One of the best ways to determine the greatest players during a certain period is by looking for league leaders. How often was this guy the best in the entire league at something? If a player consistently leads the league in an important category, or a variety of categories, then it is typically a good indication that he is pretty great. However, it is not always that simple; leading the league in a category 100 years ago does not mean the same as leading in that same category today. Let's see why.
First of all, we must consider expansion. From the American League's inception in 1901 until 1961, there were only 16 teams in the Majors, eight in each league. This number has gradually crawled upward (and occasionally one league expanded faster than the other), today standing at 30 MLB teams, and there is good reason to think that it could be up to 32 in the near future (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpL3Sxa6Y4g). Additionally, today's roster size has not always been the norm; prior to 1910, roster sizes typically varied from 14-18 players. In 1910, the traditional 25 man roster was set, and became the norm up until the present, with minor adjustments at times. Fewer teams and smaller rosters mean fewer players in the league, and the better chance that John Doe would lead the league in something. Therefore, it is much more difficult to lead the league today than it was then, and thus a more impressive accomplishment.
Ever since 1997, Major League Baseball has been stricken with interleague play, meaning that an AL player could compile numbers against NL opponents that would count toward his AL leading totals, and vice-versa. This all blurs the picture, devaluing league leadership as a whole and depleting each individual league of its meaning. However, since the two leagues are more than fairly even in terms of quality of play - homogeneous, really - I trust modern day league leadership as a pretty hefty achievement, interleague play aside.
As an aside, some categories change in value as time goes on. Consider, for instance, home runs. Hitting home runs is great, but hitting a lot of home runs is even better. A home run has always been counted the same - one run, plus an additional run for each baserunner. Back in the dead ball era, when home runs were being hit at a much slower rate, it was far less important to lead the league in home runs than it is now. For example, Tommy Leach led the NL with six home runs in 1902. That's great, more than anyone else in the league, but how important was it? Leach's home run prowess benefited his team in six games (at most) over the course of the season. In contrast, Aaron Judge's league leading 62 homers last year was a much bigger deal. Judge was winning games with homers all throughout the season, and opposing pitchers had to be much more careful not to surrender one to him. The same argument can be made about a few other categories, such as pitchers' wins not being as important today as they were 100 years ago, when a starter typically pitched deeper into games and could help his own cause with the bat.
In writing a post about league leaders, I feel I must not leave without evaluating Bill James's black and gray ink metrics. Let me copy and paste a section from baseball-reference.com's glossary:
Black-Ink Test
Named so because league-leading numbers are traditionally represented with Boldface type. The definition for the test that is being used here was written in Bill James's The Politics of Glory, p. 65-67. The essential point is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players, because they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must lead the league in that category.
- Batting Statistics
- Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
- Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
- Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
- One Point for games, at bats or triples
- Pitching Statistics
- Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
- Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
- Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
- One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts
Note that Hall of Famers have a wide variety of values for the Black Ink Test, and the method is unforgiving of positional differences, but it is a neat little metric.
Gray-Ink Test
Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players because they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category.
- Batting Statistics
- Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
- Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
- Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
- One Point for games, at bats or triples
- Pitching Statistics
- Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
- Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
- Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
- One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts
First of all, Bill James just made up the statistics, adding his own values to leading the league in a different category. That is my first red flag. You could argue that runs scored are at least as valuable as runs batted in, or that slugging is as valuable as batting (and where the heck is OBP?). Similarly, James gives too much value to arbitrary statistics like wins and saves - sure they are flashy, but they are assigned; they are outside the game; a pitcher can't always control whether his team wins. Even if I agreed with 100% of James's assessments, I couldn't support his system because then I too would be guilty of trying to objectivize my subjective preferences for certain statistics over others. That's my problem with advanced statistics - they are too abstract, made up, and subjective to hold any real value in the context of the Hall of Fame. Results are results, and runs win games. It's just that simple.
Secondly, for the gray ink test, James does not distinguish between #2 and #10 on the list. Being in the top ten in the league in a certain category definitely has some value, but constantly being among the league leaders (top five, top three, often in second) means much more. The gray ink test simply does not make a distinction between the two, essentially treating them as equal. One way you could fix this would be giving one point to the tenth place finisher, two to the ninth... and ten to the first, but seeing as how I have no intention of pioneering a new advanced statistic, I will just leave it to Bill James to figure that out on his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment