A Realistic View at 2018: Part II

[moonslav59]

After that 4 game series, I don't mind the day off. Unfortunately, as expected, the lowly White Sox are losing to the F'ing Yankems.

 

The White Sox just need to stay close until they get to that pen!

[Larry Cook]

The White Sox just need to stay close until they get to that pen!

 

A tale of two sox! The Yankees really needed this game tonight!

[jd98]

So UZR has JBJ ranked 12th. IOW, whatever the hell UZR is wants me to believe that there's 11 better defensive OF's in baseball. I think I'll just trust my lying eyes.

Question; are these rankings strictly based on defense?

 

An important thing to keep in mind is that these stats compare LFs vs LFs, CFs vs CFs, and RFs vs RFs. Teams usually put their best defensive OF in CF, and worst in LF. This means generally JBJ is being compared to the best OFs, while Alex Gordon for example, is being compared to the worst OFs. This really skews the numbers in favor of good defensive OF's who aren't playing CF. (Side note, this stuff gets factored into WAR, so reason #427 why WAR is flawed.) JBJ is only behind Jones and Hamilton on that list among players who are primarily CF, which is a more fair comparison.

[moonslav59]

An important thing to keep in mind is that these stats compare LFs vs LFs, CFs vs CFs, and RFs vs RFs. Teams usually put their best defensive OF in CF, and worst in LF. This means generally JBJ is being compared to the best OFs, while Alex Gordon for example, is being compared to the worst OFs. This really skews the numbers in favor of good defensive OF's who aren't playing CF. (Side note, this stuff gets factored into WAR, so reason #427 why WAR is flawed.) JBJ is only behind Jones and Hamilton on that list among players who are primarily CF, which is a more fair comparison.

 

What list has JBJ 3rd?

[jd98]

What list has JBJ 3rd?

 

The UZR/150 list that you posted where he was 12th, when looking only at the players who were primarily CF

Edited August 7, 2018 by jd98

[moonslav59]

The UZR/150 list that you posted where he was 12th, when looking only at the players who were primarily CF

 

OK, I was wondering where you got a list showing him 3rd.

[a700hitter]

DLew (who is now DFat as in huge if you saw the Alumni game) was a great outfielder, but not the arm of JBJR. Lewis got great jumps on balls. Paul Blair was fantastic and so was Garry Maddox and so was to an extent Ellis Valentine, who had one of the great arms ever. Evans read balls very well and was outstanding in range/arm. However, game in and game out, JBJR is making plays that are simply beyond ESPN highlight reel. He has robbed so many extra base hits, they need to make up a category for that in those "metrics." His speed and knowledge of his craft put him like JD Martinez has been in terms of how he has turned hitting for power into a science (no not Ted Williams science...a real f***ing science!...I always laugh because Teddy Ballgame was Teddy Ballgame, he couldn't transfer his ability to hit for average/power to others. I liked his book but the reality is his vision/strength was off the charts fantastic). Back to JBJR. I have a pretty good recollection of watching many great outfielders, this isn't about today's guys v. yesterday's guys. This is absolute ridiculously greatness as a defender. Ellsbury used to make these great diving catches and I used to think wow he had some range, and then I watch JBJR and think, Ellsbury had no idea how to really field his position. JBJR is the master of anticipation and break. His instincts are just better than everyone.

Teddy Ballgame in his first season as managerif the Washington Senators had several of his players have career seasons offensively. He could teach the science and make hitters better.

[moonslav59]

9 game road trip (3 TOR, 4 BAL & 2 PHI). Just win, baby!

 

After that, it's 24 Home and 16 Away.

[dannycater]

I didn't mean to begrudge the idolization of Teddy. I don't recall the Senators being a great hitting team, but you're right about guys like Frank Howard, Mike Epstein and Ken McMullen, all had good power numbers and Howard 48 HR, 111 RBI. They did win 86 games and TW was Manager of the Year. After that, not so much, but Ted's batting eyes and knowledge of hitting was tremendous. Ted might have been a terrific overall batting coach for many seasons if that's what he chose to do. The overall is he managed a few epic bad teams after that '69 season. Greatest hitter of all time, though.

[Kimmi]

Some hitters, yes. Others, not so much.

 

I'd say having the first baseman holding the runner on the bag and opening a hole in the IF outweighs the batter distraction factor... not to mention other IF'ers who are watching the runner to see if he's running while trying to focus on the pitch and defensive readiness for hit balls.

 

Having any runner on first base gives the batter an advantage due to the defensive alignment. It could be JD on first base, and the batter has a better chance of getting a hit.

 

Here's the interesting thing though. When that runner is a 'distraction' or a high base stealing threat, that advantage to the batter is lessened considerably. Having a speedy runner on first base as opposed to a non-distracting runner on first base actually hurts the batter.

[Kimmi]

The Sox this year have attempted 104 stolen bases and been successful 87 times. That's an 84% success rate. If the break even point is around 70% statistically the Sox should be running MORE. And they're not the only ones:

LAA - 83%

Brewers - 80%

Cleveland - 80%

Baltimore - 78%

Washington - 77%

CWS - 75%

Cincinnati - 74%

Houston - 74%

NYY- 74%

Arizona - 73%

Atlanta - 73%

Minn - 71%

KC - 71%

Texas - 71%

Colorado - 70%

 

Assuming that the 70% success rate is correct then 16 out of the 30 MLB teams - more than half - are at least breaking even on their steals.

 

The problem with statistics in general is that they assume that what happens once will happen again. In the case of stolen bases it's probably safe to assume that if these teams attempted more stolen bases their percentage would go down because they'd be stealing in situations with a higher opportunity to be caught.

 

Here's why you can't say that attempting to steal a base is either good or bad: Like in life, if you're good at something it's a good idea to do it, and if you're not good at it it's a bad idea. However, attempting to steal a base per se is not a bad idea.

 

I am not suggesting that the Sox should not steal bases. All I said is that stolen bases are overrated. If any runner can steal successfully enough to beat the break even point, then that runner should continue stealing bases.

 

Here's a question for you and anyone else. How many games or runs do you think the Sox have added because of all of their base stealing?

 

The answer is, they are +7.8 runs on base stealing, not even one game, and they are the most successful base stealing team in baseball this year. I'm guessing that most people thought it was considerably more than that. Are those +7.8 runs important? Sure. Base stealing is important and definitely has its place in the game. Saying that it's overrated is not saying that it's unimportant.

 

As a side note, Minn, KC, Texas, and Colorado are all in the (slight) negative for base stealing, which suggests the break even point this year is somewhere around 72%.

[Nick]

This team just needs to get everyone healthy, including E Rod.

 

It's really a deep team with additions of Kinsler and Pearce.

 

C Sandy, Swihart

1B Moreland, Pearce

2B Kinsler, Holt

SS Xander

3B Devers, Nunez

DH JD

OF Betts, JBJ, Beni

 

SP Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi, E Rod

CL Kimbrel

RP Barnes, Brasier, Kelly, Thornburg, Hembree, Johnson, Pom, Velazquez

 

Two relievers will need to drop off if we go with 12 pitcher. A starter will be moved to bullpen.

 

I don't want us chasing record books. The team needs to rest its players as it has all year. Set up the pitching rotation for the playoffs. We do want home field advantage throughout the playoffs though. We're different hitting team at home.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Nick

[Kimmi]

It may (or may not) be more beneficial to the batter but having a batter on 2B is certainly more beneficial to the team than having one on 1B.

 

This is a case where it seems obvious that what you say must be true, but you also need to have some stats bear it out. And they do apparently keep stats on this s***, which seems a little crazy, but not really surprising.

 

The stats do bear this out. Of course it's more beneficial to the team in terms of scoring runs to have a runner on 2nd than it is to have a runner on 1st, given the same number of outs.

 

That's not what my point was though. My argument was that the batter has a better chance of getting a hit with a runner on 1st than he does with a runner on 2nd.

[Kimmi]

This team just needs to get everyone healthy, including E Rod.

 

It's really a deep team with additions of Kinsler and Pearce.

 

C Sandy, Swihart

1B Moreland, Pearce

2B Kinsler, Holt

SS Xander

3B Devers, Nunez

DH JD

OF Betts, JBJ, Beni

 

SP Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi, E Rod

CL Kimbrel

RP Barnes, Brasier, Kelly, Thornburg, Hembree, Johnson, Pom, Velazquez

 

Two relievers will need to drop off if we go with 12 pitcher. A starter will be moved to bullpen.

 

I don't want us chasing record books. The team needs to rest its players as it has all year. Set up the pitching rotation for the playoffs. We do want home field advantage throughout the playoffs though. We're different hitting team at home.

 

We should not play to chase any records. Resting players and having them healthy is far more important. If it came down to it, I would not even chase for home field advantage. Resting players and having them healthy is more important.

[S5Dewey]

The stats do bear this out. Of course it's more beneficial to the team in terms of scoring runs to have a runner on 2nd than it is to have a runner on 1st, given the same number of outs.

 

That's not what my point was though. My argument was that the batter has a better chance of getting a hit with a runner on 1st than he does with a runner on 2nd.

 

But there's a better chance of a runner on 2nd scoring on a hit than if that runner is on 1st, and baseball is all about scoring runs.

 

I'm not all about our runners running all willy-nilly out there. There's a time and place for everything, along with a certain risk in trying to steal a base. The Sox are (were) stealing at an 84% rate because they're running smart and situationally.

 

As an aside, when I think about the number of things that can go wrong for each team when a player is trying to steal a base I'm impressed that the percentage of successful steals isn't higher.

There's only one thing that can go wrong for the offense. The player doesn't get there before the ball does.

 

OTOH there are a lot of things that can go wrong for the defense. 1) the pitch isn't good enough for the catcher to handle, 2) the catcher mishandles a good pitch - usually on the transfer, 3) the catcher makes an errant throw, 4) the fielder mishandles the throw, 5) the fielder fails to make the tag.

 

Given all of that IMO it's a testament to the abilities of the players that the stolen base percentage isn't higher than it is.

[Kimmi]

But there's a better chance of a runner on 2nd scoring on a hit than if that runner is on 1st, and baseball is all about scoring runs.

 

I'm not all about our runners running all willy-nilly out there. There's a time and place for everything, along with a certain risk in trying to steal a base. The Sox are (were) stealing at an 84% rate because they're running smart and situationally.

 

As an aside, when I think about the number of things that can go wrong for each team when a player is trying to steal a base I'm impressed that the percentage of successful steals isn't higher.

There's only one thing that can go wrong for the offense. The player doesn't get there before the ball does.

 

OTOH there are a lot of things that can go wrong for the defense. 1) the pitch isn't good enough for the catcher to handle, 2) the catcher mishandles a good pitch - usually on the transfer, 3) the catcher makes an errant throw, 4) the fielder mishandles the throw, 5) the fielder fails to make the tag.

 

Given all of that IMO it's a testament to the abilities of the players that the stolen base percentage isn't higher than it is.

 

Believe it or not, I do not disagree with anything in this post.

[Spudboy]

UZR/150 is just defense. It is based on observations by trained people who look at where balls are hit and how likely they are to be caught.

 

Being top 12 since 2012 is no slight.

 

So there is some subjectivity built into UZR/150.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Spudboy

[S5Dewey]

So there is some subjectivity build into UZR/150.

 

There is no subjectivity in WAR. These people are trained observers, so well trained that every one of them sees things exactly the same way.

 

These people who believe that are the same people who don't believe that WAR is subject to a 17% (!) variability.

 

Now you've got me started on THAT again!

[moonslav59]

There is no subjectivity in WAR. These people are trained observers, so well trained that every one of them sees things exactly the same way.

 

These people who believe that are the same people who don't believe that WAR is subject to a 17% (!) variability.

 

Now you've got me started on THAT again!

 

Of course there is some subjectivity in WAR. I'm not sure anyone has argued otherwise. The UZR/150 ratings are based on trained observers who rate each play made in a zone. Yes, there will be variations from observer to observer, but they are all trained and calibrated to lessen those chances. It still beats one person's personal observations of most just one team and the few opponents that team plays.

 

I heard the play JBJ made where he dove for that ball in left center field going away from home plate as a 40% play. Personally, it was one of the greatest catches I've ever seen. I'd say that was a 1% play at most.

 

It's not a perfect system, and it's not supposed to be perfect. To me, I trust the observers are faairly consistent and over a long term, it all shakes out about right. That's one reason they stress not using UZR/150 or WAR for small sample sizes, and defensive plays per game are often 0-2 for OF'ers, so a good sample size is usually 2-3 years or more.

 

WAR is flawed, but it does a pretty good job of assigning one number to a player that encompasses batting, fielding and running value in one.

[Slasher9]

But there's a better chance of a runner on 2nd scoring on a hit than if that runner is on 1st, and baseball is all about scoring runs.

 

I'm not all about our runners running all willy-nilly out there. There's a time and place for everything, along with a certain risk in trying to steal a base. The Sox are (were) stealing at an 84% rate because they're running smart and situationally.

 

As an aside, when I think about the number of things that can go wrong for each team when a player is trying to steal a base I'm impressed that the percentage of successful steals isn't higher.

There's only one thing that can go wrong for the offense. The player doesn't get there before the ball does.

 

OTOH there are a lot of things that can go wrong for the defense. 1) the pitch isn't good enough for the catcher to handle, 2) the catcher mishandles a good pitch - usually on the transfer, 3) the catcher makes an errant throw, 4) the fielder mishandles the throw, 5) the fielder fails to make the tag.

 

Given all of that IMO it's a testament to the abilities of the players that the stolen base percentage isn't higher than it is.

 

the other thing that can go wrong for the offense: the lineout double play.

[vegasbob]

the other thing that can go wrong for the offense: the lineout double play.

 

And oversliding the base to be tagged out, and then there is the old hidden ball trick. The hamstring pull, broken finger (Vazquez), twisted ankle and knee contusion not to mention spiking possibilities. The runner can also be hit with the batted ball negating his presence on the field. Better to just stay in the dugout with a .000 OBP.

[oldtimer]

And oversliding the base to be tagged out, and then there is the old hidden ball trick. The hamstring pull, broken finger (Vazquez), twisted ankle and knee contusion not to mention spiking possibilities. The runner can also be hit with the batted ball negating his presence on the field. Better to just stay in the dugout with a .000 OBP.

 

All good points and Kimmi assures me that all the many variables are accounted for in the analysis that indicates one has to be successful more than 70% of the time to make the steal a viable threat. I liked it more wehen everything wasn't broken down to numbers.

[S5Dewey]

And oversliding the base to be tagged out, and then there is the old hidden ball trick. The hamstring pull, broken finger (Vazquez), twisted ankle and knee contusion not to mention spiking possibilities. The runner can also be hit with the batted ball negating his presence on the field. Better to just stay in the dugout with a .000 OBP.

 

I'll still stick with my original thought on the topic. That the defense has to do one Hell of a lot right in order to catch someone stealing.

Edited August 7, 2018 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

I'll still stick with my original thought on the topic. That the defense has to do one Hell of a lot right in order to catch someone stealing.

 

That statement is a little too general for me. If stealing bases was that simple we would see a lot more of them.

 

You could also say that if you have a pitcher who's good at holding runners and a catcher with a strong arm, it's pretty hard to steal any bases off them.

 

Or think about the most famous stolen base in Red Sox history. Great base stealer, and he got the job done, but he didn't beat the throw by much!

[Kimmi]

So there is some subjectivity built into UZR/150.

 

There is some subjectivity built into every stat.

 

I have often used strikeouts as an example. It's probably one of the most, if not the most, subjective stat there is. Just consider all of the complaints there have been in the game threads regarding the strike zone. Yet people don't seem to have any problem with trusting the reliability of strike outs, or walks for that matter.

 

However, when it comes to UZR, the thought by many is that it can't be trusted because it's subjective.

 

Why is that?

[Kimmi]

All good points and Kimmi assures me that all the many variables are accounted for in the analysis that indicates one has to be successful more than 70% of the time to make the steal a viable threat. I liked it more wehen everything wasn't broken down to numbers.

 

Well, the stats don't take into account the injury risks to the players.

[Spudboy]

There is some subjectivity built into every stat.

 

I have often used strikeouts as an example. It's probably one of the most, if not the most, subjective stat there is. Just consider all of the complaints there have been in the game threads regarding the strike zone. Yet people don't seem to have any problem with trusting the reliability of strike outs, or walks for that matter.

 

However, when it comes to UZR, the thought by many is that it can't be trusted because it's subjective.

 

Why is that?

 

Robot umps would solve the problem.

 

 

And your argument is weak as water.

[Kimmi]

Robot umps would solve the problem.

 

And your argument is weak as water.

 

Why is my argument weak as water?

[moonslav59]

Water is a very powerful force.

[Kimmi]

Water is a very powerful force.

 

LOL Good point!