Return to Baseball Leftovers

A's sign Kotsay to 3-year extension...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby beltrans_boy » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:02 pm

so0perspam wrote:I just don't buy the Win Shares system at all. Most any Major League player has decent fielding abilities and can get the job done. It's not like they're seeing a Sportscenter Top 10 opportunity every game. Defense is more important in basketball and football than in baseball. Defense playing a considerbale part in the calculation of Win Shares is one of the reasons I believe the system is flawed.

Defense is a considerable part of the game of baseball, especially when you're talking about the CF position in a spacious park like Oakland. Pitchers can't strike every batter out, and the name of the game is to make 27 outs as effectively as possible, and defense is a huge part of that equation. Just ask the 2005 Yankees what it's like to field a team with no defense...

so0perspam wrote:In the history of the Win Shares system, shortstops and catchers receive positional advantages, and so do strikeout pitchers and star relievers.

That's because shortstops, catcher, strikeout pitchers and star relievers have a greater influence on the game and its outcome than other position players. Shortstop and catcher is pretty obvious. They simply see more chances in the middle of the action every single game. Star relievers get more credit because the last 1 or 2 innings of a close ballgame are the most crucial to its outcome (and these guys only pitch 80-100 innings every year). High-K pitchers, because they don't rely on the defense to get outs for them. These 4 positions should have positional advantages. They're the most important positions on a team, and they have the most affect on the total wins of the team (or Win Shares, as it were).

so0perspam wrote:And what about great DH's like David Ortiz that don't play defense? Their Win Shares total is significantly reduced.

Well, that's because Ortiz is a great hitter, not a great player. A DH simply isn't as valuable as a player who plays in the field and saves runs on defense. If a player can do 2 things well, shouldn't he be given more credit than a player that can only do 1 thing well? I think so, and so does the Win Shares system.

so0perspam wrote:Using OBP and OPS is a definitive and reliable source, being that they are dependable statistics that don't fluctuate for any reason outside of how the player performs. You look at a player like Kotsay who has a .278 BA, .334 OBP and .731 OPS, and you call him a top 50 player? No way.

Win Shares don't fluctuate outside how a player performs either. You say Win Shares are flawed because they can't predict future performance, but neither can OBP and OPS. They're both indicators of past performance. Win Shares, however, is a more complete system of measurement than OBP and OPS.
[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]
beltrans_boy
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3075
(Past Year: -17)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: crusing down the street in my six-fo'

Postby so0perspam » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:23 pm

beltrans_boy wrote:Defense is a considerable part of the game of baseball, especially when you're talking about the CF position in a spacious park like Oakland. Pitchers can't strike every batter out, and the name of the game is to make 27 outs as effectively as possible, and defense is a huge part of that equation. Just ask the 2005 Yankees what it's like to field a team with no defense...


So defense is the primary reason why the Yankees are losing this season?? Try their 4.55 ERA pitching staff. A .005% differential in FPCT from the Yankees to the league-leading Rangers isn't it.


beltrans_boy wrote:That's because shortstops, catcher, strikeout pitchers and star relievers have a greater influence on the game and its outcome than other position players. Shortstop and catcher is pretty obvious. They simply see more chances in the middle of the action every single game. Star relievers get more credit because the last 1 or 2 innings of a close ballgame are the most crucial to its outcome (and these guys only pitch 80-100 innings every year). High-K pitchers, because they don't rely on the defense to get outs for them. These 4 positions should have positional advantages. They're the most important positions on a team, and they have the most affect on the total wins of the team (or Win Shares, as it were).


The Red Sox won the WS last season because of Varitek and Renteria? I thought they won it because of Damon, Schilling, and David Ortiz. Schilling doesn't qualify as that high-K pitcher because his K/9 ratio went downhill during the playoffs because of the ankle, but I'll agree with the closer, as Foulke and Rivera were two damn good ones.


beltrans_boy wrote:Well, that's because Ortiz is a great hitter, not a great player. A DH simply isn't as valuable as a player who plays in the field and saves runs on defense. If a player can do 2 things well, shouldn't he be given more credit than a player that can only do 1 thing well? I think so, and so does the Win Shares system.


David Ortiz is sporting a career .991 FPCT. He can get the job done at first for sure. Is it his fault he plays in the AL where there is a DH position? No.


beltrans_boy wrote:Win Shares don't fluctuate outside how a player performs either. You say Win Shares are flawed because they can't predict future performance, but neither can OBP and OPS. They're both indicators of past performance. Win Shares, however, is a more complete system of measurement than OBP and OPS.


Again, if Eric Chavez is standing near 3rd base waiting for a ground ball or two to come his way, and a good majority of the balls hit in play head Mark Kotsay's way in centerfield, how do you call that fair when more win shares are awarded to Kotsay? Win Shares does not fairly exemplify a player's defensive ability. Chavez could have been making that diving grab instead of Kotsay, so who's to say Kotsay gets the advantage. I use straight stats like FPCT and errors to judge a player's fielding abilities, and 8x8 hitting categories (BA, runs, HR, RBI, SB, OBP, SLG, and OPS) to judge a player's hitting abilities.
ImageImage
so0perspam
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8578
(Past Year: -75)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Bay Area

Postby Cleveland Steamers » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:27 pm

So if Kotsay had the same number of win shares in 2004 as M.Cabrera, Hafner, Thome, Schilling or ARam are you saying youd rather have Kotsay than any of these players? Im sorry but he isnt even in the same stratosphere as a player like Miguel Cabrera. I agree with so0perspam, win shares may be a helpful, but it doesnt show a players true value. No statistic really does. I know that Id be angry if my team spend $8 million a year on a guy that has no real special skill. His defense may be good but he isnt fast enough to get to balls that a player like Beltran can easily reach. Im just having trouble understanding how a small market team pays a guy like Kotsay $8million/year.
Cleveland Steamers
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3721
(Past Year: -18)
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Everywhere...looking for a job in baseball...or fantasy sports...

Postby beltrans_boy » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:53 pm

so0perspam wrote:
beltrans_boy wrote:Defense is a considerable part of the game of baseball, especially when you're talking about the CF position in a spacious park like Oakland. Pitchers can't strike every batter out, and the name of the game is to make 27 outs as effectively as possible, and defense is a huge part of that equation. Just ask the 2005 Yankees what it's like to field a team with no defense...

So defense is the primary reason why the Yankees are losing this season?? Try their 4.55 ERA pitching staff. A .005% differential in FPCT from the Yankees to the league-leading Rangers isn't it.

First of all, you're using Fielding Percentage which is a flawed metric. Second of all, the Yankees defense (notably in CF), is atrocious. Third of all, I never said it was the primary reason why the Yankees are losing, but it's certainly a much bigger part of the equation than you're giving it credit for. The Yankees pitching has been bad this year, but it was nearly as bad last year too, and they still managed to win 101 games. What's the wildcard? Fielding.

so0perspam wrote:
beltrans_boy wrote:That's because shortstops, catcher, strikeout pitchers and star relievers have a greater influence on the game and its outcome than other position players. Shortstop and catcher is pretty obvious. They simply see more chances in the middle of the action every single game. Star relievers get more credit because the last 1 or 2 innings of a close ballgame are the most crucial to its outcome (and these guys only pitch 80-100 innings every year). High-K pitchers, because they don't rely on the defense to get outs for them. These 4 positions should have positional advantages. They're the most important positions on a team, and they have the most affect on the total wins of the team (or Win Shares, as it were).

The Red Sox won the WS last season because of Varitek and Renteria? I thought they won it because of Damon, Schilling, and David Ortiz. Schilling doesn't qualify as that high-K pitcher because his K/9 ratio went downhill during the playoffs because of the ankle, but I'll agree with the closer, as Foulke and Rivera were two damn good ones.

A couple of things...

Renteria wasn't on the Red Sox last year. He was on the Cardinals. They did, however, acquire Orlando Cabrera from the then-Montreal Expos. Cabrera is an outstanding fielding shortstop and (in my opinion) is one of the main reasons why that Sox team started cruising after the trade deadline and through the playoffs. However, using a sample size as small as the 2nd half and playoffs of 2004 to determine whether a metric is flawed or not simply isn't logical. The outcome of any playoff series is largely luck dependent.

I never said that a team MUST have a good SS and C to win, but the difference between a team with a good SS and a bad SS is a lot larger than the difference between a team with a good 1B and a bad 1B. Same thing applies to Catcher and star reliever.

The reason why a high-K pitcher is valued more in the Win Share system is because he doesn't rely on his defense to get outs for him. That's not to say that a pitcher cannot be effective if he doesn't strike batters out (that's an entirely different argument). Strikeouts, however, should be more valuable than letting hitters put the ball into play. When you strike a batter out, 99.99% of the time, he's out. When you let the batter put the ball into play, there's a much higher chance that the batter will get on base. The Win Share system takes that into accountability. Strikeouts are simply more valuable when it comes to analyzing pitchers.

so0perspam wrote:
beltrans_boy wrote:Well, that's because Ortiz is a great hitter, not a great player. A DH simply isn't as valuable as a player who plays in the field and saves runs on defense. If a player can do 2 things well, shouldn't he be given more credit than a player that can only do 1 thing well? I think so, and so does the Win Shares system.

David Ortiz is sporting a career .991 FPCT. He can get the job done at first for sure. Is it his fault he plays in the AL where there is a DH position? No.

Again with the Fielding Percentage. What's the fixation? Ortiz is a terrible first baseman, that's the reason why he's a DH. If Ortiz were even a decent first baseman, Manny Ramirez would be the DH on the Red Sox, but he's not. Do I believe it's his fault that he plays in the AL? No, but I do believe that we should give somebody like Mark Teixeira more credit since he saves runs in the field AND produces them with his bat. Ortiz only produces runs with his bat, hence, his personal contribution to the number of games that his team wins is less. It's not like I'm diminishing Ortiz' hitting contributions because he's a DH, but he shouldn't get credit for something he doesn't do (play in the field). Conversely, a player who fields his position well should get credit for that ability, don't you agree?
[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]
beltrans_boy
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3075
(Past Year: -17)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: crusing down the street in my six-fo'

Postby beltrans_boy » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:00 pm

Cleveland Steamers wrote:So if Kotsay had the same number of win shares in 2004 as M.Cabrera, Hafner, Thome, Schilling or ARam are you saying youd rather have Kotsay than any of these players? Im sorry but he isnt even in the same stratosphere as a player like Miguel Cabrera. I agree with so0perspam, win shares may be a helpful, but it doesnt show a players true value. No statistic really does. I know that Id be angry if my team spend $8 million a year on a guy that has no real special skill. His defense may be good but he isnt fast enough to get to balls that a player like Beltran can easily reach. Im just having trouble understanding how a small market team pays a guy like Kotsay $8million/year.

I never said I'd rather have Kotsay than any of those players. I'm just saying that, in 2004, Kotsay was just as valuable as Miguel Cabrera. Actually, he was more valuable if we look at Win Shares Above Average.
[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]
beltrans_boy
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3075
(Past Year: -17)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: crusing down the street in my six-fo'

Postby Strasil42 » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:35 pm

David Ortiz is sporting a career .991 FPCT. He can get the job done at first for sure. Is it his fault he plays in the AL where there is a DH position? No


Ortiz is absolutely horrible in the field. He cannot get the job done at first.
Strasil42
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4294
(Past Year: -53)
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Omaha

Postby nsulham » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:39 pm

Strasil42 wrote:
David Ortiz is sporting a career .991 FPCT. He can get the job done at first for sure. Is it his fault he plays in the AL where there is a DH position? No


Ortiz is absolutely horrible in the field. He cannot get the job done at first.


Ortiz is NOT "absolutely horrible." Have you even watched any of the games or did you just spout that off?

He's no Gold Glove but he's not "absolutely horrible". If he had to do it he could. Matter of fact, I remember him making a nice 1st to 3rd throw in the WS last year that I think ended in a double play.
Image
nsulham
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4845
(Past Year: -38)
Joined: 26 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Charlottesville

Postby Strasil42 » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:44 pm

nsulham wrote:
Strasil42 wrote:
David Ortiz is sporting a career .991 FPCT. He can get the job done at first for sure. Is it his fault he plays in the AL where there is a DH position? No


Ortiz is absolutely horrible in the field. He cannot get the job done at first.


Ortiz is NOT "absolutely horrible." Have you even watched any of the games or did you just spout that off?

He's no Gold Glove but he's not "absolutely horrible". If he had to do it he could. Matter of fact, I remember him making a nice 1st to 3rd throw in the WS last year that I think ended in a double play.


I have seen ortiz in the field before.

Its not pretty and i sure wouldnt want him to play it everyday.

And if he made one good play, he has to be good right?? ;-7
Strasil42
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4294
(Past Year: -53)
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Omaha

Postby TheYanks04 » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:49 pm

It depends on what you determine horrible to be?

The man is an over grown whale with no range whatsoever. Can you hide him at first and have him play it respectably...sure. Do you want to given the fact that the guy would be one dive away from being a beached whale...probably not. Sort of what Frank Thomas fell victim to in the last few years. Guys like him are best kept away from leather.
TheYanks04
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero


Posts: 9473
(Past Year: -58)
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Strasil42 » Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:51 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:It depends on what you determine horrible to be?

The man is an over grown whale with no range whatsoever. Can you hide him at first and have him play it respectably...sure. Do you want to given the fact that the guy would be one dive away from being a beached whale...probably not. Sort of what Frank Thomas fell victim to in the last few years. Guys like him are best kept away from leather.


LOL!!!
Strasil42
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4294
(Past Year: -53)
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Omaha

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron