Should we be careful applying "new stats" to past players?

[Rinkster]

I have to apologize for steering the discussion of the best pre-1950 secondbasemen into a debate on how wise it is to apply two of the so-called "new stats", On-Base Percentage, Slugging Percentage, and OPS/OPS+, when discussing players from the past.

Of course, neither OBP or SLG% are "new" statistics. They've been around for years. However, those two stats, and especially OPS and OPS+, are "new" in terms of identification by the mainstream press and media.

Anymore, it seems like every hot shot baseball writer under the age of 40 must deem it necessary to include these stats when judging, comparing, and ranking baseball players. I don't have a big problem with this action, but one has to keep his wits about accepting the OPS or OPS+ as the end all when discussing players from past generations.

It is simply a fact that walks were not deemed as a key offensive weapon, let alone something that help a player come contract time, in the past. Hell, even today there are organizations that don't place much emphasis on on-base percentage.

The Kansas City Royals last manager, Tony Muser, and their current manager, Tony Pena, both are on record of wanting their players to be aggressive swingers. They have stated they care more about bat control and not striking out than drawing walks.

Go back and read the biographies of players, the one's the players "wrote," prior to the 1990s. All that they talk about are the traditional stats: hits, home runs, RBI, and batting average.
You may have seen, from an earlier post, that Pee Wee stated in an article in Baseball Digest that perhaps his biggest regret as a player was drawing so many bases on balls!

I just read a book Stan Musial wrote with Bob Broeg when he retired. There are several passages about his contract discussions, as well as Musial's opinion of his seasons. Nowhere is walks or on-base percentage discussed.

What you will find from past books and articles is that walks were deemed something that had more to do with poor pitching or avoiding a hitter than something a player was smartly working the count to do.

The recent passing of Ted Williams brings up another interesting fact. Williams was the rare exception of a hitter that would work the count, and accept a base on balls as a positive outcome. However, in his day, and up until the last decade, Williams got a lot of negative press from sportswriters and fans alike for his patience and unwillingness to swing at pitches that he could hit, with the result of stranding runners already on base, or even in scoring position as he accepted a walk.

Sure, there were players that indeed walked a lot in the past, such as Eddie Stanky, Eddie Yost, etc, and that was indeed pretty much the jist of their offensive ability. But the fact remains that walks were rarely deemed important, something an offensive player tried to do.

When Mickey Mantle, or whoever, was pitched around, there were no writers like Rob Neyer explaing how Mantle, with less than 100 RBI, was actually more valuable than Roger Maris because Mantle's walks added so much to his personal value, which is what we see today when discussing Barry Bonds. I can't count how many times I've read that Mantle was a poor RBI guy. You'd be two if you walked so many time (or had Bobby Richardson hitting in front of you).

It is also true, reading literature from the past, that most managers liked hard-nose, aggressive players. Little ball was more in vogue. Players were also more likely to heed the words of the mangers in past generations, and if a manager's philosophy did not include working the count to tire the pitcher (there were no pitch counts in the past so this is not likely) well, then they were aggressive as told to be. There was also more fear in past generations of being replaced by a young hot shot on the bench. How often have we heard players from the past say that? All the time. Just like the young Latin players that feel they must hit the ball to attract a scout, and therefore swing at anything not rolled to the plate, well, that is kind of like what it was for players in baseball's past, at least comprared to the OBP, OPS, and OPS+ conscious players of today.

Okay, enough about walks. What about power? In the pre-stereroid days (hehe), what you will find is that players were either power hitters...or not power hitters, with very little in-between. Once again, in the past, managers were more likely to prescribe to "little-ball" and would not put up with every hitter in the lineup swinging from the knob of the bat and trying to hit the ball out of the park.

I've rambled enough. The question, in case you've forgotten, is should we simply slap on the new stats on all players in history, especially when comparing players of different generations? Or should we also add some subjective opinion into the equation, knowing that it is possible the player played for a team, manager, organization, or era, that did not abide by the philosophies that would have created a good showing by that players name in the "new stats" catagory?

[VNV Nation]

Yes.

[Skip]

Originally posted by Rinkster
The question, in case you've forgotten, is should we simply slap on the new stats on all players in history, especially when comparing players of different generations? Or should we also add some subjective opinion into the equation, knowing that it is possible the player played for a team, manager, organization, or era, that did not abide by the philosophies that would have created a good showing by that players name in the "new stats" catagory?

This is what is called a leading question. Of course we need to consider context, as we should in any facet of our lives/hobbies/careers/etc. I do think it is appropriate to apply "new stats" to all players, even those for whom the stats in question weren't important because of the era or because of personal preference.

It is up to *us* to make any contextual switch and that's what makes this so interesting, right??

[Max Power]

> Should we be careful applying "new stats" to past players?

Certain stats, yes, others no.

For example - in the 1950's, no one stole bases, hardly. So to look at the SB totals of Mays and Mantle and then look at the ones for Bonds and Canseco - and make some kind of comparison, is silly.

Same with the HR totals of the Dead Ball Era v. the HR totals of the current Long Ball Era.

However, I do think it's fair to compare any player from any era to another, using any stat, if you do it as "compared to league average" - - that makes it all relative.

[pwdennis]

Other than as pertains to the players of the deadball era, todays stats are valid in their ex post facto application. The fact that players of the past emphasized the triple crown stats does not mean that they were correct in doing so. Muser and Pena can preach whatever they want - they are still wrong.

Even in the old days, the Yosts and Stankys were able to hold down jobs because they scored so often - it wasn't well quantified, but some in baseball understood the value of what they were doing.

[Rinkster]

Well, here's where I see a problem.

When I read an article written by a "professional", whether it be in a newspaper, magazine, or online, I cringe because some of them, especially those under the age of fourty, tend to base their argument based soley on "new stats."

Often, especially when a reader writes in and asks the "professional" for his opinion on whether Player A is a better player than Player B, the reader will often get a Baseball Digest-like response centered almost entirely on OPS or OPS+.

That drives me nuts, and I mention that is was Baseball Digest-like in the sense that Baseball Digest, almost 100% of the time, would first compare two or more players by pointing out their batting averages, regardless of context of time or era. I guess that is what OPS+ is supposed to do, yet there is no way to add a subjective number to the OPS+ equation in regards to the situation the player was forced to play under.

And honestly, there should be no such subjective equation. I agree with that. But the "professional" better be able to provide me with some subjective information, or that stat-only answer won't fly with me. Too many are quick to base everything on stats alone. This is one reason I admire Bill James. He discovered early in his career that you simply can not base everything on stats. Few of his "disciples" have followed James' lead in this area.

If a "professional" wants to say that Rico Petrocelli is a better Hall of Fame candidate than either Dick Groat, Bert Campaneris, Maury Wills, or Dave Concepcion because Rico's career OPS+ of 108 is way higher than that of Groat (89), Campaneris (89), Wills (88), and Concepcion (88), and I've seen that argument based soley on OPS+, well, I need more than that. I need more than OPS+.

And the farther you go back, or when you tell me that Robin Ventura is a better third base Hall of Fame candidate than Stan Hack, Tommy Leach, or Heinie Groh because Ventura's OPS is better than their's, well, I need more than that.

We've become so offensive minded, so wrapped up in OPS and OPS+ that context(i.e. things such as prevailing strategy, lack of performance enhancing drugs, important stats of the day) and subjectiveness have all but disappeard from discussions.

So fine, the "professionals" can waste our time showing us OPS or OPS+ when they rate/compare players, it's not like we can't can find those stats ourselves. But fellas, bring a little subjectiveness, a little humaninty, back into the discussion.

[JamesI]

Obviously no one stat is the best for comparing players. Someone can't be declared a Hall of Famer based on OPS or OPS+. But seeing how the game has changed through these stats is interesting. Would Luis Aparicio's glove and speed have kept him in a lineup despite his .311 OBA and .653 OPS. He is an example of a Hall of Famer from one era, that might be a utility infielder today.

I want to say that I like Aparicio, and only used him as an example.

[SmedIndy]

Rinkster - there have been many players in history who have drawn walks and helped their teams in that way. Why did Yank Robinson become a valuable player for the St. Louis Browns under Comiskey. Because he took walks and got on base.

And I do use humanity in my discussions. Don't paint us all with a broad brush, my friend. I understand the differences between 1890 and 1990. OPS is a great tool, but I chose Eddie Collins over Hornsby as the best 2B of all time because of the context of his career.

Use all the tools, new or old, when evaluating players of all generations will answer some questions and ask others. That's why its prudent to do so.

[VNV Nation]

Originally posted by JamesI
Obviously no one stat is the best for comparing players. Someone can't be declared a Hall of Famer based on OPS or OPS+. But seeing how the game has changed through these stats is interesting. Would Luis Aparicio's glove and speed have kept him in a lineup despite his .311 OBA and .653 OPS. He is an example of a Hall of Famer from one era, that might be a utility infielder today.

I want to say that I like Aparicio, and only used him as an example.

Aparicio would not be a utility infielder.

[calexpat]

Most of the overall measures of offensive performance like ops, rc, equa, etc. are justified by their strong correlation to runs scored, and this has been confirmed on historical data. So, to the extent you're talking about offensive value, you can use those stats pretty confidently, as long as you use park and era adjustments.

anyway, with a few very very recent exceptions (eg, the a's emphasis on plate discipline) it's hard to attribute any changes in how the game is played to the advent of these stats. this may change in the coming years though.

the stats that aren't very comparable across eras are the ones more directly related to how the game is played, like IP for starting pitchers, SBs, and, most obviously, saves.

[KCBOOMER]

Stats must always be considered in context. If you have to go across eras then compare a player to his own era and see if his dominance exceeds the player from another era's dominance of that same stat.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Statistics of any kind do a better job of comparing players of the same era to players of a different era. How a player stacks up against his contemporaries is the most reliable indicator of his value, for obvious reasons.