Votto Does Little Things Well

[TheNext44]

...A-Rod, not so much. At least according to this article on Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...e-things-2009/

Key Part:

Who is our 2009 King of the Little Things? Here are the top five (I only calculated for qualified players):

1. Casey Blake 1.50
2. Jorge Cantu 1.39
3. Joey Votto 1.25
4. Derrek Lee 1.22
5. Brian McCann 1.21

Last year it was Jack Hannahan, which was fun, but Casey Blake is no surprise. I mean, look at that beard! He’s not great at avoiding the double play, but he’s not terrible, either. Hitting in the middle of a good Dodgers lineup behind Manny Ramirez and Andre Ethier probably gave him a lot of opportunities as well. Congratulations, Casey. Your box of Nirvana is in the mail.

You know what’s almost as fun as figuring out who is the best at something? That’s right: finding out who is the worst. Here are the bottom five out of 154 qualified 2009 batters:

150. Alex Rodriguez -1.04
151. Magglio Ordonez -1.12
152. Michael Cuddyer -1.17
153. Derek Jeter -1.42
154. Robinson Cano -1.52

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

...A-Rod, not so much. At least according to this article on Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...e-things-2009/

Key Part:

Three Yankees in the bottom five? Interesting.

[HeatherC1212]

And #153 just won his fourth gold glove today.

Nice mention for Joey.

[dunner13]

how and what are they calculating for this? Seeing 3 players in the bottom 5 from the team that just won the world series makes me wonder if we want our players in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

[nate]

Originally Posted by dunner13

how and what are they calculating for this? Seeing 3 players in the bottom 5 from the team that just won the world series makes me wonder if we want our players in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

It's explained in somewhat eye-glazing detail at the link.

[icehole3]

some of these stats are so wacky, thats why I stick with the ole reliable RBI, there's a reason why the stat has been around for over 100 years

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by dunner13

how and what are they calculating for this? Seeing 3 players in the bottom 5 from the team that just won the world series makes me wonder if we want our players in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

I believe what this means is that big things matter more than little things.

I s'pose that's why they call them big things.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by icehole3

some of these stats are so wacky, thats why I stick with the ole reliable RBI, there's a reason why the stat has been around for over 100 years

Because its easy to count?

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by dunner13

how and what are they calculating for this? Seeing 3 players in the bottom 5 from the team that just won the world series makes me wonder if we want our players in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

Basically he took the estimated runs that Votto should have produced with his stats and subtracted that from the actual runs that he really did produce.

So if his stats project that on average, a player with Votto's stats should have produced 130.5 runs, and he actually produced 143 runs (just guesses on my part for the sake of explanation), then he produced an additional 12.5 runs (or 1.25 wins) than he should have produced on average. Or, he did little things that stats can't yet measure to produce more runs than he the stats say he should have.
Conversely, A-Rod produced around 10 runs less than his stats said he should have.

What I find interesting about this, is that it is a stat guy basically admitting that "intangibles" do exist (which most stat guys do admit, but get a bad rap about). Actually this is a way to make try to them tangible.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Because its easy to count?

That's definitely part of it. But there is also a reason why the better players seem to end up with the most each year. While it does have its flaws, it shouldn't be as discounted as it has been.

My belief on RBI is that it is a fine stat unless there is other evidence to dispute the situation (i.e. extreme amount of chances).

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by dunner13

how and what are they calculating for this? Seeing 3 players in the bottom 5 from the team that just won the world series makes me wonder if we want our players in the top 5 or the bottom 5.

One explanation could be that the Yankees have so much talent, that they can hide such slackers as A-Rod, Jeter and Cano.

[nate]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Basically he took the estimated runs that Votto should have produced with his stats and subtracted that from the actual runs that he really did produce.

So if his stats project that on average, a player with Votto's stats should have produced 130.5 runs, and he actually produced 143 runs (just guesses on my part for the sake of explanation), then he produced an additional 12.5 runs (or 1.25 wins) than he should have produced on average. Or, he did little things that stats can't yet measure to produce more runs than he the stats say he should have.
Conversely, A-Rod produced around 10 runs less than his stats said he should have.

What I find interesting about this, is that it is a stat guy basically admitting that "intangibles" do exist (which most stat guys do admit, but get a bad rap about). Actually this is a way to make try to them tangible.

"Stat guys" don't think intangibles exist?

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by nate

"Stat guys" don't think intangibles exist?

Meant the opposite, that most stat guys do admit they exist, but get unjustly accused of not believing they do. Sorry, worded poorly.

This is a great example of how most stat guys feel. That there are things that stats don't capture but hopefully with some hard work, they will eventually.

[nate]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

Meant the opposite, that most stat guys do admit they exist, but get unjustly accused of not believing they do. Sorry, worded poorly.

This is a great example of how most stat guys feel. That there are things that stats don't capture but hopefully with some hard work, they will eventually.

Gotcha, right on.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I believe what this means is that big things matter more than little things.

I s'pose that's why they call them big things.

Absolutely. Guys famous for doing the little things are usually only famous for it because they can't do the big things. Little things are nice and pleasing and can help steal a win here or there, but the big things (pitching, competent defense, 3 run homers or more appropriately OPS) are what really win games day in and day out.

Little things are the cherry on top of the ice cream, but you gotta have the ice cream for it to matter.