White Outfielders and Hall of Fame Don't Mix

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

one thing obviously influencing those numbers is that murphy played every game from 1982-1985.

So then, do you think we should reward him for that, or penalize him for it?

A percentage point is the equivalent of sustaining that level for about 9 games. Even if he'd missed 9 games each of those years, he'd still have six entries on the list, including one in the top five, and another in the top 25. But the fact remains that he didn't miss those games. He was on the field and in the lineup, and contributing to his teams.

Also, there are quite a few on this list that have close to 160 games in a season, or around 150 for the old days, so Murphy wasn't unique in this aspect. I don't think it really gives him an unfair advantage.

[AutomatedTeller]

Since Yaz was inducted in 1989, a total of 4 OF have been elected to the HOF by the Baseball Writers, out of 28 total elected, which seems reasonable.

None of the 4 were white, unless you count Yount.

In total, 9 of the 28 were not white (Carew, Morgan, Jackson, Winfield, Gwynn, Perez, Murray, Smith, Puckett)

I don't think there's a lot to any of that, other than that's how things broke out.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by Triad

So then, do you think we should reward him for that, or penalize him for it?

A percentage point is the equivalent of sustaining that level for about 9 games. Even if he'd missed 9 games each of those years, he'd still have six entries on the list, including one in the top five, and another in the top 25. But the fact remains that he didn't miss those games. He was on the field and in the lineup, and contributing to his teams.

Also, there are quite a few on this list that have close to 160 games in a season, or around 150 for the old days, so Murphy wasn't unique in this aspect. I don't think it really gives him an unfair advantage.

i'm just not sure what skill we're measuring here. scoring runs is a function of getting on base, baserunning, and the ability of the players hitting behind you (or hitting hr's yourself) to drive you in. if murphy shows no superior ability to get on base, and has zero control over the players hitting behind him, his ability to score runs on low scoring teams is what? his baserunning is a huge differentiator? he had the ability to forecast clutch hits of his teammates? why should i care how many runs murphy scored in relation to the team? what is it telling me?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by Triad

So then, do you think we should reward him for that, or penalize him for it?

A percentage point is the equivalent of sustaining that level for about 9 games. Even if he'd missed 9 games each of those years, he'd still have six entries on the list, including one in the top five, and another in the top 25. But the fact remains that he didn't miss those games. He was on the field and in the lineup, and contributing to his teams.

Also, there are quite a few on this list that have close to 160 games in a season, or around 150 for the old days, so Murphy wasn't unique in this aspect. I don't think it really gives him an unfair advantage.

i'm just not sure what skill we're measuring here. scoring runs is a function of getting on base, baserunning, and the ability of the players hitting behind you (or hitting hr's yourself) to drive you in. if murphy shows no superior ability to get on base, and has zero control over the players hitting behind him, his ability to score runs on low scoring teams is what? his baserunning is a huge differentiator? he had the ability to forecast clutch hits of his teammates? why should i care how many runs murphy scored in relation to the team? what is it telling me?

[WilsonC]

The real issue here is that correlation doesn't equal causation. Intuitively, a player could rate well in these metrics for the following reasons:
- He plays in a lot of games
- He's a good hitter relative to his teammates
- He bats in the 3-4 spots in the batting order
- His lineup could be constructed in a way that he happens to get a lot of opportunities

It does suggest value - a durable player who's the best hitter on his team is usually a good player, but it doesn't really say much about the degree. Team quality and opportunity are an obvious factor here. Also, it assumes a zero-level replacement, which naturally overvalues durability. I'd be curious to see how this list would correlate to a "percentage of team games batting third or fouth" metric, too.

The other thing is that it double-counts HR. A solo HR adds a R and an RBI, but is one run, not two. This will naturally overrate power hitters and underrate leadoff-types.

It seems to me like all this is really doing is taking something oversimplified that contains a lot of statistical noise and trying to find meaning out of it. There may be value achieveable by something like this, but in order for it to tell us anything, it needs to be based on opportunities, rather than assumptions. If you were to take all PA with each runners-on/outs combination and determine how well a player capitalizes on those situations, it may tell you something about an ability. As a flat, unadjusted number, however, it's a very loose metric that doesn't tell much aside from the fact that a player was a middle-of-the-order hitter.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

i'm just not sure what skill we're measuring here. scoring runs is a function of getting on base, baserunning, and the ability of the players hitting behind you (or hitting hr's yourself) to drive you in. if murphy shows no superior ability to get on base, and has zero control over the players hitting behind him, his ability to score runs on low scoring teams is what? his baserunning is a huge differentiator? he had the ability to forecast clutch hits of his teammates?

We're measuring the bottom line of offense, which is to score and drive in runs. Whereas OPS measures getting on base, the context of scoring and driving in takes it a step further and tells you what happens after that.

Originally Posted by kflo

why should i care how many runs murphy scored in relation to the team? what is it telling me?

It puts his production in the context of the team he was on, and tells us how much influence he had on the team's overall scoring — how much he was contributing to the team's success, a la Win Shares.

Baserunning involves stealing, getting a good lead, taking the extra base on a hit, breaking up double plays, not getting caught in no-man's land, advancing on fly ball outs, utilizing the hit and run, playing the percentages of different situations. It's more than speed. Paul Molitor is probably the poster child for this.

Driving in runners involves getting them home by hitting the ball somewhere where they can advance, whether it be by a ground ball, a fly ball, or hit. It involves capitalizing on situations.


[quote=WilsonCThe real issue here is that correlation doesn't equal causation. Intuitively, a player could rate well in these metrics for the following reasons:
- He plays in a lot of games[/QUOTE]
The average number of games for those with at least 14%:

Pre-1961: 149
1961-2006: 155

Meaning, in a 154-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 144 games as there were at 154, and in a 162-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 148 games as there were at 162. This is not all that unusual of a distribution in terms of the players who were the most valuable. A player who misses 15-20 games in a season generally hasn't been as vaulable to his team as those who missed fewer games.

(I also removed the shortened seasons from the totals)

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- He's a good hitter relative to his teammates

Intuitively, yes. However, show me any pattern of this from the listed data. Of all those at 14% or higher, their teams on average were actually 6% above the league scoring average. (the last column)

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- He bats in the 3-4 spots in the batting order

That's where almost all the best offensive players are in the order. Why should we be surprised that this is where they are? They are there by design. I would venture to say not too many ineffective batters spend several years as the number 3 or 4 hitter in the lineup.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- His lineup could be constructed in a way that he happens to get a lot of opportunities

What scenarios are you envisioning? A lineup that has more high-quality batters within two spots before him and after him, or what? How would this skew the data?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

It does suggest value - a durable player who's the best hitter on his team is usually a good player, but it doesn't really say much about the degree. Team quality and opportunity are an obvious factor here.

The team quality factor appears to be basically random. Opportunity is a function of a player's spot in the lineup, which spot is the product of that player's ability. Naturally, number 4 batters on the whole are going to produce more for their teams than number 7 batters. They're expected to produce more. That's why they're batting where they are.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Also, it assumes a zero-level replacement, which naturally overvalues durability.

This can be adjusted for. I don't think it's going to change most percentages more than a percentage point.

As for replacement, often a team has to replace a player with a substandard player, thus hurting the team in his absence. And then whatever role that player was filling before would have to be filled in by someone else, etc.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

The other thing is that it double-counts HR. A solo HR adds a R and an RBI, but is one run, not two.

We're not measuring raw runs, but instead we're measuring runs produced. A home run is a run produced unaided by other players on the team, whereas a general run relies somewhat on other players, and a general RBI relies somewhat on other players.

R = 0.5
RBI = 0.5
HR = 1.0

Originally Posted by WilsonC

This will naturally overrate power hitters and underrate leadoff-types.

Which power hitters on the list does it overrate, and which leadoff-types does it underrate?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

In order for it to tell us anything, it needs to be based on opportunities, rather than assumptions. If you were to take all PA with each runners-on/outs combination and determine how well a player capitalizes on those situations, it may tell you something about an ability.

In my mind, that takes us further away from the truth. I have very little faith that opportunities can be effectively quantified, because they introduce more undefined variables.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

As a flat, unadjusted number, however, it's a very loose metric that doesn't tell much aside from the fact that a player was a middle-of-the-order hitter.

If it were as random as you make it sound, we wouldn't see some of the same players up near the top over and over. And they're typically the players you would expect to be near the top of the list. It's much more than a function of their place in the lineup.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being the best hitter on a team. You get pitched around. When relievers come in it's often focused on the best hitter coming up in the next few spots, so if he bats left-handed, then it's a left-handed pitcher, etc.

Overall, do you think this metric undervalues anyone among those you would consider the top ten CF? Does it overvalue anyone in your opinion other than Murphy?

[kflo]

take paul molitor as an example.

in 1993, molitor scored 121 of his teams 847 runs (14.3%), compared to murphy in 1985, who scored 118 of 632 (18.7%).

molitor has an edge in obp (.402 to .388), rc (136 to 131), sb (22 to 10), pa (725 to 712). to what do we attribute murphy's significant advantage in runs scored as a % of total team runs?

[kflo]

that said, i'm certainly all for park and era / league adjustments. some of that is reflected in team runs. but alot isn't as well.

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by Triad

The average number of games for those with at least 14%:

Pre-1961: 149
1961-2006: 155

Meaning, in a 154-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 144 games as there were at 154, and in a 162-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 148 games as there were at 162. This is not all that unusual of a distribution in terms of the players who were the most valuable. A player who misses 15-20 games in a season generally hasn't been as vaulable to his team as those who missed fewer games.

(I also removed the shortened seasons from the totals)

That's nonetheless a high total for games per season. A player should get credit for durability, absolutely - but a percentage metric should never try to account for durability in conjunction with performance unless it includes a replacement level baseline.

Originally Posted by Triad

Intuitively, yes. However, show me any pattern of this from the listed data. Of all those at 14% or higher, their teams on average were actually 6% above the league scoring average. (the last column)

You can be a big fish in a little pond, or you can be a huge fish in a medium sized pond and get the same results. As a simple example, take the following two teams, listed by runs created per lineup spot:

Team 1
50
50
100
100
50
50
50
30
30

Team 2
75
75
150
150
75
75
75
45
45

The first team scores 510 runs, the second scores 765. Both teams have two guys responsible for about 20% of the team's runs each, and both teams are exactly balanced in terms of production per lineup spot. Based on this metric, these two teams are balanced with each other offensively - up and down the lineup, each lineup spot has exactly the same percentage. A corrolory of this is that your metric would show these two teams to be equal offensively, an absurd conclusion, assuming the teams are playing under similar conditions. The problem is that every team, be it historically good or historically bad offensively, will always have a sum of 100%. If we could judge a player based on his percentage here, and if we sum the net worth of the players on every team in history, we would reach the conclusion that every team in history is exactly equal offensively! It breaks down badly when we analyse it.

As far as the teams being above average offensively - all of these guys are good hitters, they make their teams better. Some, like Mays and Cobb, towered so far above almost every other hitter of their time that they'd rate well regardless of most variables, and could make an average hitting team a fair bit better.

Originally Posted by Triad

That's where almost all the best offensive players are in the order. Why should we be surprised that this is where they are? They are there by design. I would venture to say not too many ineffective batters spend several years as the number 3 or 4 hitter in the lineup.

Causation versus correlation. A player is placed in those spots because he is one of the best hitters on his team; but his hitting in those spots does not make him a better hitter. Somebody has to be the best hitter on each team, and that person will have a higher rating in this method. Nobody's suggesting that Murphy was inneffective - he was a very fine player and in most years, probably the right choice for his lineup spot. That doesn't tell a whole lot about historical ranks, though.

Originally Posted by Triad

What scenarios are you envisioning? A lineup that has more high-quality batters within two spots before him and after him, or what? How would this skew the data?

As a guess, I'd think a balanced lineup of unbalanced skillsets - for example, two leadoff archtypes followed by a complete hitter with power followed by a couple free-swingers with power, with a mediocre bottom of the lineup. That's a pure guess, but I'd estimate this is the ideal lineup for the number 3 hitter to rate well.

Originally Posted by Triad

The team quality factor appears to be basically random. Opportunity is a function of a player's spot in the lineup, which spot is the product of that player's ability. Naturally, number 4 batters on the whole are going to produce more for their teams than number 7 batters. They're expected to produce more. That's why they're batting where they are.

The position's always team dependant. Somebody must hit in the 4 spot on every team, and only one person can do so at a given time. Murphy, as well as everyone on the list, was a fine hitter - good enough to bat in the heart of the order. So are some guys who bat 5th or 6th. There won't be many bad hitters on a list like this, but it's also not a very true ordering.

Originally Posted by Triad

This can be adjusted for. I don't think it's going to change most percentages more than a percentage point.

As for replacement, often a team has to replace a player with a substandard player, thus hurting the team in his absence. And then whatever role that player was filling before would have to be filled in by someone else, etc.

That doesn't sound like much, but each percentage point seems to be relatively significant here, as far as ordering on the list. There's no question that durability is useful and that the replacement player is generally quite a bit weaker, but they're quite a bit higher than zero. Even a fringe replacement type, prorated over a full season, tends to have somewhere in the 40-60 R and 40-60 RBI range, or about half of what the starter would usually have.

Originally Posted by Triad

We're not measuring raw runs, but instead we're measuring runs produced. A home run is a run produced unaided by other players on the team, whereas a general run relies somewhat on other players, and a general RBI relies somewhat on other players.

R = 0.5
RBI = 0.5
HR = 1.0

Why not use a more robust measure like R/C, then?

Originally Posted by Triad

Which power hitters on the list does it overrate, and which leadoff-types does it underrate?

Well, guys like Dawson and Wilson are rated well above guys like Ashburn and Wheat here, which I find questionable.

Originally Posted by Triad

In my mind, that takes us further away from the truth. I have very little faith that opportunities can be effectively quantified, because they introduce more undefined variables.

When we're dealing with stats that are highly opportunity dependant, the only way to make them useful is to consider them in relation to opportunities. RBI's are obviously very highly dependant on opportunity. How can it take us farther from the truth to evaluate opportunity?

Originally Posted by Triad

If it were as random as you make it sound, we wouldn't see some of the same players up near the top over and over. And they're typically the players you would expect to be near the top of the list. It's much more than a function of their place in the lineup.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being the best hitter on a team. You get pitched around. When relievers come in it's often focused on the best hitter coming up in the next few spots, so if he bats left-handed, then it's a left-handed pitcher, etc.

Overall, do you think this metric undervalues anyone among those you would consider the top ten CF? Does it overvalue anyone in your opinion other than Murphy?

Do the following statements sound accurate:
Speaker = Murcer = Wilson = Wynn = Averill
Wilson > Snider
Murphy > Griffey
Murphy = Mantle

The accuracy of those statements reflects the accuracy of this metric. If a metic puts Murcer above Snider or on the same level as Speaker, I don't think it's something we can put a lot of faith in. Great players will tend to rate well, and bad players won't, but the actual order between guys who were good-to-great is unreliable on that list, and it doesn't really give any value to anyone who wasn't a power hitter.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

in 1993, molitor scored 121 of his teams 847 runs (14.3%), compared to murphy in 1985, who scored 118 of 632 (18.7%).

molitor has an edge in obp (.402 to .388), rc (136 to 131), sb (22 to 10), pa (725 to 712). to what do we attribute murphy's significant advantage in runs scored as a % of total team runs?

I would include RBI in the mix, but for the sake of this argument, their RBI totals were both 111.

We know that a player's runs are partially due to the influence of the rest of the lineup behind him, and player RBI's are partially due to the influence of the rest of the lineup in front of him, so we should expect that if Molitor and Murphy had the same effectiveness, then Molitor would have more R + RBI than Murphy.

What we can attribute it to could be several factors which are likely hidden. Molitor could have not advanced the extra base as often, or perhaps he was thrown out on the bases a few more times, and then for RBI, he didn't come through in as many opportune situations. There are lots of variables which would need to be explored. Molitor could have been lifted for a pinch-runner occasionally. Maybe this wouldn't apply to him specifically, but it could apply to other players. Or some players could come out of the game for a defensive replacement. This wouldn't apply to Molitor while he was a DH though.

At any rate, if we see a pattern over several seasons where Murphy was very effective at this, as were several other players, then we can't ascribe it to happenstance.

Other factors to consider:

1993 AL
4.71 R/G

1985 NL
4.07 R/G

Molitor had 22 HR, and Murphy had 37.

Murphy advanced around the bases and drove in runners at a similar rate to Molitor despite being on an offense that scored fewer runs.

Both of them batted third a majority of the time. Molitor was put in the #6 slot for about one-fifth of the season, so he was deemed less important to the team offense for that time.