Yes, I meant 1998. The only point I was trying to make is that players have become better when they are surrounded by better players than themselves. Without being statistical, just saying it can happen and has happened. There were a lot of intangables that were in Brosious' favor in 1998.
The play by play data isn't the same as the Total Baseball data that was estimated...though the Total Baseball estimation was not too bad compared to the play by play data. The data represents what a player is worth in a neutral environment. I have stated a few minor flaws in them in the past, but it is nothing to change it drastically.
I agree that there are other aspects, as per how many games, if you are platooning and avoiding the tough matchup ala McCovery(the Phelps factors).
Keep in mind that Ichiro bats leadoff, and he will get between 20-30 extra plate appearances compared to the elite hitters who are batting third and fourth. He gets these extra at bats by virtue of lineup spot. That is another small aspect. In fact, most such things that have to be accounted for are small like that.
I also agree that a simple list of the best batter runs is not definitive. You must go through each of the variables mentioned to get it really right. But that is mostly extra work that will provide pretty much the same results.
Measuring vs. league average or replacement level can make a difference. That usually only comes in play when guys are platoon players and they have to sit. You are correct, their value isn't quite as high. 30 runs from Ichiro in 162 games, and 30 runs from ken Phelps in 110 games. You have to look at what a typical replacement player would be that would be playing those extra 52 games in Phelp's stead is contributing. Typically it will be below average, meaning Phelps inability to play those extra 50 games is hurting his team and his overall value. Those situations aren't widespread among the elite hitters though.
<< <i>The only point I was trying to make is that players have become better when they are surrounded by better players than themselves. Without being statistical, just saying it can happen and has happened. >>
I'm sure it has happened, but I don't think it happens very often or to a really great degree. Again, Brosius had the same teammates in 1999 that he had in 1998, so I don't see how he works as an example - and I'm not aware of anyone else who does off the top of my head. What does happen very often is that a player will score more runs and drive in more runs because he is surrounded by better players - which is exactly why you should never measure how good a player is by how many runs he scores or drives in. That would be the Hack Wilson fallacy.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>...And intangibles do account for more than 5%... >>
No way. Much closer to 0% than five. If intangibles accounted for much if anything the Yankees would in fact never lose a post season series. >>
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but a team of self-centered butt holes who get on base .380and slg .500 will kick the crap out of a team of rah rahs who get on base .340 and slg .440.
<< <i>I think the 1996 Yankees are a good example of that. Scott Brocious anyone? >>
I'm not sure exactly what you meant here, but this is actually a really good example that supports the point skinpinch is making.
Scott Brosius wasn't on the Yankees in 1996, so I figure you meant 1998 - the year the Yankees may have been the greatest team ever. And Brosius was very good that year - .371 OBP and .472 slugging. But the Yankees had the same team in 1999 and Brosius fell to .307 and .414; I suppose you could try to make a case that what the Yankees lacked in 1999 - but not in 1998 - was leadership, but I can't imagine that you'd get very far.
The ironic part is that 1996, when Brosius was on the A's, was his best season: .393 OBP and .516 slugging. Of course, the next year - on the same team - he fell to .259 and .317; again, you can try to say the difference was someone else's leadership, but I think you'll fail.
Scott Brosius was a below average player who had a couple of good seasons for a couple of different teams. He also had really terrible seasons for those same teams. That's who Scott Brosius was, and leadership had nothing to do with it.} >>
Dallas, you never cease to amaze me. I want to pay a compliment to your writing abilities. You take a potentially drawn out debate and basically squealch it with a succinct response. My compliments to many well written entries. I wouldn't mind seeing you put together a longer type study. I think it would be an interesting read, as you have an ability to convey your message to fans of all sorts of backgrounds. I think you could be a good writer in the professional sense.
Comments
edited cuz I just wanted to
The play by play data isn't the same as the Total Baseball data that was estimated...though the Total Baseball estimation was not too bad compared to the play by play data. The data represents what a player is worth in a neutral environment. I have stated a few minor flaws in them in the past, but it is nothing to change it drastically.
I agree that there are other aspects, as per how many games, if you are platooning and avoiding the tough matchup ala McCovery(the Phelps factors).
Keep in mind that Ichiro bats leadoff, and he will get between 20-30 extra plate appearances compared to the elite hitters who are batting third and fourth. He gets these extra at bats by virtue of lineup spot. That is another small aspect. In fact, most such things that have to be accounted for are small like that.
I also agree that a simple list of the best batter runs is not definitive. You must go through each of the variables mentioned to get it really right. But that is mostly extra work that will provide pretty much the same results.
Measuring vs. league average or replacement level can make a difference. That usually only comes in play when guys are platoon players and they have to sit. You are correct, their value isn't quite as high. 30 runs from Ichiro in 162 games, and 30 runs from ken Phelps in 110 games. You have to look at what a typical replacement player would be that would be playing those extra 52 games in Phelp's stead is contributing. Typically it will be below average, meaning Phelps inability to play those extra 50 games is hurting his team and his overall value. Those situations aren't widespread among the elite hitters though.
<< <i>The only point I was trying to make is that players have become better when they are surrounded by better players than themselves. Without being statistical, just saying it can happen and has happened. >>
I'm sure it has happened, but I don't think it happens very often or to a really great degree. Again, Brosius had the same teammates in 1999 that he had in 1998, so I don't see how he works as an example - and I'm not aware of anyone else who does off the top of my head. What does happen very often is that a player will score more runs and drive in more runs because he is surrounded by better players - which is exactly why you should never measure how good a player is by how many runs he scores or drives in. That would be the Hack Wilson fallacy.
<< <i>...And intangibles do account for more than 5%... >>
No way. Much closer to 0% than five. If intangibles accounted for much if anything the Yankees would in fact never lose a post season series.
<< <i>
<< <i>...And intangibles do account for more than 5%... >>
No way. Much closer to 0% than five. If intangibles accounted for much if anything the Yankees would in fact never lose a post season series. >>
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but a team of self-centered butt holes who get on base .380and slg .500 will kick the crap out of a team of rah rahs who get on base .340 and slg .440.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the 1996 Yankees are a good example of that. Scott Brocious anyone? >>
I'm not sure exactly what you meant here, but this is actually a really good example that supports the point skinpinch is making.
Scott Brosius wasn't on the Yankees in 1996, so I figure you meant 1998 - the year the Yankees may have been the greatest team ever. And Brosius was very good that year - .371 OBP and .472 slugging. But the Yankees had the same team in 1999 and Brosius fell to .307 and .414; I suppose you could try to make a case that what the Yankees lacked in 1999 - but not in 1998 - was leadership, but I can't imagine that you'd get very far.
The ironic part is that 1996, when Brosius was on the A's, was his best season: .393 OBP and .516 slugging. Of course, the next year - on the same team - he fell to .259 and .317; again, you can try to say the difference was someone else's leadership, but I think you'll fail.
Scott Brosius was a below average player who had a couple of good seasons for a couple of different teams. He also had really terrible seasons for those same teams. That's who Scott Brosius was, and leadership had nothing to do with it.} >>
Dallas, you never cease to amaze me. I want to pay a compliment to your writing abilities. You take a potentially drawn out debate and basically squealch it with a succinct response. My compliments to many well written entries. I wouldn't mind seeing you put together a longer type study. I think it would be an interesting read, as you have an ability to convey your message to fans of all sorts of backgrounds.
I think you could be a good writer in the professional sense.
-skin