(Perhaps) the 182 Most Valuable Seasons By Royals Starting Pitchers: A Second Look In a Series of Probably Around 68; or, the Return of the Son of Fun with Google Spreadsheets
I might as well revisit this now, especially in light of Zack Greinke's amazing start. A little historical perspective never hurt anyone.
In my early days as a seat-filler at Driveline Mechanics, I was learning MySQL basics (thanks to Colin Wyers' series at Statistically Speaking) and in an effort to get people here to read my stuff, would occasionally post "supplementary" pieces on the Royals there to get people to read the explanations over there. One product of this was my anticlimactic (for me, anyway) posting of a list of (Perhaps) the 20 Most Valuable Single Season Performances by Royals Starting Pitchers, which used a simple, but fairly accurate version of WAR (Wins Above Replacement) in conjunction with averaging a pitchers FIP and ERA to get RAR and WAR.
Then I was the student. Now I am the master (of boring posts no one cares about... don't worry, I'll come up with Stay in the Bullpen: Chuck and the 2009 Royals when I have time). Read on for the details of my latest wanna-be-sabermetric venture into Royals' history.
So it doesn't get lost in the mess:
HERE IS THE FULL LIST OF RANKINGS, 1-182.
Skip-able Biographical Background
I'll try to avoid going too much into technical details. I use Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as my "unit" of comparison. For a brief introduction to different ways of evaluating pitchers, the meaning and use of "replacement level," and more, check out my earlier Thoughts on PItcher Value, which gets at the basic concepts. More developed concepts on using Pythagorean winnings estimates and stuff can be found in this extension on pitcher value, which were then developed further and then used in conjunction with projection systems to rank the MLB starting rotations by WAR.
I've wanted to get back to doing the history stuff for fun, but while I know how to crudely apply park factors, couldn't get a "big" or "complete" set that was easily importable into MySQL (although TucsonRoyal did help me out, I was too lazy to alter the tables -- thanks, TR, it's no me). In the course of another project involving park adjustments for woBA/linear weights, I got a complete set of 5-year park factors for 1871-2008 from terpsfan, who is also awesome. Not only will that help with my upcoming posts on offense at Driveline, but I realized I could use them for this sort of stuff, so away we go.
Boring Methodology Stuff Worth At Least Skimming
Here is the list. Maybe before or after looking, you should read the following to make sense out of what these numbers mean. Again, reading my earlier Driveline posts linked above will also help, and although I'm willing to try to answer any questions (or other) you have on how I came up with these numbers, the answers you're looking for might be found there. Other stuff that helped me out can be found in my list of links for aspring nerdlings.
- FIP: I decided to use FIP over ERA or RA for reasons Gopherballs goes into here. Note that my numbers don't exactly match those at sites like FanGraphs or The Hardball Times for various reasons -- people use slightly different formulae for FIP in terms of dealing with IBBs, HBPs, "scaling" to lgERA/RA, IPs, etc. So don't worry, it's OK. Note that FIP sometimes isn't as harsh to horrible pitchers (or their horrible seasons) as you'd expect since it assumes a basic competence on balls in play, etc. That's not a problem at the top of the list, which is my main focus, but since for fun I included 182 seasons (see below), you might wonder why certain pitchers did as "well" as they did. I know that FIP has its limits relative to RA, but in general I think it's better than RA. I actually have the BaseRuns SQLs all setup and tested, but I'm not quite comfortable with everything there yet, so, yeah, another version of this might be coming soon. Contain the excitement.
- Scaling: While the listed FIP is the usual scaled-to-ERA version, in calculating value, I scaled to RA, which is a more accurate way of judge pitcher value relative to position players, etc., just as RA is better than ERA (other than the fact the "earned run" rule is stupid). To avoid clutter, I don't have that column in the spreadsheet table, just a familiar ERA-scaled FIP.
- Park Adjustments: I park-adjusted the FIP scaled to RA using terpsfans 5-year park factors (similar to Patriot's).
- Win%: This is probably the most way to judge the pitchers "rate" of performance against the league average of the season, e.g., a 4.00 FIP is much more impressive in the 1998 AL than in the 1980 NL. In the same way that we can use the Pythagorean process we use to get a team's expected winninh percentage, we can do it with pitchers using his RA (or FIP-RA, in this case) as "runs allowed" and the league average RA to see what the pitchers "support neutral" winning percentage would be against an average pitcher and offense. I use the more accurate PythagenPat.
- RAR: Runs (saved) Above Replacement. Remember that replacement level is rate of performance over replacement times playing time. Replacement level winning percentage for starting pitchers, at least in the modern era, is set by Tom Tango at .380. To adjust for the relative difficulty of the AL and NL over the past two decades or so, we set replacement level at .370 for the AL and .390 for the NL. But when comparing different eras of the Royals, what is fair, since we aren't comparing different leagues, but eras, and value relative to era rather than "how would this guy fare if he pitched today" or whatever? I finally settled on .370 for 1991 on, and .380 for previous seasons. This is not the most precise way of doing it (one should really adjust replacement level specifically be league and decade, but I'm not there yet).
- WAR: This is the big one, since this is how I ranked the seasons. Why WAR instead of RAR? First, across history, a runs created/saved aren't equal. Each run is more valuable in a low run-scoring environment than in a high one. This is accounted for in both position player and pitcher WAR calculations. However, pitchers (especially starters) have an effect on their own run environment -- so, as others (like Rally and FanGraphs and more) do, I use a dynamic run-to-win conversion to account for the fact that, e.g., pitchers like Pedro 1999, Greinke 2008, and Lima 2005 dramatically effect the value of each run scored/prevented when they are pitching.
- Keep in mind that this is about value relative to season, not "ability," which is much more nebulous. So, yeah, pitchers who were allowed to pitch 250+ innings had more opportunities to be valuable than most pitchers today. That's the way it is. When you pithc more innings, of course, your performance in each inning is effected, etc. Keep in mind that I've done things with replacement level, run-to-win conversion, and win% estimates to adapt to the lower/higher run environments. I think this is a fair list. Keep in mind that despite all my efforts, something like RAR/WAR isn't that precise. Rounding to two decimal places is something I went back-and-forth, as it gives a illusion of precision, but I finally went with it just to get a decent sort of all the seasons around 4.3/4.4.
- TucsonRoyal posted career numbers from Rally's awesome site recently. This should not be taken as "better" than Rally's numbers or in competition with him in any way. He uses RA and adjusts for the quality of defense and whatnot, which is awesome, and probably more accurate in a way, but I wanted to do my own thing here, and don't have his capabilities. And I'm a Royals fan, so you know that I'm unbiased.
- I used the awesome free database from Baseball Databank. As far as I know, while it does give number of games started and games played for each pitcher, it doesn't say how many innings of each are in starting and relieving roles, and in some cases (some of Tom Gordon's seasons in the 1990s, other players in the 1970s) this makes a difference, since the value of being slightly above average in terms of FIP is much different for starters and relievers. To get around this, I arbitrarily set my minimum games started at 8, and used a minimum porportion of games started to overall appearances. Yes, it's arbitrary, and I'm know some relief appearanecs slipped in there, but it should make a huge difference. If you don't like it, well, then there's not much I can do about it. I know that sabermetrics isn't a popularity contest; I just want people to like me.
Some Quick Looks
Here is that spreadsheet again. I hope people will find this interesting enough to find their own stuff to talk about. For reference, here what I came up with for the top 10 seasons by WAR for Royals starters:
| Rnk | Name | Year | GS | IP | FIP | Win% | RAR | WAR |
| 1 | Dennis Leonard | 1977 | 37 | 292.7 | 2.84 | .652 | .79.6 | 8.85 |
| 2 | Bret Saberhagen | 1989 | 35 | 262.3 | 2.56 | .664 | 74.5 | 8.58 |
| 3 | Kevin Appier | 1993 | 34 | 238.7 | 2.98 | .665 | 70.3 | 7.57 |
| 4 | Steve Busby | 1974 | 38 | 292.3 | 2.90 | .559 | 64.1 | 7.41 |
| 5 | Mark Gubicza | 1989 | 36 | 255.0 | 2.80 | .631 | 64.1 | 7.23 |
| 6 | Mark Gubicza | 1988 | 35 | 269.7 | 3.04 | .610 | 62.1 | 6.90 |
| 7 | Bret Saberhagen | 1985 | 32 | 235.3 | 3.01 | .631 | 59.2 | 6.43 |
| 8 | Bret Saberhagen | 1988 | 35 | 260.7 | 3.16 | .594 | 55.7 | 6.13 |
| 9 | Kevin Appier | 1992 | 30 | 208.3 | 3.00 | .623 | 52.8 | 5.92 |
| 10 | Kevin Appier | 1996 | 32 | 211.3 | 3.53 | .650 | 59.1 | 5.72 |
For comparison's sake, here are some other (somewhat random) Royals seasons of interest:
| Rnk | Name | Year | GS | IP | FIP | Win% | RAR | WAR |
| 26 | Bud Black | 1984 | 35 | 257.0 | 3.62 | .539 | 41.0 | 4.33 |
| 27 | Gil Meche |
2008 | 34 | 210.3 | 3.69 | .570 | 42.1 | 4.32 |
| 32 | Zack Greinke |
2008 | 32 | 202.3 | 3.66 | .574 | 41.2 | 4.24 |
| 48 | Jose Rosado |
1999 | 33 | 208.0 | 4.51 | .550 | 37.4 | 3.49 |
| 68 | Darrell May |
2003 | 32 | 210.0 | 4.77 | .508 | 29.0 | 2.80 |
| 79 | Paul Splittorff |
1980 | 33 | 204.0 | 4.05 | .497 | 23.8 | 2.43 |
| 133 | Mark Redman | 2006 | 29 | 167.0 | 5.10 | .449 | 13.2 | 1.24 |
| 150 | Mike Wood |
2004 | 17 | 100.0 | 5.16 | .449 | 7.9 | .73 |
I'm not sure I'm ready to post my "greatest pitching seasons of all time" stuff yet, but for more perspective, here are some great post-1990 seasons from anyone, the ten best followed a few others chosen at random.
| Name | Team | Year | IP | GS | FIP | Win% | RAR | WAR |
| Pedro Martinez | BOS | 1999 | 213.3 | 29 | 1.52 | .880 | 108.7 | 12.2 |
| Roger Clemens | TOR | 1997 | 264.0 | 34 | 2.36 | .756 | 101.8 | 11.3 |
| Randy Johnson | ARI | 2001 | 249.7 | 34 | 2.17 | .783 | 98.1 | 11.3 |
| Randy Johnson | ARI | 2004 | 245.7 | 35 | 2.31 | .765 | 92.2 | 10.5 |
| Curt Schilling | ARI | 2002 | 259.3 | 35 | 2.42 | .734 | 89.2 | 10.4 |
| Randy Johnson | SEA | 1995 | 214.3 | 30 | 2.18 | .791 | 90.2 | 9.8 |
| Pedro Martinez | BOS | 2000 | 217.0 | 29 | 2.33 | .793 | 91.7 | 9.8 |
| Randy Johnson | ARI | 1999 | 271.7 | 35 | 2.76 | .719 | 89.4 | 9.7 |
| Randy Johnson | ARI | 2000 | 248.7 | 35 | 2.54 | .751 | 89.7 | 9.6 |
| Kevin Brown | SDN | 1998 | 257.0 | 35 | 2.20 | .720 | 84.8 | 9.6 |
| Greg Maddux | ATL | 1997 | 232.7 | 33 | 2.41 | .714 | 75.4 | 8.5 |
| Mark Prior | CHN | 2003 | 211.3 | 30 | 2.46 | .721 | 69.9 | 7.9 |
| Tim Lincecum | SFN | 2008 | 227.0 | 33 | 2.68 | .696 | 69.5 | 7.7 |
| Roy Halladay | TOR | 2008 | 246.0 | 33 | 3.10 | .645 | 67.6 | 7.3 |
| Cliff Lee | CLE | 2008 | 223.3 | 31 | 2.93 | .659 | 64.6 | 7.0 |
I've never really liked Johnson or Schilling. Or Clemens, for that matter, so that was fun... remember that this last list is only from 1991 on.
Well, there's another post that's 10 times as long as I wanted it to be. I hope someone finds it interesting.
5 recs |
32 comments
Comments
Where are the Wins -- this data is just useless
At least include Girt
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on May 8, 2009 2:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, no list of Royal pitching is complete without Scot Elertan(sp?) or Darrell May
get it together DF
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on May 8, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sounds like some needs to scroll further down
and check May’s 2003 — maybe he’s still available “just in case” Kyle Davies isn’t the ace we all envisioned two weeks ago.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Elarton was the best, he has the 2 biggest numbers number to his name 181 and 182
DF, you need to resort so he is back on top and people don’t have to scroll down to see his greatness.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on May 8, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am amazed...
that All-Star Mark Redman had a season deemed “of interest”. Great post as usual.
by djk royal on May 8, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks
Remember, everyone, the full list is here.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff as usual. Rec'd.
Rest assured that all the time you spend slaving over your spreadsheets in Mrs. Fingers’ basement is time well-spent. Be sure to get her something nice for Mothers’ Day.
Although I still only have a very basic understanding of all this fancy-pants figurin’, posts like this definitely help a great deal in my self-education process.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 8, 2009 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff
rec’d
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on May 8, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
anyone else as unhappy as I am that Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling were, indeed, awesome?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe about Schilling
But Johnson was pretty damn awesome.
by AxDxMx on May 8, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone considered 1988 a "down year" for Sabes
Remember the odd/even year split he had? Well 1988 was pretty darn good for him.
Ape was just awesome in 1993. In fact, he was pretty awesome for much of the 90s.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 8, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure he's probably as sleazy as every other pro athelte
but I have a soft spot for Appier
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bagged his groceries once when I was in HS
So I can testify he is a worldclass human being and we should deify him.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 8, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paper or plastic?
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 8, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
anyone amazed that Chad Durbin is still pitching?
by royalsreview on May 8, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not really have what Muser did to him that summer
Muser was the straight up abusive what he did to pitchers. Even though I didn’t like Buddy Bell, I just kept say, “He is not Muser, he is not Muser.”
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on May 8, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post
You could make a serious argument that Randy Johnson was the best pitcher of his era.
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
by Juancho on May 8, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If I do the math right
If Zack breaks the Royals season record, he will have earned his entire contract value this year…
We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
-Bob Dylan
by Royal Kingdom on May 8, 2009 5:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depending on the $ value of WAR one uses, that is correct
Everyone estimates the $ value of WAR a little differently and this year’s down market makes it a little more difficult. It seems like at the moment most value WAR at $4M-4.5M. I think Fangraphs is going by something around $4.5M. If so, Greinke’s theoretical 9.0 WAR would be worth a whopping $40.5M, greater than his contract value of $38M. Wow.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on May 8, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, this was going to be a post of mine next week -- to see if he might be able to do it
Keep in mind that the first two years of his contract are arb years, so the “real” value of the contract is more like $45M. So he needs about 10 WAR. I was going to point out how infrequently that happens. 5 times in the last ~20 years.
But hey, it’s possible.
I suppose if he only gets 80% of the value this season, we’ll live. Probably Baird’s fault.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind that the first two years of his contract are arb years, so the "real" value of the contract is more like $45M.
I’m not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean if you adjust the arb years of the contract by the arbitration discount? Therefore, bumping the 60% and 80% to 100% for those two years? It is the “real” value in that way. But it is not the real value in terms of dollars the Royals are actually spending. And I’m more interested in comparing WAR value to actual dollar value than some unreal adjusted dollar value.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on May 9, 2009 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just did it the same way other people generally analyze a contract that includes both arb and FA years, as in this example.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 9, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good work as always, but here's some constructive criticism
You’ve been doing this for a while now. It’s time to lose the, “I’m going to do it this way, but you know, it’s just me, and there are other people, and they might say to do it this way, and those are good too, but if you’re still reading, then let’s go with this way, because I think it’s best.”
You do good stuff. Just go with it. It’s impossible to read when you do 1,000 words of apology to show a table or two of data. It’s good to explain what you’re doing, but keep it short and sweet so people can actually read it. And if you can’t get the methodology done in a paragraph or less, put the results and analysis up top.
by kcdc1 on May 8, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I like the discussion of methodology
…and where it fits with other work. And there’s nothing wrong with stating up front that this isn’t the only way to evaluate the variable in question. And many on this site have shown an interest in learning more about advanced stats, and the description of methodology helps with that. Anyway, in the title of the methodology section, he even suggests skimming it if you don’t want to read it. It’s easy to skip down to the data and results if that is what you want to do. And I would never put the results before the methodology.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on May 8, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
I’ve actually had some other people mention this to me recently, and have been thinking similar things myself.
My problem is that I don’t want to present stuff like a “black box” where it just looks like numbers I came up with — I want to let people know that they can reconstruct the results themselves. I should probably shorten up those sections and just let people ask if they’re curious.
I do like letting people know that there are other ways of doing it because, well, there are other ways of doing it, and I think that’s part of how any “science” progresses, etc. But you’re right that I shouldn’t let it get in the way of concision.
I appreciate the comments and suggestions.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't help but notice Number 49
Billy Butler.
The 2009 Official You Got Rocked by the Royals and Sent to the Minors List
1. Josh Rupe TEX April 17
2. David Purcey TOR May 1
3. Brian Burres TOR May 1
4. Bryan Bullington TOR May 1
by 306008 on May 8, 2009 7:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he's already the greatest 1B defender in franchise history
maybe he should be the one in the rotation, and not Soria.
Or maybe move Soria into the rotation and make Billy the closer.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 8, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes when doing a great project like this
You get too caught up in your #‘s and methodology to realize something must be wrong.
I was around for Leo’s 77 season and Sabe’s 89, and while they are both great seasons, there is no doubt at all that Saberhagen’s was better.
Yes, I realize that the league ERA was higher in ’89. Yes I know that Leonard pitched 30.1 more innings. It is not enough to make up for difference.
Era+: Saberhagen 180, Leonard 134
Neutralized ERA: Saberhagen 2.51, Leonard 3.29
Deserved ERA (A caveat- this is my own formula, as I felt others who meant to do the same thing left some analysis on the table) Saberhagen 2.37, Leonard 2.98
By my calculations, the “replacement player” to make up the 30.1 inning difference would have to give up 30 runs in those innings for Saberhagen to fall behind Leonard.
Is it safe?
by KHAZAD on May 18, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the note
There are legit differences in results one can get from different metholody. If you look at my earlier list, I do have Saberhagen’s , and if you haven’t, it’s worth reading to get a sense of why I came up with what I did. I do think Saberhagen’s season was likely better using other stats, and when I re-do this using BsR-FIP, I think that will become apparent.
This wasn’t a long-term project. I have a SQL that I wrote with bdb, and these are the rankings I came up with, presented with that qualification.
A few specifics
- remember that I didn’t use ERA or RA, but FIP scaled to RA
- If you’re using B-R’s numbers, their park factors will be different than the ones from terpsfan that I use. I’m not an expert on Park factors, but I feel pretty comfortable saying terpsfans are different. I don’t nkow if that makes that big of a difference in this case.
- I’d love to see your formula for deserved ERA/RA. I know that Rally does something similar using his defensive metric TotalZone, andhe does have Saberhagen’s ‘89 as vastly superior to Leonard’s ’77. I try to acknowledge those differences above.
- It would be interesting to see your precise WAR calculations for these players. Where do you set replacemement level?
- How and where do you set replacement level? At a certain neutral pythag win%, or a certain percentage of lgERA/lgRA?
- Do you account for how a pitcher effects his own run environment, and the run-win conversion? If so, how?
I’m not sure where the specific differences between us lie, but it might be interesting to find out.
Thanks.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 18, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am really an amateur
When it comes to these things. I must admit I have never really liked WAR. It seems that everyone uses a different metric to decide where “replacement level” is. I did notice that the closest pitcher to that level in your study was the 2007 Kyle Davies.
As far as my deserved ERA, it is not, to me, anything mind blowing. I have just always thought that FIP, Component ERA, and other things like it live in the dark ages. In an time when any moron like me can look up what hitters did against a pitcher in every plate appearance, most pitching metrics act like they cannot get at this data at all. I just simply use the data available, and look at many things from the perspective of offensive statistics as well as pitching stats. Add in a little park factor and defense, (Not as much as some. As far as I can tell quantifying defense is still in the rough early stages-fire and the wheel have been invented, but we are still living in caves. Park factor can sometimes be over emphasized- it is a factor, but it is just a piece.)
I still appreciate your work and was not in any way trying to denigrate it. I have enjoyed your pieces comparing different seasons, and some of your attempts to quantify defense as well. I just thought that in this one case you have to look at the results and say “wait a minute!”
I have always thought that instead of WAR, they should have a value over /under what an average player that played the same amount would do. It could be stated in wins, but there would be + players and -players. Throughout the league the sum would be 0. (or really close, the interleague might mess it up.) A 100 win team would end up close to +19, a 62 win team would be close to -19.
I of course am not quite smart enough to do this, but you might be. It would be easy to read with a definable center.
Is it safe?
by KHAZAD on May 18, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just a couple quick notes
this post is going to fall off the front page pretty soon…
I do think there are some metrics out there that adjust for strength of opposing hitters — Maybe BP’s SNLVA? It isn’t that hard to do. I know that some saberists adjust hitter lwts for the run environment created by opposing pitchers/defenses, so surely some do it th eother way. I’m just curious as to how you do it. .. especially the defense, since you say it’s important on one hand, but on the other then denigrate it. NO biggie. Although I don’t adjust for individual hitters, various aspects of what I’m doing to account for the particular run environemnt of the season.
As for replacement level — for the most part switching to average wouldn’t effect my rankings at all. Replacement level is always derived from league average. The only issue is that I use a .370 replacement level from 1991 on for the , and .380 pre-1991 for both leagues to account for the AL’s superior talent post 1990 or so. If I set it at .500, the WAA would be different, but account fo rth esame th ing.
Most importantly — we’re all amateurs at this, for the most part, and I appreciate the exchange. I’m doing hitters soon, then I’ll come back to pitchers using a different method.
If you haven’t, you should really check out Rally’s pages.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on May 19, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs



















