Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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. Rough Carrigan Posted: September 27, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2188638)
I think it's a good point to bring up his home/road splits. A large majority of fans are aware (thank you Coors Field till this year!) that parks can help or hurt a player's offense but probably only a minority realize that Fenway may be a good hitter's park but positively hurt Ortiz's power at the same time. yankee stadium may be a pitcher's park overall for hurting righthanded power. But how terrible is that for Derek Inside-out-swing Jeter?
   2. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:13 AM (#2188653)
yankee stadium may be a pitcher's park overall for hurting righthanded power. But how terrible is that for Derek Inside-out-swing Jeter?


Well, not for nothing:
Jeter, 2006
Home: 8 HR
Road: 6 HR

Jeter, 2006
Home: 99 HR
Road: 84 HR

So over the course of his career, Jeter has hit 54% of his HRs at home. Now if the question is does it hurt him less than usual, I suppose that's possible, but I'm not sure there's any meanigful data
   3. PJ Martinez Posted: September 27, 2006 at 03:30 AM (#2188788)
I was at Fenway recently, and they flashed a stat about Ortiz and the AL record for home runs away from home. I didn't quite catch it-- anyone know about that? An obscure stat, to be sure, but a testament to his remarkable power.
   4. Cutter Posted: September 27, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2188799)
Now that the Sox are out, all I have to say is "hit'em far, David!" (He's on my fantasy team)
   5. Rough Carrigan Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:03 AM (#2188832)
I think he tied the AL record for homers on the road in one season, this year, with his 32. The guy he tied? Babe Ruth. Pretty good company.
   6. Rough Carrigan Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:05 AM (#2188838)
RB. Why isn't that career total meaningful data? Righty batters who slap most everything to right field simply aren't hurt by a deep left center like pull hitting righties. Aren't those career numbers for Jeter corroboration of that?
   7. baudib Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#2188892)
This Ortiz gushing is getting ridiculous. This is Cecil Field all over again.
   8. Xander Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:57 AM (#2188905)
Really? Find me a four-year stretch where Fielder every approached anything comparable to Ortiz's last 4 four years.
   9. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 27, 2006 at 05:08 AM (#2188922)
This is Cecil Field all over again.

What about Dave Park?
   10. DKDC Posted: September 27, 2006 at 05:14 AM (#2188932)
I'd say he's more of an Albert Belle-lite, minus a glove and plus a personality.

Depending on your favorite rate stat, Ortiz is having the 8th-12th best offensive season in the majors this year. That's certainly a very good season, but it's well short of amazing for a DH.
   11. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 27, 2006 at 11:26 AM (#2189006)
Why isn't that career total meaningful data?
I probably could've phrased it better. What I meant is that I'm not sure what percentage of Jeter's HRs can be expected to be hit at home anyway as compared to the percentage that actually are hit at home and without knowing that I'm not sure if 54% of HRs is useful statistic or what. FWIW, I think I that ultimately since HRs are a relatively small part of Jeter's game, it's a less relevant discussion than the Fenway effect for Ortiz
   12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 27, 2006 at 12:01 PM (#2189017)
I'd say he's more of an Albert Belle-lite, minus a glove and plus a personality.

Depending on your favorite rate stat, Ortiz is having the 8th-12th best offensive season in the majors this year. That's certainly a very good season, but it's well short of amazing for a DH.
Yeah, and there's no reason at all for Red Sox fans to think that rate stats don't capture a large portion of Ortiz's value. Come on. Watch a baseball game once in a while - hey, maybe you'll see that worthless straight fastball that lucky ol' Papelbon throws.
   13. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 27, 2006 at 12:04 PM (#2189019)
So let's talk about his career - it looks like his total thing (future included) could be as poor as Mo Vaughn (or Jason Giambi) with a better and longer peak, and his high end could be a late-arriving Manny Ramirez.
   14. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM (#2189021)
Quantifying Big Papi is not a feasible option. He is a gift in every moment he is with us, but there must always remain the possibility that this season, this game could be the last. At any time, he could become again just a real good DH. When that moment comes, I'll be ready to talk about his career. But until then, Sox fans will live in the moment with Papi.
   15. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 27, 2006 at 12:35 PM (#2189026)
You're kidding, right Matt? I'm sure there are other Internet boards for people who want to sit back and enjoy the skills and athleticism of baseball, but this one is about trying to measure and predict those skills (and second-guess those who do so professionally).

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, everybody on Earth is essentially day-to-day. If you're talking about normal player decline, I would state that we do this type of analysis for every other player in MLB; why not this one?

Look, I enjoy achievement too. For instance, I like watching Robinson Cano hit. That doesn't stop me from worrying about his walk rate long-term. I like watching Wang pitch. But in the back of my mind, some dispassionate part of me can't help but notice his lack of strikeouts.
   16. bunyon Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:08 PM (#2189046)
a late-arriving Manny Ramirez

Just Manny being Manny.

---


Really, Mr. Clutch is just piling on stats after the Sox are eliminated. I only credit Papi with 40-some HR this season.
   17. Mister High Standards Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:10 PM (#2189047)
worthless straight fastball that lucky ol' Papelbon throws


Boy glad to be wrong on that one.
   18. Addicted To Glove Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:22 PM (#2189049)
If you ask me, win probability is the best way to decide an MVP, because it's the measure of how many wins the player has added all on his own. Here are the top five in the AL:

(trying for a table here)
Ortiz    7.89
Jeter    5.92
Dye      4.99
Mourneau 4.78    
Haffner  4.44 


You will never be able to convince me that Jeter's defense is worth two full wins. I don't care how many jump throws he makes. It's not worth two wins. Papi is the most valuable player in the AL bar none.
   19. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:24 PM (#2189050)
If Manny continues to be gimpy next season, would the Red Sox risk significant time at 1B for Ortiz? I'm guessing they wouldn't since they didn't do it this year, and even preferred Loretta's .357 slugging average at 1B. Ortiz may be sensitive about playing the field, but I doubt overall team defense declines that much with him at 1B and a better fielder subbing for Manny. If 50 games at DH make it more likely that Manny makes it through the season, don't you have to give it a try? Ortiz actually hit better this year when he played the field, although that may be more due to the National League pitching he faced when the DH wasn't available.
   20. John DiFool2 Posted: September 27, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#2189076)
The problem with that #19 is that that "better fielder" is probably Wily Mo...

With 3 DHes you probably need to move one. Either that or WM decides to go to fall instructional league to work
on his D. Maybe he just has Lonnie Smith disease and there's nothing he can do about it.
   21. karlmagnus Posted: September 27, 2006 at 02:14 PM (#2189092)
If on the other had we look at pennants added rather than games added, we return to the fact that Ortiz was utterly useless in the crucial 5 game Yankee rout, whereas Manny went 8 for 11 with 8 walks. If Ortiz had contributed like Manny at that point we'd probably have won 3 out of 5. Admittedly, with the subsequent pitching collapse that might have made no difference, but claiming Ortiz is "clutchier" than Manny on the basis of this season is a stretch as well as being intrinsically unlikely (because "clutchier" doesn't exist.)
   22. Addicted To Glove Posted: September 27, 2006 at 02:24 PM (#2189099)
There's a problem with that arguement karl. That is that the negative wins "added" during that series are already in that number I mentioned. Regardless of how we fans see it those games were no more important than any other games.

That's saying nothing of the "pennants added" concept which is just stupid, because he can't win the team the pennant by himself.

I'm not saying anything about clutch. I only said the numbers suggest that his play led to more wins than any other player in the AL.
   23. karlmagnus Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#2189194)
The problem, ArthurDent, is that "wins added" takes account of the fact that some siutations -- 1 down with 1 on and 2 out in the bottom of the 9th -- are more critical to win manufacture than others, but don't take account of the fact that some games -- 5 game series against biggest rivals, in a close season where a decline needs to be stopped (or become a rout, as it did) -- are much more important than last night's laugher against the D-Rays. If you adjust for one you need to adjust for the other.

IF you have 2 great hitters on a team, and the one batting first in the order is "clutchy" (probably random, but whether random or not) the second can't possibly be "clutchy" because the first one has vacuumed up the "clutchiness" opportunities.

Which doesn't take away from an excellent season by Ortiz; it's just that his success late/close is not exceptional, and doesn't make his excellent season a historic one, or even the best in the AL this year (though I grant it's close.)
   24. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2189214)
Regardless of how we fans see it those games were no more important than any other games.

Of course they were, because they were against the team the Red Sox were in direct competition against. A win over the Yankees equals a loss for the Yankees. A win over the Devil Rays doesn't.

That's saying nothing of the "pennants added" concept which is just stupid, because he can't win the team the pennant by himself.

But David Ortiz, as clutch as he is, can't win GAMES by himself any more than he can win a pennant by himself. If, in fact, you think he can win games by himself, then it follows logically that he must be able to likewise win a pennant by himself, since winning a pennant simply involves winning more games than everybody else.
   25. RobertMachemer Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#2189233)
If you ask me, win probability is the best way to decide an MVP, because it's the measure of how many wins the player has added all on his own.
I must remember not to ask you then...

No, my apologies for the (not terribly funny) bit of pseudo-snark there. In truth, win probabilities merely purports to measure how many wins a player adds on its own. Win Shares purports to do the same thing. Many stats do, in fact. Whether or not WPA does it any better than the rest is certainly up for debate.

Is a three-run home run in the third inning worth less than a three-run home run in the sixth? WPA would suggest it is, all other things being equal, but it's unclear to me that it's correct to do so.
   26. Daryn Posted: September 27, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2189242)
First of all, WPA is the junkiest of junk stats that ever did junk.

Really? Find me a four-year stretch where Fielder every approached anything comparable to Ortiz's last 4 four years.


If Fielder's 1990-1993 is not "approaching anything comparable" to Ortiz' last 4 years, I need a new dictionary.
   27. Darren Posted: September 27, 2006 at 09:49 PM (#2189572)
I suppose I should've guessed that this thread would go in this direction. I was really hoping it'd just be a chance for Sox fans to appreciate Ortiz. Oh well, what can you do?
   28. Xander Posted: September 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#2189599)
If Fielder's 1990-1993 is not "approaching anything comparable" to Ortiz' last 4 years, I need a new dictionary.

I suppose if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to interpret baseball stats these stretches would look similar.
   29. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: September 27, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#2189612)
If Fielder's 1990-1993 is not "approaching anything comparable" to Ortiz' last 4 years, I need a new dictionary.


I suppose if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to interpret baseball stats these stretches would look similar.

No kidding. Ortiz ate at least 300 more burgers over his four year span than Fielder did. And he gained a good 5 more pant sizes as well.
   30. The Original SJ Posted: September 27, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2189619)
I suppose I should've guessed that this thread would go in this direction. I was really hoping it'd just be a chance for Sox fans to appreciate Ortiz. Oh well, what can you do?

Sorry buddy, Want to talk about Clemens a little? Go 'Stros! I think helping the Astros overtake the Cards would cement his reputation as the best pitcher in your lifetime (except the Walter Johnson, of course).
   31. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: September 27, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#2189632)
Darren must be pushing 90!

Pushing it? He buried it seven or eight years ago.
   32. Flynn Posted: September 27, 2006 at 10:47 PM (#2189636)
If Fielder's 1990-1993 is not "approaching anything comparable" to Ortiz' last 4 years, I need a new dictionary.

I heard the OED is on sale at Barnes and Noble. That'd be good for you.

Cecil's OPS+: 167, 134, 117, 124.

Papi: 144, 145, 161, ? (His OPS is 43 points higher, so possibly in the ~165 range).

Cecil's WARP: 7.5, 6.6, 3.7, 4.1

Papi's WARP: 4.8, 6.4, 8.0, 7.6 (!)

Cecil's EqA: .335, .304, .287, .295

Papi's EqA: .313, .318, .334, .337
   33. PJ Martinez Posted: September 27, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#2189645)
"Depending on your favorite rate stat, Ortiz is having the 8th-12th best offensive season in the majors this year."

What if my favorite rate stat is OPS? I realize it's not a very good one, but by that measure, Ortiz is third-best in the AL and 5th-best in MLB. He also has over 100 more PAs than Hafner and M. Ramirez each have. Which is, what, 18% more or something? That certainly closes the gap with Ramirez, and possibly with Hafner.

Once you bring defense into the picture, than Mauer probably zooms ahead in total worth, and, if you count WPA as well, than maybe Jeter takes the lead. But other than Hafner, with his 18% (or so) fewer PA, I don't see who in the AL has had a better offensive season than Ortiz.
   34. nycfan Posted: September 27, 2006 at 11:17 PM (#2189658)
I don't remember who it was, but someone on this site gave me the best example of the problem with WPA

If a guy hits a walk-off two-run homer to give his team a 2-1 victory, he gets more WPA than a guy who hits a two-run homer in the first inning and a two-run homer in the ninth when his team wins 4-1
   35. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 28, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#2189706)
Just throwing this out there.

After the 2002 World Series, Angel GM Bill Stoneman decided to bring back Brad Fullmer as the lefty DH for 2003, in a platoon roll with Shawn Wooten. Fullmer initially balked at the tendered one year, $1 million contract, so the Angels began talks with two other lefty DH/1Bs, Robert Fick and David Ortiz.

The Angels really wanted Fick, but he was making noises about going to Atlanta for the same contract offer. Ortiz was the safety net. An angry Fullmer got the message, and re-signed with the Angels. Fick signed with Atlanta. Two weeks later, the Red Sox signed Ortiz.

Doh!
   36. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:46 AM (#2189873)
Ortiz looks like he's swinging a wiffle ball bat, he's so strong and quick through the strike zone. He's a beast, and I got alot of respect for the guy.
   37. Darren Posted: September 28, 2006 at 10:01 AM (#2190217)
Remember, there was some article about how Bill James studied Fullmer and Ortiz and couldn't find much difference between the two. He apparently told the Sox it was a toss up.
   38. AROM Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:20 PM (#2190263)
Big Papi hit his 54th HR tonight, which is just an amazing feat for a lefthanded dead pull hitter

Except he's not a dead pull hitter. He's got amazing power to opposite field.

Remember, there was some article about how Bill James studied Fullmer and Ortiz and couldn't find much difference between the two. He apparently told the Sox it was a toss up.

There really wasn't any reason to prefer Ortiz to Fullmer at that time. Fullmer 136 OPS+ at age 27, Ortiz 122 at age 26.
   39. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:20 PM (#2190264)
All hail Cookie Monster!!!

I tried a little experiment last winter WRT Pennant Probability Added. I went to Jay Bennet's site (http://www.amstat.org/sections/sis/pgp/index.html). He has Player Game Percentages for the last 10 World Series. The numbers come out differently from what Studes has for WPA, but I suppose that they're close enough for govt work. I weighted the stats for each game using a simple assumption that each team has a 50/50 chance to win any game (for example, a team up 2-1 has a 75% to win the series while one down 0 games to 3 has a 6.25% chance).

If you go by this method, Tony Womack had the best World Series for any player over the past decade, back in '01. The method does favor players in conentious Series. Gong by a straight Win Probability method, the best WS by a player this decade was by Josh Beckett in '03 or Lance Berkman this year. Beckett had 39.9 player game points while Berkman averaged 9.3 PGP/game.
So, it appears that Pennant Probability Added would not be a good method to make comparisons between different series or seasons. The question that remains is this: was Womack the Most Valuable Player of the 2001 World Series? If I had to make a guess, I'd say no. It was Randy Johnson. Not Curt Schilling, though. Curt performed well last year ('04), but not in '01.
   40. baudib Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:40 PM (#2190282)
Cecil Fielder = Big fat guy who hits a lot of home runs and thinks he's the MVP when he clearly isn't.

Papi = Big fat guy who hits a lot of home runs and thinks he's the MVP when he clearly isn't.
   41. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:47 PM (#2190287)
"After the 2002 World Series, Angel GM Bill Stoneman decided to bring back Brad Fullmer as the lefty DH for 2003, in a platoon roll with Shawn Wooten. Fullmer initially balked at the tendered one year, $1 million contract, so the Angels began talks with two other lefty DH/1Bs, Robert Fick and David Ortiz.

The Angels really wanted Fick, but he was making noises about going to Atlanta for the same contract offer. Ortiz was the safety net. An angry Fullmer got the message, and re-signed with the Angels. Fick signed with Atlanta. Two weeks later, the Red Sox signed Ortiz."

The Braves offered each of Fick, Ortiz and Travis Lee that one year, $1 million contract. First one to take it, gets it.

Fick called back. And Braves fans weep.
   42. chris p Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2190295)
After the 2002 World Series, Angel GM Bill Stoneman decided to bring back Brad Fullmer as the lefty DH for 2003, in a platoon roll with Shawn Wooten. Fullmer initially balked at the tendered one year, $1 million contract, so the Angels began talks with two other lefty DH/1Bs, Robert Fick and David Ortiz.

The Angels really wanted Fick, but he was making noises about going to Atlanta for the same contract offer. Ortiz was the safety net. An angry Fullmer got the message, and re-signed with the Angels. Fick signed with Atlanta. Two weeks later, the Red Sox signed Ortiz.


there's no guarantee ortiz would have become the greatest hero in american history (or whatever mca calls him) if he went to anaheim. for the first half of 03 he didn't hit with much power and as the season progressed, his swing changed alot--he was very upright at first, not at all like you see now. i think papa jack (red sox hitting coach) deserves credit for helping ortiz change his swing to get more of his strength into it.
   43. bibigon Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:53 PM (#2190297)
I don't remember who it was, but someone on this site gave me the best example of the problem with WPA

If a guy hits a walk-off two-run homer to give his team a 2-1 victory, he gets more WPA than a guy who hits a two-run homer in the first inning and a two-run homer in the ninth when his team wins 4-1


Wait, how does this show a problem in WPA? The 2 run HR in the 2-1 game was more valuable than in the other situations. That's not a WPA illusion, that's WPA doing its job.
   44. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:56 PM (#2190300)
i think papa jack (red sox hitting coach) deserves credit for helping ortiz change his swing to get more of his strength into it.


If you believe Seth Mnookin's book, Grady gets some credit for that.
   45. chris p Posted: September 28, 2006 at 01:58 PM (#2190302)
i haven't read mnookin's yet, but it's on my list. i've been on the same book for over a month now, seems i haven't had much time for reading.
   46. Kyle S Posted: September 28, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#2190314)
actually, fielder's 1990 season is remarkably similar to howard's season this year once you adjust for era and park. tons of HRs, fewer doubles, tons of Ks, lots of BBs, age 26 season, same body type. howard hit for a higher average, and that's a difference, but some of that is probably era and park too.
   47. The Original SJ Posted: September 28, 2006 at 02:19 PM (#2190321)
Same Body Type? Big Cec had about 150 lbs on Howard.
   48. Kyle S Posted: September 28, 2006 at 02:22 PM (#2190329)
Wait, how does this show a problem in WPA? The 2 run HR in the 2-1 game was more valuable than in the other situations. That's not a WPA illusion, that's WPA doing its job.

Some find a statistic that rewards a player more credit for the sequence {Out, Out, Out, 2R HR} than {2R HR, Out, Out, 2R HR} perverse. Including me.

That said, you have to be an idiot to not think Ortiz is a different player with the game on the line.
   49. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 28, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#2190349)
Wait, how does this show a problem in WPA? The 2 run HR in the 2-1 game was more valuable than in the other situations. That's not a WPA illusion, that's WPA doing its job.


The final at-bat for the player (the 2 run homer in the 9th) is the same. So WPA is saying that the player would be more valuable in that game if he didn't hit the first home run. He's actually hurt by doing something positive in his first at-bat and then performing identically from there on out.

I agree that this strikes me as an issue with the WPA concept.
   50. chris p Posted: September 28, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#2190366)
Wait, how does this show a problem in WPA? The 2 run HR in the 2-1 game was more valuable than in the other situations. That's not a WPA illusion, that's WPA doing its job.


Some find a statistic that rewards a player more credit for the sequence {Out, Out, Out, 2R HR} than {2R HR, Out, Out, 2R HR} perverse. Including me.


in addition to what other people have pointed out: that wpa does exactly what it says it does: measure the probability change in the game state for every play, there are other ways it takes context into account. the 2 run HR down 1 in the 9th is most likely off the other team's closer. The 2 run homer up 1 in the 9th is most likely not off the other team's closer. wpa factors in the context of the play. it's the context of the play that determines how the opposing manager is going to make decisions about who is in the game. using the red sox as an example, i'd say it's more impressive to hit a homer off papelbon in the 9th than one off beckett in the 1st and one of tavarez or seanez in the 9th.
   51. AROM Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2190376)
i think papa jack (red sox hitting coach) deserves credit for helping ortiz change his swing to get more of his strength into it.

Mickey Hatcher would never have let that happen.
   52. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2190378)
using the red sox as an example, i'd say it's more impressive to hit a homer off papelbon in the 9th than one off beckett in the 1st and one of tavarez or seanez in the 9th.


Impressive? Yes

Valuable? You'd have to convince me.
   53. Smitty* Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#2190395)
Quoting myself from another thread (since I think this is what 36 refers to)

The following is a hypothetical situation which illustrates the problems I have with using WPA as anything more than a toy. I would like if someone (and I'm not being snarky here) who believes WPA is a useful analytical tool to explain why I should not worry about this situation.

Let's say we're looking at the number 2 hitter on the visiting team. The home team is going to score exactly 1 run, and the visiting team is only going to score runs driven in by the number 2 hitter. Let's say this number 2 hitter comes up with a man on 1st and no outs in both the 1st and 9th innings. For simplicity's sake, we're going to ignore his ABs in other innings (assume he made outs with no one on base in his other ABs).

All Win expectancy numbers come from walkoffbalk.com

First scenario: Batter homers in 1st inning, Ks in 9th inning, team wins 2-1.
Win expectancy 1st inning 1 on 0 out tie game - .511
Win expectancy 1st inning 0 on 0 out up 2 runs - .659 batter gets .148 for AB
Win expectancy 9th inning 1 on 0 out up 1 run - .862
Win expectancy 9th inning 1 on 1 out up 1 run - .835 batter gets -.027 for AB
Batter gets .121 for game

Second scenario: Batter K's in 1st, homers in 9th, team wins 2-1.
Win expectancy 1st inning 1 on 0 out tie game - .511
Win expectancy 1st inning 1 on 1 out tie game - .466 batter gets -.045 for AB
Win expectancy 9th inning 1 on 0 out down 1 run - .240
Win expectancy 9th inning 0 on 0 out up 1 run - .848 batter gets .608 for AB
Batter gets .563 for game

Third scenario: Batter homers in both 1st and 9th, team wins 4-1.
Win expectancy 1st inning 1 on 0 out tie game - .511
Win expectancy 1st inning 0 on 0 out up 2 runs - .659 batter gets .148 for AB
Win expectancy 9th inning 1 on 0 out up 1 run - .862
Win expectancy 9th inning 0 on 0 out up 3 runs - .971 batter gets .109 for AB
Batter gets .257 for game

I can live with the idea that the second scenario is more valuable than the 1st scenario (more valuable to produce runs late in a close game than early in a close game), but I cannot see why scenario 2 should be more valuable (over twice as valuable) as scenario 3.

That's the problem I have with using WPA for hitters. The hitters are not independent of the game context. The hitters performance earlier in the game is part of creating the context for their ABs later in the game. And it seems to me that WPA is rewarding players who fail early in the game and then succeed later in the game more than it is rewarding players who succeed both early and later in the game.
   54. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#2190396)
i'd say it's more impressive to hit a homer off papelbon in the 9th than one off beckett in the 1st and one of tavarez or seanez in the 9th.

Then shouldn't WPA take pitcher stats (particularly home run rate) into account?
   55. The Original SJ Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#2190399)
Doesn't WPA also penalize palyers who do not play in a large number of close games, or teams with great offenses.

Wouldn't an all time great team, like the 98 Yanks (first in runs scored, first in runs allowed) not have an opportunity for higer WPAs because they are winning a lot of their games 9-3?
   56. chris p Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:33 PM (#2190413)
Wouldn't an all time great team, like the 98 Yanks (first in runs scored, first in runs allowed) not have an opportunity for higer WPAs because they are winning a lot of their games 9-3?

no. there are more wins to go around an all-time great team and in blowouts, wpa tends to spread the credit out more.
   57. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#2190414)
Doesn't WPA also penalize palyers who do not play in a large number of close games, or teams with great offenses.

No. In every team's wins, the team WPA is +0.5 and in every team's losses, the team WPA is -0.5. That WPA is shared among all the players, and teams with great offenses will tend to have more WPA on offense than on defense and vice versa, and teams with equally great offenses as defenses will share WPA equally among the members of the offense and defense.

The 1998 Yanks, who finished first in runs scored and first in runs allowed, would end up allocating a lot more of their WPA to events earlier in the ballgame, because that's when those games were "effectively" won. But the total team WPA would be the same (or rather, the same as any other 114-win team).
   58. chris p Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#2190416)
Then shouldn't WPA take pitcher stats (particularly home run rate) into account?

i like this idea, but i have a feeling you'd be adding too much noise and not enough signal.

wpa isn't perfect. and yeah, it's more of a toy than a "useful analytical tool" but i think it's a nice toy. it gives you another perspective on the game... a little bit about how the game unfolded.
   59. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#2190424)
<quote><strike>Big Papi</strike>Babe Ruth hit his <strike>54</strike>29th HR <strike>tonight</strike>today, which is just an amazing feat for a lefthanded dead pull hitter who plays half his games in Fenway.</quote>
   60. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:50 PM (#2190427)
I think WPA is a good toy to use to find out if there's any basis to fan's perception of a player being "clutch" or a "choker." I don't think it's a good gauge of value at all, though.
   61. The Original SJ Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#2190431)
Then shouldn't WPA take pitcher stats (particularly home run rate) into account?

Because, down 2-1 against San Diego and Trevor Hoffman is different than being down 2-1 against Derek Turnbow or whoever.

How would you include that in WPA? Would it even be possible?
   62. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: September 28, 2006 at 03:56 PM (#2190434)
How would you include that in WPA? Would it even be possible?


Well, couldn't you calculate the expected winning % down by 1 run with an inning to go against a pitcher that gives up X amount of runs compared to one that gives up Y?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3179 seconds
41 querie(s) executed