What is the reason behind the same card having different ratings?

[stevem810]

This info is probably somewhere in the threads, but, I haven't found it, yet. The graphic depicts Waners' card in the same league. Why are the ratings different? Do they change over time? One is called a 'Record Breaker' and the other 'Legend'. Is that significant?

I just noticed they are different ages. Probably explains

[mikezone13]

From different years of the player's career is why

[Maddox]

They are different cards. One is the Historical Legend Card and the Other is the Record Breaker card.

It would be like Bryce Harper have a live series card and also a different card for his MVP year

[One Post Wonder]

Off topic, there's some proof that old players are grossly underrated.

29 years old.

#1 Comparison: Pete Rose.

In the year represented by this card, Waner hit .341 with 62 doubles and an OPS+ of 145.

Overall Rating: 66

62 doubles is the 4th most all time in a season. How many does the guy need to hit to get even a 90 rating, much less 100?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

Off topic, there's some proof that old players are grossly underrated.

29 years old.

#1 Comparison: Pete Rose.

In the year represented by this card, Waner hit .341 with 62 doubles and an OPS+ of 145.

Overall Rating: 66

62 doubles is the 4th most all time in a season. How many does the guy need to hit to get even a 90 rating, much less 100?

Disagree. His Power is very low for an RF. His overall rating is adequate IMO

[sansterre]

So I'm the last person to complain about ratings, as I find the premise of trying to shanghai statistical ratings into matching a subjective gestalt of a player is a dodgy business.

That said.

I'm intrigued by the ratings of 1932 Paul Waner. I was actually going to compare his stats with the league average for 1932 and then translate them to the 2018 NL and show that he wasn't as good as he looked at the time. But I was surprised to find that he translated pretty well, which suggests that I have misunderstood the process.

For example (all back-of-envelope calculations):

He struck out 3.8% of the time compared to 8% league average
His BABIP was 346 compared to 292 league average
His GAP ISO (ISO from 2b and 3b) was 130 compared to 77 league average
His HR% was only 1.3%, compared to 1.6% league average
His BB% was 8.03% compared to 7.8% league average

Throw that in the 2018 NL environment (trying to keep apples to apples, since both include pitchers) and you get:

SO% of only 10.7%
BABIP of 356
GAP ISO of 100
BB% of 8.9%
HR% of 2.64%

All those numbers are consistent with his shown ratings except his contact. A BABIP of 356 combined with a SO% of 10.7% yields something fairly crazy, like a 344 avg, presumably higher than a 72 contact rating. And while a 344/397/510 (which is what the above numbers convert to-ish) corner outfielder isn't a game-changer, he's probably better than a 66 overall (unless he's a terrible fielder). Of course, he's the exact kind of 66-pointer I'd kill to have. Great on-base, low cost, and a batting average protected from the ever-increasing quality of Stuff in the league by his very high Avoid-K's.

Nevertheless, I'm concerned that on some level I've misunderstood the conversion mechanic. Is it that you're comparing him to all batters in his year, and then converting him to modern times' batters, where my calculations were based on the league totals which include pitchers? I guess, something appears to be depressing the expected BABIP of Waner in PT, and I'm curious about it.

Obviously you don't answer to me, I'm just a stat-friendly fan who is curious about the conversion mechanic. But any light that can be shed on this would be appreciated

[One Post Wonder]

That's what OPS+ is. A comparison to other hitters of that year. On top of that Waner is in the Hall of Fame, so there is no doubt he compared exceptionally well to players of that era.

To move that forward to today, in 2018 a 145 OPS+ is closest to Manny Machado and Matt Carpenter. Freddie Freeman had a 140 OPS+, and I'm pretty sure he's rated 91. 145 is a 'top 10 in baseball' level score.

Waner's fielding ratings are probably bad, because I don't think fielding stats can get adjusted for their era like batting stats do. Most players before 1960 would probably look pretty bad in the field by modern standards, getting worse the further back you go. But still... .341 with 62 doubles. There aren't many players in history who can do that.

I was surprised Waner had as much extra base power as he did when I viewed his stats. I thought a Waner season was .350 with no power or speed or walks. I expected him to have one of the top 10 contact ratings in history since that was virtually his whole game and he did it extremely well.

Anyway, this was discussed at length in another thread, and that image happened to coincide with said discussion. I was just pointing out that specific example rather than trying to start a riot or anything.