Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
A lot of the new baseball metrics are overcomplicated garbage

Conceived by statnerds so they can say "Look how smart I am!!"

Most probably don't even understand baseball.   Plenty of HBD players are clueless to actual baseball but they can work numbers.

I'm a stat guy and I've created a reasonably simple, but all inclusive stat that bases itself around what players do/produce and can control, so H, TB, SB, CS, BB, HBP, and K...yes it's a solely offensive analysis but I would argue more/as solid as anything out there currently...everything isn't a regressive this that or the other.

But you don't use any rate stats, and H and TB have a significant overlap. What role do K's play in in your formula? Are K's somehow worse than other outs?

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous

In this specific case, it doesn't matter. CF and 3B get the same positional adjustment when WAR is calculated.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that Trout was significantly more valuable in the field than Cabrera. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous

In this specific case, it doesn't matter. CF and 3B get the same positional adjustment when WAR is calculated.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that Trout was significantly more valuable in the field than Cabrera. 

Uh, yeah, it does matter.  If you have a problem with the formula, you have a problem with the formula.  

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2012 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
When the AM evolve into something where they can explain the use of "3.4", I'll pay more attention to them.

I don't need WAR to know that both Trout and Cabrera had fantastic seasons.    WAR is a nice little stat that one can use to compare players but it's simply not the be all to end all.   A CF putting up 30 homers and 49 SB while hitting .326 is pretty damn good.  Striking out once every 4.5 PA is not.    Of course, that could lead to the ol' "An out is an out.  Strikeouts are no worse than fly outs" argument.   But, for me, nothing positive happens when you walk back to the dugout with your bat in your hand.

Cabrera grounded into 28 DP's where Trout only grounded into 7.

Double plays (a.k.a "rally killers") are far more damaging to offensive innings than are strikeouts.

DP can be assigned the same value as RBI.    Neither happen when no one is on base(excluding homers).

Of course, with Trout striking out so much, he sure has less chances to hit into a DP.

To say that Trout was "significantly" more valuable in the field than Cabby is just plain wrong. Cabby wasn't Brooks Robinson but he was top 5 in fielding pct. and played significantly more innings than anyone else at 3rd. And, contrary to what MikeT will chime in with next, Cabby was very good at 3rd this year. You can argue all you want but as far as "most valuable"...the Tigers are NOWHERE without Cabby and the Angels still wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Trout had a great season, but Cabby was just better, plain and simple.

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Agreed MikeT...the arbitrary designations for the different positions are rather ridiculous

And they aren't arbitrary.

From baseball reference:

Rpos, Positional Adjustment Runs

If you take a quick look at the batting performance by defensive position, you'll quickly see that teams are willing to sacrifice offense at "defensive" positions (stats are prorated to 650 plate appearances).

Split	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
as C	165	650	582	64	142	28	1	17	70	3	2	54	126	.245	.313	.389	.703	226	14	5	4	4	5	5	.282	95	100
as 1B	152	650	575	75	155	32	1	22	85	3	1	63	121	.271	.345	.452	.797	259	15	5	0	5	7	5	.305	121	100
as 2B	151	649	586	75	152	29	4	12	62	13	4	47	103	.260	.320	.389	.709	228	11	6	5	4	2	6	.294	97	100
as 3B	155	649	583	69	147	31	2	14	71	7	3	52	111	.252	.317	.390	.707	227	14	5	3	5	4	7	.287	96	100
as SS	152	650	590	73	155	28	3	10	60	15	6	44	98	.263	.317	.380	.697	224	11	4	6	4	2	7	.298	94	100
as LF	152	649	585	75	149	29	3	17	70	14	5	52	124	.255	.320	.408	.728	238	10	5	2	4	3	6	.295	102	100
as CF	148	650	583	84	152	29	6	14	62	25	8	52	124	.261	.326	.410	.735	238	9	5	5	3	2	7	.307	104	100
as RF	152	650	578	78	155	31	3	20	75	11	4	59	123	.269	.341	.441	.782	254	11	6	1	4	5	5	.308	117	100
as DH	151	650	578	74	151	31	1	20	84	6	2	62	120	.263	.337	.427	.764	247	15	4	0	4	5	6	.298	112	100
as P	283	649	556	29	78	12	0	3	31	3	1	21	213	.141	.175	.182	.357	101	6	1	69	0	0	5	.221	0	100

When one quantifies these differences and also looks at the changes in fielding performance when players move to different positions we can estimate the average differences between positions.

Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are:

1. C: +10 runs
2. SS: +7.5 runs
3. 2B: +3 runs
4. CF: +2.5 runs
5. 3b: +2 runs
6. RF: -7.5 runs
7. LF: -7.5 runs
8. 1B: -10 runs
9. DH: -15 runs
10. P: see Pitcher Positional Adjustment

Since fielding performances change over time, these values will vary as you travel back in time. For example, first basemen in the early 1900's through the 1940's were required to be better fielders than they are today. They were still the worst fielders on the infield, but the position had more of a defensive focus then than the corner outfield positions did.

To compute a player's Positional adjustment Runs, we add together for each non-pitching position: Position multiplier (from above) × innings played at position / 1,350 Innings. For players who are only pitchers this is Pitcher Positional Adjustment (from below) × (PA/4) / 150.

Games played are used for seasons where we lack innings played data.

Here are the adjustments made year-by-year.

 

year_ID	runs_p	runs_c	runs_1b	runs_2b	runs_3b	runs_ss	runs_lf	runs_cf	runs_rf	runs_dh
1871	20.7	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1872	-7.8	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1873	28.7	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1874	16.2	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1875	10.8	10	0	2.5	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1876	-1.2	10	0	2.5	5	10	-10	-8	-10	-15
1877	7.3	10	0	2.5	5	10	-10	-8	-9.5	-15
1878	23.5	10	0	2.5	5	10	-10	-8	-9.5	-15
1879	38.6	10	0	2.5	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9.5	-15
1880	13.8	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9.5	-15
1881	17.9	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9.5	-15
1882	41.2	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9.5	-15
1883	31	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1884	33.6	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1885	25.1	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1886	33.8	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1887	56.3	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1888	36.7	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1889	55.4	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1890	47.9	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1891	42.9	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1892	35.9	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1893	31.4	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-9	-15
1894	45	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1895	29	10	0	3	5	10	-9.5	-8	-9	-15
1896	32.9	10	0	3	5	10	-10	-8	-9	-15
1897	35.1	10	-0.5	2.5	5	10	-9.5	-7.5	-9	-15
1898	30.9	10	-1.5	2	5	10	-9	-7	-9	-15
1899	38	10	-2	1.5	5	10	-9	-6.5	-9	-15
1900	37.8	10	-2.5	1.5	5	10	-8.5	-6	-8.5	-15
1901	35.7	10	-3.5	1	5	10	-8	-5	-8.5	-15
1902	33.2	10	-4	0.5	5	10	-8	-4.5	-8	-15
1903	38.3	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1904	25.3	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1905	31.5	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1906	25.2	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1907	26.8	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1908	24	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1909	31.6	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1910	26.9	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1911	39.5	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1912	33.8	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1913	35.8	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1914	40.1	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1915	31.5	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1916	29.1	10	-5	0	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1917	26.3	9	-5.5	0.5	5	10	-8	-4	-8	-15
1918	24.3	8.5	-5.5	1.5	5	10	-7.5	-4	-7.5	-15
1919	29.3	7.5	-6	2	5	10	-7.5	-4	-7.5	-15
1920	28.2	7	-6	3	5	10	-7.5	-4	-7.5	-15
1921	38.1	6.5	-6.5	3.5	5	10	-7	-4	-7.5	-15
1922	43.9	5.5	-6.5	4.5	5	10	-7	-4	-7	-15
1923	39.3	5	-7	5	5	10	-7	-4	-7	-15
1924	35.6	5	-7	5	5	10	-7	-4	-7	-15
1925	47.2	5	-7	5	5	10	-7	-4	-7	-15
1926	41.7	5	-7	5	5	10	-7	-4	-7	-15
1927	42.5	5	-7	5	4.5	10	-7	-3.5	-7	-15
1928	45.9	5	-7	5	4.5	10	-7	-3.5	-7	-15
1929	50.9	5	-7	5	4	10	-7	-3	-7	-15
1930	45.3	5	-7	5	4	10	-7	-3	-7	-15
1931	44.9	5	-7	5	3.5	10	-7	-2.5	-7	-15
1932	46.1	5	-7	5	3	10	-7	-2.5	-7	-15
1933	41.7	5	-7	5	3	10	-7	-2	-7	-15
1934	49.3	5	-7	5	3	10	-7	-2	-7	-15
1935	43.9	5	-7	5	3	10	-7	-2	-7	-15
1936	51.4	5	-7	5	3	10	-7	-2	-7	-15
1937	50.5	5	-7	5.5	2.5	10	-7	-2	-7	-15
1938	50.6	5	-7	5.5	2	10	-7	-1.5	-7	-15
1939	48.6	5	-7	6	1.5	10	-7	-1.5	-7	-15
1940	48.9	5	-7	6	1.5	10	-7	-1.5	-7	-15
1941	48.1	5	-7	6.5	1	10	-7	-1.5	-7	-15
1942	44.4	5	-7	6.5	0.5	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1943	35.9	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1944	40.4	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1945	37.8	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1946	41.6	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1947	48.6	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1948	46.1	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1949	47.4	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1950	52.4	5	-7	7	0	10	-7	-1	-7	-15
1951	40.9	5	-7	6.5	0	9.5	-7	-1	-7	-15
1952	48.2	5	-7	6.5	0	9.5	-7	-1	-7	-15
1953	47.4	5.5	-7	6.5	0.5	9.5	-7	-1	-7	-15
1954	51	6	-7.5	6	0.5	9	-7	-1	-7	-15
1955	40.3	6.5	-7.5	5.5	0.5	9	-7	-1	-7	-15
1956	46.3	7	-8	5.5	1	9	-7	-1	-7	-15
1957	46.4	7.5	-8.5	5	1.5	9	-7	-1	-7	-15
1958	47.6	8	-8.5	5	2	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1959	49.2	8.5	-9	4.5	2.5	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1960	47	8.5	-9	4.5	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1961	50.5	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1962	53	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1963	46.7	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1964	50	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1965	50.2	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1966	44.9	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1967	46.2	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1968	40.8	8.5	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1969	50.4	9	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1970	52.8	9	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1971	44	9	-9	4	3	9	-8	-1	-7	-15
1972	40.5	9	-9	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1973	48.6	9	-9	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1974	40.4	9	-9	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1975	47.1	9	-9	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1976	44.3	9	-9	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1977	52.7	9	-9.5	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1978	51.6	9	-9.5	4	3	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1979	57.3	9	-9.5	4	2.5	9	-7.5	-1	-7	-15
1980	50.7	9	-9.5	4	2	9	-7	-1	-7	-15
1981	45.8	9	-9.5	4	2	8.5	-7	-0.5	-7	-15
1982	52.1	9	-9.5	4	1.5	8.5	-7	-0.5	-7	-15
1983	54.3	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0	-7	-15
1984	53.5	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0	-7	-15
1985	51.6	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0	-7	-15
1986	59.1	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0	-7	-15
1987	66.2	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0.5	-7	-15
1988	55.2	8.5	-9.5	4	1	8.5	-7	0.5	-7	-15
1989	50.4	8.5	-9.5	3.5	1	8.5	-7	1	-7	-15
1990	60.2	8.5	-9.5	3	1	8.5	-7	1.5	-7	-15
1991	56.1	8.5	-9.5	3	1	8.5	-7	1.5	-7	-15
1992	57.2	8.5	-9.5	3	1	8.5	-7	2	-7	-15
1993	63.7	8.5	-9.5	3	1	8.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1994	70.5	8.5	-9.5	3	1	8.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1995	64.4	8.5	-9.5	3	1.5	8.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1996	68.4	8.5	-9.5	3	1.5	8.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1997	71.1	8.5	-9.5	3	1.5	8.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1998	67.4	8.5	-9.5	3	1.5	8	-7	2.5	-7	-15
1999	71.2	8.5	-9.5	3	1.5	8	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2000	73.7	8.5	-9.5	3	2	8	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2001	68.4	8.5	-9.5	3	2	7.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2002	64.5	8.5	-9.5	3	2	7.5	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2003	66.9	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2004	70.7	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2005	65.1	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2006	76	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2007	70.1	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2008	67.2	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2009	69.2	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2010	63	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2011	59.4	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15
2012	NULL	9	-9.5	3	2	7	-7	2.5	-7	-15

 

It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half

"we can estimate the average differences"


Yawn.....not interested in your estimations. 

"we can estimate the average differences"


Yawn.....not interested in your estimations. 

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half

Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.

Hey, bald facerocker, I've been arguing for Cabrera.   Don't put words in my mouth.

Although, to be fair, only one 3B got hit in the FACE with a ball this season.  Probably should give the MVP to Trout on that alone.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half

Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.

It's a lot simpler than this run business...an extra half an out, kind of a penalty for not putting the ball in play...do you think these statgeeks got paid for creating their stats...just curious

Posted by rsp777 on 11/16/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):
To say that Trout was "significantly" more valuable in the field than Cabby is just plain wrong. Cabby wasn't Brooks Robinson but he was top 5 in fielding pct. and played significantly more innings than anyone else at 3rd. And, contrary to what MikeT will chime in with next, Cabby was very good at 3rd this year. You can argue all you want but as far as "most valuable"...the Tigers are NOWHERE without Cabby and the Angels still wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Trout had a great season, but Cabby was just better, plain and simple.

Defense is a lot more than fielding percentage. Kevin Kouzmanoff lead 3B in fielding percentage one year and he was horrible at defense.

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 11/16/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
It is an average, not just a raw number, I don't know it off the top of my head, perhaps when I get home....I think I have Ks valued at half

Half a run or...?

I'm not trying to hammer you on this, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the formula.

It's a lot simpler than this run business...an extra half an out, kind of a penalty for not putting the ball in play...do you think these statgeeks got paid for creating their stats...just curious

What? That's nuts. An extra half an out for a strikeout?