User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1107 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That's pretty damn close.
However, he did hit far better as a DH than as a position player, posting a 349/427/633 from that position against a 296/371/530 overall line.
That's pretty damn close.
Ha!
At least the Boston Herald has the guts to insuate that something sleazy is going on for no particular reason.
There's probably even an upside to that model.
How odd that Ortiz can do the toughest thing, but can't do any of the easier tasks in baseball, like pitch or play shortstop.
How much more valuable defensively is a 3B compared to an "average" defensive player? Tango's research with UZR for 1999-2003 suggests that it's +1 over (I believe) 150 games.
I don't know where a DH would fit on that scale, but a full-time DH will contribute nothing defensively above or below average. If the defensive difference between a 3B and a DH is one run, of course a DH can make make that up with his bat.
That's likely not the difference, though, you'd probably have to figure out the value of a replacement-level defender. If an average 1B is -9 against a neutral average fielder, a replacement-level 1B would probably be, I don't know, -19 defensively? -15? A DH would be right around there, maybe a run or so below.
We might estimate that an average defensive 3B is about 15-20 runs more valuable, from a defensive perspective only, than a full-time DH, over the course of a full season. Actually, people like MGL and Tango probably know, I'm just guessing, but anyway ...
... so if a DH and 3B have an equal offensive contribution, the 3B would have to rank a -15 or -20 at UZR (or some similar concoction) to make them equal overall.
It's not terribly common, nor terribly unique, for a 3B to post numbers that poor. The ten worst 3B UZR seasons from 2000-2003:
I doubt that Alex Rodriguez is at -15 or -20 defensively this year ... but his ZR does rank 18th out of 19th MLB qualifiers, and at .738 is well below the median (about .790). If that's accurate, he might be around 17 or 18 plays below average, which for a 3B is likely around 14 runs. And, FWIW, Davenport has him at -6 defensively, and Win Shares has him as 18th in the majors at Fielding Win Shares at 3B ...
Only the little blue pill would bring up Rafael Palmeiro.
On an unrelated issue, what do folks make of today's odd remarks by Foulke?
At the least, there would seem to be some failure-to-communicate type issues going on.
The Yankees, as I have pointed out before, position their left-side infielders differently than do other teams, shifting them toward the middle of the diamond, and for that reason "pure" Zone Rating will tend to undervalue their defensive contributions. The reason is simple. If ARod makes a play to his left that other 3Bs don't make, and misses a play to his right that other 3Bs do make, his ZR is .500 - but the play that he just made to his left doesn't count against the other 3Bs, because it's "out-of-zone", and thus other 3Bs will have a ZR of 1.000 on those two balls. UZR's got a similar problem, albeit less severe because the value given to making a play in UZR takes into consideration the probability that the particular fielder involved makes that play on average, and where ARod is making plays because of his positioning that most other 3Bs don't make, UZR gives him more credit for doing so than pure ZR does.
-- MWE
I don't know where a DH would fit on that scale, but a full-time DH will contribute nothing defensively above or below average. If the defensive difference between a 3B and a DH is one run, of course a DH can make make that up with his bat.
I couldn't disagree with this reasoning more. Playing even sub-average defense while providing MVP-caliber hitting is more valuable than playing no defense at all while providing MVP-caliber hitting. In fact, David Ortiz is the perfect illustration of why: the fact that the Sox MUST play him at DH -- that he simply cannot adequately play defense at any major league position and stay in the line-up -- means that they are hamstrung in being able to use Manny Ramirez as he should be used. Which is to say, as a DH.
If you're in the AL, and you've got a great hitter who can play a position, that means you have the opportunity to use someone else as your DH. That is, in and of itself, valuable. The fact that Ortiz cannot do so means he is less valuable.
Jeter makes the play in the hole just fine, as Jim Kaat, has noted on many occasions (to be fair, he is probably not as good on balls to his left). The Yankee positioning strategy is one of the factors that has led to the undervaluing of Derek Jeter. Its amazing by the way how all arguments involving the Yankees (Ortiz vs. A-rod for MVP, for example) seem to wind up focusing on Jeter's purported lack of range.
I agree with this completely. The Sox have two great hitters who should be DHs because they are both probably -20-25 run defenders.
Because Manny happens to be the one to play the OF he gets stuck with the full -25 while Ortiz doesn't take any hit at all. It could just as easily be the other way around.
If the offensive baseline of DH was much higher than LF/1B, then this wouldn't be as big of a problem. As it is though, Ortiz gets an advantage over those players simply because his team is set up to preserve an artificial "0" defensively.
To a large extent, it would make more sense to take Manny's -25 and split it equally between Ramirez and Ortiz.
While taking no position on the substantive question of Jeter's range into the hole, I will say that citing a Yankee broadcaster as support for the proposition is kind of like citing Antonin Scalia as an authoritative voice on the jurisprudence of John Roberts.
The Yankees have had, since at least 1998, a right-side skew in their BIP pattern; they allow fewer balls down the LF line, and more balls hit middle-right and to the right side, than one would anticipate given the mix of hitters who hit against their pitchers. As a result, the Yankees pull their 3B off the line and shift Jeter toward the middle.
Because of this, though, both ARod and Jeter are playing on the edges of their "zones", as defined in ZR, rather than at or near the center. So for this reason, the plays that they don't make are almost always "in-zone" plays, which count against them in ZR. With other left-side infielders, a good percentage of plays that they don't make are "out-of-zone" plays, which do NOT count against them. Thus, to some extent, ZR is penalizing both ARod and Jeter for their positioning, even though given the BIP pattern against the Yankees they are typically positioned more optimally than if they were positioned at or near the center of the defined ZR zone for the position.
ARod is not covering for Jeter's lack of range (and I honestly don't think that he could, anyway); his positioning, and Jeter's, are derived based on the expected location of BIP against the Yankees.
-- MWE
I believe there is some breakeven point where a defender is so bad as to negate this advantage -- an advantage that is considerable. A defender who is below replacement is hurting his team to a significant degree. This holds true for comparisons across real positions -- a 1B may be more valuable overall than a SS of equal offensive contribution if he is a superb fielder and the SS is terrible.
The difficult part is trying to figure out what those breakeven points are.
This is the first time I read about the Yankees infield sh!t... eh, shift.
(very good)
As bad as Manny is in left, I'd have to believe Ortiz would be at least 15 to 20 runs worse.
Also, there are 4 pretty much fulltime DHs in the AL. 3 of them are some of the best hitters in the league. Perhaps being a DH helps offense.
ARod is not covering for Jeter's lack of range (and I honestly don't think that he could, anyway); his positioning, and Jeter's, are derived based on the expected location of BIP against the Yankees.
And yet, A-Rod also has among the worse range factors in the league -- despite a staff that is league average in strikeouts, and with 90% groundball pitchers.
I'd say only if he can't. Otherwise it would follow that any DH, even if he can play the field, limits his team's flexibility. At that point you're pretty much saying that the DH rule hurts a club's flexibility. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Of course, it's possible you meant that a player that isn't any good in the field hurts his team's flexibility, in which case I agree. But in the case of most can't-field DH's, I suspect they add more with the bat than the team loses in flexibility.
Or, rather, one must be one of the best hitters in the league to have enough offensive value to overcome the defensive (more like flexibility) negative associated with being a full time DH. And, without crunching any numbers, the teams have figured this out.
Actually, I suppose it is possible the Red Sox have crunched the numbers.
Part of this is the right-side skew to which I alluded earlier; the Yankees don't allow that many balls to be hit to the left side. The Yankees are not overly extreme in G/F ratio; they're only slightly above the midpoint, largely because Mussina and the Unit are flyball pitchers and they've started giving more innings to guys like Leiter, Small, and Chacon, who are also flyballers.
-- MWE
Generally, aren't balls hit up the middle more likely to be hits?
I'm a Red Sox fan, and I'd vote for A-Rod. Not by much, but I would.
But it's nice to know that the Red Sox have someone who is good enough to generate debate on the subject, at a fraction of the cost.
Which helps explain Bernie's continuous presence in CF.
The existence of David Ortiz, who theoretically cannot play 1B at all, means the Red Sox have to play Manny in LF instead of DH. (This is all theoretical, for all I know Manny will refuse to play if made a full-time DH.) If Ortiz did not exist (or could play a position), the Sox could play Manny at DH and have someone else in LF. So the opportunity cost of having Ortiz as a DH is the loss of a LF. So perhaps the "penalty" assessed should be the difference between Manny in LF and a replacement-level LF. I don't know; this is speculation off the top of my head.
But not every DH is in an analogous situation. When the Angels DH Casey Kotchman or
RubenJuan Rivera, it's not because they can't play defense, but because the manager insists on playing lesser defensive players (Steve Finley instead of Erstad in CF, Garret Anderson in LF) in the field. Is it fair to assign that negative impact to Kotch and Ruben?Papi + replacement level 3B
and
replacement level DH + Arod.
The problem with LAWBH's analysis is that it doesn't take into account the difference in hitting between a replacement level 3B and a replacement level DH.
BP claims that AL 3B average .266/.329/.424 and AL DH average .260/.339/.440 this year. Over 700 PA that is a difference in RC of about 3. So it doesn't matter much. Depending on your definition of replacement level, the difference could be even smaller.
MVP discussions are always fun. Larkin's win in '95, the year before going 30-30 was awesome for Reds fans and I'd like to know if Kirk Gibson's win in '88 infuriated non-Dodgers fans. I picked these 2 players because neither had spectacular hr/rbi numbers. Comparing the 2 of them, Larkins .394 obp and 51-57 stolen bases, and .319 avg were more impressive than Gibsons rather pedestrian numbers. Piazza or Maddux should have won in '95 & I would have gone with Cone or Hershiser in '88. Gibson didn't face very tough competition, as Kevin Freaking McReynolds finished 3rd in the voting.
Well, I personally believe that positional adjustments should only apply to defense, not offense.
When evaluating these situations you shouldn't be applying "general" factors for anything. Everything is different for every team. Its no surprise that the value of a DH would be different, considering the value of everything is different.
Having 4 great relievers on a team that’s starters averaged 8 innings a game would have a lot less value than having the same 4 relievers on a team whose starters average 5 innings. Players don't play in vacuums they play in contexts.
Now figuring how to quantify those contexts and you'll have accomplished something.
God, Sutcliffe is dumb.
I don't see how giving Ortiz zero credit for defense, while giving others credit for their defense, is "penalizing" him. Saying that Ortiz played average defense, just because his manager was smart enough to let him go nowhere near leather, is nutty. A-Rod has made hundreds and hundreds of plays this year that Ortiz did not. That has a lot of value.
I agree that I wouldn't penalize Ortiz for the awfulness of Manny Ramirez in left field; that's not his fault.
Well, since Kirk Gibson wasn't half the player Darryl Strawberry was in 1988, I can certainly say it infuriated me. Not half so much as the outcome of the NLCS did, however.
Is that true in 2005? The median G/F ratio in the AL this year is between 1.10 and 1.20 (depending on who you count).
Chacon (0.91) and Small (1.05) are below median, but Mussina (1.14) and Johnson (1.20) are right about at the median for G/F ratio in the AL.
Against that, you've got Wang (2.57), Rivera (1.92), Brown (1.69), Pavano (1.60), Gordon (1.52), Wright (1.39), Sturtze (1.24), and Leiter (1.22).
This strikes me as a relatively extreme "ground ball" staff.
And that penalty is more than enough to support (probably compel) the conclusion that David Ortiz is not the most valuable player in the American League this season.
(I'd actually make it the difference between Manny and an average LFer, because the Red Sox have the resources and the smarts to acquire a LFer at least that good if the spot were open.)
We can't ignore excellence in that position. If the best hitter in the league is the DH, and his contribution is strong enough to discount the fact that he doesn't play in the field, so be it.
The biggest problem with the MVP is the guidelines are too loose. What does "Valuable" mean? The best hitter? The best hitter on a winning team? The best all-around-player? The best clutch-performer? Papi would win hands-down on the last one.
If it sounds like I would vote for Papi for MVP, I'd likely put him second on my ballot, after A-Rod (and as a Sox fan, that hurts).
Perhaps the best thing to do is try to give the award for the best hitter (is that the Hank Aaron Award?) the same gravitas as the MVP and the Cy Young Awards. The you could treat the MVP as the award for the best all-around athlete, pitchers and DH's need not apply.
At least you didn't say Tony Womack.
Bernie didn't make the clutch list?! Wow.
Oh, and I'm glad the DH is here to stay.
In 1988, I would have given the MVP to Orel--Cone wasn't really that close in value. In 1995, probably Maddux, Larkin and Bonds both beat Piazza in VORP.
Although, I'll admit that having Bernie up there wouldn't bother me either.
The Yankees' G/F ratio as a staff this year is 1.33, which ranks as the 3rd highest(tied with Toronto). Average in the AL is 1.24.
Piazza had the greatest season ever at the bat for a catcher not named Josh Gibson. That's MVP in my book.
<>
The Yankees' G/F ratio as a staff this year is 1.33, which ranks as the 3rd highest(tied with Toronto). Average in the AL is 1.24.
Well, that's certainly easier than scanning the player stats . . .
Actually, it looks like tied for second (with Toronto and Detroit), after Baltimore.
Nonetheless, we voting members of the BBWAA love to point out how much we know about baseball, so we discriminate with defense. That is a big reason Baltimore Orioles third baseman Brooks Robinson (16 Gold Gloves) won the AL award in 1964 and St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Ozzie Smith (13 Gold Gloves) finished as the NL runner-up in 1987.
What a crock. Robinson's MVP was the only one of his career and came during a season in which he established career bests in batting average, home runs and RBI. Smith's silver medal came under nearly identical circumstances – he had career bests in average, RBI and runs scored – and he never again finished higher than 13th in the voting.
Nice message, eh?
You're a great fielder, but it means jack unless you hit.
The funny thing is, Eraser-X, is that I could see someone seriously argue that point.
Is it possible you're confusing the seasons? Piazza was awesome in '95, but '97 was his best season.
Of course not; he's an Indian through and through.
I think so. It is true, however, that the Cards' pitching staffs had very low K rates for his career, and were GB heavy IIRC, so some of his stats were influenced by these trends.
Ortiz, incidentally, not only cannot play a theoretical 1B, but he can never, absolutely, play 3B (or SS/2B/C) at all, because he throws left-handed. Unless he could pitch, his defensive value was limited from birth. (Yet another discrimination!)
Don Mattingly, he is not.
Even without taking positional scarcity and defense into account, I vote for ARod and I don't look back.
122.8 RC for Ortiz
You're right, Vinay. My bad.
I have noticed that VORP seems to consistently rank catchers lower than I would expect; a stat like RCAP that uses an average baseline rather than replacement-level always ranks catchers much higher than VORP does. I don't know if it's because VORP sets replacement level too high, or just that catchers don't play as much as other starters, and a stat with a replacement-level baseline will give more weight to playing time.
The thing is, this really hasn't happened that often. I would say there have only been two seasons where a DH was clearly the top offensive player in the league: Frank Thomas in 1991 and Edgar Martinez in 1995. In 1991, Ripken was obviously the MVP once defense was considered, so I think that 1995 was really the only year that voting for a DH could have been justified (and Albert Belle's case was just as strong). I don't know that there's really been discrimination against DH--there just have been very few DHs who had any sort of case for winning the award.
going to use the Sparky Anderson model (Sparky with
the Tigers typically used the DH to rest regulars,
not as a spot for a defensively-challenged slugger)
is that you are basically putting the likes of
Doug Baker and Tom Brookens into the lineup 60-80
times a year when you rest the regular in the DH
slot. Few teams have a deep enough bench to gain
an advantage using this model, vs. the full-time
star slugger model.
Whether we should take this into account is something I'm conflicted about.
ESPN has had an hardon for Ortiz since he joined the Red Sox, so I wouldn't be shocked to see him win, but it'll be another in a long string of mistakes.
None of the 4 fulltime DHs are DHs because they are that horrible of a fielder(a la Martinez), but if Ortiz could play first Ramirez could stay in the lineup if he hypothetically had a hamstring problem that hurt his fielding more than his hitting.
rdfc- Those numbers are skewed by position players DHing when they are hurt.
But the guy wasn't half bad at third base his first few years.
That said, I know that doesn't change the point you were making. Regardless of the details, he wasn't capable of playing another position, and that's all you were trying to say.
Because you haven't checked the numbers or because you disagree?
Is? Or, has been prior to this year? If it's the latter, then you're right. The former is a pretty close race.
It's not a close race until you give Ortiz "intangibles" credit. Then it's between ARod's defense vs. Ortiz's, I dunno, beard.
With RISP, 2005:
[u]Player AB RBI RBI/AB OPS[/u]Ortiz 142 80 56.3% 1051
Rodriguez 163 64 39.2% 842
That's some beard. It allows Ortiz the ability to maintain his OPS when runners are in scoring position, whereas The Show Pony sees his drop close to 200 points.
And as shown in the Verducci article, A-Rod has done very well in close and late situations as well. Not as good on slugging as Ortiz, but better at avoiding outs.
Going by your guy's standards Sheff should have won the MVP last year...
I think Sheff was a damn good candidate last year. For all intents and purposes, he is the guy that you worry about beating you, and he is the guy carrying the load for the Yanks.
Sheff is a very underrated baseball player.
RankNameTeamTotal WSBattingPitchingFielding
1RodriguezNYY2926.702.5
2SheffieldNYY2926.601.9
3RamirezBOS2724.802.3
4OrtizBOS2625.600.1
Sheff is a very underrated baseball player.
He was a good candidate, but even I knew that Vlad, and probably even Ramirez, deserved it more than him.
Like Ortiz this year, however, there were better hitters and overall players than him.
Loaded statement, there, particularly when most of America interprets "better value" as pertaining to cost. I think Oritz wins that one, hands down.
But I don't think that's what you meant, nor do I think that's what should be considered for MVP.
I'm not arguing that Ortiz is better in the clutch. In fact, I'm arguing that in 2005 Ortiz has been the SAME in the clutch as he is otherwise, while A-Rod has clearly been worse. #54 summed it up nicely: A-Rod is the best, but there are a bunch of other players on his own team I'd fear more than him when things actually matter.
Going by your guy's standards Sheff should have won the MVP last year...
I've already said that I'd vote for A-Rod. I'm only suggesting that it's not a clear-cut case, and that a vote for Ortiz is not unreasonable.
I think Sheffield is a good example of the whole DH thing. Ideally he should be a DH, his fielding is really poor now. But by being able to do a passable imitation of a fielder, he really helps his team, because they've got half a dozen DHs. But this hurts his sabermetric value because now he's losing runs due to his fielding and the average batting level is exactly the same.
The DH is not like other positions.
I think a full-time DH should be assessed with the fielding runs penalty of the worst fielder on their team. Manny being a bad fielder is certainly not David Ortiz's "fault" but this isn't about fault, it's about assessing value.
But I don't think that's what you meant, nor do I think that's what should be considered for MVP.
Yes, I should have worded it better. I meant A-Rod produces more, which is the most valuable to the team. Obviously he's not a good "value" at his salary, though.
I've already said that I'd vote for A-Rod. I'm only suggesting that it's not a clear-cut case, and that a vote for Ortiz is not unreasonable.
I did not know that. I still disagree that it's not unreasonable. I mean, I realize a lot of the voters will think that way, but I would expect the people here to be smarter than them. If Ortiz was a good defender at an important position as well as a good baserunner, well that would be a different story. But right now there's no way that Ortiz, clutch hitting or not, comes close to being as valuable as A-Rod is.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main