There is no question that
OPS (which is essentially a two-dimensional look at hitting) gives a better
picture of hitting than any of the one-dimensional statistics mentioned
above. But should we stop with just a
two-dimensional metric? Or should we
attempt to take the next logical step and combine OPS with the third aspect of
hitting to give us an even more inclusive idea of who were the best
hitters?
OPS just does not go far enough. It ignores the third important dimension of
hitting – a player’s total run production for the season dependent on his
playing time. OPS is essentially a rate
statistic and does not take playing time into account. So, a player who plays in only 80 games in a
season can have a better OPS than a player who plays in 160 games – but this does
not mean that the first player was a “better hitter” for the season than the
second.
Let’s look at two examples of this.
During the 2002 season,
Manny Ramirez had the third best OPS in the majors with 1.097 while Vladimir
Guerrero was eighth with 1.010. But
Manny played in only 120 games while Vlad played in 161. Isn’t it possible that Guerrero was a better
hitter in 2002 than Ramirez?
In the 2000 season, Mark McGwire had the best OPS in
baseball (1.229). However, McGwire
played in only 89 games that season and was by no means a better hitter for the
season than Frank Thomas who had an OPS of 1.061 but played in 159 games. After all, the better hitter is the one who
contributes more to his team with his bat.
So, the question becomes - Why not take the next step? Why not add the third dimension to OPS and
come up with a more inclusive metric? What is needed is to combine OPS with another valid measure that
includes the other dimension of batting production and takes playing time into
account. Such a measure is Runs Created
(RC). And even the simplest RC formula
is a decent approximation of the number of runs that a player helped to create
for his team – and, as such, is one of the most valuable pieces of information
about how good an offensive season a player really had.
So, for example, Ramirez had
a higher OPS than Guerrero in 2002. But
Guerrero (because of his playing time) had 154 runs created compared to 124 for
Ramirez. This certainly seems to suggest
that Guerrero was the better hitter in 2002.
And Mark McGwire in 2000 only had 83 runs created
(because he played in so few games) while Frank Thomas had 158 runs
created. I doubt that anyone would say
that McGwire had a better hitting season than Thomas.
In my batting proficiency (BP) metric, I have combined OPS
and Runs Created in a balanced manner
and then translated the outcome into a “batting-average-type number” – so that
ordinary fans might identify with it more easily. Therefore, a BP for a season of 300 means
that the player had a very good offensive season while 400 is extremely
difficult to attain.
And, using BP, we can say
that Vladimir Guerrero batted 344 in 2002 compared to Manny Ramirez’ 321. So, Guerrero was the more proficient batter
in 2002. And, in 2000, Frank Thomas was
the more proficient batter with a BP of 337 compared to 288 for Mark
McGwire.
Batting proficiency
combines the three most important dimensions of hitting:
1.
the ability to get on base,
2.
the ability to hit with power, and
3.
the ability to contribute to the team’s run production
and then translates the outcome into a number that the
average fan is familiar with. In
addition, BP is adjusted for season and
for league.
RC (batting production) + OPS (batting efficiency) = BP (batting proficiency)
The
full formula looks like this: BP = (7RC
+ 1000OPS)/5.75 x .705/L-OPS
where L-OPS stands for the league OPS for that season.
In this
age of “more sophisticated” baseball measures, BP is still a relatively simple
concept and supplies the best answer to what a fan really wants to know when
he/she asks: Who was the best hitter during the past season? Batting proficiency tells us which player
helped his team the most during the season with his bat. It does this by including the following
elements:
a) it accounts for hitting efficiency (OBP and
SLG)
b) it accounts for overall batting production
(number of runs created)
c) it reflects playing time for the season
d) it adjusts for the season in which the
player performed
e)
it is meaningful to the average fan (a similar
number range as the batting average)
By
combining the three dimensions of hitting:
on-base percentage (OBP), slugging average (SLG) and runs created (RC), batting
proficiency comes up with a new number which reflects offensive production for
the season in a more complete way (including playing time). And the result is translated into a number
that resembles the batting average in that 300 represents “a very good season”
while 400 represents “a fantastic offensive season.” (Only ten players have ever had a 400 BP
season.)
After looking at all the
great players of the 20th century, I have concluded that these are
the most proficient hitters. Here are
their CPT scores (Career Proficiency Total).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. |
Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Lou Gehrig
Rogers Hornsby
Stan Musial
Barry Bonds
Jimmie Foxx
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Mickey Mantle
Tris Speaker
Frank Robinson
Mel Ott
Honus Wagner |
BPR
427
387
385
371
364
364
363
357
343
339
341
337
325
323
325 |
.01(RC)
27
23
23
20
26
21
21
25
23
26
19
22
21
21
19 |
CPT
454
410
408
391
390
385
384
382
366
365
360
359
346
344
344 |
BPR (batting
proficiency rating) is the average of the player’s batting proficiency for his
ten best seasons – his peak years. .01(RC) represents 1% of the player’s career runs created – his
longevity factor. So, the CPT (career
proficiency total) is a combination of the player’s peak performance and his
career batting achievements.
As you can see,
Babe Ruth and Ted Williams are the most proficient hitters in history. And, at the end of the 2002 season, Barry
Bonds was the sixth most proficient career hitter. Since Bonds is the only one who is still
active, he is the only one with a chance to move higher on the list.
Only sixty players in
baseball history have managed a CPT of 300. Honus Wagner is the only shortstop in that group and Mike Piazza (at
exactly 300) is the only catcher. This
means, of course, that just as Babe Ruth is the most proficient hitter ever and
Wagner is the best hitting shortstop – then Piazza is the greatest hitting
catcher of all time.
Mike Piazza – The Most
Proficient Hitting Catcher of All Time
If Mike Piazza is the best
hitting catcher ever, the question now arises: who was the second best hitting
catcher? Was it Johnny Bench or Yogi
Berra or someone else?
For this analysis, I looked
at the ten catchers who are mentioned most often when discussions of the “best
hitting catchers” are held. They are:
Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Gary Carter, Mickey Cochrane, Bill
Dickey, Carlton Fisk, Gabby Hartnett, Mike Piazza and Ted Simmons. I also included the still-active Ivan
Rodriguez for comparative purposes. Here
is the ranking for these catchers according to their batting proficiency. Hall of Famers are in dark print.
Mike Piazza
Johnny Bench
Ted Simmons
Yogi Berra
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Bill Dickey
Carlton Fisk
Gabby Hartnett
Ivan Rodriguez
Roy Campanella |
BPR
289
265
262
252
254
251
247
243
243
233
232 |
.01(RC)
11
13
13
13
10
12
12
13
12
9
8 |
CPT
300
278
275
265
264
263
259
256
255
242
240 |
As noted above, BPR (batting proficiency rating) is the average of the player’s ten best
seasons – his peak years. .01(RC)
represents 1% of the player’s career runs created – his longevity factor. So, the CPT (career proficiency total) is a
combination of the player’s peak performance and his career batting
achievements. (All numbers from
baseball-reference.com.)
As an example of
how the BP formula (given above) works, take a look at Piazza’s 2000
season. He had 117 runs created that
year and an OPS of 1.012. Therefore,
BP =
7(117) + 1000(1.012) = 819 + 1012
= 1831/5.75 =
318.43 (unadjusted)
So, Piazza had
an unadjusted BP of 318 in 2000. In
order to adjust for season and league,
318.43 x
.705/.770 = 292
(where .770 is the National League OPS for 2000)
Therefore, Mike
had a batting proficiency of 292 in 2000.
As you can see
from the numbers above, Mike Piazza is already the best hitting catcher in
baseball history and his CPT score can get better since he is still
active. At the end of 2002, his BPR (his
ten best BP seasons) was 289 and he had 1142 runs created.
I should comment that Roy
Campanella’s CPT score may not give adequate recognition to his hitting ability. He is one of the few players in the Hall of
Fame who played in the majors for only ten seasons. That was due in part to being excluded by the
color barrier when he was young and to an auto accident which ended his
career. And, of course, the BPR is based
on a player’s ten best seasons. For
Campy, that means that all his seasons are counted - whereas for other players
their poorest seasons are not counted. So, even though he was considered a solid hitter during his career and
had a few really good hitting seasons, his CPT score is the lowest in this
group.
These scores raise at least
one other interesting question about the batting proficiency approach. You may wonder how a player like Bill Dickey
who played for seventeen seasons and had a career .313 batting average can have
a CPT (career proficiency total) of only 259. And this is a fair question because it illustrates the essential problem
with the batting average and the need for a more comprehensive measure like
batting proficiency.
During his ten best seasons,
Dickey had a very respectable OPS of .903. But there were two main reasons why his CPT is relatively low. The first is that he played an average of
only 122 games per season during his ten best seasons and so his average
runs-created for those seasons was just 89. The second reason was that he played during the 1930s when the average
OPS in the American League was very high – so his BPR was adjusted from 266 to
247.
This example illustrates
rather well why a more comprehensive approach to analyzing hitting is
needed. A casual fan looking at Bill
Dickey’s .313 career batting average compared to Johnny Bench’s .267 average
might conclude that Dickey was the much better hitter. But, as we can see from the analysis above,
Johnny Bench was a more proficient hitter than Bill Dickey.
Michael Hoban, Ph.D.
Prof of Mathematics, Monmouth University, NJ
Prof Emeritus, City U of NY
mhoban@monmouth.edu
