Is Rickie's Production A Concern?

[southpaw121505]

If Rickie doesn't start hitting by the time Cameron comes back I'd have Cameron lead off and see if moving Rickie somewhere lower in the order can't get him going. I'd be ok with him 2nd and Hardy 7th, or vice versa.

 

Cameron has led off before, takes pitches, will take walks. He might be more suited to lead off and Rickie might be more suited lower in the order. Maybe the "lead off" mentality is making Rickie hold back and not go after pitches he might normally pounce on.

 

I agree with the others that said he needs to go the other way more. It's so frustrating because he (not just him) has the power to drive the ball with authority the other way if they'd just commit to it.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think people are upset because aside from the last couple months of '07 he really hasn't been very special.

Aside from the last couple of months of '07 to now, Weeks has never been healthy at the MLB level.

 

(Yes, I know Glennron is fully aware of this http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif )

[Gobias Industries]

For our staff predictions, I went with Weeks to have a big season. I need him to turn it around or I will look foolish. Again.

 

He should. He's "running bad" right now. I think I went with a .252 batting ave with a .380 - .390 OBP in the designated predictions thread.

 

Maybe someone can answer this but where did that thread go with everybody's prediction? Wasn't someone going to average it all together and post it?

[Fatter than Joey]

I posted this in the Hill thread -- moving it here...

 

I don't know if you look at anything besides BA, but Weeks has scored 19 runs in 21 games. Another way to look at this is that Weeks has more runs than hits. Kind of puts BA in perspective, doesn't it?

 

Runs are probably a worse data set to use for Weeks than BA. Weeks leads the NL in runs at the moment -- however most of the cats that are in the top ten in runs, are also in the top ten in total bases -- which makes sense. Chase Utley & Derrek Lee are mashing the ball and getting closer to scoring runs by hitting a lot of 2bs and HRs than other players in the NL.

 

Weeks, on the other hand is around 70th in TBs which indicates to me he is getting a lot of help from his teammates getting around the bases. It is sort of like RBI's -- runs a largely a team stat and a function of where you hit in the lineup. If Weeks has more runs than hits -- that probably means Braun/Fielder have gotten their hits when he is on base.

 

Weeks isn't a terrible player -- but he won't be around long in MLB with his crappy D, if he bats .200 for extended periods of time.

[Blancofan1]

I"m a Weeks supporter for sure, but like I said in the IGT today one of the things that really bothers me is how many called 3rd strikes he takes. With his ability to draw walks he shows plate discipline, but someone has to get it into his head that a walk isn't always the best way to help the team. I would love to see him shorten up with 2 strikes, stop the bat waggle and slap at pitches near the zone. He has quick enough wrists to still get decent pop that way.

 

If I remember from another thread correctly, he didn't start the batt waggle until he got to the big leagues. Does anybody know why or who started it?

[geddymd73]

Weeks OBP and OPS are at career lows right now. He is striking out 25% of the time, and even his walk frequency is declining. He's just been a tease for everyone since he came up to the majors. The breakout year just isn't happening. He has the ability to make some difficult plays on defense, but he flubs a lot of routine plays. Most of his mistakes have not been showing up in the error column. With not a lot of depth on the bench right now, its not a good situation. With more floundering at the plate, Weeks has a relatively high probability of overextending himself and making the DL again. It may not be the optimal solution, but it would force the Brewers to seriously consider another option.

[kramnoj]

"It is sort of like RBI's -- runs a largely a team stat and a function of where you hit in the lineup."

 

It sounds like you're trying to educate me. That's not neccessary. Players who score a lot of runs do so because they get on base and because they hit in front of good hitters. Fortunately, that is Ricky's job. I think it's okay to praise him for doing his part in the assigned role.

 

Runs are without a doubt team-dependent, but that doesn't mean they don't have value, it just means that you have to look at context. In this context, Rickie is providing value because he gets on base and because he has speed, which, combined with his teammates hitting, has led to him scoring runs, which is of course the goal of the offense.

 

Runs have this weird place among sabermetrics. It's hard to find players who score a lot of runs that aren't providing value. It's a different thing than Vinny Castilla having an awful season while accumulating 100 RBI in 1999.

 

If I was trying to say that just because Weeks has more Runs than player X, that he is a better player, than your post would make more sense. Saying that runs are a bad way to judge Weeks, when it his job to get on base so that he can score runs, just seems weird.

[kramnoj]

"and even his walk frequency is declining."

 

It's declining from his best year, but it looks to be the same or better than other years. His OBP is low because his hitting stinks, not because he isn't getting on base in other ways.

 

"He's just been a tease for everyone since he came up to the majors."

 

Most 24 year olds are teases in the sense that they haven't fully developed into the player that they will become.

[TooLiveBrew]

Saying that runs are a bad way to judge Weeks, when it his job to get on base so that he can score runs, just seems weird.

 

You just said it there, though -- his job is to get on base, so judge him largely based on OBP, not runs. Whether or not he comes around to score is almost completely out of Rickie's control, so to give him credit for that is like giving a pitcher credit for 'hanging tough' on & retiring a batter because Ichiro pulled back what would have been a HR.

 

 

If I remember from another thread correctly, he didn't start the batt waggle until he got to the big leagues. Does anybody know why or who started it?

 

It's a timing mechanism the Brewers had Weeks add to his approach after they drafted him. I don't know when he started it, but I'm sure someone here will.

[Fatter than Joey]

It sounds like you're trying to educate me. That's not neccessary.

 

You mean "necessary" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- and you consistently use "than" when you should be using "then"

 

The way I read your post, was that you were giving credit Weeks for his runs, and I see that as largely good luck for Weeks.

 

Players who score a lot of runs do so because they get on base and because they hit in front of good hitters.

 

Or they are fortunate.

 

Rickie is providing value because he gets on base.

 

He is 63rd in the NL in OBP, if you want to throw him a party for that -- have at it. I think he should be scoring more runs. Again, if you look at the people with similar OBPs, they have about half the runs that Weeks has -- I don't think it is because Weeks does anything better than those dudes, rather he is sitting in front some good hitters.

 

It's hard to find players who score a lot of runs that aren't providing value.

 

Agreed. I don't think Weeks is void of value, however he is not getting on base as well as he should, coupled with his poor D -- if he continues hitting at a .198 clip, he isn't long for the league.

 

Saying that runs are a bad way to judge Weeks, when it his job to get on base so that he can score runs, just seems weird

 

I believe that BA is a better judge of a players performance than runs or RBIs. That is to say -- I don't think you make a good argument against someone using BA when you present runs as an alternate data set.

[jazzytrav]

If I remember from another thread correctly, he didn't start the batt waggle until he got to the big leagues. Does anybody know why or who started it?

I believe the waggle actually started his first year in the minors (not sure if that's what you meant by "big leagues"), but he didn't have it in college.

[kramnoj]

"I believe that BA is a better judge of a players performance than runs"

 

What is your basis for this belief?

 

"I don't think it is because Weeks does anything better than those dudes"

 

Really? You don't think his speed has anything at all to do with his runs scored?

[kramnoj]

"Whether or not he comes around to score is almost completely out of Rickie's control, so to give him credit for that is like giving a pitcher credit for 'hanging tough' on & retiring a batter because Ichiro pulled back what would have been a HR."

 

That's not a good analogy. Rickie is going to score a lot more runs than Ichiro is going to prevent HRs.

 

Runs certainly can't be the only way to value a player, but I don't understand why it is being disregarded so quickly. Really, if someone can point me to a piece that says that runs are worthless and should never be used to value someone, please do so.

[logan82]

"I believe that BA is a better judge of a players performance than runs"

 

What is your basis for this belief?

BA is better than runs because each player has more control over their own BA than they do over runs. Unless they are hitting home runs, they are being driven in by somebody else. Team dependant stat, much like RBIs. However, BA is not really a good stat to use when looking at players unless you are trying to determine how a player gets on base. OBP is more valuable/useful than BA when looking at players. Like others have said, runs are more a function of where you hit in the order as opposed to your value as a player. Saying Weeks is a good player because he scores runs would be like saying he is a bad player because he doesn't get RBIs.

[kramnoj]

"Saying Weeks is a good player because he scores runs would be like saying he is a bad player because he doesn't get RBIs."

 

I don't really think that's true. Again, I've looked, and there really aren't that many players who score a lot of runs that don't provide value. Of course those runs are tied to OBP and are dependent on other players. But there are players who score runs beyond just getting on base and waiting for someone to drive them in. Think back to Hart scoring from second on a sacrifice hit. Sure, his run was team-dependent, but how many players will score a run there?

[Fatter than Joey]

Really, if someone can point me to a piece that says that runs are worthless and should never be used to value someone, please do so.

 

STRAWMAN!

 

No one has remotely suggested than runs are worthless, or that they shouldn't be used.

 

Weeks inability to get on base as well as he should, is in a large part to his craptacular BA. You shouldn't use runs to argue Weeks is doing his job getting on base, you should use OBP, which he is currently 63rd in the NL.

[kramnoj]

"The way I read your post, was that you were giving credit Weeks for his runs, and I see that as largely good luck for Weeks. "

 

"No one has remotely suggested than runs are worthless,"

 

So you think Week's runs are largely good luck, but you haven't remotely suggested that runs are worthless. If something is largely due to luck, how much value can it have?

[jazzytrav]

You can't really say he's valuable based on runs scored just because most players that have high numbers in that category are valuable. The main reason he has a lot of runs scored is that he's batting leadoff. As was already mentioned, he has more runs than hits. That means that he's either getting on base a lot (which he hasn't this year), or the guys behind him are getting him in every time he gets on base.

 

If he was batting 7th, his runs scored would most definitely be down. At that point, what would his value be?

 

I should also note that I'm a Weeks apologist, but not because of a stat like runs scored. My opinion on Weeks is actual less reliable than using runs scored, though, since I just decided on a gut feeling that he's going to break out this year http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[sbrylski]

No one has remotely suggested than runs are worthless, or that they shouldn't be used.

 

I will.

 

Again, I've looked, and there really aren't that many players who score a lot of runs that don't provide value.

 

Backwards. Good players get playing time, get on base, and do so infront of other good hitters or between other good hitters.

 

But there are players who score runs beyond just getting on base and waiting for someone to drive them in. Think back to Hart scoring from second on a sacrifice hit. Sure, his run was team-dependent, but how many players will score a run there?

 

Playing along, in the 3 or 4 type of similar plays to the one you describe a player may find himself in, the top "run scorers" will score all three times while the bad ones will score just once. Potentially two runs. A two run per 150 games stat can go at the bottom of the list.

 

There's a value in speed, but runs isn't the way to define it.

[Fatter than Joey]

If I found $1000 in my couch, that would be lucky. However, I'd be foolish to quit my job and expect to find another $1000 in my couch next week.

 

the $1000 would rock though.

[jazzytrav]

And the moral of the story is...

 

A run is worth $1000? You lost me FTJ http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[kramnoj]

"Backwards. Good players get playing time, get on base, and do so infront of other good hitters or between other good hitters."

 

You should really read my posts before telling me that I have it backwards. I've already acknowledged what you said. Telling me that I have it backwards is just insulting.

 

"There's a value in speed, but runs isn't the way to define it."

 

If speed doesn't translate to runs, it doesn't provide any actual value.

 

"If he was batting 7th, his runs scored would most definitely be down. At that point, what would his value be?"

 

Again, I've already said that runs are dependent on other players. There's no benefit to asking questions that aren't related to what I'm discussing.

[TerraceReserved]

"There's a value in speed, but runs isn't the way to define it."

 

If speed doesn't translate to runs, it doesn't provide any actual value.

Either you misinterpreted what he meant, or you ignored it. Of course speed translates to runs, but you don't measure the runs you gain through speed by runs scored.

[Fatter than Joey]

A run is worth $1000? You lost me FTJ

 

Runs are awesome, they help you win games.

[sbrylski]

If speed doesn't translate to runs, it doesn't provide any actual value.

 

Yeah, but your looking at it backwards. Runs don't tell you how fast a person is, do they? Runs don't tell you how often someone gets on base. Runs don't tell you how good the hitters are behind that person.

 

Runs are a result stat that have many influencing factors. As are wins and even ERA. I know you've acknowledged this, but then why use runs if you have to adjust the result for its proper context all the time? (Which would be a complicated process.)

 

I would say the only way to extract value out of runs is to create a formula to generate a hitters expected amount of runs scored (using OBP, SLG, SB/CS, performance of the hitters around him, PA), then compare that over about 500-1000 games with his actual totals to see if a player does better that he should based on the overwhelmingly influential factors.