Am I the only one who still isn't ready to give up on Rickie Weeks?

[Ennder]

Ellis has a SLG heavy OPS. His career line is .265/.337/.407/.744 and 3 of his last 6 years has had an OBP of .321 or lower, his stats are harder to predict because he has gone good year, bad year, good year, bad year etc. Hudson is a better offensive player as his stat line is more OBP heavy, I also don't really believe in OPS+ so I'll take the higher base OPS most of the time. Hudson has had more of a classic growth pattern so I like that he is more projectable/reliable. Hudson is also considered one of the best defensive 2B in baseball so not sure why you would call him average.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

OPS+ ain't perfect, but you have to do something about park effects when comparing two players who have played in as drastically different environments as Hudson and Ellis have.

 

Ellis's BABIP this year was a terrifically unlucky .249; given his 20.1% LD% you'd expect his BABIP to be around .320. Ellis and Hudson have comparable discipline (virtually identical BB%). Hudson has had better batting averages (leading to higher OBP), Ellis has had more power. Batting averages being less stable than discipline and power, I'm really not sure that I'd say that Ellis is harder to project reliably just because his last few years have had more variance.

 

I'm willing to give the slight nod to Hudson offensively anyway, because he has had better recent results. I just think that you have to give a much more definitive nod to Ellis defensively. Hudson is good (didn't call him average, even though advanced metrics tend to), but Ellis is outstanding -- one of the true elite defensive players in the game today.

 

It's not shocking to me that somebody would prefer Hudson, but it was pretty surprising to me that somebody as stat-savvy as you wouldn't think enough of Ellis to list him as a FA 2B worth a starting job. For my part, I think that Hudson vs. a cheaper Ellis is a complete no-brainer in favor of Ellis. I'm not really in favor of getting rid of Weeks, but Ellis is the one guy I think offers enough value at a price I'm guessing is reasonable enough that I'd be really happy if they signed him.

[JJHardy7]

We'd probably expect Weeks to hit something like .250/.355/.415 next year (conservative guess). If the Brewers could find a replacement at 2B that could hit like that and play even average defense, I'd take that upgrade. I have no idea where you are going to find a 2B like that, though.

 

Besides free agents there are trade options also. I think Weeks will stay, but there should be a backup plan. Your projection on Weeks is fine, but what about the defense? I'll admit Fielder doesn't help him, but I feel like we've been saying for years Weeks will improve and 'if next year he breaks out'. I think this will be his last shot to show any 'potential' that may have existed at some point in the past on a consistent basis.

[Ennder]

OPS+ is borderline useless http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif, but I agree with you that park effects do matter and they have suppressed Ellis somewhat. My problem with Ellis is his stats really come from one single season. He has been a worse hitter than I'd expect Weeks to be in 4 of his 5 full seasons. He'll be 32 years old next year and has 1 fully healthy year in the past 4.

 

Looked up some things and it seems like his defense would be a big enough improvement to make him someone worth replacing Weeks with. However Weeks was also above average using the same numbers so I guess he isn't the person I'd want to replace. Weeks actually came out more valuable than Fielder since Fielder was so terrible defensively and got the nasty 1B positional adjustment.

[logan82]

I wouldn't want to bring in a 32 year old to be a starter for more than a 2 year contract.

[kramnoj]

My problem with Ellis is his stats really come from one single season.

 

His OPS+ is better than league average in 3 of 6 seasons. OPS+ has its weaknesses, but I'm not really sure how you can say its borderline useless. It is what it is, it measures the player's ability to provide benefit with a bat compared to park and league average.

 

He'll be 32 years old next year and has 1 fully healthy year in the past 4.

 

You could also say he's been healthy in 2 of his last 5. Not sure why you would cut off that healthy year.

[Oldcity]

I think Rickie Weeks and Brandon Phillips share some similarities.

 

I just don't get the Brandon Phillips thing. I don't mean to pick on you, because I see it said all the time. Brandon Phillips isn't that good. He's a hacker who had one good season. Weeks is already a better hitter. He has better career numbers than Phillips and has been better each of the last two seasons.

[Ennder]

His OPS+ is better than league average in 3 of 6 seasons. OPS+ has its weaknesses, but I'm not really sure how you can say its borderline useless. It is what it is, it measures the player's ability to provide benefit with a bat compared to park and league average.

 

You could also say he's been healthy in 2 of his last 5. Not sure why you would cut off that healthy year.

 

No I think it is borderline useless. Park factors aren't so simplistic that you can universally apply them to every player. Some parks are hitter parks but they don't increase SLG just AVG, some are hitter parks for righties but pitcher parks for lefties. Some suppress AVG overall but raise it for gap hitters. OPS+ is a very flawed method of trying to adjust for parks.

 

Does 2 healthy years out of 5 sound good? I could have easily said he was healthy 2 of the last 6 too. Fact is he hasn't exactly been the picture of health in his prime, why would I want to hope he is when he is 32?

[rluzinski]

i also agree with thatsfreakinsweet that the largest obstacle to overcome is the bat waggle.

 

It's just like every other gimmicky batting stance. In the end, it probably has no effect, either way.

[kramnoj]

No I think it is borderline useless.

 

Is there anything to support how useless you think it is? I'd be curious to see it. There are certainly players that OPS+ doesn't treat well. Ichiro for one. But for the most part, I think OPS+ is decent at what it aims to do.

 

Does 2 healthy years out of 5 sound good?

 

No, but it's better than 1 out of 4. 2 out of 6 would have been more representative than 1 of 4. It's true that Ellis has more often played in 120 than 150 games, and it is certainly a factor. But I would rather have Ellis for 120 games and random AAA 2B for 42 than some of the other 2B that are available. And by "I", I mean random MLB team. Each team obviously has their own needs and preferences.

[logan82]

How are park effects figured? I would think that having a bad pitching staff would make a park a hitters' park. I know that some parks are easier to hit in, but I have a hard time thinking that park effects are more than a little effected by the players that play there.

[Ennder]

Is there anything to support how useless you think it is? I'd be curious to see it. There are certainly players that OPS+ doesn't treat well. Ichiro for one. But for the most part, I think OPS+ is decent at what it aims to do

 

Is there any support that says it isn't flawed? If you compare a Rockies player to a Padres player we know that the park plays a factor but I don't think OPS+ adequately accounts for the factor. OPS itself is pretty flawed too(underrates OBP) so when you combine the two things you get a pretty poor number for comparing two players.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I actually think that of the freely-available on the net park-adjusted stats, Sean Forman's 3 year park factors used for OPS+ are about the best that you'll find. Some other places still use one year park factors, and while that might make more sense for a place like Wrigley, where the weather is the predominant reason it plays as a pitcher's park or a hitter's park, for most parks the more data you use, the more accurate your park factor.

 

The only real problem with OPS+, in my view, is that it treats OBP and SLG as equally important, when in fact we know that a marginal point of OBP is around 1.8 times as valuable as a point of SLG, leading to the underrating of low SLG guys like Ichiro, as kramnoj mentioned.

 

For quick and dirty purposes, I don't think there's anything wrong with it at all.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

How are park effects figured? I would think that having a bad pitching staff would make a park a hitters' park. I know that some parks are easier to hit in, but I have a hard time thinking that park effects are more than a little effected by the players that play there.

In order to correct for this problem, you calculate a park factor by comparing a team's performance in that park vs. in all other parks. If you look here, you'll find a very long, and mathematically rather daunting, explanation of how B-R goes about doing that.

 

To give an example of how detail-oriented their approach is, a batter's park factor is even adjusted for the fact that he doesn't get to (or have to -- if they're good instead of bad) face his own team's pitchers.

[kramnoj]

Is there any support that says it isn't flawed?

 

I take this non-response as saying that your doubts of OPS+ are opinion, not the result of any actual study. I don't think it's reasonable to say that something is very flawed and borderline useless until you are actually able to show that it is.

 

I don't have anything to show that OPS+ isn't flawed, in what it is designed to do. If it was, I think that it would be easy to show with all the bright minds that do baseball research. I certainly trust the work of a former mathematics professor over unfounded doubt.

 

OPS itself is pretty flawed too(underrates OBP)

 

This is overstated. It doesn't judge all players fairly, but for as simple a stat as it is, it seems to do remarkably well in correlating to Runs scored. Here is one study that looked at a bunch of popular statistics and their relation to Runs: http://jinaz-reds.blogspo...-do-i-keep-using-ops.html

[Ennder]

I don't think you'll find a single mathematician that doesn't think OPS+ is partially flawed, the only argument is going to be the degree.

 

1) It is based on multi year park factors which are flawed to begin with. I like multi year more than single year but it still doesn't account for weather etc which has a lot to do with year to year variation.

 

2) It treats all players the same. A left handed pull hitter in Fenway is going to get a lot less help than a Right handed one. A slap hitter in San Diego is probably going to gain OPS with the big OF from singles and doubles while a power hitter is going to see his SLG sapped so much he'll be hurt by it.

 

3) It doesn't try to equalize road numbers as far as I can tell. If one player spends all his time in hitter's parks on the road we don't get those stats equalized with someone in pitcher's parks.

 

That all might seem like nitpicking but when you take a stat that is only 90% predictive to begin with and you add a bunch of extra error sources you get farther and farther away from a useful stat.

[kramnoj]

I don't think you'll find a single mathematician that doesn't think OPS+ is partially flawed, the only argument is going to be the degree.

 

The flaw is in how people use the stat, not in the stat itself. You list your dislikes of the stat, but I fail to see how those show that OPS+ is very flawed and borderline useless.

 

That all might seem like nitpicking but when you take a stat that is only 90% predictive to begin with and you add a bunch of extra error sources you get farther and farther away from a useful stat.

 

Nitpicking is fine in a good discussion. As far as the 90% predictive, it doesn't seem like there is a rate stat that is far more predictive than OPS, even with the nits you are picking. Those flaws exist within the 92% correlation, so you aren't moving further away from that useful stat because of them.

[Ennder]

ok well I won't convince you so it is a useless argument I guess. Someone like Adam LaRoche hitting in a 'pitchers park' that increases HR's for LH hitters with almost every road park being a hitters park gets a ton more out of his OPS+ than someone like Kinsler who plays in a 'hitters park' that is neutral towards righties with almost every road park being a pitchers park.

 

If you compare those two players OPS+ stats you aren't coming anywhere close to the reality of how they compare as hitters.

[TheCrew07]

I'm surprised you dislike OPS+ but support PAP... I guess like anything else this comes down to personal taste.

[kramnoj]

ok well I won't convince you so it is a useless argument I guess.

 

This just isn't true. I can be easily convinced if I see actual compelling evidence. You aren't presenting enough actual evidence to support your claim. You are now saying that comparing two players out of a population of the hundreds (and more) of players makes the stat borderline useless. Is there a readily available stat that does a far superior job in handling these circumstances, and how much better is it overall for all players?

[Oldcity]

Weeks does not "excel" at OBP, he was not in the top 40 of the NL, and was in the bottom half of NL 2bs -- I certainly agree that his striking out all the time gets overemphasized, but on the other hand his BB rate has decreased and that makes me very nervous.

FtJ, I've seen you express concern over Weeks' walk rate in a few different posts, and I don't really get the concern over it. Only one second baseman in baseball had a better walk rate than Weeks this year (Uggla). Seems strange to criticize or get concerned when his walk rate went from outstanding in 2007 to just very good in 2008.

[Ennder]

I'm surprised you dislike OPS+ but support PAP... I guess like anything else this comes down to personal taste.

 

PAP isn't perfect but I've seen real results from it. The leaders on the PAP board almost universally get hurt or are worse within 2 years of being on it. OPS+ is a good idea for a stat, it just isn't carried out very well. There are players that get a bonus to their OPS+ because of their park while the park actually hurts their production and vice verca, I don't want that in a stat.

 

This just isn't true. I can be easily convinced if I see actual compelling evidence

 

Like I said, if you aren't compelled by what I've said then it is a useless argument. I don't have the statistical background to go through and prove to you the errors caused by the fact that some parks are hitter parks for some players but pitchers parks for others, if you don't agree with that I can't prove it to you other than to show you a park factor chart which I'm sure you've already seen. (btw I said borderline useless not useless, it has some value it just isn't very high, just giving me 2 players OPS+ doesn't tell me enough to compare the players accurately)

 

Don't get me started on how terrible ERA+ is or we will be here for ages~.

[Fatter than Joey]

FtJ, I've seen you express concern over Weeks' walk rate in a few different posts, and I don't really get the concern over it.

 

I think there are 2 concepts that get interchanged in discussions about Weeks...

 

1.) Is Weeks a good 2b compared to his peers? -- I think that Weeks overall is probably at best a slightly below average 2b. I don't think he should be DFA'd -- but I think a competent GM, would be exploring upgrades either internally or externally for such a player. There was not one aspect of his game that was "significantly above average" offensively last year.

 

2.) Is Weeks improving? -- This concept gets intertwined with #1, as we can play a below average player today if we expect better things tomorrow. All of Weeks offensive stats declined in 2008. I expect BA to fluctuate from year to year, but I expect K and BB rates to remain constant. If a player dips down because his BA dropped, I can chalk that up to bad luck, etc... Weeks, SLG, BB% all dropped, in 2008, which makes me pessimistic about a significant improvement in 2009.

 

Now, you are correct that Weeks's walk rate is good compared to other NL 2b, -- I have never said it wasn't. However, I was using it as a measure of Weeks's chances of improving. Of course, Weeks is among the bottom of all NL 2bs, in stats regarding hitting the baseball (BA, SLG) -- In short I think Weeks declining BB rate means he will have to improve on his ability to hit the ball, as I don't think pitchers are going to start walking him more -- the idea of Weeks needing to raise his BA doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

 

Only one second baseman in baseball had a better walk rate than Weeks this year (Uggla).

 

Fair enough -- Most starting NL 2bs though had better SLG and BA. Weeks OBP is driven by BBs -- when that declines you have problems.

 

Seems strange to criticize or get concerned when his walk rate went from outstanding in 2007 to just very good in 2008.

 

If Weeks is a .240 hitter, he needs to walk at a higher rate to remain a viable starting option.

[Oldcity]

If Weeks is a .240 hitter, he needs to walk at a higher rate to remain a viable starting option.

 

Very true, but if he really is a .240 hitter he'll be a disappointment in my eyes even if his walk rate is high. I know this will come off as an excuse (I suppose it is one), but 2008 was really his first season in the bigs in which he was pretty healthy all season. Many good hitters take a few years to find it once they reach the majors, so I'm not ready to give up on his bat yet.

 

Of course, his defense is another story. He was a bit better over the first half but seemed to regress again in the second half and was probably pretty poor overall. I believe he can become an average defensive second baseman, but I would not be opposed to moving him to center field if they found a viable option at second base. He has the athleticism and the arm to be a good CF, and it probably downplays his biggest problems at second base (rushing throws, lack of soft hands, etc). It could be a nice way to save 10 mil if they prefer to let Cameron go.

[TooLiveBrew]

He's worlds better overall than Weeks will ever be. He's too good and will be too sought after this off season to get him at a reasonable cost. And he'll be 31 next year, so I'd be uncomfortable signing him to a long term deal. He'll get, what, 4 years, $10+ mil per, easy?

 

I think that part is the biggest reason that sticking with Weeks is ok. If we get 2008 production from him next year, at least we know he won't kill the team. And there's a good reason to expect him to improve at least a little. FA is just a poor way overall for the Brewers to fill their team, but specifically this season it appears the highest bidders get Hudson & Ellis. Bringing Durham back wouldn't be a terrible idea to me.

 

 

I think that Weeks overall is probably at best a slightly below average 2b.

 

I think that in the 2008 season, this is true. I don't agree with it as a general statement about where I think his talent is. I also understand that many people think along the lines of, 'Well talent is great, but what have you produced?'... which I think is necessary. I would be surprised if Weeks repeated his 2008 numbers next season. I thought Rickie would hit better in '08, but if he posted a .360+/.450+ line in 2009 it wouldn't floor me.

 

 

Geoff Blum, HOU

 

Can we sign this guy just so he can stop making me pull my hair out?