Where does Jose Bautista rank among best Blue Jay hitters of all time?

[Stangstag]

Delgado's wRC+ by year

1996: 111

1997: 122

1998: 145

1999: 134

2000: 179

2001: 143

2002: 145

2003: 159

2004: 126

 

Bautista's wRC+ by year

2009: 102

2010: 165

2011: 181

2012: 137

2013: 134

2014: 160

2015: 145

 

Very comparable numbers

[TilsonBritoFan]

Delgado's wRC+ by year

1996: 111

1997: 122

1998: 145

1999: 134

2000: 179

2001: 143

2002: 145

2003: 159

2004: 126

 

Bautista's wRC+ by year

2009: 102

2010: 165

2011: 181

2012: 137

2013: 134

2014: 160

2015: 145

 

Very comparable numbers

 

Agreed, but more years with Delgado, which is why I said Delgado for now, but Joey may catch him

[BigCecil]

Delgado's wRC+ by year

1996: 111

1997: 122

1998: 145

1999: 134

2000: 179

2001: 143

2002: 145

2003: 159

2004: 126

 

Bautista's wRC+ by year

2009: 102

2010: 165

2011: 181

2012: 137

2013: 134

2014: 160

2015: 145

 

Very comparable numbers

 

Agreed, but more years with Delgado, which is why I said Delgado for now, but Joey may catch him

 

To some this is a dumb question but do these gaudy Delgado numbers need to be adjusted for steroid era offense or does wRC+ already factor that in given its an avg at the time?

[Orgfiller]

To some this is a dumb question but do these gaudy Delgado numbers need to be adjusted for steroid era offense or does wRC+ already factor that in given its an avg at the time?

 

Yeah wRC+ adjusts for league hitting, so if the average hitter was better back then Delgado was still a large percentage above the average hitter.

[Stangstag]

To some this is a dumb question but do these gaudy Delgado numbers need to be adjusted for steroid era offense or does wRC+ already factor that in given its an avg at the time?

 

It is already adjusted to league averages

[BigCecil]

Yeah wRC+ adjusts for league hitting, so if the average hitter was better back then Delgado was still a large percentage above the average hitter.

 

Thought so. Makes sense. Thanks.

[BTS]

Thought so. Makes sense. Thanks.

 

It's scaled to that 100 is league average and accounts for park factors. So someone with a 150 wRC+ is 50% better offensively than a league average hitter.

[Jimcanuck]

It's scaled to that 100 is league average and accounts for park factors. So someone with a 150 wRC+ has a 50% higher wRC than a league average hitter.

 

ftfy

[GD]

lol

[BTS]

ftfy

 

Everyone knows you don't understand/believe in wRC+ as a stat. You don't need to turn a completely benign post into another opportunity to whore for attention.

[Jimcanuck]

Everyone knows you don't understand/believe in wRC+ as a stat. You don't need to turn a completely benign post into another opportunity to whore for attention.

 

i understand stats, which is why i am able to correct your post

 

when you aren't slinging personal insults, you are a good and knowledgeable poster

[BTS]

i understand stats, which is why i am able to correct your post

 

when you aren't slinging personal insults, you are a good and knowledgeable poster

 

It didn't warrant a correction. wRC+ is good enough that you can say it measures a player's overall offensive contribution.

[GD]

i understand stats, which is why i am able to correct your post

 

when you aren't slinging personal insults, you are a good and knowledgeable poster

 

Correct? You didn't do anything other than disagree without providing any sort of counter point.

[Jimcanuck]

Correct? You didn't do anything other than disagree without providing any sort of counter point.

 

a wRC of 150 does not mean the player is "50% better offensively than a league average hitter". there are too many limitations with wRC (and all other statistics) to make that kind of absolutism. the only thing you can say is the player has a "50% higher wRC than the league average".

 

absolute statements should only be used when dealing with proven laws of nature

[GD]

a wRC of 150 does not mean the player is "50% better offensively than a league average hitter". there are too many limitations with wRC (and all other statistics) to make that kind of absolutism. the only thing you can say is the player has a "50% higher wRC than the league average".

 

absolute statements should only be used when dealing with proven laws of nature

 

Yet you continue not to list them. That's all I'm asking for.

[dineke]

It doesn't take into account a hitter's "clutch factor", which is the most important factor in baseball as we all know.

[SpeedyGose]

Delgado's wRC+ by year

1996: 111

1997: 122

1998: 145

1999: 134

2000: 179

2001: 143

2002: 145

2003: 159

2004: 126

 

Bautista's wRC+ by year

2009: 102

2010: 165

2011: 181

2012: 137

2013: 134

2014: 160

2015: 145

 

Very comparable numbers

 

Delgado has 9 years listed there, 6 over 130 wRC+. Bautista with 7 total years with 6 over 130 wRC+. Unless you think Joey is going to fall off a cliff soon, I'm not sure how someone can say without a doubt Delgado was better

[Jimcanuck]

Yet you continue not to list them. That's all I'm asking for.

 

the basic limitation of any empirical stat such as wRC is it approximates the influence of all of the inputs (through fractional coefficients, linear weights, etc). empirical stats by definition are approximations (ie. not 100% accurate)

 

BTS could have said the player is "50 +/- ?% better offensively than the league average hitter" with ? being the 2 standard deviations error of the approximation (2 SD is typically used)

[GD]

the basic limitation of any empirical stat such as wRC is it approximates the influence of all of the inputs (through fractional coefficients, linear weights, etc). empirical stats by definition are approximations (ie. not 100% accurate)

 

BTS could have said the player is "50 +/- ?% better offensively than the league average hitter" with ? being the 2 standard deviations error of the approximation (2 SD is typically used)

 

So you take issue with what BTS said, and that's fine. More of a language thing, but language is important. However, you don't seem to have objections to wRC+ as a stat. Would you agree that albeit imperfect, wRC+ is probably the best measure of offense we have publicly available right now?

[Jimcanuck]

So you take issue with what BTS said, and that's fine. More of a language thing, but language is important. However, you don't seem to have objections to wRC+ as a stat. Would you agree that albeit imperfect, wRC+ is probably the best measure of offense we have publicly available right now?

 

as a measure of past relative offensive value, yes

[GD]

Agreed

[BTS]

the basic limitation of any empirical stat such as wRC is it approximates the influence of all of the inputs (through fractional coefficients, linear weights, etc). empirical stats by definition are approximations (ie. not 100% accurate)

 

BTS could have said the player is "50 +/- ?% better offensively than the league average hitter" with ? being the 2 standard deviations error of the approximation (2 SD is typically used)

 

So basically you were looking for attention.

[Jimcanuck]

So basically you were looking for attention.

 

Not at all... exposing the limitations of stat measures is important

[Stangstag]

So basically you were looking for attention.

 

Hit the nail on the head there. But it's the same case with about 50% of the posters here. Just a bunch of no-lifes looking for attention.

[BTS]

Not at all, but good try

 

Are you going to raise a stink every time someone uses wRC+ and doesn't add error bars and an appendix to their post, or is this just something I'm going to have to deal with? What about defense? Can I state in conversation that player with 10 DRS has been 1 win better defensively than a player with 0, or do I have to annotate that with an explanation on how that might not be 100% accurate?

 

I ask because I don't want to add you to ignore, but I have a low threshold for pedantry.

[RealAccountant]

Delgado has 9 years listed there, 6 over 130 wRC+. Bautista with 7 total years with 6 over 130 wRC+. Unless you think Joey is going to fall off a cliff soon, I'm not sure how someone can say without a doubt Delgado was better

 

You also have to consider the era. Without a doubt Jose has been a top 3 hitter in MLB over the 6 years stretch. I doubt the same could have been said for Delgado for any multi year stretch.

[Dick_Pole]

Bautista is the better hitter when looking at offensive WAR and considering that he's had far fewer plate appearances in a Jays uniform. There's a chance he will pass Delgado for #1 on the list by the end of next year with ~1,300 less plate appearances.

 

The only way I can see Delgado being considered better:

 

1. The question is posed as who is the best hitter, regardless of position. So the negative positional adjustments applied to first basemen versus right fielders when calculating WAR should be excluded. Bautista would benefit from superior baserunning which would also need to be excluded.

 

2. Delgado performed in the steroids era with high league wide offense. Therefore it was more difficult for him to achieve an elite level of offense versus the league average compared to Bautista's output versus league average. If Delgado was transplanted to 2010, would his numbers still be the same, and thus things like wRC and oWAR be higher? He was never implicated in any steroids witch hunt so he has that in his favour, but this point is still too speculative to say for sure. Delgado's counting stats like HR and RBI are still significantly higher than Bautista's as well as most of the rate stats.

 

3. Delgado mashed for a long time while Bautista wasted most of his 20's being a marginal player. Bautista has achieved almost as much oWAR as Delgado in far fewer PAs, but the fact that Delgado has so many PAs in a Jays uniform in the first place speaks to his longevity of being a useful player. Bautista would have to hit at this level until age 40 to make up for his lost youth.

 

4. Delgado put up some useful years in other uniforms while Bautista's career outside of Toronto has been marginal. But then this goes back to considering players like Molitor, Thomas, Henderson etc.

[Jimcanuck]

Are you going to raise a stink every time someone uses wRC+ and doesn't add error bars and an appendix to their post, or is this just something I'm going to have to deal with? What about defense? Can I state in conversation that player with 10 DRS has been 1 win better defensively than a player with 0, or do I have to annotate that with an explanation on how that might not be 100% accurate?

 

I ask because I don't want to add you to ignore, but I have a low threshold for pedantry.

 

the way you worded it placed far more value on wRC than is warranted. write and do what you want, this is a discussion board, and anyone is free to pushback on overreliance on stats

[BTS]

the way you worded it placed far more value on wRC than is warranted. write and do what you want, this is a discussion board, and anyone is free to pushback on overreliance on stats

 

It's a good thing we have you around to point out that wRC+ might not be 100% perfect. You should get a team together to make sure nobody discusses defensive metrics or park factors without a disclaimer that they might be imperfect. Fight the good fight. The rest of us will chat about baseball.

[Mozzer]

When he stops stretching he gets into level of excellence. Top three hitters of all-time Jays Who had more than a cup of coffee. Top ten otherwise.