Is Rickie's Production A Concern?

[dadofandrew]

I don't think anyone will even use BA in 10-20 years. It's worthless.

[1992casey]

The fact that his OBP was over .400 after he came back up isn't "any indication"?

 

Just to nitpick a bit, by itself, we'd have to send up a small sample alert. Combining it with anecdotal evidence (the injury and its prognosis), along with other stats (numbers when healthy), is what gives us an indication.

I don't think anyone will even use BA in 10-20 years. It's worthless.

 

Although I don't look at it a whole lot, BA still helps us characterize a hitter when it's used in conjunction with OBP and SLG. You can tell how much he walks and how well he hits for power. That's useful for putting together a lineup or for choosing a pinch hitter.

[Cracked Bat Collector]

Count me in as being a little worried.

[TooLiveBrew]

I can respect the 'I'll belive it when I see it' mentality. Just remember how much many were concerned about Hardy heading into last season. Weeks has basically played hurt two straight seasons.

[molitor fan]

If we extrapolate the stats, Weeks will have a sub .200 batting average for the 2008 season based on the spring stats, but he will steal 110 bases - so he has that going for him. I was down in Arizona for a week, and he was seeing the ball better and swinging the bat better than both Fielder and Hart. Believe what you wish I guess.

[JonnyLungs]

I'm on board with being very patient at the plate. When Weeks has a runner on though, he tends to let the best pitch in the at bat go by; first pitch fastball right down the heart of the plate. I'm sure opposing managers/scouts have the knowledge that he's prone to taking the first pitch in almost every one of his at bats, and are able to get ahead of him a majority of the time.

This is a pretty good point. Part of plate discipline is seeing a good pitch early in the count and jumping on it. Rickie seems to have a very good eye for laying off the trash, but sometimes doesn't jump on the good ones early in the count, putting him behind. This was definitely more of a problem earlier in the year last year, obviously, due to his defensive approach at the plate. You can't say he was missing the pitches to hit in the latter parts of the season.

 

I'm not too worried about him so long as his wrist is 100%.

 

[Gopher74]

Just to nitpick a bit, by itself, we'd have to send up a small sample alert. Combining it with anecdotal evidence (the injury and its prognosis), along with other stats (numbers when healthy), is what gives us an indication.

 

He was arguing that he's shown no indication that he can have an OBP over .400. Showing a stretch when he DID have an OBP over .400 is definitely showing "some indication".

 

And now, we wouldn't have to use any small sample alert. He didn't say that he's "only" done it in a small sample, he said he's never shown ANY indication....meaning a second half of .400 OBP would be a pretty clear indication.

 

 

(cleaned up code --1992)

[sheethead]

He was arguing that he's shown no indication that he can have an OBP over .400. Showing a stretch when he DID have an OBP over .400 is definitely showing "some indication".

 

My indication was that he will not break-out (2008), not that he will not reach a .400 OBP (which I doubt he will anyway). I fully agree he was hotter than hot last Aug and Sept, and you can argue it was as hot as he's ever been in the major leagues. However, that was 197 PA, which is about 15% of his career PA. The argument can be made that he played hurt for two seasons, and part of that comes into play. I can also make the argument that many players have operated hurt for long periods of time and were able to muster up something better than his first 309 PAs last year (.212 .330 .363). Maybe he will just be consistently inconsistent, but overall the career numbers are not good and need a boost from a "break-out" year.

 

And now, we wouldn't have to use any small sample alert. He didn't say that he's "only" done it in a small sample, he said he's never shown ANY indication....meaning a second half of .400 OBP would be a pretty clear indication.

Small samples are pretty much implied around this site, at least that has been my experience. Running off stats for a month and a half of production is a relatively small sample. Don't use the small sample card only when its convenient for your argument. I claim that Weeks has not shown any indication of producing a break-out year (2008), not a break-out month and a half. And if the first half of spring is any indication... ah small sample (but a horrible one no less).

 

I don't see how you can't be worried about Rickie's production this year with 0-5, 3K, 4LOB becoming the spring routine. His spring line is looking like an anti-ignitor (.121 .194 .242). Hopefully he's just working on plate discipline or mechanics http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[TooLiveBrew]

However, that was 197 PA, which is about 15% of his career PA.

 

And pretty much the only PA he's had while healthy at MLB. Why do people continue to choose to ignore this?

[rluzinski]

I appreciate people some being skeptical that Weeks will have a break out year. I also agree that, while Weeks' performance after coming back last season was spectacular, it's not very strong statistical evidence of great things to come. That said, When you consider Week's recent struggles with injuries and the fact that his lowest OBP projection for 2008 is still over .360, it makes sense to be hopeful about 2008.

[twobrewers]

How about Hart's production so far? (34 at bats and 13 K)

 

I am becoming concerned with our lack of home run production. Prince, Hart, Hardy and Hall all have yet to hit a home run. Even LaPorta hasn't hit one yet.

 

You can preach small sample size all you like - however, as a team (going off of 549 at bats so far) we would be on pace for only 141 Home Runs in a season. (Compared to 231 last year)

 

Is hitting a home run in Arizona that much more difficult? I would think as pitchers are rounding into shape and working mostly fastballs we should be feasting.

[TooLiveBrew]

The dry air in AZ also tends to yield a good # of HRs. That said, you can't be seriously concerned about the ST HR total, can you? Our 'scrubs' are getting as many AB as, if not more AB than, our MLB regulars.

[twobrewers]

That said, you can't be seriously concerned about the ST HR total, can you? Our 'scrubs' are getting as many AB as, if not more AB than, our MLB regulars.

That is why I included the names. Our "scrubs" are the ones hitting the home runs. Gross has 2. Gwynn has 1. Dillon has 2. Nelson has 1. Rottino has 1. And Gillespie has 1. That is 8 of our HR.

 

Our entire starting line-up (counting Cameron) only has 7.

 

I am just saying...it is become a prolonged power slump for several players.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Interesting note there, 2brew... but I still can't get excited or upset - it's ST.

[Gopher74]

I fully agree he was hotter than hot last Aug and Sept, and you can argue it was as hot as he's ever been in the major leagues. However, that was 197 PA, which is about 15% of his career PA.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but if you're going to correct my post, please make sure that you understand the context in which it was said. By telling me that it's a small sample size, that's has almost nothing to do with my post. An "indication" is a small sample size. That's the very definition. The poster said that he's shown no indication that he will have a .400 OBP. Pointing out an extended period of time in which he had an OBP well over .400 is without question some indication that he's capable of doing it. Clearly if he'd done if for an entire season this wouldn't even be an issue, so again, the sample size argument here has nothing to do with this particular point.

Small samples are pretty much implied around this site, at least that has been my experience. Running off stats for a month and a half of production is a relatively small sample. Don't use the small sample card only when its convenient for your argument.

 

This is what's getting frustrating. First of all, I fully understand how this site works. And let me make this point yet again. He said that Rickie Weeks HAD NEVER SHOWN ANY INDICATION. That's not saying, "he's never shown over a substantial sample size that Rickie Weeks can be a productive player". That's saying that Rickie Weeks has never, for any sample size done anything to suggest that he can be a .400 OBP type guy. He made the comment, and I was arguing based on the criteria HE layed out.

 

And please don't get condescending. First of all, why wouldn't I use something convenient to my argument? I'd be a rather foolish way to debate something, wouldn't it? Second, as I've said time and time again, this has nothing to do with sample sizes. At least not the debate I was having with another poster.

I claim that Weeks has not shown any indication of producing a break-out year (2008), not a break-out month and a half.

 

Again, you can argue whatever you'd like. You'd be wrong, and you wouldn't be using the term "indication" correctly, but you could make that argument. Having a break out year isn't an "indication" of being capable of having a break out year.

 

The definition of "indication".

2. Something that serves to indicate; a sign.

 

So what he does for a two month stretch is absolutely without question "a sign", or an "indication".

 

I don't see how you can't be worried about Rickie's production this year with 0-5, 3K, 4LOB becoming the spring routine. His spring line is looking like an anti-ignitor (.121 .194 .242). Hopefully he's just working on plate discipline or mechanics

 

I don't believe I said that I wasn't worried, but in either event, you're using about two weeks of a "sample size" after your entire posts talks about sample sizes.

 

(cleaned up code --1992)

[Gopher74]

However, that was 197 PA, which is about 15% of his career PA.

 

And pretty much the only PA he's had while healthy at MLB. Why do people continue to choose to ignore this?

That's right, but what's more is when people suggest he's shown no evidence that he's capable of having a .400 OBP, what exactly was that? Sure, it may have been a small sample size. It may not be conclusive evidence for some that he is without question going to have a breakout season, however, it is, using any objective evaluation, evidence that he's capable of breaking out.

 

Let's not forget that Rickie Weeks, who was hurt much of last year, was among the top 5 in several key stats for all leadoff hitters(OBP, SLG, OPS, HR's)...

 

So question the fact that he may break out, that's just fine. Understandable. However to suggest that he's never shown he can, or never done anything to indicate he can is just sticking your head in the sand.

[valpocrewsader]

I was down in Arizona for a week, and he was seeing the ball better and swinging the bat better than both Fielder and Hart.

 

And dropping the ball better and mis-reading grounders better than ever before!

[JohnBriggs12]

15 K's in 33 AB's? In Arizona where the breaking ball doesn't break all that much?

 

You bet I'm worried. I also noticed in the game vs. the Cubs he looked like he's bulked up. Probably hit the weights more this offseason because his wrist felt good.

 

It's not panic time, but this is a guy who's slumps (bad wrist or not) have been very pronounced and very costly.

[BrewCrewForever]

It concerns me somewhat, but then I remember it's just spring. If he starts the regular season off this bad then I will be very concerned. This has to be Rickie's breakout season, we need him.

[Ennder]

There will be at least one period during the season where Weeks slumps like mad and strikes out 10 times in 25 AB, so this really isn't some huge surprise to me. There will be at least one time when he gets on like 10 times in 18 AB too. I just can't be all that worried about 6 games worth of AB spread out over two weeks of sporadic playtime.

[sheethead]

And pretty much the only PA he's had while healthy at MLB. Why do people continue to choose to ignore this?

So Weeks was healthy all of sudden just 10 days after he was injured (called up 8/10)? Was he injured all of 2005? I don't ignore his wrist injury, but I will not use it as an excuse for his performance to date.

The poster said that he's shown no indication that he will have a .400 OBP... And let me make this point yet again. He said that Rickie Weeks HAD NEVER SHOWN ANY INDICATION.

My indication on Weeks having a break-out 2008 is based on his career as a whole and most recently his camp performance. Using last Aug/Sept 2007 as your indication is completely acceptable and we can leave it at that.

I'm not trying to hate on Rickie Weeks here, but I am kind of a realist. He has the ability to produce, but I just haven't seen the stars align for him up to this point.

An "indication" is a small sample size. That's the very definition.

I don't want to sound rude either, but i'm pretty sure that's not the very definition. An indication does not have to encompass a small sample size. It is more broad than that. I wouldn't want to say i have an indication I will win the lottery soon because I matched two numbers yesterday but never matched a number up to that point. Matching two numbers could be seen as a sign of matching all 5 in the future, but remains as unlikely given the history to date.

[endaround]

Yes Weeks was pretty much injured all of 2005. He got injured in like late July and for some stupid reason they kept him in the lineup for the rest of the season. And yes I'm still upset with that incredibly foolish decision.

[rluzinski]

"You can preach small sample size all you like - however, as a team (going off of 549 at bats so far) we would be on pace for only 141 Home Runs in a season."

 

That 549 sample (which was compiled from many small samples) is not the same thing as having a 549 sample from one person. For a team, that's still a very small sample.

 

I think that some (not all) people have a tendency to over react to spring training stats because they don't understand the concept of statistical uncertainty as it relates to sample size. There are a few different ways those people can potentialy deal with it:

 

1. Trust in those that already understand the basic concepts and accept the limitations of small samples.

 

2. Educate themselves with at leasdt the basic concepts behind statistical samples.

 

3. Dismiss the entire field of statistics because their findings are contrary to your intuition.

 

To number 1 I say, trust no one! To number 3, not good. I very much prefer the second option and I suggest that anyone interested in learning more about the "sample size topic" start with this article:

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/3/8/252165/staturday-small-sample-siz

 

Even if you skip over the math-heavy parts, I think the author does a nice job of illustrating the concepts. Without understanding them, it's impossible to appreciate why some people can so easily dismiss the significance of a 30 AB sample.

[twobrewers]

That 549 sample (which was compiled from many small samples) is not the same thing as having a 549 sample from one person. For a team, that's still a very small sample.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I am aware that as a team, that is a small sample.

 

However, when you combine everyones small samples (30 AB) or so, the potential for relevant information increases.

 

The fact that Prince hasn't hit a HR in 30 AB can easily be a statistical anomoly. But when one player slumps - another player with 30 AB, is likely to be streaking. The fact that one player is struggling is nothing to get worried about. Players will go through peaks and valleys.

But we have 4 or 5 players who aren't hitting home runs right now. That certainly becomes more statistically significant.

By the way, has anyone ever actually does extensive regression analysis on spring training stats? Surely there must be some correlation between spring training success and regular season success. That would make for a great article.

[TooLiveBrew]

So Weeks was healthy all of sudden just 10 days after he was injured (called up 8/10)? Was he injured all of 2005? I don't ignore his wrist injury, but I will not use it as an excuse for his performance to date.

 

Yes. His wrist healing finished up right on schedule, and *surprise!* he showed everyone why he was drafted so high.