Nyjer Morgan = Adam Dunn??
by Hobbes2d on Jul 2, 2009 12:33 PM PDT
74 comments
I wanted to post this last night, but there's a really good article (and consequently debate in the comments) on comparing the relative value of offensive sluggers who are poor defensively like Adam Dunn, to defensive specialists who bring little value with the bat like Nyjer Morgan. I figure it's a pretty apt thing to look at given all those who think the Giants need to add a bat like Dunn or Jermaine Dye so badly, while ignoring the kind of value that a player like Randy Winn brings, and that in most circumstances Winn is more valuable then most slugging OF'ers, or at least has been in past seasons.
One thing I think is really interesting also, is the debate over defensive metrics as a whole, as they certainly are not what one could deem being an exact science. Whereas offensive value and stats/metrics etc are a little more clear cut and easy to understand.
Anyway, here is the link and a little blurb for those that haven't already read it. I left out most of the meat, which is where Cameron breaks down their strengths in offense, baserunning and defense and talks about where they each are valuable and by how much etc.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/morgan-dunn
Hitting: Dunn, +45
Baserunning, Morgan, +4
Defense, Morgan, +35Total: Dunn, +6
The gap between Dunn and Morgan, going forward, is expected to be about half a win per season if you use conservative estimates of their respective defensive value.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way that the response from the sabermetric community around these two moves matches that reality. If paying Adam Dunn $10 million per season to be a +2.5 win player is a good idea, then paying Nyjer Morgan $400,000 to be a +2 win player is a great idea. There is no world in which Dunn’s production and salary is more valuable than Morgan’s production and salary. You could acquire 100 Lastings Milledge’s for the amount of money that Dunn is getting to be the big, power hitting equal of Morgan.
There’s just no way around the real conclusion - the sabermetric community, for the most part, has a blindspot when it comes to players with defensive skills at the extremes of the spectrum. Given the cost differences, Morgan is clearly a more valuable asset than Dunn, yet his acquisition is mocked while Dunn’s is celebrated.
Baseball is not just about who can hit the ball further. It’s time we stopped evaluating players on their offensive worth alone.
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.
0 recs |
74 comments
Email
Print
Comments
i agree that offensive worth alone is not an accurate reflection of a player. however, tell me if this line of reasoning doesn’t make sense…
defensive ability means less to a team whose pitchers have a higher strikeout rate than a team that has pitchers who give up a lot more ground or flyballs. brandon webb needs solid defense a hell of a lot more than timmy does….correct? therefore having a hitter that can create automatic runs in one swing for a cy young type pitcher would be of much higher value than a good field, no hit kind of guy. especially when the defense is pretty sound at most of the other spots.
i think the giants are in a statistically unique situation. normally, great pitching staffs need the best defense possible…but the less balls are hit to those defenders, the less value fielding has….yes?
or am i retardedly off base?
Les Plack = more chicks
I am running roughshod over the dingerz.exe league. the dl is trying to jinx me, but im too guile-y.
by Headhunter Rollins on Jul 2, 2009 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Makes total sense and, to my knowledge, the defensive numbers reflect that by logging each ball that is put into play in the vicinity of the player.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Jul 2, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy it. Crappy fielding behind good pitching changes the approach of the pitcher. If they think the only way to succeed is through the strikeout, they nibble more, pitch counts go up, walks go up and things go to pot from there.
If you had Adam Dunn in right field, would you be afraid to pitch inside to a left handed batter? I think you would.
"Don't trust anyone under the age of 30" - Brian Sabean
by Smotheredinhugs on Jul 2, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that isn’t as much of a concern for a strike-out pitcher. I very much doubt that Timmy (a pitcher who clearly has faith in his stuff) really thinks too much about his defense. He goes up there and tries to strike out the hitter. If the ball isn’t put in play as much – which it certainly isn’t when Tim pitches – the strength of the D is relatively less important.
Joe Martinez: My fingers are crossed and my palms are together for you.
When it's all said and done, America will be remembered for three things: The Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
by cornball on Jul 2, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with Lincecum, the ball is put in play in over 60% of his PA’s.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 2, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+ 1MM
Crappy fielding behind good pitching changes the approach of the pitcher. If they think the only way to succeed is through the strikeout, they nibble more, pitch counts go up, walks go up and things go to pot from there.
A good example of this is Cain last year to this year.
You play with a weaker defense, even with strike out pitchers, you end up paying. The thing here is to remember the better the defense encourages efficiency. The more efficient the pitcher is the longer your best pitchers can stay in and the shorter amounts of play time for Joe " Fire Can" Scrub ( a.k.a middle relief hack) is on the mound . At team only needs to score in a couple innings to win. A team almost always has to get 27 outs. Joe " Fire Can " Scrub will got out on the hill ina leverage situation soon enough with hurry to his appearance.
Yes, This is still a 79 win squad.
Fuggen Rox! You might want to try beating The Bums more than once in 10 games. Try it. You might find you like it.
by daveinexile on Jul 3, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Terrible grammar is, well, terrible.
Last sentance should read:
Joe " Fire Can " Scrub will got out on the hill in a leverage situation soon enough without hurrying to his appearance.
Yes, This is still a 79 win squad.
Fuggen Rox! You might want to try beating The Bums more than once in 10 games. Try it. You might find you like it.
by daveinexile on Jul 3, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A good defense doesn’t encourage efficiency, it provides efficiency.
Also, you don’t necessarily want your starter in for a CG, because the more times through the lineup, the worse the pitcher gets (this has been demonstrated many times – let’s not go picking small sample sizes to challenge this fact).
Example:
Matt Cain career batting line against, 3+ PA against in game: .254/.339/.408 (.747 OPS)
Bob Howry career batting line against: .245/.307/.395 (.702 OPS)
That’s quick and dirty, and Howry may not be as good as his career line, but you get the point.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 3, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your do a bit of ridicule but assuming the absurd there. No where I am saying that you leave a starter out there when he is gassed or you have a better options given that single game conditions.
What I am saying is it gives the team options. Or put another way "Would you rather have a Dan Haren facing the line up a 3rd or ( or fourth time if you want to puff and prop up your straw man even farther) or say Tyler Walker in the 6th, 7th or 8th of a close game? And doesn’t the option of not automatically bringing in a Vinnie Chulk to very nice option to have? Every inning you can send your best arm out there ( and keep your weekest arms off the field) improves your chances for that game.
Yes, This is still a 79 win squad.
Fuggen Rox! You might want to try beating The Bums more than once in 10 games. Try it. You might find you like it.
by daveinexile on Jul 3, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well you throw “Fire Can Scrub” out there, and I’m showing that even a mediocre middle reliever like Howry can be a better option.
Also, Cain’s BB/9, K/9, and K/BB rates are actually quite close to last year’s; that the defense is better prevents hits and has resulted in more efficiency, but it doesn’t mean that Cain has completely changed his approach because of that defense. His FB% is very close to last year’s as well; he’s basically the same pitcher doing the same thing, but a combo of defense and luck is making him a better pitcher.
I absolutely don’t disagree with you that a better defense is better even for strikeout pitchers, but it seems from your response that you’re either missing the point or failing to acknowledge it – that it isn’t encouraging efficiency, aka a different approach from the pitcher, rather that it results in efficiency because the pitcher can do the same thing and still make more outs. You implied, purposefully or not, that the pitcher was going to change something to be more efficient.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 3, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well you throw "Fire Can Scrub" out there, and I’m showing that even a mediocre middle reliever like Howry can be a better option.
Since we are now talking about in terms of conditions statements ( sometimes “x” is true, sometimes “x” is false) I would say we are pretty close to agreement. One of the 2 premises I was starting from is it is nice to not have to chose between going to lower grade arms in the ‘Pen in the middle innings or pilling on a heavier work load on a starter. The only absolute statement I am making is It is always better for a team to have the option of leaving a starter in over a questionable ‘ Pen arm when leaving that starter in does not cause a huge pitch load and it make sense. By being an option it implies one does not always chose the same way.
Farther more I think we both agree no starter (no matter how good) in today’s game is going to take away more than a handful of innings from an elite ‘ Pen arm ( i.e. Rivieria, Hoffman, Nenn in their primes etc ). It is off the mediocre or worse arms in the ‘Pen an excellent starter takes innings from. (For purposes of this let us define excellent starter as a legit 1-3 starter usually near 30 G.S. and around 200 IP in a season, and call him Tor Stud alright?)
Were might have room for discussion on were Tor Stud is a better choice 3rd or 4th time through is more a stats issue. How certain are we (from a stats point of view) Joe Scrub’s sample body is large enough to accurate for trusting his numbers over "eyes"? Also Tor Stud going through a line up a 3rd time with only 60-70 pitchers on his arm could be a very different animal then facing a line up a 3rd time through with 90-100 pitches on his arm. Especially if the Tor Stud has little or no track record or previously faceing a line up 3rd time throughwith the much lower pitch count then once again there is the small sample size issues to deal with when looking at the stats.
You implied, purposefully or not, that the pitcher was going to change something to be more efficient.
Here we might have a legit disagreement. Yes, I believe a pitcher can, and routinely several routinely do change how they go about outs. If a given pitcher "trusts" his defense he will, eventually start to use it more to get outs. This is not to say a Fly ball pitcher becomes a ground ball pitcher (or visa versa) but that they might have an increase in how often get one of those results over time if the he keeps trusting the defense.
This also not to say all pitchers make that "leap". Some never leave being a "thrower" to "pitchers" and so not all "pitchers" succeed in refining their craft more. Again this a conditional statement on my behalf ( Not an absolute). No where am I assert all pitchers will make that leaps but some do if the conditions are there.
Now I have to ask you, for is can be implied by your posts a certain way, do you think all pitchers are static in their devlopemnt?
As for Cain’s FB% so it is the roughly the same, he is a K/FB pticher, and I also bet he uses a hammer to drive nail, so what? Notice his groundball rate is back up as well? It is interesting his GB rate was 39.4 when there was Omar & Feliz mostly manning the left side of the infield ( ’07), it dropped 32.4% in ’08 ( the Bo-Ocha & Castile left side) and now is rebounding back up. I am not going to say this confirms he alters what he is doing base on his infield defense but it is the pattern that needs to be there if he altering his approach to pitching. (Coloration does not equal causation but causation has to show up in correlation.)
Yes, This is still a 79 win squad.
Fuggen Rox! You might want to try beating The Bums more than once in 10 games. Try it. You might find you like it.
by daveinexile on Jul 4, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We seem to be close on the first point.
As for the second, no, I don’t think that pitchers (or hitters) are static in their development, but I also don’t believe that pitching to contact is much more than hoping that your defense gets to the ball.
Sure, some pitchers change pitches or approach, which can lead to a different batted-ball profile. Cain’s FB% this year is very slightly up and his GB% is up – there’s no apparent shift in approach there, especially as his BB and K numbers are in line with last year.
The biggest change is that Cain’s LD% is down – 22.8% to 18.7%. Now he certainly wasn’t trying to give up LD last year, and “avoiding giving up line drives” isn’t really a strategy in itself aside from pitching well. Yes, I can offer explanatory mechanisms for these events (e.g. in trying to strike guys out because he doesn’t trust his defense, Cain got into hitter’s counts, then had to come back with a fastball over the plate which got hammered as a line drive), but I have no idea if it is true. To me, Cain looks like the same pitcher as last year with better results.
He has thrown fewer fastballs and sliders and more curveballs and changeups; still, that isn’t a profile that suggests Cain is trying to pitch to contact or trust his defense. Also, Cain’s BB rate and K rate are right in line with previous years. If Cain didn’t trust his defense, wouldn’t we see a spike in both BB rate and K rate as Cain tried to strike guys out and avoid the defense?
People can guess all they want, but to me, Cain is basically the same pitcher with better defense behind him and better run support.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 4, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we farther agree on the huge impact of run support for Cain.
As for the other part I wonder if you are kind of expecting leopard to change all its spots? Personally I would be shocked if the FB % fell dramatically. As you point out he has the same assortment of pitches to use so there would be limits I would expect a healthy player (one not returning from an injury that forces radical change) to do.
I think where we disagree here is more along lines of not having the data to see if he is routinely using different pitch(s) to different locations in similar counts and game states. I believe the raw datum is in pitch FX but I don’t have ready way to draw it out to support (or deny) either claim here. My eyes tell me he is using his curve more often earlier in counts then the last couple years but that is perception and I am not willing to place tons of weight on perception. And barring some pitch Fx work the best indicators would be the lesser used ball in play trajectory (which says, "Perhaps. Ask me again later") or possibly % of a given pitch is used (which says maybe not). Neither is conclusive. Given that doubt from the readily available information and what I perceive I just want stronger evidence before I say it is not happening.
The other thought that occurs to me would breaking down the balls in play converted into outs data for each infield zone. If you suspicion is correct (the increased GB% is due to better converting of balls in play) it very well be a supporting evidence for how much impact an well above average glove at SS and 3rd base has on play assuming the sample body is large enough and the amount of balls a put into play in those zones are steady enough in frequency. Again though this is beyond my skills.
I guess the only thing to do here is disagree, and spend a few McCoven bucks for a couple beers and go back to heckling our believed team.
Yes, This is still a 79 win squad.
Fuggen Rox! You might want to try beating The Bums more than once in 10 games. Try it. You might find you like it.
by daveinexile on Jul 5, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense to me.
I would add that all of the Giants’ starters are flyball pitchers, so a good outfield defense gives them more value than another team.
Randy Winn is in time out until his OBP gets back over .330.
by oldjacket on Jul 2, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, there really does seem to be some organizational planning (!!!!) at work in building a strikeout/flyball pitching staff with a solid outfield defense and an offense-first infield.
Theoretically offense-first, I guess I should add.
by Evan on Jul 2, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be a good idea, Evan. Tell me again why we didn’t draft Justin Smoak or Gordon Beckham?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005. And winner of the 2012 NL Fireman of the Year Award!
by Lyle on Jul 3, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Buster Posey is really awesome too?
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 3, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://busterposeyisreallyawesometoo.com
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 3, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFSZ_syS-Js
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 3, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rob Neyer's rebuttal (?)
Cameron’s done as much as anyone in recent years to awaken the sabermetric community — and by extension, anyone else who’s interesting in being awake — to the relative values of hitting and defense. We all owe him our gratitude for his hard work and unflagging enthusiasm. But I think he’s firing his barbs at a straw man here. Was he not around last winter when everyone was explaining why Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell and Bobby Abreu were forced to take pay cuts?
OK, so we may have given short shrift to Morgan yesterday, but that’s not because we don’t understand that a run saved is just as valuable as a run scored. It’s because Morgan’s never been a regular before this season, so it’s not easy to get a handle on just how great he is, defensively. Certainly, Morgan doesn’t have any sort of reputation yet. Also, it’s because Morgan’s just about as good as he’s ever going to be, while Lastings Milledge — who, after all, was actually a part of the trade; Dunn was not — is still considered by some to have a legitimate shot at becoming a super player.
I’m not particularly optimistic about Milledge. It’s true that members of the “sabermetric community” — which I suppose might include me — can become a tad overenthusiastic about young players. But that’s a whole different blindspot. Maybe we don’t completely get the value of defense yet. But trust me, Dave Cameron: we’re getting there, and we’re getting there quickly.
by KCE on Jul 2, 2009 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have nowhere near enough faith in defensive metrics to buy into something like that
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 2, 2009 2:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This part bugged me a little
You could acquire 100 Lastings Milledge’s for the amount of money that Dunn is getting to be the big, power hitting equal of Morgan.
Yeah, but why would you want to acquire 100 Milledge’s? There’s only so much room on 25- and 40-man rosters. If you’ve got the money, spend it GINATS BRAZZZS
Noonan. Nooooonan!
by Giant Fan in Singapore on Jul 2, 2009 2:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What kind of weird formatting is this?!?!
Noonan. Nooooonan!
by Giant Fan in Singapore on Jul 2, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah it’s silly, Milledge is under team control anyway. You could also acquire four Tim Lincecum’s for the money Affeldt is getting, that doesn’t mean that Affeldt’s overpaid.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 2, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/does the math on how many Tim Lincecum’s you could acquire for Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand
/brainsplodes
Adopted brother of Jason Jarvis.
by j14 on Jul 2, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Lincecum’s
BAD COOKYMAN. NO APOSTROPHES TO MAKE PLURALS.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jul 2, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giant Fan in Singapore did it first! Who am I to question him?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 2, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all expect it from GFiS. But YOU should know better!
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jul 2, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do that typo all the time. My hand automatically goes to the apostrophe before it types an s. Repetition training FTL. Most of the time, I’m conscious enough to catch it. Sometimes it gets through though.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 2, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i no speek inglish good
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 2, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
since Tim Lincecum owns the entire world, it is never incorrect to use the possessive apostrophe with his name
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 2, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh. I was just copying what Neyer'd written. Didn't want to confuse things too much.
Noonan. Nooooonan!
by Giant Fan in Singapore on Jul 2, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is just a long round about way of saying that Fred Lewis gets to the ball.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 2, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah but Dunn hits dingerz
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
by RDreamer on Jul 2, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer Morgan obviously likes baseball a lot more than Adam Dunn does
that has to be worth about 2 or 3 wins a year right?
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 2, 2009 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn leads the league in yawning and looking at his watch in between pitches.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Jul 2, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
double edged sword.
pitcher pitch different knowing who they have behind them on defense, but then at the same time if they know they can get some run support they can afford to be more aggressive in the strike zone. this question reminds me of another question i’ve heard. which came first the chicken or the egg?
Not jponry.
by jpo on Jul 2, 2009 4:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This misses a bit of the point
Cameron is correct in comparing Nyjer Morgan as corner OFer to Adam Dunn as corner OFer. There are a few problems with this analysis though:
Nyjer Morgan should be in CF (which actually increases his value).
Nyjer Morgan has nowhere near the bat to play 1B. Dunn does and should.
If Dunn played 1B, and passably, which I believe he could, his team would get all the value of his offense but would be able to hide his defense somewhat.
It’s an apples and oranges comparison, and part of the problem is that Adam Dunn is not properly utilized by the team that contracts for his services. The Nats, like the Reds before them, should sit Dunn down and say “Adam, you suck at OF. Seriously, you’re not good, and you’re going to help the team a lot more if you play 1B.” Now midseason is a pretty questionable time to do that, and it should have been done in the offseason, but then Adam Dunn suddenly becomes a much better player, in part because his team can replace him in the OF with either a) a cheaper player who provides similar overall production, or b) a player with better overall production, or even better, c) a player who is both cheaper and better overall for that position.
Adam Dunn currently has a .391 wOBA, while Ryan Howard has a .368 wOBA. For their careers, they are reasonably similar batters, although Dunn was up at 21 and didn’t languish in the minors until age 25. We aren’t hearing these complaints about Howard because his team has him at the optimal defensive position (for his league).
It’s a good point by Cameron though, and it’s something everyone should keep in mind with regard to Randy Winn, who is quite a good defensive RFer, and while his bat has been meh this year, as recently as last year Winn was a 4.5 WAR player in fairly large part because of his defense – 17.1 runs above average according to UZR (and that’s in RF at AT&T where balls high off the wall are considered in his zone, so it counts against him even though those balls just cannot be caught).
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 2, 2009 9:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Giants’s scouts thought that Dunn was even worse at first base than left field.
Randy Winn is in time out until his OBP gets back over .330.
by oldjacket on Jul 2, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may be a lack of practice.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 2, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He probably should be.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 2, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put him in Left
couldnt be worse than Lewis
The San Francisco Giants: Where old men go to die.
by GrahamCrakalaka on Jul 3, 2009 11:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn?
Oh, you have no idea how much worse it could be.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 3, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2009&month=0
So apparently Marco Scutaro and Franklin Gutierrez have been better than players like Pablo, Mark Teixiera, and Miguel Cabrera
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 1:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With positional adjustments and small sample size, that’s not particularly hard to believe. Gutierrez is a REALLY good defensive outfielder and he’s hitting relatively okay this year as well. As for Scutaro, he’s hit well this season while playing a good shortstop.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 4, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we would be a better team if we traded Pablo for one of these players? That’s extremely hard to believe.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(assuming they performed the same over the full amount of ABs)
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scutaro, maybe
As long as he played the same defense at second.
But it depends on who we could get to replace Sandoval at third and who those guys would be replacing at their positions. So Gutierrez, I would guess, isn’t better enough than the outfielder he’d replace to offset the loss of Sandoval. but if we couuld get Scutaro to give the same performance at second, the replacement over Burriss/Downs/Uribe would be pretty massive.
Then you’d have to look at what Aurilia or Rohlinger or Schierholtz or whoever would do at third. It’s a complicated thing to evaluate.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jul 4, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re kind of begging the question. I mean in general, with everything else being equal, if you substituted Scutaro for Sandoval, would a team be better? It was probably unclear, but I don’t mean in case of the Giants’ depth at these positions because the stats obviously aren’t specifically considering the Giants’ depth.
There’s no way I would believe that Scutaro’s defense at second would outweigh the monster production Pablo has brought offensievly.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to consider the position and the relative value of the replacement. Scutaro is a SS and is being compared to other SS; Sandoval is a 3B (and 1B for some time) and being compared to them.
Groug has it right; what is the relative value of your entire team, offensively and defensively, not at a single position but at all positions.
Replacing Sandoval with Scutaro isn’t a good analysis to make, as they are at different positions. If you take Scutaro you get better at 2nd or SS, but then what kind of downgrade are you getting at 3B? Is the difference greater than the improvement you get at 2B?
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 4, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So are you saying that WAR shouldn’t be used to compare players between different positions? If so, that makes sense, since putting a kinda sucky player at C over a really sucky replacement catcher is a big upgrade, while putting a great hitting 3B over an average one may not be as big one, though it’s obvious the 3B is a better player.
I think WAR (or any position adjusted type stat) is flawed in that way, because it outputs a single number that is supposed to represent the production of a player, when it’s obvious that an average 1B still produces way more than an average 2B, yet it represents them as equal.
Maybe that’s incorrect, but it’s the only way I can see this stat being justified. There’s just no way I can see that you would take Marco Scutaro over Pablo Sandoval or Miguel Cabrera when starting a team from scratch, even if there isn’t an abundance of good SS.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I guess that can’t be what you’re saying, since the whole point of the stat is to provide a relative adjustment such that different positions can be compared.
In that case, I don’t like it. If an average 3B is worth 13 points (made-up unit) and Pablo is worth 15, while an average SS is worth 0 points and Scutaro is worth 3, Pablo is still the better player.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he’s not, because every team also needs a SS.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 4, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based on this logic, the best punter in the league should be taken over an average Quarterback.
Just because SS in general have a much lower value than other positions, doesn’t mean an above average one is more valuable than an average 1B.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there’s also the question of whether or not Scutaro’s performance is sustainable, which, given his age and the rest of his career, I would guess it’s not. But just because the conventional wisdom is that you want the BIG BAT, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the correct way of thinking about it.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 4, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And just because it’s a new, liberal way of judging a player and it’s on FanGraphs doesn’t necessarily make it an accurate measure either.
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but I just mean that just because something challenges your perception doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Jul 4, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it does mean that I should challenge it such that I receive actual evidence to validate it.
by kingofthacove on Jul 5, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s absolutely nothing new, let alone “liberal”, about this. It’s why Cal Ripken is a first-ballot HOFer, while Harold Baines only got 5.2% of the votes. It’s why Yogi Berra is a household name but Ted Kluszewski isn’t. These player were pretty much identical except for the fact that Ripken played SS and Berra played catcher, while Baines and Kluszewski played 1B.
Positional adjustments have been around for ever. You might not like them, but that doesn’t mean that they’re some weird Fangrpahs invention. They’ve always been part of common baseball knowledge – this is just the first time they’ve been translated into exact numbers.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 4, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was obviously referring to giving this amount of credit to defensive impact (what ‘WAR’ does), which is what this entire Nyjer Morgan thing is about.
by kingofthacove on Jul 5, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And just because it’s doing that (translating into exact numbers) doesn’t mean it’s doing it accurately.
by kingofthacove on Jul 5, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure how this contradicts my point. You said “how does being stronger relative to your own weak position make you an overall better player?”. The only difference between Baines and Ripken is that Ripken played a “weak position”. Do you think that Baines was as good as Ripken?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on Jul 5, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I guess I shouldn’t have said traded because people are misinterpreting the argument. If we were starting a team to play for one year and were guaranteed their current production over an entire season, which player would you take? No other external factors to consider…
by kingofthacove on Jul 4, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you were actually guaranteed their current production, you take Scutaro, yes
That’s not the interesting question— the interesting question is to what degree their performance track record actually offers such a “guarantee.” Which is where you get into regression to the mean and other such concepts.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 4, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, how does being stronger relative to your own weak position make you an overall better player? I would think that pure ‘Wins’ would be a better judge of the more productive player rather than adjusting relative to your position.
A 3B worth 15 ‘points’ when the average 3B is worth 13 points is still better than a SS worth 3 points when the average SS is worth 0. You wouldn’t take the best punter in the league over an average quarterback, would you?
by kingofthacove on Jul 5, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The baseball equivalent of your punter analogy would be comparing the best pinch-runner in the league to an average shortstop.
The +3 shortstop is clearly a more valuable player to have on your roster than a +2 third baseman. You could argue that the third baseman is “better” in some absolute athletic sense, but who cares? It’s like arguing about whether the Hulk could beat up Superman.
by Evan on Jul 5, 2009 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the point – it isn’t a weak position and this analysis doesn’t occur in a vacuum. We’re not talking punter or 6th DB or mop-up reliever or third goalie. A starting SS is in the lineup and the field every day, and gets the most fielding chances. Just because the SS is expected to hit worse than the 3B doesn’t mean that the SS doesn’t have as many, or nearly as many, plate appearances as the 3B.
And I still wouldn’t treat it as a Scutaro v. Sandoval issue, because it depends on the other options for your team. Here’s a really simple example when it comes to roster selection:
Third Baseman A: +2
Third Baseman B: 0
SS A: +3
SS B: -1
If you select 3B A, the other team selects SS A; 3B A may actually be a better hitter than SS A, and may even be a better fielder at his position than SS A, but then you’re stuck with SS B, and the other team gets 3B B. Overall, you’re now +1 wins, while the other team is +3 wins, so assuming you’re equal at all other positions, the other team is better, because despite your improved offense and defense at 3B, the other team has a stronger advantage vs. your weak SS.
Again, it’s oversimplified, but that’s the gist. It’s really much more complicated and going to depend on what other players are available and whether you’re on a this year plan or some kind of long-term plan. Sandoval is young and a player to build around, while Scutaro is 33 and declining.
I would absolutely take Sandoval over Scutaro, but let’s say that your team is a real contender and has X dollars to spend, and needs a SS and 3B? There’s nothing in your farm system to help, and you need to fill two positions. Whom do you select when given a choice of SS A and B and 3B A and B, given the relative costs to sign those guys?
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 5, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They've performed better, yes
What jponry said
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
GET THAT VORP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Jul 4, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
