There were two issues with this metric. First, it ignored another key facet of baseball, the ability to steal and run the bases. Second, it was on the scale of batting average, a quickly dying stat that should not be given any chance at a new life.
This off-season I've revamped ATB Value, hopefully mitigating these issues and giving us a true stat to measure batter value. Here's how it works:
Instead of modified OPS, which was really a stat called GPA currently published by The Hardball Times, I turned to wOBA (Weighted on Base Average). While not as mathematical as stats such as WAR or VORP or Win Shares, it's the foundation for many sabermetrically-minded stats often used today, including WAR. It's formula as it originally appeared in "The Book"
With this foundation established, each players raw wOBA is further adjusted for:
- Park Factor
- Defensive Range and Error Rate, using the defense analysis previously discussed
- Stolen Base success, using linear weights which values each SB as earning .22 Runs, and each CS losing .45 Runs
- each batters "Running" factor given by DMB (Pr, Fr, Av, Vg, Ex)
- And finally positional scarcity. This is critical as it allows for comparison across positions
Last season, the Top 5 in ATB Value were:
.411 - Mickey Mantle
.387 - Ross Barnes
.367 - Rogers Hornsby
.365 - Fred Dunalp
.361 - Arky Vaughan
.360 - Larry Walker
.357 - Barry Bonds
.352 - Hughie Jennings
.351 - Babe Ruth
.345 - Ted Williams
It's fairly safe to say Mantle was the best player in the game last year, batting .351 / .451 / .528 playing center field with great defense. However, normally we'd expect someone like Babe Ruth at #2 and not a second basemen who failed to hit anything out of the park. Comparing those two in detail:
RB - .361 / .428 / .490, 38 2b, 21 3b, 0 hr
BR - .255 / .416 / .569, 29 2b, 3 3b, 50 hr
- Each had relatively similar on base-percentages, but Barnes worked harder to attain his. His OBP was so high because he had so many hits. Ruth on the other hand, walked his way to first, which while still great, provides less value than a single which can advance runners multiple bases. Further, Ruth also led the league in Intentional Walks for which he doesn't get full credit.
- Ruth obviously has a lot more power and his 82 extra base hits easily outpace the 59 posted by Barnes
- Ruth ultimately wins the raw wOBA .407 to .395
The raw wOBA is then adjusted for other value each player provides:
- Barnes was successful on 41 of 56 stolen base attempts; Ruth on just 2 of 8.
- Barnes has Ex/124 defense; Ruth just Av/168
- Barnes has a Vg running rating; Ruth just Av
- Both played the majority of their games in a batters park, but Barnes was aided a bit more (104 BPF vs 101)
After these adjustments, Barnes ends up with more overall value - .405 to .389.
Still, we haven't taken into account positional scarcity. Ruth roamed right field last season, where the position averaged a .330 ATB value score, the second highest in the game after first base. His peers included:
.310 / .362 / .510, Ex/33 Defense - Larry Walker
.283 / .331 / .569, Vg.52 Defense - Frank Robinson
.344 / .384 / .531, 30 triples - -- George Hall
.319 / .356 / .429, Ex/91 defense - Joe Jackson
.316 / .365 / .447, 50 EBH - - - -- Harry Lumley (!)
Plus a host of others that were good options. At second, the overall ATB Value score was just .314 and players like Joe Morgan (.609 OPS) and Buddy Myer (.627 OPS) played full time. Still others like Ryne Sandberg (.249 OBP) were in steady platoons.
Because of this, Ruth takes a major hit, reducing his ATV Value to .351 while Barnes takes less of a hit, reducing to .387.
Last season we saw the following average positional ATB Value scores:
.337 - 1b
.330 - rf
.330 - lf
.324 - cf
.323 - dh
.321 - league average
.321 - 3b
.314 - 2b
.306 - ss
.301 - c
During the season the ATB Value stat will be published weekly.
Who would've thunk Barnes at 19 was a great value?!
ReplyDeleteSorry 17. I can't fathom how underwhelming my team really would've been without him.
ReplyDeleteI forgetting, and did he kick but in the 20 resims too?
ReplyDelete