Chapman's historical season

[Cooper]

I was going thru Bill James Online site this morning and realized that Chapman lead all NL pitchers with Win Shares at 21 and finished 2nd in the major league (Verlander finished first).

I have a limited working knowledge of Win Shares but i do believe they are a better indicator of value than WAR measurements. I'm gonna take a stab as to why Chapman's win share value is so high.

1. James believes that some situations are leveraged more than others.
2. The ballpark in which the player plays in gets taken into account better than the WAR system: something along the lines of Chapman saving a run in a high run environment is worth more than in a low run environment. Since GABP is a hitters park Chapman's production is worth more than say Kimball -who pitches in a park where runs are scarce. I know the WAR system takes that into account, but i really do believe they WS system does a better job of evaluating value.

Maybe the Reds are maximizing Chapman's value by keeping him in the bullpen.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Cooper

Maybe the Reds are maximizing Chapman's value by keeping him in the bullpen.

I know you are just throwing it out there (as none of us can see the future)... but how do you know unless he tries starting? The guy he finished behind in all of MLB is a STARTER!

I do like to read "finished ahead of Kimbrel". That'll cause heartburn for a few here lol.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

I know you are just throwing it out there (as none of us can see the future)... but how do you know unless he tries starting? The guy he finished behind in all of MLB is a STARTER!

I'm assuming the theory would be, as he finished 2nd in win shares, is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

While the guy he finished behind is a starter, Chapman finished ahead of all the other starters in the majors, including both Cy Yound Award winners.

I'm advocating neither position of this debate by this post, BTW.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

I'm assuming the theory would be, as he finished 2nd in win shares, is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

While the guy he finished behind is a starter, Chapman finished ahead of all the other starters in the majors, including both Cy Yound Award winners.

I'm advocating neither position of this debate by this post, BTW.

Of course there are two ways to look at it and that was the point. The OP made a comment that the REDS should leave well enough alone. To which a counterpoint was made that #1 guy was a starter, so perhaps AC's win share might get better as a starter. 2nd is pretty impressive though (of course and we all witnessed his dominance as a closer). My argument will always be the chance to get 27 outs in a single game is far greater than getting the last 3 outs in a single game. I guess I show what I am advocating lol.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Cooper

I was going thru Bill James Online site this morning and realized that Chapman lead all NL pitchers with Win Shares at 21 and finished 2nd in the major league (Verlander finished first).

I have a limited working knowledge of Win Shares but i do believe they are a better indicator of value than WAR measurements. I'm gonna take a stab as to why Chapman's win share value is so high.

1. James believes that some situations are leveraged more than others.
2. The ballpark in which the player plays in gets taken into account better than the WAR system: something along the lines of Chapman saving a run in a high run environment is worth more than in a low run environment. Since GABP is a hitters park Chapman's production is worth more than say Kimball -who pitches in a park where runs are scarce. I know the WAR system takes that into account, but i really do believe they WS system does a better job of evaluating value.

Maybe the Reds are maximizing Chapman's value by keeping him in the bullpen.

One thing that bugs me about giving credit for leverage is that the situation in which a team chooses to use a player is not a characteristic of the player itself. That is to say, you can get more win value out of a player by using him in those situations, but that extra value is available to any player used in those situations. As a GM, leverage represents an increased opportunity/risk to get more win value from a given talent level.

Thus, I hesitate to give a guy extra credit simply because a team can choose to leverage him a certain way -- you could do the same for any player and it all cancels out in the end. Sure, you need to be thoughtful as a GM to ensure you'll have the opportunity go get the most out of your roster. For example:
- you shouldn't sign three 6-win 1B since you couldn't play them all and get full value
- you shouldn't spend money on another low OBP slugger if you don't have sufficient baserunners to drive in

But once you get past the obvious, most of the gains in this area are pretty marginal.

[dougdirt]

Chapman had an outstanding season in 2012. Flat out outstanding.

But there is no way he was the 2nd most valuable pitcher in baseball. He may not even have been the 2nd most valuable RELIEVER in baseball. Craig Kimbrel and Fernando Rodney have some say in that one.

[Cooper]

Rodney had 18 and Kimbell had 19. The difference may be related to how much a run is worth in the differing parks and the leveraged index.

I'll ask James and TangoTiger and see what they have to say.

I personally believe that WAR has some fundamental issues with it.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Cooper

Rodney had 18 and Kimbell had 19. The difference may be related to how much a run is worth in the differing parks and the leveraged index.

I'll ask James and TangoTiger and see what they have to say.

I personally believe that WAR has some fundamental issues with it.

WAR has it's issues. Win Shares has even more. There is no way that three relievers are that high among all pitchers. None.

[Cooper]

RMR: players abilities are leveraged all the time - management makes those decisions in the field with the regular -players all the time. It's akin to saying -and this is an extreme example "i know ken griffey can hit all those home runs, but why should he get those opps instead of Joe Oliver?"

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Cooper

RMR: players abilities are leveraged all the time - management makes those decisions in the field with the regular -players all the time. It's akin to saying -and this is an extreme example "i know ken griffey can hit all those home runs, but why should he get those opps instead of Joe Oliver?"

I'm sorry, but I just don't follow you here. This isn't about giving opportunistic to lesser players. It's about crediting players for the performance they're responsible for, not the team-level outcome that results from it.

I'm talking about separating out the credit you give Junior for hitting 40 HR from the credit you give him for driving in 140 runs as a result of hitting 40 HR while batting 4th in the lineup behind a couple of good OBP guys (when those same 40 HRs would have only produced 110 RBI batting 6th). Good on the manager for using his slugger where his production was most valuable. But if you're responsible for acquiring players, you don't pay Griffey extra for the difference in RBI those 40 HR produce based on where you bat him -- you pay him for his ability to hit 40 HR.

Chapman is a great reliever because of his dominant ability to get outs and prevent runs. But while getting 3 clean outs in the 9th inning with a 1 run lead might move the Run Expectancy meter 10x as much as getting 3 clean outs up 4 in the 6th, I'm not going to pay the guy 10x as much to get those outs. Most of the win value difference in those two performances is a function of the context in which the player was placed, not in how well he performed.

I agree 100% that players should have their talents maximized from an opportunities/leverage standpoint. Managers would be stupid not to -- and GMs would be stupid to ignore a team's composition when building a roster. What I'm arguing is that players shouldn't personally be given extra for the win value created by leverage; doing so presumes they are solely responsible for creating the value when they are not -- rather it is a circumstance the whole team has created.

Think of it this way: Person A wants to sell you a weighted coin that flips heads 75% of the time. He just made 100 bets of $1 each using the coin, won 75 of them, netting $50. Person B wants to sell you a weighted coin that flips heads 60% of the time. He just made 100 bets of $1,000 each using the coin, won 60 of them, netting $20,000. Person A's coin won $50. Person B's coin won $20,000. Easy choice, coin B, right? Obviously not.

Same idea here, pay for the characteristics of the coin (75% vs 60%) not the situation in which the coin was used previously ($50 vs $20,000).

[Cooper]

RMR: i understand what you're saying -i understand the concept, but i do think there's a place for leveraged index.

Doug: Win Shares must have values that you feel don't jibe with reality - so i ask - where/what's the problem? Is it that he leaves out part of the equation?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Cooper

RMR: i understand what you're saying -i understand the concept, but i do think there's a place for leveraged index.

Doug: Win Shares must have values that you feel don't jibe with reality - so i ask - where/what's the problem? Is it that he leaves out part of the equation?

It doesn't jive with reality. There is no way that a reliever, no matter how good, was more valuable than every starting pitcher in baseball except for one. Clayton Kershaw threw 227 innings with a 2.53 ERA and 229 strikeouts. Chapman wasn't more valuable than that.

As for the leverage index, it does have it's place. It can tell us how a guy performed in given situations, but it doesn't really tell us the value of that player, just how that player performed in a given situation.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Cooper

RMR: i understand what you're saying -i understand the concept, but i do think there's a place for leveraged index.

Doug: Win Shares must have values that you feel don't jibe with reality - so i ask - where/what's the problem? Is it that he leaves out part of the equation?

Ok. What's that place? From my perspective, it has two uses:

1.) It's a guide for a manager on how best to maximize the win value of the talent he's been given.
2.) It's a way to quantify the importance of a situation emotionally from the fan's standpoint. (we intuit leverage pretty well and process events emotionally in a similar fashion)

Do you see use for it outside of those contexts?

[MrRedLegger]

Apart from a leverage index, could Chapman having his hands in 68 games be a factor, rather than roughly the 30 a starter is involved in? Out of the 68 games he appeared in, the Reds won 60. During the majority of his appearances, Chapman didn't need run support per se when he pitched - just a lead (Which, don't forget, if he starts games he will have to bat). Expanding on the coin-flip example, imagine a coin that would flip heads almost 90% of the time, but only in a certain circumstance. (i.e. the 9th inning) The ealier you flip the coin, chances are that figure will decline. Chapman just might be that coin.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by MrRedLegger

Apart from a leverage index, could Chapman having his hands in 68 games be a factor, rather than roughly the 30 a starter is involved in? Out of the 68 games he appeared in, the Reds won 60. During the majority of his appearances, Chapman didn't need run support per se when he pitched - just a lead (Which, don't forget, if he starts games he will have to bat). Expanding on the coin-flip example, imagine a coin that would flip heads almost 90% of the time, but only in a certain circumstance. (i.e. the 9th inning) The ealier you flip the coin, chances are that figure will decline. Chapman just might be that coin.

Couldn't the same be said about most closers though? They win most of the games they pitch in because they are usually only brought in with a lead and even average closers earn 85+% of their saves.