Jayson Stark does some great work compiling his Rumblings and Grumblings, a collection of rumors from around the world of baseball. And I do enjoy his Useless Info work; here's one example of the kind of stuff he finds. But I read his Midseason Awards column, and it seemed like something you'd find from a less knowledgable baseball writer. So I'll take my cue from Fire Joe Morgan and go through some of the more puzzling parts of the column, with the intent of...well, I'm not sure exactly what this could accomplish.
AL MVP of the half-year -- Magglio Ordonez, Tigers
Alex Rodriguez may have had a more eye-popping year, especially if you factor in home runs and back-page tabloid appearances.
Jayson, you didn't know that Back-Page Tabloid Appearances was a criteria for the MVP voting? Last year, Derek Jeter led the league in BPTA for the fourth consecutive year with 132, just a couple shy of his all-time record of 141 back in 2004. That was one of the reasons it was so surprising that Justin Morneau edged him for the MVP award. Some critics have argued that BPTA is unfair to people who play in smaller markets, but MLB has yet to change the rule. A-Rod currently is on pace for a record-shattering 167 BPTA. I fully expect this to be the most interesting subplot of the second half of the season.
By the way, I love how Stark throws "home runs" into this sentence, to make it seem like they aren't important. What is the best thing anybody can do in any given time at bat? Hit a home run. So you should probably factor home runs into the MVP equation.
But the Yankees haven't been a factor in the division or wild-card races for more than about 20 minutes all season.
Okay, here we go again. I don't have nearly enough time here to discuss this, but my feeling is that the team that a player is on should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who wins the MVP voting. For example, I would vote for a .320/.400/.530 hitter on the Royals before I would vote for a .290/.360/.500 hitter on the Red Sox. But that's a debate for another time.
The more pressing issue here is that the Yankees are still in the race. Depending on whose odds you check, they have roughly a 10-20% chance of making the playoffs. (Here's two odds sites: Baseball Prospectus and coolstandings.com.) And, to make matters worse, you can make a very good case that Alex Rodriguez is the only reason they are even in the race. Even if you're going with the conventional definition of "value", you'd have to say that A-Rod's been pretty valuable to the Yankees, wouldn't you?
Meanwhile, right there in the middle of the most lethal lineup in baseball, Ordonez is headed for a season that not even Ty Cobb ever duplicated in Detroit. And you can look that up.
Another little-known criteria for the MVP voting: To win the MVP, a player must have a season that even Ty Cobb never duplicated. Although Magglio still has a lot of catching up to do in fistfights and Racially Insulting Statements (although he could make up some ground in the former category the next time Ozzie Guillen comes to town). By the way, Ordonez's OPS+ is currently 177. Cobb bested that for ten straight years, from 1909 to 1918. This isn't what Stark is talking about (see the next paragraph), but it makes the point that Stark's statement is stupid.
If Ordonez keeps mashing at his current clip, he'd finish with 68 doubles, a .369 average, 137 RBIs, 135 runs scored, 93 extra-base hits, a .445 on-base percentage and a 1.053 OPS. And even if we lower the doubles threshold to 50, no one has matched all those numbers since Hugh Duffy did it for the 1894 Boston Beaneaters.
That's completely irrelevant. If in 1921 Tris Speaker hits 83 doubles, drives in 160 runs and scores 170, gets 140 XBH, OBP's .507 and OPSes 1.200, but his batting average is just .368, he doesn't qualify. People come up with these types of comparisons all the time (often to make a case for somebody to get into the Hall of Fame), and it's a bad way of looking at numbers. If I looked through enough categories, I think I could come up with some numbers to group Neifi Perez with Cal Ripken, Jr. and Honus Wager as the best shortstops of all-time. By the way, almost all the numbers Stark mentions are either related (doubles and XBH; AVG, OBP and OPS) or unimportant (doubles, AVG, RBI/runs).
Oh, and we didn't even mention Ordonez is hitting .443 with runners in scoring position. Almost makes you want to run out and visit an Austrian knee surgeon, doesn't it?
Here are Ordonez's slugging percentages for the past four seasons: .485/.436/.477/.608. If this were 2004, you know the s-word (steroids) would be coming out in droves regarding Magglio. My point: this is a remarkably fluky year, and there's no reason to expect him to perform this well in the second half.
NL MVP of the half-year -- Matt Holliday, Rockies
How come most people look at Rockies hitters and automatically disqualify them from consideration for all honors, trophies, awards or emphatic high-fives?
Uh...because Coors Field is played at an altitude above 5,000 feet, making balls carry more and making it easier to get hits and home runs? Because Coors Field's park factor is always at or near the top of the list of the best hitter's parks? By the way, Todd Helton may not have won any MVP awards, but his 1,386 career Emphatic High-Fives Received (EHFR) are good for fifth all-time among first basemen, making him a strong Hall Of Fame candidate.
All right, don't bother answering that. We know why.
Oh, sorry. You should have said this sooner.
But anybody who thinks Holliday is just another figment of baseball's most pervasive altitude sickness clearly hasn't been paying attention. True, he's hitting over 100 points higher at home (.405) than on the road (.301).
Yes, Holliday is a great hitter, and yes, he is underrated by the public. But you're not really helping yourself by mentioning his home/road splits; the impression I'm getting is that he'd be "just" a .300 hitter in any other ballpark. His stats are inflated by Coors Field, and even his raw numbers aren't as good as those of a bunch of other players.
But his road OPS (.828) is still higher than the road OPS of Chase Utley, Carlos Lee, Derrek Lee, Jason Bay, Torii Hunter or Grady Sizemore.
So, this is cherry-pick-random-players-who-fit-your-argument time? Cool. That road OPS is lower than the road OPS of Kelly Johnson, Casey Blake, Josh Willingham, Xavier Nady, Shannon Stewart, Randy Winn, Corey Hart, and Brandon Phillips. It's 34th among qualifiers in the NL alone. Bay's having a terrible year overall, by the way.
Plus, it was hard not to notice that it was Holliday who got more votes in the players' all-star balloting than any other player.
How was that hard not to notice? Do you really believe these guys are the most knowledgable and impartial people to decide who the best players are? Why not just let them vote for the MVP, then? These same players voted Brian Fuentes into the All-Star game as well, by the way (it wasn't La Russa's decision, it was the players'; La Russa made plenty of questionable decisions, but you can't blame him for this one).
We admit we were leaning toward Prince Fielder in this MVP race for a long time.
That would be smart. Fielder's OPS is .980, fourth in the NL, and he doesn't get the park effect boost that Holliday does. Plus, in case you care, Fielder's team is leading the division and has the best record in the league.
But in reality, both Holliday and Utley have had more of an all-around impact on their teams than Fielder, who is batting just .232 with men in scoring position and only .154 with RISP and two outs. So why Holliday over Utley? Because Utley's home-road splits (.387 home average, .266 road) are even wider than Holliday's, among other reasons.
Utley would be a good choice because he plays second base, which is a much tougher defensive position than first or left field. But, as Stark mentions, he also gets help from an extreme hitter's park; my personal MVP ballot would go Fielder-Utley-Holliday, with Bonds fourth. But, more importantly, why does Stark say that Holliday and Utley "have had more of an all-around impact" than Fielder...and then just go on to talk about more hitting stats? How about mentioning that Utley plays a tougher defensive position, or that he runs better, or something? And Fielder's had exactly 26 at-bats with RISP and two outs...sample sizes don't get much smaller than that.
Even though the Rockies may be only hanging around the periphery of the NL West and wild-card races, they do have a better record since May 15 than the Dodgers, Mets, Phillies or Brewers. You think that might have something to do with that left fielder of theirs who's hanging with the league leaders in batting, RBIs, slugging, doubles, multi-hit games, hits and OPS? We do.
Woohoo! Holliday plays half his games at the best hitter's park in recent history, and he's "hanging with the league leaders" in seven random stats, of which two or three are meaningful? He must be the MVP!
NL LVP -- Pat Burrell, Phillies
When a team is paying a man 13 million bucks a year, it would kind of like him to be one of the best players in the league. But in this case, the Phillies aren't asking that of Burrell anymore. They'd just settle for having the guy actually seem worthy of starting a game once in a while. That isn't how it's worked out, though.
Well, if you've been reading my blog (very unlikely), you'd know that I'd jump all over this one, as I just wrote about Burrell a couple days ago. And I was much more positive than Stark was. Burrell gets underrated for the same reason Adam Dunn gets underrated: lots of fans still look just at batting average, and think strikeouts are bad.
The one-time No. 1 pick in the whole 1998 draft has fallen so far, he just got benched nine times in a span of 13 games.
And the reason for that is that Charlie Manuel is an idiot. Burell's OPS+ is 101 - that means he's giving you basically league-average production. You can talk about the money all you want, but this guy should never be getting benched. By the way, here's a list of every #1 draft pick from the '90s: Chipper Jones, Brien Taylor, Phil Nevin, Alex Rodriguez, Paul Wilson, Darin Erstad, Kris Benson, Matt Anderson, Burrell, Josh Hamilton. I'd take Burrell over any of them except Jones and A-Rod. My point: Being a #1-overall draft pick in baseball is no guarantee of success, so a #1 pick shouldn't be labeled a "bust" if he's not a perennial All-Star.
Which might have something to do with the fact that he's hitting .159 since April 26, with 42 strikeouts and only 26 hits. (Sheez, that means his missing average is 100 points higher than his batting average.)
In a related story, Bud Selig just announced that all stats before April 26 don't count for this year. Burrell's hitting just .209, but his OBP is .373 (very good), and his slugging percentage is .391 (not great, but that's mostly a function of his low BA). By the way, here's a list of the top ten strikeout leaders in baseball last year: Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Curtis Granderson, Bill Hall, Alfonso Soriano, Jason Bay, Richie Sexson, Grady Sizemore, Johnny Peralta, Nick Swisher. All these guys except Peralta and Granderson OPSed above .840. Next on the list is Jim Thome and his 1.014 OPS. Strikeouts are not necessarily bad.
There's still hope, though. Burrell did have more homers and a higher slugging percentage last year than Magglio Ordonez, Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez. And boy, do the Phillies need another productive right-handed bat. So since $13-million men tend to get lots and lots of chances, we're betting you won't be seeing Burrell slip into oblivion any time soon.
Burrell also had a .388 OBP last year, significantly better than any of the other guys you listed. Meaning he was better than any of those three guys last year. Meaning it's not a stretch to say he'll be better, or at least as good, as these guys will be in the second half. (Weird comparables for Stark to choose, though...it was Fielder's and Gonzalez's first full year in the big leagues, so it makes sense they wouldn't have done very well.)
That was fun. Again, no ill will against Stark...he's usually a great writer, but I had to call him out for this article. It was fun.
Showing posts with label media criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media criticism. Show all posts
July 7, 2007
June 13, 2007
Ripping ESPN.com, continued...
This probably isn't the best way to start this blog - it's probably more interesting when I blog about, you know, actual baseball. But I thought I'd do a follow-up on yesterday's "discussion" of ESPN's new player rating system. Later on Monday, the creator of the ratings - Jeff Bennett - did a chat on ESPN's SportsNation explaining the rankings some more. Here's the link (I think it's Insider-only).
Here are some of the more interesting questions and responses...
2. This has been changed, according to the explanations. The difference isn't enough yet, but it's a step in the right direction.
3. So, you're defending a new system by pointing out an earlier, better system that has the same flaw. Remember, this was the stat that was labeled "cutting-edge" on the front page of ESPN.com. This wasn't what I was looking for.
There's some more, but it's mostly just about individual players. Still no answer as to why there's no park factor adjustment, still no answer as to what the numbers mean, still no actual reason there's no defense adjustment. Hopefully ESPN gives up on this quickly.
I'll try to get to some actual on-the-field baseball stuff later today, namely Verlander's no-hitter...
Here are some of the more interesting questions and responses...
1. Yes, there is some value to a player on a winning ball club. There is also some value to a player on a losing ball club. Typically, the players on losing ball clubs will, on average, have worse stats than players on winning ball clubs, so you shouldn't have to make an extra adjustment for this. By the way, I absolutely love that he thinks the fact that the MVP voting is based largely on team performance is a valid reason to adjust for this in his system.Scot (TX): Some questions on formulas for you Jeff: 1. Why team win percentage? Is Teixeira really a "better" player if he played for Detroit instead of Texas? 2. Why not differentiate CF from the corner OF spots in the defensive standings? A player who can play CF seems to have more value. 3. Did you ever try to work in quality of defense? Right now an excellent fielder and a poor fielder get the same amount of defensive points as long as they both play SS.
Jeff Bennett: A multi-part question off the top....
1) I think there is some value to player on a wining ball club. This is evident with the BBWAA voting. However, it make up only 5% of a score and the difference between Detroit and Texas currently ranslates to about 0.4 rating points.
2. Currently this is a function of the way our stats are coded. Looks for this to be adjusted for in the future. the defensive spectrum would go obviously CF, RF, LF.
3. Yes, much like VORP, quality of defense is not accounted for.
2. This has been changed, according to the explanations. The difference isn't enough yet, but it's a step in the right direction.
3. So, you're defending a new system by pointing out an earlier, better system that has the same flaw. Remember, this was the stat that was labeled "cutting-edge" on the front page of ESPN.com. This wasn't what I was looking for.
Otter (Boston MA): What do you do for players that have a significant split in where they play defensively? Weighted average of difficulties? Is there any bonus given for this type of versatility?So, if Victor Martinez plays 75 bad defensive games at catcher next year and 70 games at first, and Joe Mauer plays 145 good games at catcher next year...they get exactly the same points for their defense? VORP at least accounts for different positions played during the year (I think it does, anyways)...
Jeff Bennett: The position the player plays the majority of his games at is designated his primary position. There is no bonus of versatility, but it is something I considered.
Paul (Wildomar, CA): Anybody who has read Bill James knows saves are overrated. Why 40% allocated to saves? Seems to me the other 4 categories, maybe especially inherited runners scored, should be higher. We all know Pat Neshek is better than David Weathers.Saves are overrated. Therefore, there is a penalty for when you pitch poorly in a save situation. Does that make sense? And, although there is a penalty for blown saves, getting actual saves is the way relievers get 40% of their points. Pointing out how the best middle reliever in baseball is at #116 doesn't really help your case...
Jeff Bennett: Saves are overrated. That is what the actual stat used here has a stiff penalty for blown saves. Neshek does quite well for himself here. He is #116 today overall. Not bad and ahead of many, many closers.
Taylor (Escondido CA): Did you take park effects into account at all? Of course the Padres hitters are going to rank poorly and the Padres pitchers awesome because of Petco. Or, for example, Ian Kinsler (Texas launching pad) v. Jose Lopez (Safeco death to hitters), have the same OPS, yet your rankings have Kinsler higher?These rankings are flawed in many ways, but the lack of park factors is the biggest one. Saying "Big parks doesn't seem to hurt the Comerica hitters this year or say Dimitri Young" not only is very gramatically flawed, it is logically flawed as well. If a player has good stats in a pitcher's park, he would have even better stats in a hitter's park. That's simple logic. Hitters are always "hurt" by big parks, whether or not their stats are good. And Comerica has been a hitter's park this year, by the way, with a park factor of 1.071 (above 1.000 is hitter-friendly).
Jeff Bennett: Excellent question. Park effects are not directly applied to adjust the ratings. BIg parks doesn't seem to hurt the Comeria hitters this year or say Dmitri Young. I have a hard time de-valuing Peavy. He is 3-0 with 1.06 ERA on road this year. I see he is ranked 31st in Win shares today behind many pitchers. That seems a little low.
Bryan (Madison, WI): Don't you think that your formula for relievers makes it too difficult for actual relievers to be rated highly? You've said that saves are overrated, yet they comprise 40% of the reliever rating whereas holds are ignored completely. It seems to me a reliever could have a excellent season and unless he picks up a lot of wins (which is generally determined by the events earlier in the game and by the actions of his offense, not the pitcher himself) it would be very difficult for him to crack the top 100 or 150 players.Yes, but those numbers are only 60% of a reliever's value. The other 40% is wins and saves. Basically, from this and some of the other questions, what Bennet seems to be saying is that great middle relievers can move themselves up to the level of a solid-to-good closer if they have a great year. When, in reality, a great middle reliever is often worth just as much as a great closer.
Jeff Bennett: Fair question, but set-up men can do well here by having a low ERA, Opp. BA, K-to BB-ratio. Last year Cla Merideth was one of the majors to 20 pitchers when applying retroactively. I think that would be news for most of mainstrream baseball fans. He has unhittbable in 2006 and didn't register many wins (5).
Ian, NYC: I don't understand what your point is behind this list. There are people who have put a heck of a lot of science and research into coming up with formulas like this (Win Shares, VORP, etc), while much of what you have selected here is totally arbitrary (why exactly %10 for BA for eaxmple?), and by pretending this is somehow scientific degrades the whole field of work on this subject. Much of what you are including here has been proven to be no reflection on individual player quality (like saves, wins and RBI to a large extent), not to mention penalizing someone because they play on a bad team. Why should anyone take this list seriously?Actually, there are things more scientific. It's great that you compare relievers to relievers, hitters to hitters, etc....but Win Shares compares all players to all other players. Wouldn't that be "more scientific"? And I can't ask the same question about WS and VORP that I've been asking about this one: What the hell do the final numbers mean? WS and VORP numbers have meaning. This system just gives you numbers.
Jeff Bennett: Ian, I think you hit on something. There is no sucjh thing as the perfect way to evaluate a baseball player. Win Shares and VORP are great, but you can ask the same types of questions about their lists. This system is very fluid and puts players in perspective based on where they rank in the majors vs their peers. Nothing more scientific than that.
There's some more, but it's mostly just about individual players. Still no answer as to why there's no park factor adjustment, still no answer as to what the numbers mean, still no actual reason there's no defense adjustment. Hopefully ESPN gives up on this quickly.
I'll try to get to some actual on-the-field baseball stuff later today, namely Verlander's no-hitter...
June 12, 2007
A Bad Idea...
Okay, now that school's basically over, I'm launching this new private blog. I'll explain more about who I am later, but since there's no high school sports to write about in the summer, I'm going to spend my summer blogging about my true love - baseball. But average fans beware - if you don't know what OPS is, you may want to look somewhere else...
What better way to start off a blog than by ripping ESPN? Let me start with a prelude - I really do like ESPN.com's website. I like some of the colorful stuff like DJ Gallo, and I love their NBA coverage (especially now that they have TrueHoop). And I do really like their MLB coverage, especially the blogs (Insider-only, unfortunately) - Buster Olney and Rob Neyer both have outstanding blogs. I read anything I can written by Neyer and Keith Law. For some reason, it's become fashionable for bloggers to express their hatred for "mainstream" sites like ESPN.com - I don't feel that way at all. (I'm not a fan of their NFL coverage at all, with the exception of Tuesday Morning Quarterback, but that's neither here nor there...) So what I'm going to say is not out of hatred for ESPN.com - it's about how ridiculous this particluar article was.
But Monday afternoon, I came home and found this on the ESPN.com homepage:
Now, I was intruiged. A scientific method to sort out baseball's best players? You mean, like using statistics? We already have a number of ways to do that, and those could be applied to All-star projections as well. VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) is a very good rating of a player's value. EqA is probably the best measure of a player's hitting ability. Bill James spent five years or so working on his Win Shares statistic, which not only rates players but also expresses their worth in a meaningful way (wins contributed to their team), not just a "mystical number". But you're saying these stats are now archaic? Your stat is "more cutting-edge"? Cool! I'd love to see what new and creative stats you came up with!
Unfortunately, the explanation was less impressive. Here's the link to the story explaining the rankings, and it's not nearly as "cutting-edge" as it seems. Instead, the formula basically takes a bunch of counting stats and mixes them to produce one super-stat, a smart idea except it's been done hundreds of times (and usually much more effectively) by other people before. Here's how they figured out how batters rank:
Let's take these one-by-one, to make things more organized:
Batting Bases Accumulated: 20%
This is very reasonable - the formula given is TB + BB + HBP. It's kinda like OPS, except actually a bit better, since it doesn't count hits twice. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.
Runs Produced: 15%
Oh, boy. They define "Runs Produced" as Runs + RBI - HR. So, you're saying that 15% of a player's worth is based on how good his teammates are? Raul Ibanez finished seventh in RBI in all of baseball last year. Raul Ibanez. Jimmy Rollins OBP'd only .334 last year, but still managed to finish tied for third in runs scored because he had Utley and Howard hitting behind him. There are dozens of statistics that are a better measure of how good a player is than runs or RBI (though apparently nobody's told theMost RBI MVP voters that yet...)
OBP 15%; BA: 10%
Not really a whole lot to pick at here, although both should be worth much more than they are. Hits are worth more than walks, so BA should be a category, along with OBP. One thing to notice, though, is the curious overlap of stats - you've already really accounted for both OBP and BA in the "Batting Bases Accumulated" category...it seems they could have condensed things some and made it less confusing (or maybe more confusing)...
HRs: 10%
Um...what about doubles? What about triples? You really think you can determine 10% of a player's worth directly from how many homers he hits? Okay, then...
RBIs 5%, Runs 5%
Again? Didn't I go through this already? First of all, "RBI" stands for "Runs batted in", so there's really no need to add an extra "s" there. But that's just nitpicking. Still, so far 25% of a player's value is apparently determined by how good his teammates are. And more strange overlapping of stats.
Hits: 5%
Okay...how are "Hits" and "Batting average" different? Couldn't they have just weighted BA by at-bats, eliminating the need for another "Hits" category? This is really starting to confuse me...
Net Steals: 5%
I'm assuming they mean (SB - CS). But, according to numerous experiments, a player is actually hurting his team if he converts less than 75% of his steal attempts. So, shouldn't you have used 75% as your baseline? Plus, steals aren't often worth that much anyways - certainly not 5% of a player's value, with the possible exception of ridiculous Juan Pierre-types. (And, actually, his success rate was under 75% last year, so the value of those steals was negligible. Not that his .330 OBP added much value either...)
Team Winning Percentage, Defensive Position 5% each
If you're counting at home, that's 30% of a player's total value that is based on how good his teammates are. Really, winning percentage? You're saying that Oakland's hitters are more valuable than Tampa Bay's because Oakland's pitching staff has given up 150 fewer runs? How does that make sense? To be fair, the actual impact of this ends up being not much - the difference between 36-26 Detroit and 23-40 Texas ends up being only about .4 points (out of 100). Which prompts the question, why have the category anyways? But the more egregious one is the second column. Only 5% of a position player's worth comes from what position he plays? A player's net steals is worth the same as his position? This is completely absurd. The league-average 1B last year hit .285/.365/.495 (BA/OBP/SLG). Pudge Rodriguez' career numbers are very similar - .304/.342/.483 - but, because he's a catcher, he's a future 1st-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Are you telling me Pudge, for his career, was only 5% better than the league average first baseman? Secondly, they count all outfielders as "OF", and don't count where they play in the outfield. Center fielders are much more valuable than corner outfielders, because they must cover much more range. In fact, according to the defensive spectrum, center fielders are more valuable than third basemen as well. So this system unfairly hurts center fielders, and that is obvious in the rankings. Finally, there is no accounting for quality of defense, either. So, according to ESPN's "cutting edge" stat, it doesn't matter at all how good a defensive player you are! Derek Jeter must be thrilled...Update: According to ESPN.com, they now differentiate between the types of OFs, though the difference still isn't that much, and CF is still behind 3B. But it's a start...
Here's the formula for starting pitchers:
These are actually okay categories - ERA is probably one of the best stats to use here, and it's good to see they used the league average to account for the DH. IP is important, because pitchers who throw innings are helping their team get through games, even if they aren't very effective innings. The defensive independent bases are defined as (4*HR + BB + HBP), which is a very good measure of a pitcher's true effectiveness (i.e., not determined by luck or defense). Unfortunately, they then have to count opponents' batting average (very influenced by luck and defense) at the same weight, which doesn't make much sense. But the one category that really sticks out is wins. Wins are loosely related to how good a pitcher is, but are at least as related to how good the team is. Case in point:
Randy Johnson, 2006 - 17 wins, 5.00 ERA
C.C. Sabathia, 2006 - 12 wins, 3.22 ERA
Who had the better year?
Relief Pitchers:
Overall, these ratings aren't awful, but they're worse than most of the sabermetrics used today. This would be fine if it were just some guy's creation, but ESPN's trying to actually use it; I saw them being mentioned on Baseball Tonight as if they actually proved anything. ESPN's baseball writers (Olney, Neyer, etc.) have been noticably silent on this topic - they don't want to out-and-out disparage their employer's stat, but if they really thought it was good, don't you think they would have mentioned it by now?
Here are the main problems, as I see it:
1. No park factors - Jake Peavy is rated as the best pitcher right now, mostly because he's having an amazing year, but also partly because he gets to pitch half his games in spacious Petco Field. Meanwhile, stats in mile-high Coors Park count exactly the same as those in Petco or RFK. It's not that difficlut to add park factors into ratings, so it really surprises (and disappoints) me that they didn't go that extra step. This early in the season, park factors usually aren't worth using because they fluctuate so much, but using last year's won't really disrupt anything.
2. No defense adjustment - A great defensive shortstop is worth more than a poor one. That's just fact. Unless you're working with this system. (To be fair, VORP doesn't have a defense adjustment, but it at least bills itself as such.)
3. Not enough adjustment for position - Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, and Jose Reyes can tell you that the position you play determines much more than 5% of your value. The difference between center field and the corner outfield spots isn't enough, and the difference overall isn't nearly enough.
4. Too much reliance on teammates - Really, team winning percentage? Runs and RBI? Wins for a pitcher, and saves for a reliever? These are the best stats you can come up with to evaluate an individual's performance?
5. No meaning to the nubmers - I still can't figure out what the numbers mean. 0 is the floor, and 100 is the higest possible...but where do normal people score? What's a normal MVP-caliber score? 70? 80? What does a score of 0 mean? A replacement player? A bad minor-leaguer? Is 50 average? Is the difference between 60 and 65 big or small? There are way too many questions to answer.
Here's a better system, in my opinion:
The ESPN.com "Rating" is an okay stat, and I'm sure it took a lot of effort, but it's not nearly as comprehensive or meaningful as stats such as VORP, EqA, and Win Shares. If this had been invented/popularized five years ago, it might have been useful, but today we have too many other stats that are better. There are too many flaws - such as the fact that it only compares relievers to relievers, position players to position players, etc., and the fact that it doesn't adjust for park factors - it just doesn't measure up to the more comprehensive stats.
Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver has an excellent take on this as well...
What better way to start off a blog than by ripping ESPN? Let me start with a prelude - I really do like ESPN.com's website. I like some of the colorful stuff like DJ Gallo, and I love their NBA coverage (especially now that they have TrueHoop). And I do really like their MLB coverage, especially the blogs (Insider-only, unfortunately) - Buster Olney and Rob Neyer both have outstanding blogs. I read anything I can written by Neyer and Keith Law. For some reason, it's become fashionable for bloggers to express their hatred for "mainstream" sites like ESPN.com - I don't feel that way at all. (I'm not a fan of their NFL coverage at all, with the exception of Tuesday Morning Quarterback, but that's neither here nor there...) So what I'm going to say is not out of hatred for ESPN.com - it's about how ridiculous this particluar article was.
But Monday afternoon, I came home and found this on the ESPN.com homepage:
Abacus-Cadabra
ESPN.com found a scientific method to sort out baseball's best players.
Put your slide rules down. We've got something more cutting-edge. Want baseball's top 100 players, with a mystical number rating their worth? Done. How about All-Star projections? Presto. Player Ratings
Now, I was intruiged. A scientific method to sort out baseball's best players? You mean, like using statistics? We already have a number of ways to do that, and those could be applied to All-star projections as well. VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) is a very good rating of a player's value. EqA is probably the best measure of a player's hitting ability. Bill James spent five years or so working on his Win Shares statistic, which not only rates players but also expresses their worth in a meaningful way (wins contributed to their team), not just a "mystical number". But you're saying these stats are now archaic? Your stat is "more cutting-edge"? Cool! I'd love to see what new and creative stats you came up with!
Unfortunately, the explanation was less impressive. Here's the link to the story explaining the rankings, and it's not nearly as "cutting-edge" as it seems. Instead, the formula basically takes a bunch of counting stats and mixes them to produce one super-stat, a smart idea except it's been done hundreds of times (and usually much more effectively) by other people before. Here's how they figured out how batters rank:
Batting bases accumulated: 20%
Runs produced: 15%
OBP: 15%
BA: 10%
HRs: 10%
RBIs: 5%
Runs: 5%
Hits: 5%
Net Steals: 5%
Team winning percentage, defensive position: 5% each
Let's take these one-by-one, to make things more organized:
Batting Bases Accumulated: 20%
This is very reasonable - the formula given is TB + BB + HBP. It's kinda like OPS, except actually a bit better, since it doesn't count hits twice. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.
Runs Produced: 15%
Oh, boy. They define "Runs Produced" as Runs + RBI - HR. So, you're saying that 15% of a player's worth is based on how good his teammates are? Raul Ibanez finished seventh in RBI in all of baseball last year. Raul Ibanez. Jimmy Rollins OBP'd only .334 last year, but still managed to finish tied for third in runs scored because he had Utley and Howard hitting behind him. There are dozens of statistics that are a better measure of how good a player is than runs or RBI (though apparently nobody's told the
OBP 15%; BA: 10%
Not really a whole lot to pick at here, although both should be worth much more than they are. Hits are worth more than walks, so BA should be a category, along with OBP. One thing to notice, though, is the curious overlap of stats - you've already really accounted for both OBP and BA in the "Batting Bases Accumulated" category...it seems they could have condensed things some and made it less confusing (or maybe more confusing)...
HRs: 10%
Um...what about doubles? What about triples? You really think you can determine 10% of a player's worth directly from how many homers he hits? Okay, then...
RBIs 5%, Runs 5%
Again? Didn't I go through this already? First of all, "RBI" stands for "Runs batted in", so there's really no need to add an extra "s" there. But that's just nitpicking. Still, so far 25% of a player's value is apparently determined by how good his teammates are. And more strange overlapping of stats.
Hits: 5%
Okay...how are "Hits" and "Batting average" different? Couldn't they have just weighted BA by at-bats, eliminating the need for another "Hits" category? This is really starting to confuse me...
Net Steals: 5%
I'm assuming they mean (SB - CS). But, according to numerous experiments, a player is actually hurting his team if he converts less than 75% of his steal attempts. So, shouldn't you have used 75% as your baseline? Plus, steals aren't often worth that much anyways - certainly not 5% of a player's value, with the possible exception of ridiculous Juan Pierre-types. (And, actually, his success rate was under 75% last year, so the value of those steals was negligible. Not that his .330 OBP added much value either...)
Team Winning Percentage, Defensive Position 5% each
If you're counting at home, that's 30% of a player's total value that is based on how good his teammates are. Really, winning percentage? You're saying that Oakland's hitters are more valuable than Tampa Bay's because Oakland's pitching staff has given up 150 fewer runs? How does that make sense? To be fair, the actual impact of this ends up being not much - the difference between 36-26 Detroit and 23-40 Texas ends up being only about .4 points (out of 100). Which prompts the question, why have the category anyways? But the more egregious one is the second column. Only 5% of a position player's worth comes from what position he plays? A player's net steals is worth the same as his position? This is completely absurd. The league-average 1B last year hit .285/.365/.495 (BA/OBP/SLG). Pudge Rodriguez' career numbers are very similar - .304/.342/.483 - but, because he's a catcher, he's a future 1st-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Are you telling me Pudge, for his career, was only 5% better than the league average first baseman? Secondly, they count all outfielders as "OF", and don't count where they play in the outfield. Center fielders are much more valuable than corner outfielders, because they must cover much more range. In fact, according to the defensive spectrum, center fielders are more valuable than third basemen as well. So this system unfairly hurts center fielders, and that is obvious in the rankings. Finally, there is no accounting for quality of defense, either. So, according to ESPN's "cutting edge" stat, it doesn't matter at all how good a defensive player you are! Derek Jeter must be thrilled...Update: According to ESPN.com, they now differentiate between the types of OFs, though the difference still isn't that much, and CF is still behind 3B. But it's a start...
Here's the formula for starting pitchers:
ERA vs. league average weighted by IP: 40%
Wins weighted by win percentage: 20%
Innings Pitched: 10%
Defensive independent bases allowed per IP: 10%
Strikeouts: 10%
Opponents' BA: 10%
These are actually okay categories - ERA is probably one of the best stats to use here, and it's good to see they used the league average to account for the DH. IP is important, because pitchers who throw innings are helping their team get through games, even if they aren't very effective innings. The defensive independent bases are defined as (4*HR + BB + HBP), which is a very good measure of a pitcher's true effectiveness (i.e., not determined by luck or defense). Unfortunately, they then have to count opponents' batting average (very influenced by luck and defense) at the same weight, which doesn't make much sense. But the one category that really sticks out is wins. Wins are loosely related to how good a pitcher is, but are at least as related to how good the team is. Case in point:
Randy Johnson, 2006 - 17 wins, 5.00 ERA
C.C. Sabathia, 2006 - 12 wins, 3.22 ERA
Who had the better year?
Relief Pitchers:
Saves and wins with blown save penalty: 40%ERA is tough to use for relievers, as one bad inning can really damage your ERA because you don't throw very many innings, but there aren't that many better metrics to use. K/BB = good stat, Opponents' BA = bad stat. The save is quite possibly the dumbest stat ever; is your best reliever more valuable with one out and the bases loaded in the seventh in a tie game or with nobody on and a three-run lead to start the ninth? Wins are almost completely random for relievers; often they come because a reliever actually has a bad outing and blows a save, but ends up with a win when the offense saves them. And what is this "steep blown save penalty"? The formula given is (saves * 2) + wins - (blown saves * 3). That means that if a closer converts around 67% of his save chances and picks up the lucky win or two, he gets some points. (What are points, anyways? Is 0 a replacement player? Is 50 average? What the hell do these numbers even mean?) I can't find the exact number, but I bet that teams with a lead entering the ninth win much more than 67% of the time. You should not get points for saving 7 out of every 10 games.
ERA vs. league average weighted by IP: 20%
Opponents' BA: 20%
K/BB: 15%
Inherited runners stranded percentage: 5%
Overall, these ratings aren't awful, but they're worse than most of the sabermetrics used today. This would be fine if it were just some guy's creation, but ESPN's trying to actually use it; I saw them being mentioned on Baseball Tonight as if they actually proved anything. ESPN's baseball writers (Olney, Neyer, etc.) have been noticably silent on this topic - they don't want to out-and-out disparage their employer's stat, but if they really thought it was good, don't you think they would have mentioned it by now?
Here are the main problems, as I see it:
1. No park factors - Jake Peavy is rated as the best pitcher right now, mostly because he's having an amazing year, but also partly because he gets to pitch half his games in spacious Petco Field. Meanwhile, stats in mile-high Coors Park count exactly the same as those in Petco or RFK. It's not that difficlut to add park factors into ratings, so it really surprises (and disappoints) me that they didn't go that extra step. This early in the season, park factors usually aren't worth using because they fluctuate so much, but using last year's won't really disrupt anything.
2. No defense adjustment - A great defensive shortstop is worth more than a poor one. That's just fact. Unless you're working with this system. (To be fair, VORP doesn't have a defense adjustment, but it at least bills itself as such.)
3. Not enough adjustment for position - Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, and Jose Reyes can tell you that the position you play determines much more than 5% of your value. The difference between center field and the corner outfield spots isn't enough, and the difference overall isn't nearly enough.
4. Too much reliance on teammates - Really, team winning percentage? Runs and RBI? Wins for a pitcher, and saves for a reliever? These are the best stats you can come up with to evaluate an individual's performance?
5. No meaning to the nubmers - I still can't figure out what the numbers mean. 0 is the floor, and 100 is the higest possible...but where do normal people score? What's a normal MVP-caliber score? 70? 80? What does a score of 0 mean? A replacement player? A bad minor-leaguer? Is 50 average? Is the difference between 60 and 65 big or small? There are way too many questions to answer.
Here's a better system, in my opinion:
Batters MLB ranks in:
VORP: 100%
The ESPN.com "Rating" is an okay stat, and I'm sure it took a lot of effort, but it's not nearly as comprehensive or meaningful as stats such as VORP, EqA, and Win Shares. If this had been invented/popularized five years ago, it might have been useful, but today we have too many other stats that are better. There are too many flaws - such as the fact that it only compares relievers to relievers, position players to position players, etc., and the fact that it doesn't adjust for park factors - it just doesn't measure up to the more comprehensive stats.
Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver has an excellent take on this as well...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)