Meh. Red Sox not much better
With all the headlines the Sox grabbed at the Winter Meetings, you'd think they acquired the ghost of Babe Ruth back from the Yankees.
But, no. Consider:
Adrian Beltre (2009) .321/.365/.553 (.919) 6.1 WAR (Baseball Reference.com)
Victor Martinez: .302/.351/.493 (.844) 3.0 WAR
So, they're replacing 9 wins with...
Adrian Gonzalez: .284/.351/.507 (.875) 6.0 WAR
Carl Crawford .307/.356/.495 (.851) 4.8 WAR
11 Wins. Even if Crawford duplicates his numbers, and it's very possible we just saw his career year at 28, the Red Sox have become a 91 win team.
The defense gained is likely muted by Youkilis move to 3rd. So if Beckett doesn't come back healthy, Red Sox could easily be home in October again.
138 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh I know something you seemed to just pass over
VMart = 33 years old, Beltre = 32 years old
Adrian Gonzales + CC = 28 years old
Not much better?
Plus,
it’s not likely Beltre is great again because it’s not a contract year.
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 12, 2010 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
This.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 12, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
is irrelevant.
He put up a 6 WAR season and you have to find someone to replace that just to get back to even.
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 12, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Your entire post is also irrelevant
because you don’t take into account any wins made up by players actually playing the full season. So OK, maybe they aren’t any better in real life or on paper, but they didn’t really get any worse. If they can stay healthy, they are one hell of a team.
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 12, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yes and when
Zambrano, Soriano and Aramis Ramirez return to form the Cubs will be unstoppable!
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 12, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
Heh, return to form
Because that totally worked in ’07. Chris Young says hi.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
I can't breathe from laughing.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
Zambrano....
Ya about that…
Contributor To Over The Monster, SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
by Jared Stegall on Dec 12, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Are you seriously comparing this to the healthy return of
Youkilis
Pedroia
Ellsbury
Not to mention a full season of Lowrie
The comparison for our team is if Lackey and Beckett both pitch like top-of-the-rotation starters.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 13, 2010 2:46 AM EST up reply actions
Lackey had a career average
season in ‘09. He’s not getting better.
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 13, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Lackey is better...
Than more than half of your rotation…
Contributor To Over The Monster, SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
by Jared Stegall on Dec 13, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Neither are Zambrano or Soriano.
Maybe Ramirez will.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 13, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
WAR is irrelevant.
You think Theo and other highly successful executives care about WAR.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 12, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
That's meant to end in an ellipsis (...).
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 12, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
They do.
There’s a radio interview with Theo on youtube somewhere, but he very clearly references WAR (or more accurately, an in-house version of WAR). All the same principles are applied.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4JZFH4_xXY
Theo: “You can break down his statistics and what he does, and come up with a value, how much he adds offensively versus, you know, and average player, or a player who’s readily available. You can break that down and say, he’s worth this many runs per season. A great player could be worth 40 runs… so that player, versus a guy we could call up from AAA, is gonna help us win 4 more games. Now, significantly, you can do the same thing with his baserunning and with his defense.”
Doesn’t that sound like WAR?
And btw, everyone should see this interview.
It shows exactly how much of a saber guy Theo is. Essentially, he uses all the same principles and ideas that for instance fangraphs uses, except lots of the stuff is developed in-house and is supplemented with scouting reports. But hearing him describe every facet of WAR possible without actually using the word WAR is pretty cool. Or how he describes free agency, they’re making bets on players and their futures, and if someone else is willing to make a bigger bet than you then so be it.
I've heard they use an in-house defensive metric
divised by Bill James. So while they are sort of doing the same thing as WAR, I don’t think they are using the same numbers.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Day 1
of baseball is when the underlying concepts used by WAR were used by the people in baseball. Its like saying “getting on base” is something radically different than OBP.
The question is the execution and the religious faith with which it has been accepted.
I have a lot more faith in Theo's defensive metrics than those of Fangraphs.
If the people at Fangraphs are saying you need at least 3 years of data in order to trust UZR, then how many years do you actually need…
They say 3…is it actually 3? Is it 5? 7?
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
why would they say 3 if it was 7?
The point of it is, it’s useful for spotting over someone’s career if they’re a plus defender or a bad defender, and it’s useful for spotting if someone’s defense is trending downwards. The reason it’s 3 (as far as I can tell) is because then you can usually pick it out if there is an outlier year (which isn’t necessarily common but does happen).
Really, I think Theo’s are not the same numbers but are probably come to in a similar way.
They would say 3 if it was 7 because they want their metrics to be taken more seriously.
It’s no different from the salesman who overhypes the quality of the car that he’s selling.
It’s basic marketing.
Not accusing Fangraphs of lying but I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
At the end of the day we’re dealing with a product.
And their job is to get people to value their product as highly as possible.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
That's when people are selling things.
Notice how UZR is freely available? In fact, all of fangraphs is free.
yeah but the site still makes money
from advertisers. So they want as many people to be going to the site as often as possible.
Yup.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
LOL your a cub fan running smack after you just signed
Pena to $10?
Maybe the Cubs can win in 200 years?
by SoxAcumen on Dec 12, 2010 3:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
2010 Beltre + Victor > Crawford + Gonzalez > 2011 Beltre + Victor
Good Night and Thank you for trying!
Twitter | "Almost every organization has a guy like Papelbon or Lester" - Dave Cameron 12/29/2005
by radiohix on Dec 12, 2010 3:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Not really true,
Crawford + Gonzalez >= 2010 Beltre + Victor > 2011 Beltre + Victor.
Huh?
2010 Crawford + Gonzo is definitely better than 2010 Beltre and Victor.
2010, 2011, whatever…Crawford + Gonzo is clearly better than Beltre + Victor.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 12, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
I’ve seen this argument made before.
Why do people always ignore the WAR likely gained simply from full, healthy years from players like Pedroia, Lowrie, Youk, and Ellsbury?
Seriously, 2011 Gonzalez + Crawford + Ellsbury + Pedroia + Youk >> 2010 V-Mart + Beltre + Bench Players
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 12, 2010 4:36 PM EST reply actions
I'll follow SCG: Wow
This is an insane post. I didn’t think our team was any good last year, and even I realize we’re substantially better than last season. Did you factor in Pedroia and Youkilis both not miss a half season? Or the fact that Gonzalez will now hit in an actual ballpark?
Can someone explain how moving Youk to 3rd is a defensive negative?
I mean ill go its a wash but to say that Youk is not a gold glove caliber talent at third seems disrespectful to Youk.
Ya he was originally a 3rd basemen
and then the sox needed him to play first, so he adjusted and then won a gold glove there.
The fact that he's average at best there now
and he’s going to be declining moving on from here.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
How do you know?
You have to at least give him a chance to play over there before declaring that he’s “average at best.” Maybe he’s not spectacularly gifted like Beltre, but he’s a pro, and he could still be a good 3rd baseman.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
He was average at best two years ago
You know, when Mike Lowell blew his hip up.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions
He's no Beltre
The defense will take a step down there, so it’s negative in that Beltre’s defense > Youk’s defense. But also, I don’t have the highest of hopes. I look at most of the good defense 3B in the league and they’re big boys, but they’re big muscular boys, something Youkilis isn’t. I’m not sure how he’ll hold up. He seems more Miguel Cabrera than Adrian Beltre.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Um, yeah... not really
So Gonzo + Crawford = 10.8 WAR, while Beltre + Martinez = 9.1 WAR.
Yeah, by my count, that’s a +1.7 WAR for us.
Now let’s figure out how many WAR we get with full seasons from Youk, Pedroia, and Ellsbury relative to what we got last year when they all missed substantial time. Now let’s figure out how many WAR we get when Beckett, Lackey, and Paps all improve over poor seasons.
If everyone is healthy, this is a 100+ win team. Oh woe are we!
Don't forget a healthy season from Scooter
Unless Tito comes to his senses and starts Lowrie.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, we have another potential large WAR gain from Scoot to Lowrie as well.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
No kidding
If Lowrie can stay healthy and hit for a full season the way he did in September, he’ll be a huge upgrade over what Scutaro could give us with a dead arm and no reliable backup last year.
That's right, my bad
A healthy season from Marco Scutaro will definitely put you over the top.
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 12, 2010 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, lets ignore the health of our actual stars like
Pedroia and Youkilis and focus on Marco Scutaro.
Can someone ban this troll? He really is terrible at what he is trying to do.
A healthy Marco Scutaro would be what, the second or third best player on your team?
And you come here to troll?
Get a life, pal.
Wait for it...
WRONG.
This season I figured we lost about 7-8 games due to injuries to key players, and that was just based off of offensive production. So on top of gaining that back, we’ve also added about 2 WAR via Crawford and Gonzo. We may also add a couple more if Lowrie takes over the starting role at SS from Scoot. Improved seasons from Lackey and Beckett might offset and Buchholz regression and BOOM you’re looking at a potential 100+ win season assuming an improvement in the bullpen.
Sooo yeah. Wrong.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
We will see..
Sabrmetrics are to give a clear picture as possible to give a team the best possible future moves, however they can’t predict the future. Gonzalez’s stats are going to go up at Fenway after playing 81 games at Petco, while Beltre’s WAR rating will probably go down whereever he plays next year, (there is a reason why Trevor Cahill is a Cy Young Candidate, while none of the Oakland Hitters are going to get the batting crown)
There alot of things also come into play that cannot get be quantified, injuries, bullpen decisions, whether Papelbon can developed a cutter etc.
The Sox are going into 2011 showing they are hardly a pushover. They got a pretty scary line up, with both speed and power, a pretty good infield, 2 out of 3 excellent outfielders, (Drew and Crawford) They have 2 starting pitchers who can continue becoming very good pitchers, they have 2 others that have proven themselves in the past and could reclaim that, and another if he doesn’t walk half the time, shows some brilliance..
I am always wishy washy, but the Sox did very well in acquiring Gonzalez, it helps the team enormously.
Agree
Ignoring the injuries is dumb. Youk, Pedroia, Ells, etc. should all post higher WAR if healthy. However, his point about VMart/Beltre v. Crawford/Gonza;ez is valid. It just isn’t the whole story. The Sox aren’t a baseline 89-win team.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 13, 2010 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
whew, it sure is fortunate that baseball is decided by
playing a whole NEW season each year, rather than just injecting the stats of new additions into the stats from last year. The Red Sox clearly lost at least 5 wins just due to injury (based on replacement players and what the injured players were on pace for). Also signing 2011 Beltre in itself would be a downgrade from 2010 Beltre. That was lightning in a bottle.
Fortunately, the well run teams base their decisions on trying to figure out how players will perform over the length of a contract rather than paying for what they’ve done in the past.
Give him a break.
I’m sure any one of us would also be frothing mad if the Sox owed 100 million to Soriano, Zambrano, Fokudome, Dempster, Silva, Ramirez and Pena next season.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Absolutely
But I think the troll wants it to be impossible to stop them from winning.
You're also totally ignoring the future of the team,
and that the two guys we’re losing are both question marks in their early thirties, as opposed to two sure things in their late twenties.
...
Adrian Gonzalez: .284/.351/.507 (.875)
What the hell is this garbage, LOL…
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
The OPS, SLG, and BA are his career numbers.
Using his career numbers there makes absolutely no sense because he’s using the 2009 numbers for Beltre and Vic. Let’s look at Gonzo’s 2009.
Gonzo: .298/.393/.511 (.904)
So this is obviously some cub fan that’s mad his FO can’t get Gonzo and Crawford because their FO is signing players like Soriano and Pena.
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 12, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
Most Cubs fans I know are assholes.
I understand why, a horribly GM, a shithole stadium, a team that’s had a century of futility to mull over, but it’s still a game, it’s not worth getting all worked up over. I can’t take my niece to Wrigley ever again, everyone around me was smashed and belligerent. They made the White Sox fans at the Jail Cell look pleasant by comparison.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
If you think Wrigley is a shithole
You should see Fenway Park!
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 12, 2010 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
No I actually love Fenway
I’m just having some fun twisting ol’ 7War’s nipples. Although I was there one time in late May with 3 coats on and mine got frostbite.
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 12, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Try convincing the idiot city to let your team renovate their park.
I want to watch baseball without worrying about having concrete dropped on my head. Fix the damn piss troughs, I don’t want to see everyone’s wang.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 12, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
lol
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 12, 2010 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
He can't help himself.
It’s too tempting.
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 13, 2010 9:58 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Wrigley
is a stinking shithole that needs $250m just to avoid condemnation. Of all the classic parks, it is easily the least interesting and probably should’ve been torn down back in the 60s instead of the actually good parks.
Uh Oh
Wrigley vs. Fenway smackdown coming in 5, 4, 3….
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Dec 13, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
Been to both recently
Wrigley has a bit more room, but Fenway is in much better shape. Both great baseball experiences. Funny, I was at a game at Wrigley several years ago and the Cubs lost the game in the late innings. I’m not a Cubs fan, but I think I was more upset than the Cubbie fans; they just wanted to be outside and drunk I guessed. I recall thinking about how livid the Sox fans would have been for a while. I guess it was just the difference of East Coast vs. Midwest attitudes and the fact the Red Sox fans actually want to win. BTW – this was prior to 2004.
You've got to be kidding me...
See you in the World Series Cubs…
NOT
Contributor To Over The Monster, SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
Yup.
They’ve got the “loser” part down pat – now just need more of the “loveable.”
"Laser show. So relax."
"For the Patriots [playing the Jets], it was like fighting Piston Honda knowing that every time he raises an eyebrow, he's about to throw a jab."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 12, 2010 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
Anything is possible..
If you told me in July that the Giants were going to win the World Series, in five games, I would laugh at such an absurd suggestion..
The AL Central is still kind of a weak, the Cubs could win it if they win about 15 more games, and they seemed to start hitting again after Pinella left..
I don’t think the Cubs will get that good next year, but things happened. Much like I see bigger cracks in MFY that were shown in the 2010 ALCS, mainly Teixeira and his slumps, and big problems with Hughes.
by superferret on Dec 13, 2010 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Meh.
Anyone makes a post “analyzing” a team beginning with the word “meh” doesn’t merit any kind of actual critical response.
Go Sox
“11 Wins. Even if Crawford duplicates his numbers, and it’s very possible we just saw his career year at 28, the Red Sox have become a 91 win team.”
So you’re trying to play the angle that it is “very possible” Crawford will now be on the decline at the age of 28-29, but won’t say the same thing about V-Mart (will be a 1B/DH and spot catcher in 2-3 years)and Beltre (who has had two great years, contract years), both of whom play positions where their age is going to start to affect them sooner than in Fenway’s tiny LF?
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 12, 2010 11:27 PM EST reply actions
As I said above
the decline of V-Mart and Beltre is irrelevant to the Sox in 2011. I agree they will decline. But the point is that they put up solid production from the Sox in 2010. The 2011 Sox need to replace that production to get back to 89 Wins. This is getting tiring hearing this argument. C’Mon guys, can’t you do better?
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 13, 2010 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
Do better?
Better than what? Most of us are arguing that even if Gonzalez and Crawford only add a win or two to 2011 compared to what V-Mart and Beltre did in 2010, it doesn’t matter because we’ll be gaining additional wins from healthy, productive players that were neither healthy nor (in some cases) productive last year. 91 wins is not our ceiling.
Honestly not sure why you decided to come on our board and announce this at all.
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 13, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
cant you ?
crawford and gonzalez are better than vmart and beltre any way u slice it. the team that won 89 games was destroyed by injuries and a terrible bullpen. if last years team stays average healthy they win close to 100 games easy. i saw in person jeremy hermidia lose 3 games with terrible outfield defense.
by brady12mvp3 on Dec 13, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
I didn't know
we needed to justify ourselves to the troll. Last year we were injured an incredible amount, this year we likely will not be. There you go.
Sorry, I guess I should have worded this differently. Yes, he could very well go into a decline when he is in his prime but he could also very well have a career year next year. People here are saying that the lost production will be replaced by these two guys PLUS the guys returning from injuries. By last year’s statistics, they are better than this year. Will it pan out that way? Maybe yes, maybe no. Pointing out the fact that it isn’t a guaranteed improvement is pointless. Improvement isn’t guaranteed for ANY team, regardless of who they add.
They grabbed the headlines because they added two of the biggest names on the Free Agent/Trade market while alot of teams did not.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 14, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
Not much better?
so we add 2 players better and younger than the 2 we lost but were not much better? we added the 2 best offensive and defensive players on the market !!!
we get back pedroia youk and ellsbury and beckett for that matter but were not much better?? full year of lowrie and healthy scutaro yup not much better??? i mean i feel for cubs fans i know what it feels like to have a long title drought. matter of fact if the sox dont win it i hope the cubbies do but man i hope the fanbase knows more about baseball then this guy.
Worst post I've ever read.
You base you’re entire argument on an extremely flawed WAR metric?
Stats are for losers.
"Phil is obviously a good coach. You don't win that many games without being a damn good coach, ... Remember one thing: He's been very fortunate. He picks his spots. That's all I can say." - Red Auerbach
Sizzlack, haven't you heard...
People are burning women at the stake in the name of WAR.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
By the way they look
For example, Player A looks like a ballplayer (meaning he’s good).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 13, 2010 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
What was Billy Beane's motto?
Not looking for Jeans models?
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 13, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
my opinion on stats
are they can beused to help form a opinion on a matter or player but common sense and your eyes gotta be used as well. stats is just 1 part of it . cause really u can twist stats and come up with all kinds of stats to prove all kinds of angles. cant always be just about the numbers there are other factors in my opinion.
But if person A twists the stats
Person B can just point out they’re twisting them.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 13, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
By name...
You know you’re in trouble if the opposing team’s 3-4-5 are named Crush Throbwell, Lefty McPowers and Slab Hardsmack and they’re facing your reliever Joba Chamberlain.
"Laser show. So relax."
"For the Patriots [playing the Jets], it was like fighting Piston Honda knowing that every time he raises an eyebrow, he's about to throw a jab."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 13, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Particularly in a tie game with Dash "Wheels" McSpeedlightning on third.
"Laser show. So relax."
"For the Patriots [playing the Jets], it was like fighting Piston Honda knowing that every time he raises an eyebrow, he's about to throw a jab."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 13, 2010 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
Stats are extremely important.
Sizzlack does have a point, though, and I’m pretty sure he’s overstating for effect.
WAR has turned into a cult.
People buy into WAR blindly without even considering that UZR/150 (a major component of WAR) can be inaccurately measured (the creators of WAR themselves even admit this when they say that you need 3+ years of data to believe what you’re looking at).
In addition, UZR/150 may/may not weighed too heavily.
I find it very, very hard to believe that Michael Bourn was a more productive player than Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, and Colby Rasmus last season.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I agree that WAR has flaws
But “stats are for losers” isn’t so much overstating for any effect as making someone look stupid.
All stats have flaws
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 13, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
WAR uses UZR, not UZR/150
Twitter | "Almost every organization has a guy like Papelbon or Lester" - Dave Cameron 12/29/2005
Okay.
Everything I said still applies.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
The WAR cited by the writer of this post isn't based on UZR or UZR150
Baseball-Reference uses different defensive metrics.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s look at this statement:
I find it very, very hard to believe that Michael Bourn was a more productive player than Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, and Colby Rasmus last season.
Why? Players have good and bad seasons. Ben Zobrist went from 8.4 WAR in 2009 to 3.1 WAR last year. In 1996, Brady Anderson was 2nd in the AL in HR and had a better OPS than Griffey. Should we throw out those stats because of one year? It’s always best to assess players over more than one season.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 13, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Look at Michael Bourn's stats last year.
He would have had to have been Willie Mays to the nth degree in the field in order to have outproduced Brauny, Prince, and Rasmus.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Or
He would have to be a slightly below-average bat playing a hard defensive position incredibly well compared to two guys playing incredibly easy positions remarkably poorly and another with about 85% of his plate appearances and playing the same position poorly.
Why do we have this idea that offense is that much more important than defense? Saving a hit has just as much impact as getting a hit.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 13, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
Nah
Michael Bourn’s bat was significantly worse than just slightly below-average.
Here are CFers by wOBA:
Colby Rasmus would have had to have demonstrated Manny Ramirez-like range in order to have been less productive than Bourn last season (which clearly was not the case…even by UZR’s whimsical standards).
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
kind of
but kind of no. Because you’re leaving out that Bourn had about an extra 70 chances to produce with the bat over the course of the year and played the premium position for almost 90 innings more than Colby did. You can’t just leave playing time out of the equation.
Good point.
Forgot how WAR isn’t rate-based (dependent on playing time).
Makes the stat even more annoying than it already is, but since it’s dealing with wins (a non-rate-based stat), I guess it makes some sense.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 13, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
however
I do agree that outlier years by UZR can cause issues with WAR. So someone who’s consistently a 5 WAR player is, in my book, much more valuable than someone who’s been a 3 WAR player but just came off a 6 WAR season. I dunno, I always treat the defensive numbers with more of a grain of salt than the offensive numbers (and really, that’s just because I can break down the offensive numbers- when I see wOBA, I can look at his stat-line and say “someone’s BABIP jumped 50 points up from their career average this year despite the fact that their LD% stayed the same” and a red LUCK flag is raised. Just can’t do that [any way I know how] with defensive numbers, so I’m a little more wary of them)
Colby, for example, I think it’s odd that in the course of a year, his UZR fell 16.7 points. I feel like one of those is probably an outlier which is not representative of his abilities, but I’ve only watched him play 5 or 6 times, so I really have no idea which one it is.
Spikes in UZR admittedly do not necessarily corelate to defensive production that year
(Though they probably do.)
But for some reason we give people credit, even if just for the year, for a .400 BABIP.
So Bourn got a lucky defensive year where he had balls stay up just a bit longer, or had a ton of chances that were just within his “sweet spot” of being easily makeable.
It just seems like we’re setting serious offense-defense double standards.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 14, 2010 1:33 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly.
Defense is subject to slumps and hot streaks just like anything else.
The issue is there are so many variable that we need a larger sample to determine true talent.
Defense is subject to slumps?
Really?
Other than Chuck Knoublach, LOL, it seems that guys typically perform at the same level defensively throughout a season (barring injuries that hurt range).
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
They don't.
Defense really is subject to slumps. Perhaps even more so than hitting. Any little injury (sore neck, slept wrong, can’t get loose today, calf a little tight, stubbed my toe) can affect defense for a period of time.
So you agree with me then...
The only thing that can (adversely) affect one’s defense is an injury.
Meanwhile, a guy can lose 100-150 points of OPS in one season without any sort of injury.
I really don’t think UZR is to be trusted.
The fluctuations are laughable and I highly doubt it’s wholly due to hot streaks/slumps.
Like I said before, a faulty UZR calculation can, and more importantly will, completely skew a player’s WAR for better or for worse.
And people are quoting this stuff like it’s Gospel…
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 2:13 AM EST up reply actions
So why do people get into offensive slumps?
Is it luck, or are they just not seeing the ball quite right?
Like the sort of not right that might make you react slowly or break in the wrong direction in the outfield?
OPS is to be trusted because it can fluctuate wildly from year to year, but UZR is not for the same reason.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 14, 2010 3:27 AM EST up reply actions
Is a decrease in power or contact rates luck?
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
OPS and wOBA (for the most part) stay steady with a down year or a "hot" year once in a while.
UZR on the other hand is a complete and utter joke.
Werth UZR/150:
2005 – 6.5
2007 – 30.7
2008 – 28.5
2009 – 4.5
2010 – -7.2
So, Werth magically became Willie Mays, then what happened?
He got one of his legs amputated?
But my argument is futile.
People will continue to bow down to Fangraphs and WAR because they make life easy.
One all-encompassing stat! How beauteous it looks on paper. I need to join in for the fun!
WAR is a cult. Luckily I’m not a part of it.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
Not meant to be a personal attack on Ben, alskor, or anyone else.
I am just troubled by the widespread usage of a very flawed stat IMO, haha.
The concept of WAR, however, is great.
I’m sure Theo’s in-house version is quite reliable.
Ben and alskor, I get a lot of value out of your knowledge of the game, and I hope you guys don’t take my previous post the wrong way.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
I missed this conversation
so I won’t try to jump back in midstream, but no, I don’t agree with your conclusions there. MANY factors affect defense and defensive slumps. Concentration can be off. Player can be distracted by off field stuff, wife stuff, kids are sick… do you really think that doesn’t affect you in the field? I assume you’ve played ball at some level… it definitely affects you. Sometimes you’re more focused than others and since the game began people have been unable to pin down exactly why. If you played even little league, too, you know that some days you felt better in the field than others.
If you have a problem with UZR, frederick – and I can understand why you would, it has its flaws. Try to stick to Dewan plus/minus. This is found on fangraphs under DRS (defensive runs saved). Be careful b/c other places& other sites plus/minus is listed in the form of PLAYS, not RUNS. DRS is derived from spotters actually watching each play and grading it. So, if UZR bothers you perhaps that what you should look at.
Be aware even this system is subject to many of the problems of UZR – over periods of time a guy will simply have more catchable balls hit at or near him than at other times. Some years a guy may have an unusual amount of balls hit just out of his reach. Defense and defensive measures do not solve this problem any more than offensive measures solve balls hit hard right at fielders.
I would urge you to accept defensive metrics for what they are rather than focusing on what they’re not. Think of it like studying far away stars. Our methods are pretty clever for doing so at this point – but they are complex and confusing and hard to explain to the layman. Red shift/blue shift stuff… this is all based on solid scientific ground (as is UZR). Yes, it would be great if we had better measures for defense and more accurate ways to view far away stars. This is the best we have right now and its foolish to throw it all out as unreliable b/c it has some issues that pop up occasionally. Try to think of it as the best means we have to answer these questions and take it from there (with an inherent margin for error).
by alskor on Dec 14, 2010 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wow. Thank you for the thoughtful response, alskor.
I will look into Dewan plus/minus and try not to be so critical of UZR.
But I still feel that people should take small samples of UZR and WAR with a grain of salt and not treat them like they are the word of God.
Brett Anderson is the Truth. Brett Anderson is divine presence. Brett Anderson is eternal life. Brett Anderson is within you. Brett Anderson is here. Brett Anderson is Now.
by Frederick0220 on Dec 14, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think defense is really subject to slumps
so much as the variability in defense can be higher. This can make it seem like it’s a slump, when it’s really just randomness.
yeah I agree that players can go through bad streaks
What I don’t like about UZR is the inability I have to break it down into smaller stats that explain it, so I’m skeptical. Would be the same for wOBA if we couldn’t break it down into the components of it.
well there is
errors, arm and range
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 14, 2010 8:32 AM EST up reply actions
yeah and I get errors and arm
but to me, the range number is like saying “hitting;” it’s just not specific enough
Thanks everyone
Hope those guys do get healthy for you. See you in June.
by SouthWabashSoul on Dec 13, 2010 11:02 AM EST reply actions
Won't the Cubs' season be over by then?
"Laser show. So relax."
"For the Patriots [playing the Jets], it was like fighting Piston Honda knowing that every time he raises an eyebrow, he's about to throw a jab."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 13, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think you're viewing this wrong
If they all needed Tommy John surgery or hip replacements, sure they probably wouldn’t be recovering well. They were pretty much all freak little injuries that should easily be healed by the time spring training starts. But we’ll see. I’m just guessing we’ve probably all followed their injuries more in depth than you have.
Even if we don't agree
I do hope the Cubbies improve and compete for the Central. Even in the Northeast I remember watching them when Sox games weren’t on when I was a kid (on WGN maybe?) when Grace, Sandberg and others were still around.
Hey, I would rather see you guys suceed than the Mets, Cardinals or Phillies.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 14, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
Eh.
This guy is a troll, leave it alone at this point.
In Lax We Trust- Offical Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
This analysis:
-undervalues Crawford’s defense. By fangraphs WAR he was a 6.9 win player. That might even be understating it, IMHO
-understates VMart’s atrocious defense. WAR doesn’t typically adjust much for catcher defense since we can’t measure it accurately… yet. Nonetheless, VMart was a terrible, terrible defensive catcher.
-Doesn’t account (or adjust strongly enough) for park effects. Both the benefit to Beltre & VMart and the harm SafeCo has done to Gonzalez and how much Gonzalez & Crawford will benefit from Fenway.
-MOST IMPORTANTLY – the Red Sox were a ~95 win true talent team that lost Pedroia, Ellsbury & Youkilis for the season and VMart & Cameron for major portions of the season along with other major injuries.
Nice try, though.
by alskor on Dec 13, 2010 4:43 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
+1
"Common sense is quite rare." - Voltaire
The Artist Formerly Known as PacoL250
Resident Psychologist and Tech Support at Over the Monster: SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Web Site
well we can all agree that
Figures don’t lie, but lier’s figure. All stats can be cut and reorganized to fit any argument. I could say the cubs will never win another world series. They havent won for over 100 years so take the last 100 years as your sample size and presto your flawed argument. I would like to thank the great city of chicago for there hospitality for our football team. I wish most cubies fans a great holiday. this guy however can go for a swim in the lake. Maybe that will smarten him up a bit. Don’t forget the goat- I miss that sweet goat of mine- Dont mess w/zoltan
Jeffrey M Melhorn
SO glad it wasn't a yankees fan who wrote this.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
The internet would have exploded from the amount of scorn.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 14, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

by 




























