Nomar ranks as a player in his prime? Best AL and NL SS from 1997 to 2003.

[SABR Matt]

WARP3 bothers me...it says it's LQ adjusted but doesn't tell us how LQ was assessed.

[SABR Matt]

I would point out, Chris that PCA is pretty era-balanced too...without a significant era adjustment (it's normalized, but that doesn't account for all of the differences in the scoring distributions)

[SABR Matt]

BTW I just noticed that someone asked about where Nomar Garciaparra ranked from 1997-2003 among shortstops.

This is what his PCA lines for hitting and fielding look like:

Fielding
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1996 18 0.24 0.247
1997 152 2.41 0.258
1998 141 2.36 0.262
1999 131 2.92 0.287
2000 131 3.51 0.307
2001 22 0.28 0.245
2002 153 3.71 0.296
2003 150 2.32 0.257
2004 31 0.60 0.274
2004 38 0.77 0.278

CAREER PCA-BA: .276 (above average despite some injuries)

Batting
Yr SumOfPA Wins PCA-BA
1996 93 0.56 0.268
1997 734 8.38 0.301
1998 652 8.53 0.312
1999 595 10.58 0.341
2000 599 11.66 0.351
2001 91 0.72 0.280
2002 693 7.33 0.296
2003 719 7.30 0.294
2004 354 2.82 0.289

CAREER PCA-BA: .310

The injury in 2001 really messed up his career...he was on a smooth arc toward becoming every bit Alex Rodriguez' and Derek Jeter's equal until that happened and he never really recovered at least not yet...although in 2006, playing a less demanding position his hitting has returned.

A-Rod and Jeter had their strengths and weaknesses...Nomar wasn't overwhelming either offensively or defensively but he didn't have any faults really. A-Rod was the better overall player but it was close.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Defensive PCA-BA for...

Brooks Robinson
Jimmy Collins
Mike Schmidt

[SABR Matt]

heh...picking up on some of the best third base glovemen? :)

You left out Clete Boyer. :D

Your three requested players:

Brooks Robinson
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1955 4 0.01 0.214
1956 12 0.07 0.231
1957 32 0.36 0.265
1958 129 1.89 0.284
1959 84 1.49 0.303
1960 154 3.80 0.344
1961 163 2.82 0.300
1962 162 2.23 0.279
1963 159 2.51 0.291
1964 163 2.60 0.292
1965 143 1.82 0.273
1966 157 2.72 0.301
1967 159 3.89 0.343
1968 162 4.60 0.366
1969 151 3.96 0.353
1970 157 2.11 0.278
1971 153 2.98 0.313
1972 154 2.75 0.304
1973 149 3.73 0.346
1974 150 2.57 0.299
1975 130 3.13 0.340
1976 60 0.45 0.242
1977 10 0.12 0.267

CAREER PCA-BA: .309 (a solid 9th all time among 3rd basemen with 800 EqG)

Jimmy Collins
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1895 79 0.72 0.252
1896 86 2.00 0.336
1897 133 3.80 0.367
1898 152 4.17 0.360
1899 151 3.79 0.346
1900 142 3.90 0.360
1901 138 3.82 0.361
1902 108 2.67 0.344
1903 133 3.65 0.360
1904 157 3.29 0.322
1905 131 2.11 0.293
1906 34 0.21 0.234
1907 96 0.54 0.232
1907 37 0.68 0.307
1908 118 0.90 0.243

CAREER PCA-BA: .324 (3rd all-time - same qualifications)

Mike Schmidt
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1972 9 0.18 0.314
1973 117 1.63 0.281
1974 162 2.84 0.302
1975 149 3.19 0.324
1976 162 3.44 0.324
1977 149 2.73 0.306
1978 140 2.85 0.319
1979 154 3.53 0.333
1980 148 3.69 0.345
1981 98 2.45 0.346
1982 146 1.59 0.263
1983 152 2.03 0.277
1984 138 1.79 0.275
1985 52 0.45 0.249
1986 108 1.22 0.265
1987 132 2.82 0.324
1988 108 0.74 0.239
1989 33 0.30 0.252

CAREER PCA-BA: .301 (13th all time, tied with Heinie Groh and Red Rolfe)

The one you forgot!
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1955 6 0.08 0.275
1956 5 0.09 0.309
1959 11 0.10 0.250
1960 90 1.91 0.323
1961 137 3.76 0.360
1962 155 3.84 0.344
1963 141 4.03 0.367
1964 115 2.92 0.348
1965 138 3.60 0.352
1966 89 1.57 0.302
1967 145 2.60 0.304
1968 68 1.25 0.306
1969 136 3.31 0.342
1970 123 2.23 0.305
1971 24 0.45 0.308

CAREER PCA-BA: .334 (He's #1)

Of course if you want to look at a player's defensive GREATNESS you need more info than just career scoring rate...so here's the GI defensive panel at third base. :D

First Last HOF Rank PsEqG Career Rate Mastery TOTAL Ps
Brooks Robinson Y 1 2797 52.61 42.85 31.07 126.54 3B
Clete Boyer N 2 1383 35.37 40.8 38.58 114.75 3B
Jimmy Collins Y 3 1695 36.63 39.94 37.61 114.19 3B
Tim Wallach N 4 2012 38.27 36.69 30.90 105.86 3B
Buddy Bell N 5 2149 39.05 35.15 31.47 105.67 3B
Jimmie Dykes N 6 1238 32.88 29.60 41.21 103.70 3B
Terry Pendleton N 7 1753 35.19 38.20 29.95 103.35 3B
Mike Schmidt Y 8 2157 39.15 35.49 28.54 103.18 3B
Pie Traynor Y 9 1878 35.06 36.00 30.61 101.66 3B
Ron Santo N 10 2109 36.48 34.44 28.96 99.89 3B
Graig Nettles N 11 2327 38.10 33.45 27.80 99.35 3B
Gary Gaetti N 12 2191 37.00 33.39 27.89 98.27 3B
Willie Kamm N 13 1656 32.00 36.20 28.70 96.90 3B
Billy Nash N 14 1475 29.37 34.91 30.03 94.31 3B
Scott Rolen N 15 1184 25.71 35.65 31.58 92.94 3B
Frank Baker Y 16 1542 29.41 34.99 27.37 91.77 3B
Heinie Groh N 17 1262 28.39 33.94 29.30 91.63 3B
George Brett Y 18 1636 31.67 30.42 28.46 90.56 3B
Billy Werber N 19 1127 23.32 32.56 29.96 85.83 3B
Harry Steinfeldt N 20 1404 27.17 31.61 26.10 84.88 3B

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thanks Matt. Looks like Collins has Brooksie in "mastery" by a rather substantial margin, no?

Can I get career/rate/mastery/total and defensive PCA-BA for...

Joe Jackson
Stan Musial
Rickey Henderon

btw: your welcome for bringing this thread back to life :D I Know you dig showing off all your hard work ;)

[SABR Matt]

Was that you who promoted this thread again? :)

Thanks...PCA might not be truly revolutionary, and of course, it has its' flaws, but I am still proud of the work and believe it is fundamentally more well rounded and the conclusions more logical most of the time than WS which is what I was competing with primarily when I did this work...LOL Granted my opinion of the system is just my opinion, so YMMV

And yes...Collins was the more talented fielder between he and Brooksie IMHO. Robinson was mechanically astoundingly consistent...his performance year in and year out was just plain bankable.

The three careers you requested...first the Defensive data:

Stan Musial
RF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1941 9 0.03 0.227
1943 120 4.21 0.365
1944 117 3.42 0.340
1948 66 1.23 0.294
1949 103 2.36 0.312
1950 9 0.10 0.262
1952 10 0.11 0.261
1953 23 0.31 0.270
1954 144 -0.19 0.206
1955 22 0.23 0.258
1956 45 0.44 0.254
1960 5 0.02 0.227
1962 20 0.06 0.225
LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1941 2 0.04 0.299
1942 111 3.26 0.358
1943 34 0.58 0.295
1946 48 0.79 0.292
1948 36 0.19 0.236
1949 2 0.05 0.335
1950 43 0.27 0.240
1951 82 1.23 0.285
1952 24 0.12 0.233
1953 139 0.18 0.215
1954 7 0.03 0.231
1955 14 0.07 0.234
1956 2 0.03 0.293
1960 49 0.22 0.231
1961 77 2.26 0.358
1962 78 2.47 0.371
1963 61 1.05 0.297
1B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1946 116 0.63 0.243
1947 147 2.38 0.310
1948 1 -0.01 0.157
1949 1 0.00 0.205
1950 66 1.21 0.324
1951 60 0.98 0.311
1952 21 0.10 0.239
1954 4 0.00 0.201
1955 103 1.72 0.314
1956 94 1.32 0.296
1957 122 0.73 0.246
1958 117 1.82 0.306
1959 75 0.60 0.259
1960 24 0.20 0.261

CAREER PCA-BA: .290 in RF, .289 in LF, and .286 at first base - .288 total

Rickey Henderson
CF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1979 26 0.26 0.245
1982 8 0.27 0.331
1983 8 0.25 0.322
1984 4 0.05 0.257
1985 135 5.18 0.349
1986 138 4.83 0.337
1987 39 0.83 0.286
1988 2 0.03 0.268
1994 9 0.11 0.254
1996 5 0.08 0.264
1997 16 0.19 0.251
1997 2 0.06 0.311
1998 13 0.13 0.245
2002 2 0.03 0.269
LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1979 63 0.54 0.252
1980 152 5.18 0.383
1981 107 3.45 0.373
1982 137 2.01 0.283
1983 128 1.70 0.276
1984 131 0.83 0.241
1985 7 0.19 0.348
1986 14 0.16 0.265
1987 37 0.62 0.294
1988 125 0.84 0.243
1989 65 0.42 0.241
1989 77 2.63 0.383
1990 116 2.56 0.321
1991 105 2.03 0.307
1992 97 2.29 0.329
1993 73 1.40 0.306
1993 38 0.58 0.286
1994 60 1.17 0.308
1995 72 0.74 0.261
1996 100 1.97 0.309
1997 57 0.35 0.240
1997 9 0.14 0.285
1998 123 1.44 0.268
1999 99 0.22 0.220
2000 83 0.85 0.261
2000 20 0.16 0.250
2001 89 0.76 0.252
2002 46 0.35 0.247
2003 15 0.07 0.231

CAREER PCA-BA: .319 in CF, .289 in LF, .296 overall

Joe Jackson
RF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1910 7 0.06 0.247
1911 105 2.63 0.321
1912 123 4.25 0.363
1913 151 2.59 0.287
1914 85 1.64 0.296
1915 37 0.42 0.261
1916 24 0.71 0.341
1917 12 0.30 0.320
1918 3 0.03 0.251
1919 5 0.14 0.334
LF
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1909 5 0.08 0.288
1915 4 0.04 0.266
1915 18 0.30 0.294
1916 133 0.57 0.230
1917 137 1.73 0.273
1918 12 0.18 0.286
1919 132 -0.39 0.193
1920 149 1.05 0.244

CAREER PCA-BA: .313 in RF, .239 in LF, .275 overall

A few comments. Stan Musial is an excellent example of a player who was managed almost perfectly. When there was a sense that he was beginning to decline as a RFer...they slid him to left where he flourished for a few more years...when he started declining there they moved him to first base where he once again flourished...in so doing they turned a player who today would have spent too long in LF and been rated as a weaker fielder overall...kinda like what happened to Bernie Williams...into a player that is rememb ered as capable of handling all of the corner positions well.

Perhaps someone who is an expert on Joe Jackson can explain to me why a guy who was an OUTSTANDING defensive right fielder would slide over to left...and then proceed to completely and utterly SUCK in a less demanding position for the remainder of his career...man...a full season in 1919 and he wound up submarginal defensively...despite his hitting just PEAKING.

Henderson rates as the best full time left fielder (defensively) of all time for a good reason. When he played CF he showed he could hack it there which means he could certainly hack it in left. :)

A note...Stan Musial raates as overall a better fielder than Henderson as you'll see...that is a product of brilliant managing and the kinds of funny things that can happen when you have his kind of multi-position career more than his raw ability out-shining Rickey's. The three players' Defensive GI lines:

First Last HOF Rank PsEqG Career Rate Mastery TOTAL Ps
Stan Musial Y 1 951 40.11 31.41 62.06 133.58 LF
Rickey Henderson A 2 2245 47.98 39.35 40.19 127.52 LF
Joe Jackson N 45 590 18.00 27.17 22.39 67.56 LF

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Perhaps someone who is an expert on Joe Jackson can explain to me why a guy who was an OUTSTANDING defensive right fielder would slide over to left...and then proceed to completely and utterly SUCK in a less demanding position for the remainder of his career...man...a full season in 1919 and he wound up submarginal defensively...despite his hitting just PEAKING.


I'm no expert on Jackson, but when he was traded to the Sox from Cleveland, Shano Collins was the established right fielder. Jackson started his first two games with the Sox (doubleheader) in left and never went back to right; even after Collins was done, Leibold took over in right. Who knows what the deal is there. Its worth noting Matt, only because I now know your system doesn't factor it in...that Comiskey was over 360 feet to both right and left down the lines. However when Jackson was playing right field in Cleveland's League park, right field was only 290 while left was a whopping 385.

ok...here's one.

Every position, including pitchers. Just defense. The top 10 or 15 single seasons of all time in each.

[leecemark]

I'm no expert on Jackson, but when he was traded to the Sox from Cleveland, Shano Collins was the established right fielder. Jackson started his first two games with the Sox (doubleheader) in left and never went back to right; even after Collins was done, Leibold took over in right. Who knows what the deal is there. Its worth noting Matt, only because I now know your system doesn't factor it in...that Comiskey was over 360 feet to both right and left down the lines. However when Jackson was playing right field in Cleveland's League park, right field was only 290 while left was a whopping 385.

ok...here's one.

Every position, including pitchers. Just defense. The top 10 or 15 single seasons of all time in each.


--Perhaps the tiny RF in Cleveland was the maximum amount of territory Jackson could successfully cover. Shoeless Joe had somewhat of a Manny Ramierez reputation (on a smaller scale) in the field. He had the ability to be good out there, but didn't always pay attention or hustle.

[SABR Matt]

Pitchers have a bias toward the deadball era (more bunts, more weak grounders...even though I adjusted to fix every season such that the standard deviation and mean win scoring rates were the same, the best careers and single seasons among the pitchers still tend to bias toward the deadball era...I'm aware of that bias, and it's worth noting and looking for ways to fix ITF.

The other positiosn don't show that kind of bias however, so let's take a look:

First Base
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
1B 4.10 1980 Keith Hernandez
1B 4.08 1999 John Olerud
1B 3.98 2004 Todd Helton
1B 3.94 1988 Pete O'Brien
1B 3.86 1989 Will Clark
1B 3.83 1976 George Scott
1B 3.75 2001 Todd Helton
1B 3.72 1974 Steve Garvey
1B 3.67 1921 Charlie Grimm
1B 3.66 1985 Keith Hernandez
1B 3.66 1968 Don Clendenon
1B 3.63 1915 Ed Konetchy
1B 3.57 1979 Keith Hernandez
1B 3.53 1992 Mark Grave
1B 3.51 1965 Wes Parker
1B 3.50 1975 Steve Garvey
1B 3.50 1976 Steve Garvey
1B 3.48 1984 Pete O'Brien
1B 3.46 1922 George Kelly
1B 3.43 1940 Frank McCormick
1B 3.41 1993 Wally Joyner
1B 3.39 1930 Bill Terry
1B 3.38 1997 Jeff King
1B 3.38 1936 Buddy Hassett
1B 3.38 1999 Tino Martinez

Second Base
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
2B 7.26 1973 Bobby Grich
2B 6.77 1975 Bobby Grich
2B 6.66 1999 Pokey Reese
2B 6.44 1908 Nap Lajoie
2B 6.32 1898 Bobby Lowe
2B 6.29 1910 Eddie Collins
2B 6.26 2000 Pokey Reese
2B 6.17 1966 Bill Mazeroski
2B 6.17 1962 Bill Mazeroski
2B 6.10 1927 Frankie Frisch
2B 6.08 1989 Jose Oquendo
2B 6.07 1971 Tommy Helms
2B 5.97 1944 Snuffy Stirnweiss
2B 5.90 1996 Eric Young
2B 5.87 1946 Bobby Doerr
2B 5.83 1985 Glenn Hubbard
2B 5.82 1916 Del Pratt
2B 5.81 1936 Billy Herman
2B 5.81 1940 Lonnie Frey
2B 5.79 1907 Johnny Evers
2B 5.70 1957 Nellie Fox
2B 5.67 1993 Mark Lemke
2B 5.65 1987 Frank White
2B 5.64 1988 Frank White
2B 5.64 1915 George Cutshaw

Third Base
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
3B 4.75 1976 Greg Nettles
3B 4.75 1974 Darrell Evans
3B 4.73 1971 Greg Nettles
3B 4.60 1968 Brooks Robinson
3B 4.48 1983 Buddy Bell
3B 4.45 1967 Ron Santo
3B 4.41 1989 Terry Pendleton
3B 4.40 1988 Tim Wallach
3B 4.38 1996 Vinny Castilla
3B 4.28 1984 Tim Wallach
3B 4.26 1986 Terry Pentleton
3B 4.25 1998 John Valentin
3B 4.25 1999 Robin Ventura
3B 4.17 1898 Jimmy Collins
3B 4.13 1988 Kelly Gruber
3B 4.11 1925 Pie Traynor
3B 4.05 1962 Ken Boyer
3B 4.03 1963 Clete Boyer
3B 4.01 1904 Tommy Leach
3B 4.00 1998 Scott Rolen
3B 3.98 1984 Gary Gaetti
3B 3.96 1969 Brooks Robinson
3B 3.95 2004 Scott Rolen
3B 3.95 1939 Ken Keltner
3B 3.94 1916 Ossie Vitt

Shortstop
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
SS 7.45 2000 Neifi Perez
SS 6.52 1999 Mike Bordick
SS 6.11 1985 Tony Fernandez
SS 6.04 1921 Everett Scott
SS 6.03 1922 Dave Bancroft
SS 6.02 1982 Ozzie Smith
SS 5.91 1930 Joe Cronin
SS 5.90 1973 Mark Belanger
SS 5.81 2001 Alex Gonzalez
SS 5.80 1976 Mark Belanger
SS 5.79 2004 Bobby Crosby
SS 5.76 1975 Mark Belanger
SS 5.75 1924 Glenn Wright
SS 5.74 1939 Frankie Crosetti
SS 5.69 1935 Luke Appling
SS 5.67 1988 Ozzie Smith
SS 5.66 1954 Chico Carrasquel
SS 5.63 1914 Rabbit Maranville
SS 5.62 1926 Joe Sewell
SS 5.62 1970 Ed Brinkman
SS 5.57 1962 Zoilo Versalles
SS 5.56 1987 Ozzie Smith
SS 5.55 1895 Hughie Jennings
SS 5.55 1931 Joe Cronin
SS 5.54 1990 Barry Larkin

Left Field
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
LF 5.18 1980 Rickey Henderson
LF 4.71 1996 Bernard Gilkey
LF 4.58 1932 Joe Vosmik
LF 4.52 1978 Warren Cromartie
LF 4.47 1993 Luis Gonzalez
LF 4.43 1980 Jose Cruz Sr.
LF 4.38 1924 Goose Goslin
LF 4.30 1988 Kirk Gibson
LF 4.30 1909 Fred Clarke
LF 4.30 1962 Rocky Colavito
LF 4.26 1886 Tip O'Niel
LF 4.26 1927 Bibb Falk
LF 4.19 2002 Jacque Jones
LF 4.15 2000 Geoff Jenkins
LF 4.15 1902 Jesse Burkett
LF 4.11 1908 Matty McIntyre
LF 4.08 1911 Jimmie Sheckard
LF 4.06 1971 Ralph Garr
LF 4.05 1929 Al Simmons
LF 4.02 1914 Zach Wheat
LF 3.95 1991 Greg Vaughn
LF 3.86 1979 Warren Cromartie
LF 3.84 1905 Sherry Magee
LF 3.83 2003 Garret Anderson
LF 3.83 1951 Gil Coan

Center Field
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
CF 8.36 2001 Andruw Jones
CF 8.08 1998 Andruw Jones (!)
CF 7.95 1999 Andruw Jones (!!)
CF 7.69 2000 Andruw Jones (!!!)
CF 7.65 1969 Paul Blair
CF 7.38 2003 Mike Cameron
CF 7.32 1980 Dwight Murphy
CF 7.20 1969 Curt Flood
CF 7.02 2002 Darren Erstad
CF 6.92 1991 Devon White
CF 6.86 1977 Chet Lemon
CF 6.68 1892 Jimmy McAleer
CF 6.67 1993 Lance Johnson
CF 6.63 1936 Doc Cramer
CF 6.55 1928 Taylor Douthit
CF 6.53 1989 Devon White
CF 6.47 1914 Tris Speaker
CF 6.45 2004 Andruw Jones
CF 6.39 1980 Omar Moreno
CF 6.38 1984 Kevin McReynolds
CF 6.28 1951 Richie Ashburn
CF 6.22 1975 Cesar Geronimo
CF 6.20 1915 Tris Speaker
CF 6.19 1929 Lloyd Waner
CF 6.19 1912 Tris Speaker

Right Fielders
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
RF 6.43 1977 Dave Parker
RF 5.77 1985 Jesse Barfield
RF 5.74 1999 Jermaine Dye
RF 5.69 2003 Jose Cruz Jr.
RF 5.61 2001 Brian Jordan
RF 5.27 1987 Glen Wilson
RF 5.14 1963 Johnny Callison
RF 5.04 1964 Johnny Callison
RF 5.03 1915 Harry Hooper
RF 5.01 1984 Tony Gwynn
RF 5.01 1907 Ty Cobb
RF 4.98 1990 Sammy Sosa
RF 4.94 1993 Tim Salmon
RF 4.93 1895 Wee Willie Keeler
RF 4.84 1966 Roberto Clemente
RF 4.83 1958 Al Kaline
RF 4.78 1963 Bob Allison
RF 4.76 1965 Tony Oliva
RF 4.70 2004 Jacque Jones
RF 4.70 1914 Chief Wilson
RF 4.70 1988 Dale Murphy
RF 4.69 1969 Tony Oliva
RF 4.66 1958 Roberto Clemente
RF 4.63 1911 Chief Wilson
RF 4.63 1973 Rusty Staub

Catcher
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
C 4.81 2000 Brad Ausmus
C 4.70 1982 Gary Carter
C 4.59 1996 Ivan Rodriguez
C 4.41 1983 Gary Carter
C 4.39 1985 Tony Pena
C 4.34 1977 Jim Sundberg
C 4.30 1980 Gary Carter
C 4.26 1993 Rick Wilkins
C 4.21 1999 Ivan Rodriguez
C 4.14 1984 Tony Pena
C 4.12 1971 Manny Sanguillen
C 4.12 1998 Ivan Rodriguez
C 4.11 1975 Thurman Munson
C 3.96 1997 Ivan Rodriguez
C 3.90 2000 Mike Matheny
C 3.85 1982 Bob Boone
C 3.84 1993 Ron Karkovice
C 3.81 1995 Ivan Rodriguez
C 3.78 1990 Lance Parrish
C 3.74 1973 Thurman Munson
C 3.69 1979 Gary Carter
C 3.66 1943 Ray Mueller
C 3.63 1970 Thurman Munson
C 3.61 1932 Mickey Cochrane
C 3.59 1992 Ivan Rodriguez

Pitching win seasons will be biased not only because of the environment in which they occur, no matter how much I try to correct for that...but because when you play more, you get more fielding wins. I'll present PCA-BA leaders with at least 20 PRGs if you're really interested despite the above caveats.

[SABR Matt]

--Perhaps the tiny RF in Cleveland was the maximum amount of territory Jackson could successfully cover. Shoeless Joe had somewhat of a Manny Ramierez reputation (on a smaller scale) in the field. He had the ability to be good out there, but didn't always pay attention or hustle.

Ah...see thanks Sultan/Mark...that's the kind of insight I was looking for...didn't check the dimensions of Cleveland's RF vs Chicago's LF...that does explain it.

[Bill Burgess]

Perhaps someone who is an expert on Joe Jackson can explain to me why a guy who was an OUTSTANDING defensive right fielder would slide over to left...and then proceed to completely and utterly SUCK in a less demanding position for the remainder of his career...man...a full season in 1919 and he wound up submarginal defensively...despite his hitting just PEAKING.
Here's another possibility. In his Grand Jury testimony, when he was asked if he was satisfied with his salary, he replied to this effect.

"When that's all you could get from them. I was lucky to get that contract, because I had been injured."

I have looked constantly on Proquest to find any mention of an injury, which prompted Cleveland to deal him to Comiskey, but have not found anything so far.

So, it's possible that he sustained an injury which hampered his running defensively.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Center Field
Ps Wins Yr PlayerID
CF 8.36 2001 Andruw Jones
CF 8.08 1998 Andruw Jones (!)
CF 7.95 1999 Andruw Jones (!!)
CF 7.69 2000 Andruw Jones (!!!)


Wowsers. Imagine what he'd do with a great work ethic. He's basically coasted on natural ability to this point. If he wants the second half of his career to come close to resembling the first, I think he's going to have to change a few things. Losing 25 pounds wouldn't hurt. But that might mean sacrificing some power and Andruw probably ain't cool with dat.

Something that jumped out was Gary Carter...I watched him play a lot and never thought of him as a defensive genius. In what specific area does Carter excel?

Could you post his defensive career along-side Bench's? Thanks.

[Myankee4life]

One at a time:
Jimmie Foxx
In his prime he was absolutely the best fielding third baseman of the early 30s.


Did you mean 1st base here for Foxx?

[Myankee4life]

Also Matt may I see the defensive careers of:

Roberto Alomar
Jim Thome
Jorge Posada
Derek Jeter
Omar Vizquel
Ichiro
Albert Belle

and offensive careers of:

Roberto Alomar
Jim Thome
Jorge Posada
Derek Jeter
Juan Gonzalez
Albert Belle

thanks

[SABR Matt]

Agreed on Jones' work ethic...he's defensively aged WAY too soon...he's only like 28 and he's playing center like a 35 year old now.

Gary Carter was an outstanding receiver, kept down the baserunning game, and prevented WP and PB better than normal too. There's a reason he was looked at as a leader and revered in NY on that '86 team. Here's Carter's PCA line:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1974 5 0.11 0.328
1975 52 0.67 0.277
1976 57 0.81 0.283
1977 140 1.96 0.283
1978 148 3.51 0.336
1979 133 3.69 0.359
1980 146 4.30 0.368
1981 95 2.70 0.363
1982 151 4.70 0.378
1983 140 4.41 0.380
1984 134 2.36 0.302
1985 137 2.02 0.286
1986 123 0.75 0.238
1987 129 1.38 0.264
1988 109 0.58 0.234
1989 39 0.28 0.244
1990 63 0.45 0.244
1991 56 0.86 0.290
1992 74 0.47 0.240

Here's Bench:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1967 25 0.53 0.321
1968 145 3.50 0.339
1969 138 3.24 0.335
1970 133 3.17 0.337
1971 133 1.51 0.268
1972 127 2.72 0.324
1973 127 2.49 0.313
1974 128 2.62 0.318
1975 120 3.07 0.347
1976 117 2.58 0.327
1977 122 1.32 0.265
1978 97 1.59 0.295
1979 119 1.29 0.265
1980 90 0.39 0.229
1981 7 0.06 0.249
1983 3 0.05 0.294

Both outstanding fielding catchers...Carter definitely appears to have had the better peak and been more durable...Catching is tough to get exactly right so there's room for disagreement...I do think Bench's legend is more impressive than his actual on-field accomplishments, not that he wasn't a first ballot HOF slam dunk stud. :)

[SABR Matt]

Did you mean 1st base here for Foxx?

Oops...LOL...yes...that shold read 1st base. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Carter:

1978 148 3.51 0.336
1979 133 3.69 0.359
1980 146 4.30 0.368
1981 95 2.70 0.363
1982 151 4.70 0.378
1983 140 4.41 0.380



That's gotta be pretty much the best 6 year stretch from any catcher ever, right? He averaged .364 over that stretch :eek: Maybe Ivan could match that run?

Could I get a defensive comparison along with your analysis for Campanella and Fisk? Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Here ya go:

Roberto Alomar
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1988 141 3.18 0.284
1989 154 2.49 0.256
1990 133 2.75 0.275
1991 159 3.32 0.277
1992 139 1.62 0.236
1993 146 2.35 0.256
1994 98 1.45 0.250
1995 126 2.25 0.263
1996 137 2.31 0.259
1997 103 3.14 0.319
1998 142 2.57 0.264
1999 147 3.83 0.299
2000 151 2.18 0.248
2001 150 1.48 0.228
2002 139 1.10 0.220
2003 62 1.22 0.271
2003 64 0.73 0.235
2004 21 0.10 0.205
2004 11 0.25 0.285

Career PCA-BA: .261 (a little below average)

Jim Thome
1B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1997 139 0.52 0.232
1998 115 1.47 0.289
1999 104 1.5 0.299
2000 104 1.17 0.279
2001 143 0.45 0.228
2002 123 0.97 0.258
2003 153 0.35 0.223
2004 129 0.88 0.251
2005 52 -0.22 0.188
3B
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1991 26 0.19 0.241
1992 33 0.13 0.222
1993 44 0.19 0.224
1994 86 1.03 0.269
1995 128 0.91 0.24
1996 146 2.26 0.289

Career PCA-BA: .258 at 3B, .254 at 1B, .255 overall

Jorge Posada
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1996 2 0.01 0.231
1997 50 0.42 0.251
1998 85 1.79 0.322
1999 99 0.73 0.246
2000 134 1.17 0.253
2001 124 0.56 0.230
2002 133 1.56 0.270
2003 134 1.89 0.283
2004 123 0.99 0.250
2005 129 0.22 0.211

Career PCA-BA: .262

Derek Jeter
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1995 12 0.25 0.279
1996 154 2.34 0.256
1997 157 2.20 0.250
1998 145 2.33 0.259
1999 157 1.34 0.226
2000 147 0.65 0.208
2001 144 1.18 0.225
2002 152 0.39 0.200
2003 111 0.14 0.194
2004 152 1.64 0.236
2005 155 2.02 0.242

Career PCA-BA: .230 (among the worst in ML history for SSs)

Omar Vizquel
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1989 132 1.80 0.249
1990 77 1.54 0.277
1991 130 4.98 0.358
1992 130 2.64 0.278
1993 149 4.42 0.320
1994 66 1.01 0.256
1995 133 3.02 0.289
1996 145 3.85 0.306
1997 146 3.00 0.279
1998 148 4.20 0.314
1999 138 2.23 0.260
2000 149 1.72 0.239
2001 147 1.56 0.235
2002 146 1.75 0.241
2003 65 1.79 0.310
2004 135 2.35 0.265
2005 148 1.90 0.242

Career PCA-BA: .278

Ichiro
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2001 155 4.27 0.332
2002 147 3.60 0.319
2003 158 4.25 0.329
2004 160 2.13 0.270
2005 161 5.02 0.366

Career PCA-BA: .321

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

Career PCA-BA: .278 in LF, .259 in RF, .274 overall

Ichiro's line is astounding given that we don't get to see what he did before age 27...usually the best fielding happens around ages 24-27.

Now the offense:

Roberto Alomar
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1988 611 5.09 0.282
1989 702 6.52 0.288
1990 646 4.33 0.272
1991 719 6.82 0.290
1992 671 11.45 0.336
1993 683 8.78 0.310
1994 455 4.16 0.287
1995 577 4.97 0.284
1996 699 10.23 0.321
1997 469 5.88 0.308
1998 657 4.94 0.277
1999 694 11.23 0.331
2000 697 6.01 0.284
2001 677 12.65 0.346
2002 655 4.62 0.275
2003 302 1.94 0.271
2003 296 0.68 0.245
2004 65 -1.05 0.132
2004 125 1.15 0.288

Career PCA-BA: a weirdly streaky .297

Jim Thome
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1991 104 0.13 0.239
1992 131 -0.41 0.212
1993 192 2.51 0.312
1994 369 2.25 0.269
1995 557 9.69 0.338
1996 636 10.39 0.332
1997 627 11.27 0.342
1998 537 7.40 0.316
1999 629 8.30 0.313
2000 684 6.67 0.291
2001 644 12.27 0.348
2002 613 18.51 0.417
2003 698 9.98 0.319
2004 618 7.39 0.305
2005 242 1.01 0.259

Career PCA-BA: .324 (6-way tie for 35th all time)

Derek Jeter
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1995 51 0.13 0.246
1996 654 4.48 0.273
1997 748 5.78 0.279
1998 694 8.00 0.302
1999 739 14.41 0.351
2000 679 7.52 0.299
2001 686 7.84 0.302
2002 730 6.77 0.288
2003 542 5.62 0.295
2004 721 7.58 0.296
2005 752 8.42 0.298

Career PCA-BA: .298

Jorge Posada
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1996 15 -0.34 0.092
1997 224 1.70 0.278
1998 409 2.74 0.272
1999 437 2.05 0.260
2000 624 7.17 0.302
2001 557 4.51 0.281
2002 598 4.69 0.279
2003 588 7.42 0.309
2004 547 5.64 0.295
2005 546 3.68 0.277

Career PCA-BA: .285

Juan Gonzalez
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1989 68 -0.80 0.159
1990 95 1.02 0.297
1991 595 5.36 0.287
1992 632 6.60 0.296
1993 587 12.57 0.363
1994 463 2.41 0.263
1995 374 3.70 0.292
1996 592 7.50 0.309
1997 579 7.82 0.314
1998 669 10.23 0.325
1999 629 8.26 0.312
2000 496 3.74 0.278
2001 595 7.93 0.313
2002 296 1.08 0.254
2003 346 3.42 0.292
2004 138 1.04 0.278

Career PCA-BA: .302

Albert Belle
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

Career PCA-BA: .314 (4-way tie for 63rd all time)

[SABR Matt]

That's gotta be pretty much the best 6 year stretch from any catcher ever, right? He averaged .364 over that stretch :eek: Maybe Ivan could match that run?

Could I get a defensive comparison along with your analysis for Campanella and Fisk? Thanks.

Pudge has a better stretch I'm fairly sure...here's Pudge's career:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1991 81 0.95 0.270
1992 114 3.59 0.380
1993 131 1.84 0.283
1994 96 1.85 0.312
1995 120 3.81 0.381
1996 138 4.59 0.389
1997 138 3.96 0.364
1998 136 4.12 0.373
1999 136 4.21 0.377
2000 84 1.28 0.289
2001 102 3.17 0.377
2002 97 1.12 0.269
2003 128 0.83 0.241
2004 119 3.01 0.345

1995-2001 (interrupted only briefly by a bad injury) he has an average PCA-BA of .372 LOL

Here's Roy Campanella:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1948 80 0.99 0.274
1949 123 1.25 0.261
1950 120 0.58 0.231
1951 139 2.19 0.292
1952 116 0.88 0.247
1953 134 2.31 0.300
1954 107 1.40 0.277
1955 119 1.32 0.266
1956 117 1.28 0.266
1957 97 2.42 0.343

Here's Carlton Fisk:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1971 13 0.08 0.24
1972 132 1.58 0.271
1973 131 1.74 0.279
1974 52 0.73 0.283
1975 68 0.71 0.262
1976 135 3.08 0.332
1977 151 2.68 0.303
1978 151 2.66 0.302
1979 31 0.16 0.233
1980 108 1.22 0.267
1981 87 0.81 0.256
1982 126 1.54 0.273
1983 122 1.30 0.264
1984 77 0.54 0.244
1985 121 1.26 0.263
1986 66 1.09 0.296
1987 106 2.82 0.352
1988 68 0.99 0.286
1989 80 1.37 0.300
1990 112 2.34 0.321
1991 90 1.35 0.288
1992 48 0.43 0.254
1993 12 0.36 0.370

Fisk has Campy beat HANDILY on defense...it ain't even close.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Jim Thome
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1991 104 0.13 0.239
1992 131 -0.41 0.212
1993 192 2.51 0.312
1994 369 2.25 0.269
1995 557 9.69 0.338
1996 636 10.39 0.332
1997 627 11.27 0.342
1998 537 7.40 0.316
1999 629 8.30 0.313
2000 684 6.67 0.291
2001 644 12.27 0.348
2002 613 18.51 0.417
2003 698 9.98 0.319
2004 618 7.39 0.305
2005 242 1.01 0.259

Career PCA-BA: .324 (6-way tie for 35th all time)

Perhaps some adjustments are in order?


On a side note: Matt, is there any way you can get your hands on his (Ichiro's) fielding stats from his youth? And what do you think of Ichiro moving to center. I love the move and wish they would have done it sooner.

[SABR Matt]

I am confident Ichiro can handle CF and it gets Chris Snelling into our line-up. Snells is an on-base machine...a great hitter in the making...very similar to Edgar Martinez. he instantly upgrades the offense by 50 runs next year if this stays the arrangement and Ichiro is a better fielder than any Mariner CFer except Mike Cameron perhaps so it'll be nice to get some top notch glovework out there.

[SABR Matt]

Perhaps some adjustments are in order?


On a side note: Matt, is there any way you can get your hands on his (Ichiro's) fielding stats from his youth? And what do you think of Ichiro moving to center. I love the move and wish they would have done it sooner.

What adjustments? Not sure what you are reacting too.

[538280]

Matt, again, could I have total PCA (offense and defense together, year by year) for Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Tris Speaker, Joe Morgan, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, and Nap Lajoie?

And also, why exactly were the posts I made earlier today on this thread deleted?

[Bill Burgess]

I deleted them, Chris. Matt asked that we not hijack his thread, so I cleaned up our usual BS. It was not fair to allow it to litter Matt's PCA thread. All it consisted of was you & I doing our usual bitching act for a page. Was completely unfair to Matt. So I gave him back his stolen posts.

[SABR Matt]

Both yours and Bill's posts that were off-topic were deleted at my request. Sorry...didn't mean to step on any toes, but your argument was becoming counter-productive to this thread.

In any event...here you go for your request:

Willie Mays
Yr Lg Wins
1955 NL 19.98
1965 NL 19.55
1962 NL 18.19
1958 NL 18.11
1964 NL 17.46
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

Ty Cobb
Yr Lg Wins
1917 AL 23.63
1911 AL 22.70
1910 AL 22.33
1909 AL 21.50
1907 AL 20.94
1915 AL 18.91
1912 AL 17.47
1916 AL 16.20
1908 AL 14.84
1918 AL 12.80
1913 AL 12.62
1921 AL 12.60
1919 AL 12.48
1922 AL 12.14
1925 AL 11.26
1924 AL 10.21
1914 AL 8.88
1923 AL 8.68
1927 AL 8.68
1906 AL 7.00
1920 AL 6.27
1928 AL 5.72
1926 AL 3.84
1905 AL 1.21

Mickey Mantle
Yr Lg Wins
1956 AL 23.10
1957 AL 20.44
1961 AL 19.06
1958 AL 17.58
1955 AL 17.49
1962 AL 16.05
1964 AL 14.73
1954 AL 14.48
1960 AL 13.91
1959 AL 13.46
1952 AL 12.04
1953 AL 10.32
1966 AL 8.11
1968 AL 7.80
1967 AL 7.61
1963 AL 6.65
1965 AL 6.03
1951 AL 4.16

Tris Speaker
Yr Lg Wins
1912 AL 23.01
1914 AL 18.96
1916 AL 18.45
1913 AL 18.28
1923 AL 17.01
1920 AL 16.79
1910 AL 15.82
1915 AL 15.46
1909 AL 14.17
1921 AL 14.07
1922 AL 13.55
1926 AL 13.27
1925 AL 13.22
1917 AL 12.74
1911 AL 12.24
1919 AL 11.26
1918 AL 11.05
1924 AL 9.01
1927 AL 7.96
1928 AL 2.17
1908 AL 1.08
1907 AL -0.11

Joe Morgan
Yr Lg WinTotal
1975 NL 22.16
1973 NL 19.17
1974 NL 17.31
1972 NL 17.30
1976 NL 17.19
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

Rogers Hornsby
Yr Lg Wins
1924 NL 21.10
1922 NL 20.58
1921 NL 19.90
1925 NL 18.81
1927 NL 17.69
1929 NL 17.50
1920 NL 16.34
1928 NL 15.39
1917 NL 12.07
1923 NL 11.22
1931 NL 10.15
1919 NL 9.15
1926 NL 8.81
1916 NL 8.49
1918 NL 7.39
1933 NL 2.29
1930 NL 1.09
1937 AL 0.51
1932 NL 0.43
1936 AL 0.06
1915 NL 0.06
1935 AL 0.03

Eddie Collins
Yr Lg Wins
1909 AL 19.04
1914 AL 19.02
1913 AL 18.63
1910 AL 17.70
1912 AL 17.36
1915 AL 17.14
1911 AL 16.00
1920 AL 15.31
1917 AL 13.83
1916 AL 12.03
1924 AL 11.20
1919 AL 10.45
1923 AL 10.26
1925 AL 10.02
1921 AL 9.57
1922 AL 8.94
1926 AL 7.87
1918 AL 6.87
1927 AL 4.58
1908 AL 4.39
1907 AL 0.33
1906 AL 0.00

Nap Lajoie
Yr Lg Wins
1901 AL 21.51
1904 AL 20.58
1910 AL 17.19
1906 AL 15.46
1908 AL 13.97
1903 AL 13.75
1907 AL 11.85
1898 NL 10.62
1909 AL 10.45
1902 AL 10.45
1897 NL 10.02
1913 AL 9.68
1900 NL 8.96
1912 AL 8.05
1899 NL 7.87
1911 AL 4.84
1905 AL 4.77
1915 AL 4.28
1914 AL 3.59
1896 NL 2.04
1916 AL 1.91

[Myankee4life]

Can I see the total PCA (offense and defense) for

Joe Dimaggio
Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Joe Gordon
Alex Rodriguez

[SABR Matt]

->

Joe Dimaggio
Yr Lg Wins
1941 AL 18.47
1937 AL 18.06
1948 AL 16.59
1939 AL 14.72
1940 AL 13.72
1950 AL 12.38
1938 AL 12.14
1942 AL 11.55
1947 AL 10.81
1936 AL 10.28
1946 AL 9.64
1949 AL 9.47
1951 AL 5.49

Jimmie Foxx
Yr Lg Wins
1932 AL 20.57
1938 AL 16.65
1935 AL 15.57
1934 AL 15.56
1936 AL 15.04
1929 AL 14.97
1930 AL 13.89
1933 AL 13.47
1939 AL 13.01
1937 AL 10.52
1931 AL 8.45
1940 AL 8.43
1928 AL 7.53
1941 AL 6.45
1945 NL 2.49
1927 AL 1.97
1942 NL 1.76
1942 AL 1.38
1926 AL 0.35
1944 NL -0.20

Lou Gehrig
Yr Lg Wins
1934 AL 19.94
1935 AL 18.93
1936 AL 18.67
1927 AL 18.13
1928 AL 17.13
1932 AL 16.18
1937 AL 15.83
1931 AL 15.45
1930 AL 15.37
1929 AL 13.97
1926 AL 11.39
1933 AL 10.87
1938 AL 8.42
1925 AL 7.00
1923 AL 0.81
1924 AL 0.30
1939 AL -0.05

Joe Gordon
Yr Lg Wins
1940 AL 12.05
1942 AL 11.43
1947 AL 10.92
1948 AL 10.79
1939 AL 10.59
1941 AL 10.40
1943 AL 9.94
1938 AL 8.83
1949 AL 7.03
1950 AL 4.59
1946 AL 4.31

Alex Rodriguez
Yr Lg Wins
2000 AL 17.94
2001 AL 16.61
2002 AL 15.81
2005 AL 15.05
2003 AL 14.81
1996 AL 14.27
1998 AL 11.47
2004 AL 10.85
1999 AL 8.77
1997 AL 7.38
1995 AL 0.66
1994 AL -0.04

[Myankee4life]

What metrics do you use for pitchers?

[SABR Matt]

see: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48386

That's the method I used to rate pitchers for PCA (the first post).

I refined it later in that thread but my available player ratings are still in the old format (at least the ones that have been converted in pitching wins).

[Myankee4life]

see: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48386

That's the method I used to rate pitchers for PCA (the first post).

I refined it later in that thread but my available player ratings are still in the old format (at least the ones that have been converted in pitching wins).

If your rankings are reliable may I get them for

Lefty Gomez
Lefty Grove
Red Ruffing
Pete Alexander

[SABR Matt]

overall the less detailed system used in PCA is still more detailed than most of the other pitching uberstats and I'm still happy with the ratings for most pitchers...there are certain types that bias a little too low or high.

Here ya go:

Lefty Gomez
Yr Wins PCABA
1930 0.13 0.231
1931 9.68 0.361
1932 4.50 0.281
1933 4.81 0.293
1934 11.77 0.372
1935 5.01 0.294
1936 3.26 0.282
1937 11.36 0.364
1938 6.88 0.320
1939 3.06 0.277
1940 -0.22 0.199
1941 0.56 0.236
1942 0.58 0.249
1943 0.03 0.243

Lefty Grove
Yr Wins PCABA
1925 1.14 0.243
1926 9.74 0.351
1927 6.8 0.310
1928 10.21 0.357
1929 8.07 0.321
1930 12.32 0.365
1931 12.57 0.374
1932 13.48 0.381
1933 6.11 0.299
1934 0.44 0.236
1935 11.16 0.362
1936 12.18 0.389
1937 8.46 0.331
1938 5.14 0.327
1939 8.18 0.370
1940 2.88 0.288
1941 1.74 0.266

Red Ruffing
Yr Wins PCABA
1924 0.05 0.230
1925 2.39 0.260
1926 2.42 0.273
1927 1.90 0.264
1928 4.17 0.272
1929 1.06 0.238
1930 3.09 0.276
1930 0.02 0.226
1931 3.82 0.278
1932 7.70 0.326
1933 5.34 0.301
1934 4.87 0.289
1935 4.75 0.299
1936 6.06 0.300
1937 6.69 0.313
1938 7.61 0.328
1939 3.72 0.279
1940 3.82 0.282
1941 3.50 0.288
1942 3.46 0.284
1945 1.84 0.295
1946 2.76 0.391
1947 -0.12 0.216

Pete Alexander
Yr Wins PCABA
1911 12.91 0.344
1912 6.71 0.295
1913 7.96 0.310
1914 11.15 0.328
1915 18.43 0.396
1916 11.63 0.327
1917 12.74 0.335
1918 1.11 0.373
1919 10.42 0.379
1920 11.56 0.332
1921 7.15 0.317
1922 4.00 0.278
1923 8.19 0.317
1924 2.99 0.284
1925 5.34 0.299
1926 1.60 0.328
1926 3.76 0.314
1927 7.31 0.319
1928 4.40 0.285
1929 2.90 0.298
1930 -0.15 0.204

Career PCA-BAs for each of the above pitchers:

Lefty Gomez: .308 (T-61st among pitchers with at least 1000 Outs)
Lefty Grove: .335 (14th)
Red Ruffing: .287 (>300th)
Pete Alexander: .323 (T-25th)

Note about those ranks...1000 outs is a low enough threshold that relievers are included and it's easier for relievers have larger PCA-BAs. Grove, for example is 14th among the 1000+ out crowd but 2nd among pitchers with at least 5000+ outs behind only Pedro Martinez.

GI Ranks for each of those pitchers:

Gomez: 40th
Grove: 4th (Behind Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Roger Clemens)
Ruffing: 54th
Alexander: 5th (right ahead of Mathewson)

[Myankee4life]

May I see the defensive PCA-BA of

George Selkirk
Charlie Keller
Red Rolfe
Joe Gordon
Bill Dickey

and the offensive PCA-BA of the same players

Thank you

[SABR Matt]

Defense first->

George Selkirk
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1934 5 0.13 0.328 RF
1934 33 0.66 0.310 LF
1935 123 2.39 0.297 RF
1936 113 2.64 0.314 RF
1936 16 0.44 0.350 LF
1937 71 1.53 0.306 RF
1938 91 0.85 0.256 LF
1939 35 0.84 0.317 RF
1939 84 0.61 0.245 LF
1940 29 0.46 0.282 RF
1940 74 0.77 0.262 LF
1941 25 0.37 0.277 RF
1941 15 0.23 0.288 LF
1942 17 0.24 0.274 RF

Career PCA-BA: .302 in RF, .266 in LF, .285 overall

Charlie Keller
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1939 54 1.33 0.320 RF
1939 46 0.32 0.244 LF
1940 78 1.28 0.283 RF
1940 70 0.73 0.262 LF
1941 138 2.47 0.300 LF
1942 154 2.15 0.280 LF
1943 140 2.08 0.284 LF
1945 45 0.73 0.291 LF
1946 149 1.77 0.269 LF
1947 35 0.68 0.308 LF
1948 60 0.48 0.250 LF
1949 19 0.17 0.253 LF
1950 4 0.03 0.247 RF
1951 5 0.10 0.296 RF
1951 5 0.04 0.246 LF

Career PCA-BA: .277 (mostly in LF)

Red Rolfe
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1934 37 0.79 0.283 SS
1934 34 0.22 0.236 3B
1935 16 0.19 0.240 SS
1935 139 2.43 0.301 3B
1936 132 2.80 0.323 3B
1937 154 3.70 0.340 3B
1938 150 1.98 0.276 3B
1939 152 2.12 0.280 3B
1940 140 3.01 0.325 3B
1941 129 1.65 0.274 3B
1942 62 1.18 0.311 3B

Career PCA-BA: .301

Joe Gordon
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1938 129 4.91 0.352 2B
1939 150 4.93 0.329 2B
1940 155 5.59 0.343 2B
1941 129 5.21 0.362 2B
1941 25 0.18 0.253 1B
1942 144 3.84 0.302 2B
1943 151 4.49 0.315 2B
1946 110 2.85 0.298 2B
1947 154 3.18 0.275 2B
1948 139 4.44 0.325 2B
1949 142 2.63 0.266 2B
1950 98 1.79 0.265 2B

Career PCA-BA: .313

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

Career PCA-BA: .272

Now the offense:

George Selkirk
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1934 192 1.42 0.277
1935 541 5.39 0.293
1936 592 6.94 0.303
1937 293 5.04 0.337
1938 407 2.62 0.271
1939 537 9.10 0.336
1940 470 5.76 0.307
1941 195 1.01 0.263
1942 95 0.37 0.255

Career PCA-BA: .301

Charlie Keller
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1939 490 7.56 0.326
1940 609 8.34 0.315
1941 610 10.56 0.338
1942 661 12.02 0.343
1943 620 8.58 0.316
1945 194 3.68 0.348
1946 655 11.01 0.335
1947 193 3.99 0.358
1948 289 2.32 0.281
1949 144 1.34 0.289
1950 64 1.60 0.385
1951 74 0.71 0.290

Career PCA-BA: .327

Red Rolfe
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1934 309 1.32 0.257
1935 706 5.47 0.279
1936 646 6.14 0.290
1937 740 3.28 0.258
1938 714 5.62 0.280
1939 731 9.10 0.308
1940 647 2.99 0.260
1941 621 3.36 0.265
1942 291 1.49 0.263

Career PCA-BA: .275

Joe Gordon
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1938 520 3.92 0.278
1939 648 5.66 0.285
1940 677 6.46 0.290
1941 665 5.01 0.278
1942 625 7.59 0.306
1943 650 5.45 0.283
1946 431 1.46 0.252
1947 626 7.74 0.307
1948 633 6.35 0.293
1949 632 4.40 0.274
1950 429 2.80 0.271

Career PCA-BA: .285

Bill Dickey
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1928 15 0.01 0.237
1929 473 3.89 0.282
1930 396 3.23 0.281
1931 523 3.90 0.277
1932 459 3.85 0.283
1933 532 4.84 0.287
1934 438 3.89 0.286
1935 491 4.20 0.284
1936 472 8.03 0.336
1937 608 8.65 0.319
1938 532 8.12 0.325
1939 565 7.30 0.311
1940 424 1.80 0.257
1941 397 2.84 0.275
1942 295 1.92 0.271
1943 284 4.39 0.326
1946 156 0.96 0.269

Career PCA-BA: .294

[Myankee4life]

Thank you Matt :)

[SABR Matt]

Now that you've seen a whole range of different players...what do you think? :D

[Myankee4life]

Now that you've seen a whole range of different players...what do you think? :D


I like PCA alot. Its easy to understand in that BA form. I see myself refering to it often :D

[SABR Matt]

The PCA-BA was designed to place all of the win created figures I post a frame of reference that is easy to spot...glad you were able to quickly pick up my meaning...it makes it a lot easier to communicate my results when I can give things numbers.

Now PCA-BA is a rate stat. Another thing I can do is use the biproducts of my calculation of PCA-BA to test the mmost productive players in terms of longevity. Once you've calculated PCA-BA, you can use a player's playing time (for batters, plate appearances, for pitchers, outs recorded, for fielders, games play) and you can list "Hit counts". All this is is a re-expression of the wins-created leaderboard, so there's no "new" info here, but it puts it into the perspective of a stat the hall of fame voters like...career hits.

An example would be the offensive leaderboard - here are all of the 3000 PCA-Hit club members:

PlayerID PCA-Hits
Ty Cobb 4654
Pete Rose 4611
Hank Aaron 4593
Rick. Henderson 4549
Stan Musial 4326
Barry Bonds 4270
C. Yastrzemski 4250
Willie Mays 4202
Babe Ruth 4084
Honus Wagner 4028
Tris Speaker 4005
Eddie Collins 3951
Eddie Murray 3879
Rank Robinson 3851
Mel Ott 3850
Paul Molitor 3745
Ted Williams 3730
Joe Morgan 3705
Dave Winfield 3680
George Brett 3631
Robin Yount 3625
Cal Ripken 3609
Reggie Jackson 3602
Al Kaline 3588
Rafael Palmeiro 3569
Mickey Mantle 3569
Lou Gehrig 3391
Nap Lajoie 3366
Rogers Hornsby 3351
Rusty Staub 3338
Wade Boggs 3326
Rod Carew 3323
Paul Waner 3323
Lou Brock 3307
Sam Crawford 3264
Eddie Mathews 3242
Brooks Robinson 3232
Tim Raines 3231
Mike Schmidt 3229
Jimmie Foxx 3221
Billy Williams 3219
Harold Baines 3204
Craig Biggio 3159
Tony Gwynn 3153
Darrell Evans 3152
Dwight Evans 3138
Fred McGriff 3132
Max Carey 3129
Andre Dawson 3122
Tony Perez 3121
Cap Anson 3117
George Davis 3101
Willie McCovey 3101
Chuck Gehringer 3093
Robby Alomar 3086
Harm Killebrew 3085
Jake Beckley 3071
Rob. Clemente 3065
Ernie Banks 3057
Fred Clarke 3053
Jesse Burkett 3023
Luis Aparicio 3016
Zach Wheat 3012
Gosse Goslin 3002

[Sultan_1895-1948]

An example would be the offensive leaderboard - here are all of the 3000 PCA-Hit club members

I'm confused now Matt. Doesn't take much when it comes to your lingo, but I thought I had this all dialed in. PCA-BA isn't batting average at all, its just put into a BA form so the numbers are more easily understood.

So what is this new 3000 hit number? Seems to me that its just a list where the top guys have a ton of AB. What exactly does this measure?

And where do you rank Rank Robinson on that list :D

[SABR Matt]

A) You're correct about what PCA-BA is.

B) PCA-Hits are just a re-expression of the bulk of a player's career...an alternate way to express career wins. They're not really hits at all, but it's a way of expressing the total cumulative impact of a player's career in terms of hits (the numerator of PCA-BA is PCA-Hits...the denominator is PA for offense).

Let's say I calculate that in a give season a player has hit well enough to post a .300 PCA-BA (just shy of one-standard deviation above the average win-scoring rate). The PCA-BA tells you something about the rate at which a player scored wins. Multiply that BA-like figure by PA though and you get an expression of net value which I call PCA-H since we're using the BA distribution...I just extended that metaphor.

Our player hits .300 on the PCA-BA scale in 600 PA...that's 600*.3 or 180 PCA-Hits

[SABR Matt]

BTW i knew this was going to confuse people...I've wanted to post that list for months now but have been putting it off waiting for the PCA-BA concept to fully sink in with as many people as possible...now I have a new project...LOL

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ok man, I really just don't get it. Or I guess I get it, but just don't see how that actually tells us anything about a player other than he got a crap-load of plate appearances. Why would you ever use that over your already established GI and PCA systems?

Hey Matt, just saw something...do you still Ted Williams as the #2 player ever, behind Babe? If you do, I'll assume that your answer to the question, "do you really think his offense makes up for his other areas?"...is, "hell yes."

[SABR Matt]

Yeah Sultan...I wasn't suggesting PCA-Hits should be used as a method toward rating players...the GI method is MUCH more rigorous. Just thought I'd throw the data up in another format for fun...my point was that PCA-BA is just a rate stat...all .300s aren't created equal. :)

And no...I don't still have Williams 2nd...he's down in 4th now, ousted by Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, though if I'm making out a list based on the GI data, I put Williams ahead of Bonds as punishment for the steroids. :)

And even with Williams fourth...my answer to your question is still HELL YEAH

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah Sultan...I wasn't suggesting PCA-Hits should be used as a method toward rating players...the GI method is MUCH more rigorous. Just thought I'd throw the data up in another format for fun...my point was that PCA-BA is just a rate stat...all .300s aren't created equal. :)

And no...I don't still have Williams 2nd...he's down in 4th now, ousted by Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, though if I'm making out a list based on the GI data, I put Williams ahead of Bonds as punishment for the steroids. :)

And even with Williams fourth...my answer to your question is still HELL YEAH

lol, right on.

I'm re-arranging the BR Thread, and on there we have a list of Babe supporters, along with who people rank next...well actually, I'll just show it to ya....

Here is a roster of all those Fever members who've expressed the opinion that The Babe was the greatest player ever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth - 84

ElHalo--------TC2, WM,HW
four tool player--TC2
Zeth------TC-2
Julusnc--TC-2,WM,HW
Catfish--TC-2
Edgartohof--TC-2
TheOnlyRyan -TC-2
Luke Appling-HW2,TC-3
KHenry14- TC-2
blackout805-TC-2
ShoelessJoe3
Wee Willie-TC2
Flash143817--TW2,TC3
CyNOtSoYoung-TC2
pacewon-TC2
rockin500-TC,WM,HW
uthminsta-TC2
BoofBonser26-TC2
NeverJustAGame-TC2,WM,HW,OC,BB
coasttocoast-TC2
dudeman-TC2
dgarza-TC2
baseball bum-TC2
give it a ride-TC2
darkplague17-BB,TC3
abacab---WM2,TC-3
BillyF29-TW,TC3
DoubleX-WM,TC3
Plask Stirlac-TW,TC3
pjf-LG,TC3
SABR Matt-TW,TC3,MM
moviegeekjan-WM,TC3,HW
Baseball Guru-WM,TC3
catcher24--WM, TC3
The Amazing Met-TC3
Honus Wagner Rules-HW,WM,TC4
ChiSox-BB,WM,TC4
sschirmer-WM,HA,TC4
Mac195---Mys, TW, TC-4
Dodger-WM,TW,TC4
Chisox73-BB,WM,TC4
wrgptfan------Ruth, TW,BB,LG,TC-5
Naliamegod-HW,WM,TW,TC5
Metsfan11--TC-6
Hoffy
tonjes
Tony Starks
west coast orange and black
ballparks
Jackie42
carnivore
Mordeci
piwvolk
whatswailing
Yankee Legend
Jalbright
BABBMALLEY29
bluezebra
Santotohof
WLH99raiders--
bluesteve32
Brooklyn
MikeCameron
depstein
basebll79
nationalpastime1980
NeverJustAFan
westsidegrounds
Dayton Dog
froshman2002
doublepar
Halos
nascaran5
714 on beer and dogs
Exposfan556
Bluesteve32
torez77
barzilla
Schlabotnik
Astro
Myankee4life
StLCards
Sultan 1895-1948
--------------------

Not sure when Bill made that list, but I gotta think you're not the only one who has changed their mind. Might have to request an update from members.

re: PCA...I really was growing quite fond of PCA-BA and GI and all the other stuff. Just starting to sink in...was sittin' dead red, and then WHAMMO, you bring in a splitty.

PCA-BA is a rate stat and all .300's are not created equal. So a guy with a shorter career will look better and a guy with a longer career will look worse. I think you do a good job of explaining when there is a case like that, so no worries.

[SABR Matt]

LOL...I always did prefer pitchers with lively breaking pitches. :D Just ignore my PCA-H commentary if it throws you off. :D I tend to just give wins created and PCA-BA in normal discussion anyway (and then I give GI scores thereafter if it appears close between two players)

Tyrus is a firm second for me right now, so that'll have to change on your roster. :)

I've given a lot of thought to how best to rank players based on an uberstat and I have come to believe in at least the general ideas behind the GI, though I'm sure tweaks will happen in the future. I do believe the balance the current GI method produces between dominance, consistency and longevity is rare among ranking methods and important. I'm sure there are many here who disagree.

[Bill Burgess]

Not sure when Bill made that list, but I gotta think you're not the only one who has changed their mind. Might have to request an update from members.

Most recent revisions:


Ruth - 96
ElHalo--------TC2, WM,RH,LG,HW6
four tool player--TC2
Sultan, 1895-1948-TC2,WM3,HW4
SABR Matt-TC2,BB,TW,WM,HW6
RuthMayBond-TC2,WM4,HW6
Jalbright-TC,HW4,WM6
Captain Cold Nose-TC,WM,HW
Julusnc--TC-2,HW,WM
Edgartohof--TC2,WM3,HW5
dgarza-TC2,Gibson, WM10
blackout805-TC2,HW7,WM9
ShoelessJoe3
Sirmudgeon,TC,WM3,HW6
Flash143817--TC2,TW3,WM4,HW5
CyNOtSoYoung-TC2,WM3,HW5
pacewon-TC2,WM3,HW7
rockin500-TC,WM,HW
uthminsta-TC2
BoofBonser26-TC2,WM4,HW6
NeverJustAGame-TC2,HW,WM,TS,BB
coasttocoast-TC2,WM,HW,OC
dudeman-TC2,HW,WM
TheOnlyRyan -TC-2
Catfish--TC-2
Wee Willie-TC2,WM3,HW5
baseball bum-TC2,WM,HW
runningshoes53--TC2
Myankee4life, TC2,WM3,HW8
Chisox73-TC,WM,HW4
give it a ride-TC2,WM,HW
baseball Pap-TC,HW3,WM7
StLCards2,TC2,WM3,HW5
Yankee Legend-TC,WM,TW,BB,HW13
Cyclone792-TC,HW,TW,BB,WM
torez77-TC,HW4,WM5
Pghfan987-TC2, WM3,HW4
Murderer's Row-TC,TW,HW,WM9
Kyle-TC, HW,WM,BB,OC7
---------
abacab---WM2,TC3,HW4
darkplague17-BB,TC3,HW9
Plask Stirlac-TW,TC3,HW10
Pretorius -WM,TC3,BB,HW5
pjf-LG,TC3,WM
Baseball Guru-WM,TC3,HW7
catcher24--WM, TC3
Luke Appling-HW2,TC-3,WM7
The Amazing Met-WM2,TC3,HW4
Dodger-WM,TC3,HW5
moviegeekjan-WM,TC3,HW
-------------
Honus Wagner Rules-HW,WM,TC4
Don’tworry-WM3,TC4,HW5
ChiSox-BB,WM,TC4,HW7
sschirmer-WM,HA,TC4,HW6
Mac195---WM,TW,TC4,HW5
CharlesBlalack,TW,HW,TC4,WM6
-------------
wrgptfan-TW,BB,LG,TC5,HW8
BillyF29-MM,TW,WM,TC5,HW7
BoSox Rules-BB,WM,TC5,HW6
Naliamegod-HW,WM,TW,TC5
Babe Is The Best-TC5
--------------
Metsfan11--TC-6
west coast orange and black
Jackie42
NeverJustAFan
whatswailing
BABBMALLEY29
bluezebra
Santotohof
WLH99raiders--
depstein
basebll79
nationalpastime1980
MikeCameron
westsidegrounds
Dayton Dog
froshman2002
doublepar
Halos
nascaran5
714 on beer and dogs
Exposfan556
Bluesteve32
Brooklyn
barzilla
Schlabotnik
Astro
Hoffy
tonjes
ballparks
carnivore
piwvolk
Mordeci
RedSoxVT92
64 Cards
Knick9
Tony Starks

[BoSox Rule]

I figured PCA-BA was more like EqA than BA.

[Myankee4life]

May I get the defensive PCA-BA of:

Reggie Jackson
Joe Morgan
Charlie Gehringer
Honus Wagner
--------------------------------------------
and just the career PCA-BA for Joe Dimaggio
-------------------------------------------

and offensive PCA-BA for

Reggie Jackson
Joe Morgan
Honus Wagner

thanks

[The Ghost of GSP]

This thread is great! If you don't mind, could I get a season-by-season offensive and defensive PCA batting average for:

1) Hans Wagner

2) Andruw Jones (you might have done this already)

3) Rafael Belliard (just for kicks)

[Skin & Bones]

Yeah Sultan...I wasn't suggesting PCA-Hits should be used as a method toward rating players...the GI method is MUCH more rigorous. Just thought I'd throw the data up in another format for fun...my point was that PCA-BA is just a rate stat...all .300s aren't created equal. :)

And no...I don't still have Williams 2nd...he's down in 4th now, ousted by Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, though if I'm making out a list based on the GI data, I put Williams ahead of Bonds as punishment for the steroids. :)

And even with Williams fourth...my answer to your question is still HELL YEAH

I Disagee. Yes, Williams on a rate basis is the second greatest hitter ever, but as a total player, that's ignoring everything else.

[SABR Matt]

As a total player, Ted Williams is still the 4th greatest all time...regardless of his abysmal fielding...the hitting overwhelms other difficiencies.

[SABR Matt]

This thread is great! If you don't mind, could I get a season-by-season offensive and defensive PCA batting average for:

1) Hans Wagner

2) Andruw Jones (you might have done this already)

3) Rafael Belliard (just for kicks)

1 Honus Wagner ->

Defense
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1897 8 0.05 0.214 2B
1897 53 0.79 0.263 CF
1898 75 0.98 0.290 1B
1898 59 0.81 0.279 3B
1898 9 0.08 0.226 2B
1899 67 0.98 0.284 3B
1899 4 0.05 0.282 1B
1899 58 1.01 0.288 RF
1899 2 0.05 0.335 LF
1899 7 0.12 0.262 2B
1900 7 0.11 0.289 3B
1900 5 0.19 0.350 2B
1900 1 0.00 0.221 1B
1900 112 2.32 0.303 RF
1901 1 0.05 0.394 2B
1901 47 0.88 0.294 RF
1901 25 0.52 0.321 3B
1901 71 1.76 0.298 SS
1902 21 0.29 0.279 LF
1902 44 1.36 0.325 SS
1902 2 0.06 0.324 2B
1902 11 0.37 0.331 CF
1902 31 0.68 0.347 1B
1902 38 1.12 0.341 RF
1903 10 0.27 0.330 RF
1903 6 0.09 0.304 1B
1903 119 3.95 0.335 SS
1904 6 0.05 0.249 LF
1904 2 0.03 0.261 2B
1904 122 1.89 0.257 SS
1904 3 0.05 0.306 1B
1905 145 3.49 0.295 SS
1905 4 0.09 0.325 LF
1906 138 3.91 0.314 SS
1907 4 0.04 0.266 1B
1907 139 2.78 0.277 SS
1908 151 3.30 0.285 SS
1909 135 4.01 0.320 SS
1910 138 4.36 0.328 SS
1910 12 0.09 0.256 1B
1911 28 0.15 0.242 1B
1911 107 2.69 0.300 SS
1912 145 5.07 0.343 SS
1913 108 1.70 0.258 SS
1914 1 0.00 0.224 1B
1914 17 0.19 0.264 3B
1914 134 2.82 0.282 SS
1915 10 0.09 0.225 2B
1915 10 0.11 0.277 1B
1915 127 2.89 0.289 SS
1916 19 0.16 0.262 1B
1916 4 0.02 0.206 2B
1916 90 1.16 0.245 SS
1917 45 0.28 0.247 1B
1917 17 0.15 0.251 3B

Career PCA-BA: .304 in RF, .298 at SS, .279 at 1B, .298 overall

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1897 258 2.82 0.299
1898 635 5.97 0.289
1899 626 8.74 0.317
1900 580 14.59 0.386
1901 619 12.02 0.351
1902 599 10.99 0.344
1903 571 11.63 0.357
1904 558 17.18 0.421
1905 616 14.70 0.378
1906 590 13.25 0.369
1907 580 16.15 0.403
1908 641 20.55 0.429
1909 591 14.05 0.378
1910 640 7.53 0.304
1911 558 11.25 0.355
1912 634 10.44 0.333
1913 454 5.36 0.304
1914 616 4.31 0.274
1915 625 6.72 0.297
1916 484 3.55 0.276
1917 264 1.25 0.260

Career PCA-BA: .343 (9th all time)

Andruw Jones->

Defense
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1996 23 0.59 0.324 RF
1996 10 0.16 0.268 CF
1997 72 2.56 0.367 RF
1997 54 2.65 0.389 CF
1998 153 8.08 0.403 CF
1999 162 7.95 0.389 CF
2000 162 7.69 0.383 CF
2001 162 8.36 0.398 CF
2002 150 5.28 0.337 CF
2003 153 2.25 0.262 CF
2004 150 6.45 0.366 CF
2005 157 3.00 0.289 CF

Career PCA-BA: .364 (second base PCA-BA for ANY position is .340)

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1996 113 0.55 0.261
1997 467 2.67 0.266
1998 631 5.53 0.285
1999 679 5.91 0.285
2000 729 7.56 0.295
2001 693 4.62 0.272
2002 659 6.35 0.291
2003 659 5.42 0.282
2004 646 4.28 0.272
2005 672 7.02 0.295

Career PCA-BA: .281

Rafael Belliard->

Defense
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1984 5 0.11 0.289 SS
1985 7 0.16 0.288 SS
1986 15 0.36 0.29 2B
1986 78 1.81 0.291 SS
1987 4 0.18 0.383 2B
1987 61 1.16 0.273 SS
1988 87 1.39 0.259 SS
1989 13 0.18 0.246 2B
1989 31 0.25 0.224 SS
1990 7 0.29 0.364 2B
1990 6 0.19 0.329 SS
1991 115 3.08 0.307 SS
1992 100 1.73 0.265 SS
1993 17 0.41 0.294 SS
1993 14 0.57 0.362 2B
1994 14 0.20 0.252 SS
1994 14 0.31 0.282 2B
1995 28 0.49 0.265 SS
1995 27 0.48 0.264 2B
1996 8 0.19 0.287 2B
1996 41 0.47 0.239 SS
1997 24 0.31 0.246 SS
1998 5 0.07 0.248 SS

Career PCA-BA: .273

Offense
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1984 22 0.06 0.248
1985 20 -0.14 0.187
1986 350 0.39 0.238
1987 229 -0.04 0.230
1988 321 0.13 0.234
1989 165 0.07 0.234
1990 61 -0.11 0.220
1991 385 -0.32 0.226
1992 315 -0.54 0.221
1993 89 0.14 0.241
1994 127 -0.19 0.222
1995 192 -0.82 0.205
1996 148 -1.15 0.183
1997 77 -0.17 0.218
1998 20 -0.15 0.186

Career PCA-BA: .224 (owch)

[SABR Matt]

Honus Wagner (see above post)

Now for the others on your request list - the defense first:

Reggie Jackson
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1967 12 0.12 0.257 RF
1967 15 0.26 0.299 LF
1967 2 0.03 0.265 CF
1968 142 1.42 0.256 RF
1968 7 0.09 0.257 CF
1969 8 0.09 0.251 CF
1969 141 1.12 0.246 RF
1970 88 1.48 0.285 RF
1970 34 0.56 0.269 CF
1971 2 0.03 0.266 CF
1971 135 2.88 0.305 RF
1972 85 1.15 0.258 CF
1972 42 1.22 0.339 RF
1973 131 1.92 0.276 RF
1974 2 0.07 0.334 CF
1974 123 3.20 0.326 RF
1975 143 2.34 0.283 RF
1976 13 0.26 0.281 CF
1976 109 1.91 0.288 RF
1977 115 1.65 0.274 RF
1978 96 0.71 0.244 RF
1979 126 0.65 0.234 RF
1980 85 0.44 0.234 RF
1981 51 1.35 0.328 RF
1982 109 0.20 0.220 RF
1983 34 0.17 0.233 RF
1984 3 0.04 0.267 RF
1985 55 0.72 0.269 RF
1986 3 0.00 0.213 RF
1987 15 0.08 0.236 RF

Career PCA-BA: .270

Charlie Gehringer
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1924 5 0.08 0.254 2B
1925 4 0.09 0.280 2B
1926 103 1.32 0.241 2B
1926 7 0.07 0.256 3B
1927 122 4.3 0.339 2B
1928 154 3.12 0.274 2B
1929 152 1.29 0.222 2B
1930 154 3.80 0.293 2B
1931 80 1.37 0.260 2B
1931 8 0.05 0.247 1B
1932 153 4.19 0.305 2B
1933 155 4.70 0.318 2B
1934 154 2.84 0.266 2B
1935 147 4.01 0.304 2B
1936 154 2.93 0.268 2B
1937 143 3.70 0.298 2B
1938 150 3.13 0.277 2B
1939 101 2.55 0.296 2B
1940 135 1.47 0.233 2B
1941 110 2.14 0.270 2B
1942 3 0.09 0.321 2B

Career PCA-BA: .280

Joe Morgan
Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA Ps
1963 7 0.05 0.215 2B
1964 11 0.19 0.259 2B
1965 157 1.87 0.237 2B
1966 121 1.05 0.223 2B
1967 131 0.87 0.214 2B
1968 3 0.04 0.239 2B
1969 129 1.76 0.245 2B
1969 6 0.01 0.219 LF
1970 138 2.12 0.252 2B
1971 153 3.18 0.276 2B
1972 146 2.94 0.273 2B
1973 150 5.35 0.341 2B
1974 136 2.41 0.263 2B
1975 134 4.33 0.326 2B
1976 132 1.79 0.245 2B
1977 141 2.44 0.261 2B
1978 112 1.14 0.230 2B
1979 114 1.70 0.250 2B
1980 117 1.47 0.240 2B
1981 82 1.57 0.269 2B
1982 116 1.03 0.224 2B
1983 101 1.52 0.251 2B
1984 91 0.55 0.212 2B

Career PCA-BA: .256

Joe DiMaggio's career (defensive) PCA-BA: .283

Now the offense:

Reggie Jackson
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1967 135 0.39 0.249
1968 614 6.92 0.301
1969 677 15.85 0.375
1970 514 4.80 0.289
1971 642 8.82 0.316
1972 572 7.63 0.313
1973 629 14.47 0.373
1974 604 13.29 0.367
1975 669 9.17 0.316
1976 558 9.08 0.331
1977 606 11.73 0.350
1978 581 7.93 0.315
1979 537 7.99 0.323
1980 601 12.26 0.357
1981 382 2.56 0.272
1982 621 7.67 0.307
1983 458 0.86 0.243 LVP with > 400 PA
1984 584 3.07 0.264
1985 541 5.67 0.296
1986 517 4.42 0.284
1987 374 1.66 0.259

Career PCA-BA: .315

Charlie Gehringer
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1924 13 0.11 0.281
1925 20 -0.19 0.172
1926 517 2.70 0.263
1927 571 4.55 0.280
1928 691 7.60 0.299
1929 715 10.78 0.324
1930 699 7.91 0.301
1931 414 2.96 0.275
1932 692 7.99 0.302
1933 705 6.47 0.288
1934 708 12.24 0.338
1935 709 10.06 0.319
1936 731 11.74 0.330
1937 660 9.22 0.317
1938 688 9.18 0.313
1939 486 5.99 0.307
1940 629 6.00 0.290
1941 537 2.19 0.256
1942 52 0.51 0.292

Career PCA-BA: .302

Joe Morgan
Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1963 30 0.30 0.292
1964 43 -0.02 0.228
1965 708 8.74 0.307
1966 528 6.30 0.305
1967 580 8.54 0.322
1968 27 0.87 0.429
1969 657 6.85 0.295
1970 658 7.39 0.300
1971 689 10.33 0.324
1972 680 14.36 0.361
1973 698 13.82 0.353
1974 641 14.90 0.374
1975 639 17.83 0.403
1976 599 15.40 0.390
1977 645 10.68 0.333
1978 533 4.93 0.288
1979 538 5.91 0.299
1980 562 5.13 0.287
1981 378 3.91 0.295
1982 554 10.25 0.345
1983 504 5.93 0.304
1984 438 3.62 0.282

Career PCA-BA: .327

[538280]

In any event...here you go for your request:

Thank you. Just so you see, the charts:

[SABR Matt]

The years are not listed chronologically BTW....they're just sorted in descending order of value...makes it easy to compare peaks.