The 9th inning is always purported to be the hardest three outs to get with a tight lead. There’s some truth to that, because the amount of wiggle room is essentially nothing in some cases, and every occurrence is magnified (One out makes up 33% of the remaining outs, instead of lower numbers from earlier innings). But, let's be honest here, most major league pitchers should be able to pitch an inning and not blow a lead of 2 or 3 runs. The best use of closers has been debated for a while. Some people think you should use Mariano Rivera in the 9th with a save situation no matter what, while some will say that with the 3/4/5 guys due up in the 8th you should use him then. So why do people pay so much attention to the save, the most arbitrary and useless stat in history (including batting average and RBIs)? Furthermore, why are closers put such a prominence on? The only thing I can guess at for an answer that makes sense is that it helps the bullpen have set defined roles, even though the Cards won the WS last year with a closer by committee for the most part of the year.
This is something that runs through my mind a lot when I read articles like this one from Anthony Castrovince. Overall not a bad piece, but I’m in a picky mood right now (just got done grading some tests and quizzes) so I’m going to pick.
Who is the best closer in baseball?
Mo. Sorry, was I not supposed to answer there? It’s Mo. I’m one of the biggest anti-Yankee people on the planet. It’s Mo. No doubts, even with that torn knee. Maybe he’s being rhetorical, but the answer seems obvious.
The answer, provided you weren't guided by blind allegiance to a particular team or anti-Yankee enough to view even Hall of Famers as ho-hum, was Mariano Rivera, of course.
I even said Mo. Who’d you think I was going to pick, Jason Motte?
But with Mo on the mend from a torn ACL, we are left with the reality that there is no such thing as the clear-cut shutdown closer upon which all other closers are judged.
Oh, okay. I see what you’re saying. We don’t have the sure fire hall of famer, so then we’re going to go through each team (roughly) and pick the best closer? Sounds interesting. What criteria should we use? I’d suggest WHIP, K-rate and FIP. If we’re feeling really frisky, I’d say OPS against and WAR, too, but the other three should be decent enough. Can’t just use ERA for a reliever because one or two bad outings can heighten it more than for a starter. Shouldn’t just use saves for what I talked about above and here. So where’s our first stop(s), Tony?
Chris Perez is one of three men leading the Majors with 11 saves, but he's blown a pair of opportunities and has an ERA of 3.95. Jonathan Papelbon, the Phillies' $50 million man, is the only guy with a track record anywhere near that of Rivera's, and he's 10-for-10 in save situations this season, but he obviously hasn't had as many opportunities as Philadelphia envisioned for him.
Oh. You went that way with it. OK. Well, Perez may have 11 saves but also has a WHIP of 1.17 and a K/9 of 6.6 (with a 3.3 BB/9). It’s probably not going to be him, he walks too many guys for my tastes and that K-Rate, while higher than last years, is a lot lower than his career rate of about 8. Paps has a 0.857 WHIP (damn!) and a 9.6 K/9 rate (damn!!). I’d say he’s a good candidate right now. To shorten this up, I’m going to just list the closers he mentions below. In parenthesis will be the stats he quotes for them.
Fernando Rodney (9/9 in saves, miniscule ERA)
Jim Johnson (9/9 in saves, miniscule ERA)
Craig Kimbrel (11/12, 2.77 ERA)
Jason Motte (6/7, .170 OBA)
John Axford (6.10 ERA)
Jose Valverde (7/9, 4.60 ERA)
Now, that is a pretty bad use of stats. ERA for relievers is terrible. Saves are also bad, but I’ve whined enough about those. How about mentioning those miniscule ERAs for Rodney (0.54) and Johnson (0.57)? That would make your argument stronger, even though using ERA for relievers is stupid. What should he have used? Well, I’ll help him out a little bit:
Fernando Rodney (.900 WHIP/8.1 K/9)
Jim Johnson (.766/6.9)
Craig Kimbrel (1.385/15.9)
Jason Motte (.805/10.5)
John Axford (2.032/17.4)
Jose Valverde (1.66/7.5)
I’m too tired to tackle the rest of the article, but to be fair the last bit brings up a lot of good points. How the bullpens are misused (especially on the road) to try to get closers saves so they can get the big bucks and setup men get holds so they can get pizz-aid. He also mentions that relievers as a bunch are fairly volatile (The Panamanian Wonder notwithstanding) and that the save conversion rate hasn’t changed much this year, even with all of the injuries to key closers. The only thing I really objected to was what stats he used. Don’t use saves and ERA for them. Please. It’s embarrassing.
Showing posts with label Stats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stats. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
How is it that I have to defend Jim Edmonds to Cardinals Fans?
I've seen a lot of threads in my lifetime, mostly on Cards Talk which is a vile and reputable place filled with idiots and less occasionally where sane, rational and intelligent Cards fans go (Stl Legends), where the name Jim Edmonds comes up in conversations about the Hall of Fame. Only thing is, I see more people saying he has no chance at it more than I see supporters. And it isn't just a "He's close" thing I see a lot. There are way too many "No chance" opinions. I don't get it. How is it that people--CARDINALS FANS!!--have no appreciation for Jimmy Ballgame?
Being a nerd, I'm going to take time out of my life to run some numbers and perform analysis about Jim Edmonds, his place in history, and hopefully enlighten some people about his candidacy. Bias alert up front--I love Jim Edmonds. When I was a kid, I would have done anything to see him play. Never got the chance in person, but have seen enough of him on TV. As an aside: I never understood the argument that "You had to see him to understand him! You can't just use stats!" Isn't that why stats exist? So people that never got a chance to see Player A get an idea for how good he was? Don't stats record what happens on a ball field? I'm getting off track. Lets get this train rolling.
Here are the Major League CF in the HoF. In parenthesis after each person I will include their EqA and WARP3. I'll explain each of these in a bit below:
Lloyd Waner (.268, 16.9)
Hack Wilson (.315, 28.9)
Tris Speaker (.327, 106.8)
Duke Snider (.308, 45.3)
Edd Roush (.297, 21.4)
Kirby Puckett (.284, 40.9)
Willie Mays (.327, 151.0)
Mickey Mantle (.347, 94.0)
Lary Doby (.308, 35.4)
Billy Hamilton (.318, 59.2)
Joe DiMaggio (.328, 78.6)
Hugh Duffy (.289, 33.1)
Ty Cobb (.336, 119.2)
Max Carey (.283, 28.9)
Earle Combs (.300, 21.0)
Richie Ashburn (.289, 58.8)
Earl Averill (.303, 32.7)
OK, long list and it looks ugly, apologies. Jim Edmonds has a career .298 EqA and a 72.7 WARP3. I'm going to narrow it down to players inducted by the BBWAA because those tend to be the best of all time and a lot of the ones that did make it in sorta stink (Max Carey? Edd Roush? Really?) Of players that were voted in by the BBWAA (Puckett, Mays, Mantle, Speaker, Snider, DiMaggio, Cobb--Holy crap is that a short list!), Edmonds ranks ahead of Puckett and Snider in terms of WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player adjusted for all-time) and just about as many as DiMaggio (Greatest Living Ballplayer my backside!).
In baseball history, only 5 CF were as valuable to their teams as Edmonds. 5. F.I.V.E. And this makes him not a Hall of Famer because....? He's not in the Mays/Mantle/Cobb class, but very few people are. Edmonds definitely deserves to be a Hall of Famer.
A lot of people I talk to will cite Ken Griffey being better than Edmonds. Well, they have almost the same EqA (Griffey had a .297 EqA to Edmonds .298), and nearly identical WARP3's (Griffey had a 78.2). In fact, most advanced metrics have them being very close in production. RC27 gives the edge to Edmonds (7.3 to 7.2), and BtRuns gives the edge to Griffey (507.7 to 336.7). The BtRuns looks like a big difference, but Griffey played 5 more years than Edmonds and their average per year was only slighly more for Griffey (31 to 27). Griffey gets a lot of credit for having 630 HR, and he should because its a remarkable number. He was a great hitter and great player. Maybe just a hair better than Edmonds, but the difference isn't much. Both were great, fun to watch and should be headed for Cooperstown.
Added 5/1: Some people asked me about more traditional stats for Edmonds and the Hall of Fame. Well, I say those traditional stats are worked into EqA (which gives you total offensive output per out) and the other stats. But, here they are anyways:
Griffey: 284/370/538 (136 OPS+). Averaged 38 HR per 162.
Edmonds: 284/376/527 (131 OPS+). Averaged 32 HR per 162.
Eerie, isn't it?
As always, I'm open to hearing people's opinions on this. I'm willing to listen if someone has a legit argument against Edmonds inclusion in Cooperstown. I will probably disagree with their position, but I will listen. And defend their right to say it to the death. Maybe not death, per say. Maybe more like to the...back spasm? That sounds better than death right?
Being a nerd, I'm going to take time out of my life to run some numbers and perform analysis about Jim Edmonds, his place in history, and hopefully enlighten some people about his candidacy. Bias alert up front--I love Jim Edmonds. When I was a kid, I would have done anything to see him play. Never got the chance in person, but have seen enough of him on TV. As an aside: I never understood the argument that "You had to see him to understand him! You can't just use stats!" Isn't that why stats exist? So people that never got a chance to see Player A get an idea for how good he was? Don't stats record what happens on a ball field? I'm getting off track. Lets get this train rolling.
Here are the Major League CF in the HoF. In parenthesis after each person I will include their EqA and WARP3. I'll explain each of these in a bit below:
Lloyd Waner (.268, 16.9)
Hack Wilson (.315, 28.9)
Tris Speaker (.327, 106.8)
Duke Snider (.308, 45.3)
Edd Roush (.297, 21.4)
Kirby Puckett (.284, 40.9)
Willie Mays (.327, 151.0)
Mickey Mantle (.347, 94.0)
Lary Doby (.308, 35.4)
Billy Hamilton (.318, 59.2)
Joe DiMaggio (.328, 78.6)
Hugh Duffy (.289, 33.1)
Ty Cobb (.336, 119.2)
Max Carey (.283, 28.9)
Earle Combs (.300, 21.0)
Richie Ashburn (.289, 58.8)
Earl Averill (.303, 32.7)
OK, long list and it looks ugly, apologies. Jim Edmonds has a career .298 EqA and a 72.7 WARP3. I'm going to narrow it down to players inducted by the BBWAA because those tend to be the best of all time and a lot of the ones that did make it in sorta stink (Max Carey? Edd Roush? Really?) Of players that were voted in by the BBWAA (Puckett, Mays, Mantle, Speaker, Snider, DiMaggio, Cobb--Holy crap is that a short list!), Edmonds ranks ahead of Puckett and Snider in terms of WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player adjusted for all-time) and just about as many as DiMaggio (Greatest Living Ballplayer my backside!).
In baseball history, only 5 CF were as valuable to their teams as Edmonds. 5. F.I.V.E. And this makes him not a Hall of Famer because....? He's not in the Mays/Mantle/Cobb class, but very few people are. Edmonds definitely deserves to be a Hall of Famer.
A lot of people I talk to will cite Ken Griffey being better than Edmonds. Well, they have almost the same EqA (Griffey had a .297 EqA to Edmonds .298), and nearly identical WARP3's (Griffey had a 78.2). In fact, most advanced metrics have them being very close in production. RC27 gives the edge to Edmonds (7.3 to 7.2), and BtRuns gives the edge to Griffey (507.7 to 336.7). The BtRuns looks like a big difference, but Griffey played 5 more years than Edmonds and their average per year was only slighly more for Griffey (31 to 27). Griffey gets a lot of credit for having 630 HR, and he should because its a remarkable number. He was a great hitter and great player. Maybe just a hair better than Edmonds, but the difference isn't much. Both were great, fun to watch and should be headed for Cooperstown.
Added 5/1: Some people asked me about more traditional stats for Edmonds and the Hall of Fame. Well, I say those traditional stats are worked into EqA (which gives you total offensive output per out) and the other stats. But, here they are anyways:
Griffey: 284/370/538 (136 OPS+). Averaged 38 HR per 162.
Edmonds: 284/376/527 (131 OPS+). Averaged 32 HR per 162.
Eerie, isn't it?
As always, I'm open to hearing people's opinions on this. I'm willing to listen if someone has a legit argument against Edmonds inclusion in Cooperstown. I will probably disagree with their position, but I will listen. And defend their right to say it to the death. Maybe not death, per say. Maybe more like to the...back spasm? That sounds better than death right?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Is Ivan Rodriguez a Hall of Fame Player?
For those that don't know me, one of my favorite things to talk about in baseball is whether a player is worthy of induction to Cooperstown. I go there a lot, especially with my father, and there's always so much to do. If you haven't yet, I encourage anyone out there reading to actually go visit the Hall, you won't be disappointed.
Now that the promo is out of the way (BTW, Mrs. Forbes-Clark, you can send me the endorsement check anytime), let's talk about the newest retiree from baseball, Ivan Rodriguez.
I don't think there are many people out there that would disagree with Pudge being a Hall of Famer, especially when you factor in his defense. Those that do disagree tend to use the steroid argument. Which I don't tend to touch for two reasons. One is that there were plenty of people that used HGH and steroids that were just average at best (Ryan Franklin being one of them), so I honestly don't know how much beyond getting you back on the field they really increase your performance. The other reason is that steroid use was so rampant that we don't know who did and who didn't use steroids. Do I think Pudge used steroids? Probably. He's never been forced to testify about them (like some people have), but we've seen what happened with Raffy Palmeiro testifying so, who knows.
I'm going to keep it to the numbers that we have. If I were to make a case for Pudge, I would say that among all catchers, he ranks: 3rd in WAR (74.1), first in fielding runs (165.2--Bench has only 71), and 7th in HR (311). Now, his offense was a lot more average than people remember. Among catchers with 7000 PA, he ranks 10th in wRC+ (104), and 12th in wOBA (.343), and his regular old OBP is only 334 (still higher than Dawson's). These are all after a pretty decent decline post-2007. But, when you factor in defense, he's definitely a first ballot inductee.
These are all good numbers because they aren't subjective to our memories--these are records of what really happened. They also aren't based on stupid popularity contests like the gold glove award or all-star selections, or even MVP voting. So, I'm sure ESPN.com (which I linked to above) will share similar views with me, right?
Rodriguez, who won the 1999 American League MVP and went to 10 straight All-Star Games with the Rangers, was not able to find a job this spring. The 40-year-old affectionately known as "Pudge" began his two-decade-plus major league career with the Rangers in 1991.
To be fair, the article is just giving a synopsis of his career. But still-come on! That MVP voting in 1999 was a sham. He was worth 6.0 WAR, which is really good for a catcher. This was 6th among all position players that year. SIXTH! Who was the most valuable player that year? How about Pedro Martinez who--in the roided up AL and in a hitter's haven most of his games--had a 0.923 WHIP and 313 strikeouts in 213 innings. Don't want to give it to a pitcher? Fine--how about Robbie Alomar or Manny Ramirez? Hell, even Derek Jeter would have been a better choice that year! The gold gloves, although an impressive amount and worth it due to his fielding stats in his career, are still pretty meaningless while Jeter struts around with 5 of them and Raffy Palmeiro won one when player twenty some games in the field. The all-star voting is a popularity contest, but I honestly don't remember him blocking many other AL catchers in that timeline. I'm sure there were times, but I've been blogging this thing for an hour now and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
To wrap up, congrats on the career Pudge. I go to inductions every year, look forward to seeing you in 2017. I've made my reservations!
Now that the promo is out of the way (BTW, Mrs. Forbes-Clark, you can send me the endorsement check anytime), let's talk about the newest retiree from baseball, Ivan Rodriguez.
I don't think there are many people out there that would disagree with Pudge being a Hall of Famer, especially when you factor in his defense. Those that do disagree tend to use the steroid argument. Which I don't tend to touch for two reasons. One is that there were plenty of people that used HGH and steroids that were just average at best (Ryan Franklin being one of them), so I honestly don't know how much beyond getting you back on the field they really increase your performance. The other reason is that steroid use was so rampant that we don't know who did and who didn't use steroids. Do I think Pudge used steroids? Probably. He's never been forced to testify about them (like some people have), but we've seen what happened with Raffy Palmeiro testifying so, who knows.
I'm going to keep it to the numbers that we have. If I were to make a case for Pudge, I would say that among all catchers, he ranks: 3rd in WAR (74.1), first in fielding runs (165.2--Bench has only 71), and 7th in HR (311). Now, his offense was a lot more average than people remember. Among catchers with 7000 PA, he ranks 10th in wRC+ (104), and 12th in wOBA (.343), and his regular old OBP is only 334 (still higher than Dawson's). These are all after a pretty decent decline post-2007. But, when you factor in defense, he's definitely a first ballot inductee.
These are all good numbers because they aren't subjective to our memories--these are records of what really happened. They also aren't based on stupid popularity contests like the gold glove award or all-star selections, or even MVP voting. So, I'm sure ESPN.com (which I linked to above) will share similar views with me, right?
Rodriguez, who won the 1999 American League MVP and went to 10 straight All-Star Games with the Rangers, was not able to find a job this spring. The 40-year-old affectionately known as "Pudge" began his two-decade-plus major league career with the Rangers in 1991.
To be fair, the article is just giving a synopsis of his career. But still-come on! That MVP voting in 1999 was a sham. He was worth 6.0 WAR, which is really good for a catcher. This was 6th among all position players that year. SIXTH! Who was the most valuable player that year? How about Pedro Martinez who--in the roided up AL and in a hitter's haven most of his games--had a 0.923 WHIP and 313 strikeouts in 213 innings. Don't want to give it to a pitcher? Fine--how about Robbie Alomar or Manny Ramirez? Hell, even Derek Jeter would have been a better choice that year! The gold gloves, although an impressive amount and worth it due to his fielding stats in his career, are still pretty meaningless while Jeter struts around with 5 of them and Raffy Palmeiro won one when player twenty some games in the field. The all-star voting is a popularity contest, but I honestly don't remember him blocking many other AL catchers in that timeline. I'm sure there were times, but I've been blogging this thing for an hour now and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
To wrap up, congrats on the career Pudge. I go to inductions every year, look forward to seeing you in 2017. I've made my reservations!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Why The Save is a Dumb Stat
Last night, Giants @ Rockies. Rockies win 17-8 (more than doubling the Giants runs!). Tyler Chatwood throws the last 3 innings (when the smallest margin for error was 8 runs!!) and gets the save because he didn't surrender the lead.
Anyone else see a problem with this?
Anyone else see a problem with this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)