The Pyramid Rating System: The Results

It’s been awhile since my first article back in August, and in that time I’ve been hard at work refining my ranking system. I’ve adjusted the way offensive production is evaluated, readjusted my position requirements and have also included the 2015 season into my overall rankings. I’ve also been working on a few other surprises, which I hope to delve into in future articles, but for now, on to the results.

As mentioned in the first article, players were evaluated on a season-by-season basis, with each season being rated on a 20-80 scale that reflects the commonly accepted scale used by MLB scouts. One question I don’t feel gets asked often enough by rating systems developers is how much correlation exists between the player rating and overall team success.

Below is a scatter graph of each major league season — starting in 1901 — and the odds that a player’s team won the pennant. Partial and combined seasons were removed, as well as the entire 1994 season.

As you can see, there does appear to be a pretty strong — almost linear — correlation between a player’s overall rating and the odds his team will reach the World Series, right up until the highest rating of 80. If a player has a rating of 80, the chance his team will reach the World Series is 25 percent, which is seven percent higher than any other rating. What I believe this suggests is major league baseball might be a bit more like the NBA than people think, where one player can have a significant impact on a team’s odds of winning, provided that player is one of the one or two best players in the game.

As it relates to evaluating players all time, the fundamental question we have to ask is: What are we looking for? The answer to this question in my opinion is: Who are the players who most help you win the World Series? The above graph would suggest an increased value attached to peak dominance over career longevity, which the Pyramid Rating System captures.

This approach is very different from asking who is the most talented. The most talented player to me would suggest the skill set that goes into making a great major leaguer is always static. One look at the major league record books will tell you the records set tend to be as much a product of the era as they are of the player.

The PRS defines who is the most valuable, which is decided as much by the era as it is by the player’s ability. A catcher with a great arm in the 1950s will not have as much value as one in the 1980s simply because there were more bases being stolen in the ’80s than there were in the ’50s.

This is reflected in other ways as well.

Looking at the MLB league leader in range factor for shortstops, we can see a very clear downward trend over time. Andrelton Simmons gets about two fewer chances per game than Dave Bancroft did. As you would expect, pre-WWII-era shortstops rate much higher defensively than their modern counterparts do. In fact, of the top ten greatest defensive seasons in history according to the Pyramid Rating System, nine of them are middle infielders from before WWII. Only Mark Belanger’s 1975 season cracked the top ten.

This graph gets right to the heart of talent versus value. Was Bancroft a better defensive player than Simmons? It’s tough to say. Both were/are arguably the best in their respective eras, so the question of who was more dominant relative to his counterparts also must be asked. In terms of who was more valuable, to me there is no doubt Bancroft’s defensive ability had far more of an effect on the Giants success than Simmons’ defensive ability had on the Braves, and it is simply because Bancroft had more balls hit to him than Simmons did. This is the lens by which players should be looked at all time. When you try to adjust for era and neutralize stats, I feel you turn players into something they never were.

I’ve created my own Hall of Fame based on these PRS results. The rules were very simple. A five-year waiting period requirement still was in place, and three players were inducted in even years, two in odd years. I also passed no judgment on players like Pete Rose or Joe Jackson. Whether the two should be inducted is up for endless debate. I have simply included the two as an illustration of the talent needed to get into the Hall of Fame. The only thing I will say on the subject is that the inclusion of Cap Anson — who bet on numerous games throughout his career, as well as being instrumental in the establishment of the “gentleman’s agreement” to keep black players out of the game — shows the only thing the Hall of Fame respects more than the integrity of the game is the grandfather clause.

Below is a graph showing the percentage of active players in the league who would later go on to be inducted in the Hall of Fame.

Unlike the real Hall of Fame, in my hall of fame the percentage of players who would go on to be inducted rarely drops below four percent and rarely rises above six percent, which demonstrates a lack of basis toward or against any era. Each era is proportionally represented, both in who is inducted in the Hall as well as the overall rankings themselves. Some of the more modern inductees may lead to some head scratching, but the idea of Curt Schilling being considered a borderline HOFer to me is a demonstration of just how stingy voters have become in recent years rather than an actual reflection of his talent.

In closing, what’s most important is to treat these rankings more as estimates than absolutes. The difference between the 190th-ranked player (Cole Hamels) and the 215th-ranked player (Jimmy Key) is almost non-existent. Assuming these two players played at the same time, a trade of one for the other wouldn’t have a significant impact on either team’s long-term win-loss record. If the rankings were absolute, it may not be possible for a bad team ever to beat a good one. This type of uncertainty always must be taken into account when looking at results like this. It’s the uncertainty that makes playing the games worthwhile.

The other thing to stress is how much respect and admiration I have for the players even in the 400s. Even at that level, we’re still talking about guys who were better than 98 percent of the players ever to play the game at the major league level. Just because I have Player X ranked ahead of them does not mean I can’t also appreciate the amount of skill and talent these players had. The further down this list you go, the more blurred the difference between players becomes, and those rankings are far more fascinating than what is at the top.

References & Resources

• Complete Pyramid Rating System Rankings