Friday, January 18, 2008
It's Urkel Day!
It's time for everybody's favorite...TGIF links! Here's a collection of random tidbits, most baseball-related, some not. I've also concluded that January sucks, at least in a baseball sense. Only one more month until pitchers and catchers report. One...more...month.
--Today on ESPN.com, Rob Neyer chatted with fans about which pitcher would be better, our own wunderkind Tim Lincecum, or Brewer uberprospect Yovani Gallardo. Lincecum has hellacious stuff and destroyed everything in his path in the minors, but Gallardo is younger and has shown better control. The answer of who will be better isn't exactly as clear-cut as we Giants fans might like.
It makes for an interesting read, and some good points are made, especially in counter to all the people freaking out about Lincecum's small frame, and the injury risk involved, and also just about the general unpredictability of pitchers. He's a pitcher and he exists, therefore he's an injury risk. It happens. Some chatters brought up the example of Mark Prior, who was considered a brilliant physical specimen who could never get hurt, then...got hurt.
Another point raised is that just because Lincecum's delivery is bizarre doesn't mean it's dangerous. It seems like most of his power comes from his lower body, which would take a lot of strain off of the arm. Power pitchers like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens had notoriously strong legs, which enabled them to throw hard as hell, and both those guys pitcher forever.
I also realize from reading this chat that some fans just don't live in reality. A majority of the people submitting questions come from the Bay Area, understandably, and some think Lincecum is a top ten pitcher right now. I'm just as excited about Timmy as anybody else, but let's get a hold of ourselves here. He's still young and he's thrown just 146 major league innings. Given the adjustments hitters are likely to make against him, and again given that pesky (knock on wood) injury risk just by him being a pitcher, there are bound to be some bumps in the road before true greatness.
--I try to stay away from Baseball Think Factory, really I do. It's not because the site has a bunch of bad baseball writing or anything. Au contrere, BTF is home to some of the richest baseball analysis out there by some of the most amazing fans of the game. It constantly blows my mind how smart a lot of these guys are.
No, I try to stay away because once I get on, I can't get off. First there are the front page articles, then there are Dan Szymborski's ZiPs projections, then there's the News Blog, which points out some really crappy articles from around the country, then skewers them. One interesting baseball thread leads to another, and before I know it, I've wasted away five hours, my complexion has developed that pasty-white sheen, and when I go outside I hiss at the sun like the Nosferatu or some other denizen of the night. For the sake of a healthy dating life, I try to stay off.
So I basically take it in small steps, kind of the Atkins Diet of baseball stat nerdery. During my 12-step BTF recovery process, I came across this writeup by Chris Dial, where he presents his choices for who should have won the NL Gold Gloves (because the real GG voting is a joke), using a number of (confusing) defensive metrics.
According to his analysis, Pedro Feliz was 2007's best defensive third baseman, which comes as no surprise. I've harped about that before. No, the real shocker is that he rates Omar Vizquel as the best shortstop. We all know Omar is still pretty good, but it seemed like common wisdom that he was declining rapidly. Not so, says Dial. In fact, check out this quote:
>That (outstanding defense) could have been enough to make Omar an average player in 2007, shocking as that sounds.>
Whoah. Omar must have been one hell of a wizard with the glove to make him average, as his bat reached Neifi depths of putridness. I'm not sure I agree, as this is the only bit of analysis that I've seen that rates Vizquel as the best (whereas just about every defensive metric has Feliz as the top 3B), but if true, it gives his re-signing a more positive outlook.
--There was an article today on the Giants official website about the Giants apparently letting Ray Durham and Kevin Frandsen fight it out for the second base job, but I think Chris Haft is just scratching for things to write about. When is the last time the Giants actually let a young player compete, fair and square, for an everyday job against a veteran? Remember the Jamey Wright vs. Brad Hennessey "contest" that really wasn't a fight at all, because Wright had the job as long as he didn't completely mess himself in the spring. Same with Russ Ortiz this past season. Do you really think the Giants are going to give Frandsen a fair shot at taking the starting job from the savvy veteran making $7 million? Please.
For the record, though, I do want to see Frandsen start at third base (assuming the Giants don't upgrade that position in the interrim), and I expect Durham to be considerably better this year. His track record is is just too good for him to fall apart this much, this fast. Plus, how could he be any worse?
--I discussed the lunacy that can go hand-in-hand with Hall of Fame arguments last week, especially involving Jim Rice, but if you want to take a head-long plunge into the darkest depths of the stark-raving-mad HOF argument, I direct you to this bit of wisdom from everybody's favorite Curly-Haired Boyfriend. FJM tears into poor Dan quite nicely here.
--Ten years after my Freshman English teacher in high school sent the class into a baffled stupor by citing it, I think I finally get this joke. Or do I?
--Ah, TGIF video, how I've missed ye. I'm not sure I can really explain this, but...just check it out.
--Today on ESPN.com, Rob Neyer chatted with fans about which pitcher would be better, our own wunderkind Tim Lincecum, or Brewer uberprospect Yovani Gallardo. Lincecum has hellacious stuff and destroyed everything in his path in the minors, but Gallardo is younger and has shown better control. The answer of who will be better isn't exactly as clear-cut as we Giants fans might like.
It makes for an interesting read, and some good points are made, especially in counter to all the people freaking out about Lincecum's small frame, and the injury risk involved, and also just about the general unpredictability of pitchers. He's a pitcher and he exists, therefore he's an injury risk. It happens. Some chatters brought up the example of Mark Prior, who was considered a brilliant physical specimen who could never get hurt, then...got hurt.
Another point raised is that just because Lincecum's delivery is bizarre doesn't mean it's dangerous. It seems like most of his power comes from his lower body, which would take a lot of strain off of the arm. Power pitchers like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens had notoriously strong legs, which enabled them to throw hard as hell, and both those guys pitcher forever.
I also realize from reading this chat that some fans just don't live in reality. A majority of the people submitting questions come from the Bay Area, understandably, and some think Lincecum is a top ten pitcher right now. I'm just as excited about Timmy as anybody else, but let's get a hold of ourselves here. He's still young and he's thrown just 146 major league innings. Given the adjustments hitters are likely to make against him, and again given that pesky (knock on wood) injury risk just by him being a pitcher, there are bound to be some bumps in the road before true greatness.
--I try to stay away from Baseball Think Factory, really I do. It's not because the site has a bunch of bad baseball writing or anything. Au contrere, BTF is home to some of the richest baseball analysis out there by some of the most amazing fans of the game. It constantly blows my mind how smart a lot of these guys are.
No, I try to stay away because once I get on, I can't get off. First there are the front page articles, then there are Dan Szymborski's ZiPs projections, then there's the News Blog, which points out some really crappy articles from around the country, then skewers them. One interesting baseball thread leads to another, and before I know it, I've wasted away five hours, my complexion has developed that pasty-white sheen, and when I go outside I hiss at the sun like the Nosferatu or some other denizen of the night. For the sake of a healthy dating life, I try to stay off.
So I basically take it in small steps, kind of the Atkins Diet of baseball stat nerdery. During my 12-step BTF recovery process, I came across this writeup by Chris Dial, where he presents his choices for who should have won the NL Gold Gloves (because the real GG voting is a joke), using a number of (confusing) defensive metrics.
According to his analysis, Pedro Feliz was 2007's best defensive third baseman, which comes as no surprise. I've harped about that before. No, the real shocker is that he rates Omar Vizquel as the best shortstop. We all know Omar is still pretty good, but it seemed like common wisdom that he was declining rapidly. Not so, says Dial. In fact, check out this quote:
>That (outstanding defense) could have been enough to make Omar an average player in 2007, shocking as that sounds.>
Whoah. Omar must have been one hell of a wizard with the glove to make him average, as his bat reached Neifi depths of putridness. I'm not sure I agree, as this is the only bit of analysis that I've seen that rates Vizquel as the best (whereas just about every defensive metric has Feliz as the top 3B), but if true, it gives his re-signing a more positive outlook.
--There was an article today on the Giants official website about the Giants apparently letting Ray Durham and Kevin Frandsen fight it out for the second base job, but I think Chris Haft is just scratching for things to write about. When is the last time the Giants actually let a young player compete, fair and square, for an everyday job against a veteran? Remember the Jamey Wright vs. Brad Hennessey "contest" that really wasn't a fight at all, because Wright had the job as long as he didn't completely mess himself in the spring. Same with Russ Ortiz this past season. Do you really think the Giants are going to give Frandsen a fair shot at taking the starting job from the savvy veteran making $7 million? Please.
For the record, though, I do want to see Frandsen start at third base (assuming the Giants don't upgrade that position in the interrim), and I expect Durham to be considerably better this year. His track record is is just too good for him to fall apart this much, this fast. Plus, how could he be any worse?
--I discussed the lunacy that can go hand-in-hand with Hall of Fame arguments last week, especially involving Jim Rice, but if you want to take a head-long plunge into the darkest depths of the stark-raving-mad HOF argument, I direct you to this bit of wisdom from everybody's favorite Curly-Haired Boyfriend. FJM tears into poor Dan quite nicely here.
--Ten years after my Freshman English teacher in high school sent the class into a baffled stupor by citing it, I think I finally get this joke. Or do I?
--Ah, TGIF video, how I've missed ye. I'm not sure I can really explain this, but...just check it out.
Labels: awful sportswriting, defense, Hall of Fame, link drop, omar vizquel, Tim Lincecum
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Defensive Musings
On his immensely popular (and awesome) site Baseball Musings, David Pinto has released the 2007 results for a defensive metric he concocted called "Probabilistic Model of Range", which, in short, tries to determine how many outs a fielder made on the year as opposed to the amount of outs he was supposed to make. You'd best follow that link above to get a coherent explanation of how it's devised, because you ain't gettin' one here, but trust me, it really is a neat tool.
Basically, the way it works, if this studly and very handsome center fielder named Paul Rice is expected, based on several factors picked from play-by-play data, to make 150 outs on the season, and he makes 200, he's a pretty damn good fielder, because he's made way more plays than you'd have any right to predict. If he makes only 100 out of 150 predicted outs, he'll grow a creepy mustache and call himself "Benard".
Pinto puts the difference into a ratio. If a player is over 100 (i.e. a 1:1 ratio), he's a pretty good fielder. If he's under 100, he isn't making as many outs as he "should" be making, and thus probably lacks range or just sucks in some general fashion. The metric can work for teams as well as individual players.
Let's check out the 2007 rankings for shortstops, right on the heels of the Omar Vizquel signing. Vizquel ranks tenth among all shortstops with a rating of 101.25, meaning that he was pretty good, but not too far above average. You can sort of argue that this might be Omar's reputation in a nutshell. Many statheads have argued that Vizquel, while he makes the eye-popping highlight reel plays all the time, is merely good at making the routine plays, not great. Thus, while awesome to watch, the numbers would seem to say that he's merely a pretty good shortstop as opposed to a frabulous, grabulous, zip-zoop-zabulous one.
If Vizquel really isn't as great as he seems, then it only gives more weight to the naysayers who are ripping his new contract. If you're paying for a no-hit defensive specialist who isn't that fantastic with the glove after all, then what are you getting? A black hole?
The rank is a little disappointing, I suppose, but I'm not really worried too much. Vizquel's rating is still pretty darn good, and he is fun to watch. And hey, it's not like he's Derek Jeter out there or anything (bottom of the list...yikes!). Christina Kahrl of BP defended the Vizquel signing here, essentially saying that $5 mil isn't much to pay for one or two years of solid defense that could make those quality young arms the Giants have that much better. Plus, you never know, Vizquel could bring that bat back to respectability and then no one would be bitching about the Giants bringing him back.
I guess my original opinion on the matter is the same. I'm always of the "offense first, worry about defense second" philosophy, and this signing would seem to conflict with that, but this is not going to be an albatross contract, so if he sucks it's not going to hamstring the team. I would also have loved to see the team be a little more creative in filling that shortstop gap, but there really aren't many appealing options elsewhere and Brian Sabean hasn't done anything imaginative in years. Hell, if Omar can continue to help keep Noah Lowry's horrid peripheral stats from eating him alive, who can argue?
-Also check out the ratings on Baseball Musings for third basemen and second basemen. Pinto's results show that Pedro Feliz was indeed one of the best (if not the best) as I'd talked about last week. They also show Ray Durham to be one of the worst fielders in the majors at second base, which, if accurate, probably makes poor Ray-Ray the worst everyday player in baseball in '07, except maybe for the lovably execrable Nick Punto.
Basically, the way it works, if this studly and very handsome center fielder named Paul Rice is expected, based on several factors picked from play-by-play data, to make 150 outs on the season, and he makes 200, he's a pretty damn good fielder, because he's made way more plays than you'd have any right to predict. If he makes only 100 out of 150 predicted outs, he'll grow a creepy mustache and call himself "Benard".
Pinto puts the difference into a ratio. If a player is over 100 (i.e. a 1:1 ratio), he's a pretty good fielder. If he's under 100, he isn't making as many outs as he "should" be making, and thus probably lacks range or just sucks in some general fashion. The metric can work for teams as well as individual players.
Let's check out the 2007 rankings for shortstops, right on the heels of the Omar Vizquel signing. Vizquel ranks tenth among all shortstops with a rating of 101.25, meaning that he was pretty good, but not too far above average. You can sort of argue that this might be Omar's reputation in a nutshell. Many statheads have argued that Vizquel, while he makes the eye-popping highlight reel plays all the time, is merely good at making the routine plays, not great. Thus, while awesome to watch, the numbers would seem to say that he's merely a pretty good shortstop as opposed to a frabulous, grabulous, zip-zoop-zabulous one.
If Vizquel really isn't as great as he seems, then it only gives more weight to the naysayers who are ripping his new contract. If you're paying for a no-hit defensive specialist who isn't that fantastic with the glove after all, then what are you getting? A black hole?
The rank is a little disappointing, I suppose, but I'm not really worried too much. Vizquel's rating is still pretty darn good, and he is fun to watch. And hey, it's not like he's Derek Jeter out there or anything (bottom of the list...yikes!). Christina Kahrl of BP defended the Vizquel signing here, essentially saying that $5 mil isn't much to pay for one or two years of solid defense that could make those quality young arms the Giants have that much better. Plus, you never know, Vizquel could bring that bat back to respectability and then no one would be bitching about the Giants bringing him back.
I guess my original opinion on the matter is the same. I'm always of the "offense first, worry about defense second" philosophy, and this signing would seem to conflict with that, but this is not going to be an albatross contract, so if he sucks it's not going to hamstring the team. I would also have loved to see the team be a little more creative in filling that shortstop gap, but there really aren't many appealing options elsewhere and Brian Sabean hasn't done anything imaginative in years. Hell, if Omar can continue to help keep Noah Lowry's horrid peripheral stats from eating him alive, who can argue?
-Also check out the ratings on Baseball Musings for third basemen and second basemen. Pinto's results show that Pedro Feliz was indeed one of the best (if not the best) as I'd talked about last week. They also show Ray Durham to be one of the worst fielders in the majors at second base, which, if accurate, probably makes poor Ray-Ray the worst everyday player in baseball in '07, except maybe for the lovably execrable Nick Punto.
Labels: defense, obligatory nerdy simpsons reference, omar vizquel
Friday, August 10, 2007
Pedro Feliz...the Best?!?!
Yeah, you read that right. On his blog The Soul of Baseball, Joe Posnanski has been doing a series on the best fielders at every position, based on the cumulative results of a number of defensive metrics, both old school and newfangled, and also just based on his two good eyes. His verdict on who the best fielding third baseman in the majors is? That's right, it's our old flailing friend Happy Pete. Here's a snippet of what Posnanski has to say:
>"Statistically there is absolutely and positively no doubt that Feliz is the best defensive third baseman in baseball. None. For you traditionalists, he has the best fielding percentage. For the Bill James lover in all of us, he has the highest fielding range. For those looking for a little bit of a statistical edge, he has the best zone rating. And for those, like me, who love John Dewan’s plus/minus system, Feliz is FAR AND AWAY the best in baseball."<
Holy crap. I was pretty sure that Feliz was near the top of the list, but the best? Posnanski brings up the statistical portion because, in his view, Feliz has ugly mechanics and sure as hell doesn't look like he's a Gold Glover. However, I think most Giants fans agree with me that from watching him day in, day out, it's been pretty clear for a long time that he's an exceptional fielder, and you don't need any crazily-acronymed stats to see it.
Fielding stats are notoriously hard to decipher, because, for one thing, it's difficult to distinguish how much a player's fielding ability is being impacted by his environment (think Fenway Park's Green Monster or Mays Field's massive right-center field), his pitchers, or even his teammates (like Derek Jeter's mysterious improvement when ARod partnered with him in 2004). Fielding percentage is perhaps the worst way to evaluate fielding, while range factor is better but still pretty bad (it's useless in evaluating first basemen). Other, more advanced statistics like Ultimate Zone Rating, Fielding Runs Above Average (a BP stat), John Dewan's plus/minus, and David Pinto's Probablistic Model of Range, are some of the best in terms of cutting through the smoke, but even they have their holes.
The thing is, usually all of these statistics disagree. One model will find a player to be the best at his position, while another will find that same player to be one of the worst. In this case, though, they're all spitting out the same result, and that means that something else is going on. If all of these normally combative elements suddenly join hands and verify what our eyes have been telling us, then it stands to reason that, yes, Feliz is the best fielding third baseman in the majors. Congrats, Pedro. This is the first time in the history of this blog that I've said something complimentary about you. Mark this day.
The question now is whether or not Pedro's sparkling defense is worth his hideous bat. A .294 OBP is pretty tough to take no matter how much of a genius you are with the glove. Its not like Feliz is Ozzie Smith here. It's the same old debate we had about Mike Matheny. Awful hitter, but great defensive player. We could gauge how much Matheny's bat was killing the lineup (as it turned out, he was decent in '05, his only full season with the Giants), but not how much his defense was helping. With Feliz, he's one of the worst hitters in the league, except that he's playing a position that isn't as difficult as Matheny's.
Basically this just confirms what I've been saying about Feliz all along. His super defense and his ability to smack one out of the yard should make him a pretty good spare part. Use him as a late-inning defensive replacement or as a once-in-a-while starter and you've got a useful ballplayer, like he was in 2003. As an everyday player, though, even with the D, Feliz is a miserable option. Baseball Prospectus has Feliz at a VORP of 0.0. That means he's the very definition of a guy who should be replaced.
Hopefully Brian Sabean doesn't read Joe Posnanski, because come free agent time that little snippet may be enough to make our fearless GM wet his pants and award Feliz with a multi-year deal.
-Brief Plug: I meant to plug this earlier, but it slipped my mind. Matt Johanson, co-author of the book Giants: Where Have You Gone?, has a new book coming out titled Game Of My Life, a collection of stories involving some of the most beloved past Giants players. My favorite part, though, is the chapter on Brian Dallimore, the obscure journeyman who had one shining moment in the bigs when he hit a grand slam off of Dontrelle Willis in 2004.
All information regarding the book and how to order it can be found here.
>"Statistically there is absolutely and positively no doubt that Feliz is the best defensive third baseman in baseball. None. For you traditionalists, he has the best fielding percentage. For the Bill James lover in all of us, he has the highest fielding range. For those looking for a little bit of a statistical edge, he has the best zone rating. And for those, like me, who love John Dewan’s plus/minus system, Feliz is FAR AND AWAY the best in baseball."<
Holy crap. I was pretty sure that Feliz was near the top of the list, but the best? Posnanski brings up the statistical portion because, in his view, Feliz has ugly mechanics and sure as hell doesn't look like he's a Gold Glover. However, I think most Giants fans agree with me that from watching him day in, day out, it's been pretty clear for a long time that he's an exceptional fielder, and you don't need any crazily-acronymed stats to see it.
Fielding stats are notoriously hard to decipher, because, for one thing, it's difficult to distinguish how much a player's fielding ability is being impacted by his environment (think Fenway Park's Green Monster or Mays Field's massive right-center field), his pitchers, or even his teammates (like Derek Jeter's mysterious improvement when ARod partnered with him in 2004). Fielding percentage is perhaps the worst way to evaluate fielding, while range factor is better but still pretty bad (it's useless in evaluating first basemen). Other, more advanced statistics like Ultimate Zone Rating, Fielding Runs Above Average (a BP stat), John Dewan's plus/minus, and David Pinto's Probablistic Model of Range, are some of the best in terms of cutting through the smoke, but even they have their holes.
The thing is, usually all of these statistics disagree. One model will find a player to be the best at his position, while another will find that same player to be one of the worst. In this case, though, they're all spitting out the same result, and that means that something else is going on. If all of these normally combative elements suddenly join hands and verify what our eyes have been telling us, then it stands to reason that, yes, Feliz is the best fielding third baseman in the majors. Congrats, Pedro. This is the first time in the history of this blog that I've said something complimentary about you. Mark this day.
The question now is whether or not Pedro's sparkling defense is worth his hideous bat. A .294 OBP is pretty tough to take no matter how much of a genius you are with the glove. Its not like Feliz is Ozzie Smith here. It's the same old debate we had about Mike Matheny. Awful hitter, but great defensive player. We could gauge how much Matheny's bat was killing the lineup (as it turned out, he was decent in '05, his only full season with the Giants), but not how much his defense was helping. With Feliz, he's one of the worst hitters in the league, except that he's playing a position that isn't as difficult as Matheny's.
Basically this just confirms what I've been saying about Feliz all along. His super defense and his ability to smack one out of the yard should make him a pretty good spare part. Use him as a late-inning defensive replacement or as a once-in-a-while starter and you've got a useful ballplayer, like he was in 2003. As an everyday player, though, even with the D, Feliz is a miserable option. Baseball Prospectus has Feliz at a VORP of 0.0. That means he's the very definition of a guy who should be replaced.
Hopefully Brian Sabean doesn't read Joe Posnanski, because come free agent time that little snippet may be enough to make our fearless GM wet his pants and award Feliz with a multi-year deal.
-Brief Plug: I meant to plug this earlier, but it slipped my mind. Matt Johanson, co-author of the book Giants: Where Have You Gone?, has a new book coming out titled Game Of My Life, a collection of stories involving some of the most beloved past Giants players. My favorite part, though, is the chapter on Brian Dallimore, the obscure journeyman who had one shining moment in the bigs when he hit a grand slam off of Dontrelle Willis in 2004.
All information regarding the book and how to order it can be found here.
Labels: defense, happy pete
