Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

A Study of the Barrel Constructions of Baseball Bats (June 9, 2003)

Posted 6:10 p.m., June 9, 2003 (#1) - Steve Rohde
  If it is accurate that a corked bat will tend to increase bat speed by 1%, what are the implications for how much further the ball would travel if hit by a corked bat. Is it a 1% increase, or is the relationship more complicated than that?

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 8:51 p.m., October 23, 2003 (#15) - Steve Rohde
  Although most of Messier's greatest years were with Edmonton, he did also have a number of great years in New York, including, among others, one of his MVP's(1991-1992) and another year (1993-1994) when he led the Rangers to the Stanley Cup. Messier is probably the most beloved player in New York Rangers history, so I think it is reasonable to count Messier in the NY column (as well as Edmonton).

Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier were all very great players, but I don't think any of them has a plausible case to be considered all time top 10 in basketball. And Erving played only 3 years for the New York Nets. So I think New York comes up a bit short in basketball.

San Francisco does great on this measure for baseball and football (Bonds, Mays, Montana, Rice), but it may be a stretch to count Chamberlain for basketball. He may be the greatest basketball player ever, but he only played 3 years in SF. If that qualifies, then you could count Tarkenton (5 years) in New York, although New York has Taylor for football already, so it doesn't need Tarkenton to make the list for football.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 1:32 a.m., October 24, 2003 (#18) - Steve Rohde
  RossCW,

You list 19 players as candidates for the top 10 in baseball, but failed to list the Giants' current left fielder, who is already in 8th place in career win shares (behind only Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Aaron, Mays, Young, and Speaker), and will likely pass Speaker, Young, Mays and Aaron in career win shares next year and Wagner in 2005, and currently is 4th in career win shares per 162 games, barely behind Williams and Cobb, and only significantly trailing Ruth.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 9:40 a.m., October 24, 2003 (#20) - Steve Rohde
  My top 10 for hockey, looking primarily at career value, currently would be:

Wayne Gretzky
Gordie Howe
Mark Messier
Ray Bourque
Patrick Roy
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Orr
Jean Beliveau
Maurice Richard
Phil Esposito

Lemieux and Orr can easily be ranked above everybody but possibly Gretzky and Howe if primary focus is given to peak value, and if Lemieux plays another couple of years he could be in the top 3 also on career value.

Because of the diminished importance of the regular season in hockey, I think a greater degree of consideration should be given to post season performance, in ranking hockey players, compared to say, ranking baseball players. This is one of the reasons I have Messier and Roy rated so highly, because both of them dramatically lifted their games in post season play.

I don't see how one can have a top 10 for football without Dan Marino being on the list.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 11:40 a.m., October 24, 2003 (#24) - Steve Rohde
  tango,

I would agree that Hasek had a higher peak value than Roy. But Roy's magnificent career value, combined with his tremendous post season performance, especially in 1986 and 1993 when his dominance lifted an otherwise fairly ordinary Montreal team to the Stanley Cup, makes me comfortable rating him as one of the top 5 players in history.

I don't think I am a closet Espo fan. I do think he is hard to rate. His dominance while with Boston is out of character with his excellent but not dominant play with Chicago and New York, but he had an incredible 7 year performance with Boston from 1968-1969 through 1974-75 that is hard to ignore. Dionne was great, and certainly a good case can be made for him, but his career numbers are inflated compared to Espo's to some degree because Dionne didn't play in the lower scoring 60's and he had a number of years in the high scoring 80's.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 9:56 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#41) - Steve Rohde
  What a night for Mark Messier. Two goals, 1851 career points, surpassing Gordie Howe for number 2 all time in NHL history. And he is only 1,006 points behind Gretzky.

Golf - player of the year (November 10, 2003)

Posted 9:36 p.m., November 10, 2003 (#4) - Steve Rohde
  I am not certain, but I believe that the scoring average used for Vardon Trophy determination already makes some adjustment for average scores in tournaments. Also, Woods was more selective in which tournaments he played in, but he played in all of the most important tournaments which would tend to have the best fields, and in general those tournaments tend to be played on the tougher courses.

Neither player won a major. Given Woods' greater number of total wins and his substantially better scoring average, I would think that he deserves the edge, although this is the first time in years that it has even been close.

Golf - player of the year (November 10, 2003)

Posted 9:44 p.m., November 10, 2003 (#5) - Steve Rohde
  While there is some similarity between Woods vs. Singh and Bonds vs. Pujols, one difference is that the idea of measuring against replacement level per se is of questionable relevance in the golf palyher of the year race. Replacement level has a clear rationale in a team sport when you are measuring contributions of two players in helping their teams win games, but it is not clear what the relevant analogy would be in an individual sport.

Golf - player of the year (November 10, 2003)

Posted 7:45 p.m., December 9, 2003 (#8) - Steve Rohde
  It was announced yesterday that Woods did win player of the year, for the 5th year in a row.

Baseball Player Values (November 22, 2003)

Posted 5:31 a.m., November 23, 2003 (#4) - Steve Rohde
  This is very interesting stuff. I think it is pretty clear that he didn't make any adjustments for park factors, otherwise, for example Helton's 2000 season, good as it was, wouldn't be so out of sight.

It would seem that to calculate these values more accurately, the best approach might be to come up with some methodology to generate separate win expectancy tables for each park (which might also take into account the differences in the League). If you did that, Bonds career total through 2002, of 88.147 offensive wins above average, would increase substantially.

I have long thought that an approach such as this was a good way to evaluate the impact of relievers, because it takes into account the extent to which they are being used in high leverage situations. In this connection, the high career totals of Gossage and Hoffman are particulary interesting.

Of course, for pitchers, this approach doesn't take into account the impact of a team's fielding in helping a hurting a pitcher's wins contribution, but nevertheless the data are quite interesting. I am a little surpised that Maddux has career totals significantly better than Clemens by this measure, and that Clemens is not as far ahead of Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez for a career total as I would expect.

Baseball Player Values (November 22, 2003)

Posted 12:08 p.m., November 23, 2003 (#7) - Steve Rohde
  My point about Helton's 2000 was not that it is impossible that Helton could rank first even if park factors were considered, but that I think it is pretty obvious that park factors were not considered in this system, and I was using Helton's 2000 season number as a clear indicator of that. Looking at the data provided, Helton's contribution of 9.370 wins above average for 2000 ranks as the third highest offensive score any player in any season from 1972-2002, behind only Bonds' scores in 2001 (11.278) and 2002 (10.040). The only logical explanation for this is that the effect of Coors has not been considered.

In 2000, Helton had an OPS+ of 158 and an EQA of .348, with both of these measures of course taking park factors into account. Bonds in 2000 had an OPS+ of 191 and an EQA of .362. Yet on this new version of win probability added, Helton in 2000 scores 9.370 wins above average compared to 5.519 for Bonds. Helton did play more games than
Bonds in 2000 (160 compared to 143), but that difference wouldn't create this kind of discrepancy.

Another example-- In 1997, Mike Piazza, playing only one less game than Larry Walker, had a higher OPS+ and a higher EQA than Walker. But Walker played in an extreme hitters park whereas Piazza played in an extreme pitchers park (Dodger stadium). As a result, according to the measure, Walker contibuted 7.746 offensive wins sbove average to lead the majors, whereas Piazza didn't make the top 5, and thus Piazza contributed less than the 5.856 above average attributed to the number 5 man (Bagwell). Failure to take park factors into account appears to be the only logical explanation for this discrepancy bewteen Walker and Piazza.

The developer of this sytem, Ed Oswalt, in his explanation, doesn't mention park factors, but instead describes an approach which appears to use just one table for any given year.

I think Ed Oswalt has done some fine work here, but I agree with tango's point about the importance of considering park factors. I also agree with tango's point that if you assume all fielders are League average than the pitcher numbers are a reasonable reflection of their contribution. However, I don't think that we can necessarily assume that the impact of fielders will even out over a pitchers career.

Baseball Player Values (November 22, 2003)

Posted 11:38 a.m., November 28, 2003 (#18) - Steve Rohde
  I think Ed Oswalt's work here is exciting, but clearly, as this thread suggests, some refinements in approach are needed. Park effects, of course, are important. But another interesting factor is the impact of the League. Oswalt has a separate win expectancy table for each season (and I understand Tango's questions about his methodology for that). But from Oswalt's description it seems clear that he uses the same table for both Leagues in any given year. However, because of the DH, the American League consistently has a higher run scoring environment than the National League, and in many years the impact of that difference between Leagues is substantially greater than the typical park effect. Taking the difference in Leagues into account would narrow the difference in Oswalt's results between Clemens and Maddux. And if what we are seeking to measure is value, taking the difference in Leagues into account is also important for hitters, and would increase, for example, Bonds' numbers. It might also eliminate Brett's advantage over Schmidt.

With the unbalanced schedule, there is also the issue of different
win expectancies based on differential quality of opposition. This all gets quite complex, and I am not sure what is feasible and desirable to address at this time.

I will be looking forward to Tango's book, to see how he addresses the various complexities.

Baseball Player Values (November 22, 2003)

Posted 1:57 p.m., November 30, 2003 (#21) - Steve Rohde
  Tango,

In your post # 20, you omitted reference to the big 4 of Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Martinez. I guess it is so obvious that these are future Hall of Famers that you didn't even think to include them on the list.

Baseball Player Values (November 22, 2003)

Posted 3:00 p.m., November 30, 2003 (#23) - Steve Rohde
  I am somewhat surprised that Blyleven didn't come out better on Oswalt's list than he did, finishing with a win contribution only 24.018 above average. Nevertheless, I do think it should be kept in mind that Oswalt's methodology understates Blyleven's career performance in several ways. First, because his data started with 1972, Blyleven gets no credit for his first two years in the majors, when he combined for 442.3 innings with an ERA+ in excess of his career ERA+. Moreover, Blyleven not only spent the great bulk of his career pitching his home games in hitters parks, he also spent most of his career in the higher run scoring environment of the DH League. Accounting for Blyleven's first two years and adjusting for park effects and League would move Blyleven measurably up the chart.

The Problem With "Total Clutch" Hitting Statistics (December 1, 2003)

Posted 11:23 a.m., December 1, 2003 (#2) - Steve Rohde
  I do not agree that the fact that the win probability approach dates all the way back to Mills, and the fact that OPS correlates well with Oswalt's results turned into a rate statistic, in any way creates a "problem". I don't know anyone suggesting that this is a totally new approach, although the expanded availability of play by play data makes this approach easier to use.

Also, the fact that OPS correlates well with Oswalt's results, or better yet that OBP and slugging weighted more approriatrely correlates well with those results, tends to confirm that OBP and slugging used together are good quick and dirty measures of value. But that doesn't create a problem in attempting to get more information through the win probability approach.

By the r squared results reported, more than 10% of the variation in Oswalt's results remains unaccounted for by OPS, and more approprately weighting OBP and slugging still leaves more than 6% unaccounted for. To the extent that an offensive player over the years has tended to perform well in the clutch, this would explain part of that unaccounted for variation. So it is added knowledge.

In addition, the win added probability method would appear to have a lot of potential in measuring differences in value added by relief pitchers, where the manager has a lot of discretion in deciding whether a pitcher gets used in high leverage situations. For example, relief pitchers under a win probability approach get a lot more credit by protecting a one run lead than a 3 run lead. Moreover, if a save is blown, it makes a great deal of difference whether the relief pitcher has simply allowed the tying run to score, or whether he has allowed the tying and winning runs to score.

There are some issues that need to be addressed to make the win probabilty approach more useful, including for example, coming up with an appropriate methodology to adjust for park effects, and to take into accounts the different run scoring environments between the two Leagues. But I beleive that continued development of the win probability approach is an exciting area of onging study.

The Problem With "Total Clutch" Hitting Statistics (December 1, 2003)

Posted 2:22 p.m., December 1, 2003 (#13) - Steve Rohde
  Tango,

I agree with the thrust of your post # 12. I would add that the win probablity approach has a certain elegance, and in some sense puts into numbers the way fans and baseball people generally view the unfolding of a game, so that showing that Linear Weights highly correlates with it can potentially serve to help validate approaches such as Linear Weights.

The Problem With "Total Clutch" Hitting Statistics (December 1, 2003)

Posted 2:25 p.m., December 1, 2003 (#14) - Steve Rohde
  When developing a regression equation to realte OBP and slugging average to a win probablity rate, clearly there are some things in the "unaccounted for" percentage other than clutch hitting. For example, variables involving base stealing, grounding into double plays, a baserunner taking the extra base, and not striking out can have impact contributing to winning, and would not be directly reflected in OBP or slugging average. My point was however, to the extent clutch hitting occurs, this would also be part of of that unaccounted for percentage.

In addition, I think it is important to point out that the question of the extent to which players can repeat good clutch performance from year to year is a separate question from whether they hit well in the clutch in a particular year, (or even, on balance, over their careers). For example, in 2003 Barry Bonds had 3 walkoff homers and other walkoff hits which no doubt did directly result in actual wins, and added to Bonds' value, and the win probability approach explicitly takes that into account.

Another example is Will Clark vs. Kevin Mitchell in 1989. Both had great years, but Mitchell had a better combination of OBP and slugging average. However I always thought that while Mitchell won the MVP that year with Clark second, that that the order should have been reversed, in part because Clark seemed to always be coming up with big clutch hits that year. And now, in my opinion, Oswalt's numbers provide strong comfirmation that Clark was more valuable than Mitchell in 1989. With Oswalt's methodology, Clark contributed 7.668 wins above average in 1989, to 6.255 for Mitchell.

The Problem With "Total Clutch" Hitting Statistics (December 1, 2003)

Posted 3:23 p.m., December 1, 2003 (#18) - Steve Rohde
  Tango,

I think we are largely in agreement. And I agree that it is not whetehr the ability exists, but whetehr we have reliable methods to detect it.

Clearly clutch performance from year to year is unpredictable.

But that doesn't mean that clutch ability doesn't exist, but that it is harder to detect whether a player's run of good years in clutch performance is truly an ability or just a run of good luck. Perhaps there are a relatively small percentage of players that do truly have a clutch ability. And I think it is also clearly true that different kinds of abilities can be subject to different levels of year to year variation.

Barry Bonds' generally poor playoff performances prior to 2002, is of particular intertest, however, because in other measures of clutch performance, he generally has performed very well. For example, in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, which came out before 2002, Bill James does a comparison between Bonds and Joe Carter on a number of measures of clutch performance over their careers, and gave a clear edge to Bonds, as having lifted his game in clutch situations more than Carter. One thing that has always struck me about Bonds was that he consistently has lifted his game during the September stretch runs of tight pennant races.

With respect to Bonds' playoff performances before 2002, this certainly could be explained as a random result of small sample size. But I think it is also possible that after his intial failure, which might have been random, Bonds for whatever reason did let the presuure get to him to some extent. But I agree that there is no way to really tell.

Hockey Summary Project (December 1, 2003)

Posted 11:34 p.m., January 9, 2004 (#6) - Steve Rohde
  Brian Boucher recorded his 5th consecutive shutout tonight.

Unbelievable.

Do Win Shares undervalue pitching? (December 15, 2003)

Posted 10:50 a.m., December 16, 2003 (#13) - Steve Rohde
  One question I have had, when thinking about replacement level, is whether the replacement level for position players should vary depending on the position a player is playing. I agree with the notion that we shouldn't think of position players as having seaparate replacement levels for their offense and their defense -- logically it seems to make more sense to think of a replacement level for the overall package of offense and defense. However, in the win shares system, it seems clear that as a practical matter, playing certain positions provides the opportunity to accumulate more defensive win shares than in playing other positions. At the extreme, being a DH provides no opportunity to accumulate defensive win shares. So instead of concluding, for example, that the replacement level for position players is something like 8 win shares and the replacement level for a pitcher is something like 4 shares, maybe the overall replacement level for a postion player should vary to some degree based on the position he is playing.

A method for determining the probability that a given team was the true best team in some particular year (January 6, 2004)

Posted 3:05 p.m., January 7, 2004 (#15) - Steve Rohde
  One problem that I think would make an accurate analysis of the problem more complicated than is presented is that any team that begins the playoffs is generally not really the same team that started the season. There are almost always in-season trades, minor league call-ups, and injuries. For example, with the trading that occurs around the trading deadline, it has become institutionalized for teams in contention to attempt to impove themselves in the short run. So when you ask the question, who was really the best team, what does that mean -- the best team when.

Under the current system, a team needs to be good enough to make the playoffs, and especially must strive to be the best team as of the beginning of the post season. Moreover, as has already been noted, there are differences in what makes the best team in the post season as opposed to the regular saeason - for example having a good 5th starter is irrelevant in the post season.

A method for determining the probability that a given team was the true best team in some particular year (January 6, 2004)

Posted 3:19 p.m., January 7, 2004 (#16) - Steve Rohde
  Here is another complication. Some years ago, I can't remember when but it may have come from Bill James, I remember seeing a study that suggested that even teams playing identical schedules could have significatly different effective schedule strengths, because of random fluctuations in which opposing starters they faced. There are not necessarily enough games in a season to effectively even out those chance variations.

A method for determining the probability that a given team was the true best team in some particular year (January 6, 2004)

Posted 11:22 p.m., January 9, 2004 (#24) - Steve Rohde (homepage)
  As it turns out, the Bill James study that I referred to in post #16 comes from the 1986 abstract. Rob Neyer refers to it in his column today. (Click on homepage.)