The Goose Has Landed!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see why OPS and OBP should have more weight then batting average and home runs.

Because OBP and OPS are more correlated with scoring runs, which, after all, is the point of the game.

The point of hitting is getting on base and getting as many bases as you can, encapsulated well by OBP and SLG. Add them together, OPS.

Batting Average is vastly inferior to OBP. Why just count hits and not walks?

Very, very few hall of famers have no weaknesses. If we can induct someone like Ozzy Smith who had exceptional defensive skills, I don't see what's wrong with inducting his counterpart on offense.

Except that Rice isn't that. Edgar Martinez may have a better claim (147 career OPS+, btw). Ozzie Smith, also, was an incredible defensive player. He was, basically, the Babe Ruth of defense. His range number are absurd.

Who's a better pure hitter in the period between Mays (who retired in 1972), and Thomas?

Right now you have a large gap in the hall of fame. Rice is the only player during that era with .300 ba and over 350 home runs. He's earned his reputation as a feared hitter in the period. He has an MVP.

Who in the Hell cares? What, is this grade inflation for baseball?

And frankly, I'd take George Brett over Jim Rice anyday when it comes to "pure hitting". Willie Stargell from 1972 to 1980 was a better hitter than Rice. And lets not forget Mike Schmidt, who had an OBP that Rice could only dream of.

I don't dislike OBP and OPS. I just don't think they are the MOST important statistic. They are a relative recent innovation.

So because they are recent that can't mean they are good?! Please. Statistically analysis has given us tools that better evaluate the worth of players. OBP is far more valuable than BA and OPS is incredibly valuable too. It's because people decided to look at stats rather than "how they felt" that we're better able to decide which players are better.

If players in Rice's time valued OBP wouldn't it have been more likely that he would have had better numbers? Back then what mattered was the batting average.

Plenty of players in his "era" had better OBP and took walks. Rice has no excuse.

I think everyone here would say that Rice was an excellent hitter.

A very good hitter, perhaps, but not excellent. 25% above the average is not a Hall of Fame caliber hitter. You'd need more than just that, such as playing in a defensive valued position (SS or 2B or C) that would add that defense to the hitting numbers or something else, like steals (with a high success rate).

128 OPS+ puts Rice in a tie for 173rd all time in OPS+ over a career along with J.D. Drew, John Olerud, Keith Hernandez, and Moises Alou. Sammy Sosa also has a 128 OPS+, but he has over 600 HRs as well (I never said HRs didn't count, btw, but 382 isn't all that impressive to get into the Hall on the strength of that)

Think about it this way, Rocky Colavito has an OPS+ of 132 and 374 HRs, but he's no where close to getting into the Hall.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because OBP and OPS are more correlated with scoring runs, which, after all, is the point of the game.

So why do we even bother to track home runs and batting average?

I think all four are important. Someone who had a high OPS and OBP but low numbers of home runs and batting average I would consider too.

The truth is imran, you have some stats that stand alone (batting average and home runs), and others that are just a grab bag of a bunch of other ones.

The point of hitting is getting on base and getting as many bases as you can, encapsulated well by OBP and SLG. Add them together, OPS.

Sure. What that means is that OBP is double counted.

Why not just look at SLG and OPS? That way slugging will be double counted.

Batting Average is vastly inferior to OBP. Why just count hits and not walks?

Hits are more important to winning games then walks. Walks are important sure, but what percentage of RBIs are driven in off walks?

Except that Rice isn't that. Edgar Martinez may have a better claim (147 career OPS+, btw). Ozzie Smith, also, was an incredible defensive player. He was, basically, the Babe Ruth of defense. His range number are absurd.

Again, you are only looking at your pet stat, OPS.

What makes a pure hitter Imran? The guy who walks all the time, or the guy who gets hits consistantly?

Who in the Hell cares? What, is this grade inflation for baseball?

Why the hate-on for Rice Imran?

The stats are there, the man was damn good for the period he played.

And frankly, I'd take George Brett over Jim Rice anyday when it comes to "pure hitting". Willie Stargell from 1972 to 1980 was a better hitter than Rice. And lets not forget Mike Schmidt, who had an OBP that Rice could only dream of.

So if we replace every hit they had with a walk, they would still be just as good?

So because they are recent that can't mean they are good?! Please. Statistically analysis has given us tools that better evaluate the worth of players. OBP is far more valuable than BA and OPS is incredibly valuable too. It's because people decided to look at stats rather than "how they felt" that we're better able to decide which players are better.

No, I didn't say that. I think it's sad when we have made up records deciding who should and should not get into the hall.

And how is me citing the relevant statistics, Home Runs and Batting average, and the intersection of the two saying, "I like Jim Rice", therefore he shouldn't get in.

Plenty of players in his "era" had better OBP and took walks. Rice has no excuse.

Like who? Who had a better average, as many home runs as rice and a higher OBP who played in his era?

Are there any hitters 'strictly better', or are they just better in OBP?

Surely you can't say that Batting Average and OBP measure the same thing. You are asserting one is better then the other.

So why do we even keep track of any other statistic if it's just one that was invented well after the players played that counts?

A very good hitter, perhaps, but not excellent. 25% above the average is not a Hall of Fame caliber hitter.

Yes, he has more then that 385 HRs and a .300 batting average.

Next?

You'd need more than just that, such as playing in a defensive valued position (SS or 2B or C) that would add that defense to the hitting numbers or something else, like steals (with a high success rate).

So because he ranks low in the stat that is the current 'trend' he shouldn't get in? Garbage.

128 OPS+ puts Rice in a tie for 173rd all time in OPS+ over a career along with J.D. Drew, John Olerud, Keith Hernandez, and Moises Alou. Sammy Sosa also has a 128 OPS+, but he has over 600 HRs as well (I never said HRs didn't count, btw, but 382 isn't all that impressive to get into the Hall on the strength of that)

True, but you have to look at the era also. Rice played in one of the worse eras in baseball.

Here's what I don't understand.

If we have OPS+ and OBP+, why not BA+ and HR+? That way we can better measure and compare people across different eras?

Think about it this way, Rocky Colavito has an OPS+ of 132 and 374 HRs, but he's no where close to getting into the Hall.

125 OBP+ isn't terrible Imran. It's the mark of an excellent hitter to maintain that over a career.

So let me get this straight, Rice has a consistant, well above OBP+ standing, in your favourite stat, which is considered to be his WEAKEST point? Damn. That's pretty good.

I wonder how many home runs Ozzie hit?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why do we even bother to track home runs and batting average?

Home Runs are obvious and important, but counting it does ignore, say, doubles, which are also important (why don't we count doubles as much... I think its because they aren't as sexy). Batting average is because some people can't let go of a stat created by an Englishman used to cricket where there were no walks (no, seriously... look at why Henry Chadwick invented batting average).

Look at someone like George Brett using YOUR evaluating techniques. He has a .305 career batting average and 317 HRs. Under your analysis he probably doesn't get in (doesn't have enough HRs). BUT he has 665 career doubles. 6th all time actually.

Though in looking at the more accurate newer stats, Brett has a 135 OPS+ while playing a defensively demanding position well in 3B (if, you recall Rice played in the OF and played poorly).

The truth is imran, you have some stats that stand alone (batting average and home runs), and others that are just a grab bag of a bunch of other ones.

Getting HBP on Tuesdays also "stands alone". Doesn't mean it's useful.

Sure. What that means is that OBP is double counted.

OPS is an easy way of combining getting on base and total bases. SLG is important as well. It's just that OBP is the more important of the two (and the most important rate state when correlating to scoring runs).

Hits are more important to winning games then walks. Walks are important sure, but what percentage of RBIs are driven in off walks?

Walks are important for the team to score runs. Batting average completely ignores walks. Treats them as nothing. Statistical analysis has shown that a single is worth 1.4 times higher than a walk. But that means a walk is incredibly important and incredibly undervalued by the baseball troglodytes.

If anything you should like OPS because it OVERVALUES hits. SLG, which is the second part of OPS, counts total bases per at bat. Which means it doesn't count walks, but it does count singles (and any other hits), meaning that in OPS, singles are counted 2 times (once in OBP and once in SLG), while walks are only counted once (once in OBP).

Again, you are only looking at your pet stat, OPS.

Only because it is the best stat to evaluate a hitter? How much a person gets on base and how many bases he gets per at bat is the key to a great hitter.

What makes a pure hitter Imran? The guy who walks all the time, or the guy who gets hits consistantly?

Let's compare. The #1 season for hits is Ichiro Suzuki's 2004, when he had 262 hits for a .372 batting average. Because of that, and the fact he takes a small number of walks, his OBP was .414 that year. However, he was NOT #1 in even the year 2004 in Times on Base. Todd Helton and Barry Bonds that year beat him in that category.

I'll take both Helton 2004 and Bonds 2004 over Ichiro 2004.

And like I said, the stat that most corresponds to scoring runs is OBP. A study was done that showed that walked Barry Bonds every time he came up in 2001 would have been FAR worse than pitching to him every time in terms of the Giants scoring runs.

Why the hate-on for Rice Imran?

Because he's completely and ridiculously overrated and doesn't deserve the Hall. It's the same ridiculous love for Mattingly.

I think it's sad when we have made up records deciding who should and should not get into the hall.

By "made up records" you mean "more accurate statistics", right?

And how is me citing the relevant statistics, Home Runs and Batting average, and the intersection of the two saying, "I like Jim Rice", therefore he shouldn't get in.

Because batting average is useless when you have on base percentage.

So because he ranks low in the stat that is the current 'trend' he shouldn't get in? Garbage.

"Current trend" meaning "More accurate statistics".

I really do hope you read Moneyball and its ilk. You'll see that this isn't a trend. This is why baseball analysis will be conducted in the future. Especially when the old school "I know it because I've seen it" crowd die out.

True, but you have to look at the era also. Rice played in one of the worse eras in baseball.

Um... no he didn't. How are you determining "worse era"? For batters the hardest eras to hit were the Dead Ball Era from 1900 to 1920(ish) and the early 60s (around 1960 to 1964) when they raised the pitchers' mound. The 70s and 80s were a very good era for batters. Maybe not as good as the 90s or the 30s, but damned good.

Here's what I don't understand.

If we have OPS+ and OBP+, why not BA+ and HR+? That way we can better measure and compare people across different eras?

First, what OBP+?

1) because batting average is just about useless. It just measures hits. It doesn't take into account walks or even hit by pitches.

2) HRs are a counting stat. It's hard to really adjust that for era and park factors. You can do it far easier with SLG, which is a rate stat and takes HRs into account (along with doubles, triples, etc).

125 OBP+ isn't terrible Imran. It's the mark of an excellent hitter to maintain that over a career.

OPS+, not OBP+. I don't know of an OBP+

I never said it was terrible. I even said "very good hitter". Not excellent.

You don't even really understand the stat and now you are deciding what makes someone excellent in the stat? Please.

I wonder how many home runs Ozzie hit?

Ozzie's defense balances out his lack of offensive contributions. That's always been obvious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average

Sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, considers batting average a weak measure of performance because it does not correlate as well as other measures to runs scored, and because it has little predictive value. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. Adding these statistics together form a player's On-base plus slugging or "OPS". This is commonly seen as a much better, though not perfect, indicator of a player's overall batting ability as it is a measure of hitting for average, hitting for power and drawing bases on balls.

Henry Chadwick, an English statistician raised on cricket, was an influential figure in the early history of baseball. In the late 19th century he adapted the concept behind the cricket batting average to devise a similar statistic for baseball.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is a great article declaring how Rice may look good using the old tymie rate stats, but why that is a fool's errand to go just looking at those:

Zoinks. Rice is getting plenty of love because his stats are right in line people considered to be “middle of the road” HOFers. I mean, I don’t recall Billy Williams, Stargell and Medwick as marginal or borderline HOFers.

I know context matters, and that difference shows up in the OPS+ numbers. But with all the other numbers, is that single data point sufficient for all the clamoring that Rice doesn’t belong? Well, yes. It basically says that the leagues that Rice played in were 13 percent easier to put up the stats he put up. So Rice is 13 percent worse than the usual HOF left fielder.

What’s funny is that Rice’s OPS+ is right beside Yaz’ (129). If Rice had hung around for another decade and got 3000 hits, he’d be elected. I don’t think the proper comparison is that Rice was the best left fielder (whether he was or not) for a given decade, but whether or not he measures up to the definition of a HOF left fielder. That’s pretty well established, and he clearly is not. In order to make the Hall, he should have 3000 hits or 900 stolen bases or 7 straight home run crowns, assuming his OPS+ is going to be less than 140.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/is_jim_rice_a_hall_of_famer/

Emphasis mine.

Oh, and before you ask, yes, I agree that if Rice hung around for another decade, he'd easily be in. I didn't say HRs are useless, after all (so neither has 3000 hits). They just aren't the be all and end all (and as I pointed out, if your OPS+ is low, you have have to something else to get you in, whether its some counting stats or defense).

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and before you ask, yes, I agree that if Rice hung around for another decade, he'd easily be in. I didn't say HRs are useless, after all (so neither has 3000 hits). They just aren't the be all and end all (and as I pointed out, if your OPS+ is low, you have have to something else to get you in, whether its some counting stats or defense).

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment. Where me and that author differ is what that 'something else' needs to be.

400 hrs and .300 hitting isn't something that Yaz managed to do in his long career, if we are going to compare him with Yaz.

For me, looking at Yaz, this is what stands out.

1816 runs. That's excellent. Very few have that.
3419 hits. He's over the 3000 hit mark.
452 home runs. He's one of only 2 who have both 450 HRs and 3400 hits. Aaron and Musial. First ballot Hall of Famer, no question.

The trouble with Rice, is that his profile is unique. People who hit .300 usually have far more home runs, say over 500. There are only a few who didn't get 500 home runs but who hit over .300, and that list includes folks like Gehrig who's careers were cut short.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know context matters, and that difference shows up in the OPS+ numbers. But with all the other numbers, is that single data point sufficient for all the clamoring that Rice doesn’t belong? Well, yes. It basically says that the leagues that Rice played in were 13 percent easier to put up the stats he put up. So Rice is 13 percent worse than the usual HOF left fielder.

So why don't we see a flood of .300 and 350 home run hitters in the period in which Rice played?

[Ben Kenobi]

Home Runs are obvious and important, but counting it does ignore, say, doubles, which are also important (why don't we count doubles as much... I think its because they aren't as sexy).

For me it's simple. Find the two best stats that a player has. Count how many hall of famers have the combination of both those stats.

If he doesn't stand out that's a strike right there. Then we go to the next step, is his position underrated? Was he a defensive specialist? Is there another reason why the stats don't tell the whole story?

Batting average is because some people can't let go of a stat created by an Englishman used to cricket where there were no walks (no, seriously... look at why Henry Chadwick invented batting average).

It's a part of baseball, no matter what revisionists say. Honestly Imran, there will come a time when people say the same about our statistical analysis. The better the measuring stick, the better the correlation, but Rice is a case where the new measuring stick is inferior to the old.

Look at someone like George Brett using YOUR evaluating techniques. He has a .305 career batting average and 317 HRs. Under your analysis he probably doesn't get in (doesn't have enough HRs). BUT he has 665 career doubles. 6th all time actually.

Hmm.

Let's look at Brett.

1595 runs. That's ok. 44 all time.

3154 hits. That's very high. 14th all time.

.305 batting average. Yup, also high.

Ok, with 3000 hits and .300 batting average, he is here.

Pete Rose
Ty Cobb
Hank Aaron
Stan Musial
Tris Speaker
Cap Anson
Honus Wagner
Paul Molitor
Eddie Collins
Willie Mays
Nap Lajoie

Pretty good company.

Though in looking at the more accurate newer stats, Brett has a 135 OPS+ while playing a defensively demanding position well in 3B (if, you recall Rice played in the OF and played poorly).

You don't need the new stats to assess George Brett properly. BA and hits, show his longevity and his consistancy.

OPS is an easy way of combining getting on base and total bases. SLG is important as well. It's just that OBP is the more important of the two (and the most important rate state when correlating to scoring runs).

Again, you are making a value judgement. I'm not making any value judgement about the stats. I'm looking at how he compares to other players, in his strongest two stats. I'm not saying, doubles are better then HRs, I don't need to.

If anything you should like OPS because it OVERVALUES hits. SLG, which is the second part of OPS, counts total bases per at bat. Which means it doesn't count walks, but it does count singles (and any other hits), meaning that in OPS, singles are counted 2 times (once in OBP and once in SLG), while walks are only counted once (once in OBP).

I don't have a beef against using OPS to better evaluate players. I just don't think it is the best stat to evaluate hitters. It's not a perfect stat and there will be some who fall through the cracks.

Only because it is the best stat to evaluate a hitter? How much a person gets on base and how many bases he gets per at bat is the key to a great hitter.

Oh, I agree it's very useful. I like the concept of adjusting the values based on how the other folks did that year. It's a way to correct for the dead ball era and get a better understanding.

Let's compare. The #1 season for hits is Ichiro Suzuki's 2004, when he had 262 hits for a .372 batting average. Because of that, and the fact he takes a small number of walks, his OBP was .414 that year. However, he was NOT #1 in even the year 2004 in Times on Base. Todd Helton and Barry Bonds that year beat him in that category.

Yes, I remember that because he considered it a challenge to go for the hits, not the walks. I would hardly say that people would consider Helton's year to be equal to Ichiro's.

And like I said, the stat that most corresponds to scoring runs is OBP. A study was done that showed that walked Barry Bonds every time he came up in 2001 would have been FAR worse than pitching to him every time in terms of the Giants scoring runs.

No argument there, but I wasn't the GM.

Because he's completely and ridiculously overrated and doesn't deserve the Hall. It's the same ridiculous love for Mattingly.

I'm not a Sox fan Imran. The numbers make a good case for him.

Because batting average is useless when you have on base percentage.

OBP underrates players like Ichiro and Rice, Ichiro had an amazing season! I would never take Helton's year over his.

I really do hope you read Moneyball and its ilk. You'll see that this isn't a trend. This is why baseball analysis will be conducted in the future. Especially when the old school "I know it because I've seen it" crowd die out.

It strikes me as an evangelistic crusade.

Um... no he didn't. How are you determining "worse era"? For batters the hardest eras to hit were the Dead Ball Era from 1900 to 1920(ish) and the early 60s (around 1960 to 1964) when they raised the pitchers' mound. The 70s and 80s were a very good era for batters. Maybe not as good as the 90s or the 30s, but damned good.

For batting average and home runs? No, it wasn't. 70s-80s was not as hard as the dead ball era, but still lower then through the 30s-50s up right until the 90s and now.

1) because batting average is just about useless. It just measures hits. It doesn't take into account walks or even hit by pitches.

For a useless stat you seem to hate it so much.

2) HRs are a counting stat. It's hard to really adjust that for era and park factors. You can do it far easier with SLG, which is a rate stat and takes HRs into account (along with doubles, triples, etc).

Ok. So why is OBP+ superior to SLG+? I get your point about the rates.

You don't even really understand the stat and now you are deciding what makes someone excellent in the stat? Please.

I asked a question about standard deviations. I'm curious Imran. What standard deviation is 125 OPS+ over the course of a career?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For me it's simple. Find the two best stats that a player has. Count how many hall of famers have the combination of both those stats.

That's an incredibly simplistic way of deciding HoF eligibility. I'd easily say that you are the only one who does that. It's completely ridiculous to focus on the "two best stats". Who does that?!

And what if one of those stats have been shown to be unworthy of counting?

Btw, do you downgrade Rice at all for playing in an incredibly pro-hitters park?

It's a part of baseball, no matter what revisionists say. Honestly Imran, there will come a time when people say the same about our statistical analysis. The better the measuring stick, the better the correlation, but Rice is a case where the new measuring stick is inferior to the old.

So even if it is wrong, it is "part of baseball" and thus should be rewarded?! Bull****! If it doesn't have value than it doesn't have value and should be tossed.

And the new measuring stick is vastly, vastly, vastly superior to the old. Statistical analysis has shown that OBP has the closest correlation to scoring runs, much more than BA, to use one example.

And no, there WON'T come a time when people say the same about our statistical analysis unless there is some amazing new breakthrough in mathematics that show all of math before then was wrong. Why would future statistical analysis devalue something that has been statistically proven to be better? The statistical analysis has always been there; what has changed has been computers allowing easier crunching of the numbers.

You don't need the new stats to assess George Brett properly. BA and hits, show his longevity and his consistancy.

The more accurate stats allow a better way of judging Brett's place in history. Yeah, he's got a good batting average and hits, but OBP and his OPS+ show just how good he actually was.

For example, they show that Brett was BETTER than Pete Rose, who had .303 BA and 4256 hits. Much better, actually. But in your analysis (take the best two stats), Rose is the better.

I'm not making any value judgement about the stats.

Bull****. You are trying to devalue the more accurate stats so you can get your people in.

I don't have a beef against using OPS to better evaluate players. I just don't think it is the best stat to evaluate hitters.

Well, of course... why not use the stat that calculates how often you get on base and how many total bases you get and rather use one that only calculates hits, ignores walks, and ignores power? Yeah... no one slips through the cracks with Batting Average. Suuuure.

I just can't see any stat that is better to evaluate hitters than OPS+, which takes those factors into account (on base and power). I dunno, perhaps batting Win Shares or VORP or WARP3 or Runs Created (though I think they all fall short in some respects), but I don't think you are advocating them .

Yes, I remember that because he considered it a challenge to go for the hits, not the walks. I would hardly say that people would consider Helton's year to be equal to Ichiro's.

OBP underrates players like Ichiro and Rice, Ichiro had an amazing season! I would never take Helton's year over his.

Because, quite frankly, you are a moron or just underinformed (there is no other way I can say it). OBP shows the FAULTS in the games of Ichiro and Rice.

Let's compare, Ichiro's 2001 to Helton's 2001.

Ichiro hit .350 with an OBP of .381 and SLG of .457 for an OPS+ of 126. He had 242 hits, 30 walks, and 56 SBs with 14 CS. 8 HRs, 69 RBI and 127 Runs. He had 692 at bats.

Helton hit .336 with an OBP of .432 and a SLG of .685 for an OPS+ of 160 (Coors brings it down some). He had 197 hits, 98 walks, and only 7 SB and 5 CS. But he had 49 HRs and 146 RBI and 132 Runs. He had 587 at bats.

I haven't checked the Win Shares, but I bet Helton is a decent amount higher.

For a useless stat you seem to hate it so much.

Because people assign so much weight to it.

Ok. So why is OBP+ superior to SLG+? I get your point about the rates.

AFAIK, no one measures OBP+ or SLG+, just OPS+. But, OBP is more important to SLG because OBP is more strongly correlative with runs scored, which is the point of the game. IIRC, OBP has a correlation with runs scores 1.7 times higher than SLG.

I asked a question about standard deviations. I'm curious Imran. What standard deviation is 125 OPS+ over the course of a career?

Dunno, probably pretty small. But not small enough. And Rice had 128 OPS+. If you are going to schill for your player, you should give him the most benefits of the doubt .

[Ben Kenobi]

That's an incredibly simplistic way of deciding HoF eligibility. I'd easily say that you are the only one who does that. It's completely ridiculous to focus on the "two best stats". Who does that?!

It's simple and easy to understand. And usually pretty darn accurate.

And what if one of those stats have been shown to be unworthy of counting?

So no one cares about Ted Williams? Batting Average is important.

Btw, do you downgrade Rice at all for playing in an incredibly pro-hitters park?

Do I downgrade Ruth for playing in the house that he built? What about hitters in Coors field? Is a hit there worth less then a hit elsewhere? Is a run there only a fraction of a run?

So even if it is wrong, it is "part of baseball" and thus should be rewarded?! Bull****! If it doesn't have value than it doesn't have value and should be tossed.

So Ted William's season was worthless? Yaz's triple crown (which btw includes batting average?)

Like I said you should sell books. You'd make an excellent salesman.

And the new measuring stick is vastly, vastly, vastly superior to the old. Statistical analysis has shown that OBP has the closest correlation to scoring runs, much more than BA, to use one example.

So why should we take OBP over runs scored? If that's what we want, why not just do runs scored and rbis? That would give the exact measure of runs that the player contributed.

And no, there WON'T come a time when people say the same about our statistical analysis unless there is some amazing new breakthrough in mathematics that show all of math before then was wrong.

Yet you say such a thing has happened now. Sorry Imran. I don't buy that. If the new way is superior to the old, then eventually the new will become the old. It is the way of all things.

Why would future statistical analysis devalue something that has been statistically proven to be better?

Better tools allow you to refine things even more, which leads to tools that supercede the old.

The statistical analysis has always been there; what has changed has been computers allowing easier crunching of the numbers.

That's one, but we can also look more deeply into the games. Even now we are still digging up statistics that didn't even get any merit back in the day.

The more accurate stats allow a better way of judging Brett's place in history. Yeah, he's got a good batting average and hits, but OBP and his OPS+ show just how good he actually was.

He was a fine hitter. Not as good as Molitor though.

For example, they show that Brett was BETTER than Pete Rose, who had .303 BA and 4256 hits. Much better, actually. But in your analysis (take the best two stats), Rose is the better.

Pete only had 150 hrs, so that tells me right there the difference between the two. Rose was faster and Brett hit with more power.

Bull****. You are trying to devalue the more accurate stats so you can get your people in.

How so? Name one person that has a high OPS+ that doesn't also stand out in other measures. You tried Brett. It took me 5 minutes to show why, by my simple measure, he deserved to be in.

I just can't see any stat that is better to evaluate hitters than OPS+, which takes those factors into account (on base and power). I dunno, perhaps batting Win Shares or VORP or WARP3 or Runs Created (though I think they all fall short in some respects), but I don't think you are advocating them .

All stats have holes. Including OPS+. It shouldn't be the sole measurement. I agree with you that it should be a measure of good hitters. Just I disagree with the relative importance of OPS+ and batting average. I think they are both important.

Because, quite frankly, you are a moron or just underinformed (there is no other way I can say it). OBP shows the FAULTS in the games of Ichiro and Rice.

Yes, but it also distorts their contribution by undervaluing what they did accomplish.

I could come up with a measure that weighted walks 5x as important as hits. I wonder who would be the best hitter of all time then.

Helton hit .336 with an OBP of .432 and a SLG of .685 for an OPS+ of 160 (Coors brings it down some). He had 197 hits, 98 walks, and only 7 SB and 5 CS. But he had 49 HRs and 146 RBI and 132 Runs. He had 587 at bats.

Ahh, so we see that Rice hit in a hitters park but Helton? My goodness. I guess Coors is right and dandy.

252 hits is amazing, and people will remember Ichiro's year for far, far longer then they will Helton's.

Dunno, probably pretty small. But not small enough. And Rice had 128 OPS+. If you are going to schill for your player, you should give him the most benefits of the doubt .

Imran, I never watched the man. You made me curious about Rice because you hated him so much. I always get curious when someone expresses that fierce of an opinion. So I looked up his stats, and have gone from there.

Maybe you should get it. I hate the Red Sox, my team is the Blue Jays, and they do not get along well with the Sox.

[snoopy369]

Ben, the difference is that you're not a statistician. You're a history major. OPS+ has the backing of the far majority of statisticians, because they analyzed what statistics are relevant to scoring runs. You can believe that or not, it's up to you... but don't claim that your opinion is as valuable as the folks who make a living from the math. Please...

[SlowwHand]

All the stats mentioned are important. It's the sum total that matters.

[-Jrabbit]

Sadly, there's no statistic for other important factors in HOF selection.
Things like:
--currying favor with the writers
--playing on superior teams
--using performance enhancers
--playing in New York.

Sabermetricians have built a great case for being "deserving." But where is the much-needed statistical method for predicting the actual outcome of HOF voting?

[snoopy369]

You need to add in "Playing in Boston" there, sir.

And, "Using performance enhancers and not getting caught"...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's simple and easy to understand. And usually pretty darn accurate.

So is throwing a coin up in the air. It's a ridiculous system.

So no one cares about Ted Williams? Batting Average is important.

Thanks for making my point. Ted Williams has the highest OBP for a career in history. He happens to be 7th in career Batting Average.

#4 in career BA is Lefty O'Doul, who played from 1919 to 1934 (so not the pre-modern era). Is he better than Ted Williams as a hitter?

Do I downgrade Ruth for playing in the house that he built? What about hitters in Coors field? Is a hit there worth less then a hit elsewhere? Is a run there only a fraction of a run?

Why should you downgrade Ruth? Yankee Stadium in the years he played there was more of a pitcher's park. And if you don't downgrade hitters in Coors field then you are a fool. You HAVE to take park factors into account.

So why should we take OBP over runs scored? If that's what we want, why not just do runs scored and rbis? That would give the exact measure of runs that the player contributed.

Runs scored and RBIs are highly dependent on other players. You can't score runs without people driving you in and you can't have RBIs without people on base ahead of you. OBP is other player independent. This is quite obvious.

Speaking of which, RBI is another completely overrated stat. RBIs per RBI chances should be used. It's far easier for, say, A-Rod to get RBIs than the cleanup hitter on the Royals.

Better tools allow you to refine things even more, which leads to tools that supercede the old.

Do you actually understand statistics and math?

He was a fine hitter. Not as good as Molitor though.

Actually he was better than Molitor. Even using your quaint BA, they are just about tied (.305 to .306). Brett hit for far more power though, and that's shown in SLG (.487 to .448) and thus better off in OPS+ (135 to 122)

How so? Name one person that has a high OPS+ that doesn't also stand out in other measures. You tried Brett. It took me 5 minutes to show why, by my simple measure, he deserved to be in.

Then you said he was WORSE THAN MOLITOR! That's exactly what I mean. OPS+ is better at showing the true value of player. Brett is a good deal better than Molitor.

OPS+ breaks down which players are overrated (like Rice, and Pete Rose) based on the counting stats and useless things like batting average. Most of the players with high OPS+ will stand out (on base and power usually shows itself). What OPS+ can do with the HoF is to show who has been overrated due to park and era effects and who has been underrated.

A player that has been left out is Dick Allen who played from '63 to '77. His relatively small career may have hurt him, but he finished 20th all time in OPS+ with 156 and was a great defensive 3B. If you just look at his "traditional stats" a .292 BA and 351 HRs aren't that great (but seem not that far off from to Rice's .298 and 382 HRs ), but he knew how to take a walk. And his runs created per game is 7.3 (compared to Rice's 6.0).

All stats have holes. Including OPS+. It shouldn't be the sole measurement. I agree with you that it should be a measure of good hitters. Just I disagree with the relative importance of OPS+ and batting average. I think they are both important.

Because your opinion is more valid than, you know, actual statistical backing as it correlates to scoring runs.

OPS+ shouldn't be the sole measurement, but it is one of the most important statistics in evaluating hitters. BA is not.

I could come up with a measure that weighted walks 5x as important as hits. I wonder who would be the best hitter of all time then.

And what would be the correlation to scoring runs? Can you statistically prove it correlates to run scoring more than other measures?

No. Didn't think so.

Ahh, so we see that Rice hit in a hitters park but Helton? My goodness. I guess Coors is right and dandy.

That's why we have OPS+... which uses parks factors.

Seriously, talking to you is like talking to a wall.

252 hits is amazing, and people will remember Ichiro's year for far, far longer then they will Helton's.

Mostly because they are idiots and value simple counting stats than actual great seasons.

So I looked up his stats, and have gone from there.

And come to an incredibly wrong conclusion. So when someone is so completely wrong, I get curious as to their angle.