For those who care about park factors
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
A small group, I know, but I'm burned out on Ryan Howard and so I won't even mention him (again) in this thread. I just find it interesting to compare players in the same season and see what playing in the right vs. the wrong park can mean. I'll be using words like "better" here; they are all "in my opinion". I don't even care if you agree or not. But if you have the interest, and you'd like to learn something about how dramatic park factors can be, studying these players in these seasons is a great place to start. I should say that some of the difference between the players below is also quality of teammates; for puposes of this thread, I'm calling that a "park factor", too.
1963
Sandy Koufax was 25-5, with a 1.88 ERA and 306 K's and the Dodgers won the pennant. That was a great year and Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. But there was another pitcher that year who was just as good: Dick Ellsworth. Pitching for the 7th place Cubs, Ellsworth was 22-10, with an ERA of 2.11 and 185 K's. I think it's a fair guess that most of you reading this have never heard of Dick Ellsworth, but if he'd pitched for the Dodgers and Koufax had pitched for the Cubs, he'd have a Cy Young Award and you would at least know him for that.
1970
Johnny Bench had primary stats of 45, 148, .293 and he won the MVP. And that was a really great season. He was in the AL so he wasn't MVP competition, but Roy White's stats that year were 22, 94, .296. His close and late and bases loaded hitting was nothing short of phenomenal, with unadjusted OPS of over 1.000 in both cases. And he was a little better at the plate than Bench that year. Roy White, as many of you know, is a favorite of mine. His career OPS + was 121, the same as Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and Derek Jeter, he was a very good base runner, and he hit better in all high leverage situations than he did with the bases empty. On balance I think he was a better baseball player than Jim Rice; you may disagree, but if you will take the time to actually look into it, you will either come out of it respecting White much more, or Rice much less, or both, than you do now. Or you weren't really looking.
1977
It was a famous season, and George Foster's numbers of 52, 149, .320 are still talked about. In the other league, numbers of 24, 99, .328 were good enough for 3rd in the MVP vote but Ken Singleton's season is not remembered. But it was better than Foster's. Singleton was a much better hitter with men in scoring position than Foster was, but he had so many fewer runners in scoring position that he couldn't even crack 100 RBI's .
1987
I will never grow tired of mentioning the most disgraceful MVP Award in history. Andre Dawson went 49, 137, .287 for the last place Cubs that year. The list of people better than him that year is long, but among them was Will Clark at 35, 91, .308. I don't know how to check this, but I think Dawson set a record that year: fewest walks by a player who struck out over 100 times, with 32. Just so I'm not accused of being a Dawson hater, from 1979-1983 he was better than every player in the NL but Schmidt; it's just that by 1987 he wasn't close to that good.
Again, all of these seasons are relatively close in value and that's on purpose; I wanted it to be clear that it was more important to study it and think about it than to agree on a "right" answer; even I agree that there is no right answer to any of these. In fact, I would consider this post an overwhelming success if someone besides hoopster could convince me I was wrong about one or even all of them.
1963
Sandy Koufax was 25-5, with a 1.88 ERA and 306 K's and the Dodgers won the pennant. That was a great year and Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. But there was another pitcher that year who was just as good: Dick Ellsworth. Pitching for the 7th place Cubs, Ellsworth was 22-10, with an ERA of 2.11 and 185 K's. I think it's a fair guess that most of you reading this have never heard of Dick Ellsworth, but if he'd pitched for the Dodgers and Koufax had pitched for the Cubs, he'd have a Cy Young Award and you would at least know him for that.
1970
Johnny Bench had primary stats of 45, 148, .293 and he won the MVP. And that was a really great season. He was in the AL so he wasn't MVP competition, but Roy White's stats that year were 22, 94, .296. His close and late and bases loaded hitting was nothing short of phenomenal, with unadjusted OPS of over 1.000 in both cases. And he was a little better at the plate than Bench that year. Roy White, as many of you know, is a favorite of mine. His career OPS + was 121, the same as Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and Derek Jeter, he was a very good base runner, and he hit better in all high leverage situations than he did with the bases empty. On balance I think he was a better baseball player than Jim Rice; you may disagree, but if you will take the time to actually look into it, you will either come out of it respecting White much more, or Rice much less, or both, than you do now. Or you weren't really looking.
1977
It was a famous season, and George Foster's numbers of 52, 149, .320 are still talked about. In the other league, numbers of 24, 99, .328 were good enough for 3rd in the MVP vote but Ken Singleton's season is not remembered. But it was better than Foster's. Singleton was a much better hitter with men in scoring position than Foster was, but he had so many fewer runners in scoring position that he couldn't even crack 100 RBI's .
1987
I will never grow tired of mentioning the most disgraceful MVP Award in history. Andre Dawson went 49, 137, .287 for the last place Cubs that year. The list of people better than him that year is long, but among them was Will Clark at 35, 91, .308. I don't know how to check this, but I think Dawson set a record that year: fewest walks by a player who struck out over 100 times, with 32. Just so I'm not accused of being a Dawson hater, from 1979-1983 he was better than every player in the NL but Schmidt; it's just that by 1987 he wasn't close to that good.
Again, all of these seasons are relatively close in value and that's on purpose; I wanted it to be clear that it was more important to study it and think about it than to agree on a "right" answer; even I agree that there is no right answer to any of these. In fact, I would consider this post an overwhelming success if someone besides hoopster could convince me I was wrong about one or even all of them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
Steve
Also, when scoring goes up (weather by park factors or any other reason) defense becomes more important. That is one more reason Tejada over Rodriguez was foolish. It was also a big part of Bench winning his MVP and not to be discounted when comparing Singleton and Foster
<< <i>Also, when scoring goes up (weather by park factors or any other reason) defense becomes more important. That is one more reason Tejada over Rodriguez was foolish. It was also a big part of Bench winning his MVP and not to be discounted when comparing Singleton and Foster >>
Absolutely. I ignored defense on purpose in this post, but it is, among other things, what makes Santo so much better than Jim Rice that even making the comparison is a slap in the face to Santo. Bench deserved his MVP in 1970, and would have even if White had been in the NL; but White hit better than Bench.
I and others, might be curious as to the "other things" which make Santo "SO MUCH" better than Rice.
Fielding does give the nod to Santo, though Rice was above average in relation to his peers in LF, via Fldg. Pct. and Range Factor, just as Santo was in relation to NL 3B.
His hitting skill ?
That was shown to be below Rice's, in another thread of which you were quite active. Despite the ommission of items like SLG % and total bases, it was interesting, and it could be cut and pasted here for detail, if needed.
Perhaps his baserunning ?
Santo, was somewhat of "Slug" as some enjoy refering to MLB ballplayers as, on the basepaths. He stole 35 bases in 76 trys, actually providing a negative effect to his team. Rice, while no Rickey Henderson, managed to cop 58 steals in 92 trys, success more often than not, 63%.
Perhaps his "presence" ?
Many teams feared facing Jim Rice and altered plans to adjust for him, Santo, a good hitter was not nearly a force as Rice. In the clubhouse, Santo should be well known for his public insults to a teamate, Don Young, back in 1969, Santo did later apologize for his poor attitude.
Maybe awards and titles ?
Rice has won a league MVP, Rice has won league titles five times in triple crown stats, Santo has none of those.
Post-season ?
Rice 2 league champ series, 1 WS, Santo none.
Outsiders' HOF rate ?
Grey Ink and HOF Standards, have Rice above Santo, Black Ink and HOF Monitor, have Rice very well above Santo.
The subject was beaten to death seven years ago, but I can't see White as better than Rice. White may favor Rice in nearly every area, it still doesn't make up for a difference of 100 points in slugging. That's the difference between Will Clark and Tony Fernandez. Putting Jim Rice in a lineup instead of Roy White is the same as replacing a middle infielder with a first baseman. As for park effects, while you make note of White's OPS+, Rice's was higher. Rice simply learned how to take advantage of his home park better than anyone else could. You cannot hold that against a hitter. And he did it in 200 more games (250 if not for the strike)
Not counting defense there is little question Rice was better, include fielding and it is close
Home runs
Career= Rice 382, Santo 278, Best yr= Rice 46, Santo 33, AVE per 162 gm season= Rice 30, Santo 25, HR frequency= Rice 4.6, Santo 4.2
RBI
Career= Rice 1451, Santo 1331, Best yr=Rice 139, Santo 123, AVE per 162 gm season= Rice 113, Santo 96
BA
Career= Rice .298, Santo .277, Best yr= Rice .325, Santo .313
OPS+
Career= Rice 128, Santo 125, Best yr= Rice 157, Santo 164
Runs Created
Career= Rice 1384, Santo 1354, Best yr= Rice 147, Santo 127, AVE= Rice 6.0, Santo 5.9
Runs scored
Career= Rice 1249, Santo 1138, Best yr= Rice 121, Santo 107, AVE= Rice 97, Santo 82
Those are some pretty good indicators of "hit" skill, not every single possibility ever known, but pretty good regardless. The amount of times the two were actually the league leader, the number of times they bettered their peers, actually were the best among their peers in the aforementioned stats = Rice 7, Santo 0
Actually, when you account for those things, the fact that Santo was so close means he actually did more to help his team than Rice
While I agree park factors are very important and too often ignored, by simply using a generic number for all players it is slightly unfair.
1963
Ellsworth had a great season. The Cubs and their opponents scored 50 more runs in Wrigley than on the road. However, the top 3 Cub starters had similar home-road splits. Three of the Cub's pitchers had awful numbers at Wrigley and accounted for the difference in runs home and away. Ellsworth is a ground ball pitcher. While I do not know about the weather on days he pitched at Wrigley the fact he is a ground ball pitcher is going to help him in that park. To me it is like giving Ozzie Smith a boost because he played in St.Louis. The park did not have an adverse effect on him, in fact it probably helped him but the ballpark factor is going to up his numbers.
The Dodgers, of course, scored far more runs in their games away from Dodger Stadium. However, both Drysdale and Johnny Podres had similar splits home-away. Koufax was dominant at home but he did make more starts on the road. In a neutral park Koufax would score much higher in my opinion.
1978-1979
The Boston Red Sox scored 200 more runs at home as on the road but their pitching staff gave up the same amount of runs on the road and at home. Obviously, Fenway is a hitter's park but the hitters seemed to benefit more than the pitchers were adversely affected. No generic number can account for this difference.
~"Rice simply learned how to take advantage of his home park better than anyone else could. You cannot hold that against a hitter."~
TomGshotput - That statement is very far from the truth. Rice did not have the same home advantage that Yaz, Lynn or Boggs had. Not even close. Rice's road stats are better than the three of them but his Fenway stats are not nearly as good in context.
Jaxxr - I am certain dallasactuary can explain it better than me but in regard to your post there are three things you fail to mention which affect any offensive statistics:
1) League Context
2) Park Context
3) Outs used
Your post mentions Park Context briefly but conveniently leaves out the other two.
For the record, I like Jim Rice and think that dallas and Bill James are way too harsh in their evaluation of him.
But aro13 has challenged me on Ellsworth/Koufax in 1963. First, just to make it clear, I didn't say Ellsworth was better, just that he was "as good"; all the other examples I thought were clear enough to pick a winner, here I just proclaimed a tie.
But I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, Albie. Ellsworth's ERA in Wrigley was 2.37 and on the road it was 1.77 (including a loss in LA - the only game he pitched there that year - when he didn't give up a run until the 10th inning). And the Cubs both scored 26 more and allowed 26 more runs at home than on the road that year. And all the Cubs starting pitchers ERAs were higher at home than on the road. And Wrigley's park factor is essentially unchanged from 1962 to 1963 to 1964, even though Ellsworth's innings and performance vary wildly over that same period. So I'm not following why Ellsworth is supposed to get singled out and treated as if Wrigley favored him. It didn't favor any of their pitchers, and it very clearly didn't benefit him, but he shouldn't get the benefit of a park adjustment? I need convincing on that point, because if we give Ellsworth the standard park adjustment for the year, then I think my conclusion is safe.
I also noticed with Ellsworth something that I suspect, but haven't really looked at too deeply, affects a lot of comparisons of pitchers on good and bad teams. If you picked up the paper on the morning of August 17th, 1963 you would have seen Ellsworth with an ERA of 1.93 and Koufax with an ERA of 2.10. Not park-adjusted ERAs, but just plain ERAs. But what was also true on that date was that the Dodgers were 71-48, the Cardinals were 67-54, the Giants were 68-54, and the Cubs were 62-59. In other words, the Dodgers had two teams within five games of them, and the Cubs were in 6th place, ten games out, and their season was over. On that date, Ellsworth's adjusted ERA advantage over Koufax was enormous; from that point on it slipped to just a marginal lead. But Koufax was pitching for a pennant, and while he deserves credit for pitching well down the stretch, Ellsworth was better when his games meant something, too, but he gets no credit for that because his team was worse.
Obviously, Koufax has his own advantages or I would have proclaimed Ellsworth better. But I think Ellsworth wins points for having a better ERA in context and since ERA represents the vast majority of a pitcher's value it carries him to an overall tie with Koufax.
<< <i>I don't know how to check this, but I think Dawson set a record that year: fewest walks by a player who struck out over 100 times, with 32. >>
I did check and while I agree with you that Dawson should not have won the MVP in 1987, he is nowhere near the CURRENT record. In 2006, Miguel Olivo struck out 103 times and walked NINE (9) times. He followed that up in 2007 with 14 walks and 123 strike outs.
I don't know what the record was in 1987, Dawson didn't even have the "best" ratio in 1987. He went 32 BBs and 103 K. That same year, Cory Snyder went 31 BBs and 166 Ks. The year before that, Snyder went 16 BBs and 123 Ks. Wow.
But the greatest culprit in MLB history with at least 1000 career strikeouts? None other than Shawon Dunston who in 1814 career games, walked only 203 times, but struck out 1000 times, essentially five (5) strikeouts for every one (1) walk. Brutal.
/s/ JackWESQ
Sorry, Dallas, I was not aware of the rules for posting herein,
It is fine for you to state opinions, as an aside to the first post of this thread, but rebuttals to you are not permitted.
I will not delete what already was posted, many will probably merely gloss over and not read/understand it anyway, though I do apologize for inappropriately showing a majority of stats and factors which might show you incorrectly stated Santo was "SO MUCH" a better hitter than Rice.