FanGraphs' "Value"
by BTLove on Jan 28, 2009 12:59 AM EST
Email
PrintSo over the last few days there have been a bunch of discussions in various threads about the new "value" stats over at FanGraphs. I thought we could get a more coherent discussion going here and kinda figure this thing out.
First off, for everyone that is unfamiliar, over at Fangraphs they have put together an all-inclusive type stat that combines fielding, batting as well as positional adjustments to show how many wins a player is worth. Those guys can explain it a lot better than I can, so here are some links to their explanations:
Part 5 - Converting Runs to Wins
So there have been a lot of critiques of the the results in our threads. The biggest problem for people seems to be the money amounts that show how much the player was worth that year. Just to be clear for everyone that didn't read the explanations; these money amounts are what the player would be worth in free agency. More specifically, it is what a GM would pay that player if he somehow knew how the player would perform. Because it is their free agency values, most players are underpaid because most players are not free agents. Many players are also overpaid, usually aging veterans that can no longer cut it.
Other critiques:
For their pitching values, they us FIP (fielding independent pitching). FIP numbers for many pitchers are much different than their ERA's because it attempts to only take into account what the pitcher can control. Thus, Dice-K has a high FIP because he puts so many guys on base. I'm not sure this is the best way to do it because it is not a results-based stat.
They put a ton of value on position, so Varitek was actually worth a full win last year. Also Pedroia last year was better than Manny ever was with the Sox (or at least from 2002 on, since the numbers only go back that far.)
I really like the stat as it puts other stats into much more concrete terms. It has some issues, but overall I hope these numbers become a bigger and bigger part of our discussions around here.
326 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How many wins above replacement a guy's worth and stuff like that are great
But, really, when they put it into money it loses me. That average for a win is off.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
It's on the free agent scale.
Based on what teams have on average spent for free agents. Obviously that’s a very high price as FAs are rarely a good deal.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
That's exactly my point
When a guy is a win above replacement level, hey, that’s okay, even sexy given the occasion. But when that means he has to make 5 mil or so, then I have a problem.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 31, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions
Basically because I believe every team has at least one guy in the system that could play that position
At least on the replacement level. 1 win for 5 mil seems an awful lot to spend while you could spend it on a better signing, or at extensions or so.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 31, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
With player value (in $)
Everything needs to be shifted downward for this season. At the height of the bubble economy, an average to below-average pitcher was worth over $10 million. Last year, Carlos FREAKING Silva signed a 4-year, $48 million deal. The market will adjust. Already, we see great players going most of the offseason without contracts (Ben Sheets, Adam Dunn) because teams don’t want to spend the money for their skills. Part of that is attributable to the wealth of talent available this offseason, particularly among starting pitchers.
One issue with the methodology described by Dave Cameron (of the great site USS Mariner), is that they calculate salaries based off of the mean. When baseball is flush with money and has no concerns about revenue for next year, that’s fine. But this year, one team did all the spending (NYY) while the rest of the league has been quieter. I think a better methodology might be to take the Median.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
I agree to an extent.
The Yankees throw off the mean, so presumably players who the Yanks are interested in are worth more in the free agent market. So now that they are done shopping, every player’s value goes down. However, lets wait until Sheets and Dunn sign to see what they end up being valued at. DLowe got $15mil per year, which is right about at FG’s average value for him over the least few years. Manny is probably also going to get a hell of a lot. We talk about the depressed economy causing Pat Burell to take half what he was worth, but according to FG’s calculations his value the last three years has been $9.2, 8.7, 11.6. Thats not too far off the $8 he’ll be making this year. So I think these numbers are more accurate than people are giving them credit for.
One of my problems with that average is this
Jason Varitek was worth 1.2 wins basically because he’s a catcher. I’m okay with that, but I’m not okay with the idea that he should be worth more than 5 mil because of that. See, Kottaras or whatever could not have done much worse than he did with the bat, and he’s a catcher too! The positional adjustment makes sense when talking about value wins, but not when it’s translated to money.
There are many mistakes when the Rangers were good for a $120 payroll, and the Tigers with a higher payroll than the Yankees, which makes no sense, even based on real results. Like I said, I’m a big FG fan, but this average is flawed.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 28, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
So, you're saying you want the values to be averaged by position.
Makes sense. Some positions get over valued a lot.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
They're NOT overvalued.
A 4.0 win player at 1B will help your team win just as much as a 4.0 win player at CA.
The Kottaras example is flawed in a couple ways. One, could he REALLY have put up Varitek’s batting line? Yes, but would he be EXPECTED to? Two, team roster construction is ignored. All players are compared to a replacement-level player: given a team who’s only other option is a replacement-level player (similar to Kottaras), how much should they be willing to spend on Player X, assuming’s he’s a free agent.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I meant money-wise.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
If the 4.0 WAR 1B is just as helpful as the 4.0 WAR CA, why would you pay them differently?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 31, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Because not every team uses sabermetrics.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
I get it, you're saying that teams tend to overvalue some positions.
I thought you meant Fangraphs/WAR overvalues some positions.
We’re in agreement about the teams.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Supply & demand
More 4.0 WAR 1Bs than 4.0 WAR Cs.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
That too.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
Remember that FG's win values takes into account position...
So last year there were 5 catchers at 4.0 wins or better and only 4 1B’s.
About Kottaras, you're missing a couple of things
His AAA line is fine enough, and he could hit like Tek did for most of last year because, really, pretty much anybody can. He’s also younger and has more upside than Tek at this point. He could be replacement level, but I think he’d be a bit better. If a guy like Kottaras is replacement level, and you have a guy like Tek waiting on FA giving you a production that’s marginally better, I’d say fuck him and go with Kottaras. We can dump Kottaras if we find someone better, but it’s harder to do so with Tek.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 31, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
In terms of the team value, you're just looking at batters.
The Rangers were good for $120 mil in value for their batters, but that number does not include the pitchers. So the Yanks hitters were worth less than the Tigers, but the Yanks pitchers were better, so it all evens out. The Yanks staff was worth 23 value wins while the Tigers was worth 9. Obviously all of the “Dollar values” when added will be much more than teams actually pay their players. This is because many very good players are signed way under value because the player has not hit the free agent market.
In terms of the catchers, if Kottaras can be as good as ‘Tek was last year, he is not replacement level, he is one win above that. Yes we could gamble that he will be that good, but there were actually a lot of catchers in the league that were much worse than Tak last year. What FG’s is saying, is that even though he was terrible, your replacement level catcher was even worse, so that extra 1.2 wins is valuable.
That's only the BATTERS?
It was a reach by that, if you add the pitchers is just way off on the average payroll these days.
What’s replacement level for catchers? Tek was only valued positively pretty much at one point: Positional value. I could be wrong here, but I think every catcher is a catcher.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 28, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
So the average payroll is mostly not free agents
The dollar value represent what a player would make as a free agent given his level of performance that year. Many players are not free agents. For example if Dustin Pedroia were a free agent he would have made a shit load more than that $40 mil he just signed for. Tons of players in the league are hugely cost-controlled. Most players don’t hit the free agent market until their 7th season, meaning many, many players make waaay less than they would on the FA market. This means that the FG numbers for total payroll will always be way more than what an actual team payroll is. Again, these numbers are useful through the context of the free agent market, not as some sort of league-wide average team payroll analysis.
Supposedly a replacement level catcher (i.e. a freely available catcher who can barely make a major league roster) is worth -32.5 runs per 600 PA’s. Varitek was worth -13.7. The positional adjustment is one that would be made for every catcher and is meant so you can compare players across positions. So Varitek gets all of that positive value because most other catchers suck as badly as he does. For instance, Jeff Mathis, Jason Kendall, Kenji Johjima and Jose Molina were all worse then Tek last year.
Now, Josh Bard last year was worth -11 runs, well above replacement level and a little better than Varitek. Given equal PA’s he would have been worth around $5mil. So this is where the numbers don’t quite make sense, because Josh Bard only received about $1 mil in free agency. However, there are obviously other factors at play, such as other players available and team needs. Either way, we could certainly do worse than Josh Bard as our starter. In 2006, for example, he was worth 18.9 runs, good enough to be one of the best in the league, though its a small sample size.
Yes, I understand but it's pointless because most of a team's roster is not made of FA
And most of the FA get a pay well below what they’re ‘valued’ when they sign the contract. The Yanks got a ‘steal’ on CC, even though they overpayed and were only bidding against themselves.
I mean is this: -32,5 is awful, it’s not replacement level. It’s that low mainly because the catchers are off the hook on the positional adjustment. Using that metric, Jason Bay should have been payed less than Tek. I have one word for that: STUPID. That’s stupid. They overvalue defense and position. Bay plays a bad LF (I’d give him another year before saying this, but whatever), Tek is a fucking dead body, but plays catcher (badly, I must add), so he HAS to be more valuable. That’s just plain stupid, it’s a big hole in their metrics, because not a fucking human being anywhere would say Tek was more valuable than Bay last season.
I get that positional adjustment, and it makes sense when you’re comparing catchers, and a good catcher is more awesome than a good 1bman. But that’s it. When you put that into money, it makes no sense. Any catcher is a catcher, right? So why pay one more because of his position? Tek sucked with the bat, pretty much sucked with the glove, and should have been payed 5 mil because he played catcher? My dog can catch as well, I’m just sayin…
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 29, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
FG's didn't say Tek was more valuable than Bay.
Bay was worth 3.2 wins last year, Tek was worth 1.2. Bay was 2 full wins better than Varitek, meaning they value him at $9 mil per year.
That -32.5 runs is what they get when they look at something like the average value of the 76th-90th best catchers in the league/minors. The top 60 are on rosters, and a few more are a little less attainable.
You pay a catcher more because most of them suck. For example, to get a 1B/DH that can hit better than Tek is easy. Chris Carter or Jeff Bailey could hit significantly better than Tek and it would cost almost nothing for any team to attain them or someone similar. However, as we have all learned this offseason, it is fucking hard to get a catcher that can hit significantly better than Tek. We would have to give up Bucholz in a trade, and there wasn’t really anyone worth targeting on the FA market. Thats why you have to pay them more.
Also, remember catcher defense is not taken into account because its hard to quantify, so Tek is probably worth less than those 1.2 wins because of his poor arm. Though maybe his “game-calling” abilities would cancel that out?
Really?
I have Bay at 0.5 wins here, lower than Alex Cora.
I know that it’s hard to get a good hitting catcher. So what I’m saying is: Don’t get a good hitting catcher, but don’t pay 5 mil to Tek. Pay Kottaras his money, and at least cut payroll. I doubt that on every system there isn’t at least a Kottaras kind of guy, that could play catcher, hit shit, but don’t make any money as well. You don’t pay catchers more because they’re catchers, there are catchers on every system I think.
Molina is also a good game-caller, and has a great arm. Catcher defense is hard to evaluate, but Tek sucked last season throwing runners out, I’m still having nightmares of that Tampa series.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 29, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe...
…he’s at 2.7 for the Pirates and 0.5 for the Red Sox?
I really don’t care much for all this “fangraphs” stuff, though.
The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble
by DirtySouthSox on Jan 29, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, forgot about that
Even so, half a season of Jason Bay got to be worth more than 10 full seasons of Alex Cora.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 29, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
Correct.
He was the same with the bat, but he was much better in the field for the Pirates. I’ve never quite trusted Fenway Park LF fielding stats though because of the monster.
Agreed about LF metrics for Fenway
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 30, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions
The wall allows for some trickery.
Clearly the wall skews the classic defensive metric, and rewards relatively dumpy guys, as compared to the rangy Carl Crawford types. But there’s definitely room for a lot of acumen in playing the wall. Manny’s short arm throw, for example. And Rice was famous for the rope-a-dope, where he’d watch the ball as if it was gone, inducing a HR trot from the batter, letting Rice throw him out at second.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Why not?
Because you don’t understand it or because you have a reason for finding it faulty?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I agree about the whole Kottaras thing.
He could probably be as good as Tek and is cost controlled. He is a good BB guy, has solid power, but can’t hit for any average. Sounds a lot like Tek last year. I think what they would be paying for with Tek is his ability to handle the pitching staff. Thats an impossible thing to quantify.
I rec'd this fanpost
This is a good discussion, I feel.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
So I understand people have problems with the FG salary numbers...
so does anyone have a problem with the method? instead of announcing that you think the conclusions of faulty, try to find an error in the method that was used to attain those numbers.
Personally I think the method is good and, though surprising sometimes, the conclusions are correct. It is thinking similar to you guys’ that has led to a HOF with few 2B and a million LFers. Baseball requires skills beyond hitting, and the ability to play a position such as C or 2B increases a player’s value greatly. Even if they are truly horrid hitters, the fact that a player is able to play that position and kinda hit is a rare talent.
My take
There shouldn’t be a method. You can’t put money values in wins when most of the good guys are making peanuts, because they came through the system, and when teams are able to find good FA for nearly nothing. Most payrolls are low, so to expect them to pay 5 mil for a win is silly.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 1, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
They who?
Look, teams have different levels of ‘pressure’ and expectations, you can’t get an average of money value considering them all as just a team. Teams like the Sox and the Yanks can pay more for a win, it’s their choice really. It doesn’t work like that on small market teams.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with most fancy stats.
They’re useful benchmarks, when considered in context.
The problem I have with the $ valuations is that monetary value is entirely driven by context. If you are a 75-win team, 2 wins isn’t worth spending $10m on. But if you are a 90-win team, and 2 wins is the difference between you and the playoffs, then it’s definitely worth the money. And when a few teams skew the money spent on FAs, the whole metric is skewed, because teams will overpay for that extra edge.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Feb 1, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree that context matters a whole helluva lot.
And for those who want to ignore the Fangraphs dollars, then go for it. They probably aren’t addressing the questions you’d like answered.
But under the specific assumptions they’re using for the dollar values, they do have some use. Think of them as a way to re-scale the WAR number onto a dollar scale. And the dollar scale used is what teams, as a group, have paid for free agents recently.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Maybe I didn't make my point too well.
Stupid super bowl kegs.
Cost is always context driven, and depends as much on the buyer as the seller. If you say to me “Jason Varitek is a $5m player,” I will answer “to whom?” He is not worth 5m to the Royals, or to the Orioles, or the Marlins, because whatever win potential he brings to the game will be a drop in the bucket. But for the Sox, the now limited skill set he brings might mean the playoffs, so he’s certainly worth the $$. So it’s not a true metric across the league.
And even among the contenders, if everybody but the Sox has a catcher, then he’ll be worth more to the Sox.
And the perennial contenders tend to overpay FAs (because they can and because they really need that edge) which skews the both the monetary metric and I would think the proper valuation of wins.
An overall problem I have with the FG stats is their desire to oversimplify the game. They have an article about how many wins a player is worth, and their stated goal is to quantify players according to the amount of wins. I paraphrase but the article went something like this “If I tell my mom so-and-so had an .892 OPSr, she won’t know what that means. But If I say he is a 4 win player, she will understand completely.” The problem with this approach is that it ignores the complete randomness of the game. Luck, seeing-eye grounders, flares, “clutch,” blown calls by the ump, personality, blocking the plate, momentum, one-run games, all that stuff is HUGE over the course of a season (particularly one-run games – if the Rays had a normal season last year, they would’ve been in third place). A metric that so-and-so is “worth” five wins doesn’t take into account any of that. It’s useful shorthand in context, but it shouldn’t and can’t be all-consuming.
It’s like saying “they’re a 95 win team ON PAPER.” A team of 9 Arods on paper would win a stupidly large amount of games, but in the clubhouse and on the bench they’d all end up slitting each other’s throats.
I don’t know, I’m not a math guy (though I usually am responsible for splitting the bill at dinner).
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I think the chemistry of the All-AROD squad
depends on exactly how it’s composed. If you’re talking A-Rod-like players, that’s definitely a recipe for a bloodbath. If you’re talking nine clones, then A-Rod’s egomania would create a different kind of chemistry. Probably the kind that would only be shown late-night on HBO or through Pay-Per-View. Especially if Madonna gets sucked into the clubhouse drama.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
Why the italics?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
Speaking of Super Bowl
Big Springsteen fan here, but his show sucked last night. Worst SB show in quite some time.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
You don't like seeing him slam into the camera?
They need some actual rock. If only Cobain hadn’t gone and offed himself… How about Metallica or AC/DC?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
I saw his slide
It was ‘meh’, he looked like the old guy who tries to get along with the younger people. And I am a Springsteen fan, but his show seemed more like the Simpsons mocking an artist than an actual show.
Plus, Metallica or AC/DC? Both are done. They could call Nick Cave, Pearl Jam or something that’s still relevant and that people know. Prince and Tom Petty were amazing, actually Prince was hands down the best SB show ever. But Bruce looked like shit.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Also
10th Avenue Freeze Out? WTF IS WRONG WITH EVERYTHING? That’s the worst song in Born to Run.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
I completely disagree with that comment. That song is awesome.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
It's a good song, but
Thunder road? Night? Backstreets? Jungleland?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
...
It’s pretty damn hard to say that there’s a bad song on Born to Run, IMO.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't say it was bad
It’s good, but there are so many options… I would have cried like a girl had he played Incident On 57th Street. I mean, the Super Bowl + that? That’s almost better than porn.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
Incident On 57th Street + Super Bowl = EPIC WIN.
That would’ve been awesome if he played that.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
It would have
That song is something else. On a perfect world, he would have played that, Born To Run, The River and Valentine’s Day. Everyone would be so amazed that they would not give a damn about the rest.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
I would’ve chosen Incident On 57th Street, The Promised Land, Thundercrack and Backstreets, but those songs are good, too.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
I'm partial to Spirit in the Night
and Does this bus stop at 82nd street?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
How did it seem like the Simpsons mocking an artist? That’s the kind of shtick Springsteen does at almost all of his shows (excluding acoustic shows and the Seeger Sessions thing).
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know
He just looked and sounded bad, at least for me. And I like his stuff. After Tom Petty last year, I was expecting anything like that because Springsteen has better stuff.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
Have you seen Running Down a Dream?
4 hour documentary on Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Awesome movie. Highly recommended way to kill a lazy Sunday.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I heard a lot of good stuff about this movie, but I'm yet to watch it
I love Tom Petty, Damn the Torpedoes is Top 10 in 70’s for me.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
Will watch it
Thanks man.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
If the category changed to was...
Jimi.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
Hendrix?
No fucking way, Phil Lynott was way cooler than him.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
[stares]
Don’t you love how this conversation started with beer kegs?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
I just love it
We’re later posting naked girls pictures, that’s where I see this conversation ending.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
And that's when the parental controls kick in.
Didn’t the Giselle pic on another thread count?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
Really?
I mean, his music was great, but he looked like a drunker Roy Orbison. Which is indeed cool, I guess. I have never thought about it this way.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
I love Jimi
but he was a little too spun. Watch Rainbow Bridge if you’re not sure what I’m talking about.
Petty is just cool.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Define "spun."
The man died by drowning in wine-vomit. The odder you die, the greater you are.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
I can't remember how Tom Petty's set was last year.
So, I can’t honestly compare it to Springsteen’s this year. But I thought the show was good. His voice wasn’t exactly at its best, though.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Feb 2, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
I had a problem with his stage antics
He just seemed forced trying to be a ‘rockstar’, and when he tried to be funny it was embarassing.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
And about Petty
Yeah, the only thing holding that show back was his voice. Otherwise, it would have been better than Prince from the year before.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
I agree Tek isn't worth that much to other teams...
However, if the Royals for some bizarre reason wanted to sign Jason Varitek, it would cost them the full $5 mil, or probably more. So the existence of the Sox and Yanks does not necessarily make certain players “worth” more, but it certainly makes the players “cost” more. I hope I’m making that distinction clear.
Now, I agree with your criticism that the FG’s win value stat does not take the randomness of the game into account. However, this is true of every stat. Every time someone quotes a BA or HR total it doesn’t take the randomness into account either. Obviously there is no stat that can take all of those random events into account. All FG’s is doing is taking some fairly unreadable stats and translating them directly into runs in a way that RBI and HR totals, or OPS or OPS+, does not do. It is THEORETICAL value and provides a context where you can compare all aspects of a player against another.
I'm not so sure about the distinction.
“Worth” as a FG valuation is derived from the present “cost” of players, correct?
Another problem I have is that there is no such thing as a “replacement-level” player. It’s a hypothetical construct, yet forms the baseline for many of these stats, giving it a flavor of arbitrariness. Given the choice of “so and so gets on base 40% of the time” and “so and so is worth 4 more wins than a hypothetical player who never has and never will exist,” I’ll take the former.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
They are doing articles now on FG's about "replacement level players"
and they’re giving examples. Kevin Cash is an example of a replacement level catcher.
And I don’t think FG is implying that a player is “worth” the dollar value they give. They simply calculate how many wins a player is worth then multiply that by the “cost” that the free agent market has shown. In fact, I have read articles over there discussing exactly what you were saying above; that certain wins are worth more than others. For example, wins number 85-95 are huge because they would probably earn you a spot in the playoffs while numbers 65-75 are worth much less.
The point of using the FG stat as opposed to saying "a guy gets on base 40% of the time, is that the FG stat tells you a lot more about the player. For example, last year Hanley Ramirez and Brian Giles both got on base at right around .400. Hanley, however was worth a full win more simply with his bat before positional adjustments. While I don’t think you should ever look at one stat alone, this new FG win value system is as close as anything out there.
Yes and no.
The FG stat is useful shorthand, but I think it’s a somewhat narrow view. I think the stats from the back of the baseball cards – doubles, triples, SBs, HRs, runs, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG, Ks, BBs – give a fuller picture of the player than win shares or a monetary value.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I have a problem with their notion of replacement level player
It’s not like they are the same player. There are many bad players in the MLB, it’s hard to make an average out of them. I mean, Cash would be our replacement level last season, but with more or less options at catcher, what would be replacement level?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 2, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
It is guys that could be attained at no-cost
Whether they are signed to minor league contracts or claimed off waivers, these are guys anyone can get. Basically everyone has someone who can hit like Kevin Cash (though defensively at catcher it gets hard).
Yes
But would they hit JUST like Kevin Cash? See, this is my thing. If you make an average out of every elite player, would they be expected to hit exactly that average? Or even close to it? Same thing with replacement, what if 2 teams ‘find’ 2 FA that are considered replacement level, and one of them turns out to be the better player? ‘Smarter’ teams that get these kind of guys have one kind of replacement level while other who don’t do that have other?
I’m okay with WAR and stuff like that. It’s a good stat, it shows how better a guy like Pujols is than what he would be if he sucked. Which is something we can get, in a far more reliable way, in the stats that Tommy mentioned. I mean, if a guy gets on base 4 out of 10 times, that is a .400 OBP. You can check it.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
But what does a .400 OBP mean in practicality?
If this were all you knew about a player, you would know very little. Were those four times getting on base homeruns? were they walks? the stats that FG’s has developed, like wOBA, have a lot more meaning than a simple one like OBP.
I like wOBA
I actually use all kind of stats to judge a player, even, yes, BA. That’s a way of judging a player, and the other way is to watch him (like his swing, his glove and stuff like that). I’m not sayin that FG stats are worthless, they’re great, but they don’t tell the full story, some of them are stats filtered through what other guy has for a good baseball player.
So getting on base 4 out of 10 times, means a .400 OBP. It has no formula in it.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
What you mean...
“some of them are filtered through what other guy has for a good baseball player”? You think some stats have a subjective bias?
Isn't it subjective?
A guy creates a stat based on a formula that he himself creates. How is that not subjective? Again, I’m not saying it’s wrong or it’s worthless.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I'm lazy to check
But how’s WAR calculated? It takes a formula, right? Which means someone created that formula based on what they thought would be a good way to judge a player. That’s subjective right there. Again, I’m not sayin it’s wrong or right, just subjective.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
You haven't read all the explanations yet?
Dude, read those articles. It will help the discussion. FG’s uses wOBA to calculate the batting values, UZR/150 for fielding, then they do the replacement and postition adjustments.
Mmmmm
someone created that formula based on what they thought would be a good way to judge a player
Is it fair to say “someone created a rocket ship to the moon based on what they thought would be a good way to judge space flight?”
No, I’m not going to claim there’s the same amount of science in baseball as rocketeering, but people don’t just create those stats willy-nilly. wOBA is from linear weights, which is from modeling past baseball games. Replacement-level comes from studies of the performance of players who are on the fringe.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
God
To further explain what I mean, how do you calculate WAR? It’s a formula, right? How do you calculate, say, OBP? You count how many times the guy got on base. That’s what I meant, I’m not saying anything other than that. Not saying that OBP is better or that other stats are wrong.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't compare to a replacement player, does it?
Also, it’s simpler. You can even count it when not many games have been played.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
But in your mind you put it in context.
You see a .400 OBP and think, “damn, that’s good” or you see a .300 obp and think “that sux”. You do this because you know the scale for obp’s after looking at them for years. FG just sets a lowest level of the scale, and no not in a subjective way, but in a highly methodical way.
Highly methodical way is still subjective
Which has been my point the whole time. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, right or wrong. Just subjective. While OBP and stuff like that aren’t. One is not better than the other, I didn’t go there.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
I still don't understand why one is subjective and one isn't.
Sure, part of WAR is that you need to adjust for replacement level at 20 runs per 600 PAs (ish). Is that subjective? Well, it’s based on research. Nobody’s claiming it’s exactly perfect.
But with OBP, why add or not add SH, SF, and ROE? Isn’t adding or not adding those things subjective?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
"It's based on research"
It doesn’t matter, it’s subjective. And that’s my point.
OBP is the number of times a guy reached base without making an out, and not counting ROE. If he goes to bat 10 times, gets one hit and 3 walks, that’s a .400 OBP right there.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
And my point is that calling it subjective isn't really true or not true.
And pointless to say. What was your point?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
My point is that WAR is subjective, OBP is objective
You know, you can disagree.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
You have to say how WAR is sunjective.
Just saying it over and over again is not making a point. HOW is it subjective? What is it about the method that is subjective? Which decisions are made that could be made in another way? I’m not saying its not, I just do not know how it is subjective.
How it's subjective
Someone created a formula to calculate it, and decided to compare with a replacement player. Not saying it’s wrong, it’s was created as a subjective stat.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Someone created a formula for OBP, too.
I still fail to see the difference, except that defining replacement-level isn’t mathematically exact. It’s empirical.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
"except that defining replacement-level isn’t mathematically exact."
And you still can’t see the difference? Really?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
I understand the difference, but the difference is not objective vs. subjective. Both OBP and Win Values have an equation in which raw numbers are inputted.
OBP doesn't compare a player to any kind of arbitrary benchmark
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
You keep thinking there's something inherently special about "average".
It’s one calculation. There are reasons to choose to use it or not use it for any question you might ask.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Average wasn't set by anyone we might get to know
A dude decided that replacement was good, and set it. I’m simplifying, of course, but I can’t understand how is it so hard to understand it’s different.
Since it worked also on this thread, think about it this way: You’re a big porn fan, you love porn, you don’t do nothing in your life but watch and study porn. You decide to create a stat to measure how long the guys keep getting on it. You then decide to compare to their peers, but you don’t do that with every porn actor and actress. You do with the short ones and the ones who can’t keep on for much long. You take the time they can fuck. How’s that not more arbitrary than just taking the average?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
Now, you realize it is calculated from the average,
then they just subtract 20 runs. All of the calculations are done from the average. The rep level adjustment is so you can include playing time and also so you can then value each win monetarily.
"then they just subtract 20 runs"
Dear lord, it’s even worse this way. Why not just take the average? You can see who’s better and who’s worse than the average of the league.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
Well, thye subtract 20 runs per 600 PAs
In this method you can see who is better or worse than league average pretty easily. Again, the reason they do it to rep level is so they can set it against someone with a value of zero. An average player has a much higher value than that. But we’re going in circles now, so I think I’m done with the rep v. average aspect of the conversation. For the record, I understand you complaints.
Good
Thank you, I do understand the replacement level thing as well, just don’t agree with it.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
If by "subjective" you mean "empirical" or "scientific", then sure.
But deciding what to include in a calculation like OBP or runs above average still presents some “subjectivity”.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
No
You can count. I mean, you can tell watching the game how many times the guy get on base, but you can’t tell how many times he WARPed. I mean, sure, it’s subjective like everything, but it’s less affected by one’s opinion.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Everything that goes into WARP can be counted.
But it is inputted into an equation. Its not like there are variables that are simply guessed at.
"But it is inputted into an equation"
Therefore, it’s more… Subjective, right? Or did the equation created itself?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Subjective implies a bias for or against something...
what are they biased towards? all stats use an equation. You have not shown how this one is more subjective than others; just that its more complicated than other.
God
Just disagree with me, you can. They decided to compare a player’s production with some random (I don’t give 2 fucks if it’s "scientific") group of players, in this case bad players. How’s that not subjective?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
That came out a bit wrong
What I meant by the “scientific” part of my post is this: It was set that a specific line of a bad player would be the baseline. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, that’s subjective right there.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Well, not one specific player.
Many, many players. So the sample size should eliminate all subjectivity.
Now, I’ll agree that its not 100% precise, but I just don’t understand how its more subjective than anything else. Either way, I think we’re arguing semantics.
Let me try one more time
Let’s say there are 200 baseball players in the MLB. You decide to create a stat to compare a player’s production to their peers. But, you don’t take the average production of these 200. You take the average of 20 of those, because they suck.
How’s that not subjective? You decided against using the average of the big group to use the average of a far smaller group.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, everything we ever do in our life is subjective
But choosing a smaller group instead of the whole group is ‘more’ subjective.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
Because the bad players are picked out by criteria.
Have you read Justin’s study?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yes
And I still disagree. Criteria is subjectivity.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
There are critera for choosing what goes into OBP, no?
And I don’t even buy the premise that an equation that is more abstract with more precise measurement is necessarily better than one with more noise.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I still can't believe
You guys are having a hard time understanding that an equation that only counts how many times one thing happens is less subjective than one who compares players to another kind of player. I’ll try again: One simply counts it, the other compares production to a group of players. Both are subjective because everything any men ever did was subjective, but one is far more arbitrary than the other.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's semantics at this point.
But again, I disagree with the premise that what you’re calling “more subjective” is necessarily a flaw in a concept or formula. It’s not ideal, but the use can outweigh the lack of precision.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I never said being subjective it's a flaw in the formula
There are flaws in the formula, IMO. There are flaws in nearly everything. Being subjective here is not a flaw, it’s a specification. Semantics indeed.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
How the hell is the OBP equation less of an equation?
That was your example before.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
It is an equation
Just not a subjective equation, it’s objective, it’s used to tell how many times the guy got on base. Not comparing him to anyone, not saying it’s bad or wrong, not saying it was worth ‘wins’ to his team. Just says how many times he got on base.
You can’t debate that, can you? It’s how many times he got on in his own merit. You can debate the equation of WARP, can’t you?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, yes, it is measuring exactly that.
Well, if you count fielder’s choices, RBOE, etc. and don’t eliminate any PAs from counting like SF and SH.
But isn’t the next question what “getting on base” can tell us about how good a player is?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Sure
But my thing with WARP is that it eliminates this step for the guy looking at the stats. He doesn’t have to think much or look at many stats, he simply has a number of how many more wins his guy got instead of a replacement level. It’s too chewed for me.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
So which stats do you prefer to look at, and how do you combine them into some overall feeling of who was better?
I’m hoping there’s an objective answer coming up…
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
OPS, UZR and wOBA I look at for hitters
And other stats as well, but I love these 3. And then I go ‘wow, he was good’ or ‘damn, he sucked’. And I compare to the elite players at the position to see how worse my guy was and if he can get there.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
Seems a little subjective, no?
Wouldn’t you like to compare players to each other a bit more objectively?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I didn't create a stat
This is getting silly rather quickly. So now my view of stats is subjective? I had no fucking idea…
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
You realize...
that the stats used in FG win values are wOBA and UZR. It just converts them into runs, then adjusts for position and replacement. Maybe you could make yourself a spreadsheet that takes the replacement adjustment out?
Yes
I do stuff like that, I really enjoy doing so. My only problem is really the replacement level thing.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
A reply
for this whole mini-thread. I completely understand what MGBB is saying, even though the words “objective/subjective” are not good ones. I think the idea he is getting at is one of correlation between a stat and a measurable. A stat like OPS correlates very strongly with runs. You can calculate the correlation coefficient. Since runs=offense, you can say that OPS measures offense to the degree of a known correlation coefficient and size of fluctuations. Lets call this “objective,” which is not a good word, but who cares. Many other stats cannot be correlated with anything of clear value like runs. Defensive metrics are basically of this sort. You essentially cannot test how good your “number” is. Call this “subjective.” This is a real, not semantic, difference.
OPS correlates on the team level.
For individual batters, there’s no such direct test. Same for fielding. You can correlate team UZR with total runs allowed. Now, fielding is only one piece of the defensive puzzle (with pitching), so it won’t correlate as well. But if you include some sort of measure of pitcher ability (like tRA or FIP or PZR) AND UZR, they, together, will correlate quite well with runs allowed.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Sky
this is a reply to your comment below which for some reason (on my computer) the reply is failing.
1)Team OPS is just the weighted sum of OPS for each player. Since OPS does not depend on hitting context the way RBIs or runs do, the OPS of each player, scaled by fraction of team plate apps. is that players contribution to team OPS and thus to runs. The only way out of this (I think) is to argue that even OPS is context related (eg where a hitter hits in the lineup) but there is no good evidence for that, I think.
2)You make my point-because run prevention is dependent on both pitcher and team fielding, you cannot correlate UZR with run prevention alone. A fielding metric is thus not correlated with runs prevented (directly).
3)I would like to know he correlation coefficient of FIP+UZR(team) vs runs allowed. Do you know what it is? Is there even a good way to do this (by good I mean a way that combines the aspects measured in a way that does not, in a hidden way, simply depend on just the pitcher or fielders)?
I think in the end it is impossible to argue that something like UZR correlates in any way, even in combination with other things, like OPS does for runs.
And regarding Cash
I thought Cash was a plus or at least average defender? Doesn’t “replacement level” mean replacement level on both O and D?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I think it would be replacement level including both.
Its hard to find a player that is exactly replacement level at both. Also, for catcher they don’t include defensive stats because it is much harder to quantify those (ie- noone’s really figured it out).
Willie Bloomquist is the best comparison I've heard.
He is just all around sucky.
The whole WARP thing could just as easily be called WAAP (wins above average player), and it would be easier to quantify and more related to reality.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
The problem with the average player thing is...
that an average player is quite good and valuable, so you would be dealing with a lot of negative numbers. Also, it is not always easy or cheap to get an average player. By relating it to a replacement player, you can see the marginal value of someone’s contribution as compared to a “free” player. Its really just a sliding scale. For example, a replacement level catcher is something like 30 runs below the average batter offensively.
But again
if we’re using an arbitrary benchmark, I’d rather have one with some relation to reality.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Feb 2, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just subtract the "replacement" value
then it would be based off league average at their position. Take out the “position” and it would become a stat based off the league average. The batting and fielding stats are based off league average calculations.
Why do you think its arbitrary? Its not 100% exact because every team has slightly different options regarding their own replacement level, but I doubt these differences are significant; maybe a run here or there.
“Replacement level” is an arbitrary constant. Some guys somewhere (albeit some pretty smart guys who think more about this stuff than I do) decided to give a value to a hypothetical “replacement level” player and define every other player in relation to that hypothetical player..
Again, it makes for a convenient shorthand, but it’s arbitrary by definition.
It’s sort of like if there was a new stat that took OPS and multiplied it by the arbitrary constant of 9. So the guy who OPS’s .900 would OPS9 8.1. Good times.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Its not arbitrary.
If “replacement level” were arbitrary by definition it would have no practical meaning. “Replacement level” in this case is an approximation (noone said it was exact) of a player that a team could get for free. The “free” part is what is important. By looking at the expected performance of the top 15 or so “free” players you get a good approximation of what type of players teams can get. By setting this as the baseline you can have the lowest value be zero.
I understand its arbitrary in the sense that you could pick any value as your baseline, but why not just use the lowest? Why is the hypothetical “average” player any less arbitrary than the hypothetical “replacement” player?
I'm not saying WAAG isn't arbitrary
but to me it makes more sense to make a composite out of the league average than it does to project how the worst players are going to play.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
But you see, players only provide value if they're better than whomever a team can pull off the scrap heap for free.
If you’re 10 runs above average in 200 PAs, how does that compare to 10 runs above average in 400 PAs? You have to do some conversions.
If it’s 10 runs above REPLACEMENT, the two guys are exactly equal. You can always assume there’s someone available at replacement level. That’s the DEFINITION of replacement-level, at least how WAR uses it.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s not perfectly precise, but it’s a better baseline. For an example of an in-depth study, check this out:
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Why is it a "better" baseline?
The 200/400 PA is a pretty straight conversion. (hint – the first guy is twice as good). Maybe I’m missing something?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
But the conversion could be a lot harder,
say one guy is +15 in 245 PA’s and another is +20 in 304 PA’s. Now, which is better? If you allowed replacement level to be factored into the equation, it takes care of all the conversions.
The second one is better.
He’d be +15 through 226 PAs.
And you seem to be gliding over the amount of work that goes into VORP. It’s not like replacement value is self-evident.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
No its not self-evident.
But why produce a stat that requires doing that math? I guess they could do a rate stat against average (ie FG “batting” column in their value system) but that doesn’t take into account playing time. The ability to stay on the field is hugely important. Assuming that the guy with less PA’s is replaced by a “replacement” level player, he is much, much less valuable than a guy with similar rate stats who can stay on the field.
I guess i don’t get the advantages of comparing against “average” compared to “replacement”.
WANG?
We may need a new name.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
I took a different approach to this
A guy worth 10 runs above replacement in 400 PA’s is better than the one who has 10 runs above replacement in 200 PA’s because he had more time, it’s harder to be flukey. I mean, the guy with 200 PA’s still has plenty of time to suck.
I couldn’t stop thinking about Alex Cora. Remember how he was good at the beginning of this last season? In the end, he was just Cora.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
The guys who's +10 runs in fewer PAs seems more impressive, right?
But he’s less valuable, as you supposed. Most people miss this.
Why? Because there’s a lot of value in being average. Do you want a guy who is exactly average over 600 PAs or a guy who is +1 runs over 10 PAs? The first one, because you need to find a guy to take the second one’s other 590 PAs. And chances are, he’s going to be worse than average.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yeah
10 runs above average/replacement in 200 PA’s could be flukey. At least we agree on something.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not talking about which guy has more talent.
I’m talking about which performance is more valuable to a team.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yes, I understand
I meant that he could suck on the next 200 PA’s, while the 400 PA’s is a surer thing.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think thats why Sky is saying 400 PA's is better.
Sky’s point, which is a good one, is that the 200 PA difference would be filled by a replacement level player, who is worth -6.7 runs.
I prefer my explanation, really
The difference could be filled by a great player as well.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
But a reall great player will cost more than league-minimum.
It takes resources to find guys who are better than replacement level. The best talent-level you should expect to replace anybody without costing you anything (salary, trade value, whatever) is replacement-level.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Not considering farm
I mean, say whatever you want played 200 PA’s in 3rd base for the Rays last season before Eva played the rest. He would not be replacement, and it would not have costed to bring him.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
There was cost associated with bringing up Evan Longoria.
He was the third overall draft pick and signed a multi-million dollar deal, thus he is not replacement level.
Let's not say Eva
Say a guy like Sonny. What if the Rays had a 5th pitcher who was okay, and they called Sonny up who did an even better work. He was a late round pick if I’m not mistaken, and he makes peanuts.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
But it would be costly to get him,
for any other team, and will cost the Rays money to keep him. Rep level does not imply that only rep level players are available for a team. Obviously many teams have depth. The Sox, for instance, will be okay if a pitcher goes down because they will bring in Smoltz, or Bucholz, or Bowden, or even Masterson. League-wide, though, this isn’t the case.
Okay
It would cost the Rays money to keep the replacement level for as long as they have Sonny.
Teams with depth are winning teams. If a team can’t find anyone better than an awful baseball player to play everyday or to pitch they’re one of 2 things: Not competitive or bad managed.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
exactly.
It is a team’s ability to find players better than those who are “freely available” that makes them successful. This stat measures how successful teams are at doing exactly that.
It makes sense this way
I’d still prefer just taking the average for any comparison.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
No, the first guy is not twice as valuable.
200 PAs = 1/3 of 600 PAs, so that guy gets 6.7 RAR for rep level. The 400 PA guy gets 13.3 RAR.
In total, the 200 PA guy is 6.7 + 10 = 16.7 RAR (assuming neutral defense). The 400 PA guy is 23.3 RAR in total. He’s 75% more valuable.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Ok, fine, now you know what I meant.
Who’s more valuable?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Per PA he's better.
Maybe he can’t handle more PAs. Maybe he’s a platoon player against lefties.
But sure, going forward, all else being equal, the 200 PA guy probably has a better projection.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Thank you
This would be a more reliable stat if it compared to the average of the league. I mean, in logic, a completely average team wins 81 games. That will not get you in the playoffs. So I fail to see how it’s a bad benchmark.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
No one said thats a bad benchmark.
But why is it a better one? With their benchmark of a replacement level team, they win 55 games. This way you can use positive values. Its easier to read.
Because, by logic
An average team wins 81 games. That’s the very definition of average, if the season had 161 games they would win 80 and a half. They would tie. Because more or less than that number, they’re not average. A replacement level team can win 55 games, but they can win 54 or 56. They might even crack the 60 in a good year!
Plus, 81 wins teams actually happen a whole lot more than 55 wins ones.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
Also
An average player is valuable given the context, but a team filled with average players that perform like they’re supposed to is garbage. They will not make the playoffs, which means they’re every bit as bad as the other 21 teams that didn’t. And a 81 is 26 wins more than replacement, so they should have a payroll higher than 100 mil even being hopeless.
Of the top 15 teams by payroll, only 3 won less than 81 games. I’m just sayin…
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
I understand that an average team wins 81,
but what I don’t get is why that is a good benchmark to base numbers off. I mean, you would just subtract a certain number of wins from each player (I think for 600 PA, you would lose 2 wins on each player). That’s fine, you can do that. It doesn’t really change anything about their conclusions. Instead of conceptualizing a “replacement” player, you would have to imagine a perfectly “average” player. Though you would not be able to calculate the dollar value that teams pay in FA for each marginal win as easily.
I just think it is easier to peg zero wins as your lowest value than to be throwing negative numbers around.
But at least in "imagining" the league average player
you can do straight math. Just take the average for the entire league, by position or whatnot.
The replacement player seems to be fashioned out of whole cloth.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
This
Comparing to the average is easier, and it fluctuates a lot less. Plus, you can’t argue with the average.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
This is dumb, sorry.
You can’t argue with 2, either. But you don’t compare baseball players to 2.
And average fluctuates just as much as replacement-level. In fact, replacement-level is simply a percentage of average.
I agree that calculating average is more straight forward than replacement-level. And there’s value in comparing to average. Heck, all the pieces of WAR compare players to average. But overall, replacement-level tells you more.
I ask again. Which is more valuable and by how much: a hitter who’s 10 runs above average in 200 PAs or a player who’s 10 runs above average in 400 PAs?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
You can argue with 'replacement' level
Because the average is defined by logic, while replacement level was created by someone, which means is a more arbitrary benchmark, which is what I’ve been saying the whole time.
Why replacement level tells you more? Because you’re comparing a guy to a bad player? Let me ask you this: There are more players in ML roster that are closer to average or to replacement?
I’m gonna go ahead and say that it’s the one that is worth 10 runs above average in 400 PA’s. Or they’re equally valuable.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Its actually the one worth 10 runs in 200 PA.
He is just as valuable in half the PA’s. Either way they would both be displayed as +10, which is misleading.
There is no logic behind "average".
WHY average?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Because
Average is not good, and not bad. It’s average.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Would you rather have a guy who's -5 runs in 400 PAs or a guys who's +5 runs in 100 PAs?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
+5 run in 100 PAs
But I don’t care much, and I’m yet to see the point of these questions.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
No, you'd want the 400 PA guy
Because the talent of the player you can expect to make up the difference in PAs can only be expected to be as good as someone you can find to sign for the league-minimum. Which we call replacement-level. League-average guys aren’t the norm. They don’t grow on trees. They have value.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Average guys are this
Average. They’re not good, and not bad. But I’m not denying their valuable, they’re pretty valuable.
When you questioned again, I assumed I was wrong the first time. You know, like teachers used to do in the old days.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
Olden days teachers sucked ; )
I wanted to present another example. Of how a guy -5 runs relative to average could be more valuable than a guy +5 runs relative to average, if their playing time differed. Comparing players to replacement level takes care of that difference in playing time. It accounts for the fact that there’s value in being average.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Fair enough
There’s plenty of space to compare players with ‘replacement’ and with ‘average’, it beats me why it isn’t done more.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
You're not playing fair.
If you’re defining an average team as winning exactly 50% of their games, fine. But then please define a replacement-level team as winning exactly 48 games (or whatever baseline you’re defining rep-level as).
If you’re saying that a team with replacement-level talent could win anywhere from 40 to 60 games, that’s true. But then you need to say that a team with average talent could win anywhere from 70 to 90 games.
Mathematical niceties doesn’t make make average the better baseline.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I'm not playing fair?
Average is, by definition, a .500 team. If they win more than that, they’re good, if they win less, they’re bad. If either of this happens, they stop being average. It’s logic, it’s intuitive. It has been established that a team with 25 replacement level guys would win 55, but that’s far more arbitrary than the average.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
They theoretically win 55 games,
but in actuality there is a range of games that they could win. You have to look at the talent level regardless of games outcome and draw a conclusion. By simply saying that a team who wins 81 games has exactly league-average talent, you are disregarding random variation. It is fairly common that a “worse” team wins more games. Your type of analysis seems to be entirely outcome-based, which is not very helpful. Its like saying, “The Giants beat the Pats so they have a higher talent level.” or is it just the outcome of one game, or one season?
It's not outcome based
A team with a .501 winning pct is above-average, while one with a .499 winning pct is below-average. At least as far as I can tell.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
That depends on what you have for 'useful'
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
That is outcome based
a winning percentage for ONE 162 game season is an outcome. The number itself is subject to random variation. A 0th order guess on that variation is not hard to make, and it is not so small. The way you want to say this is:
If I could hypothetically run the season with the same players, same league, same schedule, etc an infinite number of independent times, andi I find a nice, symmetric distribution of outcomes with one peak, what is the average outcome?
The value of that number can be debated, but that is the number any algorithm is shooting for.
I'm really saying what I'm saying
If you could create the ULTIMATE average team, they would win half the games every single season forever. Because otherwise they would stop being average, so you kill fluctuation doing that.
I’m not talking about individual players here, I’m talking about a team that’s perfectly average.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry.
I don’t get this:
“Because otherwise they would stop being average” This makes no sense to me. The width of the distribution is not only useful, it is necessary. That is why/how you can have %likelyhood in prediction. You could not really, estimate anything with regard to a hypothetical baseline that is delta-distributed.
Somehow I think I am missing the point. All baselines are arbitrary. Take whatever one you like and then readjust consistently, no? What did I miss?
You're not missing anything
I’m not even claiming to be right here. I prefer comparing to average than comparing to replacement. That’s it.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
I agree it's a bit fuzzier. But the usefulness of the rep level concept outweights that lack of exactness.
Maybe I misread the comment I replied to, but it seems like you’ve switched points.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Did not
I’ve been defending the same thing all along: Replacement level is far more arbitrary than average.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
I'm talking about your smaller sub point of this comment.
An average team wins 81 games. That’s the very definition of average, if the season had 161 games they would win 80 and a half. They would tie. Because more or less than that number, they’re not average. A replacement level team can win 55 games, but they can win 54 or 56. They might even crack the 60 in a good year!
But it’s not important.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I guess my question is...
how far off do you think “replacement level” actually is? how inaccurate is it? As Sky said above, the usefullness of “above replacement level” far outweighs its inaccuracies.
I'm not saying it's all that inaccurate
It’s a stat. I’m defending the more ‘traditional’ stats, because they’re closer to reality. You don’t have to compare to anything, you don’t have to use many stats to calculate it. I’m not saying that the more ‘advanced’ stats are worthless, I’m really saying they’re really not all that much more ‘advanced’.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
Too many people at the same time against me
It gets confusing. Yes, WAA would be a better stat than WAR, for me. And it would not be all that more advanced, it would be a stat like OBP and WAR. I’m not even sure why I said that, long day.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
We're not against you...
just for the FG’s value stats and methods. This discussion has helped me think about them and figure them out for myself. Its good.
Yeah, it's been a good discussion
I like the FG, they do a heck of a job. Even if some stat don’t seem 100% accurate.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
You need to explain how average is closer to reality than the actual talent represented by scrubs.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
How do you define the scrubs?
I mean, they have a line that which once they passed they stop being scrubs? How bad you have to be to be bad? What about the truly awful players?
Average is easier, it doesn’t have this many questions. You just get the average production from the guys in the league. There will be less guys being better than the benchmark this way, but it would be a good way to find elite players and those who are really good. When Tek in 2008 was better than the benchmark, I have a problem with that method.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
Screw "easier".
How about “better”?
RBIs are easier and they’re crap.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Feb 3, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I meant the good 'easier'
Not the lazy one, the more intuitive one.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
Give replacement-level a chance and you'll find it just as intuitive.
There’s no adjustment for PAs when you use replacement-level, either.
It’s absolute zero. Using Farenheit or Celsius, 20 degrees is not twice as hot as 10 degrees. Using Kelvin, it is. Not that we have a need for Kelvin.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Varitek
Varitek’s a catcher. Catchers suck at hitting. There were a bunch of catchers in 2008 worse than Varitek. He deserves a starting job in the majors, even though he was worse than the average player.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
"There were a bunch of catchers in 2008 worse than Varitek"
I’ll respectfully disagree on this one. Tek was a complete blackhole for most of last year. This only makes sense to me, but with guys like the Molina bros, when they get a hit it’s funny. Tek wasn’t funny.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
Fangraphs leaderboard for catchers with at least 50 PAs
Varitek doesn’t even have one of the worst 30 wOBAs.
Extending the cutoff to 150 PAs and he’s 21st worst.
Extending the cutoff to 300 PAs and he’s 8th worst.
He was not good. He wasn’t even average. But he was not the ultimate crappy backstop.
By WAR, he was the 20th most valuable catcher. Mostly because he was a touch better than replacement value, which helps the Red Sox by not having to piece together performances by 3 really crappy catchers.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
But in this case
I doubt that 3 really crappy catcher would have done a lot worse. If you were talking about a 1B or a LF, I would agree with you.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
But there weren’t many starting catchers who were worse.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
How many starting catchers managed to get 500 PAs?
Very few. There aren’t 30 full time catchers. The teams who don’t have full time catchers have to piece together contributions from scrubs. Varitek is better than most of the scrub combinations. Therefore he’s more valuable then those scrubs, either separately or as a whole.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Tek had a single good month last season
He sucked after that, he sucked so hard it’s even hard to say he ‘sucked’. Now how he gets 500 PAs is something I can’t explain.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 5, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
A lot of teams could care less about a player's production
I mean, it’s not like they were going into the playoffs, they’re likely just killing time waiting for the long term plan to kick in. Or they’re the Nationals.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Well, thats absurd.
Every team in the league is trying to be as good as they can be. Many teams were not developing young catchers and letting them suck, they were just playing terrible players; ie the Mariners with Johjima.
Why's that absurd?
I mean, why would a team like, I don’t know, the Orioles spend lots of money on a SP or trade for a young SP when they’re not one player away from contending? They rather stick to their plan, which means they’ll likely have some bad pitchers starting.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
My point is
that all teams try to maximize their production at every position. Many teams obviously have financial constraints and are unable spend more than the minimum at some positions. So the fact that Tek was better than the catchers on those teams who “don’t care about production” means that he was better than the “freely available talent” and thus better than replacement level.
He was better than some awful players
But he was still awful.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
And some people would like to quantify how awful he was, exactly.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Defining scrubs.
It’s hard. Go read that link to Justin’s “scrub” article where he attempts to define it. It’s quite intelligent.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
"the usefullness of "above replacement level" far outweighs its inaccuracies."
I still fail to see how.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
See this comment.
If you want it explained further, let me know.
http://www.overthemonster.com/2009/1/28/738454/fangraphs-value#11950696
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I'll see if I can't get a post up at BtB about baselines, comparing "average" and "replacement-level".
It’s a classic debate. And Bill James is on the average side, technically, although is calculations end up using a hidden replacement level.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I'm with Bill.
Was this directed at me? Hard to follow when the conversation loses indentation.
See this comment.
If you want it explained further, let me know.
http://www.overthemonster.com/2009/1/28/738454/fangraphs-value#11950696
I still fail to see why VORP is better than a stat weighted to the average player.
I also don’t quite get how the replacement level baseline is determined. I’ve read the FG explanation, but it doesn’t make much sense to me – I prefer calculations over analogies.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Agreed
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
Please read the article by Justin that I've linked to in this article. Here it is again.
It’s empirical. It’s not perfectly precise. But it’s useful.
http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-do-we-mean-by-replacement-players.html
I have no idea who Bill is. My comment is directed at everyone who’s interested in the “average” vs. “replacement-level” debate. The short answer is the example of who’s more valuable, a guy who’s +5 runs relative to average in 200 PAs or a guy who’s -5 runs relative to average in 600 PAs?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
This is totally false, by the way, I'm sorry.
Bill James HATES the average baseline. His argument is that a guy who’s -5 runs over 600 PAs is way more valuable than a guy who’s +5 runs over 100 PAs. And he’s right, but being a bit blind. Of course the people who use average know that the 500 extra PAs are worth something. It’s just that you have to figure out how much those PAs are worth. And, via empirical study, those 500 PAs are worth about 500/600*20 ~= 17 runs more than what you can find for minimum wage on the scrap heap (i.e. replacement level). So the first guy is neg5 + 20 runs = +15 runs over replacement, while the second guy isi +5 + 3 runs = +8 runs over replacement.
How do you put a numerical value on the relative value of the two players just using the average baseline?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Simple
I’m using a simplistic example, with no relation to real numbers, to be better understood here: Say Pujols is worth 10 runs a season, and the average player is worth 5, therefore he’s 5 runs better than the average player in the league.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
You're ignoring playing time.
Again, if Pujols was 10 runs above average in 100 PAs and the other guy was 5 runs above average in 600 PAs, the other guy was more valuable.
And I’m not sure how the average player is 5 runs above average… Or are you talking about something like absolute runs created? That’s fine, but if you are, you need to know how many outs each guy used up. A dude with a .200 OBP can create the same number of runs in the same number of outs as a guy with a .300 OBP, but the .300 OBP is much more valuable because he leaves more outs for the rest of the team to use up.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Like I said
The numbers I used had no connection with reality.
Using this method, the other guy would have still being more valuable than Pujols. If he got 5 runs above average in 600 PA’s, he fills a hole. Pujols was pretty good in that 100 PA’s, but he created a hole by not playing the like 500 next ones.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, what if we close the gap...
+10 runs in 600 PAs versus +5 runs in 400 PAs? Or 500 PAs? How do you know when the gap is closed?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
+10 runs in 600 PA's vs. +5 runs in 400/500 PA's?
The +10 player, hands down.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
300 PAs?
You get my point, right? There’s some number of PAs where the two performances are just as valuable. What is that number of PAs? Well, it depends on the value of being average. And the value of being average is related to how much better being average is than being a scrub. How bad is a scrub? Well, it’s worse than average and better than a AA player. You can actually get more precise than that by doing empirical studies. Seems to me like a better approach than eye-balling the break-even point.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I don't like this kind of analysis
You suppose that if a guy only gets 300 PA’s, the other PA’s at his position will be taken by a scrub. That may or may not happen, a lot of teams have enough depth to prevent that. It also takes no knowledge of the farm system, maybe that guy who gets 600 PA’s at average level is blocking other guy.
If you produce below the average, you’re that: A below average player, which means you’re bad for the league. I don’t see why you need to compare with a scrub. If a guy only takes 100 PA’s, say, at 2B, you see who took his spot and tell if he only taking 100 PA’s was a disaster or not.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
YWhen you're below average you're bad for the league...
But you still belong in the league. Replacement level is the cut-off between belonging and not belonging.
You’re bringing too much context into it, at least for the initial step. Let’s say you’ve got a guy (Billy Bob) who’s -10 runs relative to average at 2B over 400 PAs. On one team, he might be blocking Chase Utley. On another team, the only other option is Mr. AAA. Is Billy Bob a better player when he’s on the Mr. AAA team than when he’s on Chase Utley’s team? No, he’s the same guy. Now, obviously management has made some poor choices, but everybody in the league should be compared to the same baseline if we’re going to compare them to each other.
Some of this disagreement is that we’re answering slightly different questions.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
"When you're below average you're bad for the league..."
Therefore, you’re BAD. You belong in the league, you’re better than ‘replacement’, but you’re still a bad baseball player.
Billy Bob is a bad player in both cases, in one he’s blocking a far better guy and in the other he’s not blocking anyone, but he’s a hole in the line-up. He should not be getting 600 PA’s or so just because this hypothetical team can’t find anyone better, he’s a hole. Now, most teams can win even with a big hole in the line-up, but it doesn’t make that player any less of a bad player.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
If we're going to limit analysis to terms like "bad player" and "is a hole"
then you don’t need any metric.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
We do, to decide if the guy is good or not
If he’s a hole or he isn’t. I don’t think anyone looks at stats for the fun of math, it’s to judge a player’s performance. Don’t try to make me look simplistic just because you don’t have anything else to say.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Few teams in the history of baseball have all average or above average players
There is value in a below average player. He is not simply a “hole” if he cannot hit at league average; he is contributing better than many other players would.
He is being a hole if he's not hitting well
Tek was a gigantic hole last season, but our line-up was too good to feel that. He was better than, say I would be in his spot, and better than others. But he was still a hole in the line-up, even being ‘valuable’.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
...
You suppose that if a guy only gets 300 PA’s, the other PA’s at his position will be taken by a scrub. That may or may not happen, a lot of teams have enough depth to prevent that.
Some teams do. I think “a lot” is overselling it. Without addressing specific teams’ farm systems, replacement-level is set such that it’s the most reasonable level of expectation for who a team could find as a replacement, with little cost.
That last part’s important, because replacing a guy with someone like Adam Dunn, who’s quite available right now, has a cost. You have to spend something like $8MM per year for his services in addition to the guy you already have. If you just play the guy you already have, you can spend the $8MM somewhere else, where you don’t already have a competent player.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yes, but say
The Angels are using GMJ as the DH, they do not seem to have a much bigger hole than that. If they have the 8MM to spend on Dunn, which would improve the team, why not? Just because GMJ is better than awful?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Who's saying they shouldn't do that?
Again, you’re talking about specific teams with specific situations. And Gary Matthews as a DH is pretty much replacement-level.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
If the Angels (or any team with a lousy DH) just paid the guy they have, they could spend 8MM somewhere else
Your words. Oh, and glad to know that an awful player is actually awful, and not better than any baseline.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
As I've said elsewhere
VORP gives points for inertia. There are plenty of non-being-good-at-baseball reasons why people get as much playing time as they do (ahem, Captain Tek), or play the position that they do (think Jeter over Arod at SS).
But yes, you can say “Julio Lugo contributed a full win above a theoretical replacement because he made X amount of PAs,” but it takes no account of the fact that he was blocking a better baseball player (Jed Lowrie) from getting playing time.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
You guys seem to think its too complicated at times and not enough at others.
So the stat should not use “arbitrary” measurements like replacement level, but it should take into account players blocked and specific team needs? These are things that would be terribly difficult to quantify.
All VORP or WARP is saying is that Julio Lugo was better than freely available talent; not better than the Sox other options of non-freely available talent. The stat cannot take into account managerial decisions, only performance on the field.
Much of the discussion here has been that VORP is a groovy way to quantify value
because it accounts for playing time.
I think it’s a fair to point out that according to VORP Lugo was “worth” an extra win, but in reality he probably cost us a couple of wins.
I’m not saying any stat should or could give a complete picture of a player. In fact, I’m saying the opposite – no stat can quantify value, or worth, or cost.
Again, I guess I don’t see the point of VORP.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I think you should take it for what its worth.
It is what it is; the value over replacement level. If a team has the option of two players; one who is worth more than another over replacement level, obviously they should play the one worth more. In this light, Julio Lugo did not cost us wins, it was Tito/Theo who did not plug Lowrie in earlier that cost us a win or so.
"no stat can quantify value, or worth, or cost"
This. Perfect. You really have to look at the full picture to see if that player was valuable to his team in the context.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 6, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
Guys, I don’t think anyone was advocating following baseball simply by looking at a statistic. Obviously there are any number of factors that have to be used to evaluate any player or team. My point has been that one of those useful factors is Win Values. Put that into conjunction with a bunch of other stats, watch as many games as you can and still we’ll only understand a fraction of whats going on out there.
Lugo did not cost you a couple wins.
Management cost you those wins.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
But VORP isn't trying to measure the dumbness of management.
That’s the next step. Lugo isn’t any better or worse of a player because of other players in the organization.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yet the dumb executive decisions to keep certain individuals in the lineup inflate that player's VORP.
I don’t expect VORP to ook me breakfast in the morning. I just think it’s weird and somewhat fruitless to use VORP to guesstimate past “value.” Or rather I don’t see how this model is in any way better than looking at OPS+ and tossing in a little “wow” or “eh” based on the player’s position and playing time. And I don’t see how it’s in any way better to try to predict future success – in fact, given the way it awards inertia, I’d think it’s pretty flawed.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Inflating VORP - yes, but only if that player is better than replacement-level.
And if you want to talk about how good a player is, instead of how valuable he was, then you’re going to do some thing like regress based on playing time and compare on a per-PA basis.
As for why WAR is better than “looking at OPS+ and tossing in a little "wow" or "eh" based on the player’s position and playing time”, the simple answer is that it’s a more accurate way of doing just that.
- OPS+ is replaced by wOBA, which is basically the same thing, but weights batting events properly.
- “wow” and “eh” for positions are replaced by actual estimates of the relative difficulty of playing each position
- WAR includes a measure of fielding
- the actual impact (with some error bars, as we’ve taken 250 comments to dissect) of playing time is accounted for, instead of estimating
To project talent going forward, WAR is not a great tool, but its individual pieces are. Use past hitting ability to project hitting. Use past fielding to project fielding. Use rosters to predict position and playing time, with some knowledge of injuries. When you have all the pieces projected, then calculate the expected WAR. Value and talent are two different things. Measures of each are only ok at addressing questions of the other.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
So,
Michael Bowden is the Sox 8th starter. Does this mean he is the Sox’ “replacement level starter”? Does that mean in order to figure out how “valuable” Wake is to the Sox, we’d have to project Bowden and determine Wake’s value in relation to Bowden? Or are we using some league-wide replacement level projection? How would the projected performance of some league-wide replacement starter at all matter to the value Wake has to the Sox when his replacements are not the 7th starters for the Royals but rather Buccholz and Bowden?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Bowden is not replacement level because it would cost money to attain him.
Yes, we’re using a league-wide replacement level. Bowden would be hard for any team other than the Sox to get. It would cost a lot of talent. Under your logic, we would have to do the same calculations for an “average” player. We would calculate Wake’s worth below the average Sox starter, just as you seem to be wanting to make rep level team specific. In reality, it is highly useful to compare players to a certain league-wide standard. It means you can compare players from one team to another. How is this not useful?
Bowden and Buch are not replacement level by any standard; they are sought-after prospects. Rep level is usually guys with little or no upside. Read the definitions, they make a lot of sense. If there is something that doesn’t please point out exactly what does not make sense.
If we consider a replacement level player to be 20 runs below major league average, you get this:
POSITION REPLACEMENT LEVEL
Catcher -32.5
Shortstop -27.5
2B, 3B, CF -22.5
Corner Outfield -12.5
First base -7.5
“If we consider replacement level to be 20 below average…”
Couple things –
First, that’s a big f’n “if.” What “if” we set it at -25 runs?
Second, it’s being determined in relation to league average, no?
Third, as you said up thread, the defensive metrics are iffy.
Fourth, why the assumption that the replacement player is awful at both O and D? There are plenty of AAAA catchers who could be league average on D and totally craptacular on O. Dusty Brown, for example. George Kotteras is basically the opposite.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Well,
1. they didn’t just invent the -20 runs figure, it is derived by looking at all of the historic rep level players.
2. No one is saying league-average is not an important part of this. All of the calculations are done against league-average and then scaled down to replacement level. The real value of using replacement level is so you can then put money values on each win. If you aren’t, it doesn’t really matter.
3. Whenever you look at the numbers, especially the defensive ones, I would look at a bunch of years together. Was Jason Bay really that much worse fielding in Boston? Did Bobby Abreu really get that much worse at fielding in 2008? While I trust the numbers I do think that defensive metrics can highly fluctuate because of random variables.
4. I don’t think they have to be awful at both O and D, the player simply must be -20 runs below league average overall.
They're saying a replacement catcher is -32.5 runs, not -20.
In regards to the iffy defensive metrics, I’m referring more to the positional weight. Seems a little clean that all the adjustments are multiples of 2.5.
they didn’t just invent the -20 runs figure, it is derived by looking at all of the historic rep level players.
Which historic replacement players? Who decides if someone is replacement level? The notion is that someone must be “readily available” – does that mean only guys plucked off the waiver wire, and does it include guys stashed away at AAA?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
It's clean because it's not exact and those numbers are convenient.
No reason to pretend that we have super precisions. The position adjustments line up very well with differences in hitting abilities except for 3B (still a debate, but 3B seem to be just as good of fielders as 2Bs, but hit better) and DH (where teams for some reason put really crappy hitters, even though they should be able to find ones better).
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
A synonym for how WAR defines replacement-level player is "freely available talent"
It’s a MLB free agent signed for league minimum, or a minor league guy nobody is clamoring for.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
-32.5 runs is compared to the average player, not average catcher.
The positional adjustment for a catcher is +12.5 runs compared to the average major leaguer.
and I meant to tell you
your first few links (batting, fielding, positional) all lead to the same page.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
The assumption is NOT that a player is awful at both O and D.
The “typical” replacement-level player is bad at O, but decent at D. But it doesn’t matter. Both O and D are compared to average, then credit is given for playing time. Because taking up PAs at a rate better than replacement-level is keeping a replacement-level player off the field.
As for one, read the Justin study. Studies have been done. Just because you haven’t read them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
As for two, yes.
As for three, that has nothing to do with average vs. replacement level.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Regarding team-specific replacement value
what’s the point of calculating a player’s cost/worth if it’s not relative to a specific team’s needs?
Again, context.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
You can calculate it against the team's needs.
Just compare the marginal number of wins you gain by replacing a certain player. For instance, replacing last year’s Lowell (3.4 wins) with Tex (6.9 wins) would gain us about 3 or 4 wins. But it would be a little hard to create a database individually valuing each player for each team.
No would
But COULD. Lowell was hurt last season, and when you consider everything, Tex might not be worth the trouble. And he also may drop baseball to become a Village People singer.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, anything can happen,
I meant “last-year’s” Mike Lowell and “last year’s” Mark Teixeira. Obviously no one knows exactly how players will perform. My point was that you can use these numbers to create team-specific valuations.
You can, but Mikey's situation is harder to predict
He was injured last year, so he has 2 ways he can go in 2009: Still be injured, or kill pitchers like he done before (or like the homer in me remember him doing). I’m not big on predictions after an injury like Lowell’s, because he can go either way.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
I mean
But I do understand what you mean.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
So you can compare players to each other. Having a guy on one team versus another shouldn't change his value.
However, from a team’s perspective, they certainly should take into account their specific context when making decisions, I agree.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
No, Bowden is likely better than replacement-level. It's about a 5.50 ERA guy as a starter these days.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
So
Edwin Jackson?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think this entire thread
has sunk below Average and down into Replacement Level.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Feb 3, 2009 10:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I have just the right thing to bring it back
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
Who's that?
And is it better to judge her in relation to the average woman or the bottom of the barrel woman?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
That's Jessica Biel
It’s better to judge her in relation to the average woman. I mean, who wanna see replacement level woman wearing a bikini?
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
And follow-up question...
Is it better to spend half an hour with her or an hour with a woman half as hot?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
It depends
Am I paying? Maybe half an hour with her is more valuable, even if I have to fill the rest with replacement level masturbation.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 3, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
I never joke about my work, 007.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
This is why the stats thing doesn't work here.
We’re too funny.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
I just think it combines everything so well...
not to say it takes everything into account, but if I could look at just one stat it would probably be the FG’s win values. Maybe if you were to just subtract 20 runs (or 2 wins) from every player, making the stat wins above (or below) average, you would like it? The whole thing is actually calculated from the average batter and fielder.
VORP in a vacuum says nothing
other than “value.” I much prefer looking at a full spectrum.
If I could only have one view of the game, it’d probably be from the bleachers.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
All stats mean nothing in a vacuum. Who cares what a guy’s OBP is if you don’t know how well other guys do? The more stats the better, thats why I love FG; they have just about everything you need. (But no OPS+)
But yeah, all this is just a way to kill time until we can get into Fenway, or at least turn on NESN.
I like FG as well
They do a great job, I just disagree with the replacement level thing, and with the value translated to money.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 4, 2009 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I'm done. The viewpoints are out there and it's just peripheral points being nitpicked.
Good discussion, everyone. Lots of topics were addressed that aren’t easily solvable:
- ability vs. value
- baselines
- abstract cleanliness vs. empirical usability
I do encourage folks who are interested in this sort of thing to read up on linear weights, replacement-level, and ways in which you can compute/estimate salaries.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Thanks for playing.
Different strokes, and all that, but I’m glad there are people like you thinking this much about baseball.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
+1
It was a fine discussion. It could never happen if we were, say, talking about football.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
Tell me about it
Long off-season, but it’s nearly here.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Feb 7, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
