Yuniesky Betancourt: What value does he bring to the team? (part 1)

[Oxy]

Since April 8, 3 weeks ago:

 

16 G .297/.314/.359 2 BB, 7 K, 0 HR, 8 RBI

 

In what universe could that be described as "quite good"?

 

That is below average, and especially bad considering this is supposed to be the upside for a guy during a hot streak, meaning he will finish worse than that by the end of the season.

 

That production combined with terrible defense is very bad for a guy who will play 150+ games.

I don't think those are bad numbers. Not great by any means, but serviceable. They get a little better when you add in the Atlanta series when he went 4/11. Basically he's been pretty good since starting the year 0/11 in Cincinnati. Admittedly, my initial math was bad and he hasn't done as well as I thought he had.

 

EDIT: bad numbers on intial post/edit

[Thurston Fluff]

You can't say to ignore the previous 3 years and just look at this 1/6th of a season and try to make any kind of logical argument about anything,

 

I love logic arguments. So please allow me the fun of taking up your challenge.

 

If A then B (A means his stats are above average, B means he's played above average offensively over that time)

A (based on OPS which is currently 8th among shortstops)

Therefore

B

If B then C (C means he's done better than expected)

B

Therefore

C

 

This is a logical argument and I think it says something.

 

This isn't only about Yuni but goes on about how some people just see things differently. When I look at him he seems to be a guy who is doing better than I expected. Since I thought the team was going to be good with a poorer version of him I see it as a positive,. If I look at him for what he is likely to give in an absolute then I'd think he isn't good at all. To say something is meaningless just because you don't think it's important seems to fail to take into account everyone views/evaluates players and the team in their own way.

[brewers19]

Merged the two Betancourt threads because the contents were exactly the same.

[TheRealMattKain]

I feel like there are two separate discussions going on here that are periodically being conflated and confused.

Group 1 is interested in knowing how good or bad of an offensive and defensive player Yuni is overall. This group is interested in looking at a large sample of statistical data and scouting information from the past several years to be able to make an educated guess at predicting how well Yuni can be expected to perform over a large number of games (say a season). This is really similar to the analysis that occurs when deciding "should we sign Player A" or "should we trade for player B"? This group doesn't care if Yuni hits a three-run, game winning homer tonight. This group doesn't care if Yuni turns a game-ending, web-gem double-play. This group is primarily concerned with ranking Yuni's overall skill set and making predictions about how well Yuni can be expected to perform over a large number of games. Basically, it appears that these people are trying to say "it doesn't matter how well Yuni has performed over 22 games as a Brewer, statistical evidence shows us that most likely Yuni will be terribly both offensively and defensively for the rest of the season and the Brewers should start looking for a replacement shortstop if they want to make the postseason."

Group 2 simply wants to know how well has Yuni performed as a Brewer *so far* and maybe try to extrapolate a little about how he'll do over the course of the rest of the year. In this case, yes, we are looking at a small sample, and, yes, of course it has meaning. That small sample tells us unambiguously exactly what Yuni has done as a Brewer. In 22 games Yuni has a .267/.290/.337 slash line. There is no debate here. That is what he has done. He also has an 8 game hit streak with 5 multi-hit games during that stretch. Yuni is a Brewer, and he's been hitting well the past 10 days. Being a Brewers fan, I'm tickled pink about this. Does this tiny sample say anything about what Yuni is going to do the rest of the year? Maybe a tiny bit, but not much. Does this tiny sample indicate how Yuni is going to perform next year? Not really. Should the Brewers sign Yuni to a 3 year extension based on his 8 game hit streak? No way! But should Brewer fans be happy that Yuni is starting to hit a little? I sure think so. Basically, it appears that these people are trying to say "I don't care about estimating Yuni's overall value or looking at how well he is going to perform over the course of the next 2-3 years. I only care about what he’s done in 22 games as a Brewers and what he does the rest of the year as a Brewer. The Brewers are not going to resign Yuni for next season, but sadly it looks like there is not currently a better SS upgrade out there. Let's hope that Yuni has a successful, outlier year and when he does have solid stretches or great games let's cheer for him and give him a pat on the back because he is, after all, a Brewer."

[1992casey]

I've added this topic to the Designated Threads List. Anything regarding Yuni's offensive/defensive contributions and liabilities should go here.

[RockCoCougars]

And Yuni comes through with his first dinger....

[TheCrew]

Uh oh - Yuni's obp is up over .300......... guess that throws a wrench in some people's arguments.

[brewers19]

Uh oh - Yuni's obp is up over .300......... guess that throws a wrench in some people's arguments.

.300 is not some magical line between a good and bad player; a .309 OBP is not good either.

[1992casey]

Somewhere in this topic, .317 was used as an example. That's below average overall, but it's fine for a shortstop. .300 causes concern no matter what the position, but if the player brings other skills to the table, you put up with it. Sub-.300 OBPs are an issue no matter how you slice them. Players in the .270–.280 range have no business starting, and you really need to consider their worth even as bench players.

[JohnBriggs12]

We were told by those "in the know" that Betancourt was the worst starting player in baseball. Maybe an argument could have been made that for a brief point in his career he was at or near the bottom. But so are a lot of guys if you look at the worst stretch of their careers.

 

He's not at that point right now. He's a very serviceable player right now. He's being properly used in the 7th spot to negate his offensive weakness, and he's steady defensively. That doesn't make him an All Star. But it also doesn't merit a thread questioning his daily performance either.

[Polish Falcons]

Out of 25 mlb shortstops with 70+ at bats in April, Yuni ranks:

 

12th in batting average at .273

16th in obp at .309

12th in slugging at .375

14th in ops at .684

9th in RBI with 10

10th in HR with 1 (tied w 15)

 

Looks pretty average to me. Seems like you guys are being pretty dramatic.

[monty57]

I'll ask the same question then - at what point do you look at the current season?

 

Never!! You look at what he did years ago to predict what he will do, from which you can determine down to .001 of a run how valueable the player will be over a one year period, but what a player is doing right now is never important.

[Ennder]

Here is the easiest way I can express why the sample size is too low to matter right now.

 

Right now Betancourt is hitting .273/.309/.375.

 

Lets say in the next two days he goes 0 for 8, he hits a couple absolute rockets right at guys and hits a ball in the gap that Bourn makes a spectacular play on. After this I would hope nobody really changes their opinion on how good or bad he has been this year.

 

His line drops to .250/.286/.344 for a .630 OPS

 

Now lets say the rocket shots find the hole for singles and Bourn doesn't quite get to the ball in the gap and he hits the double.

 

His line raises to .281/.314/.385 for a .699 OPS

 

So the difference between a couple balls finding holes and not finding holes over the season so far is enough to take him from a pretty anemic line to one we would all be ecstatic if he ended up with. When just two or three plays can drastically affect how good or bad someone looks it means the sample sizes are just too small to put much stock into. As the season goes on a few extra bloop hits or line drive outs stop making as much of a difference at some point but after this few games the stats just don't have a lot of meaning. If you add in things like a HR robbed or a HR that isn't normally out in most parks but it happened to be in the perfect park for it etc you just get something that is completely unreliable. Even without the hard hit balls finding holes etc if your opinion of a player is going to change completely because of what he does over just two games it means the samples aren't big enough to be comfortable judging a player anyway. A big game or two or a couple 0 fors shouldn't completely change your opinion about how someone has played.

 

So yes the stats this year count and yes they should be included when talking about a player but no they aren't a big enough sample to somehow ignore what the player did the previous couple of years and no they don't even do a very good job of describing how the player has actually played on the year. All they do is give you a result which really isn't all that meaningful for measuring how good a player has been and certainly isn't very useful for measuring how they will be in the future.

 

This discussion isn't even about Betancourt at this point, it is really about understanding sample sizes and what a small sample of stats can really be telling you about someone.

[Oxy]

This thread needed to be locked after TheRealMattKain's post (#453). He nailed it.

[strawbossisevil]

Here is the easiest way I can express why the sample size is too low to matter right now.

 

Right now Betancourt is hitting .273/.309/.375.

 

Lets say in the next two days he goes 0 for 8, he hits a couple absolute rockets right at guys and hits a ball in the gap that Bourn makes a spectacular play on. After this I would hope nobody really changes their opinion on how good or bad he has been this year.

If you are looking at his results (past tense), it really doesn't matter how hard a ball is hit or not. All that matters is whether it was a hit or an out. So, over that period, if he hit into a lot of outs, that would be a negative for the team. It has no bearing whatsoever on how good/not good he actually is (his actual talent level). That's just what you continue to fail to understand, very few in this discussion are saying that Betancourt is good, however some are saying that the actual results of his play to this point haven't been as bad as they expected, nor has he been nearly the negative most thought he would be TO THIS POINT. You are right that can change in a hurry, and if it does, it would be fair to point that out.

So yes the stats this year count and yes they should be included when talking about a player but no they aren't a big enough sample to somehow ignore what the player did the previous couple of years and no they don't even do a very good job of describing how the player has actually played on the year. All they do is give you a result which really isn't all that meaningful for measuring how good a player has been and certainly isn't very useful for measuring how they will be in the future.

NO ONE is ignoring how he did in the previous couple of years. That is a strawman. Few are even claiming that his stats this year suggest his level of play. All they are suggesting is the results of his play to this point, haven't been as poor as many were led to believe they would be. And NO ONE is suggesting the results to this point have any bearing on the future. You are so busy inventing straw men to argue against you aren't even paying attention to what most are even saying in this discussion.

This discussion isn't even about Betancourt at this point, it is really about understanding sample sizes and what a small sample of stats can really be telling you about someone.

No, it isn't. You are trying to frame the discussion in this way. What most are doing here is looking at the results (irregardless of how he came about them, whether by luck or skill), and suggesting he hasn't been as bad to this point as advertised. They are happy about this, you should be too. What happens in the future will likely coincide more with what he's done in the past. But some of us are thankful that at least the results of his play haven't been as terrible as some here suggested at the beginning of the season to this point. I still think you, and some other stats people, forget that while small sample stats may not mean much for future projection, they do tell us about how a player's play has benefited his team's chance of winning over that small period.

 

For example, does anyone here believe that Braun is going to hit close to 70 HRs this year? No. But we can all agree that the results he's put up to this point of the season have been awesome and have benefited our team immensely. And that's what we are talking about here. Benefit to the team of what has happened to this point of the season (aka the results), no matter how those results came into being (luck, skill, etc.).

[Ennder]

I still think you, and some other stats people, forget that while small sample stats may not mean much for future projection, they do tell us about how a player's play has benefited his team's chance of winning over that small period.

 

That was the entire point of my post, they don't tell you how he has played. It tells you the results of his balls put in play, those two things are not the same. McGehee has hit well almost all year now but early in the year his results were terrible because he kept hitting line drives right at guys, the results don't tell how a player has played, just the results of the balls he put in play. The results are largely out of a players hands and the results take a long time to correlate with meaningful measures of how a player is playing. A player can be playing great ball and get bad results, he can be hitting a bunch of weak balls that are outs most of the time and still end up hitting .300. The results need a large sample to actually hold a strong level of meaning.

 

That is the crux of our discussion here, I don't misunderstand what you are saying like you keep saying that I do, I DISAGREE with it. Results do not tell how a player has played unless you have a huge sample of results that can diffuse the 60%+ of the game that is out of the players control.

 

But I'm done with it, if people are really just worried about the results then I'm not really going to be able to discuss baseball with them, it is the same issue I run into when people want to judge players by things like ERA and RBI.

[mkm13]

Ennder, I am not just worried about the results. I do understand Yuni is a bad player. My biggest problem with people is the exaggeration by some and them not being able to understand that there was not a better replacement. And yes, I have seen the names floated around in this thread. IMO at best, they are basically the same...bad players.

[Oxy]

But I'm done with it, if people are really just worried about the results then I'm not really going to be able to discuss baseball with them, it is the same issue I run into when people want to judge players by things like ERA and RBI.

Almost everybody understands what you are saying. But the whole point of sports is results and winning and losing and enjoying the idiosyncrasies of the day-to-day game of baseball. That can be talked about too! We discussed the merits of Yuni for pretty much all of January, February, and March. That was all well and good, and most people came to similar conclusions (except perhaps Doug Melvin). However, now that the season has started all that discussion really means diddly squat unless you are trying to compare YB to a viable alternative to replace him. It is possible to have BOTH perspectives that TheRealMattKain described; I feel like I do and many other posters here do as well. Apparently you feel like only the first perspective is even worth mentioning to the point of not even wanting to discuss baseball at all with people who hold onto the second perspective.

[strawbossisevil]

I still think you, and some other stats people, forget that while small sample stats may not mean much for future projection, they do tell us about how a player's play has benefited his team's chance of winning over that small period.

 

That was the entire point of my post, they don't tell you how he has played. It tells you the results of his balls put in play, those two things are not the same.

Did you read my post? That is exactly what I just posted. The results are not always a fair assessment of a player's skill, but they are a fair assessment of how his play has benefited his team to that point of a season. Someone who hits nothing but lineouts, might be a good player, but the results of his play have not helped his team at all. While the player who has nothing but bloops hits, may not be a good player, but the results of his play to that point have benefited his team. Period. If you want to look for how valuable a player might be going forward, aka future projections, yes, you'll want the guy hitting the line-drives. But that is not what is being discussed here. Nor have I seen anyone who wouldn't gladly upgrade at the SS position.

McGehee has hit well almost all year now but early in the year his results were terrible because he kept hitting line drives right at guys, the results don't tell how a player has played, just the results of the balls he put in play.

Exactly. And results help a team win. While a lack of results is a determent to a team, even if it is simply a matter of lacking luck.

But I'm done with it, if people are really just worried about the results then I'm not really going to be able to discuss baseball with them, it is the same issue I run into when people want to judge players by things like ERA and RBI.

Well, I guess we'll just have to cope not having to hear you argue on and on with your strawmen. ERA (and to a lesser extent RBI) do have some value as stats. They show how many earned runs were given up while a certain pitcher was on the field. They are hard and fast results. You can argue whether a player was lucky in having those results, or whether such results were earned, but at the end of the day it simply tells us how many runs came across the plate when a certain pitcher was on the mound. The lower the number of runs crossing the plate, the more that said player's results benefited his team.

 

Just because a stat isn't predictive of future events, doesn't mean a stat has no value. It may not be something you find all that worthwhile discussing, because it simply talks about past events and doesn't give an impression of how good a player might actually be (essentially these stats tell us "what happened" without detailing "how it happened"), or what can be expected in the future. But it does give us feedback on the results of a player's play and how it impacted his team over a certain period.

[RockCoCougars]

I find it kind of interesting that digging back into the archives, some of the posters destroying Betancourt on this thread felt that keeping Suppan around was not hurting the team- 'because there was no decent replacement'. In my view, Soup hurt the team much more than Betancourt ever could (on the field- not even factoring in the horrible contract). I always put the smell test on a player using my eyes, because stats don't always tell the whole story. In many of Soup's 'good' games, his pitching line looked better than he actually pitched- with lots of line drive/fly balls deep to the outfielders, etc- I remember one 'quality start' in Petco with about 6 outs that would have been homers in Miller Park, how do you quantify that? Who here watched a Suppan start where he was OK the first few innings without dreading an implosion. Don't get me wrong, past statistical performance is useful for analysis, but it's not the end all, be all.

 

Betancourt has been much better than advertised, and is certainly an upgrade over Escobar (I'm talking 2011- not future 'upside'). The stats thus far have born that out- small sample be danged. In my opinion, people are dwelling on past statistics and the pundits without giving the dude a chance. If he truly stunk, I'd be the first to admit it (because I love to bag on guys who aren't pulling their weight) but he hasn't to this point.

[TheCrew]

So yes the stats this year count and yes they should be included when talking about a player but no they aren't a big enough sample to somehow ignore what the player did the previous couple of years and no they don't even do a very good job of describing how the player has actually played on the year. All they do is give you a result which really isn't all that meaningful for measuring how good a player has been and certainly isn't very useful for measuring how they will be in the future.

By that logic, all stats are meaningless - if looking at stats over a small sample size doesn't lead to a conclusion of how that player played during the small sample size, then surely a large sample size doesn't indicate how well or poor a player played during a large stretch. You can't have it both ways and say Betancourt sucks because a large sample size of stats say so but then refuse to admit that Betancourt has played well during a small sample size when the stats back it up.

[Funketown]

Betancourt is now 0 for 2 on the night. Therefore, he sucks.

 

I thought I'd never say this, but haven't we beaten this dead horse enough? I just don't know if anyone is going to change their mind at this point.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Betancourt is now 0 for 2 on the night. Therefore, he sucks.

 

I thought I'd never say this, but haven't we beaten this dead horse enough? I just don't know if anyone is going to change their mind at this point.

http://publishren.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/wrong-on-internet.png?w=300&h=330

[TooLiveBrew]

Uh oh - Yuni's obp is up over .300......... guess that throws a wrench in some people's arguments.

I really should've waited longer to post, as I'm sure you were right on your way to remind everyone that after tonight's game, his OBP is back under the .300 mark.

 

Not that it's really relevant anyway... sample size is still way too small to be drawing important conclusions... and, as brewers19 noted, a .300 OBP still really sucks. The general argument is that, over the course of the entire season, Betancourt is going to hurt the team. Not that over stretches of 15 games he might help the team.

 

You know the overall state of the team is good, though, when the biggest BF.net argument is over whether Betancourt TOTALLY SUCKS, or is just bad.

[COBrewerfan]

No the point is that he has not been bad at all. He may just be an average player but he is just fine seeing we have great hitters on the team and he just happens to be one of the average guys. And defensively we have all kinds of issues so we hope he limits the mistakes, which he has, and has made some good plays as well.

 

Some will continue to look for anything to harp on the guy which seems like a waste of time. Some will defend him. But I am just hoping we can start winning games in bunches and get past some of this. It is funny how he has captured the BF.net folks and created this argument. But I will still never see how over this period (if there were not stats and previous judgements) you would kill the guy and say that he has be absolutely awful and is killing the team. I just have no idea if you have seen most or all of the games how you come to that conclusion.