LeeTro on "Wright, Reynolds and Zimmerman"

LeeTro — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:43:16 +0000

I'll start with the most unpredictable player, Wright. Last year was an anomaly in so many categories for him: HR, K, BABIP. His HR/FB% was about 40% of his career average, partly due to Citi Field, but mostly a mystery. It undoubtedly will go up, though probably only to 12-13%. His K% was 7% higher than career norms, which was a complete mystery, considering his simultaneous drop in power. I would expect the K's to go back towards 21% or so. Finally, his historically-high .400 BABIP has to come down, though he has a high line-drive rate, so .350-.360 would be a good estimate. Another thing that should help is the return of Reyes and Beltran. My estimates: .300 BA/20 HR/100 RBI/100 R/25 SB

Reynolds is the definitely the high-risk, high reward guy. His BA will never be much outside .250-.270 if he doesn't cut down on the K's. The HR's may come down a bit, considering his 26% HR/FB%, but he plays in the best hitter's park of the four, so it may not be that outlandish. He'll have Upton to drive in, but no one to drive him in. My estimates: .260 BA/40 HR/100 RBI/95 R/20 SB

Zimmerman and Longoria are near-clones and the most predictable players. The only differences are that Longoria has a bit of a K problem and Zimmerman doesn't run at all. You can pretty much look at their stats last year and go with those.

Overall, if you want to minimize risk, go with Zim or Longoria. Reynolds will go early enough for you to pick up high AVG guys to complement him, if you so choose. Wright is a complete wild-card, but would definitely be someone I'd pick if everyone else in your league is worried.

Jimbo on "Wright, Reynolds and Zimmerman"

Jimbo — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:06 +0000

Sometimes it is tough to separate pre-conceived notions about a player from honest assessment. After the Check the Position post for third base, I was wondering how these three really should be ranked. I'm relatively new to a lot of the stats used on fangraphs, so if anyone would be willing to educate me on a stat-driven ranking of these guys I'd greatly appreciate it.

Based on my prefrence for quality hitter profiles, I'd probably rank them Wright, Zimmerman, Reynolds...but for 5x5 who would be the best pick? I'm fairly certain I want at least one stud at 3B, and may have to overpay a little.

(Maybe Longoria should be in the group as well.)

LeeTro on "Replacement Level Team"

LeeTro — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:13:31 +0000

Yeah I forgot the purpose of the stat for a minute. Thank you for the correction.

tangotiger on "Replacement Level Team"

tangotiger — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:11:22 +0000

The slope has to be exactly = 1 in your regression. Therefore, if you did that, you would get:
Wins = WAR + 46.2

46.2 is a .285 team

The A Team on "Greg Dobbs and the Playoffs"

The A Team — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:32:53 +0000

Also, while including Dobbs in the lineup over Feliz might be the savvy thing to do, you need to keep in mind the value of their respective defenses. Feliz runs circles around Dobbs in the field. Further, that kind of platoon was not really explored during the regular season at all. The end result was that Dobbs was rusty all year and hadn't had consistent work.

And as pounded clown mentioned, calf/flu.

Mike Ketchen on "Is this a skill?"

Mike Ketchen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:18:11 +0000

I apologize in advance if this gets wordy. When looking at swingK% on http://www.statcorner.com I noticed that Verlander had a huge 6% spike this year. I checked his Pitch F/x and noticed he had about a half inch gain in rise on his FB. So my question is, is this sustainable or simply noise in a long career? I am intrigued because he did not see a huge spike in velocity or change in pitch selection. Simply put his FB was better. So can this be sustained? Thanks for any respones.

LeeTro on "Replacement Level Team"

LeeTro — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:13:00 +0000

This year's Actual vs. WAR scatterplot was interesting. The regression line was Actual Wins = .96(WAR)+ 47.6. So 47.6 wins is the answer to your question with this year's data, but that seems higher than what I've heard in the past, usually around 43 wins.

There were a bunch of teams above and below the linear regression line, with only 7 teams within 3.5 wins of their expected total. The teams above the line were fairly well correlated, mostly 5-6 wins above expected. Below the line, there was more variance and more gap, anywhere from 7-12 wins below expected. I don't feel like putting in the work to do past years, but this seems really strange.

recca on "Replacement Level Team"

recca — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:22:33 +0000

Can someone refresh my memory? How many wins would a team filled with 0.0 WAR players accumulate?

Daern on "BABIP"

Daern — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:30:48 +0000

Ah, thank you both very much.

LeeTro on "BABIP"

LeeTro — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:09:58 +0000

If you go down to the Aaron Hill topic, you'll find a deeper explanation.

David Appelman on "BABIP"

David Appelman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:56:54 +0000

BABIP excludes home runs because they're not hit into play. So let's say you had 10 plate appearances and in those 10 appearances you hit 2 home runs, and got 1 single. The rest of your 7 plate appearances were ground outs. Your batting average would be .300, but your BABIP would be .125.

Daern on "BABIP"

Daern — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:45:40 +0000

I was unaware of the possibility but apparently it exists: a player can have a BA higher than his BABIP? Maybe I'm being obtuse, but how does that happen? For instance, according to this site, Ian Kinsler had a .245 BABIP and a .253 average. Whaa?

lee on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

lee — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:34:39 +0000

My take on Gold Gloves and sabermetric community evaluations is that the entire process and its history must be taken in context:

1. Essentially, the Gold Glove Awards are a promotional and marketing device [and a darn clever one at that] of the Rawlings Comapany, a lenegndary glove designer and manufacturer;

2. Rawlings has cleverly distanced itself from the selection process, using the media for data gathering and the on-field, in clubhouse baseball men for player selections;

3. Baseball evaluations thrive on controversy and heated debate; so whether fans approve or detest GG Award selections, it's a win-win for Rawlings, keeping their "product" in the public eye;

4. Open acceptance or animosity and defensiveness in MLB is largely motivated by Tradition, Insider Cameraderie, and a kind of Initiation Process, once very really experienced by rookies. Careers are short and anything that even remptely threatens longevity is seen as a personal threat.

5. Although some in the sabermetric community are open and generous with data, such openness is often promotional of a favored metric or publication. There is, within the sabermetric community, a considerable core of "attitude," a laboratory aura that distances a core "elite" from the population of fandom at large. The chasm is filled with mathematical rigor and a dash of condecnsion. Some of that rigor has provided real breakthroughs in data interpretation; some is regressional preening.

6. IF the egoes of the two forces collide, one influencing the front offices with satistical data, finacial applications, and longevity prognostications; and that new force suggests replacements for uniformed staff, that influence will be met on the field with defensive attitudes at best - hostility at worst.

7. None of this has any impact on Rawlings [nor should it - it's people being people].

8. Some sabermetricians argue consensus, although little real consensus exists, particularly in the area of defense.

FWIW, here's my take on 2009 AL SS. Listed below are my defense ratings, unadjusted for pitching staff K's and also adjusted for K's. The 2009 AL League average @ SS was @ .944. Historically [1901-2009], my metric has SS averaging @ .935. Defense Runs would be +/- that .944 average.

Player........Rating......K's.........Adj. Rating

Scutaro..... .959......+182............. .965
Aybar...... .954.......-37............. .951
Izturis.... .967......-166............. .955
Jeter...... .912......+161............. .924
Al. Ramirez .939.......+20............. .941
As. Cabrera .957.......+54............. .961
Betancourt.. .943.........0............. .943
Andrus...... .949.......-80............. .943
Everett..... .931.......+ 2............. .931

Jeter did not have one of his better years. I have no argument with at least one GG Jeter won previously, maybe even a 2nd. Three is a bit of a stretch. Four is outlandish.

However, before we condemn the guys on the field who make the choices, let's appreciate where they are coming from and the track record of Rawlings' hands-off attitude as to making selectors make choices based on outstanding performance with the glove.

The, too, I just peeked in at UZR ratings for 2009; and Jeter rates a +8.94 [or approximately that number]. That's a sabermetric tuning fork. Where is all that solid scientific consensus?

Jamesian on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Jamesian — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:33:53 +0000

Here is a little insight for you in how Gold Gloves get voted on by Phil Stone of the Seattle Times:

"Just as an aside, I was a Sporting News correspondent for several years in the 1990s when that publication sponsored the Gold Glove awards. It was the job of each correspondent to gather the votes of the coaches and manager of the team he covered -- in my case, the San Francisco Giants.

Let's just say I wasn't impressed with the depth of knowledge of the coaches when it came to evaluating the candidates and coming to a conclusion. They'd pretty much blurt out the name of a guy that they remembered as making some good plays against them (often asking a fellow coach what he thought, and coming to a consensus opinion that way), or pick the player that had the reputation as being the best at his position, even if that reputation was no longer deserved."

Jamesian on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Jamesian — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:26:42 +0000

I'd certainly say the way managers choose their Gold Glove winners is idiotic. But I've seen enough Gold Glove awards over the years to know that it is not literally about who is the best fielder. The sportswriters will even tell you that.

I have no doubt that if a manager had to choose a SS to solely play defense, there is probably not a single one that would choose Jeter.

To win a Gold Glove, you need to be a good offensive player. It's more about who is the best all-around player. If you have a good bat and a steady glove, you will win over a guy that doesn't hit all that well but has a great glove 90% of the time. It also helps to not play in Milwaukee or Kansas City or some other small market town.

The managers have picked two of the worst defensive SS the last two years mostly as a tribute to how they play the game. They play steady defense, are leaders, hit well and play the game the "right way." It doesn't have much to do with defense.

A guy like Brandon Inge has basically no chance whatsoever of winning a Gold Glove because he is not a big name player. If he had a great offensive season and the Tigers won 100 games, he might have a chance.

I don't think anyone really expected a great OF like Gutierrez to win the Gold Glove over Torii Hunter because young players are not going to get that kind of award until they get enough media attention that managers start recognizing them as a top defensive player. They don't see enough games to make a judgment on him.

You clearly are not interested in anyone's opinion on Jeter's defense because you've started the same stupid thread three times and continue to make the same "steel trap" argument. One that you don't even believe in.

You've described him as "average" and then backtracked to "competent" and even proposed moving him to LF or 1B. You don't do that with a Gold Glove SS.

Zachary Klaas on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Zachary Klaas — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:35:51 +0000

See, I used to be offended by that kind of comment, but since I apparently am in the company of most MLB managers and coaches, as well as a good number of baseball reporters, I know I don't have to be.

If you had a better argument than "you are an idiot" for why sabermetrics people can't convince the people in the actual profession of baseball that they're right, we would have heard it by now. But your argument is that the rest of them are idiots too, isn't it?

Jamesian, weren't you openly hoping in these forums a while back that someone in MLB would give you a numbers-crunching job? Is this how you impress your would-be employers? By saying that everything they think is a bunch of crap?

I throw the question open to anyone on Fangraphs - if your point of view continues to be that Jeter blows, even after his improvement this year...how do you account for the massive smackdown MLB's managers and coaches gave your point of view in the Gold Glove voting this year, and the massive gulf between your viewpoint and theirs that this implies.

I notice that many of the baseball blogs are trying to softpedal their arguments on this topic now, admitting that Jeter had a good season and - in some cases - that Jeter was among a small group at the top that deserved the award. Most of the blogs still have a preferred candidate rather than Jeter for the award, and I can respect that point of view...in fact, I think I endorse it myself.

But it was interesting to see the bloggers were not reacting with horror that Jeter had won, merely with qualifications and some criticism of the award. One person noted that there was a big difference between this year's award and those of 2004-2006, which he declared to be inspired by "lunacy". I was at least pleased to see that people could see the difference.

It was also interesting to see that the bloggers credited the theory that it was possible Jeter's workouts in the past couple years might have had something to do with an actual change in his fielding abilities. Of course, we don't really know this on the basis of one year's change in stats, but it was nice to see open minds out there instead of the steel traps I'm used to hereabouts.

Jamesian on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Jamesian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:33:02 +0000

Zachary, you are an idiot.

Zachary Klaas on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Zachary Klaas — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:06:42 +0000

Jamesian, surround yourself with comforting thoughts like those. You have my blessing.

If you'd prefer not to notice that this was a year when sabermetric studies were released very noisily, with much fanfare, loudly debunking anyone who had an argument in Jeter's favor...if you'd prefer not to notice that the managers and coaches who voted for the Gold Glove awards could not help but be aware of the sabermetric arguments about Jeter's fielding...and they _still_ flipped a collective bird to statheads everywhere...well, you just go on doing that.

Reasonable people might instead try and find a way to perhaps learn why people who are actually managers and coaches in Major League Baseball don't find the counsel of such sabermetricians valuable.

Jamesian on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Jamesian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:37:44 +0000

Consider that Michael Young won the award last year. But you can tell just how much stock was put into that opinion because the Rangers promptly moved Young to 3B because they wanted to improve their defense.

Rafael Palmeiro won the Gold Glove in 1999 as a DH. Apparently the managers and coaches didn't even realize he didn't play 1B that year or they thought Lee Stevens was Palmeiro. Either way, they weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Zachary Klaas on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Zachary Klaas — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:49:00 +0000

So now all the managers and coaches in Major League Baseball are idiots? It's like dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Jamesian, how many people with actual credentials in the profession have to be "stupid" in order for you to be right about this?

_Why_ does no one in sabermetrics care about this?

Pug mahone on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Pug mahone — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:21:17 +0000

Next they'll be awarding Jeter the Nobel Peace Prize!

Jamesian on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Jamesian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:37:25 +0000

Find a new topic. You don't even believe that Jeter is a Gold Glove SS.

Zachary Klaas on "Jeter Fourth Gold Glove"

Zachary Klaas — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:06:40 +0000

In what can only be seen as a deliberate poke in the eye to the sabermetrics community, managers and coaches have voted Derek Jeter another Gold Glove.

Does anyone on here want to comment on why their statistics convince so few people who manage and coach at the big league level?

pounded clown on "Greg Dobbs and the Playoffs"

pounded clown — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:03:33 +0000

Dobbs unfortunately came down with the flu. That he didn't see any playing time in WS or maybe had an AB (can't remember)coupled with a hospital visit, suggests that it was influenza and not just a cold. Also maybe he reinjured his calf.

tklimson1 on "Regarding fangraphs"

tklimson1 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:22:21 +0000

Gentlemen I don't really have a specific subject to talk about I just want to say I really believe this is the absolute best baseball, if not the best sports website in existence. I think I may speak for a lot of people on this site Fangraphs provides incredible analysis and insight and I thoroughly enjoy every writer who contributes.

lee on "Why I Distrust Rate Statistics (Or, Fun With Homers)"

lee — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:29:01 +0000

Another way to look at the guys with the big power HR numbers is to explore their relative rate of batting contact.

The current World Series is a case in point. Ryan Howard is a legitimate 40++ HR guy; but if he fans 160+ times a years, magnifying glass calls our attention to the relative randomness of extreme long ball.

While the whiff exaggeration is more pronounced with howard than McGwire, that is largely a consequence of playing time. McGwire was often out with injuries; but he K'd a great deal relative to AB & PA.

Sure, A-Rod whiffs a good deal; but overall, he is more consistent with batting contact; and the HR is not all that universally the sole catalyst of batting runs.

The Yankees have seven players with 20+ Hr's and nothing near the whiff rates of Werth or Howard.

A guy who fans over 160 times can be expected to whiff once every game. Will that predictable whiff come with the bases loaded? Empty? One on? Then the HR, one in every four games: when will that come: late and close? trailing 10-4, with one man on? A 17-4 romp? A 1-0 shutout?

Predictable K's + random HR's often = disappointment for bigg buck$$$$$ paid out.

recca on "Why I Distrust Rate Statistics (Or, Fun With Homers)"

recca — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:36:31 +0000

Notice how people don't use home run rate as a predictive statistic. There's a reason for that.

recca on "Greg Dobbs and the Playoffs"

recca — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:05:24 +0000

Should Greg Dobbs have been starting against right handed pitchers in the playoffs? Dobbs hits right handed pitchers much better than Feliz can. Dobbs is nowhere near the fielder Feliz is but does the upgrade Dobbs could give you on offense offset this?

snwlkr71 on "Anderson"

snwlkr71 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:20:41 +0000

Manufactured Home | Mobile Home | Modular Home

popfly on "Anderson"

popfly — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:41:10 +0000

I am in a similar situation in a keeper league. My question is would it be better to keep Brett Anderson or Rick Porcello?

dorsal on "Buck and McCarver dis Jeter fielding critics..."

dorsal — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:00:47 +0000

Sportsvision looks like they are doing alot of good stuff.

Kincaid on "Buck and McCarver dis Jeter fielding critics..."

Kincaid — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:17:27 +0000

That looks a lot like the fielding F/X system Sportsvision (the company that developed pitch F/X) was working on this year. They had it set up in AT&T Park and were experimenting with it there. I remember seeing a short demonstration on one of the nationally broadcast games from San Fran, so it seems like it is working at least to some extent already. I don't know how long it will be before they have it ready for the same level of use as pitch F/X, though.

Zachary Klaas on "Why I Distrust Rate Statistics (Or, Fun With Homers)"

Zachary Klaas — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:30:59 +0000

Well, the reason I chose McGwire is that he's had injuries over the years, so I knew from having followed his career that there would be some years when he would have played about half a season or so and thus had diminished HR production for the year, even if he was still hitting them at the same kind of clip in HR/AB as other seasons where he played the full year.

One would generally not expect the HR/AB stat to be that variable under injury free conditions for full-time players, but of course there are examples of people just busting out in a couple years. Take, for example, Davey Johnson in 1974 (his HR/AB was 0.076923077 that year, about 1.5 times his next highest figure of 0.051282051). Or Brady Anderson in 1996 (his HR/AB was 0.086355786 that year, about 2 times his next highest figure of 0.042553191). Compared to those, there's really not much variability even in McGwire's figures...but those were extremely fluky cases of people discovering the HR really in only one year of their entire careers.

Newcomer on "Measuring SP Consistency"

Newcomer — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:40:37 +0000

Talk about starting pitchers often includes descriptions of consistency as a positive value to contrast with upside. "He's no ace, but he's a steady 4," "He'll keep you in the game when he's on the mound, and that's all you can ask of a 5th starter," "He knows how to pitch even when his stuff's not there," etc.. That got me to thinking about how we could quantify that, and here's what I've got.

You can use ERA, FIP, tRA, or whatever you want as a base. But the idea is you get two numbers.

Part 1: ERA is an average. It tells you how many runs a pitcher a pitcher allows per nine innings pitched. It tells how the pitcher will be performing, on average.

Part 2: You take a look at the pitcher's performance in each GS, and you want to determine the level of production your starter matched or exceeded in, say, 80% of his starts (an arbitrary number). We'll call this ERAc, c for consistency. This is what the manager can feel pretty confident he'll get, even if the pitcher isn't really on. 80% might be demanding a lot of consistency, so maybe something like 65% (a good majority of his starts) would be a better bet.

Here's where it gets fun. Take the difference, ERAc-ERA, and you have the consistency factor, CF, which tells you how close to his average performance a pitcher performs in at least x% of his starts.

I imagine this would take a large sample to become stable, but we're usually talking about long-time veterans when consistency comes up. I'm not ready to put in the work just yet, but I'd like to see what kind of results we get. How wide is the spread between, on the one hand, pitchers who perform about the same every time out, and on the other hand, pitchers who are either really on or really off? It would be nice to see this expressed in a number, or maybe a set of numbers based on different percentages. People often look at how long a pitcher stays in the game, or how often they got pulled before 5 innings. This could provide another measurement of consistency.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Has this been done somewhere? Is there some obvious reason I'm missing why it won't work?

Newcomer on "Saves: The most selfish stat in sports?"

Newcomer — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:13:20 +0000

I'm not sure that this stat really measures all that much, except a combination of the ratio of close wins to blowout wins with the overall success of the team. The closer isn't the one making the call these days. Almost every manager uses the closer by the rulebook--for save situations in the ninth inning.

You can pretty much WPA and LI for an idea of whether the closer was needed. That gets an interesting closer evaluation stat into my head, though. Basically, you can use the LI of the closer's save opportunities to determine the probable save success rate of a replacement level closer (i.e. lots of 3-run opps means higher RepSv%, lots of 1-run opps means lower). RepSv% would be the expected Sv% of a replacement level relief pitcher. You could use it to calculate SORP, saves over replacement player. Sample size would probably doom the stat, but it would be a way of using saves as a more meaningful stat through contextualization.

Anyway, that's all I'm thinking. Doesn't add much to the point. The closer is getting paid for saves, but, though the closer wants to be "the closer," that's because every team (essentially, though maybe not TB) wants to have a "closer," which they'll use as such. Starters want to be the "ace" of the staff, but there's no special stat QSA (quality starts as the designated "ace") that they accumulate (thought they do accumulate stats).