Open Statistical Question Thread
Every few days or so I get an email from a reader asking about some of the numbers I (and others) use on the website. They usually go something like "hey Jeff, I was wondering about one of the statistics you used the other day, but I didn't want to ask about it and look stupid. What is the meaning of (statistical acronym)?"
I'm fine with getting those emails, and I try to reply to them as best I can. But since the common theme seems to be that people don't want to ask questions here either because (A) they don't know where to ask, or (B) they don't want to be made fun of, I thought I'd take a measure to rectify the situation by opening this thread. In the comments below, you're welcome to ask questions on any statistic about which you're unclear - no matter how simple - and we'll see to it that you get a good answer. Don't get FIP? Not sure what counts as a good groundball percentage? Curious about the league-average BA? This is your thread. While I don't know how popular it's going to be (if at all), my hope is that this'll help get people caught up while eventually serving as a kind of partial FAQ for people new to analysis.
Go to town. (And please, let's keep this thread on topic.)
4 recs |
434 comments
Comments
Completely subjective
but what is the best statistical method(s) for evaluating pitchers? I’d love to be able to finally explain to my buddy why ERA is a lousy metric without looking like a total asshat.
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Currently I'd have to go with tRA
But I’m bias because Graham is awesome.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm partial to Graham's tRA, but anything from K/BB to xFIP provide way more information than ERA
This is an excellent primer.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA I believe, but FIP is easier to find
Main points to hammer home is that you want to eliminate any possible interaction from the defense when you evaluate a pitcher. And fielding batted balls is 95%+ the burden of the fielders and has nothing to do with the pitcher.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent.
I understand and have tried to explain to my friend that ERA is extremely dependent on the fielders behind the pitcher and other factors outside of his control. This should help me illustrate my point more.
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The hard part is convincing people that batted balls are not the responsibility of the pitcher
It’s a very hard concept to grasp and without accepting it, it’s tough to get people to see past ERA.
Also worth mentioning, errors (and consequently, earned runs) are horrible horrible numbers because they are at the sole discretion of the official scorer who is accountable to pretty much nobody and also will never charge an error when, say, a ball drops untouched by an outfielder who misplays it.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
[An official scorer] will never charge an error when, say, a ball drops untouched by an outfielder who misplays it.
Funny enough I believe this can now be legally scored as an error, I have yet to see it though.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at you, Morse.
Looking at you.
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate that my seats are in RF sometimes. I got a fifth-row seat to that disaster.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batted balls ARE partially the responsibility of the pitcher.
Pitchers DO have control over their BABIP. It’s just that the spread in talent is small enough that random variation often overshadows the talent. That’s why BABIP is regressed so heavily to the mean. Other skills with wider variation, such as K% or BB%, aren’t regressed so heavily.
FIP is a shortcut wherein you regress BABIP 100% of the way to the mean and you regress K%, BB%, and HR% 0% of the way to the mean. That’s something that people should understand.
stat-addled alien overlord
by salb918 on Apr 22, 2008 6:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope we as a community
Aren’t intimidating people into not asking these questions….I always thought we were pretty willing to help people understand these things without judging them for it….Let’s be honest, we were all ignorant of this statistical rationale at some point in our lives as baseball fans and we shouldn’t be making fun of people for trying to expand their knowledge of the sport.
by OlSalty on Apr 21, 2008 10:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thats why I started coming here back in 2006. I could ask the most retarded question and get a good answer.
I still don’t get it all but I sure get it better than i did.
by InSpokane on Apr 22, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Value Over Replacement Player
Basically when you determine the league average for statistics, it is how a player ranks relative to the middle of the pack.
by OlSalty on Apr 21, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i understand that...
..but what i’m wondering is what comes into play here? vidro ranks high above the league average DH in terms of AVG but sucks in terms of OPS/SLG. each player has a VORP stat. what comes into play for that stat? is it purely offensively based? is defense included? does the calculation of it differ between positions? is there a VORP for both pitchers and non-pitchers?
br
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
VORP does not consider defense abilities, but does factor in position
Not sure on park. However, the formula itself is proprietary so there’s not much we can say about it. There’s also many issues lingering around the use of “replacement level” in any statistic. Comparing relative to league average is almost always better.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so...from both yours and jeff's comments...
...i take away the point that VORP is useless. if it doesn’t factor in defensive stats, then everything is relative. this is the type of stat that i could see putting ibanez in the limelight…
also…jeff mentioned that the formula for calculating “replacement level” is “secret.” wtf?
br
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not useless
There are just better measurements now. VORP was very important when it came out.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe it's not useless..
...but, as a weathered statistician, i must bring into question when a formula only accounts for half of the equation (just offense, not defense). and what is the calculation for “replace level.”
ha…one thing i love about this new SBN format is that i can see new replies as i’m typing this one. Jeff just commented how it’s not worth the argument since VORP is an old stat. I can understand that.
My new question: What 3 stat categories are the best for evaluating pitching (because i’m sure there isn’t some grand-stat that explains all) and what 3 are most important for all other positions (DH not included).
I’m mainly looking for something, in terms of position players, that displays both offensive and defensive quality/worth…
br
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*edit
should have written, “I must bring a formula into question when it…”
most apologies.
br
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Err it deliberately
omits defense because it is meant only to be used as an offensive stat.
Would you say OPS / OPS+/ EQA / Batting Runs / Batting Runs above Average / BaseRuns are all “useless”? They all also omit half of the equation.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Apr 22, 2008 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there anything BP does that's still relevant?
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
EqA is pretty good
other than that? I don’t think so. I’m also biased. (Disclosure: I work for THT)
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
[we know]
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...PECOTA
duh
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh, I suppose
PECOTA is no longer any more accurate than most other good prediction systems out there.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sill relevant
but yeah
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second this
since wOBA is pretty hard to find, EqA is a good one-number offensive statistic.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GPA
GPA is just about as good as EqA or WOBA, and is readily available on the THT site (and it’s adjusted for ballpark). I personally like it better than wOBA because, like EqA, is fits the scale of a batting average, which is more intuitive for most fans than the scale of OBP.
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The big difference
How do you convert GPA to runs? I have no idea. Does anyone?
How do you convert wOBA to runs? Divide by 1.15, then multiply by expected plate appearances Easy – I can do that almost in my head, and with a calculator or spreadsheet, it takes three seconds.
Those of us who want THT to display wOBA aren’t just agitating because we want something that is 0.4% more accurate – there’s a purpose to having wOBA published – we know how to turn it into a linear weights run value method, and that’s something that is worth having available to the statistical community. (And yes, I know I can get it from firstinning – thanks Chris! You’re a lifesaver)
by davidcameron on Apr 22, 2008 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You work for THT...
so tell them to publish wOBA, and make a good park adjusted version. I use OPS+ as my go-to single statistic, which is silly because it kinda sucks, but Bpro has a very unwieldy site. It is a travesty that no one publishes wOBA.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on Apr 21, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different people have different "replacement level" baselines
I haven’t used VORP in years. At this point explaining its quirks is probably more trouble than it’s worth.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think VORP, when you get down to its core,
is essentially based in linear weights. I could be wrong about that, though.
stat-addled alien overlord
by salb918 on Apr 22, 2008 6:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting Average is useless
OBP and SLG are the only two stats that matter in determining a players offensive production. OPS (combination of OBP and SLG) is all that matters because it determines how often you get on base and how many bases you produce per hit. BA just determines how often you put a ball in play that puts you on the basepaths, and that discounts both extra=base hits and walks.
And yeah, for a specific VORP per position metric, ask Jeff or Matthew or Graham, they know this stuff :)
by OlSalty on Apr 21, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
batting average isn't useless
just vastly overrated
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty useless with all the other superior stats readily available these days
by OlSalty on Apr 21, 2008 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
but you can make a pretty good argument that Ichiro and Rod Carew were more productive than than you typical .370/.430 guy.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS favors sluggers without OBP skills too much.
.300/.400/.450 is an .850 OPS
.300/.350/.500 is an .850 OPS
The one with the .400 OBP is more valuable.
OBP, SLG, and OPS aren’t the ONLY stats that matter, but they’re closer than a lot of stats people tend to use traditionally
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it's park factors are too simle
Exhibit A: Safeco Field
There’s no reason to judge Johjima and Ibanez using identical park factors.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, people forget sometimes that in park factors not all players are effected the same way.
Kenji and Raul both play in a pitcher’s park. Safeco actually helps lefties like Raul despite Safeco overall favoring pitchers… It’s a pretty obvious example but it’s a good one.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually there's a very good case for this
Park factors are important for two things: measuring how valuable an individual run produced is, due to run environment, and trying to understand the true skill of a player.
Second requires different park factors by hand, etc, but the first just needs a blanket run factor.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
VORP is an offensive metric that assigns players a certain run value over that which you could expect from a “replacement-level player” (basically the kind of guy you can find hanging around in AAA). It’s weighted for position, so if you have a 1B and a SS who post identical batting lines, the SS will have a higher VORP, because a replacement-level shortstop will be worse at the plate than a replacement-level first baseman.
It’s a complicated, secret formula that…I’ll be honest, not too many people use it anymore. It’s almost completely useless for pitchers, and for hitters, you’re better off looking at simpler, more intuitive stuff like BA/OBP/SLG and line drive rate and all that good stuff.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's essentially the following formula
(Player runs created per plate appearance)-(position replacement level RC/PA)*PA
Replacement level is defined by a certain % of league average, depending on the position. VORP is obviously more complex than this, but the above is a pretty good approximation.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
I’m not very clear on the popular fielding metrics being used. I hear things like RZR being tossed around, but I’ve got no idea what that means and how it’s used to evaluate a defender.
In the first diary I opened up here, I asked for some information on former and current Mariner fielders. I think Jeff tossed out that Lopez was a 0 < X < 10 defender.
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
RZR = revised zone rating
available at THT. You’ll also see UZR (ultimate zone rating, developed by MGL) and PMR (probabilistic model of range developed by David Pinto). They all try to measure the same thing in roughly the same way, none of them are that robust in figuring out an individual fielder’s actual value.
There’s also SAFE (spatial aggregate fielding evaluation developed by a team of Penn Statistics researchers [disclaimer: I was one of them]) that does a better job than any of the above three, but requires data from BIS and thus it’s only available for 2003-6.
As far as fielding evaluation, we’re pretty good at figuring out how a team as a whole ranks, and can do a decent job at differentiating between infield defense and outfield defense as unit, but getting to individual players requires at least 3 years of rankings from all the above to have any idea.
0 < x < 10 means that Jeff believes Jose Lopez’s defense is worth between 0 and +10 runs above average for a 2B.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If HR/FB% is out of a pitcher's control,
what’s the point of ever looking at FIP when xFIP exists?
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
FIP is better for relievers, for whom the HR/FB% "rule" doesn't really apply
and a lot of people still aren’t entirely convinced that pitchers fluctuate around an HR/FB of 11% anyway, so they have trouble stomaching xFIP. FIP isn’t bad, as long as you keep an eye on the home run rate to make sure it isn’t wonky/unsustainable.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Addendum
while HR/FB% is at least mostly out of a pitcher’s control, it is still heavily influenced by the park so while xFIP might be better for figuring out how a pitcher might produce in a neutral environment, FIP might be better for evaluating a pitcher going forward on said team.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
home park is included
xFIP is adjusted to the pitcher’s home park.
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
right of course.
Why do I always forget that?
Any thoughts on modifying xFIP to regress HR/FB (adjusted for home park) say 80% towards league average instead of 100% since we know there is a little bit of pitcher control over it?
by Matthew on Apr 22, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, not really
To me, there has to come a point where you don’t turn a stat into a projection system. Even though I invented it, I’m not the biggest fan of xFIP, for just that reason. I like either a simple stat, or a full-blown projection system.
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can never have too many stats :P
by Matthew on Apr 22, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:P back atcha
...which goes against most of the basic tenets of good information display!
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Modern user-friendliness appears to be based on a single study
done by Apple in 1986.
by Llewdor on Apr 22, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because it is in dispute just how much
“out of a pitcher’s control it is.”
MGL and Tango in response to Dave Cameron’s article on pitching components:
The author also says that there is little (or was it "no”) evidence that a pitcher has any control over the percentage of fly balls that are home runs. That is completely false. Pitchers very much have control over the distances of their fly balls and hence the percentage of them that go for home runs. This is easy to verify in a numbers of ways of course. I don’t know where this idea came from that pitchers have little control over HR/HR, but it seems to be "going around" in some ssabermetric circles.
I think there is a misconception that pitchers have "little or no" control over those HR/FB and that a pitcher’s true HR rate is almost compeltely a function of his FB rate. That is simply not true. In fact, in the research I have done, there is an indication that a pitcher’s true HR rate is very much independent of his FB rate. Or at least as important.
Here is some data on pitchers in 04 and 05. I ran a regression of HR/FB in 04 on HR/FB in 05 for pitchers with at least 500 TBF per year. The average TBF per year was 772 and the average FB was 209. A FB was any air ball, not including line drives (according to STATS)."r" was .232.
If I only use outfield fly balls, which is defined as all air balls, but not line drives (again, according to STATS), to only the OF locations (an average of 176 OF flies in the 772 TBF), I get an "r" of .222.
The number of pitchers in the sample is 88.
I I decrease the min TBF to only 200 (an average of 530 TBF), I get an "r" of .081 for 229 pitchers.
That sounds like what THT got. We need a larger sample to decrease the uncertainty of these "r’s".
If we increase the sample to include 98 on 99, 00 on 01, and 02 on 03, we get 890 pitchers with at least 200 TBF per year with an "r" of .181 (rather than the .08 with a smaller sample).
For pitchers with TBF greater than 499, we have 317 pitchers with and "r" of .190 (rather than the previous .232 with the smaller sample.
Nothing is park adjusted.
I re-ran the correlations for players who switched teams from one year to the other, in order to make sure that the correlation was not being significantly influenced by the park HR factor.For 94-05 (regressing 94 on 95, 96 on 97, etc.) data, there were 85 pitchers who had at least 500 TBF in each of two consecutive years and switched teams. The "r" was .203, so the suggestion is that the "r’s" that we are getting are NOT due to the parks only or even mainly.
In MGL’s first study, he did FB=209, r=.232This gives us an "x" for the equation of x / (x+FB) of 692.
In this case, 692 FB corresponds to about 2500 TBF.
In his next study, he did FB=176, r=.222 . The "x" value is 617. TBF corresponds to about 2700.
In his next study, he did r=.081, with an unknown number of FB, but which I will guess is FB=120. The "x" value is 1361.
Now, there is a danger in how you do a correlation, if you don’t weight each sample appropriately. This is why with a straight regression, you want your samples to have a similar number of "n", amongst themselves, and in the paired sample. There is a better way to do it otherwise, but more complicated.
Looking at the first two studies, we see that r=.50, when TBF is around 2500 or so, meaning about 580 IP.
In may last sample of players who switched teams, the average TBF was 746 and the average FB was 197. "R" was .205 for 85 pitchers.In the larger sample of all pitchers, the "r" was .190 and the sample size was 407, the average TBF was 760 and the average fb was 196.
I would use the "r" and the other data from the second sample, since it is much larger and the uncertainty from the "r" is much smaller.
There’s also some other stuff, specifically #30, where he shows the relationship between GB% and HR / FB% is weak.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Apr 22, 2008 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I have single season r at 0.21 or so for HR/(Ball in air)
But that’s by far the weakest year to year relationship for any of the 7 major measurables (even lower than HBP%!)
by Graham on Apr 22, 2008 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are the best metrics for hitters? Pitchers?
WPA? VORP?
FIP?
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 21, 2008 10:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
WPA shows how much they contributed regarding situation...
Just off hand I’d assume that WPA isn’t very useful for evaluating a player’s skill. It’s all about results in certain situations and results-based analysis is not really a good way to evaluate a player.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know that WPA isn't a good predictor FWIW.
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 21, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For pitchers, look at tRA (ask Graham), FIP, xFIP, or simpler stuff like strikeout/walk/GB rates
For hitters, the best stuff is probably tango’s linear weights, but since that method is complicated and not really available anywhere, you’re okay just looking at the raw batting line, adjusting for park, and checking to see that the BABIP is sustainable.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting Runs on BBRef
is a linear weights measure, park adjusted, but without SBs and CS,
For many players, exceptions being guys like Ichiro, Reyes etc, it should work fine.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Apr 22, 2008 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS as compared to league average
Its park neutral, meaning a .800 OPS is worth more in Safeco than Coors.
A 100 OPS is league average.
An OPS below 100 is below league average. An OPS above 100 is above.
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 21, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's*
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 21, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+
is On-base + slugging that has been adjusted to league average as well as taking ballpark dimensions/conditions into consideration.
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, let's say that a player
posted an OPS of .775, the league average was .760, and the player played in a 4% pitcher’s park. Would the OPS+ be 106?
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roughly
the equation is a little more complicated than that, but you’ve pretty much got it. OPS+ at its heart is just a ratio of Player OPS/Park-adjusted average OPS. So, for example, last year Kenji Johjima had a .755 OPS, while the Safeco-adjusted league average hitter had a .749 OPS. This gave Kenji an OPS+ of 101.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is it possible, then,
to have a negative OPS+?
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you suck as much as Player A
anything is possible.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is player A?
I made up the player in the example.
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ibañez also recorded
a negative OPS+ in 1996. How is that possible?
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am actually interested in the answer to this.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+, as listed on B-R, is defined as:
OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* – 1)
where the asterisk indicates park-adjusted.
so if the OBP and SLG ratios add up to less than one, the OPS+ will be negative.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the actual equation for OPS+:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml
Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* – 1)
So for Player A in 2005, you get 100 * (.137/.324 + .149/.416 – 1) = -22.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could have written just about anything there and I would have believed it.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the actual equation for OPS+:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml
Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* – 1) Buy me beer
So for Player A in 2005, you get 100 * (.137/.324 + .149/.416 – 1) = -22.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ISO
I get that ISO removes batting average from slugging but what does that really tell you? If player A has an ISO of 300 and player B has an ISO of 350 and the two player have identical slugging percentages what do we know about player A and player B?
by coasty141 on Apr 21, 2008 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we know that player B has the lower batting average
ISO, better refered to as isoP (for isolated power so as to distinguish from isoD, isolated discipline), measures a hitter’s ability to generate extra-bases in a way.
SLG = total bases / at bats
AVG = hits / at bats
so subtracting AVG from SLG yields
(total bases – hits) / at bats
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well for one thing, Player B has a lower average.
And for another , a higher % of Player B’s hits are going for extra bases.
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
GTE of the week:
"SEXSON WANTS TO TASTE THE MOTHERFUCKING CURB"
~Jordan of Boise
by Goose on Apr 21, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A .350 IsoPo means he hits for more Raw power.
So what you’re saying is what’s the difference between:
.300/.400/.600 (A)
and
.250/.400/.600 (B)
B in general hits more extra base hits, as singles DO count towards your Slugging Percentage…IsoPo is simply about raw power.
There’s another Iso, IsoPa if you’d like to know
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clutchiness
I get that it’s tiny to nonexistent in hitters.
Is that also true for pitchers?
by OldFan on Apr 21, 2008 10:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not precisely
There are pitchers who alter their approach with men on base (Glavine, for example, starts nibbling, giving up more walks but less HR), which could be seen as clutch. Then again there are hitters who do this too, but the effect is less pronounced.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, wOBP (weighted on base percentage)
simple question…what is it?
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 10:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe this is a Tango/MGL invention (although I could be wrong)
wOBA is a linear weights formula that scales with OBP (so .300 = bad, .400 = great, .340 = ~average). It takes all those run values we’ve talked about a few times (value of a single, value of a homer, value of a walk, etc) and puts them together to measure a player’s offensive worth in one metric.
Good stat.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
so you could take wOBP + SLG and get a wOPS? Since it would value OBP more than slugging percentage?
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't think so
wOBA considers all offensive inputs, the OBA is just used to indicate the scale that it’s based on.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where is the best place to find wOBA?
Maybe I’m missing it by I can’t find it on fangraphs or THT
by coasty141 on Apr 21, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually found it while doing a term paper on Pirates GM Neal Huntington
he talked about it in an interview. I’ll try and find the article.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To the best of my knowledge you have to calculate it yourself
so assuming you don’t want to do that, BP’s EqA is a pretty good substitute.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so wOBA a good stat that none of the major stat sites are using?
any reason?
by coasty141 on Apr 21, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I know of
off the top of my head it’s probably because wOBA is tango/MGL’s property, and the major sites have metrics with which they’re already plenty comfortable.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do all of these different sites get patents on their stats?
by coasty141 on Apr 21, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think general copyright law will cover them, won't they?
I’m pretty sure tRA is currently copyright me.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you'd have to actually file for a copyright on the phrase
which costs way too much money for it’s worth.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
patents are rare
they cost money. Most people just publish the formula in the scientific spirit of open research. Others keep their work proprietary in order to make money.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of which:
Graham, is tRA something you’ve made public /published or is it basically only on this site?
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Apr 22, 2008 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here is the formula in this glossary
but for individual players you’d have to calculate it yourself
http://firstinning.com/glossary/
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do people still place their complete confidence
is 1880s sciences such as errors, earned runs, and runs batted in?
kidding kidding
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
40 Rods to the Hog's Head is a wonderful song :o
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Earned run average
didn’t come into play until pitcherstopped throwing complete games 100% of the time.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what you're referencing but I was referencing an awesome song by Tera Melos caled "40 Rods to the Hog's Head"
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Referencing is the wrong word. Oops. I don't know where your statment came from, maybe?
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I replied to the wrong comment.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of figured. Just making sure.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Honestly didn’t expect many (read: any) Tera Melos fans here.
I’ll be at their show in May…
by marc w on Apr 22, 2008 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too, that's a pretty killer lineup. I'll probably bring my big fat stoner friend Cody
Tera Melos has quickly become my favorite band. Good choice.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 22, 2008 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RBI wasn't used in the mainstream till about the 50s, IIRC
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I read something on that lately....it was cutting edge then becasue it measured production.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's like the "sack" in the NFL
It’s been around, just never officially recorded until somewhat recently.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i asked this above but it might have been lost...
What 3 stat categories are the best for evaluating pitching (because i’m sure there isn’t some grand-stat that explains all) and what 3 are most important for all other positions (DH not included).
I’m mainly looking for something, in terms of position players, that displays both offensive and defensive quality/worth…
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
K%, BB%, GB% (per PA, per 9IP is stupid) for pitchers
AVG / isoD / isoP for hitters
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
isoD = Isolated Discipline = OBP - BA
isoP = Isolated Power = SLG – BA
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so that doesn't account for intentional walks?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a player has a bunch of IBB's, you should take that into consideration
although it’s worth mentioning that IBB’s are typically a reflection of the ability of the batter, so you can’t just discount then completely.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really think that
post knee injury Bonds was really deserving of being walked 40 times per (roughly) 120 starts.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seems like an easy adjustment to the formula...
if they’re that great of a hitter, their stats will show it even after the adjustment…you think?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it's taking away from a bunch of times they didn't make an out
So although leaving IBB in might make them look better than they are, taking IBB out will make them look worse.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is a good point...
...but also a glaring flaw in the statistic. you guys are all smart in this category. how would you recommend fixing it?
i should just say up front, given that i’m not well known in this community, that i’m a bottom line type of guy. very by the numbers and unwilling to accept the shit that is put out by most. why accept something when you know it has its drawbacks?
my original question still hasn’t been fielded…that being, for all positions, excluding designated hitters and pitchers, what are the best statistics to evaluate talent/worth that include both offensive and defensive statistics…
i originally asked about VORP for a reason. I think “value over replacement player” is an interesting concept. to me, the variables in this equation should vary by position. is there anything close to this? if not, why not?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
anything incorporating defensive stats
is going to be fallible or so broad as to be worthless.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why are defensive stats worthless whereas offensive stats are not?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we cannot quantify defense worth a gram of salt
see any of the other discussions herein.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see it as a glaring flaw at all
You shouldn’t just look at one number and call it a day.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hence my question...
...when it comes to evaluating real player talent/worth (overall, that is), what are the three best stats in doing so? look at raul ibanez…he’s a RF that couldn’t beat my grandmother in a defensive challenge but is a decent hitter. thus, his offensive stats are boosted giving a false sense of talent despite his defensive worth being in the shitter.
to me, you can look at the stats listed above and think he is a great candidate in a starting lineup as a position player. but, in reality, we all know he’s shit. so…is there a stat that considers something in the sense of “runs produced/given on defense” and “runs produced on offense”?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
rely on numbers for offense
rely on eyes for defense (with a side dish of numbers if you have many many years of data)
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the "rely on eyes" method is possibly the scariest thing i've read in this thread...
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
There’s nothing wrong with scouting.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
statistically speaking, that is...
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best way to go
is to collect as much data as possible.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree...
...but the end-point is what you do with that data.
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put it through your bullshit filter.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you absolutely have to address those questions
I’d go with EqA (or wOBA), UZR, and RZR. Gives you an accurate offensive picture and two interpretations of his defensive value.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i appreciate the answer.
i don’t see how anyone couldn’t absolutely address this issue. if you’re a “stat-head” like myself, half of an equation shouldn’t be enough.
i’ll look into the equations of the statistics you listed. i haven’t been convinced that anyone is doing a great job at taking into consideration the question i’ve asked. a decent job, maybe. but a great job? not quite.
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nobody thinks it's enough
but we just cannot quantify defense well enough to be useful
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think we share the same frustration...
i have to say, i’m surprised there has yet to be a better statistic developed.
what’s the hold-up?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good batted ball data (ball velocity and positioning)
you need it to do anything reasonable
it’s not coming
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seems to me player speed and reaction time
is more interesting than ball velocity and positioning. sure, positioning is WAY more important than ball velocity, but i could argue that if you hold those two constant (as in all-things-equal), the speed/reaction times plus some form of possible-plays-to-errors ratio is an easy place to start in terms of defensive capabilities. you think?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
better positioning makes up for poor reaction times though
plus you need a way to measure ball-tracking. You also need much more accurate picture of where the ball lands/is fielded.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you consider good positioning a player trait or a managerial decision?
and as far as where the ball lands and where the ball is fielded, i think that can be hashed out in possible-plays-to-errors ratio. sure, there are bad hops, but that’s a random event. maybe i’m misunderstanding what you’re saying…
i might seem like a bit of a nag about this but i’m all about improving the shit we currently have. you’ve all said that there’s no efficient way to measure defensive abilities. call me a dreamer but i don’t think it’s an impossible task…
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
80% a player trait
and good luck with trying to come up with something.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
might as well throw our hands up in the air
and give up, eh?
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 21, 2008 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, but until we get better data input
there’s far better areas where work can actually accomplish something.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok...maybe i haven't stated my intentions that well...
i’ll rephrase my question:
in a dream world (a world where all conceivable data is recorded), give me a formula that quantifies defensive ability/worth that you’d be happy with.
br
br
by sirbrianwilson on Apr 22, 2008 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
isoD is isolated discipline (OBP-BA)
isoP is isolated power (SLG-BA)
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IsoP
Is up above, it’s the difference between batting average and slugging.
IsoD, if it’s what I think it is is the same as IsoPa, which is the difference between BA and OBP which measures a player’s ability to get on base without getting a hit.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
isoD being Isolated Discipline?
I’ve always heard them as IsoPa and IsoPo
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
the best pitchers throw strikes, miss bats, and keep the ball down. The best hitters hit for average, hit for power, and draw walks. So any numbers based on those abilities should serve you well.
Defense is still too difficult for us to quantify on an individual basis, so you won’t see any of UZR/PMR/RZR/whatever listed among a player’s most important stats.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for defense
Range Factor, PMR (probabilistic model of range) and Zone Rating are probably the best 3.
For offense I’d stay somewhat simple with OPS, I like wOBA now that I know what it means and maybe just stick with OBP?
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Err Range Factor
is probably among the best 3?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Apr 22, 2008 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably not
I just threw it in there because it’s easy to find and fairly easy to understand. But no, it’s probably not among the best 3.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 22, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How accurate do y'all think the best defensive statics are?
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For individuals? Not accurate unless you have a big sample size.
For teams, and even for individual infields/outfields? Pretty accurate.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you have 3 years of data, I'd call it safe to do a +/- of 10 runs for a player
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How big of a margin of error is that?
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like (if I'm not fudging the math)
potentially 80 runs a team?
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally speaking, the gap between the best and worst defensive player at a position is ~40-50 runs
so +/-10 runs is huge.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we have a ways to go.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
very much so
and we won’t get there until we get good batted ball data and considering that are only hope for that is MLBAM, you can kiss that hope goodbye for a good time.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(hint: enjoy Pitch F/X while you can)
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RRS will fight it with you.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say anything
(at least not outside of parenthesis)
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see why teams who use Pitch F/X data
might not want their advantage given away by well-intentioned fans who reproduce their research.
FOr example, now that the Pirates have hired Dan Fox, they probably don’t want Dan making his research publicly available. Cutting off public access to his data would reduce the risk of someone else producing it, too.
by Llewdor on Apr 22, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe's Tracer?
When I watch a telecast, does “Joe’s Tracer” use the PitchF/X system? And when I watched the Dickey game, FSN didn’t use the “tracer” until Dickey was out. Does the knuckleball baffle the radar & algorithms?
Ryan Rowland-Smith - Throw is Darn Manly
by Throw is Darn Manly on Apr 22, 2008 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Joe's Tracer thinks everything is a ball
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that you've mentioned it
I can’t remember ever seeing Joe’s tracer showing a pitch actually inside the strike zone.
by BrianL on Apr 22, 2008 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Individually
however, there’s a roundabout. We know that the Mariners have had a below-average defensive outfield so far this year (link), so assuming that Ichiro’s fine, we can identify both corners as problem spots.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but UZR says Ichiro is the worst CF in the Majors!!
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay for having two eyes!
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you're consistently wrong one way or the other
yeah.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, being consistently wrong would be a good thing
Because then you know how to fix it
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where can I go to find
the league average numbers by position? On the old LL site there was a link on the left-hand side that had this.
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 11:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Baseball-Reference is the greatest website of all time
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?team=TOT&;year=2008&lg=ML
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I found some interesting things there.
2B had an OPS+ of 88, and SS had an OPS+ of 95. Why aren’t those numbers following the defensive spectrum? Is it because there are people like Derek Jeter and Michael Young playing out of position?
Also, why do groundball pitchers allow the highest OPS+?
by naviomelo on Apr 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sample size
2008’s still a partial season. The historical numbers should match up much closer with your expectations.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We currently have a crop of really good hitting shortstops who can't play defence
Jeter, Hanley Ramirez, etc.
Most groundball pitchers tend to not strike people out and/or walk lots of people.
by Graham on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GB Pitchers give up a lot more hits
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 22, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My main evaluative tool for pitchers is tRA
For hitters I don’t really have one. wOBA and EqA seem like good choices…would I be safe using EqA with wOBA not being widely available?
Anything else I should dig deeper on? I consider myself above average on statistical understanding but any ideas on how I could learn more and what to try and learn would be awesome.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 11:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
EqA is a slightly inferior wOBA, but with park effects taken into consideration
so, yeah, EqA is good.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How long will it be until we can statiscally quantify
the effects of “the guts”a pitcher like Arthur Rhodes brings to the table in high leverage situations?
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This made me laugh.
So basically the pitching metric equivalent of Bloomquist’s grit stat.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Apr 22, 2008 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is a good OBP or OPS a good indicator if a player is good, by just looking at one stat?
My co-worker said that usually someone with a good OBP usually never has just a good OBP and nothing else. Would this be a fair judgement?
by Fin on Apr 21, 2008 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Consistantly?
My guess is it’d be hard to draw walks without being able to hit for average or power because pitchers would have incentive to not throw the ball straight sown the middle.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean
We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by Mariner John on Apr 22, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reggie Willits would be another example, Jason Kendall
guys that can or could get on base, but can’t hit for any power.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Kendall used to have decent power.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true, he had some decent SLG% numbers
the SLG really went down hill after 2001, but the OBP still remained somewhat high.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wanna say that the busted ankle had a lot do with his power numbers
rolling off a cliff, but he had a pretty decent season the year after tha,t so….
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he gets hit by a shit otn of pitches
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say the majority of the time, probably yes. But there are still a lot of exceptions
for example, a 1B with a good OBP but zero power, or an outfielder with a good OBP but awful defense.
The same kind of goes for what your coworker said. He’s right in most cases, but not in all of them.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Ichiro
so hard to evaluate using methods such as PECOTA or ZiPS?
by BrianL on Apr 21, 2008 11:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
because he's essentially a player out of the 1920s mold
he might be the fastest player home to first in the majors and has insane bat control, and forecasts like PECOTA try to project players by finding comparable players and Ichiro just doesn’t have any.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a unique skillset and few comparables.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so unique?
I’m guessing because Ichiro doesn’t have many comparable players that he’s tough to get a read on.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Infield hits
Are a big part of it. He can beat out most players due to his running swing, so the traditional metric doesn’t quite work with him.
by OlSalty on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Main reason, I think
is that his skill set (great bat speed, great foot speed, little power) is that of a very young player and one that generally starts to deteriorate by age 28-29. Ichiro is in his 30s kicking all kinds of ass, and is pretty much the only player in the history of the game who has been able to maintain those skills for as long as he has.
PECOTA and friends keep on expecting him to be like a mere human player and start to slow down a bit, be more selective, try to swing for the fences, but if you look close at one of his at bats, he is actually standing about 1” off the ground, and sheds pixie dust when he swings.
the artist formerly known as Mere Tantalisers.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 22, 2008 5:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most likely
As a player, he’s pretty unique. Hard to find decent historical comparisons.
by Garces on Apr 22, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERC-component ERA
is it useful?
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OBP
it wasn’t that long ago that OBP was considered the most important aspect of a hitter. Basically a team has 27 outs in a 9 inning game, and a player that makes the least amount of outs is the most valuable since outs are at a premium.
In the last couple years, its seems like OBP has become less and less important, and slugging is coming more to the forefront….
Is this true.. .and if so why?
Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!
by MfaninAlaska on Apr 21, 2008 11:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's necessarilly true
as much as OBP was vastly vastly underrated (Moneyball) and then became, not really overrated, but SLG became underrated and so the focus has shifted a bit to that.
by Matthew on Apr 21, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I still think OBP is more important
the goal of every hitter during an at-bat is too not make an out.
Doubles, Triples, home runs are all nice and very important, but as long as the hitter didn’t make an out he’s done his job.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...but you still gotta push the guys around the bases.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if they aren't making outs the runs will come
I’m not saying SLG% isn’t important, just that OBP is more valuable.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
make sure you have good balance in your lineu if you go the no power route
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'll follow whatever it is the Giants do
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
15 years of Barry Bonds!
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
OBP remains a good bit more valuable than SLG. It just isn’t underrated anymore.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
now I know
that Vidro benefitted from a really good Babip last year…. but when people talk about his season they always refer to it as an empty average… but his obp was .381. Even though his slugging wasn’t .400…. doesn’t the fact that he didn’t make many outs last year (comparable to lg average batting) mean that while it was a statistical fluke he was still a valuable commodity in regards to his season long production?
God I hope that sounds clear…. and by no means am I defending or advocating Vidro, just trying to get an understanding of the value of OBP.
Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!
by MfaninAlaska on Apr 21, 2008 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had 15 infield hits last year and walked more than he had an increased walk rate (and five BBs were intentional)
His OBP was very batting average driven and his BBs probably won’t be as high this year…his average will go down this year and by consequence so will his OBP…
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
to be honest (and please no one shoot me!)
I think we gave Vidro WAAAY to much crap last season, he was far from awful and was even useful.
I still don’t like him, because I don’t think like his skillset as a DH, and he could use a power boost.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His results were good, but his season was kind of fluky last year...
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 21, 2008 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh I agree
and it’s the reason why I want a new DH.
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 21, 2008 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If only there was a left-handed power hitter that could be had for free.
One with patience, that wouldn’t require too much money or a long-term commitment to acquire. One we wouldn’t have to trade for. Someone who could conceivably give us a .950+ OPS. Someone who’s managed to do it in a pitcher’s park before—if this hypothetical player exists. If only there were such a player…
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 22, 2008 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
god
I was hoping we’d get thru at least one thread without him coming up.
Damn pipe dreams.
Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!
by MfaninAlaska on Apr 22, 2008 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:(
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 22, 2008 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is he really back on the DL??
didn’t he get off the DL 1 week ago?
Bradtastic!!
by MFAN on Apr 22, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe calling him "Doyle"
is actually what is causing him to be injured.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 22, 2008 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Rotoworld's crack on him going back to the DL
It was something along the lines of “Maybe he should of ran slower around the bases when he hit that homer.”
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
GTE of the week:
"SEXSON WANTS TO TASTE THE MOTHERFUCKING CURB"
~Jordan of Boise
by Goose on Apr 22, 2008 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's still only 26.
I will hold on to hope.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Apr 22, 2008 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This Comment Is
BONDS APPROVED

Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 22, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait that guy is real?
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 22, 2008 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why does he have a bush of grey hair on his chest?
the artist formerly known as Mere Tantalisers.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 22, 2008 5:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And here I thought
he had grey pubes that reached up to his neck
the artist formerly known as Mere Tantalisers.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Apr 22, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Little known unfortunate side effect of roids
or being insanely good at baseball, few studies have been properly conducted to discover the source.
by hcoguy on Apr 22, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even a regressed, say, .290/.360/.370 batting line for Vidro makes him a decent hitter
the problem is that he’s a DH, not a middle infielder, so you have to hold him to a standard that he just can’t achieve. The league average DH last year hit .268/.354/.447. Even accounting for Safeco, Vidro’s quite a bit worse than that, and when you don’t have to worry about defensive performance, it just isn’t that hard to find a reasonable bat on the cheap.
Jose Vidro isn’t a problem the way that, I dunno, Horacio Ramirez was a problem. He’s not awful. He just isn’t good, either.
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and I should also point out
that Vidro has to bear the burden of being the guy forcing Raul Ibanez to stay in the outfield. While that isn’t necessarily Vidro’s fault, it still sucks.
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I choose to blame Vidro.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 22, 2008 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
[only the Mariners could create a conundrum such as this]
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 22, 2008 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I heard Raul Ibanez was the guy forcing Raul Ibanez to stay in the outfield?
by joof on Apr 22, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geoff Baker said at his get together this year
That Raul told him at the end of last season that he thought he was going to be the DH in 2008 and that he was tired. He said physically that he was ready for DH duties. Raul is a team player as lame as that sounds. He’ll play wherever they want him too. LF is probably his favorite spot play but he DH’d most of 2005 and he played some 1B in 2004, and he didn’t bitch too much about AJ taking some starts from him even though he clearly wanted to play. Not to mention he knows that physically he should be DHing. If only the M’s would realize what Raul does—that he just physically isn’t good enough to play the field.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 22, 2008 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man
I had always pictured Raul as someone who would be oblivious to his shortcomings in defense, because he’s a gamer. That would be great if Bill Bavasi got rid of the uber-useless Vidro in place of an outfielder, and move Ibanez to DH. It will take longer for Bavasi to figure this out, if he does, because this is the Mariners we’re talking about here.
Before I moved to Seattle I used to cheer for NL teams (I lived in South Florida, I know, I know, but the Marlins didn’t do unload pt. 2 until before 2006, by then I was a converted Mariners fan) and I absolutely thought the DH position was pointless, it would give old guys an excuse to extend their careers and it discouraged pitchers from hitting whatsoever, even though it seems that a small percentage of pitchers could actually hit too, and why not, they would only help their own cause. (Back when Dontrelle Willis was actually good there was talk of playing him at 1st on days he didn’t pitch because he was a good hitter). Now after paying close attention the Mariners for the past two season and being a full on American league guy, I think that its terrible that the NL has to waste a spot in the batting order for a pitcher and have to go to the bench to someone who hasn’t played all day and asking them to be sharp. The DH is a great innovation, and I feel terrible for NL teams for not having the resource to use it.
by Fin on Apr 22, 2008 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OBP is still the most imortant
but it became overrated on the open market, causing other skills (SLG, defense) to become underrated.
Barry Bonds died for your sins.
by JI on Apr 21, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seriously doubt that SLG
ever became underrated at any point.
Just look around the league over the past years, the salaries that sluggers that Carlos Lee get.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Apr 22, 2008 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread is why LL
is the best place on Earth. Thanks guys for helping to explain what we should look at to better evaluate players.
Go Nova
by dbroncos31 on Apr 22, 2008 12:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Line Drive rates
Okay, this is one thing when reading a discussion I tend to gloss over because I’ve got no frame of reference and can’t seem to find one when I try to look it up.
Often I read a hitter praised or chastised for his LD% (mainly for current performance vs historical), as an indicator that he’s doing something differently, playing better or worse. But I’m having difficulty putting it into perspective.
First I’m not sure whether these numbers include outs or not. Is LD% the proportion of batted balls that go for LDs or just the proportion of safely batted balls that go for LDs? I suspect that it’s the former, and we do this because the latter would introduce ‘luck’?
Unless I’m horrendously confused, LD% is from the same family as GB% and FB%, and the three should sum to 1. Or shouldn’t they?
So what’s a good LD%, and how can I quantify a better LD%? Increasing a player’s LD% should represent an offensive improvement, I presume. So if Jose Lopez had a LD% of 15% last season and has hiked that up to 21% this season, how much stock should I put in that (ignoring small sample size for the time being), and can we approximate the benefit derived in a RC type of fashion?
Accidental Mariner - P3 W1 L2 (.333)
Sponsor of Jamie Burke's baseball-reference page
by MarkE on Apr 22, 2008 1:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ironically,
Loafie’s LD% is actually down this season but he’s hitting a lot more fly balls to the track and generally looked better/more patient at the plate
by seattlebruin on Apr 22, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
That’s handy – I’m certain that there will always be more stats pages out there than I know about. So, courtesy of that I can derive Jose’s GB/LD/FB profile, and I know that he’s on 14.5% LD in 2008 so far, down from 17% last season:

So… how do I interpret that? I can see the obvious trends (fewer LD), but is this a precursor to something else, or a result of something else? If LD% is going down but FB% is going up to compensate, should I view this as good?
Is there an optimum percentage range in which LD% is good and over which diminishing returns kicks in?!
Accidental Mariner - P3 W1 L2 (.333)
Sponsor of Jamie Burke's baseball-reference page
by MarkE on Apr 22, 2008 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LD% = proportion of batted balls as line drives
LD% + GB% + FB% = 100 (or 1, however you want to think of it).
An average LD% is around 19-20%. Some batters are able to pretty consistently beat this (M Young, Figgins, Polanco), while others fall below (Hunter, Patterson, Bay), but generally speaking batter (and pitcher) control over LD% has such a weak correlation that it’s regressed heavily to the mean. I would not recommend using LD% as an indicator of improvement/decline, not on its own.
Unfortunately I don’t have my THT 2006 Annual at work, so I can’t tell you what the year-to-year r value is for LD%, or the run value of a line drive.
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Run value of a line drive is .356 according to Dave's Pitching article
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Apr 22, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not quite
You need bunts and a few miscellaneous things (which I’ve never completely understood) to add up to 100. But close enough.
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THT's doesn't
That’s odd, because Fangraphs breaks out bunts separately, right?
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs has a separate bunts column
but it appears to include those as groundballs.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1101&;position=OF
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
prefer separate
Well, that’s a bit off to me. Bunts are a completely different class of batted ball, both offensively and defensively. That’s why we don’t really consider them in the equation at THT.
by studes on Apr 22, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer separate, too
but fortunately I don’t think the frequency of these “other” events is high enough to really make a huge difference either way.
by Jeff on Apr 22, 2008 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

