|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I'm not sure why this is such a difficult question for people. It's not complicated to look at defensive performance of players who have played multiple positions, and thus compare the defensive contributions of different positions. In terms of value, a player is about equal as a DH or a poor-fielding first baseman. If you don't want to go through the leg work (as you probably don't), Tom Tango has developed the most commonly-accepted set of positional adjustments:
Catcher: +12.5 runs
Shortstop: +7.5 runs
Second Base: +2.5 runs
Third Base: +2.5 runs
Center Field: +2.5 runs
Left Field: -7.5 runs
Right Field: -7.5 runs
First Base: -12.5 runs
Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs
where 10 runs is approximately equal to 1 win. This is the credit (positive or negative) that a player gets just for being able to play the position defensively at all. It's determined by the average defensive ability of players at the position. So, center field gets a 1 win bump over LF and RF, because a player will look much worse compared to the average CF than he will to the average LF or RF. Of course these are just approximations, but they're a hell of a lot more useful than subjective qualitative tripe.
So for full time DHs, knock about 1.75 per season off of whatever WAR they contribute on offense. Then you learn (if you didn't realize already) that Edgar Martinez is an obvious HoF choice. All this "lol he didnt even play defense r u kidding me!" garbage needs to stop. The guy was incredibly valuable for a long time. His career WAR was 67.2, which is absurdly good. If these numbers are off by a little bit, he's still absurdly good.
| | |
| I complain about BBWAA and Gold Glove awards pretty vociferously (though the BBWAA did a good job with the winners this year). The only reason I'm able to protest with such confidence is that we have very sophisticated measures of player value. Let's compare that with... oh, how about college football?
As I'm writing this, three of the top Heisman candidates are from Florida, Alabama, and Texas. The teams ranked 1, 2, and 3 in the country. Two of them are quarterbacks. Colt McCoy is a fine quarterback, but I get the feeling that Texas would still do quite well if you replaced him with any capable college QB. Case Keenum (Houston QB) is, by any reasonable measure, having a far better season. Since Houston is only ranked around 22 in the nation, people apparently feel that he shouldn't even be in the conversation. But how do you compare how much they actually help their teams?
The problem here is that there is virtually no way to measure a player's value in football, because football stats are so context dependent they make RBIs look meaningful. Imagine two equally skilled quarterbacks A and B. A has a first-class offensive line consisting of 5 rhinos, while B is protected by the London Silly Nannies. Of course A is going to look better in every statistic imaginable. Someone needs to come up with a clever way to tease out the effects of the skill levels at each position. I'm thoroughly convinced that if "Wins Above Replacement Player" existed in football, Toby Gerhart (Stanford RB) would be the easiest Heisman choice on the planet. If he were replaced with an average RB, Stanford would be 2-10. Unfortunately, I have no structured way of showing that. Any comparison that I make between players is going to be extremely subjective.
The point here is that baseball has made far greater advances in quantifying the value of a player than football has. In fairness, football has much less data to work with. Still, as baseball fans, and as likers of truth and knowledge, we should be extremely happy with the progress that's been made in the past decade.
Now that I've shared that ray of sunshine, I'm ready to go back to my old critical self.
| | |
| Adam Wainwright not winning the NL Cy Young is some indication that the award voters may be getting more sophisticated. The massive outrage coming from so many fans is some indication that most fans are NOT getting more sophisticated.
Look, there is just no way to argue that Adam Wainwright was the best pitcher in the NL this year without resorting to W-L records or hollow statements about heart, grit, and drive. Frankly, it's a little disturbing that he got as many first-place votes as he did. You don't even need advanced metrics to realize that Lincecum deserved this award*. All you need to be able to do is realize that Wins are largely outside a pitcher's control. I'm not going to cite things like FIP and WAR, because in this case, I shouldn't have to. (But in case you're curious, Lincecum has a huge edge in both.)
*Carpenter holds up pretty well in advanced metrics (see Fangraphs), and I'm sure would've won if he had pitched 30 more innings of the same caliber.
| | |
| This is a move that all managers should understand in playoff series. I have dubbed it the "Lee Gambit." It's taking out your ace pitcher early in a lopsided playoff game, to allow him to start again on shorter rest than usual.
If a playoff game becomes lopsided early, and your ace pitcher started, you should take him out! Let your 4th or 5th starter go the rest of the way. It lowers your chances of winning this game very slightly, and increases your chances of winning a later game by a lot, because your ace can come back 2-3 days later instead of 4-5! Because you have one or two starters available out of the bullpen, having a starting pitcher "eat up innings" or "save the bullpen" is much less relevant than it would be during the regular season. (Plus, you have an offseason coming up soon anyway.)
A perfect situation for the Lee Gambit is this: you're down 3-1 in the series, your team is ahead 8-0 after three innings, and your ace has thrown 40 pitches. I'm confused by what exactly you gain by leaving him in there. Managing a pitching staff in the postseason is about trying to get your best pitchers in the highest leverage situations. Routine and tradition should not matter one bit.
| | |
| It's game 5. Your team is down 3-1, and your lone ace pitcher is starting today. Let's call him "Biff Lee." Tomorrow is a day off, meaning a potential game 7 would be 3 days from now. You have a 6-1 lead in the 5th inning, and Biff's pitch count is still low. PULLING HIM TO USE IN GAME 7 SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER!
You must win this game AND the next two to win the World Series. The "if we lose today, it's over!" attitude is absurd. Your probability of winning this game given the current situation is roughly 93%. Leaving Biff in cannot possibly boost this number very much. This is what we call a "low-leverage" situation. Starting a reasonably fresh Biff in game 7, on the other hand, will increase the probability of winning THAT game by quite a bit. No one seems to understand this. Not analysts, fans, nor Biff's completely hypothetical manager.
| | |
|
