Next Power 50 in Mid-Autumn

[TooLiveBrew]

That's really not the way SBs & CSs work relative to OPS. I know Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator had a good post on it in the MLB forums. It's not as simple as adding in & subtracting out, because the outs made with CSs make a much larger impact than the extra bases gained from SBs.

 

 

EDIT: Here's the link to Brawndo's input on this topic in the 'Hardy to AAA; Escobar up' thread.

[Mike]

I was not aware of this data, so thanks.

 

It intuitively makes sense, but I will spend the weekend to study some more. I'm not sure runs produced (although ultimately the overall goal) really correlates to .OPS, i.e. OPS is a measure of TB's for an individual player and not how many runs were produced by the team? Any additional comments?

 

Perhaps I'm just too slow mentally.

[twobrewers]

First off, by all means continue the Eric Farris arguments.

 

Personally, if you are ranked 25 or 45 - I don't consider you much of a prospect. After the top 15 or so - you are really left with trade "throw ins".

[logan82]

OPS correlates very well on a team level with runs scored. This is from the 2008 season. Click on Sheet1, Strikeouts, Walks, etc. to look at them graphed. Link

 

Brawndo mentions linear weights. One easy to find is wOBA over at Fangraphs. It takes SB into account.

[LouisEly]

A very relevant stat that SBs could factor in, a stat that rarely if ever gets mentioned that I think has some merit, is total bases. Granted that the true definition of total bases includes only hits, but an adjusted total bases statistic (aTB? Apologies to Andre Tanneberger) could take the total bases from hits, add in one base for walks and HBP, and then add in stolen bases while subtracting caught stealing (give double weight to caught stealing if you will). This stat, with apologies to Meredith Brooks, could be a little bit of everything all rolled into one. It factors in the key elements of OBP not included in BA (walks and HBP) while adding in the importance of SLG (additional bases from doubles/triples/HRs), and combines that with the value of net stolen bases plus one additional factor - durability. OBP is great, but a .400 OBP doesn't do any good when it is sitting on the bench because a guy has a bad hammie or can't go more than 5 games a week, resulting in a lesser player (replacement or below replacement level) having to play; how does that relate to a player's value over an entire season? All stats have flaws, but I would be interested in seeing what a stat like that would show for players over an entire season and how that would correlate to runs produced (scored and driven in) and adjusted total bases per dollar of salary.

 

This is a discussion for another thread though. I do side with the camp that SBs and speed in general has value; one of the shortcomings of OBP is that a walk or HBP with 1B open doesn't advance any runners, and runners can only advance one base on a walk or HB, whereas runners score from 2B routinely on base hits and sometimes from 1B when there are two outs. Don't get me wrong, OBP is important, but games are won based on who scores the most runs not who has the highest OBP, and speed and SBs often factor into runs scored.

[Never Outhustled]

Don't get me wrong, OBP is important, but games are won based on who scores the most runs not who has the highest OBP, and speed and SBs often factor into runs scored.

The team the gets the most baserunners wins 80% of the time. Increased HR totals have minimized the relevence of the SB.

 

 

All stats have flaws, but I would be interested in seeing what a stat like that would show for players over an entire season and how that would correlate to runs produced (scored and driven in) and adjusted total bases per dollar of salary.

Isn't that what they do at Fangraphs?

[logan82]

I responded to Louis over in the Statistical Analysis forum.

[TooLiveBrew]

All stats have flaws, but I would be interested in seeing what a stat like that would show for players over an entire season and how that would correlate to runs produced (scored and driven in) and adjusted total bases per dollar of salary.

Isn't that what they do at Fangraphs?

Yes. (I want to clarify this is not a shot at LouisEly...) And I think that's why it's so frustrating to me when people make comments about how relatively useless those dollar values are, bc 'no one's giving Mike Cameron $18M'. The point is to put total production (even including defense) into perspective, which is what those dollar value rankings do, and quite well imho.

[TheCrew07]

The dollar value is an extrapolation of WAR... why not just stick to WAR than some unrealistic meaningless value? The dollar value doesn't work well because of the sliding scale of economy in baseball, many teams in baseball have to operate on a cost controlled basis. Cameron's performance isn't worth 18 million dollars to anyone including the Brewers, so he's not an 18 million dollar player. There's just too many holes for people to continue to say player X is worth Y because fangraphs says so. It may be true that fangraphs says player X is worth Y dollars, but it doesn't make it a fact, yet the dollar value is argued like it's an absolute. A player isn't necessarily worth his contract just because fangraphs says he's worth $13 million and he's being paid $12 million, very few players actually make their fangraphs dollar value, there is a wide gulf between the fangraphs value and market value. I'm not even sold that WAR is "spot on", but it's a simple way for me to compare value when discussing trades.

 

I like advanced statistics but people get way too carried with them sometimes. It's like a player who has a crappy BABIP like Lucroy most of the season... if you're a hitting coach are going to tell him, "Don't worry, your BABIP will move towards the mean and you'll start getting hits again" or will you sit down and break down video and see what's going on with his swing? BABIP is an effect, and it will move towards the middle because it's very difficult to be dominant for an entire 162 game schedule if a player is going well. If he's not hitting or pitching well if he doesn't turn it around (start heading towards the mean) it's unlikely he stays with the big club all season...

 

There's more to this than numbers on a page...

 

"Braun told me, 'You're going to rake this year,' " Lucroy recalled. "I thought, 'Man, if Ryan Braun tells me that, it's going to happen.' I came in here expecting to, and when I didn't, it was tough."

 

Instead, Lucroy who admitted he was much more concerned about his defensive abilities than his bat slumped terribly for much of the first half.

 

His struggles continued, and, many times, he walked back to the dugout after a strikeout wondering how he'd missed the good pitch at which he'd just swung.

 

Then, a little more than two weeks ago while in Montgomery, Lucroy decided to make a slight adjustment to his mechanics.

 

"I sped up my tempo a little bit when I'm in the box," Lucroy said. "All year, I'd been kind of struggling getting my timing right, and I just made an adjustment, and now, I'm where I need to be. It's been working out well."

 

At the time of the technique tweak before the July 29 doubleheader against the Biscuits, Lucroy was batting .245. He hit safely in both games of the twinbill, and since then, he has hit in 16 straight games.

Then again maybe Johnathon doesn't know what he's talking about and his luck is just averaging out now?

[TooLiveBrew]

The dollar value is an extrapolation of WAR... why not just stick to WAR than some unrealistic meaningless value? The dollar value doesn't work well because of the sliding scale of economy in baseball, many teams in baseball have to operate on a cost controlled basis.

 

Yes, and that is what I addressed. I understand that Cameon won't get $18M, that's really not the point. The point is to try to provide some monetary context for player value. The idea is 'in a vacuum', and that's how they should be used -- as relative, comparative numbers. Why not just use WAR? I don't know, really I don't care -- use whatever you like best. To me FanGraphs's monetary values are fun comparative stats that imo do a solid job of giving relative value. And fwiw, they have been spot-on on some FA deals in recent years in terms of dollars & years, so the monetary values are in fact using similar criteria to many MLB clubs.

 

 

I'm not even sold that WAR is "spot on", but it's a simple way for me to compare value when discussing trades.

 

And that's exactly how I think the dollar values should be used. Why do you care if that's how I see value in them? It's all just relative comparison anyway, which is why I said, "The point is to put total production (even including defense) into perspective, which is what those dollar value rankings do, and quite well imho"

 

 

EDIT: I like advanced statistics but people get way too carried with them sometimes. It's like a player who has a crappy BABIP like Lucroy most of the season... if you're a hitting coach are going to tell him, "Don't worry, your BABIP will move towards the mean and you'll start getting hits again" or will you sit down and break down video and see what's going on with his swing?

 

I have never, ever seen anyone state anything like you're claiming here. BABIP tends to work out to career norms. I can't think of anyone that claims it's a cause as opposed to an effect. It's just wise observation to point out that BABIPs tend to wind up around career norms, and of course like you said it's due to guys studying film & opponents (both pitchers & hitters).

[TheCrew07]

The problem of course is that they aren't used in a "fun" manner, information from fangraphs is used as a definitive measure of right and wrong. I get what your saying about baseball in a vacuum, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way and people don't treat it as such. How many times has someone on this site posted something along the lines of "fangraphs has him worth X million, he's earned his contract" in a debate with another poster. It doesn't matter if it's Sheets, Suppan, Cameron.. whomever... every time a contract is discussed someone is going to fangraphs, grabbing the value and using it as fact why another poster is wrong is his/her argument. It's just not that black and white for any number of reasons, but it's very rarely used in a :fun: manner. Since when did frangraphs (a site I really enjoy) become a bastion of truth for all things baseball? Especially in relation to the minor leagues, where the relative talent level of the league and players within in the league is always changing due promotions, players making adjustments and improving, etc.

 

I was using BABIP as another flawed example of statistical analysis, and actually it's used the way I suggest pretty much every time it's used. Look at the McGehee thread today and you'll see BABIP regression analysis. I have no problem believing that Gamel is more talented than McGehee and should have been playing at 3B while McGehee and Counsell played second, I argued for it myself However McGehee falling off some isn't a result of a high BABIP, it's a function of how difficult it is to consistently play this game at a high level. Casey made the most of his opportunity, regardless of what his true talent may be, I'm not going to take that away from him, he's hit very well this season on the whole. Playing the high BABIP card suggests that a player has been getting lucky, just like the playing the low BABIP card suggests a player has been unlucky (see the why is Hardy getting a free pass thread).

[TooLiveBrew]

The problem of course is that they aren't used in a "fun" manner, information from fangraphs is used as a definitive measure of right and wrong

 

I don't think I use them that way, & I don't think that you use them that way, either. No stat is 100% perfect, but like OPS for batting, I like that WAR & $$ value stats provide a useful look at how players have performed relative to one another.

 

 

Playing the high BABIP card suggests that a player has been getting lucky, just like the playing the low BABIP card suggests a player has been unlucky (see the why is Hardy getting a free pass thread).

 

I guess to me, that's more the interpretation of the reader. If you view BABIP as 'playing a card', and it 'suggests' something, I guess your view is that there's some motive behind it which isn't necessarily there.

 

 

Look at the McGehee thread today and you'll see BABIP regression analysis. I have no problem believing that Gamel is more talented than McGehee and should have been playing at 3B while McGehee and Counsell played second, I argued for it myself However McGehee falling off some isn't a result of a high BABIP, it's a function of how difficult it is to consistently play this game at a high level.

 

Yes, I made a comment to that end, and in no way implied his "Level 17 BABIP talent" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif would fade. I followed up on comments from earlier in the season that McGehee's production would likely drop because it's difficult to sustain BABIP at the level he was in the first half (somewhere around .350). Things happen... teams scout you better, you get dinged up, etc. Production inflated heavily by a high BABIP just doesn't tend to last, and again like you're saying, it's for numerous reasons (& I know you're obv. aware that BABIPs don't tend to stay up around .350, but it seems odd for me to respond & omit that element). I think we're just having the same discussion here in consecutive posts, so I don't think I have any more to add on this topic.

[pogokat]

waaaaaaaaaay off topic...

[Never Outhustled]

Ever since Toby started the Power 50, he has had defend himself from critism of not having relievers ranked high enough. Yet, not a single one of these relievers have made an MLB impact. He's been right, and will continue to be right. Most of the best MLB relievers were starters in the minors.

 

I see alot of discussion that is based on a players age. In some cases age works well, as it helps compare players experience level. However, pitchers who miss significant time with injury should have an * by they're age. They're age is no longer an accurate barometer of they're experience level. Posters have touted Anundsen because he is younger than guys like Rivas and Rogers. However, age is a poor measuring device in this application. Anundsen has thrown more minor league innings than both of those 2. Rogers and Rivas may be 23, but they have the experience level of a 21 year old at best.

 

I really believe Rogers is far and away our best pitching prospect right now. His stuff is off the charts. His control has been strong in the 2nd half of the season, it just gets better the more he pitches. He's dominating the FSL on the same level guys like Price, Kershaw, Volstad and Porcello did in recent years.

 

With a strong AFL campaign he could land in BAs top 50. Remember, BA loved him before he threw strikes and cleaned up his mechanics. They'll really love him now. I think he's our # 4 prospect right now, and could make the leap to #1 next year. He could get MLB hitters out right now.

[LouisEly]

Ever since Toby started the Power 50, he has had defend himself from critism of not having relievers ranked high enough. Yet, not a single one of these relievers have made an MLB impact. He's been right, and will continue to be right. Most of the best MLB relievers were starters in the minors.

 

Power 50 - 8/23/06

 

I'll disagree with your statement. In that Power 50, you'll find two notable names - #49, Joe Thatcher, and "Removed this week: Mitch Stetter" - who were relievers and are currently in major league bullpens and doing very well. Also, #36 Chris Demaria made it to the majors (albeit very briefly), whereas four players ahead of him (one as high as #10) have since been let go and have not made the majors. Thus why I will agree with giving Casey Baron a little P50 love.

 

The Charlie Fermaint comment is especially interesting - "...don't let the sliding numbers fool you - Charlie is still a premo prospect". Some players can take longer to develop than others, but I think after three, at absolute most four years in the minors anyone who will eventually make the majors will be putting up at least decent numbers. Interesting to note who is #27 on that list, with the comment, "leads his team in OPS". This speaks to my point that production matters. Yes some players who produce in the minors will not make the majors, but not to be condecending, I would really like to see some examples of players who didn't have at least one decent season their first three or four years in the minors (barring injury) who went on to become a good major leaguer.

[Mass Haas]

Mat Gamel needs six AB's in the next five games to graduate off the P50. Alcides Escobar will be number one through the offseason.

 

This interesting blog entry details how the cutoff is actually 131 AB's for Rookie of the Year -- player must EXCEED 130. This impacted the linked rookie of the year race.

 

Along with turning 27 years old, we use the 131 AB and 50.1 IP Rookie of the Year qualifying cutoffs for Power 50 inclusion. The offseason P50 will be posted in late October, early November, we believe.

[And That]

Mat Gamel needed 4 ABs today to graudate off the Power 50 (and become ineligible for ROY next year), and he got 3.

[LouisEly]

Mat Gamel needed 4 ABs today to graudate off the Power 50 (and become ineligible for ROY next year), and he got 3.

I wonder if that was the planned reason (qualifying for ROY next year) for starting McGehee and replacing him with Gamel after one AB, and then double-switching him later for Counsell.

[dadofandrew]

They pulled Casey to preserve his .300 BA, he just had to get a hit in one of his first 3 AB's.

 

I think Gamel has too many PA's and days in the majors to qualify for ROY.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm not sure where to reliably find Gamel's service time, but the marker there is > 45 days on the 25-man roster... but September days don't count towards rookie status (even though they count in terms of overall service time).

 

 

EDIT: So, per Rotoworld's player page...

 

-5/14/09: Brewers recalled third baseman Mat Gamel from Triple-A Nashville

-7/20/09: Brewers optioned infielder Mat Gamel to Triple-A Nashville

 

Al was correct, even though Mat was only called up for September in 2008. That's over 45 service days in 2009 during the 25-man roster limit.

[marty22]

Not complaining here, but do we have any idea when the next Power50 will be up?

[And That]

Yes we do. In the near future.

[marty22]

Thanks "And That". Can't wait