Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 95

Thread: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    7,525

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    If they get a .768 OPS with RISP (but are better in those situations due to their patience, being aggesive on the right pitches, and raking the ball when they make contact), their offense will take quite dip next year.

    You can't lose 100 points of OPS with RISP and not score quite a bit less.

    BTW, the Reds last year had a .744 OPS with RISP, including a .363 OBA.
    No doubt that you're right about that. The Reds will have a much better chance to win the Division next season.

    Of course, Phillips ain't hittin' .338 again, or whatever it was, but others could do better. Votto's walks contributed a lot to the OPS. They just wouldn't pitch to him, and why would you?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,911

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingspoint View Post
    And, to finally answer the question....I'll go with a .282 AVG w/ RISP, .348 OBP w/ RISP, .420 SLG w/ RISP, and .768 OPS w/ RISP.
    It was .330/.402/.463, with a .377 BABIP in 2013.

    I don't think what you're suggesting there is at all unreasonable, though I'd still take the under on a .768 OPS.

    In any event, I'd say a 100 point drop in OPS w/ RISP is a pretty significant regression. That's going to cost them quite a few runs, no?

    I think we can all agree that the Cards are likely to:

    1. Regress significantly from 2013
    2. Be among the best, if not the best, hitting team with RISP in 2014.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  4. Likes:

    _Sir_Charles_ (01-21-2014)

  5. #48
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,789

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Choo was a 5 win player last year, Bruce was a 4 win player.
    Let's pretend I'm not one of those people who believes that defensive WAR for outfielders is a bunch of hooey. Surely, you wouldn't consider it fair to compare Choo and Bruce defensively when Bruce was permitted to play his natural position and Choo was not?

    My point is that when you look at offensive war - something that is innately more reliable - Choo proved to be nearly twice the player in 2013 that Bruce was.

    Choo 6.3 wins above replacement (61 runs above replacement)
    Bruce 3.3 wins above replacement (32 runs above replacement)
    How, then, are those people of the future—who are taking steroids every day—going to look back on baseball players who used steroids? They're going to look back on them as pioneers. They're going to look back at it and say "So what?" - Bill James, Cooperstown and the 'Roids

  6. Likes:

    junkhead (01-22-2014)

  7. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,554

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    Let's pretend I'm not one of those people who believes that defensive WAR for outfielders is a bunch of hooey. Surely, you wouldn't consider it fair to compare Choo and Bruce defensively when Bruce was permitted to play his natural position and Choo was not?

    My point is that when you look at offensive war - something that is innately more reliable - Choo proved to be nearly twice the player in 2013 that Bruce was.

    Choo 6.3 wins above replacement (61 runs above replacement)
    Bruce 3.3 wins above replacement (32 runs above replacement)
    All true, but Cincy is replacing Choo the CF.

    We may lose quite a bit of offence, but will gain on defence.

    And while WAR for defence may not be reliable, Bruce was definitely a better defensive RF than Choo a CF.

  8. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    Let's pretend I'm not one of those people who believes that defensive WAR for outfielders is a bunch of hooey. Surely, you wouldn't consider it fair to compare Choo and Bruce defensively when Bruce was permitted to play his natural position and Choo was not?

    My point is that when you look at offensive war - something that is innately more reliable - Choo proved to be nearly twice the player in 2013 that Bruce was.

    Choo 6.3 wins above replacement (61 runs above replacement)
    Bruce 3.3 wins above replacement (32 runs above replacement)
    offensive WAR(2008~2013)
    Bruce(3406PA): 11.9
    Choo(3457PA): 26.9



    http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/tex...ers-lineup.ece
    “We use the term 'good fit' a lot when we look at players to add, but in this case, it was the perfect fit," general manager Jon Daniels said. "His skill set, his personality and his personal goals line up with ours and what our club needed. He's been one of the most productive offensive players in the game. I'm not sure the casual fan realizes that. But he creates run-scoring opportunities for himself and others."
    Among position players(2008~2013)

    Last edited by junkhead; 01-22-2014 at 06:23 AM.

  9. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,554

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruce is as good as offensive player as Choo, but you are comparing Choo's prime years vs. Bruce when he was 21 onwards.

    Bruce is just entering his prime years, while Cho is 30 and may start declining shortly. Choo had his first full season at age 26, the same age that Bruce is now.

  10. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruce is as good as offensive player as Choo, but you are comparing Choo's prime years vs. Bruce when he was 21 onwards.

    Bruce is just entering his prime years, while Cho is 30 and may start declining shortly. Choo had his first full season at age 26, the same age that Bruce is now.
    Bruce will not hit for average or get on base at a high clip all of a sudden just because of the fact that he is entering prime years.

  11. #53
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,159

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    Let's pretend I'm not one of those people who believes that defensive WAR for outfielders is a bunch of hooey. Surely, you wouldn't consider it fair to compare Choo and Bruce defensively when Bruce was permitted to play his natural position and Choo was not?

    My point is that when you look at offensive war - something that is innately more reliable - Choo proved to be nearly twice the player in 2013 that Bruce was.

    Choo 6.3 wins above replacement (61 runs above replacement)
    Bruce 3.3 wins above replacement (32 runs above replacement)
    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.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  12. Likes:

    _Sir_Charles_ (01-22-2014)

  13. #54
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,911

    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.
    fWAR had Bruce as 14 runs above average on offense. It has Choo as 40 runs above average on offense. That's a difference of 26 runs.

    What's 125-99?

    Here are the component pieces for each:
    Code:
          Offensive Production	+	Defensive Production	+	Adjusments  	 =	  Totals
    	Bat	BaseRn		+	Fldng	  +	 Pos	+      League	Rplmnt	 =	RAR	WAR
    Bruce	13.6	 0.3	 	+	 10.2	  +	-7.4	+	1.0	 19.9	 =	37.7	4.1
    Choo	40.9	-0.6		+	-15.5	  +	 2.1	+	1.0	 20.3 	 =	48.4	5.2
    One of the biggest "aha" moments for me with WAR was when TangoTiger explained that you don't do the replacement adjustment against each component, because teams cannot choose to replace components of production. What's a replacement hitter? You can't really answer that question outside of the question, what position does he play? Teams are always considering the entire player.

    As I showed, the wOBA model and the RC model both said Choo produced 26 more runs of offense than Bruce. WAR doesn't mess with that much; it's offensive performance numbers are right in line with the other models -- heck, it's just a standard linear runs model. WAR itself is actually pretty straight forward:
    1. Offense against league average, including batting and base-running
    2. Fielding against league average, including performance against positional average and then adjusting for position so every player is on the same overall scale (the adjustments were formulated by looking at players who played multiple positions)
    3. League adjustment, so both leagues on are equal footing
    4. Replacement-level adjustment (simply a constant production factor multiplied by playing time)

    If you have a problem with WAR, it's in one of these four areas. And the issue of "replacement" is only tacked on at the end. The percent better stuff can get confusing because if you drop the baseline the percentages don't scale linearly. For example +20 vs. +10 says player A was "twice" as good on a percentage basis. But if you add 20 runs to each guy to adjust for replacement, +40 vs. +30 says player A was only 33% better. The percentages just confuse things. It's much more straight forward to talk in terms of runs.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 01-22-2014 at 03:29 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  14. #55
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,221

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    <--- still laughing at M2's "sweet tap dancing Easter bunnies" comment.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG

  15. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,554

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_ View Post
    <--- still laughing at M2's "sweet tap dancing Easter bunnies" comment.
    I'm confused by the inclusion of the word "sweet".

    Are there some tap dancing Easter bunnies who aren't "sweet"?

    M2 seems to think so.....

  16. #57
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,159

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    it's offensive performance numbers are right in line with the other models -- heck, it's just a standard linear runs model.
    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.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  17. Likes:

    Crumbley (01-22-2014), westofyou (01-22-2014)

  18. #58
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,911

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    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.
    Fair enough. You're free to use whatever methods you think work better.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  19. #59
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,159

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    I'm confused by the inclusion of the word "sweet".

    Are there some tap dancing Easter bunnies who aren't "sweet"?

    M2 seems to think so.....
    They're all sweet, except for the ones with the yellowy eyes.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    127

    Re: Team On-Base Percentage and a Balanced Lineup

    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?


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