Turn Off Ads?
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 123

Thread: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

  1. #106
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Why do we dismiss the value of fielding? Becuase there are more home runs? What makes defense less valuable today than 10-20-30-40 or 50 years ago? An out is still an out, and the more you get on defense, the better. What am I missing here?
    I'm curious about that as well.
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #107
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Why do we dismiss the value of fielding? Becuase there are more home runs? What makes defense less valuable today than 10-20-30-40 or 50 years ago? An out is still an out, and the more you get on defense, the better. What am I missing here?
    A significantly larger percentage of outs are recorded today via the strikeout than in years past.

    This past season, the NL had a K/9 of 6.70. In 1957, it had a K/9 of 4.94. In 1907, it had a K/9 of 3.51.

    Pitchers control a larger piece of the pie on the runs allowed side now than they did in earlier eras, which means fielding defense controls a smaller piece of that pie.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  4. #108
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    I don't know how much more convincing one needs when it's the simple fact that these types of linear weights systems simply do not measure fielding defense accurately relative to offensive performance and pitching performance. This is a foundation right here, and it's an important one. These systems seemingly skip right over this foundation without even having a clue how much total value fielding defense is worth relative to offense and pitching.
    I'm not sure why this notion persists that systems which estimate defensive runs are divorced from reality because of the value they place on defense. For instance, Justin's quick look at the issue at the start of this thread suggested the 25 guys he examined had a total fielding value of a 91 runs (when summing the absolute values for each player). The Reds gave up a 853 runs in 2007. I don't think pitchers are being short changed when assigning responsibility... If 17% of run prevention is defense, then in the case of Justin's summary, he undervalued the contribution of defense when determining player value.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    All these magical runs people pull out of thin air and and assign to these players defensive run values are just that, pulled out of thin air. They're coming from somewhere, but nobody seems to want to show anybody else where.
    It's pretty clear where the runs are coming from... defensive run values are basically the summation of the values of individual events.

    If LWTs is a such a flawed method for determining run values, why does a metric like RC have a higher RSME?
    "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

  5. #109
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    For instance, Justin's quick look at the issue at the start of this thread suggested the 25 guys he examined had a total fielding value of a 91 runs (when summing the absolute values for each player).
    That's 91 on top of whatever average is supposed to be. How much that accounts for is anyone's guess. Don't even try to parse through how much the "average" takes from the runs scored and run prevention piles. You'd need a supercollider to figure that one out.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  6. #110
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,500

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    A significantly larger percentage of outs are recorded today via the strikeout than in years past.

    This past season, the NL had a K/9 of 6.70. In 1957, it had a K/9 of 4.94. In 1907, it had a K/9 of 3.51.

    Pitchers control a larger piece of the pie on the runs allowed side now than they did in earlier eras, which means fielding defense controls a smaller piece of that pie.
    Well thats true, but how many hits are being allowed per game compared to then? There may be more strikeouts now, but there are also more batters coming to the plate. The best team OBP in 1907 was .331 and there were 5 teams under .300 in OBP. Compared to last year, there were only 7 teams under .331 and 23 at or higher than that. That is a whole lot more batters stepping to the plate. In 1907 teams were averaging roughly 5050 at bats a season and 154 games, that works out to 32.79 AB per game. 2006 teams were averaging about 5600 at bats per season in 162 games, that comes out to 34.56 at bats per game. Not only are teams getting more at bats to the tune of almost 2 per game more, but the amount of extra batters they are facing due to the walks teams are now getting is adding an additional 2 batters in a game for that reason, so we are looking at an additional 4 batters per game now than then. That is like an extra inning is being played now, so is the higher strikeout rate really that much of a difference?

    That doesn't even bring up the fact that no team in 1907 had a higher slugging percentage than .335 and well, how important was defense really if teams were not acquiring bases at all compared to now when that extra out makes a much larger difference when guys are acquiring bases over a rate of .400 as a team? I think defense is actually more important now than ever before because when runners are on base now, the odds of them scoring are much greater than they were ever before.

  7. #111
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,039

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    I'm not sure where that 91 runs came from, but here's the full table. Note that the sum of the raw Fldg totals is -13.8 runs. The TtlFldVal is -11.9 runs, which adjusts to neutralize defensive production based on position.

    The average MLB team allowed 777 runs in 2007. The Reds allowed 853, suggesting our pitching was 62 runs below average.

    Code:
    Name 		PriPos 	Inn 	FSR 	ZR 	RZR 	C-Runs 	Fldg 	PosAdj 	TtlFldVal
    D Ross	 	C 	837	6.9			6.3	6.5	5.8	12.3
    B Phillips 	2B 	1371	15.3	-0.8	15.1		9.2	0	9.2
    N Hopper 	CF 	607	0.6	4.3	11.2		6	0.9	6.8
    A Gonzalez 	SS 	872	2.2	3.2	5.4		3.8	2.4	6.2
    R Freel 	CF 	577	-0.7	-4.7	7.8		1	1.5	2.5
    J Ellison 	RF 	82		1.8	3.5		2.1	-0.2	1.8
    D Wise 		CF 	13		0.4	0.6		0.5	0	0.6
    M Bellhorn 	3B 	14		0.2	-0.1		0	0	0
    R Hanigan 	C 	20				-0.1	-0.1	0.1	0
    J Keppinger 	SS 	509	-3.4	2.9	-3.2		-1	1	0
    R Jorgensen 	C 	34				-0.2	-0.2	0.2	0
    J Valentin 	C 	472	-4.4			-3.1	-3.4	3.3	-0.1
    J Hamilton 	CF 	663	2	2.3	-8.4		-1.8	1.6	-0.2
    C Moeller 	C 	87				-0.9	-0.9	0.6	-0.3
    B Coats 	RF 	68		0	-0.5		-0.3	-0.1	-0.4
    P Lopez 	SS 	93		-2.6	1.2		-0.7	0.3	-0.4
    E Cruz 		SS 	2		-0.7	-0.7		-0.7	0	-0.7
    J Castro 	SS 	178	0	1	-4.9		-1.5	0.2	-1.3
    J Cantu 	1B 	112		-1.7	0.1		-0.8	-0.6	-1.4
    J Conine 	1B 	435	-1.9	1.4	-2.8		-1	-2.4	-3.4
    J Votto 	1B 	188		-0.7	-5.7		-3.2	-0.9	-4.1
    S Hatteberg 	1B 	772	0.6	7.4	-11.1		-1.2	-4.3	-5.5
    E_Encarnacion 	3B 	1168	-1.1	3	-21.9		-7.4	-0.8	-8.2
    K Griffey	RF 	1163	-1	-1.2	-17.1		-7.1	-3.2	-10.4
    A Dunn 		LF 	1189	-14.2	-4.1	-17.5		-11.6	-3.3	-14.9
    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.

  8. #112
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Well thats true, but how many hits are being allowed per game compared to then? There may be more strikeouts now, but there are also more batters coming to the plate. The best team OBP in 1907 was .331 and there were 5 teams under .300 in OBP. Compared to last year, there were only 7 teams under .331 and 23 at or higher than that. That is a whole lot more batters stepping to the plate. In 1907 teams were averaging roughly 5050 at bats a season and 154 games, that works out to 32.79 AB per game. 2006 teams were averaging about 5600 at bats per season in 162 games, that comes out to 34.56 at bats per game. Not only are teams getting more at bats to the tune of almost 2 per game more, but the amount of extra batters they are facing due to the walks teams are now getting is adding an additional 2 batters in a game for that reason, so we are looking at an additional 4 batters per game now than then. That is like an extra inning is being played now, so is the higher strikeout rate really that much of a difference?

    That doesn't even bring up the fact that no team in 1907 had a higher slugging percentage than .335 and well, how important was defense really if teams were not acquiring bases at all compared to now when that extra out makes a much larger difference when guys are acquiring bases over a rate of .400 as a team? I think defense is actually more important now than ever before because when runners are on base now, the odds of them scoring are much greater than they were ever before.
    When strikeouts increase, the percentage of outs recorded on balls in play decreases, therefore the importance of fielding defense decreases. When batters strike out, the quality of defensive fielding just doesn't matter on that particular out.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  9. #113
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,500

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    When strikeouts increase, the percentage of outs recorded on balls in play decreases, therefore the importance of fielding defense decreases. When batters strike out, the quality of defensive fielding just doesn't matter on that particular out.
    1907 had 33 at bats per game with 3.5 strikeouts per game. That leaves you with 29.5 balls in play per game on average. 2006 had 35 at bats per game and 7 strikeouts per game. Leaving you with 28 balls in play. So we have a 1.5 difference in balls in play here per game, but a .100-.140 advantage in slugging percentage in 1.5 fewer balls in play.... I think that completely swings things in the opposite direction there and makes the defense much more valuable.

  10. #114
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,747

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    1907 had 33 at bats per game with 3.5 strikeouts per game. That leaves you with 29.5 balls in play per game on average. 2006 had 35 at bats per game and 7 strikeouts per game. Leaving you with 28 balls in play. So we have a 1.5 difference in balls in play here per game, but a .100-.140 advantage in slugging percentage in 1.5 fewer balls in play.... I think that completely swings things in the opposite direction there and makes the defense much more valuable.
    You're not accounting for the difference in the number of HR's which further decreases the number of balls that can be fielded.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  11. #115
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,500

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by pedro View Post
    You're not accounting for the difference in the number of HR's which further decreases the number of balls that can be fielded.
    True, I am working on something to account for that though, but you make a point to back up my opinion.... with all of these home runs compared to ever before, isn't keeping runners off the base even more important these days than ever before? Good defense will help you do that.

  12. #116
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    1907 had 33 at bats per game with 3.5 strikeouts per game. That leaves you with 29.5 balls in play per game on average. 2006 had 35 at bats per game and 7 strikeouts per game. Leaving you with 28 balls in play. So we have a 1.5 difference in balls in play here per game, but a .100-.140 advantage in slugging percentage in 1.5 fewer balls in play.... I think that completely swings things in the opposite direction there and makes the defense much more valuable.
    A ball in play is a ball in play. If the percentage of balls in play is higher, then the fielding defense is more important. If it's lower, then fielding defense is less important. This isn't much different than when the defensive spectrum shifted some 70-80 years ago. When teams started bunting less frequently, defense at third base became less important and defense at second base became more important since the percentage of balls hit to third basemen declined while the percentage of balls hit to second basemen increased.

    The slugging percentages don't matter, and besides, the bulk of the difference in slugging percentages between each era is due to home runs, which aren't even balls in play.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  13. #117
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,894

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    1907 had 33 at bats per game with 3.5 strikeouts per game. That leaves you with 29.5 balls in play per game on average. 2006 had 35 at bats per game and 7 strikeouts per game. Leaving you with 28 balls in play. So we have a 1.5 difference in balls in play here per game, but a .100-.140 advantage in slugging percentage in 1.5 fewer balls in play.... I think that completely swings things in the opposite direction there and makes the defense much more valuable.
    How do errors play into that scenario?

    1907, spitters, bad fields, small gloves, dirty, misshaped balls, the fielding was atrocious. Therefore way more balls in play then an extra 1.5

    Code:
    CAREER
    1907
    
    ERRORS                           E     
    1    Cardinals                   350   
    2    Yankees                     334   
    3    Senators                    304   
    4    Red Sox                     275   
    5    Browns                      267   
    T6   Tigers                      264   
    T6   Indians                     264   
    8    Dodgers                     262   
    9    A's                         260   
    T10  Phillies                    256   
    T10  Pirates                     256   
    12   Braves                      249   
    T13  Giants                      232   
    T13  White Sox                   232   
    15   Reds                        227   
    16   Cubs                        211   
    
    CAREER
    2007
    
    ERRORS                           E     
    1    Marlins                     136   
    2    Rangers                     122   
    3    Cardinals                   121   
    4    Devil Rays                  117   
    5    Dodgers                     114   
    T6   Nationals                   109   
    T6   Brewers                     109   
    8    White Sox                   108   
    9    Braves                      107   
    10   Royals                      105   
    11   Blue Jays                   102   
    12   Diamondbacks                101   
    13   Angels                      100   
    14   Tigers                       99   
    15   Mets                         98   
    16   Astros                       96   
    T17  Cubs                         94   
    T17  Twins                        94   
    19   Indians                      92   
    T20  Padres                       91   
    T20  Reds                         91   
    22   Mariners                     90   
    T23  A's                          89   
    T23  Phillies                     89   
    T25  Giants                       87   
    T25  Yankees                      87   
    T27  Pirates                      81   
    T27  Red Sox                      81   
    29   Orioles                      79   
    30   Rockies                      68

  14. #118
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,747

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    True, I am working on something to account for that though, but you make a point to back up my opinion.... with all of these home runs compared to ever before, isn't keeping runners off the base even more important these days than ever before? Good defense will help you do that.
    Actually, I think it has just the opposite effect as it's the guys hitting all the HR's who generally aren't the best fielders and if the other team has them then you better too. How many speed & defense teams have you seen win the world series in the past 20 years?
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  15. #119
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    doug, one other thing to consider is that the amount of responsibility for runs scored could have shifted away from defense even as the run value of each baserunner has increased. Perhaps that argues for higher stratum defenders more than ever, though we'd still need to know what the strata are and how to weight those defensive differences compared to production at the plate.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. #120
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,375

    Re: The Value of our 2007 Cincinnati Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    If LWTs is a such a flawed method for determining run values, why does a metric like RC have a higher RSME?
    Considering that the following link is a Hardball Times article, I suspect you've read it:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...un-estimation/

    I knew this was heading in the direction of Linear Weights. Here's where a metric like Pete Palmer's Batting Runs (BR) holds an advantage over Runs Created (RC) from 2000 to 2005:

    ...<crickets>...

    Here's where RC comes out ahead:

    Correlation Coefficient: 0.9604 (BR: 0.9539)
    Mean Error: 6.52 (BR: 6.96)
    Mean Absolute Error: 19.2 (BR: 20.1)
    Standard Deviation: 14.68 (BR: 16.71)
    Root Mean Square: 24.14 (BR: 26.15)

    In fact, the only Linear Weights metric that outperforms Runs Created at any point is BaseRuns- and only at the ME level (1.78) and the MAE level (18.8).

    Now, I'm not master mathematician (that's my sister), but when Runs Created produces a higher correlation, a lower standard deviation, and a lower rate of error, and a lower generalized or "power" mean than accepted Linear Weights measurements, that's meaningful. The only Linear Weights metric I've found to allow for close approximation to Runs Created is BaseRuns (BsR) and the only place BaseRuns appears to be more accurate is at the low and high extremes of performance (i.e. where baseball isn't played).

    Over the sample noted, BaseRuns produced the highest percentage of expected Run values within ten Runs of actual output, but BsR also produced the highest pecentage of expected Runs that were off by 60 or more Runs. Double-edged sword there.

    The result is that we have a bunch of metrics that get real close to approximating actual Runs Scored. While I appreciate the work done by the Linear Weights movement, I remain entirely unconvinced that their methodology better represents run value versus Runs Created.

    Different? Yes. Better? No.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
    --Ted Williams


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