Rey's net value
Chris Dial
I calculated Rey vs. the other NL SS for 1997, using RC, and adjusted all to
600 PAs. Blauser was the high with a park-adjusted 104. Rey was low at
36.4
The NL Avg was 68.0. That puts Rey at -31.4.
For defense, I got all the ZRs, and the zone data. I wanted to make the
comparisons over a full season. After looking at the average number of
balls hit into SS zones over 1350 innings a season, I settled with the
approximate (and round) number of 500 plays to normalize to. If you look at
the 1997 data, SS got ~3.25 balls per 9 innings, and there are ~1400
defensive innings per season. That works out to ~500 ZR Opportunities for a
full season. I then took the player's ZR and multiplied it by 500 to get
the number of plays (that would have been) made in a full season.
To convert this to defensive runs, and since I am doing shortstop, I used
0.47 (from LWts) for a play made, plus an 0.3 value for an out (I think I
lifted this from Woolner's VORP www.stathead.com). I also changed two
plays/500 to doubles saved (worth 0.78 + 0.30). I called this DRS/500
(defensive runs saved per 500 chances).
For the comparisons, I took the player's (RC-NLAvg + DRS-NLAvg) for the
player's TPR (Total Player Rating). Each player's own stats were removed
from the league average before calculation.
Here we go:
Player RC+ DRS+ TPR
Blauser 41.6 -9.0 32.5
Larkin/Reese 6.3 25.7 31.9
Clayton -0.2 21.5 21.4
Renteria -3.6 14.6 11.0
Gutierrez/Bogar 1.9 5.2 7.2
Weiss -4.7 1.7 -2.9
Polcovich 0.9 -4.2 -3.4
Vizcaino -4.6 -0.6 -5.2
Grudzielanek -1.9 -4.2 -6.1
Stocker -3.6 -5.9 -9.4
*Ordonez -31.4 17.5 -13.9*
Gomez -8.1 -8.9 -17.0
Dunston 12.4 -30.7 -18.3
Gagne -4.9 -13.5 -18.4
So in 1997, Rey was a detriment to the team to the tune of 1.5 wins. Not as
costly as Gomez, Dunston or Gagne, but bad nonetheless.
Were other Met players worse? I'll bet Gilkey and Baerga may have been.
I'll work on those evaluations.
I'll also try to keep the '98 TPRs. I'll post them when I can.
Chris Dial
Steve
Hey Chris,
Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books and
go to a game like last nights'. I know the "jump to your feet" excitement
of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
computer and see what he looks like then"! The game was well within' reach
at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea he
cost us 1.5 games a year?" Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a player
just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they say
its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
games, not from a book. You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has never
helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
METS"
Steve
Brian Perry
It just doesn't pay, does it Chris.
Steve, Chris is probably the anti-stathead on the group, in that while
he is familiar with stats and their use, he also appreciates other
aspects of the game and frequently is the one to contend with the
statheads on their own turf. He was the first to dispute the claim the
Alphonso was the equal of Rey with the glove prior to makin ghte bigs
and used stsats to back up his claims. As a card carrying member of the
Stathead lovers (I don't claim to be a stathead myself, its too much
work), Chris has my respect for his reasoned approach to statistics and
their appropriate uses (unlike those who think anyone who enjoys the
number side of the game isn't a RealFan (tm)).
Read the group for awhile before jumping in with both feet and landing
on the wrong guy.
Brian
Chris Dial
Steve wrote in message ...
>Hey Chris,
>Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books
and
>go to a game like last nights'. I know the "jump to your feet" excitement
>of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
>field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
>computer and see what he looks like then"! The game was well within' reach
>at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
>all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
>I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea
he
>cost us 1.5 games a year?" Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a player
>just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they
say
>its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
>games, not from a book. You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
>tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has never
>helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
>METS"
Do I get some kind of award for eliciting this post? Really. I should.
Chris Dial
Dan Szymborski
In article <OIFrkM6k9GA.269@upnetnews05>, Steve says...
> Hey Chris,
> Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books and
> go to a game like last nights'.
<whistles Entry March of the Gladiators>
> I know the "jump to your feet" excitement
> of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
> field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
> computer and see what he looks like then"!
<watches the clown fire truck tip over as the clowns pour out>
> The game was well within' reach
> at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
> all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
> I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea he
> cost us 1.5 games a year?"
<watches as Binky slaps Dr. Smiles with a mackerel>
> Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a player
> just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they say
> its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
> games, not from a book.
<watches as the clown with the green hair attempts to ride his
unicycle>
> You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
> tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has never
> helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
> METS"
<watches as the ringmaster gets sprayed by a bottle full of seltzer>
If you're not actually going to respond to a post while responding to
a post, you could at least try and entertain the crowd.
--
Dan Szymborski-Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
"As a statistic RBIs were not only misleading but
dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's
position in the batting order, park dimensions, and the success
of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left
two measurable factors - on base average and power -- by which
to gauge the overall offensive worth of an individual."
-Branch Rickey, August 2, 1954, Life Magazine
www.baseballstuff.com - For great baseball stuff
www.stathead.com, www.backatcha.com, www.baseballprospectus.com, and
www.strikethree.com - For great baseball stuff that I had
absolutely no part in writing, but is surely worth a read despite the
absence of my ridiculously dry wit.
tye...@fedfa.com
Here is an original thought! First off you have way too much time on your
hands...How bout getting a job and getting off welfare. Secondly WHO
CARES???? Rey hardly hurts you at bat...if you are relying on a 8th place
hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the greatest range of any
SS in MLB history according to the Scouts. Get a Life!!!
Jeff
In article <6lip58$fb7$1...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial"
Dan Szymborski
In article <6lk2d6$cfo$3...@winter.news.erols.com>, tye...@fedfa.com
says...
>
> Here is an original thought! First off you have way too much time on your
> hands...How bout getting a job and getting off welfare.
Ooooh. I bet Chris is smarting from that zinger.
> Secondly WHO
> CARES????
Well Mets fans, baseball fans, etc.
> Rey hardly hurts you at bat...
Of course he does. If he doesn't hurt you on offense, then nobody
does.
> if you are relying on a 8th place
> hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the greatest range of any
> SS in MLB history according to the Scouts.
Quotes please? Or are you just making stuff up. I've never heard
_any_ quotes that he had the greatest range of all time apart from a
small group of Mets fans.
And if Ordonez is such a defensive wizard, why then does he not make
significantly more plays than other shortstops? You would think that
the greatest defensive shortstop in the history of the game would
somehow make more plays a game than Pat Meares, Kevin Polcovich, or
Benji Gil do.
> Get a Life!!!
Of course, you're bashing Chris Dial, who is one of the few people to
make a coherent argument in favor of Rey on the Mets newsgroup. If
this is what he gets for being impartial, he might as well give up
trying to support Rey and let the "YOU ARE STOOPID REY IS A DEFENSUV
GOD" crowd speak for themselves.
And strangely enough, the Mets newsgroup is the only newsgroup that
seems to be obsessed with Rey Ordonez. You would think that such a
good player would get more of a mention elsewhere.
--
Nuyawk76
Whew! Very impressive work, Chris!<BR>
Tracey
Joseph Richardson
Dan Szymborski wrote:
>
> And strangely enough, the Mets newsgroup is the only newsgroup that
> seems to be obsessed with Rey Ordonez. You would think that such a
> good player would get more of a mention elsewhere.
Perhaps that's because we have an entire smorgasbord of fans of other
teams who come in here on a regular basis to obsess about Rey.
Joe
Jason Mann
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 22:26:21 GMT, tye...@fedfa.com wrote:
>
>Here is an original thought! First off you have way too much time on your
>hands...How bout getting a job and getting off welfare. Secondly WHO
>CARES???? Rey hardly hurts you at bat...if you are relying on a 8th place
>hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the greatest range of any
>SS in MLB history according to the Scouts. Get a Life!!!
Thanks for making me ill, Jeff. Chris' post was excellent (more than
excellent, really)...and a fair amount of work obviously went into it.
And then all you have to brilliantly say is a two second post telling
him to get off welfare and get a life....and on top of that spouting a
superbly unfounded argument of Rey having the "greatest range of any
SS in MLB history". You should've at least saved the Rey praising for
a different post.
If I didn't know better, I would think this is a post put in here by a
stathead to make those who regularly argue with them feel foolish for
being on this guy's side (the regular ol' fan side). But as I said, I
know better, and it makes me rather sad.
I'd love to see Gilkey and Baerga's #s, by the way Chris (if you don't
get off welfare and get a life in the meantime, I mean).
-Jason
Nuyawk76
>Hey Chris,
>Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books and
>of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
>field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
>at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
>all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
>I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea he
>just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they say
>its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
>tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has never
>helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
>METS"
>
Uh...Steve...I think you need to re-read Chris' posts. Chris continuously
posts in favor of keeping Rey in the Mets lineup. Furthermore, what he has
continuously been trying to show with the stats that he posts is that Rey is
not as damaging to the Mets as the anti-Reys say.<BR>
Tracey
Nuyawk76
>Here is an original thought! First off you have way too much time on your
>hands...How bout getting a job and getting off welfare. Secondly WHO
>CARES???? Rey hardly hurts you at bat...if you are relying on a 8th place
>hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the greatest range of any
>
>SS in MLB history according to the Scouts. Get a Life!!!
>
Again, I think maybe you need to re-read the post. Chris is arguing in favor
of keeping Rey. And as was said earlier, Chris is doing this on the anti-Reys'
terms. I don't approve of looking at mere stats either, but I have no idea how
Chris feels on this subject--and neither can you from this post.<BR>
Tracey
Christopher Reidy
Richard C. Jones III
Christopher Reidy (headba...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Your numbers do not take in to effect the psycholigical
: effect having Rey's glove on the field. Pitchers feel more at ease with
: letting opposing hitters make contact and the other middle infielders
: (especially Baerga) feel like they can play within their limitations,
: knowing Rey's limitations do not exist (hyperbole!). Also, you must take
: in to account the psycholigical effect on the entire team anytime Rey
: makes an amazing play to turn a double play or get an important lead
: runner, there by short-circuiting big innings.
Wouldn't this psychological effect work in both directions, exaggerating both
his defensive prowess and his offensive ineptness? IOW, I can see that a
pitcher might be more comfortable with Rey playing behind him... but I can
also see a #7 hitter coming up with two out and thinking that if he doesn't
homer, he won't score. Rey kills rallies in both directions. The question
that has been hotly debated here is which outweighs the other. Chris's stats
suggest that he is, counting all the things that a baseball player does, an
average, perhaps slightly below average, starting shortstop. I have no idea
what a lot of those numbers mean, but the bottom line assessment is roughly
my impression of Ordonez, so I suppose I should feel vindicated.
Rick
Dan Szymborski
In article <6lkava$dh0$1...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>, Christopher
Reidy says...
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1151676990-4329
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> While i may understand and agree with most of your calculations, I must
> argue against the rationale of basing everything on these number's
> crunching statistics. There is a thing called overkill, and i think you
> did just that. Your numbers do not take in to effect the psycholigical
> effect having Rey's glove on the field. Pitchers feel more at ease with
> letting opposing hitters make contact and the other middle infielders
> (especially Baerga) feel like they can play within their limitations,
> knowing Rey's limitations do not exist (hyperbole!).
But you can't do this. You'd have to be a mind-reader to declare that
pitchers feel more at ease and other middle infielders feel they can
play within their limitations. Otherwise, you can even simply
fabricate arguments if you want to. I could say that Piazza sucks
because his excellent hitting puts more pressure on players to be on
base for him and his usually excellent on-base percentage puts more
pressure on players to drive him in.
> Also, you must take
> in to account the psycholigical effect on the entire team anytime Rey
> makes an amazing play to turn a double play or get an important lead
> runner, there by short-circuiting big innings. I urge you to keep
> making these calculations and posting them, because I enjoy RATIONAL,
> SANE debate about Rey Ordonez's positive/negative impact on the field,
> not the mean, nasty one-upsmanship that exists between the two factions.
And in addition, how come I never seem to see this psychological bunk
being used both ways? If it is possible that Rey's magical defense
makes the rest of the defensive players more confident and perform
better than why, by the same token, is it not possible that his
offensive ineptitude puts more pressure on other players in the
offense, causing them to play worse? Where's the psychological impact
on say, Brian McRae, who has to not only be the leadoff hitter, but
has to be the table-setter on a team with _two_ pitchers in the
starting lineup? Where's the psychological impact on everyone that
hits in front of Rey, knowing that they stand less of a chance of
being driven in than in front of other players?
Why are arguments of this sort only allowed to be made up for Rey and
not allowed to be used against Rey?
> --WebTV-Mail-1151676990-4329
> Content-Description: signature
> Content-Disposition: INLINE
> Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> <html><bg bgcolor=black><a href="http://www.mets.com"><center><img
> src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv16/mets.gif"><center></a><font
> color=darkcyan><font size=5><i>Christopher <font color=goldenrod>Reidy
> </i><font color=white><font size=2><b></html>
> --WebTV-Mail-1151676990-4329--
Christopher Reidy
Christopher Reidy
Dan Szymborski
In article <6lkme6$d2j$1...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, Christopher
Reidy says...
>
> --WebTV-Mail-994951434-685
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> hit. The eighth place hitter is always your weakest hitter. If Rey
> Ordonez was a .300 batter with 30 HR power, he would be batting much
> lower in the order. Assuming the Mets have an identical lineup, Husky
> would then be the 8th place batter. While Huskey is a better hitter
> than Ordonez, the psycholigal pressure to produce by the 7th place
> batter will always exist. Therefore the phsychological lift Rey's glove
> gives the pitchers and other middle infielders has a considerably larger
> impact than the psychological detriment he would give a 7th place
> hitter, because your worst hitter will ALWAYS be batting 8th.
Do you really believe that the human psyche works in a way such as
this? Statheads try to quantify events in baseball. You're trying to
quantify psychological impact. Now, who's trying to overquantify?
Chris Dial
tye...@fedfa.com wrote in message <6lk2d6$cfo$3...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>
>Here is an original thought!
I don't believe that's possible...
>First off you have way too much time on your hands...
I'd imagine everyone has equal "time" per day.
>How bout getting a job and getting off welfare.
Hey, they don't give just *anyone* a job down at the Pic-n-Pay.
>Secondly WHO CARES???? Rey hardly hurts you at bat...if you are relying on
a 8th >place hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the
greatest range of any
>SS in MLB history according to the Scouts. Get a Life!!!
My question is: do Dan, Doug, Milt, Kneepants, Jason, Glenn, Barry etc. find
this as funny as I do?
Years of fighting the Stathead War, and now I'm kicked out of
the...um...other faction.
I'm a man without an asbny-m camp...<sniff>
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
Dan Szymborski wrote in message ...
>In article <OIFrkM6k9GA.269@upnetnews05>, Steve says...
>> Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books
and
>> go to a game like last nights'.
>
>
>> of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
>> field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
>> computer and see what he looks like then"!
>
Augh!
>
>> The game was well within' reach
>> at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting
out
>> all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
>> I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea
he
>> cost us 1.5 games a year?"
>
><watches as Binky slaps Dr. Smiles with a mackerel>
Aaaaaaaaaah!
>
>> Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a player
>> just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they
say
>> its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
>> games, not from a book.
>
><watches as the clown with the green hair attempts to ride his
>unicycle>
Mommy!
>
>> You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
>> tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has
never
>> helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
>> METS"
>
><watches as the ringmaster gets sprayed by a bottle full of seltzer>
<sob, whimper>
>
>If you're not actually going to respond to a post while responding to
>a post, you could at least try and entertain the crowd.
Clowns scare me. How about some elephant tricks?
Chris Dial
David Marc Nieporent
In <OIFrkM6k9GA.269@upnetnews05>, Steve <steve...@email.msn.com> claimed:
>Hey Chris,
>Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books and
>go to a game like last nights'. I know the "jump to your feet" excitement
>of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
>field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
>computer and see what he looks like then"! The game was well within' reach
>at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
>all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
>I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea he
>cost us 1.5 games a year?" Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a player
>just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they say
>its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
>games, not from a book. You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
>tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has never
>helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
>METS"
Just out of curiosity, what is it about your genetic code that forces you
to stop thinking in order to enjoy something?
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
re...@econ.umd.edu
eyes glaze over and dismiss such analysis as nonsense because they don't
want to go to the trouble of understanding the numbers, but there are many of
us who appreciate this kind of analysis. I had been wondering just how Rey
would do with sophisticated statistical analysis, and you satisfied my
curiousity. I think your methods are quite sound.
-Steve
Dan Szymborski
In article <6lktnq$a3r$1...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial"
<acdial<nospam>@intrex.net> says...
[...]
> ><watches as the ringmaster gets sprayed by a bottle full of seltzer>
>
> <sob, whimper>
>
> >
> >If you're not actually going to respond to a post while responding to
> >a post, you could at least try and entertain the crowd.
>
>
> Clowns scare me. How about some elephant tricks?
You missed them. You were in the bathroom washing the cotton candy
off of your face.
As a side question, has anybody ever successfully eaten a whole thing
of cotton candy without getting even the slightest bit of moisture on
it? Usually, halfway through, some kind of spit or moisture gets on
it and turns the last of the cotton candy into this dark pink
substance that's as hard as a rock.
Richard C. Jones III
Christopher Reidy (headba...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Good point, but a 7th place hitter should ALWAYS think he has to geta
: hit. The eighth place hitter is always your weakest hitter.
Not necessarily. Some teams will bat a lesser hitter with speed 7th, a
better overall hitter (generally with a little pop) 8th. But in most
cases, you're right. My point is really that the #7 hitter needs to
get himself into scoring position with Ordonez following him because
there is very little likelihood of an extra-base hit.
<snip>
: Ask anybody connected with baseball (managers, players, coaches) and there
: will be a definate consensus; great defense by a shortstop is much more
: important thatn the runs he may produce as a batter. Offensive
: production can be made up elsewhere (outfield, catcher, 1B). Now there
: is a limit to how much of an offensive sacrafice you can make, im sure
: if Rey was a .180 batter for an entire season, then you have to get more
: offensive production!
But that, in effect, is the argument: that given his inability to walk,
his complete lack of power, and his unexceptional base-running, Rey is
the equivalent--in terms of OPS, RPI, etc.--of a .180-ish hitter who got
a "normal" proportion of walks, extra-base hits, etc.
: But right now he is battng near .240 and is
: showing signs of improvement every day. If he can be a consistant .260
: hitter, he is more than worth it.
Two problems. 1) if things were other than they are, they'd be different.
Ordonez is not, now, a consistent .260 hitter, nor has he ever hit that well
in the majors. 2) Ordonez's SLG and OBP numbers, even with a BA of .260,
would still be well below average (assuming he doesn't improve proportionately
more in those areas than in BA, which is of course possible). The problem,
ultimately, is whether he will save enough runs defensively to make up for
the runs that would have been created offensively by an average-hitting (and
fielding) shortstop. As I've said earlier, I think right now the answer is
"not quite." You seem to be acknowledging a moderate position of your own
in suggesting that Ordonez would be "more than worth it" IF he improves as
a hitter. I'll buy that. There are those who suggest he'll never improve.
Frankly, I doubt that we will, either, at least not considerably. But there
are exceptions to every "rule," and I've been wrong before... I'd like to
be this time, too, especially since it's clear the Mets are going to keep Rey
as their regular SS for the foreseeable future.
: If you want to see the Mets score
: more runs, don't replace Ordonez, get a better RF who can hit more HR's
: than Huskey, or a better leadoff hitter/CF who can get on base more and
: score more runs.
If all we want to do is score more runs, let's put Hundley at SS when he
comes back... Obviously, that's silly. The question is, as you suggested
earlier, how much defense is required to make up for poor hitting, or how
much hitting is required regardless of the level of defense. There are a
number of excellent defensive shortstops in the game right now. Most, if
not all, of them are better hitters than Ordonez. This leads me to suggest
that as of right now, Ordonez is not an all-star caliber player. Will he
be next year, or three years from now? I don't know. But I do know that
the Mets have won two World Series with one shortstop who was a little
above average and one who was a little below. Here's hoping they do it
again.
Rick
Brian Perry
Chris Dial
Come on over to the Dark Side, Chris. We'll appreciate you.
Brian
Christopher Reidy
ron.j...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
In article <6lkt2o$pga$1...@supernews.com>,
"Chris Dial" <acdial<nospam>@intrex.net> wrote:
>
> tye...@fedfa.com wrote in message <6lk2d6$cfo$3...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> >Get a Life!!!
>
> My question is: do Dan, Doug, Milt, Kneepants, Jason, Glenn, Barry etc. find
> this as funny as I do?
>
> Years of fighting the Stathead War, and now I'm kicked out of
> the...um...other faction.
>
> I'm a man without an asbny-m camp...<sniff>
Come over to the dark side Chris.
--
RNJ
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Richard C. Jones III
Christopher Reidy (headba...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Actually I'm not trying to make the case for or against Rey.
Nor am I... except to the extent of trying to rein in the extreme views on
both sides.
: All I'm trying to do is show that numbers and stats cannot by themselves
: be used to judge a players total worth. Rey an All-star. No way. I think by
: discussing the psychological effect he has on the lineup (good AND bad),
: I've made my point.
Agreed.
: And do I think he can improve? Most certainly. 260 60 RBI's is not out
: of reality one day for Rey.
*Can* improve? Sure. Is *likely* to improve (significantly)? I doubt it.
: I also want to mention that the Mets won a world's championship in 1986
: with an equally bad offensive shortsop with inferior defense compared to
: Rey (Santana)
Santana was better than Rey offensively, but on the whole a less valuable
player. He was the "below average" shortstop I mentioned in an earlier
post.
: Nice to have a pleasant, polite dialogue on this topic for a change!
Amen.
Rick
Chris Dial
Nuyawk76 wrote in message
<199806092149...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Hey Chris,
>>Why don't you stop crunchin' numbers and take your head out of the books
and
>>go to a game like last nights'. I know the "jump to your feet" excitement
>>of Rey's great play to 3rd did not make anyone who was around me in the
>>field boxes say "yeah, but lets go home and put all Rey's stat's in the
>>computer and see what he looks like then"! The game was well within' reach
>>at that point and Rey and Gilkey came up big. Do you think by spouting out
>>all these stats that you are going to get people who like Rey to go " Oh,
>>I've been wrong all this time, thanks for opening my eye's, I had no idea
he
>>cost us 1.5 games a year?" Come on, enjoy the game, be a kid enjoy a
player
>>just cause you like him. Not because you punched up the numbers and they
say
>>its alright to like him. Excitement comes from watching and going to the
>>games, not from a book. You'll probably find some fault even if Nomo wins
>>tonight. I know your going to say that what I'm going to say next has
never
>>helped the Mets win according to your stats. But I don't care, "LETS GO
>>METS"
>>
>
>Uh...Steve...I think you need to re-read Chris' posts. Chris continuously
>posts in favor of keeping Rey in the Mets lineup. Furthermore, what he has
>continuously been trying to show with the stats that he posts is that Rey
is
>not as damaging to the Mets as the anti-Reys say.<BR>
Thanks. And I think I have. Unfortunately, he isn't as helpful as I would
like. I think there are only three or four better SS in the NL. Minor
league defensive stats are not available (good ones anyway) so there aren't
really too many better options than Rey right now. With Blauser stinking in
Chicago, that would reduce better SS, but Weiss is playing out of his mind
to replace him.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
Jason Mann wrote in message <3582aa6c...@news.vgernet.net>...>>Here is an original thought! First off you have way too much time on your
>>hands...How bout getting a job and getting off welfare. Secondly WHO
>>CARES???? Rey hardly hurts you at bat...if you are relying on a 8th place
>>hitter to win games you are nuts....secondly he has the greatest range of
any
>>SS in MLB history according to the Scouts. Get a Life!!!
>
>excellent, really)...and a fair amount of work obviously went into it.
>And then all you have to brilliantly say is a two second post telling
>him to get off welfare and get a life....
Welfare is much harder to get than he thinks.
>and on top of that spouting a
>superbly unfounded argument of Rey having the "greatest range of any
>SS in MLB history". You should've at least saved the Rey praising for
>a different post.
>
>If I didn't know better, I would think this is a post put in here by a
>stathead to make those who regularly argue with them feel foolish for
>being on this guy's side (the regular ol' fan side). But as I said, I
>know better, and it makes me rather sad.
I'ed think so too, because in that sense it did show that Rey's defense does
not make up for his offense. I input Rey's '96 offense (which wasn't that
much higher) and his '97 defense and he does balance at those levels. If
Rey plays to those marks, his offense and defense _will_ balance, and he
won't be a detriment to the team. I think there is a better than even
chance of that happening. And he is only 26. If he improves this season,
and plays well from 27-30, then he should be an above average SS for five
solid seasons. More than enough to validate keeping him.
>
>I'd love to see Gilkey and Baerga's #s, by the way Chris (if you don't
>get off welfare and get a life in the meantime, I mean).
Gilkey and Baerga are easy...getting the rest of the NL players to compare
them to takes time.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
Richard C. Jones III wrote in message <6lkgh7$f6s$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
>Christopher Reidy (headba...@webtv.net) wrote:
>
>: Your numbers do not take in to effect the psycholigical
>: effect having Rey's glove on the field. Pitchers feel more at ease with
>: letting opposing hitters make contact and the other middle infielders
>: (especially Baerga) feel like they can play within their limitations,
>: in to account the psycholigical effect on the entire team anytime Rey
>: makes an amazing play to turn a double play or get an important lead
>: runner, there by short-circuiting big innings.
I think there is something to the effect of pitchers being more at ease with
good fielders rather than worrying about whether every groundball (flyball)
is going to be an adventure. This should be moderately trackable. Looking
at pitchers' ERAs and Opponents' OPS should show whether a pitcher pitches
better or worse under certain circumstances; that is, while Rey is in the
game. I posted earlier that in 1997, the Met pitchers that threw primarily
groundballs experienced a significant upswing in ERA and OOPS during the
month of June when Rey was out. While it certainly lends to the fact that
Rey's abscense was part of the problem, I didn't look to see if these
pitchers always struggled in June. This June we'll see how Reed pitches,
with Rey at SS.
>
>Wouldn't this psychological effect work in both directions, exaggerating
both
>his defensive prowess and his offensive ineptness? IOW, I can see that a
>pitcher might be more comfortable with Rey playing behind him... but I can
>also see a #7 hitter coming up with two out and thinking that if he doesn't
>homer, he won't score.
But this would also show up in the stats. The #7 hitter would hit better
with someone else behind them, correct? The protection argument has been
wobbling around, but there is no real evidence that says the man on deck
(other than a pitcher) affects BA/OBP/SLG. So, no, the psychological
effects don't work this way.
While either the pitcher or the hitter may think about Rey being behind
them, if it doesn't actually affect their performance (as it shows up in
their stats), it doesn't matter if they _think_ it affects their
performance.
>Rey kills rallies in both directions. The question
>that has been hotly debated here is which outweighs the other. Chris's
stats
>suggest that he is, counting all the things that a baseball player does, an
>average, perhaps slightly below average, starting shortstop.
Actually, I think he is above average. Sounds like I am contradicting my
own post? Well, Rey had a poor defensive 1996 coupled with a weak bat. In
1997, Rey had a good defensive season and took a nose dive offensively (and
some didn't think that possible). I input Rey's 1996 offense and his 1997
defense in the spreadsheet, and he jumps from 11th to 6th. Defensively, Rey
outperformed everyone but Royce Clayton and the Reds' combo (but Larkin had
a HUGE defensive year). Offensively, Rey was the worst. Combined, Rey was
not good.
If Rey raises his offensive level to his weak 1996, and plays defense to his
1997 level (or higher), he will be above average. One problem with average
in the NL, there are three above average SS. (On the TPR scale I used,
average is 0.0)
>I have no idea
>what a lot of those numbers mean,
You probably do, but don't know you do. I used pretty basic stuff.
>but the bottom line assessment is roughly
>my impression of Ordonez, so I suppose I should feel vindicated.
I am sure you do, because the numbers said what you wanted them to say. If
I had posted that Rey's overall value was +3 wins, would you feel like I had
done an accurate assessment?
The numbers _didn't_ say what I wanted them to say. But I feel I did a
better assessment than has been done so far (it could certainly be improved
on).
Chris Dial
Hank
Joseph Richardson <jmr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<357D9E...@ix.netcom.com>...
Wait a minute...you don't mean...naw, Dan wouldn't be one of them,
would he?
Christopher Reidy
Christopher Reidy
Richard C. Jones III
Chris Dial" @intrex.net> (acdial<nospam) wrote:
: I think there is something to the effect of pitchers being more at ease with
: good fielders rather than worrying about whether every groundball (flyball)
: is going to be an adventure. This should be moderately trackable. Looking
: at pitchers' ERAs and Opponents' OPS should show whether a pitcher pitches
: better or worse under certain circumstances; that is, while Rey is in the
: game. I posted earlier that in 1997, the Met pitchers that threw primarily
: groundballs experienced a significant upswing in ERA and OOPS during the
: month of June when Rey was out. While it certainly lends to the fact that
: Rey's abscense was part of the problem, I didn't look to see if these
: pitchers always struggled in June. This June we'll see how Reed pitches,
: with Rey at SS.
Wouldn't this psychological advantage, assuming it exists, be translated into
performance stats, as well? IOW, as you suggest WRT #7 hitters, it doesn't
matter if players *think* they are doing better, only if they *are*. Wouldn't
whatever calculations are involved in determining how many runs are saved or
cost by defensive players already reflect any real improvement, regardless
of its cause?
<snip>
: Actually, I think he is above average. <snip>
: If Rey raises his offensive level to his weak 1996, and plays defense to his
: 1997 level (or higher), he will be above average.
Aren't these two different things? Saying that Rey *could be* above average
IF he were to combine a good (for him) offensive season with a good (for him)
defensive season is not the same as saying that he *is* above average. If and
when he accomplishes what you suggest, then he will be (arguably) above
average. . . but not until then.
: >I have no idea
: >what a lot of those numbers mean,
: You probably do, but don't know you do. I used pretty basic stuff.
I meant literally that I don't know what those numbers mean, not that I
couldn't understand them if someone explained them. If you'd be willing
to e-mail me (I don't think anyone else is terribly interested), I'd
appreciate a brief explanation.
: >but the bottom line assessment is roughly
: >my impression of Ordonez, so I suppose I should feel vindicated.
: I am sure you do, because the numbers said what you wanted them to say. If
: I had posted that Rey's overall value was +3 wins, would you feel like I had
: done an accurate assessment?
First of all, my "vindication" was somewhat tongue in cheek. I am--like
you, I think--of the opinion that numbers can tell us something but not
everything, and that some numbers are more valuable than others. I can't
comment on whether I *really* think your statistical analysis is valid
until and unless I understand your methodology (see above). Of course,
I'm more interested in your work because it confirms my impressions than
I would be if it ran completely counter to them, but I have no particular
interest in "wanting them to say" anything. Your methods are good or bad
in their own right. I would discount them had they shown Ordonez is better
than A-Rod, or had they shown that he belongs in a softball beer league...
but confirming my impression of Ordonez doesn't make them "good." I
suspect that the same methods applied to other players would contradict
my impression of them. Again, this is independent of the validity or
lack thereof of your methods. What you have provided is a line of
analysis which is useful but not infallible: the same (except in terms
of purported authority and perhaps *degree* of "accuracy") as your subjective
impressions or mine, in that sense.
: The numbers _didn't_ say what I wanted them to say. But I feel I did a
: better assessment than has been done so far (it could certainly be improved
: on).
Agreed. Thank you.
Rick
Richard C. Jones III
Christopher Reidy (headba...@webtv.net) wrote:
: I think the only thing we disagree about is Rey's growth potential. I
: say relax, let him learn to hit within his limitations, and see if he
: blossoms into an adequate #8 hitter.
Given the fact that the Mets hierarchy obviously thinks Rey is better than
I think he is, this seems like sound advice. If I really put my mind to
it, I suspect I could think of something of greater importance to worry
about than who plays SS for the Mets.
Rick
spann...@webtv.net
Hank
Richard C. Jones III <rjo...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in article
<6lmijm$tf8$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
> Chris Dial" @intrex.net> (acdial<nospam) wrote:
>
> I meant literally that I don't know what those numbers mean, not that I
> couldn't understand them if someone explained them. If you'd be willing
> to e-mail me (I don't think anyone else is terribly interested), I'd
> appreciate a brief explanation.
>
>
I, for one, would also be interested in their meaning. If you're going to
be
explaining them, why not put them in here for everyone? Those who don't
care can simply ignore them.
Hank
Chris Dial
Richard C. Jones III wrote in message <6lmijm$tf8$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
with
>: good fielders rather than worrying about whether every groundball
(flyball)
>: is going to be an adventure. This should be moderately trackable.
Looking
>: at pitchers' ERAs and Opponents' OPS should show whether a pitcher
pitches
>: better or worse under certain circumstances; that is, while Rey is in the
>: game. I posted earlier that in 1997, the Met pitchers that threw
primarily
>: groundballs experienced a significant upswing in ERA and OOPS during the
>: month of June when Rey was out. While it certainly lends to the fact
that
>: Rey's abscense was part of the problem, I didn't look to see if these
>: pitchers always struggled in June. This June we'll see how Reed pitches,
>: with Rey at SS.
>
>Wouldn't this psychological advantage, assuming it exists, be translated
into
>performance stats, as well?
Yes. That is what I was saying above. Confidence in Rey's defense should
show up in a pitcher's ERA or hid OOPS. I was making the point that last
June, when Rey was out with his injury, the Met pitchers that rely on
groundballs being turned into outs had a bad month. Coincidence? Possibly.
But each pitcher may be a June swoon-er. We'll see how Rick Reed pitches
with Rey behind him this June.
>IOW, as you suggest WRT #7 hitters, it doesn't
>matter if players *think* they are doing better, only if they *are*.
Wouldn't
>whatever calculations are involved in determining how many runs are saved
or
>cost by defensive players already reflect any real improvement, regardless
>of its cause?
Yes, but since defensive stats aren't available in that form yet, we look at
how the pitchers perform with said defense behind them.
>: Actually, I think he is above average. <snip>
>
>: If Rey raises his offensive level to his weak 1996, and plays defense to
his
>: 1997 level (or higher), he will be above average.
>
>Aren't these two different things? Saying that Rey *could be* above
average
>IF he were to combine a good (for him) offensive season with a good (for
him)
>defensive season is not the same as saying that he *is* above average.
Well, Rey has two seasons in MLB. He hit .592 OPS in 1996. That is
slightly higher than what was expected from his minor league stats, but
within the standard deviation. In 1997 he hit .512 OPS. Much lower than
expected. Rey is 26. Players peak from 26-28. To expect Rey to perform
.592 or better is reasonable. I'm not saying he should post a .850 or
anything, but .600 is not outlandish, nor would be a "good season for him".
It is within a normal flux for players that hit like him. IOW, if I were
predicting Rey's OPS for this season, I would guess ~.590. STATS, known for
being conservative, predicted .565. So it isn't a stretch to expect Rey to
hit .590. I'm not asking him to have a great season or anything.
Defensively, Rey posted outstanding minor league assist and putout totals,
leading to the Ozzie comparisons. He had a weak 48 games in AA (moved
mid-season) and was awesome in AAA. His first season with the Mets was
average, when spectacular was expected. His second season he put up the
great defensive numbers expected.
I am only saying that if Rey puts up numbers that he already has and numbers
_that are *expected* based on his past performances_, he will satisfy
everyone's criteria to be considered above average.
>If and when he accomplishes what you suggest, then he will be (arguably)
above
>average. . . but not until then.
For a semantical argument, he can be above average, just not demonstrably
so.
>
>: >I have no idea
>: >what a lot of those numbers mean,
>
>: You probably do, but don't know you do. I used pretty basic stuff.
>
>I meant literally that I don't know what those numbers mean, not that I
>couldn't understand them if someone explained them. If you'd be willing
>to e-mail me (I don't think anyone else is terribly interested), I'd
>appreciate a brief explanation.
I'll write a good explanation.
>
>: >but the bottom line assessment is roughly
>: >my impression of Ordonez, so I suppose I should feel vindicated.
>
>: I am sure you do, because the numbers said what you wanted them to say.
If
>: I had posted that Rey's overall value was +3 wins, would you feel like I
had
>: done an accurate assessment?
>
>First of all, my "vindication" was somewhat tongue in cheek.
Sorry, that didn't read very nicely.
>I am--like you, I think--of the opinion that numbers can tell us something
but not
>everything, and that some numbers are more valuable than others. I can't
>comment on whether I *really* think your statistical analysis is valid
>until and unless I understand your methodology (see above). Of course,
>I'm more interested in your work because it confirms my impressions than
>I would be if it ran completely counter to them, but I have no particular
>interest in "wanting them to say" anything. Your methods are good or bad
>in their own right. I would discount them had they shown Ordonez is better
>than A-Rod, or had they shown that he belongs in a softball beer league...
>but confirming my impression of Ordonez doesn't make them "good." I
>suspect that the same methods applied to other players would contradict
>my impression of them. Again, this is independent of the validity or
>lack thereof of your methods.
Sehr gut.
>What you have provided is a line of
>analysis which is useful but not infallible: the same (except in terms
>of purported authority and perhaps *degree* of "accuracy") as your
subjective
>impressions or mine, in that sense.
>
>: The numbers _didn't_ say what I wanted them to say. But I feel I did a
>: better assessment than has been done so far (it could certainly be
improved
>: on).
>
>Agreed. Thank you.
You are welcome. Explanations forthcoming.
Chris Dial
ron.j...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
In article <6lip58$fb7$1...@supernews.com>,
"Chris Dial" <acdial<nospam>@intrex.net> wrote:
Missed this the first time around.
Before we get started, I'm glad to see you clearly explained your methods.
> I calculated Rey vs. the other NL SS for 1997, using RC, and adjusted
> all to 600 PAs. Blauser was the high with a park-adjusted 104. Rey was
> low at 36.4
>
> The NL Avg was 68.0. That puts Rey at -31.4.
Two problems here.
The real comp is not against the average, but against the freely
available talent. (Which of course leaves the problem of defining
what that level is.) After all, if you decide to replace Rey, you
can't have another team's starter simply for the asking.
And in getting those 36 runs, Ordonez consumed more outs. You need
an adjustment for this.
> For defense, I got all the ZRs, and the zone data. I wanted to make the
> comparisons over a full season. After looking at the average number of
> balls hit into SS zones over 1350 innings a season, I settled with the
> approximate (and round) number of 500 plays to normalize to. If you
> look at the 1997 data, SS got ~3.25 balls per 9 innings, and there are
> ~1400 defensive innings per season. That works out to ~500 ZR
> Opportunities for a full season.
> I then took the player's ZR and multiplied it by 500 to get the number of
> plays (that would have been) made in a full season.
>
> To convert this to defensive runs, and since I am doing shortstop, I used
> 0.47 (from LWts) for a play made, plus an 0.3 value for an out (I think I
> lifted this from Woolner's VORP www.stathead.com). I also changed two
> plays/500 to doubles saved (worth 0.78 + 0.30). I called this DRS/500
> (defensive runs saved per 500 chances).
You also need some adjustments for DPs. The way I calculate this on a team
level is DP / (H+BB+HBP-2B-3B-HR-SB-CS)
The Mets were above average here. They turned a few more DP/inning with
Lopez as the starter, but this should count as a positive.
I like to use as many defensive metrics as I can. You might want to
include some form of DW% and some form of Clay Davenport's new
metric (his decision not to use defensive innings seems clearly
wrong - though I understand why he went that way).
> For the comparisons, I took the player's (RC-NLAvg + DRS-NLAvg) for the
> player's TPR (Total Player Rating). Each player's own stats were removed
> from the league average before calculation.
>
> Here we go:
>
> Player RC+ DRS+ TPR
> Blauser 41.6 -9.0 32.5
> Larkin/Reese 6.3 25.7 31.9
Of course this is *all* Larkin. Reese is a stiff of epic proportions.
> Clayton -0.2 21.5 21.4
> Renteria -3.6 14.6 11.0
> Gutierrez/Bogar 1.9 5.2 7.2
> Weiss -4.7 1.7 -2.9
Might be a tad low. Coors clearly affects ZR (upwards of 10% overall)
though it's tough to say how much it affects any given position.
> Polcovich 0.9 -4.2 -3.4
> Vizcaino -4.6 -0.6 -5.2
> Grudzielanek -1.9 -4.2 -6.1
> Stocker -3.6 -5.9 -9.4
> *Ordonez -31.4 17.5 -13.9*
> Gomez -8.1 -8.9 -17.0
> Dunston 12.4 -30.7 -18.3
> Gagne -4.9 -13.5 -18.4
>
> So in 1997, Rey was a detriment to the team to the tune of 1.5 wins.
Give or take. Not to be impolite, but listing the results to a single
decimal place suggests greater precision than we really have. I really
doubt that the overall results are accurate to within 5 runs.
And the quibbles I have with your methods don't affect the overall
general ranking. All three of the players listed below Rey were poor
on the DP.
> Not as costly as Gomez, Dunston or Gagne, but bad nonetheless.
As I see it, slightly above replacement level, but replaceable
by the best of the free talent.
To show what I mean, consider 1B. I think it's reasonable to include
Roberto Petagine among the freely available talent. But that doesn't
mean that any 1B who hit worse that Petagine should be replaced.
After all, there's only one RP.
And at SS, you're very unlikely to get a complete package. The better
offensive SS are probably not good defensive players (although here
there's the issue of perception versus reality.)
>
> Were other Met players worse? I'll bet Gilkey and Baerga may have been.
> I'll work on those evaluations.
That's my gut feeling too. It's easy to come up with freely available
players who were substantially better than Gilkey.
> I'll also try to keep the '98 TPRs. I'll post them when I can.
Nice work.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial @intrex.net> wrote in message <6lip58$fb7$1...@supernews.com>...
>I calculated Rey vs. the other NL SS for 1997, using RC, and adjusted all
to
>600 PAs. Blauser was the high with a park-adjusted 104. Rey was low at
>36.4
>
>The NL Avg was 68.0. That puts Rey at -31.4.
Runs Created (RC) is an evaluation of a hitter's contribution from a variety
of batting and baserunning events, and it was created by Bill James. There
are several versions, some more technical, depending on which statistics are
available to you.
The general formula is: A*B/C , where:
A = (H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP)
Hits, walks, hit-by-pitch, caught stealing, ground into doubleplays
B = (TB+ 0.26*[BB-IBB+HBP]+0.52[SH+SF+SB])
Total bases, intentional walks, sacrifice hits (bunts), sacrifice
flies, stolen bases
C = (AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF) or Plate Appearances
At bats...etc.
I have an excellent mastery of Excel, and so I have all these formulas and
so it takes about 30 seconds to calculate a players RC from his raw stats,
as listed above. I actually input doubles, triples and homers, and Excel
calcs total bases.
The next part is where I deviate from general statheadity. The general use
for RC is in the form of RC/27, or runs created per 27 outs, which equals a
game. The idea here is illustrate how many runs would be created per game
by a lineup of all this one player. Nine Rey Ordonez' or Nine Barry Bonds'.
If I am comparing players' seasons, I like to calculate RC/600. I chose 600
in this study anyway. I chose 600 because Rey bats 8th, and 8 hitters only
get ~600 PAs. A closer look tells me they get ~650, but 600 is prettier.
After calculating a player's RCs form his raw data, I normalize everyone's
RC to 600 PAs (like this: RC/(Actual PAs/600) ).
This basically gives me the number of RCs each player would produce in the 8
hole, regadless of where they hit during the season. Mark Grudzielanek had
700+ PAs, while Rey had 390 PAs. This puts their seasons on the same
baseline.
There may be a damn good explanation why I shouldn't do it this way, but I
don't know what it is.
This gives me the offensive numbers for each player. The NL average SS
created 66 runs per 600 plate appearances. Just above, I say the avg. SS
created 68. Well, for proper comparisons, I only compare a player to * the
average of the other players*, removing the player being compared from the
league averages. When Rey is taken out of the NL SS average, it goes up two
RCs. When Blauser (at 104) is removed, the average goes down.
>
>For defense, I got all the ZRs, and the zone data. I wanted to make the
>comparisons over a full season. After looking at the average number of
>balls hit into SS zones over 1350 innings a season, I settled with the
>approximate (and round) number of 500 plays to normalize to. If you look
at
>the 1997 data, SS got ~3.25 balls per 9 innings, and there are ~1400
>defensive innings per season. That works out to ~500 ZR Opportunities for
a
>full season. I then took the player's ZR and multiplied it by 500 to get
>the number of plays (that would have been) made in a full season.
For defense, I use a stat called zone rating. ZR is basically a player's
defensive batting average. The company, STATS, scores all major league ball
games, and writes down where each ball is hit. At each game, there are
several (at least three) professionals writing down the direction, distance
from home, and how hard, each ball is hit. (They also write down every
pitch, and what type it was). I used to be one of the scorers for STATS,
scoring Mets' games. STATS can check discrepancies between the scorers with
videotape as well (they do this, and grade your scoring).
Each position (1b, 2b, ss, 3b, etc) has a section of the field to cover, and
we all have an idea of which balls are hit toward short. STATS counts every
ball hit into the SS zones. Every ball hit there counts against the player,
whether he fields it or not. This is like his at bats. Every play he
makes, pop-up or groundball, counts as hits. So his zone rating is:
balls turned into outs/balls hit into zone
Technically, this allows for "extra credit". If Rey makes a play on the
other side of second base, he gets credit for a "ball turned into out" but
does not see an increase in the denominator: ball hit into zone, because his
range allowed him to get to a ball not in his zone. ZR is good for
rewarding players with great range.
ZR has flaws, but it is the best information available. ZR doesn't count
knocking down a ball, so the runner can't score from second for example.
But we have to work with the info we have.
What is posted at ESPN and CNN/SI (which I prefer) is a player's ZR, in the
form of 0.947, or something like that. The numbers have a range similar to
fielding percentage. ZR numbers have different "acceptable" levels for each
position. Rey's ZR isn't the same as Alfonzo's at third. And as such you
shouldn't try to compare different positions.
The actual number of balls hit into each SS's zone is available in the
STATS' Player Profiles book. During the season, I imagine you have to be on
AOL or subscribe to STATS website, which I don't do.
I need to change these percentages to something similar to RC. So I did
this:
>To convert this to defensive runs, and since I am doing shortstop, I used
>0.47 (from LWts) for a play made, plus an 0.3 value for an out (I think I
>lifted this from Woolner's VORP www.stathead.com). I also changed two
>plays/500 to doubles saved (worth 0.78 + 0.30). I called this DRS/500
>(defensive runs saved per 500 chances).
When Bill James "invented" RC, Pete Palmer created a system to measure all
the events on a baseball field in terms of runs. It is called Linear
Weights. RC and LW are very close in terms of predicting run scoring. In
LW, a single is worth 0.47 runs, and each extra base is worth 0.31 runs
(2b=0.78, 3b=1.09...). In this same value system, an out is worth -0.27.
This is overall, and all of these values fluctuate slightly, based on the le
ague offense. As offense is very high now, I used -0.30 for an out, but
mostly because I read it, rather than arbitrarily assigned it. In
retrospect, I feel I should have used -0.27, and probably will compromise
at -0.28 for future defensive run calculations.
Ron Johnson indicated that about two balls hit through the SS zones become
extra base hits (per team). He got this from a group similar to STATS,
charting balls put in play. I'm sure most of us find that reasonable, based
on where the SS is positioned, and grounders have a hard time getting past
the LF and CF. It happens sometimes, but not very often.
I took all the starting SS innings, and the number of balls hit into their
zones. The above info (~1400 defensive innings, ~500 balls into zone) is
achieved by looking at the averages of the 1997 _actual_ data. Some SS got
more because they have groundball pitchers or all left-handed pitching
staffs, or all right-handed pitching staffs, or all fly ball pitchers, but
the number varies from team to team. The average was ~ 500, so I multiplied
each SS's ZR by 500 to see how many plays they would make out of 500, or a
full defensive season, to match their full batting season of 600 PAs above.
This gives us a number like 450 out of 500 plays. Almost all of these plays
saved singles. By multiplying these singles by the LW value of (0.47+0.30),
we get the run value of the SS's defense. For the 450 plays above, that
would be: (448*0.77+2*1.08) or 347 runs saved over the season. Remember,
two of the plays would have been doubles, and those outs are worth more.
But is 347 defensive runs saved (DRS) over a full season of 500 plays good,
bad or average?
Again, I compared each player to the league average of the other SS.
Rey was +17.5 DRS/500 above the average, while Blauser was -9.0 DRS/500.
>
>For the comparisons, I took the player's (RC-NLAvg + DRS-NLAvg) for the
>player's TPR (Total Player Rating). Each player's own stats were removed
>from the league average before calculation.
Then I added the numbers together to get the players total (offense RC +
defense DRS) run contribution to the team.
>
>Here we go:
>
>Player RC+ DRS+ TPR
>Blauser 41.6 -9.0 32.5
>Larkin/Reese 6.3 25.7 31.9
>Clayton -0.2 21.5 21.4
>Renteria -3.6 14.6 11.0
>Gutierrez/Bogar 1.9 5.2 7.2
>Weiss -4.7 1.7 -2.9
>Polcovich 0.9 -4.2 -3.4
>Vizcaino -4.6 -0.6 -5.2
>Grudzielanek -1.9 -4.2 -6.1
>Stocker -3.6 -5.9 -9.4
>*Ordonez -31.4 17.5 -13.9*
>Gomez -8.1 -8.9 -17.0
>Dunston 12.4 -30.7 -18.3
>Gagne -4.9 -13.5 -18.4
In general, every 10 runs here is worth a win to the team. And that's why I
say Rey costs the Mets 1.5 wins in 1997.
I hope this explanation of methodology is clear. Please feel free to email
me with more specific or stupid questions, because I don't have a job and I
am just living off welfare without a life.
Chris Dial
Richard C. Jones III
Chris Dial" @intrex.net> (acdial<nospam) wrote:
<a lengthy and detailed description of his methodology>
Thanks for taking the time to do this, Chris. Since you "have no life,"
I may be in touch with further questions after I've had a chance to
contemplate a little.
Rick
Art
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:48:06 -0400, Cze...@erols.com (Dan Szymborski)
wrote:
>In article <6lkme6$d2j$1...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, Christopher
>Reidy says...
>
>Do you really believe that the human psyche works in a way such as
>this? Statheads try to quantify events in baseball. You're trying to
>quantify psychological impact. Now, who's trying to overquantify?
I have posted, on several occasions, the studies of psychological
effects on athletes and in the workplace, and yes the psychological
effects of poor working conditions, of confidence, of underconfidence
have ALL been quantified, and are able to be reproduced with amazingly
similar results. Though the numbers vary from sport to sport and
person to person, the confident athlete's performance can increase as
much as 200%, and the underconfident athlete's performance can be
reduced by as much as 75%.
Before you dismiss the psychological effects on people, read about
them. They're in any local library in Psychology Today. There are
also several good books written on the subject.
ART
Barry S. Mandel
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:00:04 -0400, "Chris Dial"
<acdial<nospam>@intrex.net> shouted into the vast recesses of space:
>My question is: do Dan, Doug, Milt, Kneepants, Jason, Glenn, Barry etc. find
>this as funny as I do?
>Years of fighting the Stathead War, and now I'm kicked out of
>the...um...other faction.
>I'm a man without an asbny-m camp...<sniff>
Fascinating. I find this event to be on a par with the day I received
my own very first "Get your head out of the statbooks, loser" flame.
(Yes kids, if it can happen to me, it can truly happen to anyone.)
Strange to find yourself an outcast in both camps, ain't it, Chris?
Ah well, sometimes I think it's easier to get your viewpoint across
here when everyone thinks you're just a troll.
Note to Steve in NYC: I have both a stat book and season tickets. I
keep score when the mood hits me, I drive in the center lane on the
Van Wyck, I sometimes watch the Yankees, and I'm voting a split ticket
this November. Women say I'm afraid of commitment, but I call it
being open-minded. Give it a try sometime.
-- BSM
"First, let's kill all the lawyers...." -- W. Shakespeare
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -- G. Carlin
[To reply, please remove "spamoff" from E-mail address.]
Chris Dial
Richard C. Jones III wrote in message <6lomip$ere$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
Glad to do it. Email me as you feel the urge.
Chris
Dan Szymborski
In article <358048bc....@news.supernews.net>, Art says...
I wasn't dismissing it in this statement, and if you had actually read
what I said, you would've seen this.
I was dismissing Reidy's explanation of Rey's psychological impact.
So, you really believe that without even knowing or talking to these
people, you can state that Rey has a net pyschological impact because
the confidence boost given by his good defense is more than the
confidence letdown given by his bad offense.
You should notify psychologists that they wasted all the years
studying their subject and all their time analyzing their patients
as it is a complete waste of time. After all, if they had just become
Met fans, they could've determined an individual's psychological
profile from watching the person play a baseball game on TV and seeing
nice quotes in the newspaper rather than going to college and
studying psychology and reading all those books that you're talking
about.
Christopher Reidy
Dan Szymborski
In article <6lrofp$mv3$1...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>, Christopher
Reidy says...
>
> --WebTV-Mail-752363214-1908
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> Sorry but Rey DOES have a psychological impact on the team. Positive
> defensively, negative offensively. This cannot be disputed,
How can it not be disputed? Are you saying that it's completely out
of the realm of possibility that his defense hurts Baerga and Alfonzo
because they get overconfident knowing they have a great shortstop to
cover them. Or conversely, that his pathetic offense spurs Olerud and
Hundley to hit better because they want to be team leaders?
Unless people are all cookie-cutter clones, you can certainly dispute
it.
> nor can it
> be accurately measured.
Now, here's the issue. Sure, psychological impact can't be measured,
but runs scored and runs allowed can. And if positive or negative
psychological events have no effect on either run scoring or run
allowing, then why should they be taken into account? Now, if
psychological events _do_ have an effect on run scoring, then we _can_
see it. If Rey Ordonez starts coming in with a box of Nilla Wafers
and the paste that sticks to the roof of your mouth causes Olerud to
be annoyed and lose his plate discipline for weeks, then this can be
measured.
> So determining a truly accurate number to
> define his worth is not possible. Its not possible to do it for any
> ballplayer. How do you accurately measure the intimidation factor a
> pitcher has when Mark Mcgwire is up at bat?
You don't need to. What you need to measure is the intimidation
factor's effect on run scoring. If McGwire's intimidation doesn't
cause any change in run scoring, then it's not something that should
be considered in evaluation.
> Anybody trying to come up
> with an accurate number on a players worth is on a fool's errand.
> Without a way to measure EVERY player's impact on a game or his team
> makes it totally impossible.
Nobody's trying to put an exact number. But the numbers around are
very accurate. For example, you can predict how many runs a team
scored over a season within 5% the vast majority of the time with
_only_ knowing the on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and plate
appearances. If you can explain 95% of offense with just these three
numbers, it's pretty clear that these three numbers are very
important.
There's a very good reason why some of these things are called the
"little things". They're just not very important.
> --WebTV-Mail-752363214-1908
> Content-Description: signature
> Content-Disposition: INLINE
> Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> <html><bg bgcolor=black><a href="http://www.mets.com"><center><img
> src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv16/mets.gif"><center></a><font
> color=darkcyan><font size=5><i>Christopher <font color=goldenrod>Reidy
> </i><font color=white><font size=2><b></html>
> --WebTV-Mail-752363214-1908--
David Marc Nieporent
In <6lrofp$mv3$1...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>,
Christopher Reidy <headba...@webtv.net> claimed:
>Sorry but Rey DOES have a psychological impact on the team. Positive
>defensively, negative offensively. This cannot be disputed,
Sure it can. I dispute it. Prove it.
>nor can it
>be accurately measured.
Er, then, how do you know?
>So determining a truly accurate number to
>define his worth is not possible. Its not possible to do it for any
>ballplayer. How do you accurately measure the intimidation factor a
>pitcher has when Mark Mcgwire is up at bat?
Easy -- you don't. You measure results. If teams with lots of power, or
teams with individual players that have lots of power, overperform, then
that gets factored into the formulae.
>Anybody trying to come up
>with an accurate number on a players worth is on a fool's errand.
>Without a way to measure EVERY player's impact on a game or his team
>makes it totally impossible.
But we can. The margin of error on the more sophisticated stats like RC
-- which only takes into account the tangible events in baseball, the
hits, walks, outs, etc. -- is a few percentage points. That means these
measurements are accurate within a few percentage points.
It's possible that the intangibles make St. Rey 5% more valuable than his
numbers make him look. It's not possible that they make him 20% more
valuable; if they did, the formulas wouldn't work.
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
Christopher Reidy