Brewers player grades

[greeg35]

I wasn't disputing the grades. I was referring to MNBrew's use of the word "trend" to describe Fielder's BARISP.

[homer]

Prince's lousy BA (& OPS, as you point out) w/ RISP were a season-long trend.

 

 

Its impossible to distinguish "trends" in 150 PA's

Right but the grade is based on his performance in 2010 not over a three year period. Luck or not do you just ignore the fact that he wasn't very good in those 150 PAs?

[TheRealMattKain]

To another point in the thread, I think there are many aspects of the game where stats can't tell the story -- one of which is referenced just a few posts up. Someone looked at Prince's OBP with RISP and speculated that maybe he wasn't getting good pitches, thus the low BA/SLG in that situation. It's not fair having to speculate on this, and that's probably all we can really do without watching game tape of every Prince at bat from the season to see if he missed more hittable pitches than years past. (And hey, maybe the beat writers have a better mental game tape than most of us? Maybe not, but maybe....) If there's a "good pitches to hit not taken advantage of by the batter" stat out there, I'm not aware of it. I imagine it would have flaws, too.

 

I think base running, especially first-to-third, is probably another example. If a player has X number of Runs, how do you measure how many more he could have had with better speed and/or instincts that would have put him on third instead of second? Or a player turning a single into a double to avoid a double-play on the ensuing grounder? Or a player who goes to bat in sac fly situations and plates that run with sacrifices vs someone who swings through a couple good pitches and doesn't plate the run. Or a player who's batting with a runner on second and successfully keeps the ball on the right side of the field vs one who does the same thing on the left side of the field? Or, how the speed of the runner on first and the threat of the steal affects the pitcher. For that matter, how the protection the batter gets by who's on deck actually impacts his numbers beyond his actual ability. There might be some holes in my examples, but I don't think it'd be difficult to come up with a healthy list of baseball nuances that stats don't fully explain. I'm sure the day will come where a few comprehensive statistics can summarize every single aspect of value a baseball player has, normalized and adjusted for all factors, but I don't think that day is here yet.

 

All of the examples that you listed are absolutely quantifiable and can be described by stats. Just because a certain statistic can't be found in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel or on Yahoo Sports, does not mean that it doesn't exist or that the action isn't quantifiable. If it can be observed and if it can be counted, then it can be described using a statistic. It's that simple.

For example, you said "If there's a "good pitches to hit not taken advantage of by the batter" stat out there, I'm not aware of it."

 

Sounds like Z-Contact% to me. Z-Contact% is defined as the "Percentage of times a batter makes contact with the ball when swinging at pitches thrown inside the strike zone." Prince's numbers can be found here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4613&position=1B#platediscipline

I was surprised to discover that his Z-Contact% in 2010 was actually the highest it has been since 2007!

You also provided some base running examples that are not commonly accounted for in popular statistics. I did a Google search and found Bill James' "Net Gain" which factors in some of the very things that you mentioned are not accounted for by stats.

https://www.billjamesonline.net/toursite/StatisticsReport_new.aspx?Type=111&Team=0&Player=1&men=2

I'm sure we could search some more and find that someone is keeping track of a statistic that accounts for each and every base running item that you mentioned. Stats have become very sophisticated and there are very few elements of the game that are not monitored, counted, and recorded (or in other words, rolled into a statistic).

 

Still, I agree with you. I don't think that we have reached the point where we have ideal stats that account for and describe the game with complete perfection. We may never have - describing a subtle, nuanced, complex system like baseball is hard, very hard. This doesn't mean that elements of the game can't be quantified. It just means that some things might be difficult to quantify or objectively say "Player A is better at this than Player B" (like defense). Nonetheless, stats and baseball analysis have come a long way over the past 2 or 3 decades. Long gone are the days of our youth when we thought "baseball card stats" (RBI, BA, RUNS, etc.) were the end-all-be-all and a majority of "serious" sports writing consisted of waxing poetically about a player's "heart" or "grit".

 

 

[greeg35]

Luck or not do you just ignore the fact that he wasn't very good in those 150 PAs?

If I was grading the brewers? Yes I would. I would try to find more substantive ways to evaluate their performance.

[MNBrew]

If there's a "proper" sabermetric usage of "trends," I blew it off in favor of the "everyday" or dictionary definition. The importance would be clarifying the context or parameters, which I did.

Prince's lousy BA (& OPS, as you point out) w/ RISP were a season-long trend. I was not referencing other seasons.

146 ABs is substantive enough to reflect a legit trend.

 

 

From the dictionary: "trend = the general course or prevailing tendency; drift"

and no, 146 AB's is not enough evidence to support a trend.

I defined my parameters. My word choice works, and you made it clear that in your mind, "season-long trend" is an oxymoron. We just disagree. Would you prefer "pattern"? "2010 performance"? Just make a suggestion.

 

Prince's "prevailing tendency" in RISP situations in 2010 was a great OBP but a lousy BA. You're arguing semantics. My point still is what it is: When Prince was up w/ RISP in 2010, he wasn't particularly productive when he didn't walk or perhaps get hit by a pitch.

[Ennder]

I judge players by the things they control. Whether their hits happen to come with RISP or not isn't one of the things they can really control. Same way that a pitcher with 200 K, 20 BB but a 4 ERA was a stud regardless of happening to end up with a mediocre ERA. I guess I judge players by the skills they showed not just the results of the skills because the results are highly random and in many cases largely out of their own control.

 

I also think a good grading system is based on what the player did, not what you personally expected of a player. Weeks was one of the top 10 most valuable position players in the NL, not giving him at least an A- is just criminal imo.

[JJHardy7]

I don't think getting 3 starts in almost 3 weeks is being thrown to the wolves, and I don't think he was rotting on the bench as he spent time getting to know the pitching staff.

 

I guess it depends on what the 'plan' was for him. If it was to play most of the year in AAA, then come up in August/September...yes he was thrown into the wolves. I don't think 3 weeks of watching/learning makes him an expert. He was thrown to the wolves IMO, but handled it well.

 

Perhaps the JS team could supply season predictions in March or April, and then could use the end-of-season grades to measure how much (or little) each player lived up to their hopes. Of course, the pre-season predictions would probably also be flawed, and it wouldn't give them a basis for comparing players called up or acquired during the season.

 

This is a great idea...if the pre-season predictions aren't flawed. The grades don't make sense, but comparing them to something would be helpful. Obviously Braun and Fielder are expected to do more and we didn't expect much out of some players. I think a comparison like you mention would be very, very helpful.

[1992casey]

Three years ago, when Kerry J. Byrne ranked his Top 10 NFL quarterbacks, he defined his criteria and stuck to them. While one might not agree with the criteria (e.g. using "intangibles"), he gave readers something to work with rather than leaving them wondering. I don't think it's too much to ask that criteria be clearly defined when issuing player grades.

 

By the way, here's the LambeauLeap topic on these rankings: Starr listed as top QB in history.