PDA

View Full Version : Fangraphs: Gomes or Heisey in LF?



nate
06-23-2010, 01:53 PM
This (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/gomes-or-heisey-in-lf/) one might require seatbelts!

Nevertheless:


Jonny Gomes is doing his part at the plate, slugging .285/.342/.491 with a .352 wOBA in 243 plate appearances. The erstwhile Ray has contributed +4.3 runs with the bat so far, drawing the vast majority of starts in left field for the Reds. During the interleague portion of Cincinnatiís schedule, Gomes has mostly DHíd. Unfortunately, thatís not an option the rest of the year. Once you consider Gomesí lumbering defense, the Reds might be costing themselves runs by playing him over rookie Chris Heisey.

Enjoy!

Redsfan320
06-23-2010, 02:01 PM
I know next to nothing about these defensive stats... what I will say is that I have seen nothing to convince me that Gomes is as horrible a defender as people (and apparently some stats) say. Certainly, he's not above average but he seems fine to me.

320

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 02:04 PM
Obviously the numbers they are using are borderline worthless, since those same stats state that Laynce Nix has been worth more to the team than Gomes has been to this point.

Go Reds.

savafan
06-23-2010, 02:04 PM
The stats seem to make it appear as though Gomes stands up from his bed when he wakes in the morning and immediately falls on his face.

RichRed
06-23-2010, 02:06 PM
The stats seem to make it appear as though Gomes stands up from his bed when he wakes in the morning and immediately falls on his face.

He trips over his glove.

OnBaseMachine
06-23-2010, 02:09 PM
I like Jonny Gomes but check out these numbers:

April:

60 atbats
.217/.254/.367 - .621 OPS

May:

88 atbats
.364/.420/.636 - 1.056 OPS

June:

66 atbats
.242/.316/.409 - .725 OPS

He has been very inconsistent with the bat so far.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 02:14 PM
I like Jonny Gomes but check out these numbers:

April:

60 atbats
.217/.254/.367 - .621 OPS

May:

88 atbats
.364/.420/.636 - 1.056 OPS

June:

66 atbats
.242/.316/.409 - .725 OPS

He has been very inconsistent with the bat so far.

He has had a rough last 5 games, otherwise his month of June was very good.

2-21 in his last 5, but his OPS for the month before June 18th was well over .900, it appears.

nemesis
06-23-2010, 02:56 PM
What Gomes lacks in range in the outfield he has made up in improved instincts and better defensive positioning. He is much better going toward the line than in the gap, but, Stubbs and Bruce's plus plus range and ability to cheat makes up for that. That need to be figured into the equation. He might not be getting to balls in the gap but Stubbs is most the time.

It's funny in hindsight that I was so geared up for the Reds to go out and sign Damon if they had, this season would be nowhere as good as it has been.

If Damon had signed... He would have been batting Second. Phillps would still be batting cleanup and having nowhere near the season he is having. Stubbs might have stayed in the leadoff position a little longer and been demoted. Rolen would be batting 5th. There certainly would have been less RBI opportunities due to all the Phillipses ahead of him. Bruce would be batting 6th or 7th with Cabrera ahead of him some nights. The lineup wouldn't have been nowhere as good without him and the Defense would have been even worse. It worked out pretty well wouldn't you say?

RedsManRick
06-23-2010, 03:12 PM
That argument sounds familiar. I am and have been squarely in the Heisey camp (and would include Dickerson when he gets back).

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 03:51 PM
That argument sounds familiar. I am and have been squarely in the Heisey camp (and would include Dickerson when he gets back).

I think Dickerson is an afterthought at this point. He hasn't taken advantage of the opportunities provided to him and, for a contending team at mid-season, they'd be foolish to give him anything more than 5th OFer time.

wolfboy
06-23-2010, 04:00 PM
I don't want to quote too much of the article, but this should be thrown in for the sake of fairness:

Offensively, advantage Gomes. But itís extremely difficult to envision a scenario in which Heisey doesnít make up that eight run difference in offensive value with the leather. CHONE thinks that Heisey would actually rate as an above-average center fielder. Letís say that Heisey rates as a +10 run defender in left per 150 games and Gomes a negative 15 (which is probably generous). If each plays something like 80 more defensive games this season, Heisey would add roughly five runs in value, while Gomes would surrender about eight runs.

Admittedly, the numbers I use are presented as a speculative exercise, but the Reds could be punting a half-win in value for the rest of 2010, perhaps more, by preferring Gomes over Heisey.

That being said, I pretty much agree. I see Gomes as a terrible defender. I've been very unimpressed with what I've seen of his fielding, and his UZR backs that impression up. Gomes had an incredible hot streak last month, but he will hurt the team if/when he regresses and Dusty keeps him in on the basis of that hot streak.

Rojo
06-23-2010, 04:32 PM
Even with his hot start Gomes slash against righties is a lukewarm .321/.468/.789. Combine with poor defense and little footspeed and there's every reason to not think him a fulltimer.

I like Gomes on the team and wanted him signed. Nyx has me baffled. Even against righties he's not that good. Going into the season a Gomes/Dickerson platoon made sense. Now I'm wondering about Gomes/Danny Dorn and finding a lot PT for Heisey across the outfield.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 04:38 PM
Even with his hot start Gomes slash against righties is a lukewarm .321/.468/.789. Combine with poor defense and little footspeed and there's every reason to not think him a fulltimer.

I like Gomes on the team and wanted him signed. Nyx has me baffled. Even against righties he's not that good. Going into the season a Gomes/Dickerson platoon made sense. Now I'm wondering about Gomes/Danny Dorn and finding a lot PT for Heisey across the outfield.

It's been a while since I disagreed with a post as much as I do with this one, especially the bolded part.

fearofpopvol1
06-23-2010, 04:48 PM
I think a Dickerson/Heisey platoon could be very interesting. I would think the value of those 2 platooning would exceed what Gomes brings on a daily basis.

Gomes, to a degree, controls his destiny. Dickerson will not be ready for a while. If Gomes continues to hit the way he did last month, he'll stay in the lineup.

RED VAN HOT
06-23-2010, 05:04 PM
There is not very much difference in their offensive stats to the this point. Heisey has shown good power and has not had very many opportunities to use his base stealing skills, an offensive weapon that Gomes lacks. Keep giving Heisey playing time and see if he can keep it up. I would like to see him get an occasional start in RF as well.

nate
06-23-2010, 05:38 PM
That argument sounds familiar. I am and have been squarely in the Heisey camp (and would include Dickerson when he gets back).

Hmm...first I've heard it!

:cool:

SMcGavin
06-23-2010, 05:39 PM
I think Dickerson is an afterthought at this point. He hasn't taken advantage of the opportunities provided to him and, for a contending team at mid-season, they'd be foolish to give him anything more than 5th OFer time.

Career .784 OPS, .367 OBP, very good defense. What am I missing here? Unless you consider getting hurt to be not taking advantage of opportunities.

westofyou
06-23-2010, 05:49 PM
Career .784 OPS, .367 OBP, very good defense. What am I missing here? Unless you consider getting hurt to be not taking advantage of opportunities.

Health is an asset, bring that and talent and succeed, leave health at home and you become an afterthought.

jojo
06-23-2010, 05:52 PM
Gomes is a lousy defender. His range isn't good and he's like a deer in the head lights on liners. He can catch routine flyballs, usually.

It's pretty easy to envision either Heisey or Dickerson being worth 8 runs more than Gomes defensively. Is that really even arguable?

nate
06-23-2010, 05:55 PM
Gomes is a lousy defender. His range isn't good and he's like a deer in the head lights on liners. He can catch routine flyballs, usually.

It's pretty easy to envision either Heisey or Dickerson being worth 8 runs more than Gomes defensively. Is that really even arguable?

No comment, just...

:cool:

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Career .784 OPS, .367 OBP, very good defense. What am I missing here? Unless you consider getting hurt to be not taking advantage of opportunities.

I'm not buying his career OPS due to his freakish end of 2008 which was completely out of the norm for him. Also, he had a shot this year to get solid PT and was completely atrocious in April. With a .360 Babip. 19/1 K/BB ratio in 45 PAs. Not good.

Add in the injury issues and I'm not sure why he should be handed a job. The problem with handing an injury prone guy a job is that you are likely to then have a backup as your starter.

Dickerson would probably be a good 4/5th OFer. But I can't see him being a full time guy, or the long side of a platoon.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 06:02 PM
Gomes is a lousy defender. His range isn't good and he's like a deer in the head lights on liners. He can catch routine flyballs, usually.

It's pretty easy to envision either Heisey or Dickerson being worth 8 runs more than Gomes defensively. Is that really even arguable?

Is Gomes worth 8 runs more than Dickerson or Heisey offensively?

Rojo
06-23-2010, 06:06 PM
It's been a while since I disagreed with a post as much as I do with this one, especially the bolded part.

Why? I'm guessing Dorn's glove sucks, maybe worse than Gomes. But Nix is carrying a career .283 OBP against RHP. He's an out machine. Dorn's got a minor league .393/.547/.940 against RHP. Worth a look?

And maybe it's just me, but I'd think you'd indicate why you disagree when you do it with such intensity.

Falls City Beer
06-23-2010, 06:08 PM
I don't see any reason at all to displace Gomes, but I see a lot of reasons to displace Stubbs with Heisey.

jojo
06-23-2010, 06:10 PM
Is Gomes worth 8 runs more than Dickerson or Heisey offensively?

Based upon preseason projections (James, MARCELS, chone, Zips) Gomes is a wOBA=.350 bat while Dickerson is a .340 bat. Over 600 PAs that would suggest that Gomes' bat would be worth 5 runs more than Dickerson's.

I think it's pretty clear that Dickerson's glove is more than 5 runs better than Gomes'.

Would anyone be able to convincingly argue that Gomes is signicantly better than a -10 glove or that Dickerson is significantly worse than a +5 glove over a full season?

In other words one doesn't have to believe things like UZR to buy the argument that Dickeron is a better player than Gomes because a thumb in the air estimate that is likely too overly favorable to Gomes still suggests a big difference.

Falls City Beer
06-23-2010, 06:11 PM
In other words one doesn't have to believe things like UZR to buy the argument that Dickeron is a better player than Gomes.

No. But one has to believe in an alternate reality in which Dickerson isn't made of cigarette ash.

TheNext44
06-23-2010, 06:15 PM
Based upon preseason projections (James, MARCELS, chone, Zips) Gomes is a wOBA=.350 bat while Dickerson is a .340 bat. Over 600 PAs that would suggest that Gomes' bat would be worth 5 runs more than Dickerson's.

I think it's pretty clear that Dickerson's glove is more than 5 runs better than Gomes'.

Would anyone be able to convincingly argue that Gomes is signicantly better than a -10 glove or that Dickerson is significantly worse than a +5 glove over a full season?

In other words one doesn't have to believe things like UZR to buy the argument that Dickeron is a better player than Gomes because a thumb in the air estimate that is likely too overly favorable to Gomes still suggests a big difference.

I think you can make a more convincing argument by stating that Gomes currently has a .352 wOBA, which is right on target with his projections

Plus Plus
06-23-2010, 06:17 PM
I think that some of the members of Redszone who are more statistically inclined than I could show where a .010 difference in wOBA between Gomes and Dickerson is very unlikely.

Brutus
06-23-2010, 06:33 PM
I think that some of the members of Redszone who are more statistically inclined than I could show where a .010 difference in wOBA between Gomes and Dickerson is very unlikely.

FWIW, Chris Dickerson has a career .353 wOBA in 466 career plate appearances. I'm not as high on the offensive ability of Dickerson as others are, but I don't think .340 is a stretch.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 06:35 PM
Why? I'm guessing Dorn's glove sucks, maybe worse than Gomes. But Nix is carrying a career .283 OBP against RHP. He's an out machine. Dorn's got a minor league .393/.547/.940 against RHP. Worth a look?

And maybe it's just me, but I'd think you'd indicate why you disagree when you do it with such intensity.

I wouldn't sit Gomes for Dorn any day of the week against any pitcher.

It isn't Nix that I care about...but Dorn was passed up by every team in baseball this offseason. Gomes is doing just fine.

jojo
06-23-2010, 06:39 PM
I think that some of the members of Redszone who are more statistically inclined than I could show where a .010 difference in wOBA between Gomes and Dickerson is very unlikely.

I'm kinda statistically savy and I don't think it's an outlandish statement. That suggests Dickerson is a slightly above average major league bat which isn't a huge bar.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 06:40 PM
Based upon preseason projections (James, MARCELS, chone, Zips) Gomes is a wOBA=.350 bat while Dickerson is a .340 bat. Over 600 PAs that would suggest that Gomes' bat would be worth 5 runs more than Dickerson's.

I think it's pretty clear that Dickerson's glove is more than 5 runs better than Gomes'.

Would anyone be able to convincingly argue that Gomes is signicantly better than a -10 glove or that Dickerson is significantly worse than a +5 glove over a full season?

In other words one doesn't have to believe things like UZR to buy the argument that Dickeron is a better player than Gomes because a thumb in the air estimate that is likely too overly favorable to Gomes still suggests a big difference.

So we are now using projections to prove a player's worth?

Plus Plus
06-23-2010, 06:47 PM
I'm kinda statistically savy and I don't think it's an outlandish statement. That suggests Dickerson is a slightly above average major league bat which isn't a huge bar.

I just think that a lot of the support in Dickerson's camp exists in part due to his tremendous 120ab 2008. Had he put up career numbers (.274/.367/.421/.788) rather than his .304/.413/.608 then I think he would have significantly less support than he does.

That being said, I think that what FCB said earlier is really the key to the discussion. Relying on a player who gets injured by simply thinking about baseball is not really a worthwhile discussion piece going forward. JMO.

jojo
06-23-2010, 06:48 PM
So we are now using projections to prove a player's worth?

It's tough to find a better way to estimate a player's true talent that the way projections systems do it.

Importantly, it's also a great way to avoid bias and to avoid the pitfall of assuming that Gomes May is his true talent or signals a meaningful change in it...

jojo
06-23-2010, 06:50 PM
I just think that a lot of the support in Dickerson's camp exists in part due to his tremendous 120ab 2008. Had he put up career numbers (.274/.367/.421/.788) rather than his .304/.413/.608 then I think he would have significantly less support than he does.

That being said, I think that what FCB said earlier is really the key to the discussion. Relying on a player who gets injured by simply thinking about baseball is not really a worthwhile discussion piece going forward. JMO.

His 2009 was pretty much in line which his career minor league numbers... those are numbers of a roughly .340 wOBA.

Brutus
06-23-2010, 06:51 PM
It's tough to find a better way to estimate a player's true talent that the way projections systems do it.

Importantly, it's also a great way to avoid bias and to avoid the pitfall of assuming that Gomes May is his true talent or signals a meaningful change in it...

Disagree with this 1,000%

The better way to estimate a player's true talent is to strictly stick with what has been done and not what is expected to be done going forward. Projections add in another level that does nothing to advance our thoughts about what a player can or cannot do.

RedsManRick
06-23-2010, 06:52 PM
I think Dickerson is an afterthought at this point. He hasn't taken advantage of the opportunities provided to him and, for a contending team at mid-season, they'd be foolish to give him anything more than 5th OFer time.

I guess I'm in the minority that thinks a .274/.367/.421 line, the numbers he's put up in the opportunities Cincy has given him, is taking advantage. Given his inability to stay healthy, I'm not exactly building around him. But if he's healthy, he's a solid option, better than Gomes in my book.

If you're basing your argument on his poor 45 PA this season, I'm going to call sample size on you. It's hard to argue a guy hasn't taken advantage of his opportunities when his opportunities consist of fits and spurts over 3 seasons. When he comes back, I'm cutting Nix for him.

Plus Plus
06-23-2010, 06:55 PM
His 2009 was pretty much in line which his career minor league numbers... those are numbers of a roughly .340 wOBA.

Across 97 games and 299 ABs. Missed games due to head, shoulder, and ankle injuries.

Relying on Dickerson to be anything past injured is unwise, imo.

jojo
06-23-2010, 06:56 PM
Disagree with this 1,000%

The better way to estimate a player's true talent is to strictly stick with what has been done and not what is expected to be done going forward. Projections add in another level that does nothing to advance our thoughts about what a player can or cannot do.

Except, we know through research that one can't look in the past and simply expect more of the same. Projection systems actually add the level that is necesary to estimate what to expect of a guy this afternoon.

Brutus
06-23-2010, 06:59 PM
Except, we know through research that one can't look in the past and simply expect more of the same. Projection systems actually add the level that is necesary to estimate what to expect of a guy this afternoon.

That we can't look in the past and expect more of the same reason is the exact point why we shouldn't take too much from projections. The two can't peacefully coincide. If we can't expect more of the same, then we shouldn't look to a projection system to tell us what to expect. Projections, which are history-based, shouldn't likely tell us what history itself can't.

I'm fine with projections from a somewhat predictive sense... but most definitely not in discussions of talent.

jojo
06-23-2010, 07:04 PM
That we can't look in the past and expect more of the same reason is the exact point why we shouldn't take too much from projections. The two can't peacefully coincide. If we can't expect more of the same, then we shouldn't look to a projection system to tell us what to expect. Projections, which are history-based, shouldn't likely tell us what history itself can't.

I'm fine with projections from a somewhat predictive sense... but most definitely not in discussions of talent.

Projection systems look to the player's past, establish a cohort of similar players and regresses performance to that group. It's exactly the way to estimate true talent.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 07:14 PM
It's tough to find a better way to estimate a player's true talent that the way projections systems do it.

Importantly, it's also a great way to avoid bias and to avoid the pitfall of assuming that Gomes May is his true talent or signals a meaningful change in it...

So if Dickerson played the last three months over Gomes, you'd expect the difference in offense to be negligible?

Rojo
06-23-2010, 07:36 PM
I wouldn't sit Gomes for Dorn any day of the week against any pitcher.

It isn't Nix that I care about...but Dorn was passed up by every team in baseball this offseason. Gomes is doing just fine.

I stand corrected - you were right to hide your "reasoning".

Brutus
06-23-2010, 08:08 PM
Projection systems look to the player's past, establish a cohort of similar players and regresses performance to that group. It's exactly the way to estimate true talent.

Regressing a player to a "group" of past players doesn't seem very intuitive to assigning a player a talent level.

I'll take a player's career baseline over regressed projections, factoring in 'other' players' trajectories nine times out of 10.

Again, I have no issue with projections in a predictive sense. But it gets us further away from a player's 'talent level' than does career baseline.

If you were to redact the word talent and substitute performance, I'd be more inclined to agree.

jojo
06-23-2010, 10:24 PM
So if Dickerson played the last three months over Gomes, you'd expect the difference in offense to be negligible?

I'd expect Dickerson to post something like a wOBA of .340 and Gomes to do one around .350 just like I've already said. That would be about a 3 run difference.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 10:30 PM
I'd expect Dickerson to post something like a wOBA of .340 and Gomes to do one around .350 just like I've already said. That would be about a 3 run difference.

I would find that hard to believe.

jojo
06-23-2010, 10:34 PM
Regressing a player to a "group" of past players doesn't seem very intuitive to assigning a player a talent level.

I'll take a player's career baseline over regressed projections, factoring in 'other' players' trajectories nine times out of 10.

Again, I have no issue with projections in a predictive sense. But it gets us further away from a player's 'talent level' than does career baseline.

If you were to redact the word talent and substitute performance, I'd be more inclined to agree.

A career baseline is definately a worse prism with perhaps the final few years of a player's prime being an exception provided one could even predict when that would be based upon only looking at a carrer baseline....

jojo
06-23-2010, 10:39 PM
I would find that hard to believe.

Obviously but the question is are you actually willing to entertain the notion and the arguments behind it?

Brutus
06-23-2010, 10:40 PM
A career baseline is definately a worse prism with perhaps the final few years of a player's prime being an exception provided one could even predict when that would be based upon only looking at a carrer baseline....

But that's somehow worse than looking at only the last 3 years (which most projection systems do)?

We're not talking about the fringe of a player's careers here. We're not talking specifically about the first few years or the last few years (where players' abilities begin to deteriorate). We're speaking in general terms. And for a lion's share of the players, I'd much rather look at a player's big picture than parse a few years based on what other players unrelated have done. For purposes of identifying talent, I believe that's a silly concept.

jojo
06-23-2010, 10:40 PM
But that's somehow worse than looking at only the last 3 years (which most projection systems do)?

Yes.

Brutus
06-23-2010, 10:46 PM
Yes.

Well that speaks for itself.

I'll take 5-10 years of established play to define talent over 3 years.

If we're talking about performance, I am fine with the projection systems. But if we're talking talent, I'd much rather look what a player has done over the course of their careers instead of the narrow view of what is done in a 3-year span.

Age factors, peripheral regression, etc. is all important. But take a poll among people here and ask what people trust more to identify a player's talent: a projection based on only 3 years or a baseline of an entire career. I trust it will be overwhelmingly lopsided.

jojo
06-23-2010, 10:55 PM
Well that speaks for itself.

I've written volumes on this issue, so really what should I say?


I'll take 5-10 years of established play to define talent over 3 years.

If we're talking about performance, I am fine with the projection systems. But if we're talking talent, I'd much rather look what a player has done over the course of their careers instead of the narrow view of what is done in a 3-year span.

But there's a big disconnect between the above statement and this one:


Age factors, peripheral regression, etc. is all important.

None of that is fleshed out by looking at a player's career totals.


But take a poll among people here and ask what people trust more to identify a player's talent: a projection based on only 3 years or a baseline of an entire career. I trust it will be overwhelmingly lopsided.

This really isn't a very meangingful standard.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 10:55 PM
Obviously but the question is are you actually willing to entertain the notion and the arguments behind it?

I absolutely am. Watching what Gomes has done at the plate this year makes it really hard to believe.

jojo
06-23-2010, 11:00 PM
I absolutely am. Watching what Gomes has done at the plate this year makes it really hard to believe.

You're assuming he's going to maintain his May performance too.

Brutus
06-23-2010, 11:02 PM
None of that is fleshed out by looking at a player's career totals.



But since not everyone ages the same, talent can't be fleshed out by other peoples' aging either. It's still safer to trust what a player has done previously than what other players have aged previously. We're talking about a player's current talent not future talent. Projections are still a matter of what a player is expected to regress.

Weather.com can say the weather is going to be 95 degrees in Alaska tomorrow. However, if it turns out to be 70 degrees, there won't be any records set.

Forecasts are still forecasts. They should not be used to judge talent. Talent should be based on actual production, not forecasted production.

edabbs44
06-23-2010, 11:05 PM
You're assuming he's going to maintain his May performance too.

No, I'm assuming he'll keep up an .850+ OPS pace like he has over his last 550 PAs with the Reds.

jojo
06-23-2010, 11:09 PM
But since not everyone ages the same, talent can't be fleshed out by other peoples' aging either. It's still safer to trust what a player has done previously than what other players have aged previously. We're talking about a player's current talent not future talent. Projections are still a matter of what a player is expected to regress.

Weather.com can say the weather is going to be 95 degrees in Alaska tomorrow. However, if it turns out to be 70 degrees, there won't be any records set.

Forecasts are still forecasts. They should not be used to judge talent. Talent should be based on actual production, not forecasted production.

I think you're confusing a couple of issues... the true talent is estimated in order to project the player... You're advocating an approach that essentially looks at the back of a baseball card and largely ignores well researched developmental and aging curves etc.

Projection systems looks at a player's past performance and matches him as closely as possible to a group of similar players and regresses his performance to that group and them projects him based u8pon their aging curves etc...

I don't know about the rest of redszone, but the latter apporach seems much more intuitively likely to produce a correct result to me than the former approach...

Brutus
06-23-2010, 11:19 PM
I think you're confusing a couple of issues... the true talent is estimated in order to project the player... You're advocating an approach that essentially looks at the back of a baseball card and largely ignores well researched developmental and aging curves etc.

Projection systems looks at a player's past performance and matches him as closely as possible to a group of similar players and regresses his performance to that group and them projects him based u8pon their aging curves etc...

I don't know about the rest of redszone, but the latter apporach seems much more intuitively likely to produce a correct result to me than the former approach...

Everyone is different though. Aging is a crapshoot. There's a reason it's called a projection system and not a talent identification system.

I am versed on how projections are done. I've read all about them. I find them to be one of many tools in the toolbox. But there's nothing intuitive about saying player 'x' is expected to age like player 'y' from 3 years ago and then consequently call that projection his 'true talent.' That's not intuitive at all--at least from a "talent" standpoint.

Again, what you're describing is better for production than talent.

Projection systems still only match up about a .6 correlation to actual production (according to Tom Tango). Even he, the creator of one of those systems, believes it won't get past .65 to .7 no matter how good we become.

That the creator of one of these projection systems, that is supposed to be a good identifier of talent, can only claim a .4225 r2, I'm not sure that's a very good testament to being the best system of labeling talent.

We know 100 percent what a player has done. What's on the back of a baseball card is on the back of a baseball card forever. Until he shows otherwise, forecasting is just that. What he might do is not talent.

Spring~Fields
06-24-2010, 01:13 AM
I don't see any reason at all to displace Gomes, but I see a lot of reasons to displace Stubbs with Heisey.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

:jump:

I knew you were an honorable and reasonable man, not one that would turn their back on one like Heisey that deserves justice, that is playing time in CF.

:thumbup:

Gomes ? Isn't he on a one year contract, having a good career year? (offense only) Looking for a big raise or new team next year? Aren't you suppose to trade those before the deadline for relief pitching?

Plus Plus
06-24-2010, 01:45 AM
Gomes ? Isn't he on a one year contract, having a good career year? (offense only) Looking for a big raise or new team next year? Aren't you suppose to trade those before the deadline for relief pitching?

1) Gomes is signed with a club option for next year.

2) The sabremetrics train has reached my stop when it is rationalized that a club will succeed by trading young, cheap, run producers for relief pitching and supplanting said run producers with unproven "offense/defense" balance guys. And, to be honest, this is coming from someone who would love to see more of Chris Heisey in the lineup.

At some point there must be asymptotes w/r/t rs and ra and their relationship with W/L. Having an entire lineup of replacement level bats and +25 UZR players would win on paper but I would not believe that said team would succeed irl. Same with an entire lineup of elite level bats and -25 UZR players (although I think the latter would win more often than the former, simply because of how the defensive aspect of the game works). I fully understand that a win in a 2-1 game is equal to one in a 200-199 game. However, I think it is unwise to devalue Gomes' production to the team and view him as being a replaceable part. He has been a very good contributor to this team and at a very low price. What's to complain about?

Homer Bailey
06-24-2010, 01:51 AM
I'm going to try to stay out of this discussion, because I'm at training right now and haven't been on the board lately, but I'll quickly add a few thoughts.

Chris Dickerson has a career BABIP of .371. Assuming a .340 wOBA is extremely generous considering he posted a .339 wOBA in 2009 with a .360 BABIP, and a .235 wOBA in 2010 with a .360 BABIP. House of cards.

I don't think anyone should ever use a splits argument as a reason to start Heisey over Gomes. Heisey has a sub .800 career MINOR LEAGUE OPS against RHP. He's basically an .800 OPS bat for his minor league career aside from the ridiculous run he had last year as a 24 year old at AA. I hope no one is judging their opinions based on his 56 career MLB PA's, especially those that PREACH sample size on this board.

I also think there is very strong evidence of confirmation bias in regards to the LF situation.

Gomes has been very good in his 550+ PA's as a Red. I'm guessing there are plenty of GM's out there that would love to have him at his current price.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 09:25 AM
Gomes ? Isn't he on a one year contract, having a good career year? (offense only) Looking for a big raise or new team next year? Aren't you suppose to trade those before the deadline for relief pitching?

Gomes is having a year that is in line with his other healthy years in the majors. This is who he is.

And hopefully you weren't serious with this post.

bucksfan2
06-24-2010, 12:04 PM
To suggest that Heisey (or Dickerson) is more valuable that Gomes IMO is a gross misuse of any statistical analysis. I have often felt that you could create a stat or number to prove anything you wanted. This is akin to an accountant cooking the books and fudging numbers to show a profit when the company is losing money.

I agree that defense is valuable but the argument has started to become illogical. It is even more mind boggling when you have people making the argument that a guy in Dickerson who has been on the DL since April 30th would be better overall that Johnny Gomes who has been putting up All Star numbers.

Knocking down Gomes because of his defense has become the "in" thing to do. Fact of the matter is the Reds aren't where they are without Gomes offense. And to suggest that Heisey would be better using projections based upon minor league numbers is illogical.

nate
06-24-2010, 12:39 PM
I've been working on the PROject proJECT err...projections and I just did Dickerson today. "Redszone" projected him to have a .342 wOBA with a .367 BABIP in 89 games.

crz.

TRF
06-24-2010, 12:47 PM
The question is, is Heisey READY to take over the LF job? We are 3/4 of the way into month three and Gomes has had one fantastic month, one horrible month, and one league average month in progress. Heisey has seen limited PT, but he's been very good defensively everywhere he's played in the OF this year. Defensively, it's not even close and the people on this board that have been the staunchest Gomes backers would even agree.

Again, the question is, Is Heisey ready for the full time job offensively? IMO he's hands down a starter next year. Now will it be CF or LF? Stubbs has returned to the land of the sub .700 OPS again, and if he continues to scuffle, I see him being replaced this year, maybe even by the end of the month.

If it is Stubbs that is replaced as a starter, I expect Gomes option to be picked up, and he'll start nearly every remaining game in LF, except against exceptionally tough RH pitchers. If Stubbs is optioned... brrrr. God I could see him being optioned and GMJ signed and recalled in the same day. But that's another discussion.

Heisey finds 1B. He's got some pop. He's an excellent defender. He should be a starter, and he will be by this time next year.

As for Dickerson... dude needs to get and stay healthy

Reds1
06-24-2010, 12:50 PM
Doesnt' Gomes lead the league (not just the team) in hitting with RISP. I believe the Reds were near the bottom if not last at many points through last years season. IMO he is one of the reasons we are winning and I'm not so sure his defense is as bad as people thing. At least the effort is there. With Dunn you wondered sometimes if he really cared. I'm voting for Gomes as maybe the best signing for the Reds.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 12:51 PM
I've been working on the PROject proJECT err...projections and I just did Dickerson today. "Redszone" projected him to have a .342 wOBA with a .367 BABIP in 89 games.

crz.

Shocking.

Roy Tucker
06-24-2010, 01:02 PM
Heck, I guess I have caveman thinking about all this, i.e. just ride the hot hand.

If Gomes is hot, play him. When he's on at the plate, he is very good. When he cools down, give Heisey some PT and let's see what he can do. I've liked what I've seen of him in spot duty.

Spring~Fields
06-24-2010, 01:08 PM
Gomes is having a year that is in line with his other healthy years in the majors. This is who he is.

And hopefully you weren't serious with this post.

Maybe not, only because I really don't think that Mr. Jocketty could get anything for him in return along with his other players below.

Could you show me otherwise? To me, market and demand for, determines value.

I'll take Rick and JoJo's word without question on most players, including Gomes, maybe one exception, Stubbs.

While defensively, I really fear, that those fly balls that fly over Gomes head, might not miss him one day, and actually hit him in the head, ruining a possibly good DH career against left handers. I would like Gomes if he could play first base, but, how many EE types can a team hide at first base?

As for me, looking at some of the Jocketty contributions, it appears that anyone can have one good month at the plate. I don't think if you packaged everyone of the player's below together, that the Reds could get anything worth John Fay's reporting in return.



Gomes
April .217 .254 .367 .621
May .364 .420 .636 1.056
June .261 .338 .435 .773
Last 7 Days .214 .241 .250 .491

Cairo
April .111 .111 .111 .222
May .372 .426 .581 1.007
June .250 .250 .250 .500
Last 7 Days .333 .333 .333 .666

Hernandez
April .250 .389 .318 .707
May .333 .412 .500 .912
June .265 .321 .327 .648
Last 7 Days .222 .364 .556 .920

Stubbs
April .186 .301 .271 .572
May .273 .339 .525 .864
June .217 .263 .290 .553
Last 7 Days .100 .182 .100 .282

Nix
April .238 .304 .333 .637
May .227 .261 .591 .852
June .231 .231 .231 .462
Last 7 Days .000 .000 .000 .000

Well, I guess there are exceptions, not just anybody can have one good month.



Cabrera
April .241 .272 .349 .621
May .289 .336 .360 .696
June .167 .195 .262 .457
Last 7 Days .038 .038 .038 .076

I expect that whenever it becomes a possibility that Mr. Jocketty will be looking to replace these guys with both, players that can field, and get on base. Keeping that in mind, are they anything to rave on about obsessively? I don't think so.

I think that the Reds need better, and I think that Jocketty could have and should do better, even if he doesn't have the 30 million dollar advantage that he had in St. Louis, that his replacement now enjoys in 1st place.

Razor Shines
06-24-2010, 01:12 PM
Doesnt' Gomes lead the league (not just the team) in hitting with RISP. I believe the Reds were near the bottom if not last at many points through last years season. IMO he is one of the reasons we are winning and I'm not so sure his defense is as bad as people thing. At least the effort is there. With Dunn you wondered sometimes if he really cared. I'm voting for Gomes as maybe the best signing for the Reds.

You may have, but that's your fault.

Back on topic:


Gomes is a lousy defender. His range isn't good and he's like a deer in the head lights on liners. He can catch routine flyballs, usually.

It's pretty easy to envision either Heisey or Dickerson being worth 8 runs more than Gomes defensively. Is that really even arguable?

I agree with this. He really seems to struggle with liners.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 03:10 PM
Maybe not, only because I really don't think that Mr. Jocketty could get anything for him in return along with his other players below.

Could you show me otherwise? To me, market and demand for, determines value.



Can you show me that he doesn't have market value? I'm not sure we can prove or disprove either way.

And here are Gomes' OPS numbers by month since he joined Cincy.

.882 (sss)
1.061
.829
.867
.786
.620
1.056
.772

Gomes isn't "one good month at the plate". In fact, a case could be made that he is "one bad month at the plate" since he joined. A pretty solid case, in fact.

I'm not sure how anyone could believe that Gomes hasn't had a material positive impact on Cincy's success so far this year. And I have no idea how anyone would think that he needs to take a seat for Heisey, Dickerson, or Dorn.

Stats are great and all, but one of the popular statements that some will say is that they know that stats aren't perfect. They know that fielding stats are still being developed. Yet one could still use stats to say that Dickerson is worth about 3 runs less than Gomes at the plate? Seriously? Or that all of Gomes' offensive worth is negated by his fielding, when we know that he isn't a complete butcher out there?

You guys watch the games and understand the game itself. Pretend like you never saw Gomes' UZR number but know the value of defense and offense and everything else. Do you honestly think that Gomes, to this point in the season, has had zero worth and that Chris Dickerson would be virtually his offensive equal?

Rojo
06-24-2010, 04:56 PM
Heck, I guess I have caveman thinking about all this, i.e. just ride the hot hand.

If Gomes is hot, play him. When he's on at the plate, he is very good. When he cools down, give Heisey some PT and let's see what he can do. I've liked what I've seen of him in spot duty.

In other words play 162 games, one at a time? Crazazy.

You've got 13 or so bats, use them. Gomes has value. He's a monster against LHP. But he's pretty kinda bad against righties.

Dickerson might've made a nice platoon partner. Now that he's outta the picture I'd like to give Dorn a look.

Give Heisey playing time in big parks and use him off the bench as a bat and as a runner.

My big take-away: dump Nix. He adds nothing.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 05:00 PM
In other words play 162 games, one at a time? Crazazy.

You've got 13 or so bats, use them. Gomes has value. He's a monster against LHP. But he's pretty kinda bad against righties.

Dickerson might've made a nice platoon partner. Now that he's outta the picture I'd like to give Dorn a look.

Give Heisey playing time in big parks and use him off the bench as a bat and as a runner.

My big take-away: dump Nix. He adds nothing.

Why is he "pretty kinda bad" against righties?

RedEye
06-24-2010, 05:04 PM
Stats are great and all, but one of the popular statements that some will say is that they know that stats aren't perfect. They know that fielding stats are still being developed. Yet one could still use stats to say that Dickerson is worth about 3 runs less than Gomes at the plate? Seriously? Or that all of Gomes' offensive worth is negated by his fielding, when we know that he isn't a complete butcher out there?


Haven't various posters just mounted convincing evidence that this is the case? You would at least grant that a player's worth is offense + defense, not just offense, right? Defensive stats are still being developed, yes, but they do manage to capture some part of the picture. That picture plus the Gomes statue we regularly see playing the outfield convinces me that he is, indeed, a bad OF. I'm not sure why some people choose to blindly believe otherwise, in the face of good objective and subjective evidence.

I'm not sure about Dickerson's value versus Gomes. That's also not the point of this thread. I am definitely on board for seeing what Heisey can do pronto... even if that means sitting Gomes more. We know what Gomes is, but we're just starting to see what Heisey can be.

BRM
06-24-2010, 05:09 PM
Why is he "pretty kinda bad" against righties?

I'm on board with getting Heisey some more PT somewhere but that statement threw me as well. Gomes has actually hit righties pretty well in his time with the Reds.

bucksfan2
06-24-2010, 05:13 PM
Haven't various posters just mounted convincing evidence that this is the case? You would at least grant that a player's worth is offense + defense, not just offense, right? Defensive stats are still being developed, yes, but they do manage to capture some part of the picture. That picture plus the Gomes statue we regularly see playing the outfield convinces me that he is, indeed, a bad OF. I'm not sure why some people choose to blindly believe otherwise, in the face of good objective and subjective evidence.

I'm not sure about Dickerson's value versus Gomes. That's also not the point of this thread. I am definitely on board for seeing what Heisey can do pronto... even if that means sitting Gomes more. We know what Gomes is, but we're just starting to see what Heisey can be.

No. Their evidence used defensive metrics that even the creators said were flawed. So is the evidence convincing, I say not. But we have been down this road before.

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 05:16 PM
Haven't various posters just mounted convincing evidence that this is the case? You would at least grant that a player's worth is offense + defense, not just offense, right? Defensive stats are still being developed, yes, but they do manage to capture some part of the picture. That picture plus the Gomes statue we see playing the outfield convinces me that he is, indeed, a bad OF.

I'm not sure about Dickerson (and his injuries often make it a moot point anyway). But I am definitely on board for seeing what Heisey can do pronto... even if that means sitting Gomes more. We know what Gomes is, but we're just starting to see what Heisey can be.

Convincing evidence that he's a poor defender?

I think almost all of us would agree that he's not the greatest LF in the National League.

But I don't think he's definitively worse than:
- Alfonso Soriano
- Carlos Lee
- Ryan Braun
- Raul Ibanez

And I definitely don't think the difference between Dickerson and Gomes is three runs, all things considered, nor do I think Heisey is likely to be as good as Gomes has been this season overall either.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 05:23 PM
Haven't various posters just mounted convincing evidence that this is the case? You would at least grant that a player's worth is offense + defense, not just offense, right? Defensive stats are still being developed, yes, but they do manage to capture some part of the picture. That picture plus the Gomes statue we regularly see playing the outfield convinces me that he is, indeed, a bad OF. I'm not sure why some people choose to blindly believe otherwise, in the face of good objective and subjective evidence.

I'm not sure about Dickerson's value versus Gomes. That's also not the point of this thread. I am definitely on board for seeing what Heisey can do pronto... even if that means sitting Gomes more. We know what Gomes is, but we're just starting to see what Heisey can be.

It is obvious that Gomes' fielding isn't as good as some other OFers. It is also logical that, based upon that assessment, that he would be "worth" more if he were a better defender. I have never believed that he was a good defender, blindly or non-blindly.

My point is that he isn't bad enough in the field to negate his total offensive worth, to make him "replacement level" at the plate. Especially with the way he has produced this season.

Now, you are also stating that you aren't sure about Dickerson's value versus Gomes even though the "numbers" would make you believe that Dickerson has more value than Gomes. Isn't that kind of contradictory?

RedEye
06-24-2010, 05:31 PM
My point is that he isn't bad enough in the field to negate his total offensive worth, to make him "replacement level" at the plate. Especially with the way he has produced this season.


By what evidence? That you simply choose not to believe it? I'm not saying new defensive metrics are perfect by any means, but they do give us something to work with.

Gomes current offense level, IMO, is not sustainable. I think it is likely that he had one hot month, and will tail off in the second half. His career numbers suggest as much.


Now, you are also stating that you aren't sure about Dickerson's value versus Gomes even though the "numbers" would make you believe that Dickerson has more value than Gomes. Isn't that kind of contradictory?

Apologies--I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to reroute this thread toward its original intent (Heisey vs. Gomes) and to say that I agree with those posters who have argued that Dickerson's injuries trump the discussion of his potential value.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 05:34 PM
But I don't think he's definitively worse than:
- Alfonso Soriano
- Carlos Lee
- Ryan Braun
- Raul Ibanez


Not exactly a ringing endorsement (although hasn't Braun improved a lot recently?)

Gomes can hit pretty well but he can't field much at all. Heisey looks like he can also hit really well--and field a ton. Forget the metrics... shouldn't this be a convincing enough reason to give Chris a longer look?

I have a feeling that a Gomes slump could decide this for us eventually. I suspect that even Dusty knows he's terrible out there--and that if he's not hitting, he's not helping the team win. Enter Heisey.

TRF
06-24-2010, 05:46 PM
Chris Heisey has a real future in Cincinnati. He's young and has potential.

Gomes probably is not going to age well. He has an injury history, and he isn't going to suddenly field better. He has no baseline for playing a full season, which by this time in his career is odd for people clamoring for him to be the everyday guy. Every AB over 350 is pretty much uncharted territory for him.

It's no secret I'm in favor of playing the young guys, but in this case I'd want to ease Heisey into the everyday job. He should be playing 4 days a week, spelling all three starting OF's

BRM
06-24-2010, 05:48 PM
It's no secret I'm in favor of playing the young guys, but in this case I'd want to ease Heisey into the everyday job. He should be playing 4 days a week, spelling all three starting OF's

I could live with that.

RedsManRick
06-24-2010, 05:49 PM
nt

BRM
06-24-2010, 05:50 PM
I have a feeling that a Gomes slump could decide this for us eventually. I suspect that even Dusty knows he's terrible out there--and that if he's not hitting, he's not helping the team win. Enter Heisey.

Over his last 50 PAs he's got this line - .239/.280/.413. A .693 OPS. Is that a slump?

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 05:53 PM
By what evidence? That you simply choose not to believe it? I'm not saying new defensive metrics are perfect by any means, but they do give us something to work with.

Gomes current offense level, IMO, is not sustainable. I think it is likely that he had one hot month, and will tail off in the second half. His career numbers suggest as much.



Gomes' numbers this season are consistent with what he has produced for the Reds over the past 1.5 years. I really don't care what he did in 2006.

But this brings up a good point that I was thinking about earlier. There is an obvious gap between the (for lack of better terms) those that lean towards stats or tradition. No argument on the categories, everyone knows what I mean.

For the shots that I have taken for not being "open minded" or that I "choose not to believe the numbers" or comments like that, there are two obvious flaws that I have generally seen with the stat side of every argument on here.

1) Even though some from the statistical side state that certain stats aren't totally accurate or are still in production or whatever, I've never seen those same people dispute those stats in any argument. When Gomes was top 5 or so in OPS in the league, WAR had him as being worth the same this season as Janish, who never sees the field. That defies all logic. He hasn't been bad enough to reduce him to replacement level worth. That's crap and I can't believe that anyone would believe the potentially flawed numbers making up that number. But, for whatever reason, it was gospel.

2) For whatever reason, I haven't seen those on the stat side grasp outliers that may effect numbers. The stat minded are still waiting for Gomes to regress to his career numbers (see above), however they appear to be completely skewed because of injuries while in Tampa. He has nearly 600 PAs in Cincy at around an .850 OPS, yet the statistical side is still waiting for him to fall flat. He has a few bad games the last week and now he is inconsistent and should be benched for Danny Dorn? This whole off-season, the statistically savvy said it was only 300 PAs last year and he was a risk. There were similar threads about Juan Rivera last season, where one poster was making outlandish claims on his past performance, completely ignoring that he had an injury that affected his performance.

Gomes' career stats aren't useful in any discussion...I wish some would get that.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 05:54 PM
Over his last 50 PAs he's got this line - .239/.280/.413. A .693 OPS. Is that a slump?

Forget benching him, they need to cut him.

And once Dickerson is healthy, get him in LF with his .205/.222/.273 line over 45 PAs in April pre-injury.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 05:56 PM
Chris Heisey has a real future in Cincinnati. He's young and has potential.

Gomes probably is not going to age well. He has an injury history, and he isn't going to suddenly field better. He has no baseline for playing a full season, which by this time in his career is odd for people clamoring for him to be the everyday guy. Every AB over 350 is pretty much uncharted territory for him.

It's no secret I'm in favor of playing the young guys, but in this case I'd want to ease Heisey into the everyday job. He should be playing 4 days a week, spelling all three starting OF's

Gomes had a bad shoulder injury. He doesn't have an injury history. There is a difference.

BRM
06-24-2010, 05:56 PM
Forget benching him, they need to cut him.

And once Dickerson is healthy, get him in LF with his .205/.222/.273 line over 45 PAs in April pre-injury.

Easy there, tiger. I'm not advocating benching him. I like TRF's idea of Heisey playing 4 days a week or so, spelling all three outfielders. 1-2 starts per week in CF and LF with an occasional start in RF.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 06:02 PM
No. Their evidence used defensive metrics that even the creators said were flawed. So is the evidence convincing, I say not. But we have been down this road before.

The evidence may be flawed, but that doesn't mean it misses the picture entirely. Batting average, for instance, is a flawed stat--I much prefer OPS, etc. these days--but it doesn't mean it entirely misses accounting for some part of player's offensive output.

The problem I have is that the counter-argument against defensive stats uses vague impressions ("he doesn't look that bad") and eyesight ("I've watched all the games") as an answer to carefully tabulated numbers. To me, these aren't even part of the same conversation really. They're like two ships in the night.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 06:05 PM
Gomes' career stats aren't useful in any discussion...I wish some would get that.

I really don't understand this. Isn't past performance the main data one can use to predict future success? Sure, there can be outliers--and perhaps Gomes' 2010 season is one of them--but if I'm a betting man, I'm putting my money on this being the same Jonny Gomes.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 06:06 PM
It's no secret I'm in favor of playing the young guys, but in this case I'd want to ease Heisey into the everyday job. He should be playing 4 days a week, spelling all three starting OF's

What a reasonable suggestion!

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 06:12 PM
1) Even though some from the statistical side state that certain stats aren't totally accurate or are still in production or whatever, I've never seen those same people dispute those stats in any argument. When Gomes was top 5 or so in OPS in the league, WAR had him as being worth the same this season as Janish, who never sees the field. That defies all logic. He hasn't been bad enough to reduce him to replacement level worth. That's crap and I can't believe that anyone would believe the potentially flawed numbers making up that number. But, for whatever reason, it was gospel.

2) For whatever reason, I haven't seen those on the stat side grasp outliers that may effect numbers. The stat minded are still waiting for Gomes to regress to his career numbers (see above), however they appear to be completely skewed because of injuries while in Tampa. He has nearly 600 PAs in Cincy at around an .850 OPS, yet the statistical side is still waiting for him to fall flat. He has a few bad games the last week and now he is inconsistent and should be benched for Danny Dorn? This whole off-season, the statistically savvy said it was only 300 PAs last year and he was a risk. There were similar threads about Juan Rivera last season, where one poster was making outlandish claims on his past performance, completely ignoring that he had an injury that affected his performance.

Gomes' career stats aren't useful in any discussion...I wish some would get that.

1) Perhaps because admitting one stat is wrong means all stats are wrong? (Not that anyone would say that.)

2) Outliers are okay in advanced math and accepted as just that-- outliers. In baseball, they're a little hard to explain away.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 06:19 PM
1) Perhaps because admitting one stat is wrong means all stats are wrong? (Not that anyone would say that.)

2) Outliers are okay in advanced math and accepted as just that-- outliers. In baseball, they're a little hard to explain away.

Outliers may have been the wrong term. More like non-statistical circumstances that caused the numbers to skew.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 06:22 PM
I really don't understand this. Isn't past performance the main data one can use to predict future success? Sure, there can be outliers--and perhaps Gomes' 2010 season is one of them--but if I'm a betting man, I'm putting my money on this being the same Jonny Gomes.

Jonny Gomes' seasonal OPSs since 2005 are as follows:

.906
.757
.782
.666
.879
.846

Now which Gomes are you saying he is the same as? The cumulative one? The ones in the 600s and 700s? Or the ones in the 800s and 900s?

I can come up with a legit reason why the sub 800 ones may not be the real Gomes. Can you come up with a reason why the others aren't real?

RedEye
06-24-2010, 06:31 PM
1) Even though some from the statistical side state that certain stats aren't totally accurate or are still in production or whatever, I've never seen those same people dispute those stats in any argument.


There really isn't a statistical "side"--or there shouldn't be. I don't see any posters claiming that all of their numbers are necessarily correct all the time. They are simply using numbers to back up their assertions. Statistical analysis purports to be a science, so that means it is always going to be a series of corrigible claims. That's why people like Bill James are constantly running the numbers again and again, testing and re-testing their hypotheses to see whether their earlier assumptions are correct.


When Gomes was top 5 or so in OPS in the league, WAR had him as being worth the same this season as Janish, who never sees the field. That defies all logic.

What logic does it defy? The point of WAR is to take the respective contributions of all different players and put them on an equal value scale so that they can be compared. It is computed not according to sample size, I think, but according to what a player's value is when he plays--a sort of snapshot of how valuable a player's contributions are to a team when he does play. Otherwise, it becomes quite difficult to compare a slugging OF/DH like Gomes with a slick-fielding SS like Janish in the first place. In this case, stats don't "defy logic"--they provide a basis for logic itself.


He hasn't been bad enough to reduce him to replacement level worth. That's crap and I can't believe that anyone would believe the potentially flawed numbers making up that number. But, for whatever reason, it was gospel.

This is not a counter-argument--it's just a refusal of evidence. No one has said that WAR or defensive metrics are gospel. They have just used them to mount evidence with which to compare two players. And, within, statistical camps, there is an ongoing process of dispute and revision... just as we often see on RZ between various statistically-inclined posters.


He has nearly 600 PAs in Cincy at around an .850 OPS, yet the statistical side is still waiting for him to fall flat.

Not the case. I think that everyone appreciates how Gomes has performed in a Reds uniform. They are just questioning the value and the sustainability of what he has done. And, as the Fangraphs post suggests, there is evidence to suggest that Heisey could very well be an overall more productive player than Gomes right now. Gospel? No. Just a hypothesis, that can be disproven or questioned with objective counter-evidence.


He has a few bad games the last week and now he is inconsistent and should be benched for Danny Dorn?

I missed the statistically-savvy posters who made this argument. I did see a couple of folks throwing around Dorn's name, but not as a realistic possibility. Anyway, this isn't really what we're discussing here, right? It's Gomes vs. Heisey.


This whole off-season, the statistically savvy said it was only 300 PAs last year and he was a risk. There were similar threads about Juan Rivera last season, where one poster was making outlandish claims on his past performance, completely ignoring that he had an injury that affected his performance.

Nope. The argument about Gomes had to do less with the sample size (300 AB) than with his overall value as a hitter and fielder. Whatever his performance, his past suggested that he would never be as valuable as someone like Heisey or Stubbs, who can play both sides of the ball. Now, no one is quibbling with Gomes hitting so far--it has been a pleasant surprise. What they are warning about is using Gomes admirable first half as an excuse to marginalize other players (Heisey and, perhaps, Dickerson) who will likely provide better overall value at the position.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 06:41 PM
Nope. The argument about Gomes had to do less with the sample size (300 AB) than with his overall value as a hitter and fielder. Whatever his performance, his past suggested that he would never be as valuable as someone like Heisey or Stubbs, who can play both sides of the ball. Now, no one is quibbling with Gomes hitting so far--it has been a pleasant surprise. What they are warning about is using Gomes admirable first half as an excuse to marginalize other players (Heisey and, perhaps, Dickerson) who will likely provide better overall value at the position.

Disagree with the bolded part. Some on this thread have already said that they see Gomes as producing like he has for the rest of the year and still be worth less than someone like Dickerson, if given the same opportunity. Nothing to do with his offense trailing off and more to do with his defense removing the worth of his offense.

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 06:48 PM
The problem I have is that the counter-argument against defensive stats uses vague impressions ("he doesn't look that bad") and eyesight ("I've watched all the games") as an answer to carefully tabulated numbers. To me, these aren't even part of the same conversation really. They're like two ships in the night.

These carefully tabulated numbers are also impressions ("that's a line drive") and eyesight ("that's out of his zone and should have been caught by that defender.")

I have no problem with the general ideas and most of the rankings as to UZR, as it relates to poor, average, and above average defenders with a broad, broad brush. With most cases, over a three-year average, UZR is close to the ballpark with most of the players in baseball. (Similar to the value of batting average, for example)

But, like any tool, it's not for every job. Because UZR isn't reliable before three years, how can it possibly claim to find a legitimate WAR for one year? For that matter, it's a tool that shouldn't be used for runs at all, as it's far too subjective ( not to mention the vagaries of position, pitch, and other players) at its core.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 06:53 PM
These carefully tabulated numbers are also impressions ("that's a line drive") and eyesight ("that's out of his zone and should have been caught by that defender.")


Sure--but it is a stockpile of impressions by many rather than an isolated observation by one. It also attempts to establish a set of measures that can be reliable over time. Does it have ways to improve? Certainly, yes. But it usually merits more than a simple "I don't believe that because it's not what I saw." But I think we're agreeing here for the most part.

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 07:00 PM
Any statistic that asserts Paul Janish and Jonny Gomes are of equal value in terms of value to club fails the common sense portion that should be inherent to any statistic in the first place.

Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 07:10 PM
Jonny Gomes' seasonal OPSs since 2005 are as follows:

.906
.757
.782
.666
.879
.846

Now which Gomes are you saying he is the same as? The cumulative one? The ones in the 600s and 700s? Or the ones in the 800s and 900s?

I can come up with a legit reason why the sub 800 ones may not be the real Gomes. Can you come up with a reason why the others aren't real?

The Gomes I'm talking about isn't just defined by OPS. He's a limited overall player who should soon be supplanted by a more talented youngster.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 07:14 PM
Any statistic that asserts Paul Janish and Jonny Gomes are of equal value in terms of value to club fails the common sense portion that should be inherent to any statistic in the first place.

Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

And that has been my point. It is beyond out of the realm. It's a perfect example of why fielding stats need to be viewed with skepticism and yet it will take a corrective measure from Fangraphs to make some believe that it is wrong.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 07:16 PM
Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

Perhaps. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought WAR was meant to be an assessment of the value of a player when he played. Sure, Janish would likely not be able to sustain his level of play over a 600 PA period. But were he to do so, a SS playing at that level would sure as heck be as valuable as the three you mention.

What is improbable is that Janish could sustain that WAR given what we know about him over a longer span of time. But the fact that he has that level based on his current play does make sense.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 07:20 PM
The Gomes I'm talking about isn't just defined by OPS. He's a limited overall player who should soon be supplanted by a more talented youngster.

Meaning now or meaning if/when his offensive production declines?

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 07:24 PM
Any statistic that asserts Paul Janish and Jonny Gomes are of equal value in terms of value to club fails the common sense portion that should be inherent to any statistic in the first place.

Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

Lets note that Gomes currently has an .846 OPS, about 50 points better than your average left fielder. Defensively he has been worth about 14 plays below average. What does his OPS do if we just take about 12 singles and 2 doubles? It drops down to a .715 OPS. That is basically the math we are working with. If we had a .715 OPS left fielder with average defense, how valuable is that?

mdccclxix
06-24-2010, 07:29 PM
Any statistic that asserts Paul Janish and Jonny Gomes are of equal value in terms of value to club fails the common sense portion that should be inherent to any statistic in the first place.

Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

Agreed. Every team has a context. Gomes and Janish may be worth the same WAR, but it appears that in the context of the 2010 Reds, Gomes is far more valuable. Put these two players on the Yankees or Dodgers and I'd suspect Janish would be more valuable because they already have RBI guys. Furthermore, this chemistry isn't something you can reliably predict before the season or even before any month of the season because it's dictated by performance. For example, as other have noted, if Dickerson doesn't go down and Stubbs doesn't fail at lead off, we may not be seeing the best of Gomes, Rolen, Phillips, etc.

So, in a sense, WAR is like "power ratings" you see for basketball teams in college. Its a cool, comprehensive number, but it means less than has been thought in playing a game or building a team.

Plus Plus
06-24-2010, 07:33 PM
Lets note that Gomes currently has an .846 OPS, about 50 points better than your average left fielder. Defensively he has been worth about 14 plays below average. What does his OPS do if we just take about 12 singles and 2 doubles? It drops down to a .715 OPS. That is basically the math we are working with. If we had a .715 OPS left fielder with average defense, how valuable is that?

But I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Isn't OPS something like 96% correlative with player value or team runs scored, while UZR is only 70%? I can't find these numbers online but these values are sticking in my mind...

Using a stat that is strongly correlative and a stat that is weakly correlative together seems like a mistake, imo...

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 07:38 PM
But I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Isn't OPS something like 96% correlative with player value or team runs scored, while UZR is only 70%? I can't find these numbers online but these values are sticking in my mind...

Using a stat that is strongly correlative and a stat that is weakly correlative together seems like a mistake, imo...

70% is a very strong correlation. Also, I am not using UZR. Something similar, but different. See the ultimate defense thread's last page to see where I went about getting this data.

edabbs44
06-24-2010, 07:43 PM
Lets note that Gomes currently has an .846 OPS, about 50 points better than your average left fielder. Defensively he has been worth about 14 plays below average. What does his OPS do if we just take about 12 singles and 2 doubles? It drops down to a .715 OPS. That is basically the math we are working with. If we had a .715 OPS left fielder with average defense, how valuable is that?

Breaking the questionable stat down further doesn't make it more accurate.

Brutus
06-24-2010, 07:44 PM
But I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Isn't OPS something like 96% correlative with player value or team runs scored, while UZR is only 70%? I can't find these numbers online but these values are sticking in my mind...

Using a stat that is strongly correlative and a stat that is weakly correlative together seems like a mistake, imo...

I couldn't remember what the number was, but I was able to find an article stating a .83 correlation (.6889 r2) from WAR to wins in 2009 [graf 3]...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/war-it-works/

That means with roughly a .97 correlation offensively (.94 r2), you would be looking at a missing .26 r2 from pitching and defense.

Plus Plus
06-24-2010, 07:48 PM
70% is not a very strong correlation at all- if you want anything really meaningful, 90% to 95% is really the bottom line... From what I remember, something like hits or RBI was 70% correlative with team wins/runs scored...

nate
06-24-2010, 08:08 PM
Agreed. Every team has a context. Gomes and Janish may be worth the same WAR, but it appears that in the context of the 2010 Reds, Gomes is far more valuable.

I think we're getting a lot of confusion by not understanding WAR, it's strengths and it's limitations.


Put these two players on the Yankees or Dodgers and I'd suspect Janish would be more valuable because they already have RBI guys.

The Reds seem to have good hitters this year, I suspect they'd score a similar amount of runs with Janish sitting in the 8-hole.


Furthermore, this chemistry isn't something you can reliably predict before the season or even before any month of the season because it's dictated by performance. For example, as other have noted, if Dickerson doesn't go down and Stubbs doesn't fail at lead off, we may not be seeing the best of Gomes, Rolen, Phillips, etc.

That seems like a pretty big logical leap.


So, in a sense, WAR is like "power ratings" you see for basketball teams in college. Its a cool, comprehensive number, but it means less than has been thought in playing a game or building a team.

Basically, their similarity in WAR is explained as Janish hasn't had enough rope for his bat to drag him down while the few plays he's made at SS have been good.

Gomes has been good with the bat and poor with the glove in LF.

Now if you regress the UZR component, you'll find Gomes is more valuable but he still gives back a lot of offensive value with his poor D.

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 08:19 PM
70% is not a very strong correlation at all- if you want anything really meaningful, 90% to 95% is really the bottom line... From what I remember, something like hits or RBI was 70% correlative with team wins/runs scored...

What does the 70% correlation of UZR correlate at 70% to? Until I know what exactly is being correlated, I am not sure I can get further into this.

nate
06-24-2010, 08:46 PM
What does the 70% correlation of UZR correlate at 70% to? Until I know what exactly is being correlated, I am not sure I can get further into this.

Excellent question.

Brutus
06-24-2010, 08:53 PM
What does the 70% correlation of UZR correlate at 70% to? Until I know what exactly is being correlated, I am not sure I can get further into this.

He's talking about correlation to run prevention. I thought that was pretty apparent given the context of correlation of OPS to runs.

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 09:09 PM
He's talking about correlation to run prevention. I thought that was pretty apparent given the context of correlation of OPS to runs.

Does anyone know where such a correlation has been run? I would be interested in seeing how it was gone about.

Brutus
06-24-2010, 09:12 PM
Does anyone know where such a correlation has been run? I would be interested in seeing how it was gone about.

Yeah I honestly haven't seen that either. I've seen the WAR-to-Wins correlation several times, but haven't seen one specifically for run prevention (though I'm sure it's been done ad nauseum).

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 09:15 PM
Yeah I honestly haven't seen that either. I've seen the WAR-to-Wins correlation several times, but haven't seen one specifically for run prevention (though I'm sure it's been done ad nauseum).

I googled it and couldn't come up with anything. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what method one would use to run a correlation. Team FIP-Team ERA and UZR?

Brutus
06-24-2010, 09:17 PM
I googled it and couldn't come up with anything. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what method one would use to run a correlation. Team FIP-Team ERA and UZR?

I think that would be a decent trial. That would definitely be an interesting study to do.

Rojo
06-24-2010, 09:18 PM
Why is he "pretty kinda bad" against righties?

You like a poor defending left-fielder with a .313 OBA? He's played better than that this year, but he's also been a better first half player so.....enjoy the ride but have a back-up plan.

jojo
06-24-2010, 10:37 PM
To suggest that Heisey (or Dickerson) is more valuable that Gomes IMO is a gross misuse of any statistical analysis. I have often felt that you could create a stat or number to prove anything you wanted. This is akin to an accountant cooking the books and fudging numbers to show a profit when the company is losing money.

Voicing that opinion is a different thing then demonstrating that scenario is indeed the case concerning the discussions about relative true talent and value in this thread.

As an aside, its inconsistent and unfair to maintain that stat-inclined people are dogmatically devoted to statistical analysis yet they are also cavalier and openly accepting of statistical improprieties.

The fact is that statheads tend to crucify "cooked book" statistical arguments. BTW, it's kind of offensive to blankly call those that use a certain approach liars... Most statheads actually became converts by either asking themselves to or having someone else challenge them to "prove it" concerning a cherished belief or opinion and through that initial experience began to see the utility in the approach concerning better understanding whats going in in the game they love.



Knocking down Gomes because of his defense has become the "in" thing to do.

Pointing out Gomes' defensive flaws really isn't a fad. He's forced the issue to the extent that his defensive value is a subject that is talked about.

Again, why not focus on the points of the discussion/argument rather than metacommentary on the motives of others?

jojo
06-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Heck, I guess I have caveman thinking about all this, i.e. just ride the hot hand.

If Gomes is hot, play him. When he's on at the plate, he is very good. When he cools down, give Heisey some PT and let's see what he can do. I've liked what I've seen of him in spot duty.

He's cooled off....

April: wOBA=.260 (replacement level: .290)
May: wOBA= .446
June: wOBA=.334 (major league average: .330)

jojo
06-24-2010, 10:49 PM
No. Their evidence used defensive metrics that even the creators said were flawed. So is the evidence convincing, I say not. But we have been down this road before.

Ripping on UZR because it's flawed, is like ripping on James when he first came out with runs created because it was also flawed.

We're on thicker ice with the second generation run estimators but James' original still gets one most of the way there while it made a revolutionary contribution to our ability to ask and answer questions that weren't possible to address before he published his runs created work.

UZR/dewan's etc does the same thing for defense.... These metrics have to be considered an advance since including them in a calculation like WAR takes one to a team's RS/RA with a very high correlation.

This notion of "flawed" needs the proper context given the suggestion that flawed and fatal should be conflated.

jojo
06-24-2010, 10:52 PM
My point is that he isn't bad enough in the field to negate his total offensive worth, to make him "replacement level" at the plate. Especially with the way he has produced this season.

How many people are actually making THAT argument?

jojo
06-24-2010, 10:56 PM
Any statistic that asserts Paul Janish and Jonny Gomes are of equal value in terms of value to club fails the common sense portion that should be inherent to any statistic in the first place.

Paul Janish is NOT worth the same WAR as Gomes, Sutton, and Stubbs. It's more than improbable. It makes no sense.

Again, to make this statement, one actually has to abuse the statisitic, which is dripping with irony... :cool:

mdccclxix
06-24-2010, 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdccclxix View Post
Agreed. Every team has a context. Gomes and Janish may be worth the same WAR, but it appears that in the context of the 2010 Reds, Gomes is far more valuable.
I think we're getting a lot of confusion by not understanding WAR, it's strengths and it's limitations.

Quote:
Put these two players on the Yankees or Dodgers and I'd suspect Janish would be more valuable because they already have RBI guys.
The Reds seem to have good hitters this year, I suspect they'd score a similar amount of runs with Janish sitting in the 8-hole.

Quote:
Furthermore, this chemistry isn't something you can reliably predict before the season or even before any month of the season because it's dictated by performance. For example, as other have noted, if Dickerson doesn't go down and Stubbs doesn't fail at lead off, we may not be seeing the best of Gomes, Rolen, Phillips, etc.
That seems like a pretty big logical leap.

Quote:
So, in a sense, WAR is like "power ratings" you see for basketball teams in college. Its a cool, comprehensive number, but it means less than has been thought in playing a game or building a team.
Basically, their similarity in WAR is explained as Janish hasn't had enough rope for his bat to drag him down while the few plays he's made at SS have been good.

Gomes has been good with the bat and poor with the glove in LF.

Now if you regress the UZR component, you'll find Gomes is more valuable but he still gives back a lot of offensive value with his poor D.

From what I'm reading, we basically agree that WAR is limited. My point is that it isn't so perfectly sterile that to win you need to stack high WAR players on top of each other. I do disagree that the Reds would have scored as many runs without Gomes this year stabilizing the 5th hole, but that's purely my opinion. A case could be made that Heisey could replace him.

Falls City Beer
06-24-2010, 11:33 PM
From what I'm reading, we basically agree that WAR is limited. My point is that it isn't so perfectly sterile that to win you need to stack high WAR players on top of each other. I do disagree that the Reds would have scored as many runs without Gomes this year stabilizing the 5th hole, but that's purely my opinion. A case could be made that Heisey could replace him.

And isn't having more productive players (Gomes + Heisey) a better option than fewer productive players (Heisey + :()?

It's not like we're arguing Taveras versus Heisey.

Again though, if we're talking about improving the runs scored/runs prevented ledger why not Heisey over Stubbs? That seems to be the optimal outfield.

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 11:34 PM
Again, to make this statement, one actually has to abuse the statisitic, which is dripping with irony... :cool:

How so, jojo?

Spring~Fields
06-25-2010, 12:49 AM
Can you show me that he doesn't have market value? I'm not sure we can prove or disprove either way.

And here are Gomes' OPS numbers by month since he joined Cincy.

.882 (sss)
1.061
.829
.867
.786
.620
1.056
.772

Gomes isn't "one good month at the plate". In fact, a case could be made that he is "one bad month at the plate" since he joined. A pretty solid case, in fact.

I'm not sure how anyone could believe that Gomes hasn't had a material positive impact on Cincy's success so far this year. And I have no idea how anyone would think that he needs to take a seat for Heisey, Dickerson, or Dorn.

Stats are great and all, but one of the popular statements that some will say is that they know that stats aren't perfect. They know that fielding stats are still being developed. Yet one could still use stats to say that Dickerson is worth about 3 runs less than Gomes at the plate? Seriously? Or that all of Gomes' offensive worth is negated by his fielding, when we know that he isn't a complete butcher out there?
You guys watch the games and understand the game itself. Pretend like you never saw Gomes' UZR number but know the value of defense and offense and everything else. Do you honestly think that Gomes, to this point in the season, has had zero worth and that Chris Dickerson would be virtually his offensive equal?

I think that I understand your support and points for Gomes because of what he brings to the team offensively.

It is not so much Gomes and his obvious defensive weakness that bothers me. Nor is it some past hope that I might have had for Chris Dickerson, that has long since faded, regardless of what we see in his potential. Dickerson, doesn’t or can’t show up for work, for a lack of a better response.

I think I see in your arguments where basically many of your points could be made for Heisey with his defense and offense, too, to get the starts over Stubbs. How would you feel about that?

I wonder if you would make the same argument, or close to it for Heisey over Stubbs considering that Heisey appears to hit better than Stubbs and might not be that much of a drop off defensively over Stubbs?

How flexible are you in your arguments if a Janish/Cabrera was tossed out there with what you have seen? Here they say that Janish defense is better, and the bats might be comparable, but we don’t know for sure on either Heisey or Janish, for a fact, over their rival at CF or SS.

As you can see from this above, it is not Gomes that I think should take a seat as the Reds roster is currently constructed.

You lobbied early for Gomes, would you now under the same premise and supporting points lobby for a Heisey over a Stubbs or a Janish over Cabrera or at least express that they should get substantially more playing time than they have?

kaldaniels
06-25-2010, 12:53 AM
And isn't having more productive players (Gomes + Heisey) a better option than fewer productive players (Heisey + :()?

It's not like we're arguing Taveras versus Heisey.

Again though, if we're talking about improving the runs scored/runs prevented ledger why not Heisey over Stubbs? That seems to be the optimal outfield.

I've been wondering that myself. I've stayed out of this one because I kept thinking...why isn't there a thread with the discussion that we need...Heisey vs. Stubbs. That is a debatable topic with me not knowing the right answer. As for this thread, Gomes is a slam-dunk for me in LF as the roster stands today.

Falls City Beer
06-25-2010, 12:58 AM
I've been wondering that myself. I've stayed out of this one because I kept thinking...why isn't there a thread with the discussion that we need...Heisey vs. Stubbs. That is a debatable topic with me not knowing the right answer. As for this thread, Gomes is a slam-dunk for me in LF as the roster stands today.

If Redszone's a shark tank, valuation of defense is the current chum.

Spring~Fields
06-25-2010, 01:00 AM
It's no secret I'm in favor of playing the young guys, but in this case I'd want to ease Heisey into the everyday job. He should be playing 4 days a week, spelling all three starting OF's



Again though, if we're talking about improving the runs scored/runs prevented ledger why not Heisey over Stubbs? That seems to be the optimal outfield.

I like these suggestions to find out what Heisey can bring to the team, and with hopeful expectation that his offense and defense is a plus contribution.

What is stopping it from happening at this point, front office politics? At least to give him an amount of playing time that exposes him one way or the other, or gains that experience that the organization might have a preference for?

TRF
06-25-2010, 09:37 AM
oooh... algebra!

what's the mathematical formula for freezing on line drives and flailing your arms wildly as it sails over your head?

nate
06-25-2010, 10:12 AM
From what I'm reading, we basically agree that WAR is limited.

It has limitations.


My point is that it isn't so perfectly sterile that to win you need to stack high WAR players on top of each other.

I guess my points are, why would that be bad?

And the Reds currently have 4 players in the top-70 of NL WAR rankings. Last year they had 2. Maybe it does have value...so to speak.


I do disagree that the Reds would have scored as many runs without Gomes this year stabilizing the 5th hole, but that's purely my opinion. A case could be made that Heisey could replace him.

I really don't care about RS as much as I care about the run difference being greatly in the Reds favor.

jojo
06-25-2010, 10:27 AM
How so, jojo?

We've talked about this particular comparison a couple of times already.

The WAR that's being quoted for Janish is over 35 PAs. Nobody would take it seriously. To use that comparison is inappropriate from a statistical standpoint. Case in point-Janish has logged 18 PAs since the original post and his WAR has been roughly halved.

To hold that (such volatility due to obvious sampling issues) up as proof the statistic is flawed is inappropriate.

Frankly to have double digit threads arguing over WAR comparisons spanning less than half a season is kind of premature.

bucksfan2
06-25-2010, 10:41 AM
The evidence may be flawed, but that doesn't mean it misses the picture entirely. Batting average, for instance, is a flawed stat--I much prefer OPS, etc. these days--but it doesn't mean it entirely misses accounting for some part of player's offensive output.

My issue is exactly what you said. I see defensive ratings similar to BA. They tell you something about a player, but they are admittedly inaccurate. My whole issue is placing equal value in one good metric and one poor metric.

I am not dismissing defense. I have seen the value of defense. I have seen the value of having Drew Stubbs and Jay Bruce shore up most of the outfield. I have also seen the need to have a power bat in the order. I just don't think we have found an accurate way to measure offensive and defensive output right now. Thats my biggest obstacle right now. And to be honest when the comparisons of Heisey >= Gomes I think of very small sample size as well as taking numbers to a completely misused place. I also don't think it factors in the intangible aspect of the game in which I give a huge nod to Gomes.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 11:35 AM
UZR/dewan's etc does the same thing for defense.... These metrics have to be considered an advance since including them in a calculation like WAR takes one to a team's RS/RA with a very high correlation.

How much of the accuracy or WAR can be attributed to the strength of the offensive calculations, and how much to the defense?

It seems to me if you want to correlate defense to runs, you'd stick with UZR (or whatever) and try to synch it up with pitching measures vs. Runs Against, no?

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 11:53 AM
UZR/dewan's etc does the same thing for defense.... These metrics have to be considered an advance since including them in a calculation like WAR takes one to a team's RS/RA with a very high correlation.

I'm much more comfortable with DER -- defensive efficiency rating -- than with UZR. The team stat accounts for more data and matches up better with a team measure like RS/RA. Could it be factored into WAR instead, and, if so, would the correlation to RS/RA be even better?

jojo
06-25-2010, 12:37 PM
How much of the accuracy or WAR can be attributed to the strength of the offensive calculations, and how much to the defense?

It seems to me if you want to correlate defense to runs, you'd stick with UZR (or whatever) and try to synch it up with pitching measures vs. Runs Against, no?

We know that their inclusion (into WAR) doesn't muck things up.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 12:49 PM
We know that their inclusion (into WAR) doesn't muck things up.

Not sure how to interpret this.

So, if UZR were removed from the WAR calculation, would the correlation to RS/RA be less accurate?

I apologize if these questions are too naive about the math involved, but it seems to me the claim is being made that "all the pieces of the statistical puzzle, using UZR and WAR, reflect results on the field so accurately that one cannot dispute the excellence of those measures." And I'm trying to make sure I understand that the contribution of the defensive statistics is as wonderful as all that.

pahster
06-25-2010, 12:52 PM
I googled it and couldn't come up with anything. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what method one would use to run a correlation. Team FIP-Team ERA and UZR?

I think it would make more sense to use runs allowed. Correlations can be interesting to know, but you might as well regress team UZR (I assume this is what we're talking about) and whatever other covariates you think are relevant (league, park effects, etc.) on team runs allowed. If team UZR is an accurate predictor of defense, you would expect that as it rises, runs allowed would decrease. So you'd expect team UZR to have a negative coefficient in your model which, if it isn't strictly due to random chance, would come with a low p-value/high t or z score/small standard error.


70% is not a very strong correlation at all- if you want anything really meaningful, 90% to 95% is really the bottom line... From what I remember, something like hits or RBI was 70% correlative with team wins/runs scored...

A correlation of |.7| is definitely strong. Keep in mind that the level of correlation between two variables doesn't tell us how one effects the other. It's quite possible for two variables to exhibit a low level of correlation even though one of them exerts a reasonably strong effect on the other. Simple correlations don't allow us to observe these relationships. This is why we have regression and maximum likelihood modeling.

As for your comment about needing a .9 or .95 correlation to show a strong relationship, I think you're mixing up correlation with p-values.

Hurray statistics!

Plus Plus
06-25-2010, 12:55 PM
A correlation of |.7| is definitely strong. Keep in mind that the level of correlation between two variables doesn't tell us how one effects the other. It's quite possible for two variables to exhibit a low level of correlation even though one of them exerts a reasonably strong effect on the other. Simple correlations don't allow us to observe these relationships. This is why we have regression and maximum likelihood modeling.

As for your comment about needing a .9 or .95 correlation to show a strong relationship, I think you're mixing up correlation with p-values.

Hurray statistics!

D'oh! I think you are right and I was confused! Haven't done much with non-baseball stats in about five years now...

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Pahster!

jojo
06-25-2010, 01:14 PM
Not sure how to interpret this.

So, if UZR were removed from the WAR calculation, would the correlation to RS/RA be less accurate?

I've never run the correlations without UZR in WAR so unfortunately, I can't answer that right now. I'll try to get to it but it might be a little while.

The point I was trying to make was that with UZR added to the mess, the correlation between WAR-derived wins and pythag correlation was very high (in the low/mid .9's). Given this UZR at least has to reasonably be doing what it is trying to do even if it's not perfect.


I apologize if these questions are too naive about the math involved, but it seems to me the claim is being made that "all the pieces of the statistical puzzle, using UZR and WAR, reflect results on the field so accurately that one cannot dispute the excellence of those measures." And I'm trying to make sure I understand that the contribution of the defensive statistics is as wonderful as all that.

There's nothing naive about your questions-this is a limitation of sabermetrics in that the math can import a cheaply bought sense of nobility.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the tools are beyond reproach. At least, my argument is that these tools are the best available right now, the process is exactly the process that one would envision as being the way to answer the question (i.e. measure the contributions of all phases of the game), and while certainly not perfect, these tools/approaches now allow us to entertain questions that were before impossible due to a lack of data/metrics.

In three years we might be talking about a completely different defensive metric if a better way comes along (I no longer talk about VORP for instance when discussing player worth), but my approach is to rely upon the best available tool at the time and revise conclusions if necessary when a better way comes along provided it makes revisions necessary.

Sometimes it gets interpreted as a proclamation of absolute truth, but really when I state a stats-based conclusion it should be understood as "based upon the metrics that I judge to be the gold standard, this is what the conclusion should be"... Now clearly my bias is that as fans we're on better footing by relying upon good statistical methods than our eyes because not all eyes are the same and certainly we have lives that prevent us from seeing as much baseball as a stat can. That said, I generally point out the limitations of most metrics I rely upon and assume the caveats can be assumed. I suspect stats-inclined people find me harder to take some times than traditionalists.

Scrap Irony
06-25-2010, 01:30 PM
What are the limitations of VORP, jojo?

Would it be fair to say VORP is less precise than WAR, statistically?

jojo
06-25-2010, 01:39 PM
What are the limitations of VORP, jojo?

Would it be fair to say VORP is less precise than WAR, statistically?

Here's a few practical limitations-VORP measures only offense and it's relative to replacement level so it's basically tied to position which further limits its usefulness when comparing player value. It's also behind the BP shroud and is really difficult to calculate making it cumbersome outside of the BP shroud.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 01:58 PM
I've never run the correlations without UZR in WAR so unfortunately, I can't answer that right now. I'll try to get to it but it might be a little while.

Please don't feel obliged. This is just idle speculation on my part....


the process is exactly the process that one would envision as being the way to answer the question (i.e. measure the contributions of all phases of the game), and while certainly not perfect, these tools/approaches now allow us to entertain questions that were before impossible due to a lack of data/metrics.

I think my take is that because the ability to tie in all phases of the game is so attractive, this first wave of defensive metrics has been embraced like a first love, an infatuation. I think there's much better to come.

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 02:26 PM
Please don't feel obliged. This is just idle speculation on my part....



I think my take is that because the ability to tie in all phases of the game is so attractive, this first wave of defensive metrics has been embraced like a first love, an infatuation. I think there's much better to come.

This isn't the first wave of defensive metrics.

I do agree that there is better to come (with the help of Hit F/X, which is being recorded for the 2nd season as we speak, though MLBAM has only made April 2009's data available to certain people to this point, they do have the data recorded). The question is, to what degree will it be better? I don't see it getting to be more than 10-15% more accurate than what we have now.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 02:45 PM
This isn't the first wave of defensive metrics.

Oh. OK.


I do agree that there is better to come (with the help of Hit F/X, which is being recorded for the 2nd season as we speak, though MLBAM has only made April 2009's data available to certain people to this point, they do have the data recorded). The question is, to what degree will it be better? I don't see it getting to be more than 10-15% more accurate than what we have now.

I see it totally transforming how an individual's defensive skill is measured. But that's far down the road.

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 03:01 PM
I see it totally transforming how an individual's defensive skill is measured. But that's far down the road.

How much more can go into defensive metrics that we don't already measure other than time and distance the ball itself travels before it lands/is caught?

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 03:08 PM
How much more can go into defensive metrics that we don't already measure other than time and distance the ball itself travels before it lands/is caught?

As I've said many times in this thread, the precise movements of the player. Also, the player's arm (release time, speed and accuracy of throws).

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 03:45 PM
As I've said many times in this thread, the precise movements of the player. Also, the player's arm (release time, speed and accuracy of throws).

The arm I can agree with. As I have said many times here, the movement of the player doesn't matter towards his current value. Only at what he could do one day.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 04:01 PM
the movement of the player doesn't matter towards his current value. Only at what he could do one day.

I know, in a general way, how current value is being assigned for defense, and I have some problems with it. I am sharing my understanding of how a different approach, one that captures more data, could be an improvement. I am not debating what the current approach is.

Once they can track the defender's movement, they'll know a lot more about his defensive skillset. Right now, they can eyeball it and come up with broad, general impressions. With the proper equipment, they could nail down stuff that right now is only understood in very rough terms.

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 04:03 PM
I know, in a general way, how current value is being assigned for defense, and I have some problems with it. I am sharing my understanding of how a different approach, one that captures more data, could be an improvement. I am not debating what the current approach is.

Once they can track the defender's movement, they'll know a lot more about his defensive skillset. Right now, they can eyeball it and come up with broad, general impressions. With the proper equipment, they could nail down stuff that right now is only understood in very rough terms.

Skillset is different from production though. Knowing ones skillset doesn't tell us ones production. The system you want, the one that is mostly in place now but we can't actually use yet, is going to help us understand skillset more, but probably not give us much more on production.

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Skillset is different from production though. Knowing ones skillset doesn't tell us ones production. The system you want, the one that is mostly in place now but we can't actually use yet, is going to help us understand skillset more, but probably not give us much more on production.

I don't think the system is mostly in place. It's a lot more than Hit F(x). You need to track the fielder and the fielder in relation to the ball, too. Hit F(x) will be great, but there's more to come after that, too, I think.

Once they are able to collect all that data, I think you'll see that certain skillsets correlate quite well with production. And evaluators will be able to ascertain a fielder's skills with greater precision than ever before.

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 04:13 PM
I don't think the system is mostly in place. It's a lot more than Hit F(x). You need to track the fielder and the fielder in relation to the ball, too. Hit F(x) will be great, but there's more to come after that, too, I think.

Once they are able to collect all that data, I think you'll see that certain skillsets correlate quite well with production. And evaluators will be able to ascertain a fielder's skills with greater precision than ever before.

The fielders starting positions will be tracked. As will the final destination of the ball along with its speed and angle. With that we can tell how fast one was able to get to the ball. What is it missing?

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 04:42 PM
The fielders starting positions will be tracked. As will the final destination of the ball along with its speed and angle. With that we can tell how fast one was able to get to the ball. What is it missing?

Interesting. I'd still want info about route and jump.

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 04:55 PM
Interesting. I'd still want info about route and jump.

What is that going to tell us other than someone runs poor routes or gets poor jumps? Things that aren't going to be fixed because they have to do with either eyesight or just ones natural ability to judge the ball. Or am I missing something?

lollipopcurve
06-25-2010, 05:06 PM
What is that going to tell us other than someone runs poor routes or gets poor jumps? Things that aren't going to be fixed because they have to do with either eyesight or just ones natural ability to judge the ball. Or am I missing something?

Running routes and getting jumps are skills that affect defensive play.

RedsManRick
06-25-2010, 06:25 PM
Running routes and getting jumps are skills that affect defensive play.

Exactly Doug's point. So we'll be able to get a better understanding of what skills each player has. But from a production standpoint, all that matters is making the play vs. not making the play and how that compares to what a replacement level player does. From that perspective, the combination of skills you used to do it is irrelevant.

Consider the comparison with hitters. Both Ryan Braun and Carl Crawford have produced ~15 runs above replacement this year at the plate. However, we also know that those guys have very different skill sets. If we wanted to know who was "the better player" this year, that 15 is what counts. But if wanted to project how those guys were likely to perform in the future, we want to look at the skills combined with an understanding of how those skills age.

What I find fascinating about fielding components is that I think there is likely greater variance in the skills over time than with hitting. Speed and reaction times probably constantly decline over time. But routes probably improve. Hands probably improve. Throwing power might decrease while accuracy increases. A 3B might get more adept at fielding bunts and 1B at scooping throws.

It's at the skill level that I think stats and scouts can really start to meld. For example, if offseason scouting tells us that a guy has lost a step, what can we infer about his defensive performance? How can we better position guys to take better advantage of their skills?

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2010, 01:36 PM
Anyone else think the Reds may need to go out and acquire a left handed bat to pair with Jonny Gomes in left field? Check out Gomes' splits:

April - .621 OPS in 60 AB
May - 1.056 OPS in 88 AB
June - .718 OPS in 77 AB

I like Jonny Gomes but right now he's pretty much living off a huge month of May. His other two months have been bad. To make things worse, Laynce Nix isn't hitting when he starts in left field. Nix has a .690 OPS in 90 atbats, and only a .681 OPS vs RHP.

David DeJesus anyone?

lollipopcurve
06-28-2010, 01:59 PM
Exactly Doug's point. So we'll be able to get a better understanding of what skills each player has. But from a production standpoint, all that matters is making the play vs. not making the play and how that compares to what a replacement level player does. From that perspective, the combination of skills you used to do it is irrelevant.

The key is which skills have the most impact. Maybe they all correlate similarly to making plays, maybe they don't. But right now we have no idea. All we know is "production," itself a mediocre measure under UZR, with no precise understanding of the skillset mix players need to be productive.


It's at the skill level that I think stats and scouts can really start to meld. For example, if offseason scouting tells us that a guy has lost a step, what can we infer about his defensive performance? How can we better position guys to take better advantage of their skills?

Ultimately, in my opinion, it's going to be all quantitative, at least on the defensive side. I think defensive skills mature faster than offensive skills, and they'll be able to grade out a kid's defensive prowess in very hard numbers, if the kind of data I'm talking about can be collected. Much harder on the offensive side, since the environment changes so much as players progress to more advanced levels (from aluminum to wood, from less to more advanced pitching, etc.).

nate
06-28-2010, 02:11 PM
Anyone else think the Reds may need to go out and acquire a left handed bat to pair with Jonny Gomes in left field? Check out Gomes' splits:

April - .621 OPS in 60 AB
May - 1.056 OPS in 88 AB
June - .718 OPS in 77 AB

I like Jonny Gomes but right now he's pretty much living off a huge month of May. His other two months have been bad. To make things worse, Laynce Nix isn't hitting when he starts in left field. Nix has a .690 OPS in 90 atbats, and only a .681 OPS vs RHP.

David DeJesus anyone?

Yes, please.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2010, 02:26 PM
Anyone else think the Reds may need to go out and acquire a left handed bat to pair with Jonny Gomes in left field? Check out Gomes' splits:

April - .621 OPS in 60 AB
May - 1.056 OPS in 88 AB
June - .718 OPS in 77 AB

I like Jonny Gomes but right now he's pretty much living off a huge month of May. His other two months have been bad. To make things worse, Laynce Nix isn't hitting when he starts in left field. Nix has a .690 OPS in 90 atbats, and only a .681 OPS vs RHP.

David DeJesus anyone?

How about calling up Dorn? Cheaper and should be effective.

KoryMac5
06-28-2010, 02:30 PM
Anyone else think the Reds may need to go out and acquire a left handed bat to pair with Jonny Gomes in left field? Check out Gomes' splits:

April - .621 OPS in 60 AB
May - 1.056 OPS in 88 AB
June - .718 OPS in 77 AB

I like Jonny Gomes but right now he's pretty much living off a huge month of May. His other two months have been bad. To make things worse, Laynce Nix isn't hitting when he starts in left field. Nix has a .690 OPS in 90 atbats, and only a .681 OPS vs RHP.

David DeJesus anyone?

KC wants the moon for DeJesus. Boston kicked the tires on him but pulled out after hearing what they would have to pay. I'd rather have Heisey plus Cisco is alway an option as he has been hot in AAA.

jojo
06-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Angel Pagan.

lollipopcurve
06-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Angel Pagan.

Good idea, but it sounds like he's now unattainable.

TRF
06-28-2010, 06:42 PM
As long as the Mets are in it, no way is Pagan available.

Remember this phrase... All Danny Dorn does is hit.