Stats and Formulas: Overview

The Indispensables (where we get the historical data):

Baseball Reference.com (MLB) www.baseball-reference.com

Seamheads.com Negro Leagues Database www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/index.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

KEY ABBREVIATIONS, TERMS, and FORMULAS used at this website:

WAR = Wins Above Replacement; our go-to stat, supplied by The Indispensables; background link: https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

[WAR] per 162 = indicates average WAR value for the player in a full (162 games played) season (“average full season WAR”); for pitchers, 68 games (Games pitched + Games started) is considered a full season; so in either case, Career WAR (CW) is divided by a “full season” (162 games for position players or 68 games (G + GS) for pitchers) to yield an average-full-season-rate for WAR. NOTE: I first encountered these two formulas at the old Baseball Gauge site, so TBG is to be credited.

BP = Birthplace; everything hinges on this category at RetroPlay.net; all teams are formed on this basis for all parts of the overall project.

REG = Region/Regional Affiliation; since most states/nations would not be able to field full rosters of exclusively native sons, many/most must combine with other states (usually bordering on each other) to come up with enough players in a given season replay; regions encompass two or more state entities and change as necessary to accommodate the full number of qualified (historic MLB/NLB) players.

CW = Career WAR; POS = Position (primary) and POS (2nd column) = other position(s) played at the MLB/NLB level (usually listed in order of frequency).

RPR = RetroPlay Rating; our ultimate “career impact” stat; formula=CW times (average-per-162), rounded down to the nearest whole number (or zero); Format: __._ X _._=RPR [whole number, rounded down].

RC = Regional Code (running from Maine [ME] at 10, generally heading east to west and north to south throughout the United States, then to Latin America, the Pacific, Asia-Africa, Europe and the U.K. and finally, closing the full circle in Canada [CN, 700]).

PC = Position Code; this employs the official-scorecard position-numbering (1 for pitcher; 2 for catcher; 3 for 1b; 4 for 2b; 5 for 3b; 6 for SS; 7 for LF, 8 for CF, 9 for RF; these numbers are usually encoded in PC in order of frequency of appearances).

LRF/RLF = Indicates a “corner outfielder” who has played mostly as a Leftfielder (LRF) or as a Rightfielder (RLF); to observe positional integrity in season replays/ simulations, only those players who have the “OF” (all outfield positions played) or CF (Centerfielder) designations should be used as regular centerfielders (or in any of the three OF positions) [NOTE: we regard the CF as capable of playing well at any OF position, just as a Shortstop (SS) is deemed capable of playing well at any infield position if shifted there; this thinking aligns with main “Defensive Spectrum” ideas].

13B / 31B = In turn, a first baseman (1B) who can also play 3B, or a third baseman (3B) who can also handle 1B (same with similar designations, such as 23B, 32B, SS3, SSO [shortstop-outfield] and the like; this is done to pack max. info into min. space).

Form hints: Pitcher names (and often, their stats) are italicized; players whose stats have been derived — in whole, or in part — from Negro League Baseball (NLB) careers are usually underlined to facilitate research (so you know where to look for their stats, since many are not included in official MLB records displayed at Baseball-Reference.com, in which case the Negro Leagues Database is your go-to resource); Three-column margin clusters (found either following player/BP/ REG or on the right margins after per-162 rates) indicate (one) Career War and two Position(s) columns; these groupings necessarily float to fit player info on one line.

ON RANKING PLAYERS VIA RPR (FOR BOTH RETROPLAY AND HISTORIC MLB-NLB PURPOSES)

EXAMPLE: Step 1, obtain CW and Per-162 numbers: Through 2022, Albert Pujols has reached a Career War (CW) total of 101.6 at a rate of 5.3 WAR per 162 games; How per-162-games rate derived: (101.6 CW divided by 3,080 career games) times 162 (games for a full season) = 5.34 (rounded to 5.3). (All of this data can be found on his player page at Baseball-Reference: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml

Step 2, multiply Career War (CW) by WAR-per-162-games rate (“per-162”); 101.6 x 5.3 = 538.48 (rounded down to nearest whole number = 538). This gives Pujols the RetroPlay Rating (RPR) of 538, which puts him in the top 40 or so of all MLB players in history. Among active players, only Mike Trout‘s RPR of 782 exceeds that lofty number (less CW at this point – 82.4 — but accumulated at a much-higher rate-per-162 of 9.5! Yes, Trout has been that good, with his average full season being about twice as productive as a typical All-Star’s season!)

Fair Question: Why do we round down for the RPR? Fair Answer: Because we’ve already rounded up — wherever applicable — for both Career War (e.g., 101.55 becomes 101.6 with 1 decimal point) and Rate/162 (e.g., 5.25 becomes 5.3 with that single decimal point). That’s enough rounding up, IMO.

“RetroPlay RE-set Hall Of Fame” or… the “20/20 Hindsight Hall Of Fame”

As stated below, the formula that determines who makes this virtual HOF (or whatever it’s called) is very straightforward: RetroPlay Rating (RPR) = Career WAR (to 1 decimal point) times WAR-per-162-games (full season) rate (to one decimal point, as well); if a player’s (Career WAR) X (per-162 rate) = 225 or more, and he meets the PA/IP minimums*, that player is automatically “inducted” upon retirement. And we say “players” because this is a players-only Hall; no managers, executives, or “pioneers” in this virtual gallery of the players who had the most career impact on the field. * – minimum 5000 PA/1600 IP except 19th Century players, who played far fewer games than in the seasons of the 20th and 21st Centuries

Other things to keep in mind:

The RPR formula is set up to reflect BOTH a sufficiently lengthy career (counting stat of Career WAR) and a career that has been consistently productive (rate stat of average WAR-per-162-games-played, indicating that the player had All-Star-type seasons — WAR of 5+ — year in and year out); it’s also designed to bypass the voting foibles of fans or veterans committees, such as cronyism and/or bias for or against contemporaries or direct rivals;
If a player gets to a healthy Career WAR total of 40 or 50 or so, but his per-162 average is only about 2.5 (indicating a starter, but not an All-Star, on average), well, his RPR total will be only 100 or 125, and he’s been exposed as someone who merely accumulated those career numbers over the course of a long career, and has not been consistently dominant or a true, virtually-annual All-Star (rhetorical question: is that a Hall-of-Famer in your book?);
a) We’re looking objectively at the metrics only, and not trying to assess character/morality/off-field behavior in any of this, and b) only regular-season performance is being weighed in the scales (subject to change if post-season data can be normalized, supplied, and added in somehow)
ONE LAST THING TO KEEP IN MIND: Whether we’re talking about the Fantasy-League side (Retroplay.net) or the historical (actual MLB-NLB) side (Baseball150.com ), we’re compiling the (virtual/alternative) honor rolls on the same basis: RetroPlay Rating (RPR). On the historical side of the picture, it’s my opinion that RPR gives more objective, full credit to those who had the most career impact (REGULAR-season only, remember, so that is a difference), and exposes some actual Cooperstown inductees as inferior to some who are still on the outside looking in (if it’s a numbers-only HOF). Better, less political or “crony-istic” choices could’ve been made, in other words. Fans of baseball history and aficionados of number-crunching sabermetrics will be able to quickly spot the statistical underachievers and the more-worthy claimants to residence in The Hall among those that RPR has identified. But ultimately, this is all geared toward “retro-speculation” and “quiet mental fun”; none of what is posted at either of my baseball sites is going to change a thing about reality, so relax and go over it all as you see fit and accept/reject at will. This is intended to be more about fun than controversy, but for some, the fun is in the controversy. What you get out of this is up to you, but for my part, thanks just for checking it out.

MORE ON THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION TO THE RETROPLAY RE-SET HALL OF FAME (FORMULA FOR RELIEF SPECIALISTS):

*** 2/25/22 NOTE: The following section has been “grandfathered in” in order to explain how the RetroPlay system treats relief pitchers with regard to H.O.F. consideration.

Admittedly, something had to be done to accommodate the relief specialists, since WAR smiles on the innings-chewers, and not even one RP met even the original (experimental) threshold of 200 points, with the final cutoff settling in around 220. Even Mariano Rivera, the Gold Standard by which all relievers can be measured, came in short at 191 (career WAR of 56.2 multiplied by WAR-per-162-games of 3.4). Since we all should be able to agree that at least a small, representative contingent of the Relief-Specialist variety belongs in the Hall of Fame or a “Hall of Achievement,” if you prefer, some different criteria had to be developed to correct any across-the-board injustice at the hands of WAR and/or my use of it for all other players. So here’s what I hit upon, called the Relief-Specialists Index (RSI):

Set Rivera’s totals of Saves (652), Career WAR (56.2), and WAR Per 162 Games (3.4) at the 100th percentile in each of those 3 categories (RSI of 300);
Looked at each Relief Specialist inducted into Cooperstown and all relievers in MLB history with 300+ saves to compare their numbers with Rivera’s in each of the 3 categories (expressed as a ratio and resulting percentile; e.g, 326 saves would be 326/652, or 50% — for a total of 50 points in that category);
Worked through the numbers, added ’em up, and the top 8 were named RRHOF members in good standing (picked 8 because there were 8 official HOFers who had made the Hall primarily as relievers to that point). This way, apples are compared with apples, and ultimately with the “Golden Apple,” the only HOFer to go in with unanimous backing (100% of the vote).

Now with this RE-set HOF in place, all of the ensuing controversy can begin (if that’s your thing). In any case, what you’ll find here (all of this is IMHO, you understand, right?) is a more objective, numbers-only (and players-only) gallery of the very best diamond achievers; call it a “Hall of Achievement,” if you will, rather than a Hall of Fame. Admittedly, I’m leaning very heavily on Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as the best one-figure measure of seasonal or career performance (with any apology due to Bill James cheerfully offered; the fact is, WAR numbers are just so readily available and fairly-well standardized, even if the Win Shares system of Mr. James should prove to be a truer measure). I started out way back at the tail end of the 20th Century with the Batter-Fielder- and Pitcher- Wins system (Palmer and Thorn, et al, as seen in the Total Baseball encyclopedia series), but since I had to put the whole birthplace-based historical replay project on the shelf for almost two decades — as life took me in other directions — WAR came roaring in and supplanted previous systems. So I cast my lot with WAR as the most readily-available-yet-quite-accurate stat, and I’m sticking with that, building upon that statistical base.

Hence, the whole RRHOF “selection” process hinges on only two WAR figures, multiplied by each other. If a player’s career WAR total (__._) times his “per 162 games” average WAR (_._) equals or exceeds 225, he’s in (automatically, upon retirement; all questions of character, PED-usage, etc. are irrelevant here as factors, though I do have my opinions on how relevant they should be with regard to THE National Baseball HOF in Cooperstown). I think that when you see the “new” (RE-set) roll call of superior players (only, and according to less subjective criteria), the overall picture will be improved. But by all means, check out my claims, compare the numbers of the “ins” and the “outs,” and form your own opinion. Even controversy can be fun, right?