Home› Sports Talk
Options

Statistical fun - JoeD, TedW, and the machine - 1st four years

halfcentmanhalfcentman Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
This analysis is based on the first four years of each player's career. The statistics in their own rights are amazing.

First column is JoeD, then Teddy Ballgame, then Pujols

It may not be totally perfect. If it's not, corrections would be welcome since I am giving this talk to a mathematics college class (the kids eat this stuff up).

Your input and insight would be appreciated. Maybe I will learn something from this group.

Greg

----------

AVERAGES BASED ON A 162-GAME SEASON


Plate Appearances 743 722 704
At Bats 678 581 610
Runs 152 150 130
Hits 231 207 204
Doubles 42 43 49
Triples 15 10 3
Home Runs 41 36 42
Runs Batted In 163 143 131
Stolen Bases 5 4 4
Caught Stealing 1 4 4
Walks 59 137 79
Strikeouts 35 55 72
Batting Average 0.341 0.356 0.333
OBP 0.397 0.481 0.413
Slugging % 0.622 0.642 0.624
OPS 1.019 1.123 1.037
Total Bases 422 373 381
GDP 4 13 20
Hit by Pitch 5 4 10
Sacrifice Hits 4 2 1
SF (1954) (1954) 7
IBB (1955) 1955) 12

Comments

  • Options
    SabermanSaberman Posts: 677
    If it is a college math class, you should be looking more at the advanced measurement metrics.
    Are you sure about that five minutes!?
  • Options
    jdip9jdip9 Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭
    <<<If it is a college math class, you should be looking more at the advanced measurement metrics>>>

    I agree....I never truly appreciated Joe D's numbers (or really even gave them a hard look) until right now..thanks for the insight.
  • Options
    alnavmanalnavman Posts: 4,129 ✭✭✭
    I watched a special the other day and they have Pujols rated as the 3rd greatest 1st baseman all time......they also said he could end up on top if he continues producing. he is an awesome hitter....and not too bad on defense either.
  • Options
    mlbfan2mlbfan2 Posts: 3,115 ✭✭✭


    << <i>This analysis is based on the first four years of each player's career. >>



    Why not 10 years, since Pujols has played for 10 years?
  • Options
    pitbosspitboss Posts: 8,643 ✭✭✭
    It's almost impossible to compare. It is different era's with different bats and balls.

    Men are much better conditioned to day than 70 years ago.
  • Options
    PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    I agree with Saberman. I'd like to see apples compared to apples. OPS+ does this quite nicely, when put in the proper context. The league is much different in Pujols time than that of Joe and Ted. The stat that I see up there that is really the one that is amazing is Ted's .481 OBP for five years (which is about the same as his lifetime OBP of .482), 84 points better than Joe D. That basically means that Ted was on base every other time he came to the plate for his entire career. That is just absolutely ridiculous.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • Options
    halfcentmanhalfcentman Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I agree with Saberman. I'd like to see apples compared to apples. OPS+ does this quite nicely, when put in the proper context. The league is much different in Pujols time than that of Joe and Ted. The stat that I see up there that is really the one that is amazing is Ted's .481 OBP for five years (which is about the same as his lifetime OBP of .482), 84 points better than Joe D. That basically means that Ted was on base every other time he came to the plate for his entire career. That is just absolutely ridiculous. >>



    I am well aware of the OPS+, but I had this in a file, and I did not save that part. I just wanted to post this for a little fun.

    As a mathematician, I am more than aware of making era-to-era comparisons.
  • Options
    SabermanSaberman Posts: 677


    << <i>I agree with Saberman. I'd like to see apples compared to apples. OPS+ does this quite nicely, when put in the proper context. The league is much different in Pujols time than that of Joe and Ted. The stat that I see up there that is really the one that is amazing is Ted's .481 OBP for five years (which is about the same as his lifetime OBP of .482), 84 points better than Joe D. That basically means that Ted was on base every other time he came to the plate for his entire career. That is just absolutely ridiculous. >>




    Ted Williams kind of throws a wrench in that old baseball adage that 'baseball is a game of failure' image
    Are you sure about that five minutes!?
  • Options
    halfcentmanhalfcentman Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I agree with Saberman. I'd like to see apples compared to apples. OPS+ does this quite nicely, when put in the proper context. The league is much different in Pujols time than that of Joe and Ted. The stat that I see up there that is really the one that is amazing is Ted's .481 OBP for five years (which is about the same as his lifetime OBP of .482), 84 points better than Joe D. That basically means that Ted was on base every other time he came to the plate for his entire career. That is just absolutely ridiculous. >>



    OPS+ (first four seasons based on 162 games played average)

    Williams 190
    Pujols 167
    Joe DiMaggio 152



Sign In or Register to comment.