MLB All-Star selections and game (1 Viewer)

[David King]

Seems a lot of people are missing the main stat, which is run production. ALL stats and I repeat ALL stats are secondary next to the combined Runs scored and RBIs.
Shortstops
A Rod-130
Tejada-113
Nomar-111
Jeter-101
Vizquel-90
For reference, Jeter is on pace to have a run production of over 200 by seasons end which is considered All Star caliber as far as offense is concerned. But there are other players with a slightly higher run production that do not get to go.
Al 3B debate
Glaus-113
Chavez-106
Ventura-101
Batista-98
Hillenbrand-97
Hinske-94
Other notable mentions
Ordonez-125
C Delgado-107
J Jones-101
T Salmon-101
J Damon-101
B Boone-100
R Mondesi-100 (he is in fact getting the job done...yikes)
B Williams-100
Lots more borderline to the 100 mark
I'm not an AL fan at all, nor do I follow them. But judging from offense numbers alone, I can say that Ordonez should have been an automatic All Star and Jeter was right at the borderline along with many others. But it would be nice for me to watch the NL crush the AL with players from different AL teams rather than watching the NL crush the AL team made up of Yankees. j/k (I only care about the Home Run Derby)

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, so much for praising Seth's posts about not having any emotional baggage. By the way, I've been a Yankee fan since I was a kid rooting for the M & M boys in the early 1960's, and once any player puts on the pinstripes, he becomes one of my guys that I will root for as long as they wear that uniform.

 

[Bill Slack]

David:

I'm sorry, you are completely wrong.

Run production is 10x more closely tied to OPS (OBP+SLG). Runs and RBIs are effected by OPS along with team performance. You need a high scoring lineup to produce runs and RBIs that are not purely a function of the individual.

 

[David King]

Run production is 10x more closely tied to OPS (OBP+SLG). Runs and RBIs are effected by OPS along with team performance. You need a high scoring lineup to produce runs and RBIs that are not purely a function of the individual.

Nope, I think thats the other way around buddy. All offensive stats are team oriented, there is no individual stat. This includes OBS. Without a great hitter hitting behind you the pitchers will not give you anything but crap to hit. So each hitters OPS is greatly affected by whos hitting behind them and whos on base ahead of them.

A truely great player will always find a way to score and drive in runs regardless of OPS, BA, or HR. Think of it as a pitcher would, what would you rather have at years end, the guy with the highest OPS or the guy who took part in scoring you the most runs.

Edit, I'll give you a good example:

2001 Bonds
OBP-.515
SLG-.863
Run Production-266 (129 Runs, 137 RBIs)

2001 Sosa
OBP-.437
SLG-.737
Run Production-306 (146 Runs, 160 RBIs)

Bonds killed Sosa in OPS, Sosa killed Bonds in the stat that matters most.




And for the sake of argument, here is this years:

2002 Bonds
OBP-.564
SLG-.766
Run Production-117 (65 Runs, 52 RBIs)

2002 Sosa
OBP-.419
SLG-.646
Run Production-120 (63 Runs, 57 RBIs)

 

[Bill Slack]

Are you crazy? You're completely wrong.

Go read some books analyzing baseball statistics. Read about sabermetrics. Real Bill James, Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein. Read about win shares. There are mountains of information to backup my position. There's nothing but your opinion to back up yours.

How many RBIs does Mike Sweeney have? He'd have 70 if he played for the RedSox. How about Mike Mussina last year? He pitched MUCH better than Roger Clemens, but had a losing record. It's not that he doesn't 'know how to win' it's that he had some of the worst run support in baseball. The same thing happened the year before in Baltimore. And before that he had some of the best run support of a long period in baseball history. Run support is mostly luck. Good hitters around you isn't luck, per se, but it's something the actual player can't effect.

The only stats that represent less production than batting average are RUNS and RBIs.

Look at Garret Anderson vs. Mike Sweeney They have an equal amount of runs, and Anderson has 14 more RBIs. Andersons OPS is ~.850, Sweeney's is nearly 200 points higher.

Anderson is NOT a better player than Mike Sweeney. Anderson has a .317 OBP (!!!) he has like 15 walks, all season. He's not a bad player, especially this year, but he's not a great player, even this year. Even though he's an All Star.

 

[MikeM]

BTW, Mike, I know you are a big A's fan (and have little love for the Yanks), but I'm not trying to knock Chavez here. The main point is that Ventura was so far back in line at the 3B spot that it's rather embarrassing that he is on the team. Just like Stanton over Nelson last year, among others.

Seth, dammit, since you're a Yankee fan I feel it's my obligation to disagree with at least one thing you've said, but I can't find anything. You know your baseball, and although we disagree on some things, I'm glad we can agree on this one.
Personally, I think Ventura should NEVER be allowed to be on any All-Star team. Why? Because he's the only man stupid enough to charge the mound toward Nolan Ryan. No matter how far he goes in the game, I'll always picture him with his head firmly lodged in Nolan Ryan's left arm pit, getting the shit beat out of him with Nolan's rightie. Oh man, what a classic baseball moment. Score one for the old man there.

 

[David King]

Look at Garret Anderson vs. Mike Sweeney They have an equal amount of runs, and Anderson has 14 more RBIs. Andersons OPS is ~.850, Sweeney's is nearly 200 points higher.

OPS still doesn't measure clutch performance. Under your theory, Anderson had more chances to drive in runs which is the ONLY reason he has more RBIs than Sweeney. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, please show me the numbers to back it up. Show me each players batting average with runners on base and that Anderson had more chances, this would be the only way to excuse his higher RBI total.
OPS can do an adequate job in Total team stats. If a team as a whole leads leads the league in OPS, then chances are that they are high ranking in runs too. By rule, the more you are on base, the greater chance you have of scoring. But in can not be used as sole means to judge an individual players talent. It does not take into consideration health/durability, clutch performance, quality of opposing pitching, speed on the bases, park played in, or the ability to take advantage of your opponents mistakes all of which can be large contributing factor as to how many runs and RBIs a player has and his overall performance. Its not pure dumb luck that a player scores and drives in runs. Its his knowledge of the game and ability to execute when needed that makes him a great player.
I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jason Seaver]

OPS still doesn't measure clutch performance.

Assuming you believe in such a thing.

 

[David King]

Assuming you believe in such a thing.

I do. Batting Average with runners in scoring position (ARSP)has always been more important to me than Slugging %. Ricky Gutierrez had an uncanny ability to get hits with runners in scoring position and 2 out last year for the Cubs. His OPS was lower than the previous year, yet he had more RBIs. It had nothing to do with luck, he stepped up his game for the situation. I have seen many occations where a player performed better when his back was against the wall in a pressure situation.


Its better than saying players like Brett Boone, Mike Cameron, and Raul Mondesi's Runs and RBI total are a fluke just because their OSP is lower.

You can sign an entire team of players with the highest OSP, place them on one team and let them play. But its not the run total that will increase the most, its the players OSP that will drop. If OSP were to hold true, then each All Star game should be high scoring, right?

 

[John Spencer]

It had nothing to do with luck, he stepped up his game for the situation

Basically, what you're saying is that you're a big fan of the Randy Moss Principle?

 

[Bill Slack]

Looking at Mike Sweeney's splits vs Garret Andersons he has a higher batting average, obp and slugging percentage in 'clutch' situations (RISP, close/late) than Anderson. In fact, Sweeney's numbers are better than his non-clutch, while Anderson's are worse. Yes. Anderson has more RBIs. Has has more oppurunities for RBIs.
Guittirez hit better with RISP in 2000 than in 2001. He did hit better with the bases loaded last year. He had 42% more RBIs in 2001 with the bases loaded. He also had 31% more ABs. He was a bit lucky in 2001 in the bases loaded, and was about normal for himself, in 2000.
We remember 'clutch' performances and great plays in great situations, but they really don't mean very much. Was Kirk Gibson hitting a HR on Eck in game 1 clutch? Sure. But it also had a lot to do with luck. (I won't argue the toughness factor though, damn!)
I highly recommened Baseball Dynasties by Rob Neyer [and Eddie Epstein] (it can be had for $5-$10) and Win Shares, by Bill James.
A single season is a small sample size. Situational hitting is an even smaller sample size.
All-Star games have great pitchers too and good pitching DOES beat good hitting; pitching factors in for ~60% of W's vs ~40% in studies I've read (and I've run my own statistics for the 2001 season which fall in this range.) Basically, scoring has reaches a point of diminishing returns (what's the difference between scoring 20rpg and 10rpg? You'll win 90% of games, both ways even if you have a very poot pitching staff. The difference between giving up 10rpg and 5rpg as a pitching staff, however, would be the difference between a pretty good team, and the worst team of all time, most likely.)
Check this quick analysis out, as well: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/P...tudy-risp.html

 

[David King]

What can I say Bill, you are a better man than I am.

All-Star games have great pitchers too and good pitching DOES beat good hitting

Damn straight. Is pitching evenly distributed between all Teams? Or do some players have to face better pitching than others?
From the sound of things, everything comes down to luck. Personally, I would rather have a player who is
consistently lucky in run production than a player who is consistently lucky in OPS and has a consistently unlucky low run production.
PS, none of the questions were rhetorical, I would like your opinion on them. I also think Stolen Bases should be factored in with OPS if you have to use it. It will not cause much difference in todays game, but would help better prove your theory in a case like 1985 Vince Coleman. In that example, his OPS was a whoping .655 (.320+.335). Yet he scored 107 runs and still drove in 40 at the top of the lineup. His SLG suffered because most of his hits were singles and it doesn't take into consideration his 110 SB. It also helped that his team didn't care about personal stats and would play fundamental baseball to get the runners on base home. The Cardinals ballpark just wasn't HR friendly enough at the time to play any other way. Get on base, steal second, steal third, then bunt home. The 85 Cardinals speed demon method was a beautiful system, but the low OPS caused by this dictakes otherwise by your method. Just some food for thought

 

[Bill Slack]

The OVERALL performance isn't luck, but in a specific situation, there is a lot of luck.

Like DiMaggio hitting in 56 straight, that was incredibly lucky. Now, he was also one of the likeliest people to do it in history, since he is one of the greatest hitters in history, and also wasn't as picky as some (e.g., willing to take a walk -- he knew it was productive, but preferred to get a hit, it seems [according to his brother, anyway.]) Walks factor in quite a bit as a player could for 0-1 for 4BBs and lose the streak.

Again, Gibson was more likely than most people to hit that HR when he did, based on his power. Did Bucky Dent just 'come through in the clutch'? No, he was REALLY lucky, hit the ball just right, to the only part of the ballpark it would go out.

On a longer timeline, luck becomes less and less a factor, but on a very short timeline it is very important. Hitting .350 isn't lucky -- WHEN you get those hits, is largely based on luck.

Being consistently lucky over longer periods of time doesn't really exist. There aren't any stats that show hugely inflated numbers for 'clutch' situations, etc. There is of course some variation, but nothing to get excited over, to say the least. Someone with a high OPS WILL produce runs in the right situation. Teams with the highest OPS almost always lead the league in run production (or are very close to it.)

Someone like Barry Bonds is hurt in the RBI department (more than anyone else) because of his willingness to walk -- he is currently walking in 31% (!) of his plate appearances. Even with a good hitter behind him, he gets pitched around with people on base. Now, the only way he can score a run is largely out of his control. He likely has folks in front of him on the basepath and he no longer is at bat. While he has a large effect on both his RBIs and run totals, he does not have the absolute effect. While he is losing some RBIs by walking so much, in a perfect world (with good hitting behind him) he will gain runs scored (thanks to his gaudy .520 OBP.)

I'm not a better man than you, by any mans, but I really think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to baseball. I read a lot of articles and books, and have analyzed them to the best of my ability.

Some of the axioms and stats that are thrown at us in baseball make about much sense as this: Did you know that over 40% of sick days are taken on Mondays or Fridays at X company? Sounds like a bad sign at first, but it is obviously a very silly statement!

I will try to find the article I read on stolen bases recently. This is definitely a piece missing from it -- the question is how much to count it, it does not work to simply add the extra bases into slugging. Also, OPS favors slugging a bit more than it should, as OBP is more important ( a 1.000 OBP is a lot better than a 1.000 slugging average! -- a team with a 1.000 OBP will score infinite runs.) OPS is basically a quick and simple formula that works pretty well. It definitely is not perfect.

 

[David King]

it does not work to simply add the extra bases into slugging

This is where I get confused. Why not? The purpose of OPS is to determine the odds of a player scoring. Whats the difference between a player hitting a double or hitting a single and stealing second? Logically, Adding OBP + ((TB+(SB-CS))/AB) should yield even more acurate results than just OBP + SLG because it should show the runner in scoring position more.

This is why I hate the SLG stat. I do not like the way it is calculated. A player is rewarded more for a triple than a double even though there isn't much of a difference scoring wise (a single can drive both in without much trouble). The reason it doesn't show up in stats is because players don't hit as many triples. If they would the OSP would be inflated even more while run scoring would not increase much at all.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

The running debate between David and Bill has be searching through my collection of The Bill James Baseball Abstract . In his last issue from 1987 he ranks the ten most meaningrul (basic) stats.
1. ERA
2. OBP
2. Slg
4. BA
4. Home Runs
6. Pitcher's Walks
7. Saves
8. Batter's Walks
9. RBI
9. Runs
Adding runs and RBI is called Runs Produced, but with a with the home runs subtracted (by mistake according to James. He says that Runs Produced is no better than having runs scored and RBI counts.
On Base + Slugging (OPS in this thread). James is not a big fan of this stat, but it is higher than BA. "There is no commonly recognized standard... and the statistic is put together wrong. I mean, it isn't that getting on base creates runs and slugging creates runs and so if you put them together you get runs, but that the two create runs when they work together. They shouldn't be added together, they should be multiplied.. It is about as valuable a statistic as total average."
Bill, I pretty much share you interest in Bill James, but I note one oversight in your last post.

a team with a 1.000 OBP will score infinite runs.)

You could have the first three hitters of the game get singles and then get picked off first. 1.000 OPB but no runs. The correct total of runs is somewhere in between.

 

[David King]

Oh boy, more to debate
I attempted at all cost to stay away from the pitching side. But, ERA as the most important stat. All I can say is not in all cases.
As a pitcher, the only thing that matters come games end is that you have allowed less runs than your opponent (doesn't matter if its 1-0 or 9-8). Pitching is a duel between one teams pitcher and anothers. So if a pitcher loses, he should not blame his team for lack of run support, he should tip his hat to the opposing pitcher for out dueling him. (with the exception that his team made many mistakes on the basepaths, or couldn't get runners home from 3rd with less than 2 outs)
In 1998, Kevin Tapani Won 19 games with an ERA of 4.85. The lame "baseball analists" (who I might add in most cases were never good enough to play the game, yet feel they can judge the players and their ability) knocked him every chance they got for his high ERA. They said he was a fluke and without the large amount of run support he got, his record would not have been as good.
Having watched that season, I know the story was totally different. The Cubs did in fact go out and consistantly get him lots of runs early. He then traded runs for outs whenever a runner got on base to advance the game into the later stages and to avoid a large inning. This totally shot his ERA. Had his team had not scored him those runs, he would have pitched differently and would certainly had a lower ERA. Had I not seen him pitch most of those games, I would not have any way to debate him as a fluke because his carrer statistics dictate otherwise. He pitched a lot better than his ERA shows and he played the game exactly the way it is supposed to be played.
ERA is also very ballpark oriented.
And I apologize in advance to any baseball analist reading this. I have never taken an analist seriously since Peter Gammons laughed at the cubs for giving Sosa a huge contract right before his big home run years. Man am I glad the Cubs made that mistake.
I will agree that a player with a high OBP will have a greater chance to score, as a pitcher with the lowest ERA has to win. I just disagree that those players with lower OBP and higher ERA have are a fluke or lucky when they are successfull. Those stats will never tell the whole story of how the player played on the field.

 

[Jason Seaver]

But, ERA as the most important stat. All I can say is not in all cases.
As a pitcher, the only thing that matters come games end is that you have allowed less runs than your opponent.

Or that your releivers haven't coughed it up.
I suppose there might be better statistics for pitchers than ERA, but they'd likely be of the variety where you have to compute for the entire league including ballpark factors, not something you can figure out in the margins of the scorecard at the ballpark (for example, something like this page on Baseball Prospectus). Since a good individual statistic should reflect only that player, ERA is far from perfect - the easiest improvement, to me, would be to redistribute an inherited runner scoring between reliever and relievee - but there aren't many better ones (opponent's OBP/OPS, perhaps).

 

[Ashley Seymour]

ERA is far from perfect - the easiest improvement, to me, would be to redistribute an inherited runner scoring between reliever and relievee - but there aren't many better ones (opponent's OBP/OPS, perhaps).

It appears that Bill Slack and I are baseball junkies who have been suduced by the Bill James, Pete Palmer school of Sabermetrics. What they started about 25 years ago was to give the average baseball fan an insight into the the meaning of the statistics that had been around for 100 years but often fell short in fulling the task they were designed for; giving a greater understanding of the game.

It fun for the average fan to argue the value of stats, players etc. but the professionals in the sport make their living understanding these arcane numbers. It would be very surprising if baseball insiders would disagree with the hierarchy of the stats I quoted from Bill James.

ERA of all the stats, pitching hitting, is the most reliable. Are there park effects to consider? Sure. It is pretty intuitive to deduce that a pitcher in Dodger Statium will have a much better ERA than a pitcher in Wrigly or shudder Coors Canaveral. You could figure stats for inherited runner, and that is the kind of thing James did very often, but my intiutive feel is that it doesn't matter. If a pitcher comes out after 7 1/3 innings for a fresh reliever, does his ERA suffer by bringing a worse pitcher? Why bring in the pitcher. A starter's ERA after 7 innings is higher than his ERA for the first 7 and a fresh reliever only serves to help his ERA.

A pitcher's wins is highly influenced by luck. David used the Tapani example, but James would counter with the Bob Welsh Cy Young year of 27 wins as an example of a pitcher who was lucky 4-5 times more than his ERA and other stats would allow. The won-loss record is still an important stat and it falls around 17th place.

Other stats better than ERA? Well Walks and saves at 6 and 7th place are important, but not as much so. Strikeouts comes in around 13th place.

You can combine any number of measures to gain insight into a players performance. Strikeout to walk ratio is a very effective stat to analyaze a pitcher. Look at the pitcher who have a 4-1 or better ratio and you will see that their ERA and wins are above the league average also.