|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 27, 2011 9:45:02 GMT -8
That's why a player like Evan Longoria gets a 6 year $48 million dollar contract when he's a first year big leaguer and a player like Chase Headley doesn't. The contract Longoria signed wasn't strictly for his defense, nor, for his doubles prowess, but his overall batting and power prowess. His ability to stop runs from scoring, and , more importantly his ability to generate runs all by himself. Money equals value in MLB. We're limited in what we can pay at this time. My whole point to this discussion is the premise that the Padres won't pay Headley the money arbitration says he'll get solely due to his Super 2 designation last year. He will be eligible for at least 3.0 - 3.2 million next year, minimum. For a guy that plays 3B and has hit 2 HR's with 28 RBI's in 75 games so far this year? I don't think so. If Headley stole 75 bags a year, maybe, but he doesn't does he? So you are saying Headley is no good because no one will pay him a bunch of money because they pay money to guys that are not like Headley. That is a pathetic appeal to authority. When losing an argument appeal to a higher authority. Let's just keep this a discussion on the players and not other peoples opinion of the players. When I have all the information about something, I don't care what others think about it. I can make up my own mind. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 27, 2011 9:57:36 GMT -8
...Tell me what you see in the example of BABIP above re: Headley? Check out Headley's ISO as well. Gone from .131 to .111 and now .106 from 2009 till now. Headley's HR/FB rate is trending down too, 2009 till now, 7.6 6.4 to now 3.3. That means his ability to drive the ball out of the park is going down, down, down... SLG minus BA. That stat counts a home run 3 times more than a double. As I have written before a home run and double are much closer in value. A home run is worth 1.7 runs more than an out. A double is worth 1.08 runs more than an out. Therefore a home run is worth about 17/11 more than a double - not 33/11. So ISO over rates the value of a home run by 33/17 (about double the actual value difference according to wOBA). Naturally it would rate Headley's current year badly. ISO is not intended to rate a player's entire offense. It is intended to rate his power heavily slanted toward home runs. It is an irrelevant stat in this discussion. Headley's offense is lessened since he doesn't hit many home runs. But let's judge how much it is lessened fairly.
I think I addressed each of your points. You like to say I ignore your points. So if I missed something, let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 28, 2011 13:44:33 GMT -8
Headley is now hitting .300. He has been hovering right below it for a week or so.
Next step is a .400 OBP. He is pretty close now - .397.
With two June games left he will have a pretty good month.
June........... .357 .443 .476 .919 Reminiscent of...
Gwynn 1984 .351 .410 .444 .854
|
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jun 28, 2011 14:39:23 GMT -8
I feel like if the park played fairer the criticism of Headley would dwindle, considering he's hitting .340 or so away and .230 at home with more of his doubles away. I have criticized him the past but have to admit that right now he's playing about as well as I can realistically hope for in a pAAAdres 3B.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 28, 2011 15:29:40 GMT -8
In 1987 Tony Gwynn had one of his best years.
.370 .447 .511 .958
If Chase Headely goes 4-8 with 3 doubles (or 1 HR and 1 double) in the next two games, he will finish June with exactly the same stats.
.370 .447 .511 .958
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 29, 2011 7:13:32 GMT -8
In 1987 Tony Gwynn had one of his best years. .370 .447 .511 .958 If Chase Headely goes 4-8 with 3 doubles (or 1 HR and 1 double) in the next two games, he will finish June with exactly the same stats. .370 .447 .511 .958 Interesting. So Headely needs to go 2-4 with a home run and a single or 2-4 with a double and a triple to acheive Gwynn's 1987 stats for June. .370 .447 .511 .958 |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 29, 2011 20:20:27 GMT -8
Headley is a solid player. I love that his obp is nearly .400.
Do you think he is better suited for the 2 hole Bill and ron?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2011 8:22:02 GMT -8
Headley is a solid player. I love that his obp is nearly .400. Do you think he is better suited for the 2 hole Bill and ron? I have been saying he should be leading off but since he leads the Padres in BA With Runners in Scoring Position and SLG with runners on Base maybe batting 4th would be better. If the Padres go 1-2-3 in the first, he is a great guy to lead off the second. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 30, 2011 11:35:56 GMT -8
I will say I am extremely happy with how his season, thus far, is turning out. I would like to see a little more power from him, and no Bill, I'm not talking about his doubles prowess, I mean HR's.
I think Chase is perfect (again, as he's performing at present) for the two hole. I expect to see some regression in his average this season as his BABIP is roughly 50 points above his career average.
If there is no regression and this new Chase is what we get for the foreseeable future, then it appears he's learned what swing works for him and when to drive the ball. Maybe he learns when to drive the ball and his power returns as he matures, then we can move him down lower in the order.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 30, 2011 11:37:01 GMT -8
...Tell me what you see in the example of BABIP above re: Headley? Check out Headley's ISO as well. Gone from .131 to .111 and now .106 from 2009 till now. Headley's HR/FB rate is trending down too, 2009 till now, 7.6 6.4 to now 3.3. That means his ability to drive the ball out of the park is going down, down, down... SLG minus BA. That stat counts a home run 3 times more than a double. As I have written before a home run and double are much closer in value. A home run is worth 1.7 runs more than an out. A double is worth 1.08 runs more than an out. Therefore a home run is worth about 17/11 more than a double - not 33/11. So ISO over rates the value of a home run by 33/17 (about double the actual value difference according to wOBA). Naturally it would rate Headley's current year badly. ISO is not intended to rate a player's entire offense. It is intended to rate his power heavily slanted toward home runs. It is an irrelevant stat in this discussion. Headley's offense is lessened since he doesn't hit many home runs. But let's judge how much it is lessened fairly.
I think I addressed each of your points. You like to say I ignore your points. So if I missed something, let me know. It's only an irrelevant category to you, Bill, and your continued argument. Only to you.  And, thanks for the explanation of .iso, but I know what the statistical categories I use mean. I use them for the express purpose of what they mean and I intend to say. You argument re: .ISO doesn't hold water with me. Of course his ISO is lower, because he doesn't hit home runs. That is the point. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2011 16:13:07 GMT -8
ISO. Isolated Power. SLG minus BA. That stat counts a home run 3 times more than a double. As I have written before a home run and double are much closer in value. A home run is worth 1.7 runs more than an out. A double is worth 1.08 runs more than an out. Therefore a home run is worth about 17/11 more than a double - not 33/11. So ISO over rates the value of a home run by 33/17 (about double the actual value difference according to wOBA). Naturally it would rate Headley's current year badly. ISO is not intended to rate a player's entire offense. It is intended to rate his power heavily slanted toward home runs. It is an irrelevant stat in this discussion. Headley's offense is lessened since he doesn't hit many home runs. But let's judge how much it is lessened fairly.
I think I addressed each of your points. You like to say I ignore your points. So if I missed something, let me know. It's only an irrelevant category to you, Bill, and your continued argument. Only to you. And, thanks for the explanation of .iso, but I know what the statistical categories I use mean. I use them for the express purpose of what they mean and I intend to say. You argument re: .ISO doesn't hold water with me. Of course his ISO is lower, because he doesn't hit home runs. That is the point. I figured you knew what ISO meant, but others are reading this exchange. Don't take me including the definition as a reflection of what I think about your knowlege of stats. Having said that... Serious baseball stats guys only use ISO to describe a players game - not to rate his game. If you want to continue to rate home runs as 3 times more valuable than doubles when they are clearly not, go ahead. But I will continue to point out that doing so unfairly rates players by over valuing home runs. Average Relative Value Versus an Out1.70 Home runs 1.08 Doubles Is your relative value 3 Home Runs 1 Doubles ? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2011 7:56:05 GMT -8
I just calculated 2010 runs correlation to different stats.
2010 MLB runs correlations
.6787 BA
.7618 ISO
.8773 OBP
.8838 SLG
.9437 OPS
.9487 wOBA
As you can see, ISO is better than Batting Average but worse than all the other stats by a wide margin. BA is low because it under values home runs and ignores walks. ISO rates low because it over rates home runs and ignores walks. wOBA has the highest correlation because uses a more correct set of relative values for doubles, walks, and home runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jul 1, 2011 9:29:50 GMT -8
I just calculated 2010 runs correlation to different stats. 2010 MLB runs correlations.6787 BA .7618 ISO .8773 OBP .8838 SLG .9437 OPS .9487 wOBA As you can see, ISO is better than Batting Average but worse than all the other stats by a wide margin. BA is low because it under values home runs and ignores walks. ISO rates low because it over rates home runs and ignores walks. wOBA has the highest correlation because uses a more correct set of relative values for doubles, walks, and home runs. Consider this too .wOBA also carries SB and CS as part of its metric. That has no bearing on "production at the plate." The following link compares and contrasts Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher from the stand point of both having a .779 OPS and then breaking down why and how they are different hitters with different skill sets. I found it interesting reading. It discusses wOBA and ISO rates. riveraveblues.com/2011/06/are-gardner-and-swisher-equals-at-the-plate-51269/You just have to love stats and how we use them to support our own view of the game. And, I say our to mean me as well, Bill. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2011 10:37:03 GMT -8
I just calculated 2010 runs correlation to different stats. 2010 MLB runs correlations.6787 BA .7618 ISO .8773 OBP .8838 SLG .9437 OPS .9487 wOBA As you can see, ISO is better than Batting Average but worse than all the other stats by a wide margin. BA is low because it under values home runs and ignores walks. ISO rates low because it over rates home runs and ignores walks. wOBA has the highest correlation because uses a more correct set of relative values for doubles, walks, and home runs. Consider this too .wOBA also carries SB and CS as part of its metric. That has no bearing on "production at the plate." The following link compares and contrasts Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher from the stand point of both having a .779 OPS and then breaking down why and how they are different hitters with different skill sets. I found it interesting reading. It discusses wOBA and ISO rates. riveraveblues.com/2011/06/are-gardner-and-swisher-equals-at-the-plate-51269/You just have to love stats and how we use them to support our own view of the game. And, I say our to mean me as well, Bill. The original wOBA didn't include SB or CS. I believe only Fangraphs does. I didn't use them in my correlation numbers above. They can be used to get a better idea of a players full offensive value. But unlike the other numbers, stolen bases have unequal opportunities since some teams don't push running as much. It use to be, when baseballs were flying out of the park, that OBP correlated to runs scored better than SLG. Now that home runs are less frequent and scoring is down, SLG tends to correlate better to runs scored than OBP does. But both are very close in the high 80% range. OPS was and still is in the mid 90s. In the article when he write, "...Swisher’s power — a .167 ISO to Gardner’s .138 — has rendered him the superior hitter to this point...", he is finding the numbers inside OPS that makes the difference. The players are rated equal by OPS, so he is looking deeper to find a small difference to find the better player. It is like using SLG as a tie breaker for equal OPS numbers. But you can't use ISO in isolation ignoring their OPS to prove anything. It would be like using head to head (a typical tie breaker) to determine the best team, while ignoring the actual standings.
After seeing that ISO correlates to runs scored at a very low rate, are you willing to stipulate that ISO is a bad overall measure of a players "production at the plate". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jul 1, 2011 12:57:54 GMT -8
Consider this too .wOBA also carries SB and CS as part of its metric. That has no bearing on "production at the plate." The following link compares and contrasts Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher from the stand point of both having a .779 OPS and then breaking down why and how they are different hitters with different skill sets. I found it interesting reading. It discusses wOBA and ISO rates. riveraveblues.com/2011/06/are-gardner-and-swisher-equals-at-the-plate-51269/You just have to love stats and how we use them to support our own view of the game. And, I say our to mean me as well, Bill. The original wOBA didn't include SB or CS. I believe only Fangraphs does. I didn't use them in my correlation numbers above. They can be used to get a better idea of a players full offensive value. But unlike the other numbers, stolen bases have unequal opportunities since some teams don't push running as much. It use to be, when baseballs were flying out of the park, that OBP correlated to runs scored better than SLG. Now that home runs are less frequent and scoring is down, SLG tends to correlate better to runs scored than OBP does. But both are very close in the high 80% range. OPS was and still is in the mid 90s. In the article when he write, "...Swisher’s power — a .167 ISO to Gardner’s .138 — has rendered him the superior hitter to this point...", he is finding the numbers inside OPS that makes the difference. The players are rated equal by OPS, so he is looking deeper to find a small difference to find the better player. It is like using SLG as a tie breaker for equal OPS numbers. But you can't use ISO in isolation ignoring their OPS to prove anything. It would be like using head to head (a typical tie breaker) to determine the best team, while ignoring the actual standings.
After seeing that ISO correlates to runs scored at a very low rate, are you willing to stipulate that ISO is a bad overall measure of a players "production at the plate". Actually I am. And I don't use as a whole or overall value. I use it when I'm comparing what I consider to be power hitters against each other, and to follow their career path to discern upward or downard movement. But when you said you want a " total" picture when utilizing stats I kept showing you stats that you would refute or give no credence to because it didn't support your view of what you consider to be important to the game . Hence my point about people using certin statistics to support there particular argument and not taking into consideration other statistics. Power is a part of the game, and a rather important one, especially considering those who can create a run all by themselves by hitting the ball out of the ball park. So that is a quick way to help determine or project near term increases or decreases in power based on past trends and current production. All a part of the information game. On a fascinating, at least to me, side note, I heard Joe Maddon of the Rays say his front office staff of statistical software guru's have developed proprietary software that takes all sorts of internally created models and creates a model each and everyday of each player on his team and their production. They run their models daily and give Joe a sheet each morning with updated data for him to look at and see production. This model crunches all their input data daily and gives each player a one (1) number value that correlates to production on the field (strictly offensive). So he doesn't have to sift through all the reams of data each day but gets a sheet that has one numerical value on it for each player that he uses to plan from there. That's amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2011 14:15:19 GMT -8
The original wOBA didn't include SB or CS. I believe only Fangraphs does. I didn't use them in my correlation numbers above. They can be used to get a better idea of a players full offensive value. But unlike the other numbers, stolen bases have unequal opportunities since some teams don't push running as much. It use to be, when baseballs were flying out of the park, that OBP correlated to runs scored better than SLG. Now that home runs are less frequent and scoring is down, SLG tends to correlate better to runs scored than OBP does. But both are very close in the high 80% range. OPS was and still is in the mid 90s. In the article when he write, "...Swisher’s power — a .167 ISO to Gardner’s .138 — has rendered him the superior hitter to this point...", he is finding the numbers inside OPS that makes the difference. The players are rated equal by OPS, so he is looking deeper to find a small difference to find the better player. It is like using SLG as a tie breaker for equal OPS numbers. But you can't use ISO in isolation ignoring their OPS to prove anything. It would be like using head to head (a typical tie breaker) to determine the best team, while ignoring the actual standings.
After seeing that ISO correlates to runs scored at a very low rate, are you willing to stipulate that ISO is a bad overall measure of a players "production at the plate". Actually I am. And I don't use as a whole or overall value. I use it when I'm comparing what I consider to be power hitters against each other, and to follow their career path to discern upward or downard movement. But when you said you want a " total" picture when utilizing stats I kept showing you stats that you would refute or give no credence to because it didn't support your view of what you consider to be important to the game . Hence my point about people using certin statistics to support there particular argument and not taking into consideration other statistics. Power is a part of the game, and a rather important one, especially considering those who can create a run all by themselves by hitting the ball out of the ball park. So that is a quick way to help determine or project near term increases or decreases in power based on past trends and current production. All a part of the information game. On a fascinating, at least to me, side note, I heard Joe Maddon of the Rays say his front office staff of statistical software guru's have developed proprietary software that takes all sorts of internally created models and creates a model each and everyday of each player on his team and their production. They run their models daily and give Joe a sheet each morning with updated data for him to look at and see production. This model crunches all their input data daily and gives each player a one (1) number value that correlates to production on the field (strictly offensive). So he doesn't have to sift through all the reams of data each day but gets a sheet that has one numerical value on it for each player that he uses to plan from there. That's amazing. It is quite interesting but I, as a manager, would want further breakdowns for situational decisions. How does a hitter do with Left/Right Power/Finesse pitchers What batters are in slumps How has the batter fared against pitcher he is to face. Driving in a runner from second. I remember the Padres had a player, that everyone loved, named Eric Owens. He had a .360 batting average with runners in scoring position. But less than half his hits actually scored a runner from second. So if I had two outs and a runner on second, I would rather have a batter who batted lower in that situation but would actually score the runner from second. Being a manager in actual game situations requires a lot more than one number to rate a player. But it is interesting that they give the players the data. I wonder if that helps or hurts the players. I guess it depends on the player. A manager has to know the players well enough to decide whether to do that or just make the environment around a player light hearted and low key. If I were the manager, I might piss some players off. I could imagine a situation where I would pinch hit for a batter after he got two strikes. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jul 1, 2011 18:09:52 GMT -8
I agree ron...at the 2 hole, you want a guy who gets on base. Considering that headley is not the traditional power guy, I think the 2 hole is his best fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jul 1, 2011 20:46:45 GMT -8
Actually I am. And I don't use as a whole or overall value. I use it when I'm comparing what I consider to be power hitters against each other, and to follow their career path to discern upward or downard movement. But when you said you want a " total" picture when utilizing stats I kept showing you stats that you would refute or give no credence to because it didn't support your view of what you consider to be important to the game . Hence my point about people using certin statistics to support there particular argument and not taking into consideration other statistics. Power is a part of the game, and a rather important one, especially considering those who can create a run all by themselves by hitting the ball out of the ball park. So that is a quick way to help determine or project near term increases or decreases in power based on past trends and current production. All a part of the information game. On a fascinating, at least to me, side note, I heard Joe Maddon of the Rays say his front office staff of statistical software guru's have developed proprietary software that takes all sorts of internally created models and creates a model each and everyday of each player on his team and their production. They run their models daily and give Joe a sheet each morning with updated data for him to look at and see production. This model crunches all their input data daily and gives each player a one (1) number value that correlates to production on the field (strictly offensive). So he doesn't have to sift through all the reams of data each day but gets a sheet that has one numerical value on it for each player that he uses to plan from there. That's amazing. It is quite interesting but I, as a manager, would want further breakdowns for situational decisions. How does a hitter do with Left/Right Power/Finesse pitchers What batters are in slumps How has the batter fared against pitcher he is to face. Driving in a runner from second. I remember the Padres had a player, that everyone loved, named Eric Owens. He had a .360 batting average with runners in scoring position. But less than half his hits actually scored a runner from second. So if I had two outs and a runner on second, I would rather have a batter who batted lower in that situation but would actually score the runner from second. Being a manager in actual game situations requires a lot more than one number to rate a player. But it is interesting that they give the players the data. I wonder if that helps or hurts the players. I guess it depends on the player. A manager has to know the players well enough to decide whether to do that or just make the environment around a player light hearted and low key. If I were the manager, I might piss some players off. I could imagine a situation where I would pinch hit for a batter after he got two strikes. Just to be clear here, that data is given to Maddon, not the players. The data is of the players. He, meaning Maddon, said in the interview that the Rays front office was very far ahead of the game when it comes to breaking down statistics and how they implement the knowledge gained from it for use as a way to get ahead of the other teams with more money to spend on players. |
|
