Jump to content

belcherboy

Trout over Cabrera for MVP; Hernandez over Scherzer for Cy Young; Myers over Iglesia?

Recommended Posts


14 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Curious to see where that line of analysis goes.

god you're snoopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't get me wrong...We are worlds better off now than just dealing with Average, RBI and HR and saying he looks good or bad on defense. But....

Offensive analysis has been very solid the past several years and this improves on it as it was obvious to me that the older models didn't tell all of the story. The true end all of analytics is when AI can be incorporated into video of all AB. Until then, we should not lean TOO heavily on analytics as being the ONLY thing to evaluate a player. Do get me started on defensive metrics...while useful to a degree, it is still in its infancy. Again, this will not be truly useful until AI and video is combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you combine Avila and video? He’s more of an audio guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Why would you combine Avila and video? He’s more of an audio guy. 

LOL ai not  al hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting article.  I have always disliked the BP  (and others)practice of assuming that their latest method is correct and everything else before it was wrong, but new approaches are always good.  

For example, when they developed their new pitching metric, they wrote an article saying sabers were wrong about Morris not belonging in the HoF based on the new stat.  Later they made some adjustments to the stat and I noticed that Morris didn't look as good after the adjustments.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

That is an interesting article.  I have always disliked the BP  (and others)practice of assuming that their latest method is correct and everything else before it was wrong, but new approaches are always good.  

This new metric seems to be well supported based on the data presented in the various articles about it. 

I think the effort to separate results from the causes of the results, and weighting things that a batter controls more heavily, is important. 

It appears to be a substantial step forward. It will be interesting to go back and see how some players have players grade out from previous seasons. 

Castellanos has a 115 from this past season, I think. That’s the best on the team. He had a 130 wRC+ on fangraphs. His previous two wRC+ were 112 and 119. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always like a guy who risks swinging the bat (Miggy) over a guy who works the walk (Votto). I think DRC rewards Miggy for doing that.

I wonder if Lindor and Ramirez get down-graded for going up against the rest of the AL Central 76 times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shelton said:

This new metric seems to be well supported based on the data presented in the various articles about it. 

I think the effort to separate results from the causes of the results, and weighting things that a batter controls more heavily, is important. 

It appears to be a substantial step forward. It will be interesting to go back and see how some players have players grade out from previous seasons. 

Castellanos has a 115 from this past season, I think. That’s the best on the team. He had a 130 wRC+ on fangraphs. His previous two wRC+ were 112 and 119. 

This stat does things that other stats don't do and it appears to be a little more predictive.  Still, stats with so many variables contributing to it have greater chance of things going wrong in a given year for a given player.  For example, it is partly based on quality of pitcher which is a good thing to consider on average.  However, suppose a batter got lucky in a given year and happened to face the best pitchers in their worst games.  He might get unfairly rewarded for that on this stat.  It might be better on average than other stats but not be better for a particular player in a given year.

As far as the MVP debate goes, this stat does not say anything about fielding contribution, so we can't say that the sabers were "wrong" about this stat.  What if they come up with a new fielding stat with more variables which says that the difference between their fielding contributions was better than believed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

This stat does things that other stats don't do and it appears to be a little more predictive.  Still, stats with so many variables contributing to it have greater chance of things going wrong in a given year for a given player.  For example, it is partly based on quality of pitcher which is a good thing to consider on average.  However, suppose a batter got lucky in a given year and happened to face the best pitchers in their worst games.  He might get unfairly rewarded for that on this stat.  It might be better on average than other stats but not be better for a particular player in a given year.

As far as the MVP debate goes, this stat does not say anything about fielding contribution, so we can't say that the sabers were "wrong" about this stat.  What if they come up with a new fielding stat with more variables which says that the difference between their fielding contributions was better than believed? 

I think if they came up with a better fielding stat then the conclusion could change again. 

I like this metric a lot. It’s a shame it is a BP metric, though, because I rarely go there to look up stats. 

I don’t think the quality of pitcher weights are substantial. 

I think one takeaway from the article on trout and Cabrera is that maybe the way a strikeout is treated is handled much differently than before? Everyone likes to say that a strikeout is hardly different than any other out, but from a value and predictive standpoint being able to limit strikeouts as a hitter can still be very valuable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

I think if they came up with a better fielding stat then the conclusion could change again. 

I like this metric a lot. It’s a shame it is a BP metric, though, because I rarely go there to look up stats. 

I don’t think the quality of pitcher weights are substantial. 

I think one takeaway from the article on trout and Cabrera is that maybe the way a strikeout is treated is handled much differently than before? Everyone likes to say that a strikeout is hardly different than any other out, but from a value and predictive standpoint being able to limit strikeouts as a hitter can still be very valuable. 

Yeah, strikeouts are important to consider in predicting the future.  So far, the DRC+ looks like a better predictive stat than others.  I am not yet sure about using it for evaluating the past.  I am definitely going to look at it some more.  

 I really wish BP would get their stat pages together.  I cancelled my subscription because their web site sucks.  They have some good writers, but I am not going to pay big money for an occasional good article.  If I am going to pay for a site, it needs to be consistently better than FanGraphs and B-Ref which it is isn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems obvious to me, but wouldn't the value of not striking out already be accounted for by the fact that, you know, not striking out means you put the ball in play and had more chances to get value providing hits instead of outs? 

Obviously if two players have the same babip and power the guy who strikes out less is better, and existing stats will already show that. 

But many players have made the choice to strike out more in order to improve their power, and in many of those cases striking out more has made them better players. 

Anyway, I suppose this stat could be better at accounting for it, but I often think new stats make a point of accounting for things separately that we've already seen in the whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

This seems obvious to me, but wouldn't the value of not striking out already be accounted for by the fact that, you know, not striking out means you put the ball in play and had more chances to get value providing hits instead of outs? 

Obviously if two players have the same babip and power the guy who strikes out less is better, and existing stats will already show that. 

But many players have made the choice to strike out more in order to improve their power, and in many of those cases striking out more has made them better players. 

Anyway, I suppose this stat could be better at accounting for it, but I often think new stats make a point of accounting for things separately that we've already seen in the whole. 

That is a good point.  I don't know enough about this new stat to know how if it's better at accounting for strikeouts, but, in retrospect, once you make an out, it doesn't really matter whether it was a strikeout or a pop out.  It can matter if it advanced a runner or if you hit into a double play,  but it doesn't matter that you could have gotten a hit.  I think if you are looking at future performance, not striking out is an advantage but it shouldn't influence evaluation of past results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

That is a good point.  I don't know enough about this new stat to know how if it's better at accounting for strikeouts, but, in retrospect, once you make an out, it doesn't really matter whether it was a strikeout or a pop out.  It can matter if it advanced a runner or if you hit into a double play,  but it doesn't matter that you could have gotten a hit.  I think if you are looking at future performance, not striking out is an advantage but it shouldn't influence evaluation of past results.  

I pretty much agree with this. My understanding is that this new stat is more interested in defining a player’s offensive skill level that was displayed, and is less interested in assigning value based on the outcomes of a player’s plate appearances. 

This reminds me of the “stat” I created back during the Austin Jackson babip years that I called ***** (luck adjusted batting index algorithm).

incidently, Ajax had a 79 DRC+ in 2010. 

From an MVP or looking back standpoint, if you are concerned with who produced the best results, then DRC is probably not the best tool to use. But if you are concerned with who was the better player, maybe DRC is better. 

It seems similar to how pitchers are valued. Should it be based on a FIP like measurement or an ERA like measurement?

I don’t think either is right or wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think you suck, pyrotigers. 

But yeah, everyone else probably does suck. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I don’t think you suck, pyrotigers. 

But yeah, everyone else probably does suck. 

☺️ I should of course clarify that the fine posters of MTS are not included in this everyone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,170
    • Total Posts
      2,832,373
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×