Using OPS+: Steroids Era is Over!
So a while back I was wondering how the variance of OPS+ has changed with time. The average of OPS+ is set at 100 by definition but there is nothing in the formula that makes sure the stat falls under the same distribution all the time. An OPS+ of 120 is always 20% better than average but it doesn't tell you what percentile you were.
My first thoughts about this came from trying to compare OPS+ from different generations. A fairly wide feeling is that as the competion in the league increases we should see the variance in the league decrease. Ty Cobb might have been much like Ichiro but he played in a drastically different league for example.
Not surprisingly, I don't have amazing database skills and the info wasn't availible instantly. After dreading it for a while, I went through baseball reference's database using their PI tool and took down all the players with more than 100 PA for a bunch of different years. Then I found the PA weighted OPS+ which came out to be about 100 for every case (good sign!). After that I found the PA weighted standard deviation in OPS+. I also found the skewness but I don't think that tells me a bunch.
So anyway, what did I see?


Well, looking at the graphs you see that it looks surprisingly noise free. I was pretty shocked. I didn't expect this. I was basically expected to not see anything interested. Oh yeah, don't complain about me not having every year. It takes a while to strip the info for me and I got lazy. So anyway, we see that the variance looks to decrease slowly which is what we expect. I kinda would have thought the increase might have been larger but I've been wrong plenty of times before.
The most interesting features of the graph is the blip around 1970 and 1999. I'm not 100% sure why there is the bump around 1970. I think a small error I made when I was collecting data was that I did not exclude pitchers and they tend to have pretty horrible OPS+. I don't think it caused this spike but it might explain a little of it. This wasn't smart to do but I don't think it destroys everything (hopefully). From 1990 to 2007 there were only 6 times that 100 PA was broken by a pitcher so the recent times should not be affected by this at least.
And to the blip I think is most interesting. The one that goes from around 1990 to 2005 fits amazingly well to the steroids era. The most interesting part I think is that the variance is back down to the level it was before 1990. The first question I asked myself is what happens when you take a few of the top hitters out for those years? Maybe its just that a couple players like Barry Bonds are just skewing it. Well I tried that and it doesn't get rid of the whole peak. Does this mean that that the effects of steroids and performance enhancers are gone or does it mean that everybody is using HGH now? Does it mean anything at all? I'm not really sure. I'm guessing that the testing baseball has now has really done something.
0 recs |
27 comments
Comments
Since OPS includes OBP
by Rollo Tomasi on Jan 11, 2008 2:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I could go back through it
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1970
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 6:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking maybe expansion too
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That too
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
by TheEmrys on Jan 11, 2008 9:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was actually thinking about doing something
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
Other hitting stats will be much harder to work with, because you'd have to adjust everyone's numbers and then normalise to get real results.
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It might kinda end up canceling out though
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The "steroids era"
I'm nor sure we can credibly infer anything from this data.
by Llewdor on Jan 11, 2008 9:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Anything?
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Am not convinced
Gassko's results are doubtless highly accurate. but I prefer this methodology.
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I really liked that
For example what I was thinking:
(OPS+ of ichiro in 2007 - 100)/stdev of 2007
=
(OPS+ of ichiro in 1910 - 100)/stdev of 1910
This would assume that ichiro was in the same percentile of performance in 2007 and 1910 and using a normal distribution would tell us what his OPS+ in 1910 would be. The change in stdev just isn't big enough to make anything interesting out of it though.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
Just scanning the names mentioned by the report, its not just the big sluggers who were juicing, but the scrubs as well. So if heavy widespread juicing began in, say, 1985, you would see everyone's OPS rise and OPS+ would not reflect that.
Maybe you should be looking at the change league average SLG among the top 30% or something like that?
by Mere Tantalisers on Jan 11, 2008 10:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not all the scrubs would have been juicing though
by Graham on Jan 11, 2008 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've developed a bad habit
by Mere Tantalisers on Jan 11, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I more just threw it out
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers
Try maybe looking at ERA+ too?
by rfloh on Jan 11, 2008 1:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yep
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This made my brain hurt.
by Thingray on Jan 11, 2008 1:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Just do what I did
by pdb on Jan 11, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok here is

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 7:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I did slg %
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 11, 2008 7:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I took pitchers out

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 12, 2008 8:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 












