List of Best Players
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 12:20 PM PST
85 comments
Stumbled across this nice write up. Goes through and shows a list of the league's best position players. Combines all the saber stats to give total value for the players. Also has links to each position so you can look at how bad our team is. Moral of the story is Beltre is borderline amazing.
Anyway...check it out. I don't think the climax will be a surprise.
(Saw this link on tango's blog. Definitely a good spot to stop by.)
1 recs |
85 comments
Email
Print
Comments
clearly, but if you organization can extract a good haul from him, there really isn't a choice to be made
I will accept any draft combination of Crabtree, Andre Smith, Stafford, and Mays. Hear that Ruskell? Time to start spreading vicious rumors about all 4 so they fall.
by abender20 on Nov 11, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much
If I’m GMZ I’m going into the winter meetings pimping Beltre like there’s no tomorrow.
by Jeff on Nov 11, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
According to this list, he's roughly on par with Matt Holliday
Holliday’s been quite consistent and has been the better hitter, though he plays in Coors field, so I think Holliday’s value is a bit higher.
Holliday just raked in a closer, a back of the rotation guy, and a talented but enigmatic OF. Pimp all you want, GMZ, I’m just not seeing how he’s going to command anything worth trading for.
I guess it all depends on how committed Beltre is to test free agency. If there’s no hope, yeah, I guess talented-but-enigmatic is really all we can hope for. Damn.
by marc w on Nov 11, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Barring some miracle there's no way Beltre re-signs with us
it really comes down to weighing between two draft picks and whatever trade offers people put on Z’s desk.
by Jeff on Nov 11, 2008 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Defenders are more valuable than batters until GMs figure out how to evaluate pitching without defence
Beltre’s glove pumps up the trade value of all of our pitchers.
by Graham on Nov 11, 2008 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe you, even considering the volatility in one-year runs saved numbers
but you’ve gotta admit: that’s not how Beltre will be valued on the open market. Everyone knows he’s a great defender, but I still don’t think the offer will be on par with what Holliday brought the Rockies.
by marc w on Nov 12, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a good chance the Rockies would have been better off taking the draft picks.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If they get Street in the trade
then they likely didn’t lose any draft picks
by Matthew on Nov 11, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's healthy sure
But unless you think the world of Gonzalez they make have been just better off keeping him.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remeber, this is just one season.
Beltre’s getting credit for saving 20+ runs. He’s really more like a +10 run guy. Holliday’s done this before, and should have a better projection than Beltre.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's true
But even setting that aside – let’s say Beltre really was a true-talent +20 defender – he wouldn’t command Holliday’s price in dollars or talent. Defense is still undervalued.
by marc w on Nov 12, 2008 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scary thing is that his offensive rating could be significantly higher..
which would thrust him into the Top 10. I fully expect him to be a Top 10 player on this list next season
by DarkLou on Nov 11, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jose Lopez, number 8 amongst second basemen
i am so confused in regards to this player. Is he good or not? This analysis certainly sees him as a good player, but the M’s blog-o-sphere toes the line of “he’s awful” to “he’s mediocre”
by DarkLou on Nov 11, 2008 3:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Young and improving
Lets consider some important jose lopez facts:
-he’ll be just 25 for the entire 2009 season
-3 full years under his belt already
-his bad 2007 can be chalked up to a personal tragic loss…his brother died very early during the season and this alone guarantees he sucks moving forward that season
-he doesn’t strike out a whole lot
-41 doubles last year says there is power in his bat
Considering his age, experience and lack of whiffs, why can’t he make a move to the next offensive level and become a 2nd tier hitter among all second baseman?
Wouldn’t you be happy with 23 homers, 95 rbi, 95 runs and league average defense?
Everything points to the very real possibility he could do this.
by tuna411 on Nov 11, 2008 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because he doesn't strike out a lot doesn't mean Jose Lopez can't make outs in other, more creative ways.
Look, I’m excited that the guy didn’t explode in the second half of ‘08, but I’d like to see him do it again and take several steps forward as well. If he doesn’t, he’s going to be seen by other GMs as a guy who hasn’t and won’t live up to his potential. And there’s not much trade value in that.
by JLC on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad at getting on base, questionable defense
His is likely overvauled in some circles, if you can get value in a trade pull the trigger.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't think of a more wrong statement and I'm the resident Jose Lopez apologist around here
his brother died very early during the season and this alone guarantees he sucks moving forward that season
Brett Favre threw for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns the day after his father died. Personal tragedies are hard to deal with but you cannot assume that the only reason he sucked in 2007 was because of his brother’s death. What about 2006? Correlation != causation.
P.S. use the shift key.
by seattlebruin on Nov 12, 2008 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I personally attributed it to Hargrove fucking with his plate approach and having him try to go the other way.
The brother excuse always rang hollow.
54!
by joof on Nov 13, 2008 5:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just took issue with the fact that apparently personal tragedy automatically means the guys sucks for some given amount of time and then is magically healed
that kind of stuff hits people in different ways and while it’s not a stretch at all to believe that Loafie was affected by it the second half of ‘07, it’s ridiculous to believe that because of it he was going to suck automatically or that he would rebound this year
by seattlebruin on Nov 13, 2008 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff, since you know your stuff, is this breakdown of the Top 50 a pretty
accurate assesment?
by DarkLou on Nov 11, 2008 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It passes the Pujol test, so I will say yes.
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not wild about using one season's worth of defensive data, but otherwise it's solid
by Jeff on Nov 11, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The defenisve analysis had me raising eyebrows a few times
David Wright and Dan Uggla exactly even? Sizemore rating the same as Arod? Suspect. There were other, more glaring inconsistencies (for lack of a better word) but I read the post a few hours ago and don’t feel like revisiting.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The entire methodology is laid out at Justin's site for anyone interested.
Judging fielding for one season is a tough thing. We only want to judge 2008 performance, but we don’t really trust just one season’s worth of data. So do we use previous data? Regress? Something else?
In some ways, seeing Wright and Uggla even is like seeing Shin-Soo Choo and Ryan Howard even on the offensive side. We don’t expect they’re really equals in talent, but we buy that they were equally productive for 2008. It’s just that the stats we have to measure offense are much more accurate than for defense. So, yeah.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly right
trying to be more accurate would necessitate breaking your own parameters. But one season’s worth of inaccuracies can be made up for, in part, by including many ways of evaluating defense (ala fielding bible awards), which you do. All that said, I find it strange that Wright was only two runs above average and that Uggla was not in the -10 range.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you don't know how good Uggla and Wright are.
If all the metrics say Uggla wasn’t bad this year then he might have been ok.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he was ok this year, but last year he was absolutely bottom of the barrel,
and players generally decline, not improve dramatically.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 12, 2008 5:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hanley Ramirez was supposedly much much better in the field this year
Stats and scouts both think this. People can change. Its rare but it can happen.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 12, 2008 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sizemore is young and amazing while Arod is getting old and thick
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod is compared to third basemen; Sizemore is compared to center fielders.
I believe, at least.
by Teej on Nov 11, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the numbers represent something like runs added/saved
in which case it doesn’t matter.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask of J/M/G/anyone else:
In a lot of these “full picture” player analysis models, we look at hitting compared to replacement level, but fielding compared to MLB average for the position. Then we pretty much add those two numbers together. Is there not a problem in that? Or is it small enough to not really matter?
by Teej on Nov 11, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We need a position adjustment
CF gets a bonus because its harder. 1B has a penalty because its easy.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
These numbers have the positional adjustment.
I’m asking if it’s mathematically sound to have numbers based on two different baselines (average and replacement level), then simply add them together.
by Teej on Nov 11, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You want to compare each player to a replacement-level PLAYER, ideally.
And not to replacement-level hitting, replacement-level fielding, replacement-level baserunnings, etc. But replacement-level players tend to be league-average fielders, and crappy fielders. So a nice shortcut is to tack the hitting relative to a crappy level and the fielding relative to average. With a position adjustment, of course.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
Of course A rod is a manbeast from the age of legends and whatever, and was an amazing shortstop in his early twenties. But he has measurably lost mobility as he has aged and gained bulk, while Sizemore is at his peak. So I was surprised to see them contribute the same, particularly with CF getting so many more chances.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, it's relative to average at your position.
A-Rod was seven runs better than the average AL third baseman. Sizemore was nine runs better than the average AL center fielder.
by Teej on Nov 11, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
number of chances still plays a role
Unless you mean to say that all the CFs in the majors were particularly good this year.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And so you don't need to repeat yourself again,
yes, I understand that the numbers are relative to average at that position. I just thought that A rod was worse defensively (Beltre is a +10 – 15 fielder, and I thought Rodriguez was only a little better than average at third), while Sizemore is exceptionally good so I thought he would be more of an outlier.
Looking over that top 30, actually, I see that as a group CF are very tight, pretty much all of them falling into the +/-10 range. You could argue that it’s a premium defensive position so bats are overlooked in favor of quality gloves (unlike RF, which has a huge spread between best and worst), but if that were the case you’d see the same effect at SS and you don’t.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Call ARod 5 and Sizemore 10
If you think that defensive metrics should be more than 5 runs accurate then you are asking too much.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not deserving of his Gold Glove last year, but he appears to be pretty good.
by Teej on Nov 11, 2008 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know, average sometimes is pretty good
If we made a list of the NL 3B he’d probably be in the middle half. Because we can’t quantify defense that well, I feel pretty comfortable with somebody’s metric calling that zero runs.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's sad is that going through the positions I only checked
3B, 2B, and RF.
Says something about our current group of position players
by DarkLou on Nov 11, 2008 3:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm wondering how they calculated the defense for catchers
by Fogel on Nov 11, 2008 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Must've been on reputation alone
but I was surprised to see McCann at -1. I thought he was pretty abysmal behind the plate.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we please not conjecture when the article contains links to the methodology?
And can we especially not conjecture that the ratings were subjective when everything else as part of the methodology was objective?
Catcher ratings are based on SB/CS rates, PB/WP rates, and error rates on fielded balls. Obviously much weaker than for the others positions, but better than nothing.
To be subjective, doesn’t McCann have a pretty good defensive reputation? Or am I crazy?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mea culpa
I did not read justin’s post (I read yours on company time). I had assumed that the catcher ratings were at least partially subjective since there isn’t much to quantify. And I always forget since I don’t follow the NLE whether it’s Doumit or McCann that is crap behind the plate.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
also, I don't think anyone takes what I post very seriously around here
so you’ve nothing to worry about.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel uncomfortable assigning solid number values based on defense
There are too many problems. For example Albert Pujols doesn’t lap the field (and isn’t even first), and Uggla and Hanley have positive ratings.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 3:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think PMR had Hanley as a positive contributor this year too.
Maybe he’s figuring things out?
by Phildopip on Nov 11, 2008 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Range and fielding are not entirely equatable.
I think that would be the best explanation. Maybe this is why they feel better about Ichiro than many other advanced metrics.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 11, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, Pujols is first at 1B for fielding...
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Teixeira is listed at 21, Pujols is listed at 20
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point, I was looking at the list before combining Tex's stints. Sorry.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pedroia the 11th best player in the league?
You know how people will blindly overrate a player? Well, I do the same with this asshat midget except I blindly underrate him.
Dammit! regression to the mean can’t come soon enough to this douchebag.
by Wilder. on Nov 11, 2008 4:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Chipper was +14 on defense?
Jesus, maybe that’s why the Braves haven’t moved him to first.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 5:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
When he plays he's a great player still....
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was always under the impression that his defense blows
because he doesn’t look that impressive and because the Braves moved him to LF for a slug like Vinny Castilla. I had always wondered, due to his durability concerns, why the Braves aren’t planning on moving him off of third, but if his defense actually isn’t a liability…
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's rated well at third for the past few years. He used to rate awful.
For what that’s worth.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Was that cause we sucked at rating defense
or because he actually has gotten better in his old age?
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 11, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
