Challenging Nostalgia and Performance Metrics in Baseball
Challenging nostalgia and performance metrics in baseball Daniel J. Eck March 28, 2018 Abstract In this writeup, we show that the great old time players are overrated relative to the great players of recent time and we show that performance metrics used to compare players have substantial era biases. In showing that the old time players are overrated, no individual statistics or era adjusted metrics are used. Instead, we provide substantial evidence that the composition of the eras themselves are drastically different. In particular, there were significantly fewer eligible MLB players available in the older eras of baseball. As a consequence, we argue that ESPN’s greatest MLB players of all time list includes too many old time players in their top 25 and many performance metrics fail to adequately compare players across eras. 1 Introduction When one looks at the raw or advanced baseball statistics, one is often blown away by the accomplishments of old time baseball players. The greatest players from the old eras of major league baseball produced mind- boggling numbers. As examples, see Babe Ruth’s batting average and pitching numbers, Honus Wagner’s 1900 season, Tris Speaker’s 1916 season, Walter Johnson’s 1913 season, Ty Cobb’s 1911 season, Lou Gehrig’s 1931 season, Rogers Hornsby’s 1925 season, and many others. The accomplishments achieved by players during these seasons are far beyond what recent players produce and it seems, at first glance, that players from the old eras were vastly superior to the players that play in more modern eras. But, is this true? Are the old time ball players actually superior? In this paper, we investigate whether or not the old time baseball players are overrated and whether or not the recent baseball players are underrated.
[Show full text]