Baseball Auction Poll #1

BishopMVP · 02-20-2004, 05:19 PM

After a few rounds of bidding for the players, we have arrived at the final stage, where FOFC votes on which team is best. There are two polls here, with the top two teams from each advancing for one final poll. I will link to(sometimes extensive) summaries from everyone who sent them to me, and roundups for the other teams. If anyone wants their write-up changed, let me know and I’ll edit it. This is a discussion thread until Monday, when I’ll change it to a poll. Voting can be based on whatever criteria you want.

This division consists of:

Oykib - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...4&postcount=44

Chief Rum - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...8&postcount=37

Vince - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=379115&postcount=28

Maple Leafs - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...12&postcount=3

ntndeacon - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...6&postcount=36

Suicane75 - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...7&postcount=13

Booj - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...1&postcount=15
Sooner333 - http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...6&postcount=46

ISiddiqui · 02-20-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Voting can be based on whatever criteria you want.

How about just a straight poll on which team you think would win the most?

BishopMVP · 02-20-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How about just a straight poll on which team you think would win the most?

That's more along the lines of whether you judge based on single season or career play. And how much credit you give for Negro Leaguers/Japanese Players.

John Galt · 02-20-2004, 05:50 PM

My initial inclination is that oykib and Maple Leafs have the best rosters. I'm not as familiar with some teams pitchers and that could sway my opinion. It is also very hard to compare teams with strong offense/weak pitching with weak offense/strong pitching. It will be interesting to hear what other people think.

ISiddiqui · 02-20-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

That's more along the lines of whether you judge based on single season or career play. And how much credit you give for Negro Leaguers/Japanese Players.

Well, I'm sure some of us picked players for career play and others for their best season, and perhaps both catagories on the same team! So I think we should rely on the opinions of the voters, on which counts more (season or career).

oykib · 02-20-2004, 06:47 PM

I thought that it's best to consider the players best six seasons for the determination of how good he was. Take whichever season that you like and that gets weighted three times. The two adjacent seasons are weighted two times and the remaining three-- two before and one after or two after and one before-- are weighted as one season each. Then, of course, we divide the totals by ten. That includes games played.

That way we give more credit to a player who was consistent and durable. But we can't really demand that a player be great. We can't really go with one year wonders. Usually, those guys don't repeat because there performance was a fluke, or they just weren't durable. They certainly wouldn't put up those seasons if they were facing the caliber of competition in our league. As an example, take Brady Anderson's 1996 season. Do we really think that he could put up 50 homers against the pitcher's in our league? Here are the numbers:

Code:

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
1996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  369   6   4   1  22  11

Compare those to these numbers:

Code:

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
1996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  369   6   4   1  22  11
1996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  369   6   4   1  22  11
1996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  369   6   4   1  22  11
1997 33 BAL AL 151  590   97  170  39  7  18   73  18 12  84 105  .288  .393  .469  277   2   1   6  19   1
1997 33 BAL AL 151  590   97  170  39  7  18   73  18 12  84 105  .288  .393  .469  277   2   1   6  19   1
1995 31 BAL AL 143  554  108  145  33 10  16   64  26  7  87 111  .262  .371  .444  246   4   2   4  10   3
1995 31 BAL AL 143  554  108  145  33 10  16   64  26  7  87 111  .262  .371  .444  246   4   2   4  10   3
1998 34 BAL AL 133  479   84  113  28  3  18   51  21  7  75  78  .236  .356  .420  201   4   1   1  15   7
1999 35 BAL AL 150  564  109  159  28  5  24   81  36  7  96 105  .282  .404  .477  269   1   7   7  24   6
1994 30 BAL AL 111  453   78  119  25  5  12   48  31  1  57  75  .263  .356  .419  190   3   2   3  10   7

Adjusted peak season:
Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
94-9 32 BAL AL 143  552  102  154  34  6  27   78  24  8  80 101  .278  .382  .510  281   4   3   3  15   7

The adjusted peak numbers seem much more in line with what we expect from him. It's reasonable that he had a power surge. But the 50 homers were a fluke. His SLG that year was not even within 150 points of his next best number. I think the adjusted numbers better reflect his true abilities (more steals, more walks, fewer strikeouts, and not fifty homers).

But we didn't take the power surge away. He did hit a phenomenal number of homers in 1996. But it's something he wouldn't be likely to duplicate even if we put him in the exact same circumstances. It's why, even weighted as it is, his dinger total falls to about half of the 50 he put up in 1996.

It should be easy then to get an idea of where each Major leaguer rates. Of course there is still a subjective element for defense, era adjustment, and intangibles. But one of the benefits of the system above if that you have to assign an age to your player. It's fine if you want to have the "Pops" Willie Stargell from 1979, he was an MVP that year. But you are going to have to take his adjacent injury prone seasons and his bad defensive reputation along with his great leadership.

If we do his worksheet for games played, then you can only expect to have him for 97 games. If you take the younger more potent Stargell, you get better (amazing, actually) production without the veteran leadership. But no matter which age you take him, he's not going to play for more than a 135-140 games, because he was never that durable and only played as many as 140 games five times in a 21 year career-- and never played 150 games.

The same is true for every roster on the team. We could allow people to continue to add adjacent seasons for the players who were truly consistent for more years as long as they go with matched pairs of seasons that are earlier and later than the 'prime' season. Most players are going to be downgraded if we do that. But some players (the all-time greats) will improve.

I believe thats the best way to rate the Major Leauers. We can also use those seasons to determine OPS+ and ERA+ easily to determine the level of play as compared to competition. Those come in raw numbers and are very easily divisible.

For Negro Leaguers and Japanese players, we can just include a capsule of their bio and include a stat projection of them had they played in the majors during their era. Every Negro leaguer has MLB comparables, so the numbers should look somewhat similar to the comparable guys. We can set up a challenge system or something for the stat projections.

oykib · 02-21-2004, 07:41 AM

The only site I can find with projections is the Integrated Nines at: http://www.i9s.org/i9s.cfm

Their numbers seem pretty solid. They only have rankings for players that debuted up until about 1920 so far. So, that means we don't have a few stars like Satchel Paige, James Bell, and Josh Gibson. For them we'll have to make our own projections. The methodology they use is explained on the site. They scale results to the average league year of the contemporary Major leagues. It seems that the pitching in the Negro Leagues wasn't as good as the Majors, but that the hitters numbers are quite good for the best players.

oykib · 02-22-2004, 10:13 AM

I've got an excel sheet to do translations of peak stretch like the one I detailed above for both hitters and pitchers.

My position players by that method are:

Code:

Name	        Years	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	TB	HBP

Chipper Jones	1997-02	158	578	113	182	37	2	36	108	17	5	104	86	0.316	0.421	0.574	332	2

Max Bishop	1928-33	125	453	104	124	27	4	6	39	3	3	114	49	0.274	0.423	0.389	176	3

Tim Raines	1982-7	152	592	109	186	33	10	10	55	72	10	84	64	0.314	0.401	0.455	270	3

Barry Larkin	1993-8	124	452	87	138	27	5	16	62	33	5	68	49	0.305	0.399	0.492	222	3

Vlad Guerrero	1998-03	153	576	101	188	34	6	39	115	19	11	59	74	0.327	0.397	0.609	351	8

Eddie Murray	1982-7	156	576	98	174	30	2	29	109	6	2	88	79	0.302	0.396	0.514	296	2

Larry Doby	1948-53	140	497	99	147	25	5	24	89	7	5	92	86	0.296	0.411	0.511	254	5

Jim Edmonds	1998-03	139	475	97	142	32	1	30	92	6	4	82	130	0.299	0.407	0.559	266	5

Code:

Name	       Years	W	L	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	ERA	WHIP	K/9	BB/9	K:BB

Dazzy Vance	1925-30	17	12	33	29	3	21	2	1	250 1/3	229	95	82	11	63	173	2.94	1.16	6.22	2.25	2.77:1

Ron Guidry	1976-81	17	6	31	28	2	11	5	1	217	177	71	63	15	65	184	2.60	1.11	7.61	2.69	2.83:1

Robin Roberts	1950-55	24	13	43	39	3	29	4	2	329 2/3	299	116	105	29	58	169	2.86	1.08	4.62	1.58	2.92:1

Mike Mussina	1994-9	16	9	32	32	0	4	1	0	217 1/2	205	94	88	25	53	184	3.64	1.19	7.62	2.18	3.5:1

Sal Maglie '45,50-54	17	6	36	27	4	14	4	2	218 1/3	195	82	72	18	72	108	2.98	1.22	4.46	2.96	1.51:1

Mel Parnell	1948-53	19	9	38	31	5	18	3	2	244 2/3	234	103	88	12	104	100	3.25	1.38	3.67	3.81	.96:1

Harry Breecheen	1946-50	16	10	31	28	2	17	4	1	212 2/3	193	76	68	13	57	106	2.85	1.17	4.49	2.39	1.88:1

If anyone wants it, I can send it to you.
I used the same formula.
Then, I applied Jim Albright's Japanese League translation to get the stats for Nomura and Nagashima had played in the majors.

Runs:* 0.884 ______ Hits:* 0.904
2B:* 0.829_________3B* 2.149
HR:* 0.524_________RBI* 0.778
SO:* 1.017_________BB:* 1.148

Code:

Name	        Years	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	TB	HBP

Shigeo Nagashima 1959-64 143	502	78	153	27	19	15	71	21	9	96	43	0.304	0.418	0.522	262	3

Katsuya Nomura	1963-8	150	526	82	146	21	1	22	91	8	3	93	82	0.278	0.393	0.448	236	7

Right now I'm trying to come up with a method for the Negro
Leaguers who haven't yet been rated by Integrated Nines and
one for Japanese Pitchers.

These are the guys at I9s:

Code:

Name	        Years	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	TB	HBP

Oscar Charleston 1918-23 147	568	165	205	37	20	35	126	52	18	64	51	0.360	0.425	0.680	386	0

Louis Santop	1915-19	99	394	69	126	24	9	7	51	8	6	33	50	0.319	0.372	0.474	187	0

Bullet Rogan	1921-6	113	457	95	151	31	12	15	73	22	13	27	55	0.329	0.366	0.546	250	0

Name	        Years	W	L	G	GS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	ERA	WHIP	K/9	BB/9	K:BB	LG:ERA


Joe Williams	1915-20	23	14	40	38	340 1/3	278	74	69	5	74	226	1.83	1.03	5.97	1.96	3.05:1	2.92

Bullet Rogan	1921-6	18	15	39	34	315 2/3	310	140	132	6	95	136	3.78	1.28	3.88	2.71	1.43:1	4.11

02-20-2004, 05:50 PM	#4
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	My initial inclination is that oykib and Maple Leafs have the best rosters. I'm not as familiar with some teams pitchers and that could sway my opinion. It is also very hard to compare teams with strong offense/weak pitching with weak offense/strong pitching. It will be interesting to hear what other people think. __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

02-20-2004, 06:47 PM	#6
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	I thought that it's best to consider the players best six seasons for the determination of how good he was. Take whichever season that you like and that gets weighted three times. The two adjacent seasons are weighted two times and the remaining three-- two before and one after or two after and one before-- are weighted as one season each. Then, of course, we divide the totals by ten. That includes games played. That way we give more credit to a player who was consistent and durable. But we can't really demand that a player be great. We can't really go with one year wonders. Usually, those guys don't repeat because there performance was a fluke, or they just weren't durable. They certainly wouldn't put up those seasons if they were facing the caliber of competition in our league. As an example, take Brady Anderson's 1996 season. Do we really think that he could put up 50 homers against the pitcher's in our league? Here are the numbers: Code: Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP 1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 369 6 4 1 22 11 Compare those to these numbers: Code: Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP 1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 369 6 4 1 22 11 1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 369 6 4 1 22 11 1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 369 6 4 1 22 11 1997 33 BAL AL 151 590 97 170 39 7 18 73 18 12 84 105 .288 .393 .469 277 2 1 6 19 1 1997 33 BAL AL 151 590 97 170 39 7 18 73 18 12 84 105 .288 .393 .469 277 2 1 6 19 1 1995 31 BAL AL 143 554 108 145 33 10 16 64 26 7 87 111 .262 .371 .444 246 4 2 4 10 3 1995 31 BAL AL 143 554 108 145 33 10 16 64 26 7 87 111 .262 .371 .444 246 4 2 4 10 3 1998 34 BAL AL 133 479 84 113 28 3 18 51 21 7 75 78 .236 .356 .420 201 4 1 1 15 7 1999 35 BAL AL 150 564 109 159 28 5 24 81 36 7 96 105 .282 .404 .477 269 1 7 7 24 6 1994 30 BAL AL 111 453 78 119 25 5 12 48 31 1 57 75 .263 .356 .419 190 3 2 3 10 7 Adjusted peak season: Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP 94-9 32 BAL AL 143 552 102 154 34 6 27 78 24 8 80 101 .278 .382 .510 281 4 3 3 15 7 The adjusted peak numbers seem much more in line with what we expect from him. It's reasonable that he had a power surge. But the 50 homers were a fluke. His SLG that year was not even within 150 points of his next best number. I think the adjusted numbers better reflect his true abilities (more steals, more walks, fewer strikeouts, and not fifty homers). But we didn't take the power surge away. He did hit a phenomenal number of homers in 1996. But it's something he wouldn't be likely to duplicate even if we put him in the exact same circumstances. It's why, even weighted as it is, his dinger total falls to about half of the 50 he put up in 1996. It should be easy then to get an idea of where each Major leaguer rates. Of course there is still a subjective element for defense, era adjustment, and intangibles. But one of the benefits of the system above if that you have to assign an age to your player. It's fine if you want to have the "Pops" Willie Stargell from 1979, he was an MVP that year. But you are going to have to take his adjacent injury prone seasons and his bad defensive reputation along with his great leadership. If we do his worksheet for games played, then you can only expect to have him for 97 games. If you take the younger more potent Stargell, you get better (amazing, actually) production without the veteran leadership. But no matter which age you take him, he's not going to play for more than a 135-140 games, because he was never that durable and only played as many as 140 games five times in a 21 year career-- and never played 150 games. The same is true for every roster on the team. We could allow people to continue to add adjacent seasons for the players who were truly consistent for more years as long as they go with matched pairs of seasons that are earlier and later than the 'prime' season. Most players are going to be downgraded if we do that. But some players (the all-time greats) will improve. I believe thats the best way to rate the Major Leauers. We can also use those seasons to determine OPS+ and ERA+ easily to determine the level of play as compared to competition. Those come in raw numbers and are very easily divisible. For Negro Leaguers and Japanese players, we can just include a capsule of their bio and include a stat projection of them had they played in the majors during their era. Every Negro leaguer has MLB comparables, so the numbers should look somewhat similar to the comparable guys. We can set up a challenge system or something for the stat projections. Last edited by oykib : 02-24-2004 at 08:36 AM.

02-21-2004, 07:41 AM	#7
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	The only site I can find with projections is the Integrated Nines at: http://www.i9s.org/i9s.cfm Their numbers seem pretty solid. They only have rankings for players that debuted up until about 1920 so far. So, that means we don't have a few stars like Satchel Paige, James Bell, and Josh Gibson. For them we'll have to make our own projections. The methodology they use is explained on the site. They scale results to the average league year of the contemporary Major leagues. It seems that the pitching in the Negro Leagues wasn't as good as the Majors, but that the hitters numbers are quite good for the best players.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)