Giants' Player Worth Through May
Here's part 2 of my monthly look at the contributions in win values of the Giants position players and starting pitchers.
As many of you know, the win value stat represents the latest, and by far the best IMO method to evaluate players. Using the best available offensive stat (wOBA), defensive stat (UZR) and pitching stat (FIP), win values literally allows one to assess how many wins a player has been worth compared to an equivalent minor league replacement (think Willie Bloomquest). Additionally, since major league teams pay roughly 5 million/ win on the FA market, win values enables us to think of player value in monetary terms (which is ridiculously cool and intuitive). Since MGL generously allowed access of UZR to fangraphs, win values are now updated continuously throughout the season. So how have the Giants done up to May 28th?
Disclaimer: UZR requires a large sample size (probably 1-2 seasons) before it is terribly accurate. 2 months of data still contains a tremendous amount of noise.
Here is the link to the april values
|
Player |
Defensive Runs Above Average (RAA) |
Offensive RAA |
Win Value total |
Win Value Change Since April |
Monetary Value (in millions) |
PA |
|
|
Winn |
4.5 |
.6 |
.9 |
+.9 |
4.2 |
|
|
|
Sandoval |
-.3 |
1.5 |
.7 |
+.5 |
3.3 |
|
|
|
Rowand |
-2.1 |
2.9 |
.7 |
+.7 |
3.1 |
|
|
|
Lewis |
-.2 |
1.2 |
.5 |
-.3 |
2 |
|
|
|
Molina |
NA |
-5.4 |
.4 |
-.1 |
1.7 |
|
|
|
Torres |
1.8 |
1.5 |
.4 |
0 |
1.7 |
13 (!) |
|
|
Renteria |
0 |
-4.8 |
.2 |
0 |
1.1 |
166 |
|
|
Ishikawa |
2.8 |
-3.4 |
.1 |
+.5 |
.3 |
121 |
|
|
Uribe |
-.8 |
-2.1 |
0 |
NA |
.1 |
74 |
|
|
Burris |
-2.4 |
-5.4 |
-.1 |
+.3 |
-.6 |
171 |
|
|
Schierholtz |
-.3 |
-4.6 |
-.4 |
NA |
-1.6 |
49 |
|
|
Velez |
-1.4 |
-4.2 |
-.4 |
-.1 |
-2 |
39 |
|
|
Aurilia |
1 |
-8.4 |
-.7 |
-.5 |
-3.2 |
68 |
|
|
Pitchers |
|
|
|
|
|
IP |
|
|
Lincecum |
|
|
3.0 |
+1.9 |
13.7 |
65 |
|
|
Cain |
|
|
.8 |
+.3 |
3.6 |
60 |
|
|
Johnson |
|
|
.5 |
+.6 |
2.3 |
52 |
|
|
Sanchez |
|
|
.5 |
+.5 |
2.1 |
42 |
|
|
Zito |
|
|
.5 |
+.3 |
2.0 |
56 |
|
THE MOST PATHETIC TABLE IN THE WORLD (Giants Fielders vs Timmy)
|
|
Lincecum |
Position Players (total) |
|
Win Values |
3 |
2.3 |
Observations:
1. Sometimes I find it reassuring when advanced stats jive with subjective analysis. We all know that the Giants' offense sucks so badly that it bends light and the starting pitching has been pretty good. The above chart confirms this knowledge. Our 5th starter (Zito) has been better than all but 3 of the Giants position players.
2. Randy Winn is turning in a typically classy season. Good defense and adequate offense a good baseball player make.
3. Aaron Rowand digs deep and pulls out some veteran grit!!!* UZR still hates him with the fury of 1000 suns (obviously the formula fails to take dirty uniforms into account). That said, his offensive explosion (thanks Grant) has compensated quite nicely. *NB Rowand dove when he read this sentence.
4. Fred Lewis makes my heart hurt. I have long defended Lewis' boneheaded fielding by pointing to the stats. Alas, the stats have started to reflect Lewis' error prone catastrofucks. He remains the 3rd most valuable Giants player but without good defense, he becomes significantly less valuable to real baseball teams.
5. Burris continues his existence as a replacement level ball player. It's pretty sad when one is the worst fielder AND the 2nd worst hitter and is not the least valuable player on one's own team. Furthermore, it's sad when one is the worst fielder and the 2nd worst hitter on a team and has actually improved his play over the past month.
6. Aurilia needs to go away. It is unacceptable when the worst hitter on the team plays 1st friggin' base.
7. Lincecum is unbelievably good. I would liken his right arm to the love child of a threeway between Jessica Alba, Angelina Jolie, and Miranda Kerr. That's how beautiful his arm is.
8. It's nice that Johnson has stopped sucking.
9. As befitting average starting pitchers, Sanchez and Zito have been average so far this season.
10. THE MOST PATHETIC TABLE IN THE WORLD is pretty self-explanatory. Lincecum has been more valuable than all our position players put together. Did I mention that the offense might have some problems?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
4 recs |
190 comments
Comments
Burriss looks like he should be a great defensive 2B, but somehow, I’m not surprised that (so far) he’s not.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on May 28, 2009 4:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been a little surprised by Burriss UZR rating, too. But it’s still pretty early and things could even out.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's strange
Because watching him he looks slick – but I believe the stats.
UZR loves TI.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really like to see 1,000 – 2,000 innings of UZR data before I start trying to peg a guy. Burriss might have been a little unlucky on his BIP distribution so far. His scouting reports make it sound like he should be good defensively at 2B.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I agree
But it is also worth noting that as a result, UZR says that Burris hasn’t been great so far.
UZR is kinda funny because even as an advanced stat, it is results based and is subject to all of the luck issues therin.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR is great but BIP distribution can be really skewed in smaller samples, so it’s always best to wait a little. That’s my approach at least.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but
The small samples are still meaningful in a results type of way.
UZR says that Burris has missed a lot of plays so far this season. That’s a fact. Likewise, TI has made a lot of plays this season.
No predictive value assumed.
It’s just a weird almost hybrid stat, and as such I don’t quite know how to swallow it.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR says that Burris has missed a lot of plays so far this season. That’s a fact. Likewise, TI has made a lot of plays this season.
Maybe, or he’s getting burned on BIP distribution.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
BIP distribution or not, he missed the balls.
Not making any comment on as to whether or not he SHOULD have got them, just that he didn’t.
And that is why it’s a weird stat.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The USSM primer on defense is a little outdated, but it brings up this point pretty well about BIP distribution in smaller samples and why you should wait:
http://ussmariner.com/2006/01/24/evaluating-defense/
Sample Size. The generally accepted principle in defensive statistics is that you need at least two years of data to generate any kind of real conclusion about a player’s abilities, and you’d prefer to have more. With Betancourt, we basically have 1/3 of one season. There are just way too many non-fielding factors that could influence the number over that period of time. Ball in play distribution is a huge factor in small sample defensive numbers, for instance. If Betancourt happened to receive more easy to field grounders than others, his number would be through the roof. If teams were whacking uncatchable balls into the hole, his rating would suffer, and because of the small time frame, the impact of a few extra balls here and there would be magnified greatly.
Cookyman brought to my attention that the sample size for relevant fielding data could be smaller (I still haven’t found the actual link/comment) but the same idea should apply. Burriss’ scouting reports lead us to believe that he should be decent at 2B and while his 369 innings at 2B tell us something this year, it doesn’t tell us a whole lot.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, looking at his component UZR scores, his range is a little above average for 2B which is fine. He’s getting dinged for the error runs portion of UZR which rate him at -3.3 runs so far. Maybe he’s just had some bad breaks on balls?
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's just had some bad brains on balls
From my personal observation. EX: last night. He should have made that play – all the components said so.
He was there, his glove was down, etc. Nothing especially hard.
He just kinda didn’t. That’s a focus and fundamentals thing that isn’t unheard of with young players in an exciting environment.
I’d guess Burriss’ low UZR rating has more to do w/ that type of situation thusfar than it does w/ a lack of range or any other component skill.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Just from my eyes*, Burriss’ range looks fine but he runs into trouble once he gets there. Sorta like the opposite of Derek Jeter.
/SICK BURN
*This doesn’t mean much
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 28, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to see
how far to the right these reply things can go. Let’s try to get it down to one word per line!
by quincy0191 on May 29, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s been done. It breaks the thread.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 29, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wide format FTW!
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
by bondslegend on Jun 2, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does look slick...
But he has a lame back-hand (similar to Ray Durham) and he’s prone to brick-glove errors.
by AmorVincitOmnia on May 28, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting that Johnson > Zito even though his ERA is nearly 2 runs higher. I know that ERA can be misleading, but could one of our beloved statlympians explain this to me?
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on May 28, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Johnson has a much better K-Rate and a better walk rate as well.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on May 28, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers have finite control...
over the outcome of balls put in play (they do have some but not as much as many people think). The outcome of a hit pitch depends on fielder ability and positioning. Randy Johnson’s “defense independent” ERA is not all that much different than Zito’s (4.69 vs 4.40)
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that FIP is not truely defense independent
Because the number of batters faced per inning is largely defense dependent ;)
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, I guess that, combined with what jponry said, could do it…
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on May 28, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOLrlya
I expected Rowand and Johnson to be worse
The artist formerly known as Set-up man
by CB30 on May 28, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My face hurts.
Original member of the Van Buren Boys
by NuschlerFace on May 28, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
TRA is essentially....
a modified form of FIP. Tom Tango (AKA Tangotiger) spent a long time showing that one is not particularly superior to the other.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Link ?
I’d be interested in this. I understand that TRA and FIP are in many ways similar, but TRA captures a lot of other aspects that FIP does not.
I’ve also got a personal gripe against FIP but I haven’t come public with it yet. Not sure how significant it is.
Would apply to TRA as well, or any innings based stat.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have personal issues with FIP as well. Not a huge fan of it in many cases.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read this as I have personal issues with FP as well. Not a huge fan of it in many cases. And I agree 100%.
Supporting San Francisco Dugout since 2005 and Manny Burriss since 2006, and bringing you all your California League needs since 2009.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 1, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t live in the Bay Area at the moment so my FP exposure is pretty much nonexistant…
by Missing Barry on Jun 1, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Cake > Pie
Tommy Lasorda HATES GIANTSBOARD.COM
Cut and Pasted Blog redundancy can be a good thing
Say Hey! Say Who? Say Willie, that Giant Kid is Great!
by merkin on May 29, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m surprised Molina’s win value has only dipped .1… May has been a disaster for him.
by SeeingStars on May 28, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Worthy of note:
Ishikawa and Burriss are both playing @ replacement level, and that’s exactly what they are. Players you have floating around in your farm system or otherwise pay nothing for.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also,
Kenshin – could you elaborate on how these values are related to playing time?
Is it cumulative or rate based? I haven’t really taken the opportunity to do more than glance at them since fangraphs made them available.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The more you play, the more wins you add.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but you can also add negative wins
Correct?
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think of it as adding positive runs (by doing good things) vs. adding negative runs (not doing things well). At the end of the season, tally it all up and divide by 10 to convert to wins.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I thought
Just wanted to check
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I understand it
Lincecum has contributed a positive 3 wins thusfar this season. If he played out the rest of the season @ replacement level, he would still retain those 3 wins.
But if he continues to play at his current level, he may end up worth something like 9 wins this season.
However, if he struggles and falls below replacement level that number will start going down and he could end up at something like a net replacement level season
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
though he is not going to get 9 wins
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OH NOOS
I’VE BEEN FOUND OUT
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, since I’ve got you here. I’m going to update my site soon. I’m working on a overperformer/underperfomer set of graphs for the pitchers. I’ve just been getting slammed with work and I’ve got no time for fun stuff.
/sad
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually assumed it was work related.
I just didn’t know if it was too much work vs OMG I NEED TO FIND A ((*@ JOB
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I got laid off and re-hired under a new position that’s eating all of my time. In my old position I had so much free time (hello blog updates) not anymore.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like a clever trick on the part of your employer ;)
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was all a clever ruse to stress me out!
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, you’re telling me that Rich Aurilia isn’t good?
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not at all...
he is a clubhouse leader and chemistry guy. He probably contributes 5-10 wins with his leadership alone.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would trade him for Carlos Beltran.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe if they throw in a prospect?
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FERNANDO TATIS
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OT: But Tatis has surprised me by becoming a useful player.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure,
But he has Sabean bait written all over him
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lastly
It would be interesting to see this vs. WPA.
kinda like FIP v. ERA, see who should be producing based on peripherials vs. who has produced based on luck.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I forgot to include a note about Sandoval.
Panda is awesome. That is all.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hey, are the monetary values based off of league average salaries?
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on May 28, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
monetary value is based off the free agent market
most years teams pay around 5 million dollars for each win above a replacement player.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was 4.5?
Not to pick on you Kenshin :)
I also think there is an inherent problem with this value being assumed to be linear, but that’s another topic for another day.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no one...
is really under the illusion that it’s linear. It costs significantly less to go from a 30 win team (replacment level) to a 40 win team than it does to go from 90 to 100 wins. This is the concept of the marginal cost of each win (which is beyond the scope of this analysis)
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I know
Just something else that has been on my mind, and I think something that gets lost when people complain “OMG MANNY IS ONLY A 3 WIN PLAYER BUT THEY ARE PAYING HIM 25M”
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's different...
they are legitimately overpaying him.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most analysis that I’ve seen on Manny also state that there are some off-field revenues that might be generated by him playing for the Dodgers. Tickets, stupid wigs, etc.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I would argue
That the marginal cost of each additional win is higher than the last for a given player, potentially exponentially.
IE, if it costs you 16 × 5 m (80m) to field a team of 2 win players, it’s gonna cost you a lot more to get those next 4 WAR than it would to just add another couple 2 win players – ‘cause you can’t get him on the field.
So to get those next 4 WAR, the group of players who can provide it is much smaller ( players greater than 2 WAR) and as such cost is higher.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you’re showing him as a negative defender, which I refuse to believe
/end rant.exe
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on May 28, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sample size issues AND
Sandoval has actually been better according to UZR in May than in April. He’s clearly a legitimate 3rd baseman and may be a good one!
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My body bias won’t let me believe this!
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s OK, tell your body bias that he would be even better if he dropped around 40 pounds…
Duane Kuiper: Hall Of Fame broadcaster.
by Johnny Disaster on May 28, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is just because your wafer thin and board at teh same time.
/ ducks
Where is my beer & chili dog?
by daveinexile on May 29, 2009 6:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alas, the stats have started to reflect Lewis’ error prone catastrofucks.
catastrofuck… that’s the word I’ve been looking for!!!
by KrazyKrabMeat on May 28, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I stole it from the daily show
but am not positive.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's face it
You steal everything from The Daily Show.
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep...
I’m a pot smoking 40 something NY Jew who OWNS traditional news casters.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You ever see Tim Lincecum’s FIP on weed, man?
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his changeup would probably be...
pretty sweet on drugs, actually.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that you mention it...
…this post is oddly reminiscent of that segment John Oliver did the other night…you know, the one about the worth of Giants players through May.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of that before.
Meet my new son: Sundrendy Windster, coming soon to a minor league near you.
by EliminateMe on May 28, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
awesome punk band name
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on May 29, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's WPA for batters
FWIW:
Name Pos WPA
Randy Winn OF 0.99
Edgar Renteria SS 0.86
Pablo Sandoval 3B 0.74
Aaron Rowand OF 0.33
Rich Aurilia 1B 0.17
Emmanuel Burriss 2B 0.07
Fred Lewis OF 0.01
Tim Lincecum P -0.11
Juan Uribe 3B/SS -0.25
Nate Schierholtz OF -0.54
Eugenio Velez 2B/OF -0.59
Bengie Molina C -0.60
Travis Ishikawa 1B -0.85
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Much
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting to see Aurilia
So low in in actual WinValues but relatively high in WPA.
So he’s been really lucky so far… he’s mostly only sucked when it didn’t matter.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Renteria
has only hit with men on base.
co-dad of IshikaBOOM w/AfDC.
Ishikawa, let the boy hit against lefties.
by kennv on May 28, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
only slightly less clutch than
Bengie…. hmmm…
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on May 29, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers
Name WPA
Matt Cain 1.37
Tim Lincecum 1.13
Jeremy Affeldt 1.01
Brandon Medders 0.50
Justin Miller 0.47
Barry Zito 0.14
Randy Johnson -0.27
Merkin Valdez -0.40
Jonathan Sanchez -0.59
Bob Howry -0.68
Brian Wilson -1.43
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cain> Timmy!
interesting.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not surprising
Cain’s been luckier than Tim, and their respective ERA’s reflect this.
Cain’s high strand rate contributes directly to WPA.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m surprised by the difference in our pitching staffs cumulative WPA compared to their cumulative win values from Fangraphs, though Kenshin didn’t include the relievers in the post…
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I’m not surprised since one is win values above replacement level and one is just dividing up win probabilities…so nevermind.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MATT CAIN
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on May 28, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Medders score surprises me. Thanks for the learnin’.
/ tip cap
Where is my beer & chili dog?
by daveinexile on May 29, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that might all be from that one extra inning game in AZ.
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on May 29, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting that Lincecum somehow
Snuck in w/ over 20 AB’s.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See what happens when Boch leave him in an extra inning every time?
co-dad of IshikaBOOM w/AfDC.
Ishikawa, let the boy hit against lefties.
by kennv on May 28, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Lastly
Looks like Mr “clutch” Molina has fucked up more rallys than anyone except Ishikawa.
Perception is not always reality :)
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what his WPA was before his May stinker?
by xanthan on May 28, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably really high
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bengie has looked pretty horrible in the past month, and we’ve all noticed it.
Judgment Day is coming
comics | art | Nattowear
by Natto on May 28, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes
But has he looked like the second worst situational hitter on the team for the season?
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure if you think you can remember some nice rallys with runners on third that ended with a Molina GIDP, just off the top of your head.
by paboperfecto on May 29, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis at .5 wins at the end of April. He played at replacement level for all of May.
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on May 28, 2009 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's pretty much at replacement level by WPA, too
He’s been a little unlucky, but not a whole lot.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since WPA is so context dependent, using it over such small sample sizes isn’t a good idea. Think about it this way – Pablo’s walk off against the Nationals was worth .83 WPA. In other words, Lewis is one game-winning hit away from having the highest WPA on the team.
Also, Lewis’s WPA is around average (technically .01 games above it), not replacement level.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 28, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, I realize
I just posted it up here to compare WPA (context dependent) vs. Kenshin’s Values (context neutral) to see how they compared.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see a problem with WPA over small samples. Sure Sandoval’s numbers get skewed by one event – but with that event he really did contribute nearly a win to the team on his own. As long as you realize in small samples there are going to be large differences in the situations players have faced, there really isn’t a problem.
I’m actually beginning to think I like WPA better than win values over small samples, because WPA takes the context into account and win values hasn’t had a large enough sample for context to average out, yet.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s apples and oranges. If I want a stat that takes context into account, I might look at WPA. If I want a context neutral stat, I’ll use win values. This doesn’t mean one is better than the other (it depends on what question you are trying to answer).
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, I understand. My point is in this specific situation – we’re looking at who’s contributed to the Giants W-L record and have a small sample to look at – is the stat with context is better. The reason context neutral stats work well is over a large sample, everything regresses to the mean “context” of 0 – for example, when looking at clutch hitting, the mean “context” is 0 because the difference between hitting in the clutch and hitting in other situations is 0. Players perform the same in both contexts on average. So assuming you have a large enough sample, the context doesn’t matter because over time it evens out. When looking at a small sample, however, like the limited season we’ve seen, the context does matter. The context the player has performed in tangibly affects the Giants W-L record to this date. The longer into the season we go, though, the less the context will matter for our stats because the players hitting in the clutch and in normal situations will regress towards each other.
I’ve given this enough thought basically to write this post, any counter discussion points are appreciated.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to see exactly how valuable each player has been, then it makes sense. But if you’re trying to evaluate each player’s skills, and try to see who is likely to be more valuable for the rest of the season and in the future in general, then WPA should be ignored.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s what it looks to me like we’re trying to do here. If we were looking at what they were likely to do for the rest of the season, we’d look at a table like Fangraphs updated projections for the Giants, or something else similar.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, really we are doing Both
Kenshin posted how well the giants players have played to date, and I posted in what the results of that play was.
What Kenshin posted has some predictive value, what I posted has none.
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was actually at .8 at the end of april.
he’s been sub-replacement level :-(
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems we have another data point in favor of the “Randy Winn can’t hit in April” hypothesis.
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on May 28, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Schierholtz owes us 1.6 mil
Keeping on SWOOPing in the free world! Also, by the reflexive property of the rubber/glue playground comeback, I enjoy wearing hats on my ass.
by SneakToBetterSeats on May 28, 2009 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Aurilia...
owes 3.2 plus reparations for all our squandered good will that carried over from his last stint with the Giants.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since Nate doesn't have 1.6 million...
…Aurilia should do the veteran clubhouse leader thing and cover both their shares.
Meet my new son: Sundrendy Windster, coming soon to a minor league near you.
by EliminateMe on May 28, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fred Lewis makes my heart hurt. I have long defended Lewis’ boneheaded fielding by pointing to the stats. Alas, the stats have started to reflect Lewis’ error prone catastrofucks.
Huh? So far, UZR has him as completely average for the season. Also, using 300 innings of UZR is the equivalent of using maybe 80 of PA’s of some fancy hitting stat. Overall, in almost 1,400 career innings in LF, Lewis is at +7.9 runs per 150 games played, comfortably above average.
Anyway, I still say that you don’t have to be a stat guy in order to agree that Lewis is average or better in LF, or at least to understand why a case could be made that he is. Lewis is very bad at judging the ball and taking routes, one of the worst in the majors. Lewis is also very fast. Most LF are really not fast. In fact, Lewis is the fastest LF in the majors, except for Carl Crawford, who is really a CF playing LF. Judging the ball and then running to it is all you have to do in order to get to the ball. Lewis is one of the worst at the first, and one of the best at the second. I’m not sure which is more important, nor do I know how one would find out. We should all agree, though, that they are both very important, and that whichever is more important, it’s most likely not by a large margin. Therefore, a player who excels in one field and sucks at the other, like Fred, is probably around average, in terms of getting to the ball.
I think we should all also agree that Fred has very bad hands, and a good arm for a LF. Thing is, having good hands, while pretty important for IF, isn’t really important for OF, because they have such a relatively long time respond to the balls they have to catch, and because they don’t get funny bounces or anything. Having a good arm, on the other hand, is pretty important. Not as important as catching the ball, but definitely more important than having good hands.
So you’ve got a guy who’s somewhere around average at catching the ball – maybe a bit above average, maybe a bit below – and has an arm that’s worth a few extra runs. That adds up to a fielder who is somewhere between average and above-average-but-not-great.
Lewis is in no way a smooth fielder, and he does not look good on the field. Sometimes it feels like every ball hit to him is an adventure. He can also be pretty frustrating to watch, because you feel that he has the physical tools to be not just a great LF, but a good CF too, and yet he lacks the “mental” tools one needs for that. But the thing is – I don’t care. I don’t judge a fielder by how nice he looks on the field, or by how confident he looks with the glove, or by what he could or should have been. All that matters is that he makes outs. Preferably more outs than the average fielder at his position. If he can do that, then it doesn’t matter if he’s classy like Randy or butchery like Fred.
Back to the stats – like I said, UZR has him at about 8 runs above the average LF over his career. The sample size is pretty decent, but far from great. Overall, I’m willing to say that Lewis is somewhere between 0 and 8 runs above the average LF. They might be the ugliest 8 runs in the majors, but that really doesn’t matter.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 28, 2009 5:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I basically agree with this
Broadly, Fred is a solid player, who has the highest OBP on this god-forsaken offense. There’s significant value in that. Yes, its frustrating to watch him K all the time, but its better than the 3,000 GIDP’s we see from Bengie, for example (fun fact – Lewis has been better offensively than Bengie this season, without taking positional considerations into account).
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.
by Aadik on May 28, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with everything written
Lewis will probably end up a +whatever defender by the end of the year and then the haters can STFU.
by superk1ng on May 28, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree but
What’s sad to me is that:
(a) He’s being compared to the 2nd-worst set of defenders in the field.
and
(b) Unless he starts reading the ball of the bat and getting into his routes better, he’s going to be a bad defender once his speed starts to betray him.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 28, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(a) He’s being compared to the 2nd-worst set of defenders in the field.
Well, yeah, but on offense he’s being compared to the 2nd-best set of hitters in the majors. That’s the way it is.
(b) Unless he starts reading the ball of the bat and getting into his routes better, he’s going to be a bad defender once his speed starts to betray him
Yup. He’s very athletic, so I think he could stay a decent fielder for at least another 3-4 years, but at some point he won’t have the speed to make up for the routes. It sucks that he made the majors so late, his career probably isn’t going to be very long.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 28, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, but on offense he’s being compared to the 2nd-best set of hitters in the majors.
Are you sure? I’m pretty sure that Fangraphs compares players’ wOBA to league average (in general, and possibly including pitchers) wOBA….
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 28, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there’s a positional adjustment in the win value totals
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on May 28, 2009 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, I know. But that’s based on defense, not offense.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 28, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the same thing. Positional adjustments can be made based on the defensive differences between the positions, or based on the offensive differences between them. Fangraphs use one that is based on defense, and they just add it to the win total. So in Kenshin’s table, both Lewis’s offensive and defensive numbers are without a positional adjustment, only his total WAR is adjusted for position (knocked him down from .7 WAR to .5).
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not really the same thing.
Colin Wyers explains why in this comment (and in subsequent comments).
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 29, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that it’s two methods that try to have the same effect – adjust for the differences between the positions. Obviously, since they are two different methods, they won’t give exactly the same result.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh ok
Now I gotcha.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 29, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless he starts reading the ball of the bat and getting into his routes better, he’s going to be a bad defender once his speed starts to betray him.
Lewis is still relatively young. I would hope by the time he loses a step, we’ll have upgraded the LF position.
I like Lewis, but don’t see him as a guy you’d back up a dump truck full of money to keep when he becomes a FA.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on May 29, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he’s 28, which I wouldn’t call young. It’s really not old either, but it’s around the age where players start to decline physically. Fred’s athletic, and has managed to avoid injuries over his career (except for bunions), so he could maintain his speed into his early 30’s, but at some point he’s going to start declining, and it won’t be pretty. I doubt it would take that much money to keep him, but I agree that he’s not a good candidate for an extension.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Fred
Is a good candidate to get moved at next years deadline as a role player on a contender assuming we arent. He doesn’t forecast in my mind to be a long term part of this team.
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems to me like he’s likely to be underrated by most GM’s, both as a hitter and as a fielder, so I don’t know what we could get for him. Problem is, I think Sabean might be one of those GM’s. Anyway, Winn is leaving, Schierholtz is a pretty big question mark, and we don’t really have any good OF prospects close to the majors (best is probably Bowker, who’s shown improved patience but little power in Fresno), so maybe we should hang on to our outfielders.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
That LF is one of the few places the team could hope to upgrade this coming offseason/ deadline
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do explain.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there’s this LF in Oakland…..
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005. And winner of the 2012 NL Fireman of the Year Award!
by Lyle on Jun 2, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dola, why UZR Kenshin?
I don’t trust BP’s fielding metrics, but my general impression has been that the Fielding Bible is probably the best source out there. I guess they may not have in-season updates.
On Burriss, it sure doesn’t look like he has the arm to play SS, but he definitely seems to have greater range than our SS, for example.
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.
by Aadik on May 28, 2009 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2 reasons (1 important and 1 less important)
1. the less important reason is that I am under the impression that their is not a huge difference in quality between +/-, PMR and UZR.
2. much more importantly: Fangraphs calculates win values using UZR. I probably could do it manually with +/- but that would be a huge pain in the ass and WAY too time consuming.
Flossing a dead horse
by kenshin1 on May 28, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think you’re used to having a huge pain in your ass.
(Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on May 29, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR has more parameters than Plus/Minus.
/SICK BURN
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 28, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lincecum is god
Too bad his fluky ERA and our shitty offense is going to keep him repeating as the Cy Young Award winner, because he’d be the clear winner if the writers took saber stats in to account. Santana can SUCK IT!
by superk1ng on May 28, 2009 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But it’s going to be ok when it’s Cain winning the Cy Young…
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just like it was okay when Kent won the MVP instead of Bonds.
by paboperfecto on May 29, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m assuming sarcasm here? It would have been ok if Kent was cool like Cain…but it was Kent.
by Missing Barry on May 29, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was cool, as long as he was a Giant. Barry and his pharmacist didn’t need to win it every year.
Duane Kuiper: Hall Of Fame broadcaster.
by Johnny Disaster on May 29, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ishikawa
earning his keep. Next step: a positive offensive RAA.
co-dad of IshikaBOOM w/AfDC.
Ishikawa, let the boy hit against lefties.
by kennv on May 28, 2009 9:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's getting there.
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's one to screw your brain
2009 Manny Ramirez (120 PA’s) 1.3 WAR
2009 Juan Pierre(129 PA’s) 1.7 WAR
2009 Casey Blake (177 PA’s) 1.6 WAR
Who MR when you’ve got Juan Pierre and Casey Blake ?
Why can’t this happen to the Giants? Why can’t Edgar Renteria or Juan Uribe show up and go on a 2 WAR over 200 PA tear?
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2009 10:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
my brain feels very relaxed suddenly
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on May 29, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My brain just rolled over and went to sleep.
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bochy?
Judgment Day is coming
comics | art | Nattowear
by Natto on May 29, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My brain is sleeping on the wet spot.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on May 29, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK this is driving me nuts.
you cannot list Andres Torres UZR as +1.8 runs. He’s played less than 23 innings! His UZR/150 is 148! That would be like 6 Ozzie Smiths all in the same year.
He’s made 7 Putouts. 7! How does 7 outs = 1.8 runs? And that’s assuming that they were all impossible catches no CF makes!
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on May 29, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I'm not sure how that happened
But it’s there. Has he really just made that many brilliant plays in his short time in the OF ?
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn't even pass the sniff test.
unless they were literally all singles saved – that no average fielder makes.
Probably what is going on that is there were, statistically zero or very few hits to his zone(s) during those innings.
He got most of his innings on 4/22 a 10 inning 8-hitter.
Here are the Pods hits from that game:
single LF
single RF
single SS
single RF
*single CF
ground-rule double (I guess this cannot be fielded?)
single LF
and another 8 hitter (3 runs for ARZ) on 4/25
single LF
*double CF
(HR)
(HR)
single 3B
ground rule DB
double LF
single LF
and I count 6 outs to CF. So that’s your sample size. 2 hits/6 outs, and probably 1 out in one of his substitute innings.
It STILL seems high, unless OFs normally convert only 50% of their chances.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on May 29, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All this proves is that any defensive stat that shows Burriss is a substandard fielder is flawed. Not to worry, most of them are. I’ve seen ones that showed Vizquel was as well. It’s all a work in progress when it comes to defensives stats. The lesson is to use both stats and your eyes – neither are perfect. However, when a stat is telling you something your eyes say is plainly not true, then don’t be afraid to question the validity of the stat.
My take, and it’s not anything others haven’t said, is that Burriss looks to be an excellent defensive second baseman, with limited experience with the bat at the major league level. I’d go with the strategy of getting him the ML time and plate appearances necessary to prove whether or not his bat can come close to his play at second. Really what have the Giants to lose by doing so? What they have to lose by not doing so, is losing someone who could be a very special player for years to come.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All this proves is that any defensive stat that shows Burriss is a substandard fielder is flawed. Not to worry, most of them are.
Oh, ok.
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny because
My eyes tell me that Burris has the tools to be an excellent defensive second baseman, but he’s made some bonerheaded plays so far this season that have cost him. Missed balls he was there for, rushed throws, balls in and out of glove, etc.
Coincidentally, that is pretty much what UZR says too.
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your eyes and mine see the same thing. Plays like the other night in which a ball, that should have been an easy play, went right under Burriss’s glove and led to two unearned runs are frustrating, but I remember Ozzie Smith making a lot of similar plays when he was a very young player. The important thing to me is looking at the spectacular plays Burriss has made which show his range, great hands, his ability to turn the double play when under pressure, and an arm that allows him to make plays that many second basemen simply can’t. I don’t see a UZR of -2.4 (if I’m reading the OP correctly) as reflective of any of that.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
So you see him make bad plays, and conclude he will be an excellent second baseman?
You saw him make bad plays, UZR did too. And UZR recorded it. You may think he will be an excellent second baseman some day, but your eyes and UZR agree that he has not been yet.
So like, what’s the problem with UZR again?
It’s a results based stat. It records what we see (and some things we may not).
That’s all. No predictive value assumed.
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All players make some bonehead plays. Mays did, Ozzie did, Brooks Robinson did. Burriss has made a few. To magnify those few and to ignore the many great plays Burriss has made and what they mean about his talent as a defensive player, and then to accept a judgement that somehow he is a substandard defensive player, all based on a simple -2.4 score would seem to indicate, is simply crazy.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
I didn’t say he could not become good. I said he hasn’t been good.
That’s a fact, supported by UZR as well as our eyes.
He’s been a below average second baseman on defense so far this season.
I’m pretty sure he will turn out to be above average, but he’s got a long way to go with the glove if he is gonna make up for the bat
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’re still in SSS territory with Burriss. And besides, we’re still in the early chapters of “Burtiss’ Conversion from SS to 2B”. I think defensively he’ll be fine of better. What I really want to see is an OBP consistently over 350.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on May 29, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely no disagreement with most of that, especially with the last part. While I love Burriss’s glove, I don’t think it means he is the answer to the Giants needs at second. I hope he is, but it is too early to tell. If you could kindly translate the “SSS” for me we might agree regarding all your points. ;)
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops. I just realized “SSS” equals small sample size – right? Sorry, I should have figured that one out. We do agree on all your points.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we include last years stats (which you should always do when dealing with fielding stats), UZR has him at five runs above average per season. Still too small a sample size, though. BTW, his range according to UZR is fantastic, it’s the errors that have kept him from posting great numbers.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And four errors in about a quarter of a season are indicative of almost nothing. So, yes, in this we absolutely agree – too small a sample size for that number to be meaningful.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It includes last year, so that’s 8 errors in half a season, but yeah.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JOE MORGAN APOLOGIST!
Tommy Lasorda HATES GIANTSBOARD.COM
Cut and Pasted Blog redundancy can be a good thing
Say Hey! Say Who? Say Willie, that Giant Kid is Great!
by merkin on May 29, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts: for support rather than for illumination”
Andrew Lang
Questioning information is always good. Ignoring it, or concluding that it’s false only because it doesn’t fit your prior assumptions is very bad. You should see all the evidence, and then form an opinion, not form an opinion and then cherry pick the evidence that supports it.
Fielding statistics are flawed. So are our eyes (if they weren’t, we wouldn’t need stats at all). When stats contradict what you think your eyes saw, you should not only question the stat, but also your prior obbservations.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, i don’t disagree with any of this. However, I like what Bill James said about defensive stats in his article on relative range factors:
For what it is worth, it seems to me that there are three essential tests of whether or not a fielding statistic "works", which are:emphasis added
1. Does it deliver results consistent with the observations of informed observers?
2. Does it make assessments of defensive performance consistent with other statistical tools?
And
3. Internal consistency. Do players who do well one year tend to do well the following season?"
As an example of what he means in his point number one I’d point to an example James later goes on to say about relative range factors and the case of Omar Vizquel:
Vizquel is not Bowa; he doesn’t come out as being hundreds of plays below average in career range. He’s +63 in 1991, +29 in 2003, +22 in 2005, and above water in some other seasons. Still, for his career, he shows as -106, with a career Relative Range Factor of .990.
There are a lot of people whose opinions I respect who will tell you that Vizquel is the greatest shortstop who ever lived. I respect the data; I respect the facts— but I respect the opinions of professional baseball men, too. Vizquel does something awfully well that we’re just not picking up. I don’t think we’re in any position, at this point, to reach the conclusion that the numbers are right and the observations of professionals are baseless.
emphasis added
To his second point, dealing with consistency the Giants’ site recently posted an article that puts Burriss among the top four defensive second basemen in the league:
Whether they’re aware of it or not, some Giants players grade out quite well on these new scales. Second baseman Emmanuel Burriss, shortstop Edgar Renteria and left fielder Fred Lewis are all among the top four at their positions in National League ZR, while Ishikawa is best among first basemen
So what are we to believe? Now, I’m not sure if this is the same stat source used by kenshin in his OP, but if it is then there aren’t many decent second basemen in the National League for Burriss to rank fourth, or there is a huge discrepancy between two different looks at the same stat. My take is to look at them all with a very large grain of salt and see if they jive with what we see on the field. Defensive stats are notoriously unreliable, even if the recent advances make them much better than the old stand-bys, something I certainly believe to be true.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That article on SF giants
Clearly cherry picked between ZR, UZR, etc to highlight the ones which made the players look the best.
Burriss has shown good range – and as such has a decent RF – he also has shown stone hands and brain at times and that has hurt his UZR.
I’m not sure what is so challenging about this? The data contained in UZR pretty much agrees with what all of our eyes see. Good range, occasional mishandling of the ball.
by FairweatherFan on May 29, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
James has done some great things for the game of baseball, but he is well past his prime. He’s written some pretty bad stuff over the past few years. This is one of them. In his defense, Range Factor is terrible, so I’m not surprised he doesn’t trust it.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Past his prime?
LOL, I was not aware there was a “prime” age for a baseball statistician. Damn, I learn something new every day – even at my advanced age.
What’s the part of this article you don’t like? The part where he shows respect for “professional baseball men” and their opinions?
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree with Cookyman. James’ new stuff isn’t remotely close to his old stuff. His style has definitely changed, which is fine, but he’s not as numbers based as he once was.
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be you’re right, xanthan, but then maybe it’s because James has decided that the numbers do not show enough, particularly when it comes to the defensive part of the game, to justify as much of a reliance on them as others do. It seems to me, that part of being a good statistician is knowing the limitations of what your numbers show you. That looks to me what James is doing, and I appreciate that view.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, I would say that James has maybe gotten old and he’s not as passionate about numbers like he once was? We all change as people as we age. Maybe James no longer wanted to crunch numbers in the same way that he once did?
I don’t think his style changing is a rebuttal of statistics or whatever. I just think he changed as a person.
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that James is reluctant to use other statistics that supercede his (e.g. BaseRuns over Runs Created, anything over Range Factor) and is ok with just being a good writer now and not a groundbreaking stats guy.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 29, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this too! I haven’t seen him embrace many new metrics.
by xanthan on May 29, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GROUP THINK!!!!!
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on May 29, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not trying to rebut statistics; I love the use of baseball stats as much as anyone, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t be careful in thinking they are more than just a tool that can, if used correctly, illuminate part of reality, not the whole of it.
As to James, I can’t say one way or another what his reasons for any change in view – I don’t know the man or have any knowledge from any other source that could be the basis for an informed opinion.
by Sayhey on May 29, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding how he’s slipped, to me it’s not that he’s not writing about stats. It’s that when he does, it’s he’s just not that good. He’s all famous now, and he’s trying to be more mainstream, which is great for him, but it has hurt the level of his writing, IMO. There are just better writers out there.
Anyway, notice that James is actually closer to agreeing with me than with you:
There are a lot of people whose opinions I respect who will tell you that Vizquel is the greatest shortstop who ever lived. I respect the data; I respect the facts— but I respect the opinions of professional baseball men, too. Vizquel does something awfully well that we’re just not picking up. I don’t think we’re in any position, at this point, to reach the conclusion that the numbers are right and the observations of professionals are baseless.
He’s not saying that when stats and scouting disagree, you should just go with your (or somebody else’s) eyes – which is what I originally criticized you for doing – he’d just saying that we still can’t determine that stats > scouts, which is something I never argued. In fact, it’s pretty similar to my original point – that since both methods have their flaws, we should question both of them, not just blindly pick one over the other.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 29, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
…and Miranda Kerr.
If was picking a Victoria’s Secret model, I would have gone with Alessandra Ambrosio, but hey, to each his own.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
by wjackalope on May 29, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand all this mathifying
but I seem to be reading this table to say Rich Aurilia owes Giants fans $3,200,000.
I’d like mine in $10s and $20s.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
There's 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power/ Ginats Way...
by natteringnabob on Jun 9, 2009 6:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what's not funny
Yes, that’s what the table is saying.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Jun 9, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















