Dispelling Some More Myths

by Jeff on Sep 23, 2007 2:10 AM PDT in Regular News Comment 50 comments

Because, why not?

Safeco eats batters alive. Yes, Safeco is a fairly extreme pitcher's park, but there's a reason guys like Rafael Palmeiro and Garret Anderson always seem to do well against us - right field is very hitter-friendly. According to Greg Rybarczyk, the home run factor for right-center is 115 (tied for 11th) and the home run factor for straightaway right is 131 (5th). That this organization continues to acquire and develop right-handed bats while steadfastly refusing to adjust the Safeco dimensions is just completely absurd. Left field is death.

Park factors only affect runs scored. While we may not understand quite why, parks can do all kinds of different things. The Metrodome increases strikeouts. Jacobs Field increases groundballs. RFK decreases the value of line drives. And so on and so forth. You should buy the THT 2006 Annual for Dave Studenmund's They Play In Parks essay alone.

Ichiro has one of the best arms in the league. For the third point in a row, we're going to THT - article #1 and article #2 agree that he's only above average. The true cannons belong to guys like Alex Rios, Andre Ethier, Brad Hawpe, and Jeff Francoeur. Looking at the data, you see that Vlad Guerrero and Jose Guillen also rank lower than you'd think, suggesting that fans equate strength with ability, even when it isn't necessarily true. These guys and Ichiro have strong but somewhat inaccurate arms, but where the missed throws are quickly forgotten, people tend to remember throws like the one that nailed Terrence Long for years. Reputations can be misleading. Write that down.

A strikeout is just another out. Thank Baseball Prospectus for this one. The run value of a strikeout is -0.287. The run value of other kinds of outs is -0.250 (excluding double plays and sacrifices). The general point is correct - strikeout-prone hitters have always gotten a little too much criticism - but BP and other stathead frontiersmen overstated their case.

Billy Beane is overrated. It is very, very easy to look at every move he's ever made and pick out the bad ones, saying things like "no genius would've ever traded for Jason Kendall," but the fact of the matter is that Beane guided the A's to eight consecutive winning seasons and five playoffs despite incredibly scarce resources. A lot of people have responded to Beane's praise and recognition by trying to knock him down a peg. A lot of people are wrong.

Scott Boras is the devil. Scott Boras is really good at his job. General managers are not.

George Steinbrenner and the Yankees ruin baseball. If you have the money, spend it. The Yankees aren't the organization throwing $126m at Barry Zito or $100m at Carlos Lee. Yeah, they've got the astronomical payroll, and yeah, that lets them absorb the mistakes that might cripple another team, but that's just the advantage you get when you have a ton of money and the biggest market in the country. Everybody secretly wishes their team had an owner who cares as much about winning as George Steinbrenner does. If baseball really is being ruined - of which I'm not at all certain - then the damage is being done by guys like Peter Angelos, Carl Pohlad, Brian Sabean, and Ned Colletti.

The Yankees buy all their talent. This one's closely related to the point above. Among important regulars, Jorge Posada, Robinson Cano, Derek Jeter, Melky Cabrera, Andy Pettitte, Phil Hughes, Chien-Ming Wang, Joba Chamberlain, and Mariano Rivera all came up through the system. That's nine players. The Mariners have ten, and that includes Sherrill, who spent the bulk of his formative years in Indy ball, and Raul Ibanez, who re-signed as a free agent. They're not exactly the Cleveland Indians, but the Yankees aren't any more "bought" than any other team that can afford it.

Gary Matthews Jr. plays awesome defense. Among 18 qualified center fielders, Matthews ranks 17th in RZR. He was 15th out of 21 in 2006. UZR had him at +5 runs last year, and +3 this year at the break. He's okay, but nothing special, unless your fantasy league counts Web Gems.

Ken Griffey Jr. is still a superstar. Even ignoring the health problems, Griffey has put up an OPS in the low-.800s away from that Cincinnati bandbox over the past two seasons, while playing some of the worst defense anyone's ever seen. His time as a contributing player is just about up.

Garret Anderson has been the hottest hitter in baseball since the All Star break. Only in terms of RBI. His .940 OPS since early July ranks 20th, and his 1.396 WPA over the same span is considerably lower than you'd expect for a man with that many runs driven in. For the sake of comparison, Raul Ibanez's post-break WPA is 1.097. Any "GA for MVP" movement, if such a thing even exists, is incredibly foolish.

Barry Bonds is the devil. Barry Bonds is neither the first player to (allegedly) cheat nor the first player to be a dick. He is the first player to hit 760 home runs. How come Gary Sheffield isn't greeted by big asterisk signs whenever he goes on the road? How come Jeffrey Loria hasn't been shot dead on his driveway? How come no one wants to kick Tony La Russa out of baseball for driving drunk? The general public sucks.

Alex Rodriguez's contract ruined the Rangers. 2002 salary for Alex Rodriguez: $22m. 2002 salary for Juan Gonzalez, Carl Everett, Rusty Greer, Chan Ho Park, John Rocker, Dave Burba, Todd Van Poppel, Dan Miceli, and Gabe Kapler: $42.7m. Alex Rodriguez didn't ruin the Rangers. The Rangers' inability to surround him with good players ruined the Rangers.

The Royals are hopeless. John Buck, Alex Gordon, Mark Teahen, Billy Butler, David DeJesus, Zack Greinke, and Joakim Soria make for a solid young Major League core, with Luke Hochevar on the way and Justin Huber still hanging around. Dayton Moore makes the front office competent for the first time in centuries. It's the White Sox who're screwed. (Note: I was going to address a "The Orioles are hopeless" point too until I realized that they really are.)

Lowe/Varitek for Slocumb is one of the worst trades ever. This is why it's bad to evaluate trades based on how they turn out. I mean, the Freddy Garcia trade to Chicago looks stupid now, but I'd do it again in a second. Slocumb wasn't having much success in 1997, but he'd built a track record of pitching well in the closer role with the Phillies and Red Sox in the two years prior, and the Mariner bullpen that season was unbelievably terrible (5.47 ERA). He was meant to address a need, and he actually kind of did down the stretch. Meanwhile, at the time of the trade, Derek Lowe was a 24 year old in Tacoma with a history of giving up hits and not missing bats, while Jason Varitek was a 25 year old in Tacoma with a .771 OPS (following 1996's .754). That Lowe turned into a good reliever for a few years before developing into a starter and Varitek figured things out at 31 shouldn't be held against Woody Woodward to nearly the extent that it has. Bad trade? Yes. Worst trade ever? Only in hindsight, which isn't fair.

Good hitters need to walk. Another case that was overstated by Baseball Prospectus back in the day, when it was trying to put an emphasis on OBP. The more aggressive approach works for guys like Ichiro, Dustin Pedroia, Robinson Cano, Vlad, Adrian Beltre, and Alfonso Soriano just fine. Not everyone needs to walk to succeed.

Reggie Jackson is the most clutch hitter of all time. Reggie Jackson hit .227 in 163 League Championship Series at bats.

The Texas Rangers have more than enough bats. What they need is pitching, pitching, pitching. A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding that Texas' ballpark makes bad hitters look decent and decent hitters look awesome. They haven't actually had a real strong lineup for several years. The Rangers don't need pitching instead of hitting - the Rangers need both.

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

yeah, orioles are chisox are soooo fucked

for the next 5 years (at least).

by Matthew on Sep 23, 2007 2:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Orioles,Chi Sox, and Giants are all doomed.

These pretzels....are making me thirsty!

by Goose on Sep 23, 2007 2:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have hope for the Orioles

based on Bedard, Loewen and Cabrera, even though it's very far-fetched because the ownership is so incredibly shitty that they're very unlikely to build a good team around those guys. But if Cabrera can ever figure out how to not walk one dude per inning and Loewen fulfills some of his promise, I think they can have a great rotation. But I guess I could say the same thing about the Giants with Cain and Lincecum. Those are huge ifs. I think I kinda defeated myself here, but I'm positing it anyway for the sake of debate.

by Teej on Sep 23, 2007 2:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good call on SF goose

they're right in there too. I'd be more optimistic about the future as a Pirate, Royal or Devil Ray fan than as an Oriole, Giant or White Sox fan.

The Orioles are fucked because they have no team-building strategy, little talent at the big league level, not much in the minors and top to bottom they're behind all four other AL East teams.

by Matthew on Sep 23, 2007 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love these posts

I think in just the past few months, I've tried in vain to argue a few of these points, mostly the Yankee-related ones.

Keep 'em coming if you've got it in you. Great stuff.

by Teej on Sep 23, 2007 2:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yankees buy their talent

I'll take up that arguement. The Yankees buying their talent meme is not recent. Now that Cashman has finally managed to rebuild something resembling a minor league farm system, guys like Phil Hughes, Robinson Cano, Shelley Duncan, Joba Faterlain, and Melky Cabrera can join the crew. Before that, though, the last major prospect the Yankees brought up and had on their team was Alfonso Soriano, and you know what they did with him. Remember when people thought Dionar Navarro was the Yanks "next big" prospect enough to trade him for Randy Johnson? Yeah.

Even in the mid 90s, where most of the major core talent came into the picture (Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Williams, Posada, etc), the team proceeded to just sign whomever they felt like. Fuck, look at the 1998 team! Aside from Pettitte, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and Bernie, there isn't another homegrown regular even sniffing the majors. Payroll? 63 million. This is the last season they dumpster dove for talent. It took 5 years from the time they made Jeter and Co regulars before they'd put another homegrown talent on the field for "good". 2001's Alfonso Soriano. Cano would be the next one, unless you count Melky.

During that same stretch, failed prospects Pat Kelly, Ricky Ledee, Ramiro Mendoza, Homer Bush, Chad Curtis (not theirs), Shane Spencer, got playing time while pissing away guys like Mike Lowell, Jake Westbrook, Ted Lilly, Nick Johnson, Juan Rivera, and Marcus Thames.

Tino Martinez
Kenny Rogers
Paul O'Neill
Dwight Gooden
David Cone
Wade Boggs (Goes down smooth)
Ruben Sierra (twice)
Darryl Strawberry
Jeff Nelson (twice)
Mike Stanton
David Wells (twice)
Hideki Irabu
Chuck Knoblach
Scott Brosius
Jose Vidro (I mean! Luis Sojo!)
Roger Clemens (several times)
Mike Mussina (first big money signing, 2001)
Jason Giambi (second big money signing, 2002)
Robin Ventura
Rondell White
Raul (FUCKING) Mondesi
Hideki Matsui (2003)
Todd Zeile
Tony Clark
Miguel Cairo
Alex Rodriguez (traded for, 2004)
Gary Sheffield (2004)
Javier Vazquez
John Lieber
Kevin Brown (traded for, 2004)
Tom Gordon
Tanyon Sturtz (Pfft)
Esteban Loaiza
Randy Johnson (traded for, 2005)
Carl Pavano (2005)
Jaret Wright (The Yanks will sign anybody)
Al Leiter
Johnny Damon (2006)
Bobby Abreu (traded for, 2006)
Cory Lidle (traded for, 2006, RIP)
Ron Villone
Sidney Ponson
Scott Erickson
Octavio Dotel
Kei Igawa
Professor Kyle Farnsworth

And that's just to name a few. The late 90s Yankee teams had an incredible mishmash of Chili Davises, Cecil Fielders, Tim Raineses, Matt Lawtons, Aaron Boones, Sterling Hitchcocks, Jeff Weavers, David Justices, and Glenallen Hills. The Yankees would sign ANYBODY if they thought they would help, and have little patience for them when they didn't. During the time of the last Yankee World Series championship alone the Yankee payroll has increased from 92 million to 189 million. And that's not even accounting for the stupidly huge raise Derek Jeter got, the signings of Cuban Defect(or)s Orlando Cabrera and Jose Contreras, and the smattering of money thrown at guys like Terence Long.

Even going back a while, the Yankees would have no problem throwing money at Reggie Jackson if they thought he was October Clutch!... oh wait, I see you handled that one.

Anyway, while the Yankees of today might have home grown talent Andy Pettitte on their team, he went away and came back a la Raul Ibanez. I don't count Chien Ming Wang, Hideki Matsui, or Kei Igawa amongst the homegrown talents anymore then I would say Ichiro was groomed by the Mariners.

New York throws money around wontonly and, often times, stupidly. The criticism that they go out and buy talent or buy someone else's stupid contract for talent is not unfounded nor is it unwarranted. In the talent they've had since 1996, they could have put together a pretty damn good team. Instead, they chose to ditch Nick Johnson and get Jason Giambi. They chose to ditch Ted Lilly and get Jeff Weaver. They chose to ditch Jake Westbrook for nothind. They chose to ditch Alfonso Soriano for Alex Rodriguez (a step up, to be sure). They chose to ditch Dionar Navarro to get Randy Johnson. Etc.

This also doesn't even begin to take into account the draft picks lost from signing free agents.

No sir, the Yankees deserve the criticism. Does that mean we should limit it to New York and ignore the other New York team, Boston, or Chicago (especially this offseason)? Fuck no. But I'm not going to stop calling the Yankees out on buying talent until they stop buying every "big name" or "hot pick" free agent (which they didn't do this last offseason, good for them), and at LEAST build a bullpen out of home grown talent (which they're on he path to).

So, they're on the right track to recovery, but they're not there yet.

I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF on Sep 23, 2007 3:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very well stated

I wanted to make a similar argument, but you don't leave much to add.

I will say this, though - if Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, or Bernie Williams had come up in, say, the Philadelphia farm system in the 90s, I doubt they'd still be on that team.

Having nine or so home grown regulars isn't saying much when you never have to worry about talent leaving the team for more money elsewhere.

by Katal LM on Sep 23, 2007 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orlando Cabrera?

by Gomez on Sep 23, 2007 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it.

I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF on Sep 23, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Typo

you meant Orlando Hernandez.

by Jeff on Sep 23, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won't disagree with the Yankees' past

but this is an outdated criticism. The Yankees of today are more focused on fiscal responsibility and in-system development than most other teams in the league. Where they stand now is no better or worse than pretty much any other big-market team.

And Wang's been in the system since 2000. I don't see why he shouldn't count.

by Jeff on Sep 23, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We'll see

For all the good Cashman has been doing, all it takes is one Steinbrenner word to fuck the whole thing up. I stated in the last paragraph that I think they're on the right path, but they're still not there.

They already bought Roger this year for such an absurd amount of money that nobody else could compete (sure they could, but they wouldn't), and if the Yankees get into the postseason with the Wild Card instead of the AL East championship and don't win, I think that George will rear his ugly head again.

I like Cashman. I think he's a very smart general manager and is doing a great job trying to curb the retarded nature of the Yankee franchise, but he still doesn't run the place.

I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF on Sep 23, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This sequence was hilarious

Mike Mussina (first big money signing, 2001)
Jason Giambi (second big money signing, 2002)
Kevin Brown (traded for, 2004)
Randy Johnson (traded for, 2005)
Carl Pavano (2005)
Jaret Wright (The Yanks will sign anybody)
pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth

by JI on Sep 23, 2007 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One slight disagreement:

It's probably not even worth posting, but I think you mean Griffey Jr. is still playing at a superstar level. The term superstar has more to do with how famous you are than how well you're playing.

There are a lot of retired superstars.

I love these dispelling myths posts by the way.

Yu Bet! Cuba, si! Yanqi, NO!

by Patrick517 on Sep 23, 2007 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Heh

Griffey was way better on the road than at home last year.

by JI on Sep 23, 2007 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

keep up

the dispelling myths posts; very interesting

by redwolf75 on Sep 23, 2007 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I see Matthew & I aren't the only ones...

...who think the Slocumb for Lowe/Varitek wasn't the worst trade ever for the M's. It was a bad trade, indeed, but it did sort of address the M's needs somewhat. Indeed Varitek took a long time to develop into the player he became, as did Lowe. But at the time, those guys weren't exactly super-prospects. I was more upset about the Jose Cruz for Timlin/Spoljaric than Slocumb for Varitek/Lowe at the time.

And besides, that trade is tempered a ton by thinking of it in terms of this:

Lowe/Varitek for Moyer
Slocumb for Bragg

Soriano for Ho was waaaaaaaay worse.

Yes. Shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Rogerthe Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies.

by PositivePaul on Sep 23, 2007 12:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why exlude double plays?

That's a very real cost of putting the ball in play.

by Aaron on Sep 23, 2007 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They're listed separately

Besides, even if you include them (along with sac bunts and sac flies), they're still too infrequent to really change the point - striking out remains worse than putting the ball in play.

by Jeff on Sep 23, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to The Book

an in-play out is worth -.299 runs and a strikeout is worth -.301 runs (1999-2002 data). So yes, technically, a strikeout is worse but it's about as close to a trivial difference as you'll get.

by Aaron on Sep 23, 2007 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have the book.

I'm working with the THT 2006 annual here. No idea why the values would be different.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, Jeff

Two comments.

The only reason Jeffrey Loria hasn't been shot in his driveway is presumably because he moves from fortress to fortress and has doubles a la Saddam Hussein. You don't have to look far to find visceral, psychotic, blood-engorged temple (albeit entirely justified) Loria hate.

Also, I agree with you on the Slocumb deal, though people were still very high on Veritek at the time, despite his previous development. The worst trade by the Mariners was Carlos Guillen for stocking stuffers, which was obviously moronic even at the time. The Soriano/HoRam trade may someday reach similar status of infamy.

by Paytheline on Sep 23, 2007 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

There was absolutely no upside to the guys we received in those two trades. At least there was some sort of legitimate value in getting Slocumb.

by Gomez on Sep 23, 2007 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ichiro a myth? Is that a joke?

Was that Ichiro myth supposed to be an April Fool's joke or something?

I have to agree with all the fans, players, and MLB managers that Ichiro has one of the best outfield arm in the AL. As noted by THT, the fans consider him the best, and as shown in this August's survey of AL managers, posted on baseballamerica.com, his arm is rated number one. It has also been noted many times that his peers consider him the best. And for a period of seven years. It isn't a myth.

Fantastic stats and analysis at THT, but they are also a great example of how stats can't always tell the story. Especially on this kind of defensive analysis because the sample sizes are too small and there is an enormous subjective influence. The subjective factor enters into the stats because runners and coaches decide whether or not to run on an outfielder based on their perceived chance of success. The are least likely to take any chances against Ichiro. The Holds stat should bare that out theoretically, but at what sample size? Obviously not the one available.

A more telling stat would be to see success based on throws, not hits. If there was a throw then we at least know the outfielder had a chance, and it has the further value of including the outfielders judgement. Additionally, I would credit the outfielder with success if the fielder dropped or missed a catchable ball, if the ball was knocked out by the runner, if the runner avoided the tag, or if the umpire made a bad call. Because of small sample sizes you should do a subjective analysis on each sample to identify your goal. The goal here is to see who has the strongest and most accurate arms in live game situations.

Bottom line is that if you really want to know who is best you need to watch the highlights of each outfielders successful and failed attempts. And that is why the fans, managers, and players consider Ichiro the best. When you watch the game you don't see him throwing the ball all over the place just to show off his arm, like Guerrero and Guillen do. It seems as if he is almost always perfect. We see Ichiro and Guerrero go head-to-head often enough, and we see Guillen and Ichiro play side-by-side. Ichiro's arm is far more deadly.

The author (Jeff) tries to insinuate that Ichiro's reputation was based on one throw, or a few samples. That comment was absolutely discraceful, as anyone watching the game knows that Ichiro has consistantly made plays like that for seven years now.

by lixjgrib on Sep 23, 2007 9:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry...

...but this didn't make any sense.

The counter-argument SEEMS to be based solely on reputation. And that's not much of an argument, to be frank...that's like relying on veteran "grit." What we all "know" frequently turns out to be wrong.

Can you clarify and use some more solid statistical backing?

by rtang on Sep 23, 2007 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ichiro's reputation

is based on a couple of deadly throws... though I think his reputation does have the positive effect of dissuading runners from tagging up at 3rd and trying to score on balls hit his way, and runners on 2nd from trying to round 3rd and score.

This is a lot harder to statistically validate because of all the variables involved and, even if you can account for those, the sample size, but I'm sure Ichiro's arm does have some effect on baserunning aggression for runners in scoring position. Is it significant enough to be quantified? Again, this is harder to statistically validate. But a runner on 3rd may be more wary to test Ichiro's arm in CF than he may be to test, say, Raul's.

by Gomez on Sep 23, 2007 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats clearly support Ichiro, but not Rios

This is definitely not something that can be made clear with stats alone.

You want to see some stats? Look at this year. Even with his reputation, Ichiro is still 3rd in assists for CF, and second in double plays. The only guys ahead of him in either catagory are Granderson, Cabrera, and Crisp. You are not going to convince anyone that those guys have better arms than Ichiro. It is more likely that teams take more risks with them. They certainly don't take many risks with Ichiro, and yet his numbers are still up there.

If we look at RF, Alex Rios (Jeff's choice) is not making such a good showing this year, as he only ranks 5th in assists. Ichiro was always at or near the top when in RF, and always ahead of Rios. Yes, always ahead of Rios. Ironically, Ichiro's first year was his lowest ranking in assists, and that was probably due to the fear he generated with his spectacular thows early in the season. So how can Jeff say that Rios is a cannon and Ichiro is not even among the best? Where are those stats, those scouting reports?

Fans, peers, and Managers cannot be 'fooled' for a period of seven years based on a 'couple' of deadly throws. The only people that don't believe he is among the very best are those that don't see him.

There are professional scouts that are paid to give the correct information to their teams. The managers and players make strategies and decisions based on continuously updated information. If Ichiro was 'only average' then people would be running on him as soon as there was evidence of a weakness. And if you watch Mariner games you know that his accuracy, strength, release, judgment, etc. are still there. The guy even changed to CF and maintained his elite level of play.

One major problem is that even MLB doesn't show his throws as highlights. Not sure why. Maybe because he doesn't play for a major media team like NY or LA. I'm a NYer, and we have some good outfielders, but they can't hold a candle to Ichiro.

As for me, I would love to be able to watch video highlights of Ichiro and others. Anybody have a resource for that?

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you seriously suggesting...

...that we don't watch the games? If you are, you're a goddamn moron.

by Graham on Sep 24, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Something to contribute?

If you took the time to read the post why don't you provide some intelligent response? Or perhaps some opinion?

I'm not suggesting anything. OK, so maybe I was being a bit of an antagonist. So what. Get over it.

Someone have stats or an opinion in direct contrast to what I've posted? I would be interested to know how Jeff or anyone else concluded that Alex Rios has a far superior arm than Ichiro.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because he's just as good at kills

and substantially better at holds.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My opinion:

People who don't understand higher end baseball analysis shouldn't be allowed to think they do. I don't believe in actually arguing with people like yourself - it just leads to frustration on my part, so I call you a tool and move on with life, letting people with more patience do the dirty deed.

by Graham on Sep 24, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly dude....

I've got no side to take with this discussion, but I got to say, your behavour isn't gaining you any ground....you're just making yourself look foolish.

by nathaniel dawson on Sep 24, 2007 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Statistics are against you.

Players and managers - the same people who call Derek Jeter the best defensive shortstop in baseball - are with you.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying this. Ichiro has a good arm, but there are a lot of people who're better.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What statistics? Can you show me?

OK, if Ichiro is only 'good' please show me the stats that show me that 'lots of people' are better. I've already showed stats that show him as an elite arm.

There has been a lot of talk about Delmon Young, but there is no mention of him by Jeff or the THT references. Obviously he is a new comer. It seems that everyone has a different favorite, and I would like to know how they are concluding such.

In the seven years that Ichiro has been playing nobody has compiled better stats. I mean the general stats that are available on MLB, ESPN, etc., such as assists, double plays, errors. Don't tell me those stats don't mean anything just because they don't support the argument. Educate me. Tell me why or show me something else.

How the heck could someone that is only 'good' or, according to Jeff, has a 'somewhat inaccurate arm,' have the BEST stats over a seven year period? And have his peers, managers and fans agreeing with the stats?

I really don't get it, and I would like to know the motivation for these statements. The THT stats are cool, but as I mentioned there still seems to be too much subjective influence to say that they can discredit everything else.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 1:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The stats are right there in the links.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't know what else to tell you.

If you insist on going by assists, Ichiro's behind 18 other outfielders this year, and tied with ten more. Last year he had half as many as Brad Hawpe and only about a third as many as Alfonso Soriano. The year before that, he had eight fewer than Manny freaking Ramirez.

He's above average, but he's not great, and certainly not the best in the league.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why the false context?

Jeff, why would you compare apples to oranges? And why the need to look at the NL here? You stated that you think Alex Rios is the man, so let's stay focused.

It looks like you are trying to pad numbers while quoting them out of context. You know very well that if you compare outfielders you should compare Center, Right and Left separately. We won't see Manny playing center or right. Manny had more than Rios that year too, so what was your point? He was also off the charts on the THT stats. All the numbers you just quoted made Rios look even worse, since Ichiro is always ahead of him in assists.

I'm not insisting on going by assists at all. I'm just questioning where the conclusions are coming from. The sample sizes are far too small and too subjective to use assists definitively. And Kills in the THT article are also based on assists, but exclude many, so the sample size is even smaller. The numbers are hidden by using a rate, but that doesn't change the facts. It seems to me that the kill is less valid than the assist.

Looking further at the THT Holds, there are again admittedly many holds that are not counted. And we have no idea about the validity of the opportunities that the kill and hold rates are based on. No pitching or park factors are adjusted for, etc. ,etc.

I think the THT stats are very cool, but they are obviously a work in progress, and I don't think anyone intended them to be used in a definitive manner, such as you are attempting here.

Many other players have great years, but that doesn't make them great. So again, show me some established statistics or professional opinions that demonstrate Ichiro has not been great over the past seven years. Yea, Francoeur and Hawpe look awesome in the NL, but not sure how that makes Ichiro only 'good' in the AL.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you reconcile these?

I'm not insisting on going by assists at all.
...
So again, show me some established statistics or professional opinions that demonstrate Ichiro has not been great over the past seven years.

I was using assists to make the point that assists by themselves don't tell you much of anything. You need to go deeper into the data to arrive at any reasonable conclusions - which THT did. It's not a perfect study, but it's the best we have, and it says that Ichiro isn't as good as his reputation.

Your argument is that the study is flawed. That's fine. But that doesn't make Ichiro great. The study isn't biased against him - its problems are the same across the board. You're trying to push this to support a preconceived belief that doesn't have a statistical basis. And you should know that player/manager testimony is meaningless.

(Also, for the record, when I say "league", I mean the Majors, not just the AL.)

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There'ss no perfect objective way, but...

By the same token a flawed study does not show he is not great. The study cannot say anything definitively because it is flawed. We can only speculate.

It is not the best study we have, and even THT says so on that site. There are better studies that are not readily available and/or not easy to digest. As I pointed out in my first post these types of statistics are severly dependent on subjective analysis.

You say that player/manager testimony is meaningless? Listen, I agree that it often is overrated, but it is not meaningless. Especially so in this case, since their opinions will have a direct impact on Hold rates. Running on an outfielder is a subjective decision. You should know that.

Even the readers that support your myth mentioned that people are not likely to run on Ichiro. The THT Hold stat doesn't measure all holds, so we can't really know what the stats are.

And we are not talking about his reputation. We are not saying he is the greatest. Your myth said he is not great at all. You said he is merely good, only somewhat accurate. How do you demonstrate that?

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

if reputation impacts hold rate (with which I agree), then how come Ichiro was 18th of 28 in hold rate in 2005, and 7th of 21 in 2006? No, this doesn't measure all holds, but it measures a lot of them.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

THT stats say Ichiro is Great

OK, so I've looked more closely at the THT stats that you linked to, and I still don't see your conclusions as justified. We have the THT stats from 2005 and 2006, so let's look at some things here.

In 2005 Francoeur ranks as the best Kill rate by far among MLB right fielders. Ichiro is 7th, and Rios does not even make the top ten.

If we look at Hold rate, Rios is 2nd, and Ichiro does not make the top ten, but he is better than Hawpe, who does not make the top ten either. And Franceour barely does at 10th.

Another significant fact in Ichiro's favor is that he had 50% more opportunities than Rios. In fact Ichiro had 50% more opportunities than ANY of the leaders. That is an enormous difference.

In 2006 the THT stats use the numbers to highlight a ranking of runs saved per 200 innings. In this listing Rios ranks 1st among MLB right fielders. Hawpe is 2nd and Ichiro is 5th, ranking ahead of Francoeur. Vlad does not make the top ten.

It is important to note that again Ichiro has more opportunities than Rios, but not more than everyone, as he played part of his season in CF. It still means that Ichiro is somehow generating about 50% more opportunities then his peers. Why is that? And what does it mean? Could the other players maintain their high levels under the same workload as Ichiro? Are the greater opportunities an indication of his greater defensive range, which thus puts him in more disadvantaged throwing situations? Lots of room for added greatness in Ichiro's favor there. If further analysis does a better job to quantify or qualify those opportunities, Ichiro's numbers will likely improve greatly compared to the others. If nothing else he gets added credit for his durability, and having demonstrated his performance over a 50% greater sample size.

So now I've used your data and your players, and Ichiro tops each of your three stars in at least one ranking.

Do you still want to insist that Ichiro is only good, while Rios, Hawpe, and Francoeur are great? When I looked at those THT numbers again I respected Ichiro even more.

I would think you need to address that enormous gap in opportunities before you can make any further arguments based on those THT stats.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take you more seriously...

....if you had read the article BEFORE you started ranting.

by rtang on Sep 24, 2007 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can see...

...the evidence in my very first post. I've made lots of explicit references to the THT articles that you can comment against if you wish. Anyway, this is entertainment so I hope you aren't taking it to seriously ;-)

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You sure can't read.

And you sure didn't answer any of my points.

Boring, and not very entertaining at all.

by rtang on Sep 24, 2007 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do the opportunities matter?

We know Ichiro has awesome range. That's what makes him a good defensive player. But that range is just as likely to carry him into good throwing position as it is to do the opposite. And why would other players see their performances drop over a larger sample size? That's speculation on your part, speculation with a specific conclusion in mind. Why isn't Rios' 268 between 2005-2006 a meaningful sample size? Why is Ichiro's 375 so much more significant?

Combine the data for 2005 and 2006. On the left is kill rate, on the right is hold rate.

Ichiro: 124/102
Rios: 123/123
Francoeur: 165/109
Hawpe: 198/105
Ordonez: 152/99
Abreu: 121/96

(That doesn't include Mike Cuddyer, who had a terrific 2006.)

Ichiro doesn't stand out from the pack. There are also a handful of center and left fielders with equivalent or better statistical performances.

Ichiro has a very strong arm, that much is certain. But statistically speaking, when it comes to converting throwing opportunities, there's no evidence that it's one of the best in baseball. The studies may be missing some things, but if one side of the argument is "here's the data" and the other side is "I think the data might be missing some stuff which might make one guy look better," then which side do you think I'm going to believe?

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Making progress

There is no evidence statistically speaking? Did I read the numbers wrong? You just listed the numbers yourself, and it shows that on the THT numbers Ichiro has a higher kill rate than Rios for a two year period. You can check MLB, ESPN, etc. and see that Ichiro also has more assists than Rios every year.

And how about this year? Ichiro is among the top 5 of his MLB peers in CF, as always, but Hawpe is no where near the top RFers this year. It looks like Rios might make the top 5, and he does if we look at only the AL.

You say I am speculationg with a definite conclusion in mind? It seems that would apply more to you, don't you think? You are holding up about 20 events over a two year period to indicate greatness in kill rates. And you think that is a large enough sample size?

So, if a batter hits 400 for a month I can compare him to Ted Williams? How about two months? What is a large enough sample size? We have a much better idea with batting averages don't we.

I agree with you that the meaning of the sample sizes is only speculation, as is any conclusion about them. I have no argument based on them, except that they need further evaluation.

You have larger sample sizes on the Hold rates, but as THT explains, they don't have data to include all holds, such as stopping a runner from stretching hits. That seems like a very significant amount of data that is not accounted for.

Anomolies in the stats and performance are admitted and given by THT, and we see them all the time in baseball. There are always players having great career years, but that doesn't make them great. Yet you present what is essentially 1.5 years of data for Rios and claim he is great. And using analysis that is admitted by the source to be a work in progress and lacking many things.

At least you finally said that Ichiro has a very strong arm.

But why do you say now that he must 'stand out' from other greats? He doesn't have to stand out, he simply has to fit in. I'm not arguing that he is the best. I am only arguing that he is great.

We can manipulate these numbers in many ways to show that Ichiro fits or doesn't fit, and yet you still want to say he is merely good. You still want to say that his arm is only somewhat accurate?

How do you explain that Ichiro outperformed your examples of greatness?

I have a lot of comments in support of Ichiro throughout my posts, and many comments remain unchallenged. It is already well established that Ichiro has a great arm, which is why you proposed the myth. So the burden of proof is on you to show that he is only good, only somewhat accurate.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look, it's this simple.

This is the myth:

Ichiro has one of the best arms in the league.

I believe it is a myth because it has no statistical support. You believe it is not a myth based on the throws you've seen him make with your own eyes, the same throws that we've all been watching for years.

Just because a study doesn't measure everything doesn't mean it doesn't measure anything. That which is being measured - which is a very significant fraction of total throwing ability - does not show Ichiro as possessing a finely-tuned laser. That's all.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, then...

how do you conclude that Rios is great if his numbers are not better than Ichiro?

You again said that Ichiro has no statistical support, but I already pointed out the statistics. Are you saying all those stats don't matter?

You want to use the Hold rate exclusively? Even then Ichiro is almost even with Francoeur and Hawpe on those.

And the Hold rate does not involve any throws at all, so how can that determine his throwing effectiveness? You can argue that it measures impact, but even then the Hold rate is still only a metric of subjective influences.

You need several years of data, since we know that there are many subjective factors. People will run on a new guy, so holds should be down and kills should be up (if he is great). But that doesn't always happen, and maybe it is because of pitching, ballparks, or teammates. We don't have enough stats yet.

I think a good question is how can the hold rate contractict the opinions of the players and managers. It is definitely interesting.

Many other questions.
Why doesn't THT show us the 'Advance' rate of the fielders?
How about a success rate based on throws made?
How about the actual release times?
How about velocity? Arc? Flight times? Distances?
How about stats on accuracy? Balls caught? Hit runners? Balls not caught?

All of those things would say more about ability than a Hold rate. I don't know what those numbers might say, but I'll bet you that there are scouts and managers with some of that information.

by lixjgrib on Sep 24, 2007 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Rios' hold rate is way better than Ichiro's.

Look, this isn't going anywhere. If you're confident in your own observations and don't believe that the articles contain any relevant information, then there's no resolving this.

by Jeff on Sep 24, 2007 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

two different things

you can talk about ability or results.

Anyways, there are many quantification systems for outfield throwing ability. I don't think a single one has Ichiro at the top.

I know John Dewan (of STATS Inc., BIS and Fielding Bible fame) has looked into it, John Walsh at THT has. IIRC, someone from The Book did as well. I worked on a system with Shane Jensen (http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol3/iss3/2/) that also takes ball-in-play location into effect when calculating kill/hold rates. The principals are all the same. Holds and kills.

As for Why doesn't THT show us the 'Advance' rate of the fielders?, what is 'Advance' rate?

by Matthew on Sep 24, 2007 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your Griffey Statement Saddens Me

I won't argue it, but I'd like it to not be true. I hope next year proves you wrong, even though it probably won't unless he moves to the AL and starts DHing.

God. Dammit.

by Librocrat on Sep 25, 2007 1:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs