|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Please pass the Jeter…and maybe Polanco already has.
Placido Polanco is a league average hitter. He is on the other hand, an excellent fielding infielder. Derek Jeter is a wonderful offensive player. He is on the other hand, at best, an average-fielding infielder, and likely a below-average-fielding infielder. Which one do you want?
...Since Jeter has a 2 win advantage over Polanco on offense, Polanco has somewhere between a 0.5 and 3.0 win gap with the glove. Polanco is also 1 year younger. Even if Jeter is a bit ahead of Polanco (doubtful), he certainly is not the many millions ahead of him. Hard to believe that Polanco was a free agent coming into the 2005 season, and he signed a league-average (for a regular position player) salary. He’s exactly the kind of free agent that I’d recommend to any team to sign, and the kind of guy that is part of your core team.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: YESNetwork: A look at five Yankees' cases for enshrinement in Monument Park (5 - 10:49am, May 26)Last: Tom NawrockiNewsblog: Carlos Pena defies the traditional numbers (1 - 10:43am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (15 - 10:42am, May 26)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (62 - 10:40am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1836 - 10:37am, May 26)Last: Famous Original Joe CNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (35 - 10:33am, May 26)Last: Bob Dernier CriHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (16 - 10:29am, May 26)Last: DL from MNNewsblog: Maddon on Red Sox beaning Luke Scott: 'I think it's ridiculous, I think it's absurd, idiotic' (13 - 10:22am, May 26)Last: Crispix AttacksNewsblog: Berardino: Heath Bell says he’s no meathead (2 - 10:15am, May 26)Last: Best Regards, Larry M.Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (30 - 10:10am, May 26)Last: DL from MNSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (21 - 8:34am, May 26)Last: DarrenNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (6 - 7:16am, May 26)Last: Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (19 - 7:11am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (10 - 7:09am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (88 - 6:12am, May 26)Last: Lassus
|
|
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.
1. Ginger Nut Posted: October 17, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2214930)His career progression has him improving substantially from when he came up at 22, peaking at 27-29, and dropping off a bit at 30 this year. No idea how he'll due in the future, but it seems to be a fairly normal development at his listed age. I see no reason to doubt it.
On this site, pocket lint is more valuable than Derek Jeter on a baseball team.
Actually I'm suggesting that I can't add. I saw 1975 and thought, wow, that dude's old! (I was born before that, so I should know...)
At this point, I could try to rescue my earlier post by noting that Polanco is already in his decline and so maybe his defensive value will decline in his EARLY 30s, but that would just seem kind of lame. All hail Placido Polanco, MVP!
than I am with my estimate of his defensive value. Hence given that, I'd (holding nose) go with Jeter...
(i.e. they often don't agree with each other nearly as much as the various offensive ones agree with each other).
Well, he was almost 60 runs better this year. And Polanco has played 140 games once in his career. But yeah, he's almost as good as Jeter. Sure.
The difference between them offensively is far more than 2 wins.
Jeter Polanco2003 +24 +20
2004 +16 + 5
2005 +26 +21
2006 +38 -18
<b>Avg +26 + 7
Wtd Avg +29 + 5</b>
So the two wins doesn't seem too off-base ... but Polanco is far less durable than The Jeter, and that matters, too.
This is sort of mis-stating the situation, though, isn't it?
Polanco was a free agent who was offered arbitration by the Phillies so that they could get compensation when he signed with someone else. But he didn't get offered the big dollars he was expecting, so he unexpectedly accepted arbitration, and then was signed to a compromise sum, before being traded to Detroit mid-season.
But I'd take Jeter on the baseball field.
What type of fabric?
4 - Suggesting that even if what Tangotiger says is correct, Jeter is more valuable.
5 - saying that Tangotiger is way off base, and Jeter is much more valuable
7 - expressing no opinion either way
I think you're way off base criticising. Not only do people recognise Jeter's skills, but I think we're moving in the right direction. But, if you think people aren't sufficiently appreciative or whatever, feel free to make a substantive critique. After all, if people can't see how good Jeter is, then why don't you explain, rather then hitting them over the head for being blind?
Incidentally, although every (sane) GM would want a Jeter on his team, I don't think any (sane) GM would want his contract. And the two go together, which is, in part, Tangotiger's point.
This is silly. Tango is a very smart guy, and it's not like he wrote "OMG Jeter sux." He offered an analysis of why he believes that Polanco is as good a player as Jeter. And, as far as I can see, nobody else in this thread has said anything negative about Jeter, so are you really suggesting that Tom's analysis is influenced by him being envious of Jeter? I think that's extremely unfair. If you think his analysis is faulty, you should explain why. But saying, in essence, that "everybody who doesn't think Jeter is awesome is a fool" is as unconstructive as anything said by the people you wish to criticize--and, again, no blindly anti-Jeter rhetoric has appeared in this thread.
Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4
yeah, 2 wins.
go thinking fans!!!
Yeah, but what I'd imagine JC's frustration stems from is why these shocking comparision(!) are aimed at Jeter. Why isn't Polanco better or as good as Edgar Renteria, or Jason Varitek, or Andruw Jones, or any other player who rates in that area. It wasn't just a Polanco is good thread. We've had those before, and you can do it without bringing up Derek Jeter. There's no reason he's the comparision here and as others in the thread have pointed out, that comparision is stretched. And it's happened enough times before that JC is probably bored and tired of it. This is the second time in 3 years that this comparision has come up. Compare him to someone else, maybe, someone who plays the same position as Polanco! Jeff Kent? Luis Castillo?
Isn't this really the key? On net, I think Jeter's probably a more valuable player than Polanco but the extra $16M he's getting paid can buy you an awful lot.
Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4
yeah, 2 wins.
go thinking fans!!!
And this was the second-best year of Jeter's career, his best since 1999, while it was probably the worst of Polanco's career. I'm not going to say Polanco's as good as Jeter, but, come on, you have to put more thought into it than just quoting this year's VORP.
If Tango had compared Polanco to Renteria or Castillo, no one would care. A Jeter comparison raises eyebrows, because Jeter is widely considered to be one of the best players in baseball, and is one of the most highly-paid, whereas Polanco was an unknown to most casual fans until last week. So, yes, the way Jeter is worshipped by the media is an unavoidable factor in why he's chosen for these kinds of comparisons. And perhaps you are right that it is done too frequently, and is tiresome. But it would have been more understandable if JC had said what you said instead of what he actually did, which comes pretty close to being a personal attack on Tango with nothing to back it up.
Polanco's a very nice player, BUT...
Jeter's counting stats overwhelm Polanco. Tango compares them on a per 700 plate appearances, but Polanco has never had 700 plate appearances in a season;Jeter has had 700 plate appearances in half his seasons and averages 642---more than Polanco's high of 610. One of my pet peeves about analysis on this board is that the analysis often assumes that rate stats will continue at the same level for postion players even as they get more playing time. That ain't always true. Weaknesses get exposed, platoon advantages disappear,durability matters, some players don't perform as well because they are dinged up but still play and some players just wear down.
But putting all that aside, even the most revered rate stat (OPS+) shows Jeter to be the far superior offensive player. Jeter's CAREER OPS+ is 123. Polanco's career OPS+ is 96. His high for a season 119 is *below * Jeter's career average.
That's a lot of defense to make up from a guy who has played only 122 games at short.
Sorry if it was mentioned and I missed it.
Couldn't it be because a lot more people have an opinion about Torre than about Macha and have nothing to do with the GM? Did you have an opinion on it? If you thought A's fans would question it, you clearly never visited an A's game chatter. And Macha wasn't fired last year.
Irony.
Regardless, JC's post only serves to take the discussion even further away from the topic of the thread. Prior to his comment, people were discussing the findings (albeit maybe not at a highly sophisticated level). His post turns the thread away from the discussion. Tango hasn't even showed up to respond to criticism yet, and chances are he won't if the rest of the thread continues along this path.
Suggestion: after this post, comment about the substance of the article.
Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4
As DCW3 pointed out, quoting one year means nothing.
I'm guessing Tango was using some linear weights-type of measure to compare their offense. As I illustrate above, Davenport's system sees them as average a two-win difference on offense over the last four years, once you prorate to 150 games.
But as I also pointed out, Jeter's established durability is a big factor. He usually plays more than 150 games, where Polanco has never played in that many. Tango does address this in the comment section.
PECOTA Weighted Mean projections for the 2006 season:
Pretty close. I guess the question is, given a reasonable estimate of each player's value (assuming we agree that these projections are reasonable), is Polanco a significantly better investment? I think that without the "name" (and arguably the "intangibles" that may come with Jeter), there is objective support for choosing Polanco, especially when economics are involved.
No one's stopping you, JC. Feel free to let us know when you post an analysis of what Jeter does, or why Beane should be taken to task for firing Macha.
Actually, I don't think Beane's firing of Macha was necessarily a good thing, but considering some of the questionable moves (IMO) that Macha made, I can understand why he would do it.
But then again, I could also understand why the Boss was considering firing Torre, too.
I guess I just think most managers are fungible.
F
Problem.
These are rate stats. As several people have pointed out, durability counts for something when one player has never reached 150 games played while the other one does it year-in, year-out (barring collisions with AAAA catchers).
Another issue is how much you believe in these projection systems..... but that's a whole another issue.
F
Conversely, one might argue the opposite.
Any and all GMs that bother to look at his contract.
There have been a ton of Jeter-for-MVP articles posted over the last few weeks, as well as posters saying they'd vote Jeter for MVP.
I do not disagree that there is a Jeter backlash at this site, but there is plenty of pro-Jeter commentary at this site also.
Actually, PECOTA projects playing time. You can argue that they regress the playing time estimates too much, but it's flat incorrect to call these rate stats.
I guess I just think most managers are fungible.
I don't disagree with you too much, but this statement goes against what Beane did. He is on the hook for the two remaining years on Macha's contract ($3.5M); if they were really fungible, you'd never punt that much money on a manager.
That it's the worst guess? Care to explain?
What? Are you missing the articles saying he should be MVP? Are you bonkers?
And a LOT fewer people at this site care about Beane counters, Billy Beane and the A's then you apparently think. Have you never noticed there aren't many Beane/A's pieces? It's mostly Red Sox and Yanks and Mets.
The reason there isn't a bunch of criticism for the manager change is not many people care.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Tot(01-06) Avg Jeter 73 64 52.1 47.9 59.7 66.3 79.2 369.2 61.53 Polanco 11.8 15.9 11.7 32 31.5 34.4 8.4 133.9 22.31One year in his career has Polanco been within 2 wins on offense. He averages close to a 4 win deficit. I didn't include 2000 in the total or averages, since Polanco was a part timer.
Use gross BRAA and you'll see a different result.
UEqR
Unadjusted Equivalent Runs; (2 * REQA/LgREQA - 1) * PA * LgR/LgPA. Analogous to runs created
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Tot(01-06) Avg Jeter 115 109 105 82 106 113 123 638 106.33 Polanco 43 70 56 76 71 79 50 402 67Also discarding 2000 in the averages.
Heck, Jeter actually is more likely to win the Internet MVP than he is the Baseball Writers' MVP.
Good point, I forgot that they do "project" playing time. As if we really know how to do that. That's one ugly looking projection related to what they actually did. As you can probably tell, I'm not a big fan of BPro. But you're right, their VORP and WARPs are not rate stats.
And I never said I completely agreed with what Beane did. The money was a main part of why I can understand why people would question Beane's action (and why I was interested in JC's response to that).
F
It's not a question of believing the projection systems, it's a question of believing any error bars that are associated with the predictions.
Jeter vs. Polanco is like comparing two stocks, one that is projected to return 15% on the year vs. 14% over the next year. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but then I tell you that I'm 95% certain that the Jeter-stock will return between 12 and 18% and I'm 95% certain the Polanco-stock will return between 6% and 22% over the next year, that's where the difference lies.
The biggest advantage that guys with tons of plate appearances should have quantitatively (disregarding playing time as proxy for durability) is in reduction of the error bars (which we almost never get to see).
I don't know how much it takes Dan to produce his pessimistic/optimistic projections, but I think two columns (pessimistic OPS/optimistic OPS) would very much bring people's conclusions in line with their cognitive processes (at least as much as possible).
Jeter has had more value than Polanco virtually every year - to say that you expect the returns to be the same tells you more about weaknesses in the projection system than about the real value of Jeter or Polanco.
The analogy to stocks is a good one, except that I'd put it this way: I'm 95% certain that Jeter will return between 12% and 18% and I'm 95% certain that Polanco will return between 2% and 18% next year. Polanco has a shot to be as valuable as Jeter, but its clearly not 50/50. If one stock bring a higher return on investment than another every single year, by varying amounts, what would you say about someone who predicted an equal rate of return in the next year.
And playing time matters in value.
How would it make sense to ignore position on offense then conclude Polanco is at least 5-30 runs better on defense when Jeter plays the more demanding position?
It doesn't make much sense. Same as considering BRAA/150 games as "raw offense".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main