Making History & Breaking Hearts

[Wolf Hopper]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20040209.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[KCBOOMER]

I am a big fan of OWP and like to use it in conjunction with RCAA and OPS versus the league to evaluate a player's offensive. What I am not a fan of is "number of consecutive seasons" in evaluating players. I find this to be arbitrary and frequently applied in such a way to make a player look better than he is.

As an example, the big hubbub that some folks make out of Greg Maddux breaking Cy Young's record of 15 straight 15 win seasons. The problem, of course, was the arbitrary choice of 15. You pick 15 and Maddux has 16 of them while Young only has 15. On the other hand you pick 18 and Young still has 15, but Maddux drops to 4. Okay, go to 16 then and Young still has 15 consecutive seasons and Maddux has 7. And having done all that you really haven't addressed the salient issues of how good are these guys.

And the same thing applies to this list. The arbitrary nature of 502 PA's is every bit as much a measure of a player staying healthy as it is his quality. Drop your PA's to 400 (that's a pretty good player who probably was injured) and I suspect the list will change a little bit, maybe even a lot.

[Elmo]

I am a big fan of OWP and like to use it in conjunction with RCAA and OPS versus the league to evaluate a player's offensive. What I am not a fan of is "number of consecutive seasons" in evaluating players. I find this to be arbitrary and frequently applied in such a way to make a player look better than he is.

As an example, the big hubbub that some folks make out of Greg Maddux breaking Cy Young's record of 15 straight 15 win seasons. The problem, of course, was the arbitrary choice of 15. You pick 15 and Maddux has 16 of them while Young only has 15. On the other hand you pick 18 and Young still has 15, but Maddux drops to 4. Okay, go to 16 then and Young still has 15 consecutive seasons and Maddux has 7. And having done all that you really haven't addressed the salient issues of how good are these guys.


The joy of 'slicing' - the bane of statistical analysis.....

[Wolf Hopper]

I am a big fan of OWP and like to use it in conjunction with RCAA and OPS versus the league to evaluate a player's offensive. What I am not a fan of is "number of consecutive seasons" in evaluating players.

Is there a better way to measure/mark consistency than consecutive seasons?

[Wolf Hopper]

The arbitrary nature of 502 PA's is every bit as much a measure of a player staying healthy as it is his quality. Drop your PA's to 400 (that's a pretty good player who probably was injured) and I suspect the list will change a little bit, maybe even a lot.

MLB uses 502 PA for Batting Titles, etc. It's 3.1 PA x 162 games. It's a baseball standard, not arbitrary.

[sweaver]

Time to give some props to Hammerin' Hank.....

[Wolf Hopper]

Time to give some props to Hammerin' Hank..... Agreed, his 18 years in a row may just be an unbreakable record.

[gyb13]

so the babe wasn't consistently excellent?

[nyy26wc]

MLB uses 502 PA for Batting Titles, etc. It's 3.1 PA x 162 games. It's a baseball standard, not arbitrary.

As a general matter, yes.

In your specific case, it is arbitrary.

Let's look at Ruth's 1922 season. He had a .796 OWP in 495 PA. Under the 3.1 PA rule, that season counts. Under your 502 PA standard, it doesn't count.

You could use the "qualification" option in the streaks area. But, just remember, that option only works when it's a percentage stat, like OWP. If it's not a percentage stat, then you can choose "qualfication" as much as you want and, each time, the SBE will ignore it.

[Wolf Hopper]

Thanks Lee! FWIW, using the "Qualifer" doesn't change all that much in this case, no? See below, using the Q:


T1 Mel Ott 1928-45 18
T1 Hank Aaron 1955-72 18
T3 Willie Mays 1954-66 13
T3 Frank Robinson 1959-71 13
T5 Dan Brouthers 1881-92 12
T5 Lou Gehrig 1926-37 12
T7 Roger Connor 1882-92 11
T7 Honus Wagner 1899-09 11
T7 Stan Musial 1948-58 11
T7 Mickey Mantle 1952-62 11
T11 Billy Hamilton 1889-98 10
T11 Tris Speaker 1909-18 10
T11 Rogers Hornsby 1916-25 10
T11 Jeff Bagwell 1993-02 10
T15 Dick Allen 1964-72 9
T15 Eddie Murray 1978-86 9
T15 Mike Schmidt 1979-87 9
T15 Barry Bonds 1990-98 9
T15 Manny Ramirez 1995-03 9
T15 Jim Thome 1995-03 9

10 in a row is still a select club - and Manny and Thome can still make it this year. The guy it "helps" the most here is Bagwell - - who now gets in the club.

[Wolf Hopper]

so the babe wasn't consistently excellent? Not at playing a full season, all the time, see 1925. Great hitter, as always, but, he missed a ton of time that year.

[sweaver]

This is the sort of thing you miss by not following the "season award winners," gyb.

[Skip]

I'm still trying to figure out the title. At first I thought it was the story of my college days, but obviously that's not it. :cool:

Otherwise, I rarely care to get into anything serious about threshold based performance, especially if it then includes streaks. I agree with Boomer, Elmo and others that it's too easy to be misleading in those cases.

It's an interesting discussion starter, but shouldnt be taken as a conclusion - and you seem to do that a lot, Wolf - even if it is playing devil's advocate or discussion starter.

[Wolf Hopper]

If you wannabe a writer, you have to have an opinion and take a stand - love or hate, at least people will have an opinion and want to read what your wrote... ;)

[gyb13]

Not at playing a full season, all the time, see 1925. Great hitter, as always, but, he missed a ton of time that year.ok, so say Suzy is an excellent worker, year in and year out. Then she gets pregnant. Next year she comes back and is back to her usual performance. Does the fact that she didn't do it for x consecutive years diminish her excellence?

[Crash Course]

ok, so say Suzy is an excellent worker, year in and year out. Then she gets pregnant. Next year she comes back and is back to her usual performance. Does the fact that she didn't do it for x consecutive years diminish her excellence?
Now you're entering into what I do for a living! Many employers, in a case of a LOA (or other break in service) would carve out that time, in terms of recognizing "service."

For example, I work for a company from April 1999 until April 2004 - - but, I was on a leave for 5 months in 2001. In this case, under many benefit plans, I would get 5 years of "vesting service" since I was under the company's employment the whole time - but, only 4.58 years worth of "credited service" - - - since I missed time.

I take a hit because I missed time - - just as a ball player should take a "loss" for missing a chunk of a season, or a season, or a number of seasons, IMHO.

[nyy26wc]

Now you're entering into what I do for a living! Many employers, in a case of a LOA (or other break in service) would carve out that time, in terms of recognizing "service."

For example, I work for a company from April 1999 until April 2004 - - but, I was on a leave for 5 months in 2001. In this case, under many benefit plans, I would get 5 years of "vesting service" since I was under the company's employment the whole time - but, only 4.58 years worth of "credited service" - - - since I missed time.

I take a hit because I missed time - - just as a ball player should take a "loss" for missing a chunk of a season, or a season, or a number of seasons, IMHO.

By using streaks, the player isn't merely taking a loss. It's a complete termination of a streak and being forced to start all over. It would be the equivalent of your companies benefit plan crediting you with 4.58 years, but saying that was entirely in the past, to never be added to again, and making you start all over again at 0 at a second time around.

I have mixed feelings about streaks. On the one hand, I use them myself, since they can produce some interesting pieces of information. But, on the other hand, they can just much more in the interesting than the substantive department.

[Crash Course]

I've asked this before here - is there a better mark of consistency than a streak?

[nyy26wc]

I've asked this before here - is there a better mark of consistency than a streak?

Leaders over a X period of time.

[Crash Course]

Leaders over a X period of time. Like this?


AMERICAN LEAGUE
CAREER
1993-1996
LEFT HANDED HITTERS

HOMERUNS HR
1 Ken Griffey Jr. 151
T2 Rafael Palmeiro 138
T2 Mo Vaughn 138
4 Robin Ventura 100
5 Tino Martinez 93
6 Brady Anderson 91
7 Jim Thome 90
T8 Paul O'Neill 82
T8 Harold Baines 82
10 Paul Sorrento 80

[SmedIndy]

I've asked this before here - is there a better mark of consistency than a streak?

it all depends on how you set the parameters - you can set it so you get the result you want.

[Crash Course]

I wanted the results that came from my intital query?

[SmedIndy]

Not that per se but it is quite easy to do - set a streak with x and y and z knowing that it shows what you want the answer to be.

[hopbitters]

I've asked this before here - is there a better mark of consistency than a streak?

two streaks :) I'm half-joking, but consider these scenarios for 20 year careers :

1) a 10 year streak of greatness embedded in two 5 year streaks of mediocrity

2) a 9 year streak of greatness, followed by two injury-plagued years of mediocrity followed by another 9 year streak of greatness

3) a 6 year streak, followed by a mediocre year, followed by a second 6 year streak, followed by a mediocre year, followed by a third 6 year streak

Which player was the most consistent? If your margin for the streak is 10 years, it's the guy who was mediocre for 50% of his career.

[Elmo]

I've asked this before here - is there a better mark of consistency than a streak?

I suppose that one could set an 'average' that you feel is good - insist that the total=a minimum # of years and do 1 and/or 2 things......1) set a lower level, a normal variation if you will of some reasonable amount below the average you feel is correct...i.e. If .650 is the benchmark, then a .638 wouldn't disqualify and/or let Suzy the ballplayer 'earn' a vacation day or two based on service time. i.e. we assume that Suzy (because we all have seen her at the company christmas parties - ;) ) will get knocked up if she is with the company long enough, or if you prefer, so we give her a pass every x years for one year.