Baseball longevity and how it is measured in OPS+ 3,000 hits?
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
Longevity vs. a player who burns out! Lets look at two players in how they are measured via OPS+.
Here are their best 15 years in OPS+, matched side by side.
PLayer A......Player B
162............162
160............160
150............150
150............150
149............149
147............147
147............147
143............143
140............140
138............138
124............124
108............108
100............100
88...............88
78...............78
Assuming every other baseball talent and performance is equal, these guys are exactly equal. They have a career OPS+ of 132
But, there is some missing information! Player A retired at age 35 when he was no longer good enough to be worthy of employment as a MLB player.
Player B meanwhile enjoyed a career up to age 42, a full seven more years of service(he also had an extra one at age 20).
Here are his missing years of hitting in OPS+ for player B
130
125
122
122
120
118
111
Adding those seven years to his career totals, his career OPS+ comes down to 129.
SO now we have two players, one with an OPS+ of 132, and one with an OPS+ of 129. But there is a problem as those figures are implying that player A was the better player due to a higher career OPS+. THis fools many people, but it not accurate of reality.
Player A and B were identical for 15 seasons, but player B had the ability to keep playing, while player A was washed up early. Some people would call player B a 'hanger on' thus padding his stats at the expense of his team. But player A left his team with no production at all.
At age 37 player B had an OPS+ of 111
At age 37 Player A had an OPS+ of zero
At age 37 I had an OPS+ of ...........zero
At age 37 Santa Claus OPS+ of.......zero
At age 37 the worst starting player at player B's position in his league had an OPS+ of 73.
At age 37 Player B was above a league average hitter with an OPS+ of 111. That is value, and should be a credit to the player and NOT a knock(like OPS+ is doing).
What is the alternative if Player B was not good enough to play? The worst starter in the league at his position had an OPS+ of 73! Another starter had a 75, another an 88, another a 92, and another a 99. So clearly he is of benefit to his team, as without him, his team(or another potential team) would have to employ a lesser player. Just look at some of the other starters, and imagine some of the reserves pressed into a full time role! Without him, some lesser player is going to have to be employed by some team.
Meanwhile, the other guy was producing as much as all the guys sitting at home watching the game on t.v, because he had become one of those guys that was not viable anymore.
So what do you do to measure them? Use a stat that is a combination rate stat and compiling stat. It will give greater understanding to the players worth. OPS+ is good for people who have the same amount of at bats and years, just as ERA+ is only good to measure people with the same amount of innings. Once you use it on measurements with players who have varying career lengths, you get lies.
Here are their best 15 years in OPS+, matched side by side.
PLayer A......Player B
162............162
160............160
150............150
150............150
149............149
147............147
147............147
143............143
140............140
138............138
124............124
108............108
100............100
88...............88
78...............78
Assuming every other baseball talent and performance is equal, these guys are exactly equal. They have a career OPS+ of 132
But, there is some missing information! Player A retired at age 35 when he was no longer good enough to be worthy of employment as a MLB player.
Player B meanwhile enjoyed a career up to age 42, a full seven more years of service(he also had an extra one at age 20).
Here are his missing years of hitting in OPS+ for player B
130
125
122
122
120
118
111
Adding those seven years to his career totals, his career OPS+ comes down to 129.
SO now we have two players, one with an OPS+ of 132, and one with an OPS+ of 129. But there is a problem as those figures are implying that player A was the better player due to a higher career OPS+. THis fools many people, but it not accurate of reality.
Player A and B were identical for 15 seasons, but player B had the ability to keep playing, while player A was washed up early. Some people would call player B a 'hanger on' thus padding his stats at the expense of his team. But player A left his team with no production at all.
At age 37 player B had an OPS+ of 111
At age 37 Player A had an OPS+ of zero
At age 37 I had an OPS+ of ...........zero
At age 37 Santa Claus OPS+ of.......zero
At age 37 the worst starting player at player B's position in his league had an OPS+ of 73.
At age 37 Player B was above a league average hitter with an OPS+ of 111. That is value, and should be a credit to the player and NOT a knock(like OPS+ is doing).
What is the alternative if Player B was not good enough to play? The worst starter in the league at his position had an OPS+ of 73! Another starter had a 75, another an 88, another a 92, and another a 99. So clearly he is of benefit to his team, as without him, his team(or another potential team) would have to employ a lesser player. Just look at some of the other starters, and imagine some of the reserves pressed into a full time role! Without him, some lesser player is going to have to be employed by some team.
Meanwhile, the other guy was producing as much as all the guys sitting at home watching the game on t.v, because he had become one of those guys that was not viable anymore.
So what do you do to measure them? Use a stat that is a combination rate stat and compiling stat. It will give greater understanding to the players worth. OPS+ is good for people who have the same amount of at bats and years, just as ERA+ is only good to measure people with the same amount of innings. Once you use it on measurements with players who have varying career lengths, you get lies.
0
Comments
But then player B basically had another seven year MLB career on top of that 15 year career. A career in which he was a well above average hitter, and much better than what a typical replacement player would achieve.
A seven year career that was light years better than the average guy sitting on the couch at home. Player A was on par with the guys on the couch for that seven year career as well.
It makes no sense to view this extra seven year career as a negative, and to reward the other guy who was as valuable as Joe Fan...yet the CAREER OPS+ number is doing that. The OPS+ stat is a good measurement, it is just being misused in cases like these.
Linear Weights are good. Linear Weights with men on base hitting are better.
Baseball Porspectus batter runs are ok as well.
THe thing with those is how far to set the bar of the replacement level player to figure when a player has ceased being a viable MLB player.
Currently, they compare them to the league average. Any play above league average, the more credit you get. However, when a player is just at league average or a tick below, they don't get positive credit(unless they are compared to replacement level players).
So they have to play at a certain rate to get credit, and the longer they do it, the more credit they get.
I know! Let's ask Jaxxr!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I wonder who these two mysterious players a and b could be...I wonder...
I know! Let's ask Jaxxr!! >>
LOL!
Honestly, they are basically made up players, modeled after those two types of career paths.
If it were Rice/Murray, then they wouldn't be tied from their best year to their 15th best season. Murray's best would beat Rice's best, Murray's 2nd best would beat Rice's best, and that pattern of dominance would continue until Rice was finished as a viable MLB player in his mid 30's.
I wanted to highlight two players who had an EQUAL first 15 years, not one where a player was clearly better for the first 15 AND continued to play longer...as Murray was compared to Rice.
<< <i>Geez, Hoopster. You need to take a class in Effective Writing if you're gonna post something longer than two sentences.
Irony comes cheap on the CU forums
....................
The above is somewhat, INCORRECT.
Rice has been the very best among all AL batters in Adj. OPS + one season, Murray never had a season where he bettered all his peers.
Via OPS, Rice's top 3 seasons are .977, .970, .969, while Murray's best three yield .940, .930. and .918, Rice has one league leading season, Murrya none, in that stat, as well.
Here are their best OPS+ seasons
Rice.......Murray
157........158
154.........156
147.........156
141.........156
136.........156
130.........149
127.........140
123.........138
122.........136
120.........136
116.........129
112.........123
102.........120
101.........115
70...........113
R..............111
R.............105
R.............87
R.............86
When you add in Men ON base hitting, the gap widens, when you factor in GIDP the gap widens. When you use a more exact stat like situational batter runs, the gap widens.
But, I forgot, you use the weasel method where you only emphasize the events that make your case, purposely ignore key elements, and completely ignore any scientific data and findings, and with this method you come to the conlcusions you have made famous,....like your Kingman/Wagner method...the ultimate weasel. Looking at your post above, you still haven't learned anything. You should have listened to Boopotts, as he was teaching you for free.
Fanof390, ...maybe classes in reading comprehension should be in order for you
P.S. Murray was the MLB leader in situtational batter runs two times.
Rice has been the very best among all AL batters in Adj. OPS + one season, Murray never had a season where he bettered all his peers.
Via OPS, Rice's top 3 seasons are .977, .970, .969, while Murray's best three yield .940, .930. and .918, Rice has one league leading season, Murrya none, in that stat, as well.
A list provided prior is also incorrectly called the seasonal figures as "OPS +", it should properly read "Adjusted OPS +, a stat Rice was once a league leader in, which Murray never was.
There are, A.) OPS, and also B.) OPS +, and then C.), Adj. OPS +, all three produce slightly different results.
OPS, shows, Rice .854, Murray .835,
OPS +, which uses a differnt format, shows, Rice 134, Murray 128,
the last different stat, Adj. OPS +, shows Rice 128, Murray 129
Oh, I forgot. I would not expect you to tell the whole story because this is your quote...
<< emphasized the stats which showed an advantage to the one getting less support. In any debate one does not try to emphazie the shortcomings involved.
but does compare well or exceeds another HOFer in "SOME" , important aspects of baseball.
It is no "method"
>>
That is weasel speak right there! That is where you ran into problems.
The point is to be OBJECTIVE, not use selective sampling and ignore very key elements. That is YOUR method, and that is the exact type of method that makes a Kingman/Wagner method possible, and YOURS very faulty. If they are from different eras, just ignore that(like you say), and focus on the areas where he "does compare well or exceeds another HOFer in "SOME" , important aspects of baseball." Do you understand yet????
It is very hard to find objective people, and there are a few on this board, but you are not.
Your methods are similar to a guy claiming a card is mint based on razor corners, and 50/50 centering. However, there is a small crease on the back only visible under magnification, but based on YOUR Jaxxr method you do not emphasize the shortcomings, so you ignore it! If brought up to you, you say it is your opinion, and that magnification doesn't count because if you magnify it enough you will eventually find some flaw, so no magnification counts.
This is more sigline material. Unfortunately Jaxxr, one can write a book with sigline material on your thoughts and methods.
You are on the wrong side of the slope my friend.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I think we will get along pretty well.
Jax, what say you? We can get lit up, and make fun of all the corporate cub fans at wrigley who don't know a thing about baseball LOL!
Yu can talk about Jim Rice and they will ask if that is a new chinese dish or something.