Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice elected to Hall of Fame

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Olerud should be in the HOF.

You probably think Ed Sprague and Juan Guzman should be in too .

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Logan

You probably think Ed Sprague and Juan Guzman should be in too .

I never much liked Sprague. But Guzman, sure!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

I'll take a stab at this...times have changed. More money in the game means more guys want a piece of the pie and whether that means guys are working harder to make themselves better (legally or otherwise) or better athletes are taking an interest in the sport instead of say, joining the military or playing another sport. Also, with more money comes more responsibility in terms of training (players take much better care of their bodies than they used to and that will continue as new research continues to show how to get more out of the human body for longer) and also being more responsible off the field. Long gone are the days of smoking and drinking before, during, and after a game.

Another big factor has to be the influx of foreign talent, primarily from Latin America. Add to that the effect of expansion and you have more teams, more good players, and therefore more guys on the leaderboards.

Simply stated, today's athletes are "professional" athletes and look at it more like a job because of the money involved and because it's a lucrative business, there are more guys willing to do whatever it takes to make it. That's not to say that Ted Williams wasn't a professional, but he was the exception, not the rule.

I'll buy this as true, but would it have an affect on OPS+ as time goes on? Wouldn't pitchers be "improving" at roughly the same rate as hitters?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On the other hand, that's only 20% of the total and baseball, being around for over 100 years (or something like 90 since the end of the dead ball era), you may expect that.

In the Top 20, for example, only 3 are active players, and one is Barry Bonds, who it is arguably is still active. The other is Frank Thomas, who may be retiring soon enough. And in the Top 30, the only addition among active players is Manny Ramirez (in a 4 way tie for 22nd).

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There are more active players down the list, but remember a lot of them are in their early 30s, which means as they go on with their careers, their skills will diminish (though these days with modern training, it may be less pronounced than earlier eras) and they will fall back. For example, I don't expect Travis Hafner to stay at 61st (currently with an OPS+ of 142 at 31 years of age).

Your last point is definitely a good one, one that I didn't appreciate. It will be more instructive to look at recently retired "steroid era" hitters in a few years than active ones.

[JPhillips]

George Foster for HOF!

[larrymcg421]

I will support any criteria that will get Dale Murphy in, no matter how crazy it needs to be.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?

Perception and length of career.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'll buy this as true, but would it have an affect on OPS+ as time goes on? Wouldn't pitchers be "improving" at roughly the same rate as hitters?

Well, I guess with the "improvements" players have been trying to make over the years...legal or otherwise...maybe batters have figured out how to increase their advantage. So, the question is, in our era, has steroids helped batters more than pitchers? IMO, yes, it has.

Also, I think with OPS becoming so popular over the last couple of decades batters have started to shift their mindset to swing for the fences and not worry about striking out. Striking out used to be frowned upon and and a hit was a hit. Meanwhile, a pitcher's focus has never really shifted from trying to get the batter out. I mean, that's the main objective, right? If you have good stuff you try to strike out as many guys as possible or else you do your best to make sure they don't hit the ball hard...that's been the mantra for every pitcher, ever.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?
---
Your last point is definitely a good one, one that I didn't appreciate. It will be more instructive to look at recently retired "steroid era" hitters in a few years than active ones.

As I said, I don't think the percentages are all that out of wack, when especially, with modern training, you have players playing longer. Bonds is listed as active (though he may not be, and in previous eras he'd have retired already), someone like Frank Thomas probably would have retired a few seasons ago, Jason Giambi and Jim Thome would be ready to hang 'em up, Piazza is already retired, and someone with as many injuries as Griffey has had would have been gone a while ago in an earlier age.

In addition, currently, 100th rank OPS+ is 136. I would be very interested to see how many players played themselves out of being above that number by their end years (George Brett and Al Kaline, who just missed, most definitely).

Of course the most interesting thing is, if there are a greater % of great OPS+ hitters in this generation than ones past, it may tell us the prevalence of steroid use. Because, after all, OPS+ adjusts for era factors. It may indicate that only a few used steroids and those were the players that had high OPS+ numbers. Or better training for the super-stars may explain it (instead of an injury making them far less of a player, it can be healed to make them good as new... imagine Griffey, Jr.'s career in the 50s, without access to modern medicine or training methods).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Also, I think with OPS becoming so popular over the last couple of decades batters have started to shift their mindset to swing for the fences and not worry about striking out. Striking out used to be frowned upon and and a hit was a hit.

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

Half of OPS is not OBP. More like 1/3 of it for many hitters. Your OPS going up more is well worth the risk of striking out more if you bump up your slugging percentage more.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know of many hitters who have a .300 OBP and and a .600 SLG (which would be more 1/3rd).

Maybe more like 4/10ths, but it's close to half.

Regardless, I don't think hitters are looking to bump up their OPS and that's why they are swinging for the fences.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't know of many hitters who have a .300 OBP and and a .600 SLG (which would be more 1/3rd).

Maybe more like 4/10ths, but it's close to half.

Regardless, I don't think hitters are looking to bump up their OPS and that's why they are swinging for the fences.

I was talking more about the top players. Last season it looks to be around 40-45%.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Half of OPS is OBP... striking out doesn't help that number. Players swing for the fences more often because of BIG $$$$$ and that $$$$ is tied to HRs. The favored place of the HR ("chicks dig the longball") is the reason more players try to swing for the fences rather than simply try to get a hit and get on base.

Hitting a slow roller to 2B and grounding into a DP doesn't do anybody any good either and that's why I'd rather the K everytime.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

But this leads to the point I was trying to make, which is why is "the middle" so fat? Using the players I mentioned, Jim Rice is generally thought to be one of the top hitters of his era. I don't think this is being argued. However, his career OPS+ is roughly equivalent to Ryan Klesko and Tim Salmon, who managed to scrounge up one All-Star appearance between them. What is the disconnect here?

Did some research and found an interesting article last year by Buster Olney on this. I think it's Insider, though.

Buster Olney Blog - ESPN

Highlights:

And if you think that Adjusted OPS+ is a set of numbers that generally creates a level statistical playing field for all of the eras of baseball, then you'd have to ignore the following. Of the top 63 players all time in OPS+, there are:

• Nineteen players who performed the bulk of their careers in the years leading up to 1920.
• Eight players who performed the bulk of their careers in the years from 1920-1939.
• Seventeen players who have performed the bulk of their careers from 1990-2007.
• And a total of 17 players from the 50-year period of 1940-89

To repeat: According to Adjusted OPS+, there are an equal number of players, among the top 63 of all time in the statistic, in the 50-year period of 1940 to 1989 as there have been in the 18-year period from 1990 through 2007.

Part of the reason, of course, is there are more teams now. But part of the reason is that in years in which there is less offense, generally, it is more difficult to create a plus/minus disparity in this statistic. From 1940-1989, there were a total of 11 league leaders with Adjusted OPS+ numbers of 200 or higher; there wasn't a single Adjusted OPS+ leader of 200 or higher from 1981-1991. Since 1992, there have been eight leaders of Adjusted OPS+ of 200 or more in the NL alone, and nine overall.

Let's go one step further. In the 16 seasons since the start of the 1992 season, there have been only three instances in which an Adjusted OPS+ league leader registered less than 171. But in the 50 years prior to that, there were 42 instances in which a league leader was at 170 or lower. If you don't think that Adjusted OPS+ is a statistic that skews toward the elite players of the Steroid Era, well, then that's your story and you're sticking to it.

Either the players today are much more awesome than they've been in the past, or OPS+ is not that great across eras.

[Subby]

The problem with the Rice arguments is that the pro-induction folks are using non-quantifiable metrics. "Most feared hitter of his era" and "best power hitter of his era" and whatever else folks come up with tend to work great as soundbites, but when you dig a little deeper they don't hold a lot of water.

Then when these arguments are harpooned, you get the standard litany of comebacks - "stat nerd!" or "douchebagery (sic)" or whatever else. There is no credible argument for Jim Rice's inclusion in the Hall of Fame that includes how he performed over his ENTIRE career. None. You get a cherry-picked data set of five years and that's it. And name-calling.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Did some research and found an interesting article last year by Buster Olney on this. I think it's Insider, though.

Buster Olney Blog - ESPN

Highlights:[/list]Either the players today are much more awesome than they've been in the past, or OPS+ is not that great across eras.

SOME players are much more awesome compared to the field. If everyone was much more awesome, you wouldn't have high OPS+ numbers, since it is relative to the field.

And I think Olney makes the golden point right in his article. There are more teams today and the increase in expansion means that a lot of players who would be in the minors otherwise are in the major leagues. Which means the best players are competing against an average value that may be lower than it otherwise would be.

Second, why "Top 63"? Who makes a cut off at that point?

Thirdly, I've always thought Buster Olney was a bit of dolt regarding statistical analysis. This paragraph in the article (at least as much as I can see since I'm not an "Insider") seems to confirm it:

So if I understand the argument from some e-mailers: If you criticize Rice's candidacy by relying on Adjusted OPS+, through which Rice fares badly, that's analysis. But if you support Rice's candidacy citing home runs and RBI, then it's cherry-picking.

Mostly because it appears he doesn't realize that Adjusted OPS+ is normalized for park and era factors and HRs and RBIs aren't, and RBI is HIGHLY dependant on what the rest of your team does. Using RBI is just a bit silly knowing what we know about the statistic (ie, penalizing someone for low RBI totals when everything else is high is basically penalizing the player for having bad teammates).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Thanks for continuing with this Siddiqui. I'm actually agnostic on Rice in the HOF, but am intrigued by this OPS stuff. So if modern day OPS+ is inflated due to expansion, is there any utility in comparing OPS+ across eras? I see this done all the time.

[Subby]

**This space saved for when Andre Dawson gets into the Hall of Fame ahead of Raines**

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Thanks for continuing with this Siddiqui. I'm actually agnostic on Rice in the HOF, but am intrigued by this OPS stuff. So if modern day OPS+ is inflated due to expansion, is there any utility in comparing OPS+ across eras? I see this done all the time.

All OPS+ is basically OPS adjusted to era and park effects. So it isn't really comparing across eras, its comparing how much better were you than your peers. You can use it to compare across eras by saying this player isn't much better than the average player in his time than that player was.

Of course, though, the corrollary to expansion, now that I think about it, is there is a far bigger pool to draw from. Not just black players, but far more Latinos and now Asian players are coming into the majors. So one must control for that as well.

The problem is that all you can really do is compare players in the era they are from. You can't really judge how Babe Ruth would have done if the Negro Leagues were abolished and all the black players were allowed in the Majors. So the only way to really judge across the eras would be to measure how much better than the mean of their era was a player.