Yuniesky Betancourt: What value does he bring to the team? (part 2)

[rluzinski]

Perhaps I misunderstood, you accused a poster of cherry picking. Is that because he only pointed out that their batting was roughly equal or because you don't think wOBA properly measures batting worth?

My original post was in response to someone saying Betancourt and Punto were the same player offensively (or something to that effect) simply because their wOBA were close.

 

wOBA is a fine stat, but just like any other stat, it has flaws - I would never use it as a stand alone metric when comparing 2 players overall worth.

 

I mean David Ortiz and his K rate of 28% had the same wOBA as Ryan Braun and Prince last year and guys like Aubrey Huff and Luke Scott had higher wOBA's............ like I said, it's a fine stat and all, it does have value - but to try and say two players have equal offensive value because they have similar wOBA's is a wee bit foolish in my most humble opinion.

wOBA properly identifies that a strikeout is basically equal to a ball-in-play out in an average situation. You aren't.

[Ennder]

I think most are surprised about Betancourt defensive play.I think so far defensively he has done a good job for the crew,

If by good you mean below replacement level I'd agree with you. He has been one of the worst defensive SS in baseball on the year without a doubt, though we are talking bottom 10 instead of bottom 5 like I expected I guess.

[RockCoCougars]

I think most are surprised about Betancourt defensive play.I think so far defensively he has done a good job for the crew,

If by good you mean below replacement level I'd agree with you. He has been one of the worst defensive SS in baseball on the year without a doubt, though we are talking bottom 10 instead of bottom 5 like I expected I guess.

I disagree strongly with this statement. There are only 2 teams in major league baseball with fewer errors at shortstop than Milwaukee (with Yuni playing about 90% of the time). Brewer shortstops are also above MLB average in assists and double plays.

[TheCrew]

No stat is perfect but wOBA covers the majority of what a hitter brings to the table, there are some hidden factors but you get 98% of the big picture or something from it. I find it odd you brought up K% like that was the flaw though.

K% is a big flaw in wOBA - sorry, but Adam Dunn did not have more offensive value than Joe Mauer last year when he struck out 3.5 times as often (not to mention Mauer had an avg over .060 higher).

[endaround]

The reason I used wOBA here is because Punto and Betancourt have such different skill sets that looking at slash lines say very little.

 

The slash lines tell you a lot. You just need to know how OBP compares in value to SLG. wOBA does that for you.

Well yes and no. Because sometimes people forget stolen bases and its hard to just do the calculations so it can be hard to see some things like how Carlos Gomes and Mark Kotsay have been basically the same offensively this year, wOBA of.298 vs wOBA of .303.

[rluzinski]

No stat is perfect but wOBA covers the majority of what a hitter brings to the table, there are some hidden factors but you get 98% of the big picture or something from it. I find it odd you brought up K% like that was the flaw though.

K% is a big flaw in wOBA - sorry, but Adam Dunn did not have more offensive value than Joe Mauer last year when he struck out 3.5 times as often (not to mention Mauer had an avg over .060 higher).

Dunn's and Mauer's 2010 performances are a perfect example of how poor baseball fans can be at judging the relative value of some types of players. You say that wOBA has a large flaw with regard to K's and batting average but provide not a shed of evidence to support that opinion. I suspect you aren't even familiar with the methodology used to formulate wOBA. You don't agree with its output for some players, so it's obviously flawed. That takes a lot of hubris.

If you want to have an honest discussion on the topic, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes writing up something that you will dismiss without reading. Baseball dogma is alive and well.

[Ennder]

No stat is perfect but wOBA covers the majority of what a hitter brings to the table, there are some hidden factors but you get 98% of the big picture or something from it. I find it odd you brought up K% like that was the flaw though.

K% is a big flaw in wOBA - sorry, but Adam Dunn did not have more offensive value than Joe Mauer last year when he struck out 3.5 times as often (not to mention Mauer had an avg over .060 higher).

First off no it really isn't a big flaw at all, a strike out is barely less valuable than any other out, it is a marginal difference at best.

 

But more importantly you harped on Ortiz's 28% and compared it to Fielder who had a 23% last year, there is no way 5% K rate changes the value significantly. The flaws in wOBA is mostly going to come from baserunning.

 

To take it a step further looking at linear weights, a normal out on average is worse than a K with a runner on 1B and the same with nobody on which are the two most common situations to be in. Overall the weight of a K is -.31 and a normal out is -.30. So if one guy strikes out 100 times more than another guy he cost himself roughly 1 run of value on the season or 10% of one win in value. Strike outs are bad because you aren't putting a ball in play, but when you are looking at just results a strike out on average is barely worse than any other out you can make.

[joepepsi]

OBP has never been a good stat for measuring total offensive value. It's missing extra bases, which make a major contribution. Similarly, SLG wouldn't be a good stat for measuring total offensive value because it fails to account for walks, which also make a significant contribution.

So, what if we took a hybrid of slugging and on base? Total Bases+BB+HBP/Plate Appearances. I guess it gives equal weight to a single, BB, or HBP, but so does OBP. Wouldn't this be a more useful stat than OPS, though; and give you about the same information as wOBA, just be easier to calculate?

[TheCrew]

Dunn's and Mauer's 2010 performances are a perfect example of how poor baseball fans can be at judging the relative value of some types of players. You say that wOBA has a large flaw with regard to K's and batting average but provide not a shed of evidence to support that opinion. I suspect you aren't even familiar with the methodology used to formulate wOBA. You don't agree with its output for some players, so it's obviously flawed. That takes a lot of hubris.

If you want to have an honest discussion on the topic, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes writing up something that you will dismiss without reading. Baseball dogma is alive and well.

Sit here and tell me you want to have an honest discussion and make a backhanded comment at the same time................. nice.

 

I am familiar with the methodology in formulating wOBA and I'm not going to get into a debate on sabremetrics with you - people seriously overvalue them on this board - My whole point from the beginning was, it makes zero sense to compare 2 players offensive worth with one single statistic. I don't care what the stat is - unless there is a specific reason we can only use one stat, it makes no sense to unless you are trying to paint a specific picture (i.e. Punto is just as good offensively as Betancourt).

 

Done with it at this point - I'm sure there are plenty of people that will jump at the chance to debate sabremetrics, I'm not one of them though.

[Ennder]

Using as many stats as you want try to defend that Betancourt is actually a better hitter than Punto. The only way you can really say that is if you misinterpret how valuable getting on base is compared to getting extra base hits.

[Thurston Fluff]

To take it a step further looking at linear weights, a normal out on average is worse than a K with a runner on 1B and the same with nobody on which are the two most common situations to be in.

 

Again this is a good starting point but far from end of discussion. The on average part is what I think sometimes gets overlooked. Yes, on average a strike out is better than a ball put into play out with a man on first. That can be calculated with large numbers to back that up. When assessing individuals there can be some who are going to get better results by putting the ball in play. Lets take Gomez vs Fielder for example. A ground ball by Gomez will be far less likely to end in a double play than Fielder's would. The aggregate doesn't take into account speed differences between individuals when assessing which out is more productive. They see every situation as the same. Additionally Gomez can get to second without aid by stealing a base so him making an out can lead to a better base runners in the process of making the out. IF for instance someone unlikely to move to second on his own was wiped out by the ground ball Gomez can turn that into a productive out by stealing second. He could not do that with a strikeout. Prince not only wouldn't have but most likely would have made two outs on a double play grounder. Type of player matters more than you want to give credit to. Advanced metrics are wonderful tools. Over the years here Rluz in particular taught me more about baseball through their use than anything I knew previously. I really do appreciate them. But they are the start of the conversation not the end of it. I fear sometimes pure stat people get so caught up in them they never look at how the average fits with the individual. Or, more importantly, how they may not.

[TheCrew]

Using as many stats as you want try to defend that Betancourt is actually a better hitter than Punto. The only way you can really say that is if you misinterpret how valuable getting on base is compared to getting extra base hits.

Yes, because if I don't agree with your view point that Betancourt and Punto have equal value because they have similar wOBA's - then I must be misinterpreting something.

 

Like I said, not worth my time anymore.

[rluzinski]

To take it a step further looking at linear weights, a normal out on average is worse than a K with a runner on 1B and the same with nobody on which are the two most common situations to be in.

 

Again this is a good starting point but far from end of discussion. The on average part is what I think sometimes gets overlooked. Yes, on average a strike out is better than a ball put into play out with a man on first. That can be calculated with large numbers to back that up. When assessing individuals there can be some who are going to get better results by putting the ball in play. Lets take Gomez vs Fielder for example. A ground ball by Gomez will be far less likely to end in a double play than Fielder's would. The aggregate doesn't take into account speed differences between individuals when assessing which out is more productive. They see every situation as the same. Additionally Gomez can get to second without aid by stealing a base so him making an out can lead to a better base runners in the process of making the out.

Fangraph's wOBA takes into accounts SB and CS. It does not take into account base advancement on hits but you'll have to believe me when I say that it is relatively minor, compared to everything else. For a time, Pierre was identifiably the best base runner in the league and it resulted in only a few net runs.

Gomez will also hit into less double plays on infield groundballs. I don't know this to be true for a fact but I suspect it is also a minor component of his value. That is probably because if you are hitting a lot of infield groundballs, you are probably not a very valuable hitter to begin with (there are exceptions of course).

There are a lot of nuances to the value of baseball players. I know there exists much more sophisticated projection systems that takes into account hit types (groundball/flyball tendencies), speed and other things. I suspect that they are incrementally better but we are talking about a small difference. The basic batting events, when weighted correctly, capture the vast majority of the value of a batter's offensive performance. For a messageboard comparison of bench players, wOBA does just fine, IMO.

 

[Thurston Fluff]

In the last post you mentioned two relatively minor things. At some point don't those minor things add up to something a little more than minor?

I used Gomez Fielder as an example. Please don't read to much into the particular players I used for the example. I wanted to use two that have obviously different skill sets to illustrated my point.

 

I know there exists much more sophisticated projection systems that takes into account hit types (groundball/flyball tendencies), speed and other things.

 

Not to go too far off subject but I saw something about line drives vs soft flyball outs in bapip that did a pretty nice job of showing why some players bapip can vary more than some others. For the life of me I can't find it again. You happen to know it? If so where the hell do I find it again?

[Ennder]

Using as many stats as you want try to defend that Betancourt is actually a better hitter than Punto. The only way you can really say that is if you misinterpret how valuable getting on base is compared to getting extra base hits.

Yes, because if I don't agree with your view point that Betancourt and Punto have equal value because they have similar wOBA's - then I must be misinterpreting something.

 

Like I said, not worth my time anymore.

No but an opinion with at least a little bit of evidence behind it would be nice for once. And not he is doing something over a one month sample type of evidence. Every discussion does need to start with a baseline though, if someone for example thinks SLG is exactly as important as OBP it isn't a matter of discussion because they are simply wrong. It can be subjective as to how much OBP is more important than SLG though.

 

Type of player matters more than you want to give credit to. Advanced metrics are wonderful tools

 

Oh it certainly matters but it isn't something quantifiable when you are trying to compare say David Ortiz to Prince Fielder to Ryan Braun and making an argument for or against one being a better hitter than the other. Every stat has its flaws and when stats are pretty close the flaws can move things around a little bit for sure. Braun's baserunning obviously brings a ton of value in that example. Those linear weights get used poorly all of the time when looking at specific situations(like when to bunt not accounting for how good a bunter the guy is or how fast the baserunner etc) but they are pretty good for judging broad strokes like you are doing with something like wOBA.

[monty57]

if someone for example thinks SLG is exactly as important as OBP it isn't a matter of discussion because they are simply wrong.

 

Just for sake of arguement, lets look at extremes. Your statement would imply that someone who in 600 AB, gets 300 singles for a line of .500 BA / .500 OBP / .500 SLG / 1.000 OPS would be much more beneficial to the team than a player who hits 120 HR in those 600 AB for a line of .200 BA / .200 OBP / .800 SLG / 1.000 OPS?

 

Neither a .500 hitter nor a 120 HR hitter are very likely, but it would seem on the surface that the guy who hit 125 HR would be more valueable. Even though he got out 80% of the time, he scored/drove in at least one run in 20% of his ABs, whereas the .500 OBP guy probably knocked in runners sometimes and probably scored some runs, but theoretically could have simply been stranded on first 300 times with no RBI.

 

Your statement I quoted seems that you are very certain of your position. I've not studied these findings, so please explain to me how it is absolutely certain that the .500 avg/OBP guy is 1.7x as valuable as the guy who hits 125 HR.

[Thurston Fluff]

Oh it certainly matters but it isn't something quantifiable when you are trying to compare say David Ortiz to Prince Fielder to Ryan Braun and making an argument for or against one being a better hitter than the other.

 

At one point defense wasn't quantifiable so some people just wrote it off as not that significant. That turned out to be not true. Just because something isn't easily quantified doesn't mean it's nonexistent. What are we supposed to do you do when comparing two players with similar metrics? We could just say they are the same but you just said where they are close the flaws in the measurements can move things around a little bit. Isn't that pretty much what I've been saying all along? I'm perfectly fine with using those measures to narrow in on the player's value then go onto breaking them down to dissect the differences. I am less so when used to say things like two guys are the same for any circumstance even though they have vastly different skill sets. Same when metrically useless players appear to have value to me. Granted less so than when comparing between players but still somewhat so.

 

but they are pretty good for judging broad strokes like you are doing with something like wOBA.

 

But that doesn't seem to be the way it has being used. It seems like it is being used as the tell all end all of the discussion. It seems like someone gives the wOBA and that is that end of discussion. Anyone who dares say it's not a complete picture gets hammered or told they don't understand it. While the stat is great the use of it is sometimes less so.

[Ennder]

Neither a .500 hitter nor a 120 HR hitter are very likely, but it would seem on the surface that the guy who hit 125 HR would be more valueable

 

I look at those two and instantly think the .500 hitter is way better, so I disagree that on the surface the HR guy is better.

 

http://www.insidethebook....oes_17obpslg_make_sense/

 

There is one explanation of the difference in values but again I don't have an issue if someone disagrees with 1.7, my point was if someone thinks the relationship is 1:1 they are wrong and there isn't really any use arguing it. If you have qualms with how much more important OBP is that is one thing, but it is pretty clearly more valuable.

[RockCoCougars]

"Dunn's and Mauer's 2010 performances are a perfect example of how poor baseball fans can be at judging the relative value of some types of players."

 

Not to get off too off topic here, but I thought that Adam Dunn was a perfect replacement for Fielder because of his sabermetrics? Aren't strikeouts and low batting average meaningless? (not to mention age, huge frame and potential fielding liabilities) At best, Adam Dunn is going to be a post-1980 Dave Kingman for the White Sox.

[sveumrules]

Using run values of 0.90 for a single and 1.95 for a HR from the Book entry on wOBA produces a .450 mark for 300 singles and .390 for 120 home runs over 600 plate appearances.

So, over the course of baseball history it would appear that the 180 extra times the theoretical .500 hitter doesn't make an out are more valuable over the course of 600 plate appearances than the extra 180 total bases the 120 HR would accumulate.

Also, strikeouts & batting average are certainly not meaningless it is just that the casual fan places far more value on them than history has proven them to be worth.

[TheCrew]

No but an opinion with at least a little bit of evidence behind it would be nice for once. And not he is doing something over a one month sample type of evidence. Every discussion does need to start with a baseline though, if someone for example thinks SLG is exactly as important as OBP it isn't a matter of discussion because they are simply wrong. It can be subjective as to how much OBP is more important than SLG though.

Looking back, I probably took you too literally at times but with that said, your the one that is trying to make the claim that Punto is as good as Betancourt offensively. You need to provide the proof that is the case, saying that they are equal because they have similar wOBA's is just cherry picking a stat to fit an argument in my honest opinion. We have vasts amounts of other data available to compare the 2 players, why do we need to limit the comparison to a single stat?

 

Also, can I ask why you keep banging the Punto drum? The guy just got put on the DL for the 2nd time this season and hasn't exactly been effective when he is on the field................ and the last time he logged significant innings at SS, his advanced stats were good but not great. It would be one thing if he were outperforming him, and it might even be worth discussing if he were healthy - but 2 DL stints at a the 1/4 mark isn't a good sign and had he been signed to play SS, we would be in a far worse spot than we are now with Counsell manning the spot and whatever else we could find to back him up.

[Ennder]

I am not banging a Punto drum, I'm pretty sure I said that Punto is more of a utility infielder than a starter. But Punto is as good a hitter as Betancourt, he is more OBP and less SLG and the rest of their skillset is pretty close to each other. I don't really see any reason to think Betancourt is a better hitter at this point. They are both just really bad hitters.

 

I am less so when used to say things like two guys are the same for any circumstance even though they have vastly different skill sets. Same when metrically useless players appear to have value to me. Granted less so than when comparing between players but still somewhat so.

 

There is a difference between two guys with a wOBA range of like 10-15 points being discussed and ones who have much wider ranges though. No amount of hidden factors can turn someone like Betancourt into a good player. I guess I fail to see what you are really saying. When two players are really close in base skills like xFIP or wOBA you can certainly discuss which one is better but you have to always keep in mind the differences are going to be very very small. If there is a big gap in the basic skills you can't really make that up with the little things. My post was more a response to the statement that there was no way Ortiz was as good as Fielder or Braun last year, the differences between them are going to be pretty small. Ortiz had a good offensive year last year.

[strawbossisevil]

Betancourt will likely be better offensively going forward, considering he is in his prime, whereas Punto is at the point of his career where is likely to regress.

[cwolf2012]

"Aren't strikeouts and low batting average meaningless?"

 

No. A strikeout is worth slightly less than an out made on a ball in play. Low batting average only matters if you don't take enough walks to get your OBP high and you don't hit for a lot of power. Both of those things are things Dunn does well. Strictly with his bat, yes, Dunn is a decent replacement for Fielder.

 

Prince is not a great defender, but he's at least adequate. Dunn is not.

[Thurston Fluff]

There is a difference between two guys with a wOBA range of like 10-15 points being discussed and ones who have much wider ranges though. No amount of hidden factors can turn someone like Betancourt into a good player.

 

No but they may be able to show teh other options we had are not really better. Cruz is not very good in AAA even after repeating AAA let alone the majors, Punto may be as good offensively and better defensively but he has a history of not staying healthy. Same as Hardy. I don't remember off the top of my head the other legit options but I think overall using one stat to argue those types of players would have been better options is the issue some of us have.