Smellthis, that is a trivia question I ask my students(the seven ways to reach base).
The greatest record achieved in recent years was Barry Bonds breaking the slugging percentage record. Of course, all the pub went solely to the HR record. Granted, the two kind of went hand in hand. But measuring each of in itself, leading a league in SLG% is more valuable than leading in just straight Home Runs.
Of course, we all know that they are playing in one of the easiest times to be a hitter(like the 30's was), so a record shouldn't be held in awe until it is put into context, including Bonds's records.
While Ichiro getting all the hits is something, it isn't as impressive as Wade Bogg's 1985 season Boggs had 240 hits. Boggs had a .450 on base percentage that year, and a .478 SLG percentage. That is during an era when hitting wasn't quite as easy(as one can tell by the league percentages).
So if Ichiro gets the record, good for him. But it is not as beneficial towards a team as other hitters this year, or in the past, have been(with quite fewer total hits).
Ichiro batted at lower percentage and had a lower OBP in 2001, and won the MVP, than his clip in 2004 (his slugging was nearly identical in 2001 as it is this year).
I guess playing on a winning team really does affect perception of a player.
If the Mariners were in contention, battling for a playoff spot, people would be saying what a contributor he is to the team, what a spark plug, that he makes that offense goes (trust me, everyone was saying it in 2001). Because the M's are on a down year, suddenly his accomplisments on the field are negated.
The article today on CBS sportsline where he called Ichiro's pursuit of the hits record 'selfish' because he twice bunted in a man on second, 2 out situation. Ichiro is the only reason to go to a M's game these days...they have nothing to play for, with the exception of the possibility of Ichiro attaining the hits record.
Talk of putting an asterisk next to his hits record makes me laugh as well. Do we put asterisks next to every record attained now, because the seasons are longer? I mean do we asterisk Bonds' 700 HR's because well, he did have those extra 8 games per year!
fans go to see games because of guys like ichiro and mcgwire and Ryan
people tend to ignore the negative side of their heroes. they see the 500ft homers, the hustle of a bunt single and that 100 mph fastball.
you might think that baseball boils down to numbers ...and you might be right.
but i still think of baseball in terms of heroes and villiants.
the Heroics feats of baseball is what makes die hard fans. Breaking an 80 years old record is most defenetly an amazing feat.
People will remember that.
Some players make an impact on the game with numbers like bonds...but others change as well without all the big stats, guys like Abbot with only one hand won the hearts of so many, Munson is still adored today as he was back then because he was a leader , a warrior, even a godsend idiot like Steve Bartman has a place in the memories that make baseball such a magical game full a fable and stories.
I dont want to break down my favorite players into statistics, i want them to go outthere everyday, play hard and every once in a while maybe hit a game winning homerun in the 9th inning.
"Women should be obscene and not heard. " Groucho Marx
Bobs, I used to be very skeptical of a lot of the context wording and such. I used to debate against some of that stuff and really put it to the test, and every time you really sat and looked at the evidence, using baseball logic, most of that stuff got you 90% there. The context is important. Slugging .500 in 2001 is not nearly as valuable as SLG .500 in 1978. The .500 slugger in 1978 will be responsible for winning more games than the .500 slugger in 2001. It is pretty tough to debunk that. Therefore it is considered that the .500 slugger in '78 is better since he was responsible for winning more games. Now some people say, "but if this guy played in that era, he would be doing this because he has a body built differently. If we had a time warp, and we warped Ruth to 2001, he would do this or that." Or any other imaginable thing someone might say....THAT IS THE CRAZY TALK. The context gives it something very firm to grasp onto.
There are other factors to consider in even the best measurement tools. However, usually those factors are minor, and will only tweak a guy here or there. I haven't seen anything that tops the Super Linear Weights. It is what I was looking for 15 years ago, but wasn't really around.
If aknot said ichiro would be worth signing over a player who is better than him by a little, then aknot is CORRECT! Why? Ichiro would bring in more fans etc....He is very popular, and for good reason. He is a little man, an ordinary looking guy. He is good. He seems to have a positive attitude. He is the guy that all of us wondered all along...how well would a great Japanese ballplayer do in the bigs? He looks far different than the big bashers. None of that stuff changes that there are players who are responsible for more runs and wins than him.
More fans=more revenue. More revenue=more money to spend on better players(at least for the smart owners, and not the Chicago Tribune, or Pittsburgh).
I am currently in limbo on a favorite team etc...My focus has been gaining an edge to win some cash. So i don't hold any bias(which is rare among sports fans). My favorite player growin up was Eddie Murray. I might give some bias with Eddie. Hey, it is hard not to for your favorite player when you were in your formative years.
CALLEOCHO!! I like what you wrote. You are correct. I sometimes feel I am taking some of the romance out of the game with my analysis(especially if you read my post season study). My all-time favorite moment in baseball was Kirk GIbson's home run. My paper says it is basically doing something in the right place at the right time. And even though I say stuff like that, I still get the goose bumps everytime I hear that call(the Scully call, not the other guys). Then the next day in that series they played a little thing where they matched Gibson to Robert Redford's Natural. That was really cool. The way they showed how similar they were. I ALWAYS wait to see that on classic sports, and that is never on!
thats 4 walks and a triple in 5 plate appearances -- he had only 1 at bat. more importantly, he did NOT make a single out.
Question -- is Mark Loretta contributing more than Ichiro in 2004? Answer at the bottom...
Probably the best metric to compare players is Bill James' winshares. This website tracks 2004 winshares in real time. Win shares includes contributions on offense and defense. As of 9/16, Bonds is about 100% more valuable than Ichiro (49 to 24). The high OBP and high SLG players like Rolen, Edmonds, Pujols, Abreu are about 50% more valuable than Ichiro (36 to 24).
Bobs, I would have the 1,000 dollars in 1978, just like the .500 slugger in 1978. I agree, context matters, no question. There are still a couple of lingering issues I have with comparing to the league. For instance, when comparing pitchers to the league average(among their peers), it says most of the best pitchers played in the early days of baseball, AND THAT IS RELATIVE TO THE LEAGUE AVG, not going by raw stats. It is quite obvious that, unless moms had super nipples to create pitchers in 1880, that there are still some flaws even in relative terms. Sometimes it is better to compare to the top 5% of the players rather than the league average. Bill James Win Shares does take that into account somewhat as he adds a subjective element to his study, saying that the average Modern player is better than the average 1900 player.
Super Linear Weights is a better method than Winshares. Bill James himself acknowledged that he had to fudge some portions of his formula to get it to work, AND he never accounted for a player COSTING wins, as opposed to just adding to wins. That was mainly a mathematical problem, and that isn't my area of expertise, but it is a problem nonetheless. I don't have a ranking listfor Super Linear Weights, and even though it is best, it probably would not differ much from the list you provided with win shares. Probably a few ranking spots here and there, but they both get the job done(certainly better than Opinions, or guts, heart, desire etc...)
Win shares has issues specifically when comparing players from different eras. That being said, I will use win shares as my comparison metric of choice within eras and certainly within a single year.
Where have you gone Dave Vargha CU turns its lonely eyes to you What's the you say, Mrs Robinson Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
Comments
The greatest record achieved in recent years was Barry Bonds breaking the slugging percentage record. Of course, all the pub went solely to the HR record. Granted, the two kind of went hand in hand. But measuring each of in itself, leading a league in SLG% is more valuable than leading in just straight Home Runs.
Of course, we all know that they are playing in one of the easiest times to be a hitter(like the 30's was), so a record shouldn't be held in awe until it is put into context, including Bonds's records.
While Ichiro getting all the hits is something, it isn't as impressive as Wade Bogg's 1985 season Boggs had 240 hits. Boggs had a .450 on base percentage that year, and a .478 SLG percentage. That is during an era when hitting wasn't quite as easy(as one can tell by the league percentages).
So if Ichiro gets the record, good for him. But it is not as beneficial towards a team as other hitters this year, or in the past, have been(with quite fewer total hits).
Be careful putting things in context! That's crazy talk. Its obvious you know saber.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
I guess playing on a winning team really does affect perception of a player.
If the Mariners were in contention, battling for a playoff spot, people would be saying what a contributor he is to the team, what a spark plug, that he makes that offense goes (trust me, everyone was saying it in 2001). Because the M's are on a down year, suddenly his accomplisments on the field are negated.
The article today on CBS sportsline where he called Ichiro's pursuit of the hits record 'selfish' because he twice bunted in a man on second, 2 out situation. Ichiro is the only reason to go to a M's game these days...they have nothing to play for, with the exception of the possibility of Ichiro attaining the hits record.
Talk of putting an asterisk next to his hits record makes me laugh as well. Do we put asterisks next to every record attained now, because the seasons are longer? I mean do we asterisk Bonds' 700 HR's because well, he did have those extra 8 games per year!
Ludicrous.
fans go to see games because of guys like ichiro and mcgwire and Ryan
people tend to ignore the negative side of their heroes. they see the 500ft homers, the hustle of a bunt single and that 100 mph fastball.
you might think that baseball boils down to numbers ...and you might be right.
but i still think of baseball in terms of heroes and villiants.
the Heroics feats of baseball is what makes die hard fans. Breaking an 80 years old record is most defenetly an amazing feat.
People will remember that.
Some players make an impact on the game with numbers like bonds...but others change as well without all the big stats, guys like Abbot with only one hand won the hearts of so many, Munson is still adored today as he was back then because he was a leader , a warrior, even a godsend idiot like Steve Bartman has a place in the memories that make baseball such a magical game full a fable and stories.
I dont want to break down my favorite players into statistics, i want them to go outthere everyday, play hard and every once in a while maybe hit a game winning homerun in the 9th inning.
Groucho Marx
There are other factors to consider in even the best measurement tools. However, usually those factors are minor, and will only tweak a guy here or there. I haven't seen anything that tops the Super Linear Weights. It is what I was looking for 15 years ago, but wasn't really around.
If aknot said ichiro would be worth signing over a player who is better than him by a little, then aknot is CORRECT! Why? Ichiro would bring in more fans etc....He is very popular, and for good reason. He is a little man, an ordinary looking guy. He is good. He seems to have a positive attitude. He is the guy that all of us wondered all along...how well would a great Japanese ballplayer do in the bigs? He looks far different than the big bashers. None of that stuff changes that there are players who are responsible for more runs and wins than him.
More fans=more revenue. More revenue=more money to spend on better players(at least for the smart owners, and not the Chicago Tribune, or Pittsburgh).
I am currently in limbo on a favorite team etc...My focus has been gaining an edge to win some cash. So i don't hold any bias(which is rare among sports fans). My favorite player growin up was Eddie Murray. I might give some bias with Eddie. Hey, it is hard not to for your favorite player when you were in your formative years.
CALLEOCHO!! I like what you wrote. You are correct. I sometimes feel I am taking some of the romance out of the game with my analysis(especially if you read my post season study). My all-time favorite moment in baseball was Kirk GIbson's home run. My paper says it is basically doing something in the right place at the right time. And even though I say stuff like that, I still get the goose bumps everytime I hear that call(the Scully call, not the other guys). Then the next day in that series they played a little thing where they matched Gibson to Robert Redford's Natural. That was really cool. The way they showed how similar they were. I ALWAYS wait to see that on classic sports, and that is never on!
Barry..Barry..Barry
JS
Question -- is Mark Loretta contributing more than Ichiro in 2004? Answer at the bottom...
Probably the best metric to compare players is Bill James' winshares. This website tracks 2004 winshares in real time. Win shares includes contributions on offense and defense. As of 9/16, Bonds is about 100% more valuable than Ichiro (49 to 24). The high OBP and high SLG players like Rolen, Edmonds, Pujols, Abreu are about 50% more valuable than Ichiro (36 to 24).
1 Bonds 49
2 Rolen 37
3 Edmonds 36
4 Pujols 36
5 Abreu 33
6 Loretta 32
7 Drew 31
8 Beltre 31
9 Sheffield 30
10 Dunn 29
11 Casey 28
12 Berkman 28
13 Helton 27
14 Rodriguez 27
15 Matsui 26
16 Lowell 25
17 Giles 25
18 Santana 25
19 Ramirez 25
20 Guillen 25
21 Nevin 24
22 Guerrero 24
23 Tejada 24
24 Suzuki 24
25 Blalock 24
26 Jeter 24
Does this mean that Ichiro isn't an incredible player? No. It does mean there are about 20 players having better seasons than Ichiro.
Answer -- According to winshares Mark Loretta is contributing than Ichiro in 2004? Answer at the bottom...
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
<< <i>I used to be very skeptical of a lot of the context wording and such >>
Would you rather have $1,000 in 1978 or $1,000 in 2004 ?
Context matters
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Super Linear Weights is a better method than Winshares. Bill James himself acknowledged that he had to fudge some portions of his formula to get it to work, AND he never accounted for a player COSTING wins, as opposed to just adding to wins. That was mainly a mathematical problem, and that isn't my area of expertise, but it is a problem nonetheless.
I don't have a ranking listfor Super Linear Weights, and even though it is best, it probably would not differ much from the list you provided with win shares. Probably a few ranking spots here and there, but they both get the job done(certainly better than Opinions, or guts, heart, desire etc...)
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey