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

[monty57]

This thread makes me think of the game "Would you rather..." where you get two really bad options and have to decide which you'd rather do. Would you rather eat a scab-filled sandwich or a dead mouse you found in the cupboard? Which one is Yuni and which is Punto? Neither is a good option for an everyday SS.

 

Since there weren't really any better options out there, I can't be too upset that Melvin went with the scab-filled sandwich. I do wish we had some kind of a "Plan B," and I hope something better comes along at trade deadline.

[Ennder]

A strikeout is worth slightly less than an out made on a ball in play

 

But keep in mind it is very slightly. It takes something like 100 strikeouts to cost your team 1 run on average.

 

A ball in play is much more valuable than a strike out, that is why strike outs in general are bad for hitters and good for pitchers. A strike out itself isn't really much less valuable than any other out though. So if you are looking just at results the strike outs aren't going to change the value of players very much. A .800 OPS guy with 200 K isn't going to be less valuable than a .750 OPS guy with 0 Ks. However if a 200 K guy could reduce his strike outs while keeping everything else the same he would become more valuable because he'd put more balls in play and some of them would be good results and not just outs.

[TheCrew]

Yes, but nothing good can come from a strike out, absolutely nothing. So when a guy strikes out 35% of the time (dunn), over 1 in 3 of his bats have absolutely zero value other than eating up pitches.

 

Anything can happen when a batter puts a ball in play, even outs can have a positive value - Doesn't one of the sites have a stat for % of productive at bats?

[Ennder]

Yes, but nothing good can come from a strike out, absolutely nothing. So when a guy strikes out 35% of the time (dunn), over 1 in 3 of his bats have absolutely zero value other than eating up pitches.

 

Anything can happen when a batter puts a ball in play, even outs can have a positive value - Doesn't one of the sites have a stat for % of productive at bats?

Yeah but on average putting a ball in play for an out with a runner on 1st base is worse than just striking out. So when you combine a runner on 1st, bases empty and ABs with 2 outs you end up with a large majority of ABs not favoring other outs. The actual linear weights for K and other outs are very close overall.

 

As for Dunn the fact he strikes out a lot is already factored in his slash stats, it more or less directly lowers his AVG which lowers his OBP and his SLG. The strike outs don't count double here. If you compare Dunn to another player with the exact same slash stats his extra strike outs end up costing his value very little, likely the in order of just 1 or 2 runs over a full season.

[fondybrewfan]

Watching Yuni is just getting more depressing by the day. Even if we keep winning Doug can't possibly keep a SS with an OPS of 600 can he? I really wish we had atleast a semi legitimate SS at AAA right now. Even then its not like Maysonet has been terrible; he can't possibly be worse than Yuni can he?

[rluzinski]

Yes, but nothing good can come from a strike out, absolutely nothing. So when a guy strikes out 35% of the time (dunn), over 1 in 3 of his bats have absolutely zero value other than eating up pitches.

 

Anything can happen when a batter puts a ball in play, even outs can have a positive value - Doesn't one of the sites have a stat for % of productive at bats?

See, this is exactly the issue. Your argument is fatally flawed. You are comparing a strikeout vs. a ball-in-play with an unknown outcome. wOBA already KNOWS the outcome of every AB. It's already capturing whatever advantage the contact hitter enjoys over the power hitter who strikes out a lot.

If we are trying to project the value of prospects, K rate is very important. If we are trying to compare the value of two batting lines, K rate is largely irrelevant.

 

[TheCrew]

See, this is exactly the issue. Your argument is fatally flawed. You are comparing a strikeout vs. a ball-in-play with an unknown outcome. wOBA already KNOWS the outcome of every AB. It's already capturing whatever advantage the contact hitter enjoys over the power hitter who strikes out a lot.

If we are trying to project the value of prospects, K rate is very important. If we are trying to compare the value of two batting lines, K rate is largely irrelevant.

 

I get it, your a big wOBA fan, but I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about wOBA anymore but rather the value of a K vs a ball in play for an out.

 

Yes, from a past perspective you can look at stats that determine such things - but the problem is, too many people get caught up with these advanced statistics and forget the simple fundamentals. Putting the ball in play gives you a chance to score runs, regardless of the situation - striking out does not. Anyone good enough at math knows that you can get numbers to say pretty much whatever you want them to.

 

On the bolded part: Does wOBA take into account productive outs? If the answer is no, then wOBA does not take into account every advantage a contact hitter has.

 

Really at this point it's coming down to what you value you more - a high k/HR guy or low k/avg guy. Probably best to just agree to disagree at this point as we are probably never going to see eye to eye on this.

[1992casey]

This has nothing to do with being a WBA fan. Numerous studies have shown that when everything is totaled, the difference between strikeouts and other outs amounts to very little, so little that a cumulative stat doesn't need to consider it.

 

In specific game situations, the difference between strikeouts and other outs varies. In some cases, a K is more harmful than a contact out; in other cases, the contact out is more harmful than the K; and yet in other cases, the harm done by each type of out is the same. If a manager is looking at whom to pinch hit and the prospect of a strikeout matters, he'd choose accordingly. This may be the case when a team is playing for one run late in the game.

 

Most of the situations that end up being called "productive outs" aren't productive at all. ESPN offered a productive out stat a few years ago. They pulled it back when it was discovered that the teams who led in so-called "productive outs" scored the fewest runs and lost the most games.

 

Out of the 24 base-out states¹, I believe two of them actually leave the team better off when a runner is advanced on an out. A couple of others are more or less neutral. The rest leave the team less likely to score than before the "productive out" occurred. In short, the negative effect of the out significantly outweighs the positive effect of advancing the baserunner.

 

------------------------------------

1. Examples of base-out states would be no runners on base, nobody out; runner on first, one out; runners on first and second, two out; etc.

[Ennder]

TheCrew, you are completely missing the point of his post with your reply. A ball in play is better than a strike out, nobody is going to disagree with you. But when you are looking at the results a ball in play that results in an out is not significantly better than a strike out over a full season. In a very small subset of situations it is more valuable but those situations comprise such a small portion of a full year of ABs that in the end there is barely a difference. Between the times you come up with 2 outs or nobody on and the times you come up with a runner on 1st (where a K is more valuable than a ball in play out) you end up not gaining a lot of value from not striking out. It has nothing at all to do with wOBA and it has nothing at all to do with stats vs fundamentals, the stats include the fundamentals already.

 

So yes a player who never strikes out is great because he is putting the ball in play and getting results from it, but if his results aren't better than a guy who strikes out a ton then he still isn't a better player.

[Funketown]

Anyone good enough at math knows that you can get numbers to say pretty much whatever you want them to.

You can bend numbers and mine data all you want, but anyone with half an education in statistics will see through it.

 

Any way you twist the numbers though, you'll find that strikeouts are only slightly worse than regular, ball in play outs.

[Oxy]

Somewhat lost in this discussion is the advantages of having a bench that is versatile enough to be able to use different players and their different strengths to pinch hit in certain situations when making contact is very important or in situations where a 3TO player is advantageous. Over the course of a season, wOBA does a very good job of determining who should be getting the most time overall and who should be starting and getting the most at bats because before the game starts you can't predict what situation a player will be hitting in. However, your bench is different. A manager does control when he gets to use a pinch hitter or pinch runner, thus some of the variables can be controlled. Almost by definition, all bench players are going to have deficiencies in their game, but the idea is to have enough versatility in your bench to be able to pick and shoose the right situations in order to hide their weaknesses and maximize their strengths.

[monty57]

ESPN offered a productive out stat a few years ago. They pulled it back when it was discovered that the teams who led in so-called "productive outs" scored the fewest runs and lost the most games.

 

There is probably a lot of other proof, but this doesn't prove anything as there isn't really a direct correlation to total runs scored by a team and who has the most "productive outs." First, the difference in numbers between the team with the most and least "productive outs" is probably minimal. Second, the teams with the most "productive outs" probably have them because the manager knows they have a terrible offense and have to do anything possible to score a run, as opposed to a team with players up & down the lineup who are capable of producing offense, which can score loads of runs without utilizing any "productive outs." Finally, the teams with the most bunts would obviously be NL teams, as the pitchers hit. NL teams naturally score less than AL teams because of this, so of course most of the teams with the most bunts would be the ones who score the least. Using only this line of reasoning, it would be safe to assume that moving from the AL to the NL causes a player to become worse, because their new team scores less runs. This obviously isn't logical, so the ESPN arguement doesn't really hold water.

 

I don't study the SABR models like many here do, but from the little research I've done it appears most are certainly macro models. As far as "productive outs," I think you need to look micro in addition to macro, as things like who the batter, pitcher and baserunner are, and the game situation make "playing for a productive out" more or less desireable. If every player on the field were exactly average, and every situation was the same, then the numbers should add up the way the macro charts show. However, I'd argue that it is almost never a good idea for someone like Prince to bunt, but none out, runner on 2B with a .200 OBP guy up in a tie game in the bottom of the 10th, and the other team's All Star closer on the mound, and I'd say it's probably wise to bunt.

 

Another thing that's always concerned me with the Run Probability charts (since they are used to determine if "productive outs" are indeed productive) is that they appear to compare stats against themselves. In other words, if a runner is on 1B with no outs, and he is moved to 2B with a bunt, and then he goes on to score, this will be seen as a runner scoring from 1B with no outs and a runner scoring from 2B with one out. The positive effect would then be negated, since it is counted in both numbers. Again, I haven't studied these much, so if I'm incorrect in this, please let me know.

[Ennder]

As far as "productive outs," I think you need to look micro in addition to macro, as things like who the batter, pitcher and baserunner are, and the game situation make "playing for a productive out" more or less desireable

 

This is definitely true. That is why i keep adding on average or for an entire season to everything. If you are using say Kotsay to only pinch hit with runners in scoring position so he is getting a lot of chances to advance runners even on outs etc then the lack of Ks means a lot more. If Gomez is on they mean more than if Fielder is on as well etc. But when you are looking at a full seasons of data you can't really look at the micro level. Over a full season of AB the fact Betancourt strikes out a lot less than another SS isn't going to mean much because the number of times where it actually does mean something is so much smaller than the overall chances.

[rluzinski]

"I get it, your a big wOBA fan, but I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about wOBA anymore but rather the value of a K vs a ball in play for an out."

You criticized wOBA because it doesn't take into account K rate. I am pointing out why that is an invalid criticism. Same goes for productive outs. The fact is, wOBA will take into account anything that is tied to the skill of a batter and has value (in terms of runs created). For instance, it takes into account RBOE (reached base on error) because studies have found a meaningful correlation between the speed of a batter and error rates. Reaching base is a skill and has real value, so it is accounted for. K rate is a skill but because its value is basically equal to a ball-in-play out, they are all just considered outs. There are times when a productive out can win a game but the average productive out reduces run production AND win probability. This stuff is not being ignored as a result of ignorance or spite.

Also, keep in mind that that wOBA is context neutral stat. It does not take into account what the state of the game was at the time of production by design. If you want to know the actual impact of the production in terms of winning games, you can use WPA or WPA/LI (both can be found at Fangraphs.com).

[TheCrew]

You criticized wOBA because it doesn't take into account K rate. I am pointing out why that is an invalid criticism. Same goes for productive outs. The fact is, wOBA will take into account anything that is tied to the skill of a batter and has value (in terms of runs created). For instance, it takes into account RBOE (reached base on error) because studies have found a meaningful correlation between the speed of a batter and error rates. Reaching base is a skill and has real value, so it is accounted for. K rate is a skill but because its value is basically equal to a ball-in-play out, they are all just considered outs. There are times when a productive out can win a game but the average productive out reduces run production AND win probability. This stuff is not being ignored as a result of ignorance or spite.

Also, keep in mind that that wOBA is context neutral stat. It does not take into account what the state of the game was at the time of production by design. If you want to know the actual impact of the production in terms of winning games, you can use WPA or WPA/LI (both can be found at Fangraphs.com).

K rate was the tip of the iceberg - and it is not invalid, hardball times recently did an article about incorporating k rate into wOBA - besides that, there are other issues with wOBA. Don't get my wrong, overall it is a good tool when evaluating players but bottom line is wOBA is not all encompassing and I'll stick to my original point, there is no reason to use a single stat when comparing 2 players when we don't have to............. that's all I've really been trying to say.

[rluzinski]

"K rate was the tip of the iceberg - and it is not invalid, hardball times recently did an article about incorporating k rate into wOBA "

 

You mean this one:

 

"As you'll see here, the difference is incredibly small. So really, it's not a big deal to ignore strikeouts when using a context-neutral method like linear weights and wOBA. But it can be done. When all is said and done, we're talking about a run or two of difference."

 

http://www.hardballtimes....ain/blog_set/2011/04/23/

 

It's a blog post, where the guy wanted basically to see how small the K rate component was. There are probably half a dozen other things you could include into wOBA if you wanted to (and nothing is stopping anyone from adding them). It's not a "flaw" that they are omitted in the original incarnation of wOBA; it was a conscious decision by its creator.

 

"Don't get my wrong, overall it is a good tool when evaluating players but bottom line is wOBA is not all encompassing and I'll stick to my original point, there is no reason to use a single stat when comparing 2 players when we don't have to"

 

There is a GREAT reason to. Brevity. You can save a lot of time and still get a darn good feel for what player is more valuable offensively.

[TheCrew]

The point is there is a difference, how about the fact wOBA doesn't take into account park factors, or speed in general (one reason why I specifically mentioned Braun and Ortiz earlier) - the stat has it's flaws.

 

Brevity? Based on the length of some of the posts and the fact this has back and forth has been drawn out so long............... well, I'm sure you see what I'm driving at. Just a difference of opinion on evaluating players - I don't like using a single stat to compare 2 players under any circumstances unless I'm forced to.

 

Also, just an FYI - fangraphs wOBA does not include rboe, I only mentioned this because you specifically mentioned rboe within woba.

[rluzinski]

Another thing that's always concerned me with the Run Probability charts (since they are used to determine if "productive outs" are indeed productive) is that they appear to compare stats against themselves. In other words, if a runner is on 1B with no outs, and he is moved to 2B with a bunt, and then he goes on to score, this will be seen as a runner scoring from 1B with no outs and a runner scoring from 2B with one out. The positive effect would then be negated, since it is counted in both numbers. Again, I haven't studied these much, so if I'm incorrect in this, please let me know.

The "1B/0 outs" state includes any subsequent "2B/1 out" situations but not the other way around (can get any base state at any time but cant subtract outs). This gives us the average runs scored after reaching a particular base/out state:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

(1) 1B/0 out: .95 runs

(2) 2B/1 out: .73 runs

When talking about a straight sacrifice attempt, the fact that some managers choose base/state (2) after being in base/state (1) only serves to bring DOWN the average runs scored in 1.

Studies suggest that a straight sacrifice bunt should only be attempted by pitchers and I believe even a 1 out sacrifice attempt has questionable value.

Of course, that doesn't mean a batter should never attempt a generic bunt. There are a number of base/states beyond (2) above that can result from a bunt:

(3) 1B/1 out (runner out at second)

(4) Empty/2 out (double play)

(5) 1B,2B/0 out (bunt hit or error)

(6) 3B.2B/0 out (ball thrown away on out attempt)

If a bunter is good enough, he can make (5) and (6) occur often enough to make the bunt attempt a good choice. And just the threat of a bunt might force the defense to align sub-optimally for a non-bunt attempt.

It can all get very complicated but a manager has to have SOME idea about all of this before he can make an educated decision.

[monty57]

When talking about a straight sacrifice attempt, the fact that some managers choose base/state (2) after being in base/state (1) only serves to bring DOWN the average runs scored in 1.

 

Okay, that makes sense. When taken in aggregate, there probably aren't enough "runner on 1b w/ 0 out" bunts to skew the stats in the way that I was referring, and it would not work (i.e. the runner doesn't score, so it's a negative on both) enough so the negatives would likely offset the positives. Thanks.

[topper09er]

(1) 1B/0 out: .95 runs

(2) 2B/1 out: .73 runs

When talking about a straight sacrifice attempt, the fact that some managers choose base/state (2) after being in base/state (1) only serves to bring DOWN the average runs scored in 1.

You are making a big mistake with this analysis, yes the AVERAGE runs scored decreases, but the chances for scoring 1 run increases. This is usually the goal of bunting anyways, except with pitchers who will bunt pretty much regardless of the score (at least early).

 

Chance of scoring exactly 1 run:

R1 0 out: .176

R2 1 out: .230

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

 

So yes bunting is a bad idea to increase the total amount of runs you will score, on average, but it is a good idea if you are specifically trying to score 1 run, increasing your chances of scoring the 1 run from ~1/6 attempts to ~1/4 attempts.

 

Another interesting thing from this chart is you have the same chances of scoring 2 runs with R2, R3 1 out (.218) as you have of scoring 1 run with R1, R2 0 out (.219). I would take 2 runs in just about any inning and be happy with it (unless late and way behind obviously) so I would bunt a lot with R1, R2, 0 out.

 

An important thing to realize is that the reason the average run expectancy always goes down with more outs is because you have less chances to hit HRs which obviously affect scoring the most. Therefore, if the you dont expect the following batters to hit a HR the whole chart really is useless. I have always wanted to see Tango make the run expectancy chart except remove all innings with a HR and then see how it looks. That would be a useful tool if you have Counsell/Kotsay/Gomez due up.

[rluzinski]

You are making a big mistake with this analysis, yes the AVERAGE runs scored decreases, but the chances for scoring 1 run increases.

 

I was asked to comment on run expectancy (average runs scored), so that's what I did. If you want to frame the question around playing for 1 run....

 

Chance of scoring exactly 1 run...

 

Your goal is to score AT LEAST 1 run, not EXACTLY 1 run.

 

Odds of scoring at least 1 run:

1B/0 out: 43.7%

2B/1 out: 40.6%

 

Obviously, that is not the beginning and end of the analysis. Inside The Book has an entire chapter devoted to bunting:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Boo...ks&qid=1306444962&sr=8-1

 

Click on the "look inside" link and search bunt. It's been awhile but I thought they concluded that letting anyone straight sacrifice (defense knows it's coming) other than a pitcher is generally a bad idea. They also concluded that attempting to bunt for a base hit with a runner at first CAN be a good move.

 

The other thing worth noting is that there really aren't too many options where playing for 1 run is generally the best move. I haven't looked at it closely but I'm pretty sure RR's first inning sacrifices is bad strategy.

[cwolf2012]

"I'm pretty sure RR's first inning sacrifices is bad strategy. "

 

I'm willing to go beyond "pretty sure" with that. They're bad decisions.

[joepepsi]

Earl Weaver knew all this back in the 1970's.

 

If you play for one run, that's all you'll get.

 

Runner at 1B with no outs will score more often than runner at 2B with 1 out.

[Ennder]

There are certainly situations where those run charts don't work very well though. Gomez on 1st with Braun up to bat facing Jeff Suppan is a very different run chart than Fielder at 1st with Betancourt up to bat facing Tim Hudson (about a 99% chance for a K or double play here!).

[rluzinski]

Well of course. The farther you get from an average situation, the less that chart represents your particular situation. The Book DID attempt to look at the more favorable situations for a sac bunt and still found it to be a relatively poor choice. Now if Betancourt tries to bunt when the defense isn't ready and has a shot of a hit, that changes things dramatically.