Whats the Deal with Speaker?

[JohnnyBlazers]

[quote:9b69ee3141="PotKettleBlack"]Context, context context.

Speaker 1912 had a park adjusted OPS+ of 188.
Speaker 1920 - 172.

1912 had a dWar of +1 (really good)
1920 - +.3 (Not as, but still pretty good)

His errors were further from the norm in 12 than 20.
Obviously, better on the basepaths.

$3M better is a function of both what's on the card AND revaluation to rebalance use from ATG4-5-6. Definitely 2M better.[/quote:9b69ee3141]

I've been playing long enough to understand context, Diamond Dope, etc -but here's the issue I have:
The cards are supposed to be a reflection of the season for the player. In 1920, he had a slug% .562 - the cards formula, the doubles, triple, singles etc should all add up to .562, regardless of OPS+, No? Theres no normalization as I understand it - so what you guys are saying is that his additonal stolen bases and -4 arm are worth 3 million more (I don't think thats worth that much more but thats my opinion) What does "revaluation to rebalance" mean? Thanks for all the input

[The Last Druid]

No indeed. Obviously the card doesn't reflect what you think it does. Take his 1920 card, he actually played in Dunn where his slugging pct on his strat card was .702 and .716 (per diamond dope)respectively, not the .562 you mistakenly state that the card should have for slg. pct.

Potkettleblack is right. Context.

The cards are designed to replicate the season the player had if the entire season for that league were to be replayed. So you have to factor in all the pitchers the guy faced and defenses. Offhand, I would guess that the 1912 Speaker faced better pitching and or defenses than the 1920 card.
It doesn't represent the actual stats obtained by the player apart from the context of the league they came from. So to get his slugging pct. of .562 in 1920 you have to have a card that averages around .710 slg. since only 50% of his results come from his own card.

(My initial post used DD figures without ballparks. My revised post used the slg. pct for Dunn, where Speaker played. The quote in the next post is from the non-ballpark effect slg. pct.from my original post.)

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:936ac2d67c="Petrosian"]No indeed. Obviously the card doesn't reflect what you think it does. Take his 1920 card: he slugs .675 vs lefties and .691 against righties (without ballpark effects), not the .562 you state his card "should add up to."

Potkettleblack is right. Context.

The cards are designed to replicate the season the player had if the entire season for that league were to be replayed. So you have to factor in all the pitchers the guy faced and defenses. Offhand, I would guess that the 1912 Speaker faced better pitching and or defenses than the 1920 card.
It doesn't represent the actual stats obtained by the player apart from the context of the league they came from. So to get his slugging pct. of .562 in 1920 you have to have a card that averages around .685 slg. since only 50% of his results come from his own card.[/quote:936ac2d67c]

It's not even necessarily the quality of the pitching. It's the change in leagues, parks, balls, peers and yes, pitchers. What Speaker did in 12 was further above the league norm, so, factoring as much context as adjusted OPS+ contains (ballpark and league norms), Speaker was better relative to the league in 12 than in 20. And the cards are priced accordingly, as Petro notes, assuming a replay of the season with the cards and parks and matchups.

[JohnnyBlazers]

Thanks guys - I think I am starting to catch on....So Speakers stats for '20 were not as impressive because the environment in '20 was better for hitters, making his stats less impressive than in '12, which is reflected in the formulas on the cards and on DD? So I can gather that OPS+ is reflected in the cards. I usually look on DD in comparing hitters to my home park-I was curious why the numbers were different from the actual stats (no park selected) Now I know why

Out of curiosity, I checked the single season OPS+ leaders.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_season.shtml

Teddy Ballgame, Yaz are on the list - I never really got a good season out of either of them, at least relative to their salary

[macnole]

In fact, this illustrates a couple/few of Strat-O corollaries to the exchange:

1- Strat is fun as a stat game because the cards are not simple translations of their stats in isolation. Without this delta, there is no need for player seasons, just catalogued stat spreads.

2- Each card must be evaluated on the basis of its contents vs its price

3- Value is never truly objective and is a guess...so we all hunt for the cards that bring value as observed/perceived in actual play

One of the few things SOM online brings--its niche--is this idea of assigning a salary to each card.

All the more reason why sorting on the SOM-O site by various factors is only a start. What one really aims to sort by is what's on the card, which we don't have except via DD pool data. Which crashes my computer...

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:3a419c8ced="johnnyblazers"]Thanks guys - I think I am starting to catch on....So Speakers stats for '20 were not as impressive because the environment in '20 was better for hitters, making his stats less impressive than in '12, which is reflected in the formulas on the cards and on DD? So I can gather that OPS+ is reflected in the cards. I usually look on DD in comparing hitters to my home park-I was curious why the numbers were different from the actual stats (no park selected) Now I know why

Out of curiosity, I checked the single season OPS+ leaders.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_season.shtml

Teddy Ballgame, Yaz are on the list - I never really got a good season out of either of them, at least relative to their salary[/quote:3a419c8ced]

Seriously never got a good season out of Teddy Ballgame? I am always torn about getting him. I feel good about getting him and I feel crap about not.

[Valen]

I think OPS+ can be a very deceiving stat. A high number could mean a really great season by a really great player. Or it could and I believe in the early years of baseball reflected a standout player among a lot of less than stellar players. As baseball progressed and scouting became more refined fewer great athletes were missed and thus the overall level of quality went up. Toss in the breaking of the color barrier and a great player would have had more difficulty standing out in say the 60s and even more in the last 10 -20 years. Thus it is one of the most misused stats for comparing players from different eras.

[The Last Druid]

I don't get many good years out of Williams either.

I think that may be because Strat seems to have some problems replicating performances that are extreme outliers. Same with Gehrig. I usually avoid those two for that reason. Even true with cheaper guys who outperform their stats. Try getting Larry Gardner to knock in 118 runs. I haven't seen that one yet.

On the other hand, with the ballpark effects magnified you can get Bonds to hit 109 hrs. I actually did once a few months back. Didn't submit it to the record books, usually don't bother. Similar principle with Matt Williams.

Not sure I agree with Valen about OPS+. Over the last 40+ years a lot of the better athletes chose other professional sports, like football. 100 years ago in America, baseball was pretty much the only game in town. Do most kids even play baseball anymore, you know, besides on their computers? I haven't seen kids playing baseball in the streets since I did it myself as a kid, and we did it almost every day in the summer, throughout the '60's.

[danielz]

In the Summer of 1980, (after our sophomore year in high school) we had a group of guys who met every day at Cooper school to play baseball. 12 to 18 of us would be there every day at 1:00pm and we would play til about 4:00.
Then we would be back at 6:00pm and play til dark.
By the next summer, most of us got jobs and it was more sporadic.
We still talk about it today, how the summer of 1980 was the greatest.
Go by play grounds today, and you never see anyone playing pickup games.
If it's not organized by their parents, the kids don't play.

[rburgh]

In 1912, Speaker's home park factors for LHB were 7 and 0. The major league batting line was .269-.337-.359.

In 1912, his park factors were 16 and 10 (Dunn Field!). The major league batting line was .276-.335-.372.

So in 1912 he hit 114 points above average in BA, 127 points in OBP, and 208 points in SLG. In 1920 the numbers were .112, .148, and .190. Then you have to make the 2.25 hits per card correction (in favor of the 1912 card) for park factors. There's also a slugging correction for the ballaprk factors.

I agree with most that the $13 million card is overpriced (I have never used it, except in a theme league), but it should be clearly better than the 1920 card for the reasons above. I'm not sure why the 1920 card has fewer overall on-base chances, though.