I'm sure, dad, we can come up with a better number than I've got. I'm calling this thing the Sherwood Number because I couldn't think of anything else, but it may just be too...it may not be important enough to learn anything from studying it.
It's barely even a calculation: (Runs Created) + (Total Bases).
[For the record, I'm using: (Runs Created) = RBI + Runs - HR.]
I started looking at that combination because to me, that afternoon I was thinking about it, it seemed like a good measure of how much a player was on the bases and/or involved in scoring runs, how much they were contributing to the games in a variety of ways. I then divided out their total number of games to get a sense of a sherwood number per game score.
I first waned to make sure it made sense with the top players, since it seems to heavily favor guys with high slugging percentages (duh, lotsa total bases). The only player with over 10k was Hank Aaron, and then the only players over 9k were:
Hank Aaron: 10572
Ty Cobb: 9921
Stan Musial: 9559
Babe Ruth: 9466
Barry Bonds: 9436
Willie Mays: 9371
Pete Rose: 9071
Not a bad list. I do think it's exhaustive of the 9k+ s-number players in baseball. I say that because my list of 8k+ players is pretty long, likely not exhaustive, and has most other players you'd think could be on the 9k+ list:
Alex Rodriguez: 8572
Cap Anson: 8569
Lou Gehrig: 8450
Eddie Murray: 8437
Frank Robinson: 8438
Rafael Palmeiro: 8317
Dave Winfield: 8258
Honus Wagner: 8241
Ken Griffey Jr: 8139
Jimmie Foxx: 8095
Cal Ripken Jr: 8079
Ted Williams: 8000
Those two lists have some of the greatest players who graced the diamond, but what about averages. How does Raffy compare to Cap Anson, or Rickey Henderson, or Joe DiMaggio?
Well, Rickey Henderson, an obvious Hall of Famer and one of the best players ever, scored 7701 on the s-number score, for a 2.500 per game career score.
The highest three values all spent time in the Bronx:
Lou Gehrig: 3.905
Babe Ruth: 3.782
Joe DiMaggio: 3.752
I don't even know what this signifies: combined runs and bases per game averaged over an entire career, apparently.
Rounding out the top ten that I have calculated so far:
Albert Pujols: 3.533
Jimmie Foxx: 3.494
Ted Wiliams: 3.490
Alex Rodriguez: 3.425
Cap Anson: 3.395
Ty Cobb: 3.270
Hank Aaron: 3.206
After that, everyone is under 3.2. This list may not be exhaustive. I may have missed people. I do have more notes on the subject, like Mike Schmidt (6959, 2.895), possibly the greatest third basemen ever (I have a soft spot for Schmitty ever since I was a Phillie in Little League).
Whether or not this actually can help understand the game better is up for debate. And, like I said earlier, we should be able to come up with a better calc to be called the sherwood-number, shouldn't we?
I mean, doing that isn't just a weekend excursion, coming up with a stat all our own. We shouldn't take it for granted...sometimes I just get wrapped up in numbers for a hour or two, and build lists...mostly meaningless, unless you're a baseball fan.
So ... let me comment after just a glance at your post. The first thing that strikes me is that your numbers will pick out productive sluggers - and looking at your calculated leaders - let's just say - Duh! And let me also say that I have no surprise that you have found Gehrig at the very top of you list.
ReplyDeleteI also have always considered run produced as runs scored plus RBIs minus HRs. So, no conflict there. (As if!) Regarding DiMaggio, one of the (paradoxically) more underrated sluggers of all time, no less an authority than Ted Williams called him the greatest slugger of their era.
Anyway, let me weigh in on a kind of a similar number that enjoyed, and still enjoys, some currency. OPS, standing for on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, has been knocked because it allegedly overvalued slugging and undervalued the on-base percentage. I always thought, yes, the base on balls is a good offensive play, but what could be more efficient that getting more than one base on a single hit? They don't happen as often as walks, but extra-base hits have much more of a thrill, wouldn't you agree?
But I digress. Let me give my very own preliminary stamp of approval to your calculation.
Did you know that the Baseball Reference site has all sorts of ways you can customize queries that will give you exactly what you're looking for Sometimes, though, they want a little payment for it, unfortunately.
First: I am using you own calculation for Runs Created (RBI + Runs - HR), so I didn't expect too much pushback there.
ReplyDeleteSecond: Extra base-hits most definitely are more exciting than walks, even though walks are important and valuable.
Third: Ahh...so, originally, one of my motivations was to try to isolate players who were involved in scoring runs and getting on base a lot, like causing a havoc on the basepaths independent from stolen bases. I'm not sure that was attained. Maybe "havoc" isn't the correct word...just being involved in the outcomes of games more than average.
I was reading a game summary on an app on my phone (after compiling the stats on Jeter and Ripken for that email I sent you) that said that during the Yankees 3-4 loss to whatever team, Jeter had scored in the third, and driven in both runs in the sixth or seventh. Jeter had been involved in every score in that loss. That's when I decided to examine Runs Created and TB.
It took just about ten seconds to realize that if you look at a number that's calculated as TB + RBI + Runs - HR, then big-time, long career-having sluggers are going top out the lost. The two non-sluggers on the list of 9k+ s-number scores are Cobb and Rose, guys who have over 4000 hits and over 2000 runs. They wracked up bases like tic-tacs.
DiMaggio scoring as high per game as he did was the one surprise for me. It is true: he's an underrated slugger. Odd, that Joe D would could be underrated.
I tried running some queries on baseball-reference.com back before you had to pay, and I screwed it up, I think, if I remember correctly, and haven't gone back. It would be almost worth it to not be doing it "by hand", as it were.
"...top out the lost..." Stupid "i" and "o" right next to each other, and my lackadaisical editing...
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing, Dude. I know you were good in English class, and all, but: "its" is the possessive of "it." "It's" is the contraction of "it is." Sorry to put it in a comment, but we're only family on this blog, right?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about typos, man. I ain't the world's best typist, and I'm an even worse proofreader.
That's funny you call me out on the "its" and "it's" apostrophication, as that is one I love to silently correct folks on on Facebook and on tattoos, and am quite embarrassed when it's me making the mistake. I pride myself in knowing the difference, and would expect to be called out on making that specific mistake.
ReplyDelete