ESPN devises new Player Rating System.

[Careless]

Why are OBP and AVG both counted? That seems sort of redundant.

Well, it helps to make up for ignoring slg. a bit.

 

Do they ignore SLG? Isn't that what batted based accumulated is supposed to be?

oops

[TMan92]

If ESPN did this, why are there any non-Yankees or Red Sox in the top 20? I am confused.

[Mephistopheles]

hhahaha retards

[Bixby]

Cesar Izturis is better than both Carlos Zambrano and Cliff Floyd.

Cesar Izturis is better than both Carlos Zambrano and Cliff Floyd.

Cesar Izturis is better than both Carlos Zambrano and Cliff Floyd.

Cesar Izturis is better than both Carlos Zambrano and Cliff Floyd.

Cesar Izturis is better than both Carlos Zambrano and Cliff Floyd.

[Amazing_Grace]

Ugh, This looks terrible. There's so much wrong I hardly know where to begin.

 

I guess I'll start by saying how bad it is to use counting stats. RBIs and runs are so profoundly affected by the other hitters in the lineup. Every player on a team that scores a lot of runs will look better and the players on low scoring teams will look worse.

 

Singles get counted no fewer than 4 times in the 10 factors they listed. Once for OBP, hits, BA, and total batted bases. A walk gets counted once, in OBP. I don't believe a single is four times more valuable than a walk, but what do you expect from the organization that employs the likes of John Kruk, Joe Morgan, Dusty Baker, and Tim McCarver.

 

What does batting bases accumulated mean? Is that what it sounds like? If so, why not divide by ABs to get a rate stat, SLG, or better still use ISoP so you're not counting singles again.

 

What is the point of using both BA and hits. One is calculated from the other. BA=hits/ABs, hits=BA x ABs, ABs= hits/BA. The two are intimately related here... Why not just cut the crap, admit you place more value on guys with more ABs, and just count ABs as a factor by itself (which is what they're doing mathematically anyway by counting hits twice and BA once).

 

Net steals is better than raw steals; at least the times a player was caught count against him. It's still not as good as a rate stat like SB% however. In their system, a player who steals 40 bases and is caught 20 times has 20 net steals, but a player that steals 25 bases and is caught just 5 times has the same 20 net steals. Which player would you rather have?

 

Is a player's defensive value really being determined solely by his team's record? I hope that's a misprint or I'm interpreting that wrong. If it's really just guys on better teams get a higher rating, then that would make Nomar Garciaparra and Carlos Delgado both better first basemen than Derrek Lee.

 

Ah yes, counting wins 20% for pitchers. That stat says as much about the bullpen, defense, and the offense as it does about the pitcher. Why is K/BB a factor for relievers and and total K's is the factor for starters? Are walks somehow magically made worse when the reliever comes into the game? Why no WHIP? At least they got BA against in there as well as bases allowed, which counts walks and extra bases.

 

The bullpen stats are plainly another way to overvalue the closer. 90% of relievers will never even come in for a save situation, but how does that fact make them worse pitchers. Does anyone here believe Ryan Dempster is really a better reliever than Michael Wuertz. Counting wins for relievers, is, of course, no better than counting them for starters, and arguably worse since they will often have a chance to lose games by losing the lead and seldom have a chance to win them by being lucky enough to be pitching when the offense, something they have no control over, takes the lead.

 

Finally, there are no park adjustment factors. All the stats they use can be profoundly affected by the dimensions of the ballpark, and the weather, etc.

 

I pray that this doesn't gain any traction. What a bunch of meaningless crap.

 

EDIT: And what does runs produced even mean? Are they counting hits, runs, and RBIs again or what?