• Which Yankees Were On PARR Last Year?

    Posted by on May 20th, 2005 · Comments (4)

    I’ve always been interested in a player’s BPA (Bases per Plate Appearance) in terms of measuring his offensive worth. The formula for BPA is (TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS-GIDP)/(AB+BB+HBP+SF).

    And, just today, while thinking about Gross Production Average (GPA) and the value that it yields and the ease on the eyes that the final numbers provide, I thought

    Well, if you take BPA and cut it in half, you get numbers very close to what you see with GPA. In fact, the numbers you get are probably closer to the “great/good/bad/terrible” numbers that “Batting Average” has trained our eyes to accept.

    For example, below are the 2004 BPA/2 results for Yankees batters:

     Alex Rodriguez

    .290

     Gary Sheffield

    .287

     Hideki Matsui

    .286

     Jorge Posada

    .263

     Derek Jeter

    .258

     Andy Phillips

    .250

     Tony Clark

    .244

     Ruben Sierra

    .238

     Bernie
    Williams

    .237

     Jason Giambi

    .232

     Miguel Cairo

    .231

     Kenny Lofton

    .226

     John Olerud

    .221

     John Flaherty

    .218

     Bubba Crosby

    .188

     Enrique Wilson

    .168

     Dioner Navarro

    .143

     Homer Bush

    .063

     Felix Escalona

    .056

     Travis Lee

    .050

    I’m going to continue to play around with this for a while. Shoot, for all I know, someone has already done this with BPA? Or, I’m just expressing something else already done in a more complicated manner? It’s more than likely. However, just in case it is not the truth, I need to stick a flag on this puppy and claim it in the name of WasWatching.com, right?

    Therefore, for me (and hopefully the world) BPA/2 will henceforth be known as Plate Appearances Results Ratio, or “PARR.”

    If any of the more learned sabermetricians out there would be willing to comment on this, it would be appreciated. I know just enough to be dangerous. And, rather than have the guys over at Primer accuse me of sabermasturbation or something worse, it is better to ask for help on this before having it tattooed on my forehead. (By the way, what ever happened to Gary Myrick? He was awesome).

    PARR……..good, bad, ugly? Been done before? I’d love to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

    Update, 5/20/05, 11:55 pm EST: I’ve been playing around with PAAR for some time tonight. I think I have something interesting. A lot of times, when you have a guy with good OWP, OPS, and/or RCAA – and, if he has a low PAAR, the next year, he bombs. It’s still early – I want to look at this more. But, it’s kinda cool. Stay tuned.

    Update, 5/21/05, 9:16 am EST: I just took 22 major league batters at random who qualified for the batting title during the seasons of 2000 through 2003 and who had a PARR of <= .270 and an OPS >=.800 in a season. Of those 22, one was terrible the next year, one had his career end, 9 saw a drop in their numbers the next season, 4 had poor seasons next – and 3 were about the same the next year and 4 improved the following season. So, on this very small sample, two-thirds of these batters did not do as well the next year with the bat. That’s enough for me to keep playing with this for a while – to see if I can find more good stuff. Stay tuned.

    Update, 5/27/05, 11:49 am EST: I just looked at the 643 major league batters who qualified for the batting title during the seasons of 2000 through 2003.

    From that group, 134 had a PARR of <= .270 and an OPS >=.800 in a season. Of this group, 64% saw their numbers go down the next year, 5% stayed about the same and 31% saw an increase the following year. (Note, this includes guys who were injured or out of MLB, etc., the next year as being “down.”)

    Seems like this cut is a good flag for possible stat reduction the next year – but, it would be nice to know the overall ‘natural’ average of “down” next years to see if the 64% is high, low, or normal.

    Also, while I was at it, I looked at those within the 270/800 cut with 20+ RCAA and 25+ RCAA in the season. For the 20+ RCAA group, which ws 32 batter/seasons, 75% were down the next year. And, for the 25+ RCAA group, which was 26 batter/seasons, 84% were down the next year.

    Comments on Which Yankees Were On PARR Last Year?

    1. May 22nd, 2005 | 4:04 am

      Steve, interesting stuff. Two questions/comments: The chart above is stats for 2004 I assume? You list it as 2003. Also, just eyeballing it, PARR seems to be significantly harsher than GPA, as all these numbers seem to be about 20-30 points lower than the respective players’ GPAs.

    2. May 22nd, 2005 | 8:17 am

      Cliff – yes, that should be 2004. I’ll fix that. Thanks.

      I’m starting to seeing that PARR hates guys who are singles hitters and who don’t walk a lot. (Is that a bad thing?)

      But, on the flip side, if you get a guy with good OPS, RCAA, OWP, who also has a low PARR in a season, and who cannot run, I think that means he’s a good risk not to match those OPS, RCAA, OWP, etc., numbers the next year.

      I think this ties into DIPs. It could. Maybe.
      I’m just looking at it at a very high level.

    3. Wahoo Sam
      May 24th, 2005 | 1:47 pm

      A magazine in the 80′s used to do something similar (bases/outs) and call it Total Average.

      Yours uses plate appearances instead of outs, and looks like this

      Rickey Henderson in 1985:

      282 TB + 99 BB + 3 HBP + 80 SB – 10 CS – 8 GIDP = 446 bases

      547 AB + 99 BB + 3 HBP + 5 SF = 654 plate appearance

      446/654 = .682, divided by 2 = .341 PARR

      kinda neat I think

    4. May 24th, 2005 | 2:07 pm

      Thanks Sam.
      I’m still studying some numbers on this. I’ll have to look at TA too to see how it lines up.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.