Okay, that title is a lie; there are probably a dozen or so players more underrated than the player I'm going to talk about. But I will still contend that Pat Burrell is very underappreciated. He is Philadelphia's version of A-Rod, albeit with less talent; he is the whipping boy for the franchise, all the fans hate him for some reason, and he's actually a good player.
What? Pat Burrell is a good player? How can that be? He's hitting just .207! He has "only" 10 homers and 34 RBI? How can you defend someone like that? Well, if you use numbers that more accurately measure a player's offensive ability, you'll find that his OBP is .371, and you'll find that RBI is a dumb statistic. Burrell's been hated and the fans have wanted him traded for years, but he's been a really good offensive player pretty much his entire career; fans just can't look past the low batting average numbers. Burrell's OPS+ this year is 101; 100 is league-average, so he's basically been an average hitter this year (by that metric). This has been a down year for him, too; his career OPS+ is 116, and he was at 124 and 125 in the last two years. He strikes out a lot, but does that really matter? Most of the time, it doesn't matter at all what kind of out you make; it's still an out, and those are bad. And Burrell has been good at not making those outs, as his OBP is .371. His slugging percentage is down this year, but most of that difference can be explained by his low BA (even for his standards), which is .207 right now.
Some critics like to say that Burrell's high OBP does not matter because they can't steal bases. This doesn't make sense; as long as he gets on base, it's possible for him to score, while if he does not get on base, he can't score, and he costs his team an out. For examples of people who think OBP is a bad stat for people with no speed, I'll refer you to Fire Joe Morgan's "clogging up the bases" category. The short answer is that these people are idiots. Getting on base = not making outs = helping your team score runs.
For the more nerdy fans, Burrell's EqA is currently .273, 14th among full-time left fielders in baseball. That says pretty much the same thing that the OPS+ statistic said; Burrell has been pretty much league-average this year. And he's been even better in the past. So, are the Phillies fans' expectations so high of Burrell that they expect him to be an All-Star caliber player, or are they just not looking at the whole pitcure? (Actually, this isn't just a rhetorical question; I do really want to know this. Why does Burrell get hated on so much? Is it as simple as his low BA and high K rate?)
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
July 5, 2007
June 22, 2007
Best Player?
Here's the current poll question on the front page of ESPN.com today:
Barry Bonds: Bonds was a great player in the 90's, but according to his stats, his peak years were his 2000-2004 seasons. During these years, his average line was .341/.535/.782 (BA/OBP/SLG), which is absolutely ridiculous. For five years, he was getting on base more often than he was getting out. That's just amazing. His OPS for those five years - again, five whole years - was 1.317. I try to refrain from hyperbole, but I honestly don't think I'll see anyone string together five offensive seasons like that in my lifetime.
Young Bonds was a great defender, but 21st century Bonds was nothing close to that. During these peak years, Bonds was a combined -8 FRAA (Fielding Runds Above Average), which is actually a bit better than I thought. His baserunning skills were obviously almost gone by this time as well, but neither defect really comes close to cancelling out his hitting skills.
Let's look at some of the more advanced stats. His OPS+es from 2002, '01, and '04 are first, second, and third respectively all-time at 275, 262, and 260. (An OPS+ of 100 is league-average; the stat is adjusted for the league so it is comparable between eras.) And his 2003 OPS+ was 231, tied for 10th all-time. His 2000 OPS+ was "just" 191, good for 90th all-time, meaning that Bonds was in the top 100 for all five of his peak years. Neither A-Rod or Griffey have any seasons in the top 100. That's pretty good. Bonds' adjusted EqA was over .400 every year from 2001-2004, including two years above .450 ('02, '04). EqA takes into account all offensive contributions from a player, and is evaluated on the same scale as batting average; i.e., a .260 EqA is about average and a .300 EqA is roughly all-star caliber. So when a player posts a .456 EqA, like Bonds did in 2004, it means he's having possibly the greatest offensive season of all-time. Let's take a stat that includes defense as well: WARP3. WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) takes into account all contributions by a player, including defense, and it is possibly the most complete measure of a player's value avaliable. Bonds' WARPs during his peak ranged from 11.7 to 16.2, meaning that, for those years, Bonds alone gave the Giants 12-16 more wins than a replacement player (i.e., a AAA player or a mediocre utility guy) would have.
Here's Bonds' Baseball Prospectus player card, where I got all the info from; all the stats I used were adjusted for all-time.
Ken Griffey Jr: Griffey is known as the best all-around player in the 90's, and that is probably an accurate label. We have to cheat a little bit for Griffey, as he was hurt in 1995, so I'm going to use 1993-1998, excluding '95, as his prime years. This does include the strike-shortened '94 season, but all the stats I'm using are rate statistics, so that shouldn't make a difference. His average stat line over those years was .304/.390/.635, which isn't really even comparable to Bonds' raw line. Griffey was playing in the rather spacious Kingdome and in a less hitter-friendly era, but his OPS+ numbers still don't really compare - a peak of 172 in '93.
Still, Griffey gets a lot of points for being a great defender at a very important defensive position (center field). His FRAA is less than I thought it would be (a combined +12 over those five years), but he still gets a lot of points for being above average at a position that is tough to play. This is kind of off-topic, but Griffey's defense has been awful since 2001 - a combined -75 since then.
Griffey's EqA over those five seasons was very consistant - a low of .325 in '98, and a high of .345 in '94. Those are great numbers - a five-year peak like that, combined with a couple other good seasons, should make you a hall-of-famer. But they aren't even in the same spectrum as Bonds' EqAs. If you look at WARP3, the numbers get closer, however. Because Griffey's defense is factored in, the two players are actually comperable - Griffey's numbers range from 10.5 to 12.6, with three of his five years being above 12. Those are five great seasons, but they're still pretty significantly less than Bonds'. Looking at the numbers, I can't find any way to justify choosing Griffey over Bonds.
A-Rod: A-Rod's 2007 may change things somewhat, but for now, his peak years are 2000-2004, ironically the same years as Bonds'. His average line: .304/.396/.593. Again great numbers, very similar to Griffey's, but nowhere close to Bonds. His OPS+ numbers are even less impressive, But remember, A-Rod was a shortstop (the toughest defensive position besides catcher) for the first four of these years, peaking at "only" 167 in 2000. A-Rod gets kind of unfairly hurt by this system because his 2004 season wasn't that great; if I was able to include his 2005 MVP season, all his numbers would go up. But at this point I'm kind of stuck with the system I arbitrarily made up.
However, you have to remember that A-Rod was a shortstop (the toughest defensive position besides catcher) for the first four of these years, and he was a great shortstop to boot. His combined FRAA for those four years: +31, including an amazing +15 in 2000, his last year in Seattle. (Random note: he was awful last year at third, with a -18 FRAA - that means he cost the Yankees almost two full wins with his glove. Random note #2: In 2003, the year before A-Rod came to the Bronx, he posted a +8 FRAA. Jeter posted a -23. Guess who moved to third base?)
A-Rod's EqAs are relatively uninspiring for those five years, trending downwards from a .346 in 2000. But WARP3 likes him much better, because of his outstanding defense. His low was 10.0 in 2004 (although he went on to post a stellar 12.9 the next year), but his 14.6 in 2000 was outstanding. Overall, here's the average WARP3 for these three players during their peak years:
Bonds: 14.3
Griffey: 11.7
A-Rod: 12.9
So, based on these numbers and the others, I have to go with Bonds #1, A-Rod #2, and Griffey #3, and it's actually not even that close. Sure, Bonds probably used steroids, but that doesn't really matter in this discussion (and how can you be positive the other two didn't?).
Naturally, here's how the voting looks: Griffey - 57%, A-Rod - 30%, Bonds - 13%. What did you expect?
Healthy and in his prime, which player would you want on your team?I thought about it for a second...and then for another couple minutes...and I still couldn't decide. I'm a little young to remember Griffey in his prime, but I know he was an outstanding player. Bonds' offensive numbers are unbelievable, but that was in an era (21st century) where lots of people were putting up great offensive numbers, and he was a bad defender (at a relatively easy defensive position), while the other two were excellent defenders at tough positions. Let's break this thing down, stat-wise, using a player's five best consecutive years as his "prime".
-Barry Bonds
-Ken Griffey Jr.
-Alex Rodriguez
Barry Bonds: Bonds was a great player in the 90's, but according to his stats, his peak years were his 2000-2004 seasons. During these years, his average line was .341/.535/.782 (BA/OBP/SLG), which is absolutely ridiculous. For five years, he was getting on base more often than he was getting out. That's just amazing. His OPS for those five years - again, five whole years - was 1.317. I try to refrain from hyperbole, but I honestly don't think I'll see anyone string together five offensive seasons like that in my lifetime.
Young Bonds was a great defender, but 21st century Bonds was nothing close to that. During these peak years, Bonds was a combined -8 FRAA (Fielding Runds Above Average), which is actually a bit better than I thought. His baserunning skills were obviously almost gone by this time as well, but neither defect really comes close to cancelling out his hitting skills.
Let's look at some of the more advanced stats. His OPS+es from 2002, '01, and '04 are first, second, and third respectively all-time at 275, 262, and 260. (An OPS+ of 100 is league-average; the stat is adjusted for the league so it is comparable between eras.) And his 2003 OPS+ was 231, tied for 10th all-time. His 2000 OPS+ was "just" 191, good for 90th all-time, meaning that Bonds was in the top 100 for all five of his peak years. Neither A-Rod or Griffey have any seasons in the top 100. That's pretty good. Bonds' adjusted EqA was over .400 every year from 2001-2004, including two years above .450 ('02, '04). EqA takes into account all offensive contributions from a player, and is evaluated on the same scale as batting average; i.e., a .260 EqA is about average and a .300 EqA is roughly all-star caliber. So when a player posts a .456 EqA, like Bonds did in 2004, it means he's having possibly the greatest offensive season of all-time. Let's take a stat that includes defense as well: WARP3. WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) takes into account all contributions by a player, including defense, and it is possibly the most complete measure of a player's value avaliable. Bonds' WARPs during his peak ranged from 11.7 to 16.2, meaning that, for those years, Bonds alone gave the Giants 12-16 more wins than a replacement player (i.e., a AAA player or a mediocre utility guy) would have.
Here's Bonds' Baseball Prospectus player card, where I got all the info from; all the stats I used were adjusted for all-time.
Ken Griffey Jr: Griffey is known as the best all-around player in the 90's, and that is probably an accurate label. We have to cheat a little bit for Griffey, as he was hurt in 1995, so I'm going to use 1993-1998, excluding '95, as his prime years. This does include the strike-shortened '94 season, but all the stats I'm using are rate statistics, so that shouldn't make a difference. His average stat line over those years was .304/.390/.635, which isn't really even comparable to Bonds' raw line. Griffey was playing in the rather spacious Kingdome and in a less hitter-friendly era, but his OPS+ numbers still don't really compare - a peak of 172 in '93.
Still, Griffey gets a lot of points for being a great defender at a very important defensive position (center field). His FRAA is less than I thought it would be (a combined +12 over those five years), but he still gets a lot of points for being above average at a position that is tough to play. This is kind of off-topic, but Griffey's defense has been awful since 2001 - a combined -75 since then.
Griffey's EqA over those five seasons was very consistant - a low of .325 in '98, and a high of .345 in '94. Those are great numbers - a five-year peak like that, combined with a couple other good seasons, should make you a hall-of-famer. But they aren't even in the same spectrum as Bonds' EqAs. If you look at WARP3, the numbers get closer, however. Because Griffey's defense is factored in, the two players are actually comperable - Griffey's numbers range from 10.5 to 12.6, with three of his five years being above 12. Those are five great seasons, but they're still pretty significantly less than Bonds'. Looking at the numbers, I can't find any way to justify choosing Griffey over Bonds.
A-Rod: A-Rod's 2007 may change things somewhat, but for now, his peak years are 2000-2004, ironically the same years as Bonds'. His average line: .304/.396/.593. Again great numbers, very similar to Griffey's, but nowhere close to Bonds. His OPS+ numbers are even less impressive, But remember, A-Rod was a shortstop (the toughest defensive position besides catcher) for the first four of these years, peaking at "only" 167 in 2000. A-Rod gets kind of unfairly hurt by this system because his 2004 season wasn't that great; if I was able to include his 2005 MVP season, all his numbers would go up. But at this point I'm kind of stuck with the system I arbitrarily made up.
However, you have to remember that A-Rod was a shortstop (the toughest defensive position besides catcher) for the first four of these years, and he was a great shortstop to boot. His combined FRAA for those four years: +31, including an amazing +15 in 2000, his last year in Seattle. (Random note: he was awful last year at third, with a -18 FRAA - that means he cost the Yankees almost two full wins with his glove. Random note #2: In 2003, the year before A-Rod came to the Bronx, he posted a +8 FRAA. Jeter posted a -23. Guess who moved to third base?)
A-Rod's EqAs are relatively uninspiring for those five years, trending downwards from a .346 in 2000. But WARP3 likes him much better, because of his outstanding defense. His low was 10.0 in 2004 (although he went on to post a stellar 12.9 the next year), but his 14.6 in 2000 was outstanding. Overall, here's the average WARP3 for these three players during their peak years:
Bonds: 14.3
Griffey: 11.7
A-Rod: 12.9
So, based on these numbers and the others, I have to go with Bonds #1, A-Rod #2, and Griffey #3, and it's actually not even that close. Sure, Bonds probably used steroids, but that doesn't really matter in this discussion (and how can you be positive the other two didn't?).
Naturally, here's how the voting looks: Griffey - 57%, A-Rod - 30%, Bonds - 13%. What did you expect?
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)