I think the OPS+ mark helps to account for that. It's like Larry Walker. Would he have been one of his generation's greatest hitters without Coors Field? Maybe, but then maybe his teammates wouldn't have been. And we all know Walker saw a lot of pitches he shouldn't have because he was surrounded by Bichette, et al, who were crushing it all around him. Who do you pitch to on that 90's Rockies lineup, in that field? Crazy.
OPS+ tries to account for it, though doesn't account for everything.
And then to get even deeper, we can always just go with WAR scores. I mean, I think a lot of HOF balloters lean a bit too hard on WAR scores. But then others do not. They fall prey to the simplicites of baseball, like the "wow factor" stuff such as personality, homeruns, average, media skills...the bullshit.
I also like the Base Runs metric, which gets down to the core issue of baseball - scoring runs, and who puts themselves in the best position to do so.
I would like it if you posted in the Sports Forum. This is good stuff.
Yeah, the problem with OPS+ is that, while probably directionally correct, people try to use it as an absolute. i.e. Player A at 95 is a slightly below average player, while Player B at 105 is a slightly above average. The reality is the could be almost the same player. .
I always take adjusted metrics with a grain of salt.
Case in point, Hideki Matsui: 2009 OPS: .876, OPS+ 123 2010 OPS: .826 OPS+ 126. I get that it’s trying to adjust for Yankee Stadium, but to say he’s better in 2010 slugging a full .50 pts less is tough for me.
I only look at WAR in terms of direction, and even then, ignore the defensive part of it. Defensive metrics like Zone Rating, are pretty inaccuarate until the sample reaches three years (even the creators of the stat admit this). Since WAR is cumulative, using the defensive metrics with an SS of a few months, half year, or even a full season don’t mean much to me.
