Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,681

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by JKam View Post
    With respect to the Cardnal's insanely high OPS with RISP, wasn't there a theory that Cardinals were stealing signs which might have explained the high OPS with RISP and pedestrian OPS with no RISP?

    If the Cardinals are so good at stealing signs and communicating it to their hitters, and it was indeed the reason for the high OPS with RISP, then theoretically wouldn't it be possible for them to replicate it?

    Do we even believe the stealing sign theory?
    There was a theory as last season progressed.

    Teams started taking better precautions against the Cards and their OPS with RISP started to normalize as the season wore on, and disappeared in the playoffs.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Runs created is a linear runs model that includes the value a freely obtainable scrub could produce. If WAR is baseball's version of LSD then RC is baseball's version of punch spiked with cheap wine.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  4. Likes:

    MikeThierry (01-28-2014)

  5. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I agree with your general premise, but, sweet tap dancing Easter bunnies, does WAR make everything weird ... even offense. Choo definitely out-produced Bruce, but he wasn't nearly twice as good. Choo had a 125 RC in 712 PAs . Bruce had 99 RC in 697 PAs. If you go by RC/27, Choo was 41% better than Bruce on offense. That strikes me as pretty much the outside boundary of reasonable. WAR more than doubles their RC/27 difference.
    He was, without doubt, nearly twice as good as Bruce from an offensive standpoint last year.


  6. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    217

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    There was a theory as last season progressed.

    Teams started taking better precautions against the Cards and their OPS with RISP started to normalize as the season wore on, and disappeared in the playoffs.
    Don Mattingly doesnt like this post

  7. #65
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    He was, without doubt, nearly twice as good as Bruce from an offensive standpoint last year.
    That's the problem with linear weights. They get you so twisted around you actually believe that when you type it. The world would stay on its axis a whole lot better if we just acknowledged Choo was ~25 runs better at the dish last season and tried to work from there. Once we start down the road of sketchy valuations it leads to bad projections and even worse decisions (like trying to build a team using WAR like it was Lego blocks).

    Anyway, RE24 does have its uses, but I think you're reading that chart wrong. For instance, that table is showing where the Reds struggled most last season (SS and C). It's telling us that it might have been smart to keep Xavier Paul around. It makes the case that, despite all the complaints lodged against them, Brandon Phillips and Todd Frazier were useful players last season. It's showing us that Jay Bruce was really good last season (20th in the NL in RE24) and that Choo and Votto were elite. However, it is not showing that Choo was twice as good at the plate as the 20th-best bat in the NL.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  8. #66
    Burn It Jamz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    413

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    If I'm the Reds and I want to put together a winning line-up based on what we have available to us right now?

    1. Brandon Phillips
    2. Joey Votto
    3. Todd Frazier
    4. Jay Bruce
    .
    .
    .
    8. Billy Hamilton

    If Billy can prove his worth with his bat then move him up to leadoff, but otherwise putting him in a position where there is no pressure to hit could be best for him (and if he can turn over the line-up having BP and Votto behind him would be nice, too.)

    I still think this team should be searching for another plus bat to compete in one of the toughest divisions, if not the toughest division, in baseball but I think that order goes a long way towards helping maximize what we already have.
    I see great things in baseball. It's our game.

  9. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    217

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamz View Post
    If I'm the Reds and I want to put together a winning line-up based on what we have available to us right now?

    1. Brandon Phillips
    2. Joey Votto
    3. Todd Frazier
    4. Jay Bruce
    .
    .
    .
    8. Billy Hamilton

    If Billy can prove his worth with his bat then move him up to leadoff, but otherwise putting him in a position where there is no pressure to hit could be best for him (and if he can turn over the line-up having BP and Votto behind him would be nice, too.)

    I still think this team should be searching for another plus bat to compete in one of the toughest divisions, if not the toughest division, in baseball but I think that order goes a long way towards helping maximize what we already have.
    You really want BP leading off?

  10. #68
    Burn It Jamz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    413

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by indyscott View Post
    You really want BP leading off?
    Unless you think that Votto or Bruce should be leading off?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...reer&t=b#lineu

    He's probably the one player I wouldn't mind moving up to the 1st spot because there isn't anyone else that can handle it there, while you want your two best batters (Votto and Bruce) in the 2 and 4 spots. Frazier might see some nice looks being sandwiched between those two as well.
    I see great things in baseball. It's our game.

  11. #69
    .377 in 1905 CySeymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Carmel, IN
    Posts
    2,240

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by indyscott View Post
    You really want BP leading off?
    With this team, there aren't a lot of options in-house.
    ...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.

  12. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    217

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by CySeymour View Post
    With this team, there aren't a lot of options in-house.
    If we have a guy with an OBP just above .300 with minimal speed now, we are in a lot of trouble

  13. #71
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    That's the problem with linear weights. They get you so twisted around you actually believe that when you type it. The world would stay on its axis a whole lot better if we just acknowledged Choo was ~25 runs better at the dish last season and tried to work from there. Once we start down the road of sketchy valuations it leads to bad projections and even worse decisions (like trying to build a team using WAR like it was Lego blocks).

    Anyway, RE24 does have its uses, but I think you're reading that chart wrong. For instance, that table is showing where the Reds struggled most last season (SS and C). It's telling us that it might have been smart to keep Xavier Paul around. It makes the case that, despite all the complaints lodged against them, Brandon Phillips and Todd Frazier were useful players last season. It's showing us that Jay Bruce was really good last season (20th in the NL in RE24) and that Choo and Votto were elite. However, it is not showing that Choo was twice as good at the plate as the 20th-best bat in the NL.
    It's arbitrary puffery to describe a linear model that RMR used to argue Choo was 26.4 runs better offensively than Bruce during 2013 as "sketchy legos that knock the earth off its axis" at the same time as arguing a great starting point is to work backwards from a linear model that says Choo was 25 runs better offensively than Bruce was last season.

    The first system allows one to interpret Choo's performance in a very useful context-his marginal offensive value was roughly twice that of Bruce last season (i.e. Choo's offensive value relative to a guy the Reds could've freely plucked from triple A depth was twice that of Bruce's). What's more, such a system allows one to compare Choo across the defensive spectrum to all other players in the majors on an apples to apples scale. So despite the puffery and evocative langauge, using replacement level as a baseline is enormously useful and a reasonable person could conclude doing so can provide insights that other baselines don't allow.

    Meanwhile, the other system uses a baseline of basically not fielding a player in a position and then tries to compare players across the defensive spectrum as if there is no reason to believe the talent distribution is different across such pools of players. While such a system can be of some use, it's actually pretty limited and a reasonable person could even conclude that due to a lack of context because of it's baseline (i.e. production one could get from a dead guy assuming dead guys would be expected to be equally good offensively regardless of whether they were a catcher or a firstbaseman, which I guess is probably accurate concerning dead guys but its probably not terribly informative), it could even lead to erroneous conclusions.

    So just like with the grandiose language riddling this argument when it was had going on several years ago now, hidden behind the colorful prose is a simple and straightforward concept-baselines.

    The two systems being compared differ really only in their baselines. One baseline (replacement level) assumes the production of a freely available player and only focuses upon the unique production a player provides. The other simple makes that unique production seem smaller in relative magnitude because it also wants to talk about the stuff any AAA depth could give as well.

    I guess baselines are a matter of preference. But one is extremely empowering concerning player evaluation, allowing players to be compared on an apples to apples basis while also allowing their production to be related to market value and mighty pythag. The other is fairly limited regarding the meaningful comparisons it allows. No amount of playing with Legos can really obfuscate that reality.

    Seriously, it's confusing why it's acceptable to believe that Choo was 41% better than Bruce relative to a dead guy but it's impossible to accept that Choo was twice as valuable as Bruce relative to a player who might be plucked from triple A depth. But reagdless, it's an invalid criticism to begin with because it completely ignores that the baselines are different (i.e. the scale on the y axis doesn't allow the comparison youre offering as criticsm).
    Last edited by jojo; 01-23-2014 at 05:23 PM.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  14. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    That's the problem with linear weights. They get you so twisted around you actually believe that when you type it. The world would stay on its axis a whole lot better if we just acknowledged Choo was ~25 runs better at the dish last season and tried to work from there. Once we start down the road of sketchy valuations it leads to bad projections and even worse decisions (like trying to build a team using WAR like it was Lego blocks).

    Anyway, RE24 does have its uses, but I think you're reading that chart wrong. For instance, that table is showing where the Reds struggled most last season (SS and C). It's telling us that it might have been smart to keep Xavier Paul around. It makes the case that, despite all the complaints lodged against them, Brandon Phillips and Todd Frazier were useful players last season. It's showing us that Jay Bruce was really good last season (20th in the NL in RE24) and that Choo and Votto were elite. However, it is not showing that Choo was twice as good at the plate as the 20th-best bat in the NL.
    According to BR's RE24, Bruce contributed 25.8 runs(above what an average batter would have been expected to contribute given the same opportunities)to the team and Choo contributed 49.9 runs to the team.

    49.9/25.8 = 1.9341085271317828

    According to Fangraphs' RE24, Bruce contributed 28.07 runs to the team and Choo contributed 50.81 runs to the team.

    50.81/28.07 = 1.8101175632347704

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    Oh, I've got all kinds of problems with linear runs models in general and the concept of replacement level in specific. Skews proportion and valuation. WAR really is like baseball's version of LSD.
    What do you want? What are your go-to offensive stats? AVG/HR/RBI?

    Here is the fact: The offensive statistics like wOBA, wRC+, WPA, RE24 are deadly accurate compared to the defensive metrics or WAR.

  15. #73
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    What do you want? What are your go-to offensive stats? AVG/HR/RBI?
    OB, SLG, OPS+, RC/27, wOBA, wRC+. I also like looking using BABIP, LD%, BB%, L/R, etc. when trying to project future performance. I'm a firm believer in looking at performance from multiple angles rather than trying to boil it down to a single (mostly useless) number. Totally on board with offensive runs metrics being umpteen times more accurate that defensive metrics and WAR. Been banging that drum since forever. I'll even add that offensive WAR is functionally useless since its only real purpose is to take perfectly good offensive data and hammer it into a WAR equation. If you're not going to use WAR, then stay away from the components (outside of Rbaser, which we're kind of stuck with at the moment) - that was the point of my initial post on this thread.

    I know how the stats work. I'm as capable of looking up a stats glossary as the next person and have done so on many occasions. Love the stats. Don't love the terrible analysis and half-cocked conclusions people derive from them. Anyway, there's a lot of useful insight in that RE24 list, just not the point you tried to make while posting it. As an aside, I generally like your posts and think you do a real nice job in using the numbers to hit on important points.
    Last edited by M2; 01-24-2014 at 04:56 PM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. Likes:

    757690 (01-24-2014)

  17. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,681

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    It's arbitrary puffery.....
    You either had me or lost me at "arbitrary puffery", I can't decide on which one.


  18. Likes:

    jojo (01-24-2014)

  19. #75
    Member MikeThierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    3,663

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    As I have said in other threads, we play this song and dance every year since I've been here. Many people try to give an argument as to why the Cardinals are going to "regress" this season or that season yet they still are successful despite predictions from here. Sure, there will be regression from the insane .330 RISP clip they had in 2013 but they will still have one of the best offenses in the National League none the less. They have had one of the best offenses in baseball the past 3 or so years regardless of where their RISP numbers are. They scored 783 runs last year, 765 runs in 2012 (when their average with RISP was significantly lower), and 762 runs in 2011. One can assume they will still be one of the top scoring offenses in baseball in the 2014 season and their drop in runs scored won't be as drastic as some are predicting here. Besides, their pitching is good enough to where they will win 90-100 games even if there is an 80+ run drop off (which I don't see). Of course, I can see the arguments now. "oh those Cardinals pitchers will regress..... you will see!!".
    ďOur next home stand follows this road trip.Ē

    ďI just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah.Ē says on the day before Easter

    Mike Shannon


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25