Local Daily Roundup
Offdays often bring a flurry of features in the local papers, and today is no exception. There’s some good stuff to be read this morning.
Dave Andriessen gives us the backstory on Sean Green. It’s a well done human interest story.
Jim Moore tackles the Adam Jones question through the eyes of his mother. To say she’s proud of her son sounds like something of an understatement.
Jason Churchill does the Farm Report, focusing on Adam Moore as well as the potential bullpen arms.
Larry Stone tackles the trade deadline with Bill Bavasi. I’m planning a post on the subject later today, so if you’re one of those who lives for trade speculation, you might want to wait a few hours.
Darrin Beene does a first-half recap through the eyes of a Mariner press kit. He, apparently, didn’t consult with Andriessen, because in talking about the strengths of the bullpen, the words Sean Green never came from his keyboard. If this guy was any further under the radar, he’d be a submarine.
John Sleeper pens a forgetful column about maintaining the status quo. You know how I feel about this, so I’ll just leave it alone.
And finally, just a reminder that I’ll be on KJR with the Groz this afternoon at 2:20.
I don’t recall at the moment when Lowe started his rehab, but I think it was about a month ago. I do remember a report of him hitting 88 on the gun a few weeks ago, and now he’s sitting at low-mid 90’s.
Can this be taken as a good indication of progress, that he may within a few weeks get back to his 2006 velocity and command?
July 20th, 2007 at 7:17 amDoes nobody realize that Heathcliff Slocumb’s pitching put the Mariners in the playoffs? Yes, we gave up more for him than we should have, but he pitched well for us (10 of 11 in save opportunities). Without him, the Mariners stayed home in October of 97.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:35 amIs Adam Moore raising in the future forty? Its nice to have depth there for trading purposes.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:39 amDoes nobody realize that Heathcliff Slocumb’s pitching put the Mariners in the playoffs?
Sorry, but that’s just not true. Here’s his game log from the 1997 season.
He came into a tied game on August 6th, gave up the lead, and the team lost. He came into a tied game on August 23rd, gave up the lead, and the team lost. He came in with a 1 run lead on August 25th, gave up the lead, and the team lost. He came with a 2 run lead on September 17th, gave up the lead, and the team lost.
4 of the 27 games he appeared in, he made a significant negative contribution to the team winning. 9 of the 27, he entered with the team either ahead or behind by 4 runs, and his performance made no real impact on the outcome. In the remaining 14 games where he was pitching in somewhat high leverage situations, the Mariners went 9-5. In games where you could argue that Slocumb made any real impact on the outcome, the team was 9 and 9. For a closer, that’s terrible.
He was a bad pitcher for the M’s - they made the playoffs despite Heathcliff Slocumb, not because of him.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:48 amIs Adam Moore raising in the future forty? Its nice to have depth there for trading purposes.
I’m not much of an Adam Moore fan. He’s got some raw power, but the swing is long, the defense needs work, and he’s not exactly a spring chicken. At 23 and still in A-ball, he’s not going to be a player other organizations are going to covet in a trade.
If he has a major league career, it’s probably as a backup catcher, and his lack of defensive skills will probably discourage most teams from carrying him as such.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:02 amso, Adam doesn’t have a dog?
and he sounded very excited about it yesterday, doing a nice job pumping up the site and its content
July 20th, 2007 at 8:22 amJones’ mama sounds like a nice lady. I’m going to be at the Rainiers game this Sunday. Maybe I’ll see her at the ballpark.
Or maybe, just maybe, the M’s will call him up today and they’ll put Mom on the plane with him so she can see him play in the bigs. That’d be awesome.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:28 amIt is encouraging to hear that Chris Tillman has seemingly found his groove at High Desert. Dave, what are your current thoughts on Tillman? I guess he will be at AA next year?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:29 amGroz has reason to be excited. Not only are the M’s doing well, but the folks over at SonicsCentral are giving him a pretty hard time for his take on the Sonics situation — USSM makes a nice contrast.
“If this guy was any further under the radar, he’d be a submarine.” — Great line, Dave (and all too true, unfortunately).
July 20th, 2007 at 8:34 amAt least McClaren recognizes Green’s contributions and talent. It seems that Green has moved ahead of Morrow and Reitsma on the depth chart.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:40 amHow well does this bullpen have to perform in order for Bavasi to divert his energy to upgrading other parts of the team? It would be highly discouraging if the Mariners paid any real price in order to upgrade the bullpen.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:46 amJohn Sleeper pens a forgetful column
You might even say Sleeper penned a soporific column.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:46 amAt this point, I almost rather Sean stay under the radar for the rest of this year. Maybe he’ll continue to catch teams off guard.
Or, do you think other teams recognize his skill, regardless of how he is used, and he’s just that good to keep getting guys out?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:46 amHis game log only shows one blown save. I never said he didn’t have any losses. I said he only blew one save.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:56 amNo, you also said “Heathcliff Slocumb’s pitching put the Mariners in the playoffs,” “he pitched well for us,” and “Without him, the Mariners stayed home in October of 97.” None of which was true.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:03 am14 (DAMellen) - We understand what your point was, but we’re still going to disagree with you. You said:
“Does nobody realize that Heathcliff Slocumb’s pitching put the Mariners in the playoffs?”
Not “helped them reach the playoffs.” Not “he didn’t pitch bad enough to keep them out.” You claim that his pitching put them in the playoffs. Which is absolutely absurd.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:04 amBeene also has a long piece on Chaves
oh, and Kirby Arnold must have enjoyed Shannon Drayer’s radio interviews early this week with Ken Barron and Anthony Suzuki, as he covers the same territory in today’s paper …
July 20th, 2007 at 9:06 amMaybe you have me on “he pitched well,” but I stand by the rest of it. He wasn’t very good, but he was way the best member of our bullpen. We needed at least one guy in there that wasn’t absolutely god awful or we couldn’t have made the playoffs. He was that guy.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:07 amHeathcliff Slocum, see: Facts not in evidence.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:09 amOther teams generally have competent scouting, unlike some teams we know…
July 20th, 2007 at 9:10 amNorm Charlton was 14/25 as our closer. Heathcliff Slocumb was 10/11. If that’s not improvement, I don’t know what is.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:11 amYou might want to consider using something beyond saves as a measure of pitcher effectiveness.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:15 amDave -
Quick true/false on Sean Green:
Green’s new arm slot makes him death on a stick to righties, but will significantly hurt his chances of getting lefties - and this will limit how far his career will go.
Not sure what I think on that, and obviously it’s a separate and perhaps less important than getting more Ks/fewer BBs; if his new delivery helped him do those things, then it’s clearly worth it. But I’m wondering if he’s moving towards poor man’s Jeff Nelson, as opposed to poor man’s, I don’t know, pick your favorite set-up guy without OPS-against platoon splits in the 200 range.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:15 amMan, having George Sherrill around makes everything better. You can have a guy like Green (or Nelson, or Neshek), and you can make sure that they’re pitching to their strength in almost every appearance. An awesome lefty reliever who can get out at least some righties has to take a non-negligible chunk of ERA off every other set-up guy in the pen.
You can have a guy like Green (or Nelson, or Neshek), and you can make sure that they’re pitching to their strength in almost every appearance.
Small quibble here — Pat Neshek is also destroying lefties. 19.1 IP, 8 H, 8 BB, 17 Ks (and he was similarly filthy last year). I wouldn’t lump him in with Green and Nelson (both of whom have a devil of a time with lefties).
July 20th, 2007 at 9:20 amIf only there were an easily available resource on good ways to evaluate pitcher talent…
July 20th, 2007 at 9:20 amGreen’s new arm slot makes him death on a stick to righties, but will significantly hurt his chances of getting lefties - and this will limit how far his career will go.
False. He’ll always post a significant split, but that’s going to come more from his dominance of RH batters than an inability to get left-handed batters out. Guys like Jeff Nelson, Steve Reed, and Chad Bradford have parlayed this particular skillset into nice careers as effective, sometimes dominant setup men. Green will have to improve his command to get into that group, but it’s definitely possible to be a highly valuable reliever while being far more effective against RH hitters than LH hitters.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:22 am“False. He’ll always post a significant split, but that’s going to come more from his dominance of RH batters than an inability to get left-handed batters out.”
July 20th, 2007 at 9:27 amAwesome, thanks.
Though, I should point out that baseball reference has his OPS against to LH at .964, vs. a .612 mark vs. righties. I’m sure both numbers are inflated due to all his walks at the very beginning of the season, but that split is huge. Are you suggesting that this new arm angle will reduce the split, or just that pitching more, gaining more experience, etc., will help his ability to get lefties?
24- Good call.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:29 amLast year, Neshek had about the most extreme platoon splits I’d seen - .830 OPS vs. LH; .380 OPS against (!) v. RH. This year, he’s actually better against lefties. Seems like he’s figured something out, and that those who felt he was successful just because of a weird delivery weren’t correct.
Hey, I’ll be the first to say he was no super star. His ERA was 4.13 and his WHIP was 1.45. He averaged almost a K an inning (8.9/9 IP), but he was by no means dominant. Still he was better than anybody else we’d put in the closer role all season long. Do you really think we’d have made the playoffs with Norm Charlton’s 7.27 and 1.96 WHIP closing ball games? I don’t.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:31 amAre you suggesting that this new arm angle will reduce the split, or just that pitching more, gaining more experience, etc., will help his ability to get lefties?
I think we should be very careful using splits to project reliever performances. They’re a notoriously inconsistent bunch anyways, and when you cut a small sample of innings in half, you get a lot of noise.
Now that we’ve mostly cleared a big hurdle in getting people to accept the value of the kind of analysis we do here at USSM, more and more, I’m going to try to get people to use skillsets, and not current statistics, to project players going forward. This has been something of a pet issue of mine over the past few years, but one I haven’t ventured into too much detail about here. Overall, though, I believe that using statistics and scouting combined to evaluate skills, and then translating that skill level into a projected performance, is better than simply taking a statistical line and translating it forward.
Green’s skillset has proven effective for a good number of relievers. I see no reason why, barring a collapse of his command or an injury, that he can’t have a similar kind of career.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:32 amHey, I’ll be the first to say he was no super star. His ERA was 4.13 and his WHIP was 1.45. He averaged almost a K an inning (8.9/9 IP), but he was by no means dominant. Still he was better than anybody else we’d put in the closer role all season long. Do you really think we’d have made the playoffs with Norm Charlton’s 7.27 and 1.96 WHIP closing ball games? I don’t.
See that article in the upper left hand of the blog, called “Evaluating Pitcher Talent”? Go read it.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:32 amNo time now. I gotta go to work.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:34 amDave –
Who would you rather have longterm, Neshek or Green?
July 20th, 2007 at 9:37 amJones’ mom sounds awesome. Yet another reason why this guy needs to get called up. Glad to read Aumont may be on the mound in a month.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:38 amDAMellen, were you actually THERE watching all these Heathcliff Slocumb games? Aside from the factual evidence Dave and others have presented to you, and you’re obstinately ignoring, here’s my take: The games Slocumb pitched for the Mariners that I SAW, he was awful. Bobby Ayala awful.
What’s worse, I used to watch Red Sox games in 1997, too, and I apparently knew better than the Mariners how awful Slocumb was. I was posting on every M’s message board, “DON”T DO IT!” The Red Sox had to be rubbing their hands with glee to get rid of him, especially at the price the M’s paid.
Here’s Slocumb’s game log from the following year, 1998, when we were “lucky” enough to have him ALL YEAR!! Team record in his appearances: 18-39. Worst trade in Mariners history.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:39 amWho would you rather have longterm, Neshek or Green?
Neshek in a landslide. And only part of that is because of his awesome blog. I like Green, obviously, but he’s no Pat Neshek.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:42 amWorst trade in Mariners history.
While I am certainly no fan of the Heathcliff Slocumb trade, I think David Ortiz for Dave Hollins was even worse.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:43 amAt this point, I almost rather Sean stay under the radar for the rest of this year. Maybe he’ll continue to catch teams off guard.
That’s wishful thinking. Teams are aware of Sean Green, and likely have compiled scouting reports on him. Granted, they are small sample sizes, but teams know about Green. That doesn’t mean they’ll start hitting him.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:43 amExactly. Bobby Ayala was awful. Norm Charlton was awful. The whole bullpen was awful and Slocumb was the least awful one. Getting him improved our bullpen.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:44 amDavid Ortiz for Dave Hollins was just more proof that trading prospects is risky and a shot in the dark. Nobody thought Ortiz would be good. Minnesota cut him. They didn’t even get a Dave Hollins level player for him.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:45 am38 (Mike Honcho) - Definately agreed. I guess I just keep hoping other team’s are ran by a bunch of boobs like ours, I guess.
DAMellen: I thought you “gotta go to work?” You’re still posting, when you could have taken some of Dave’s advice, and read that article. Maybe even just a little bit of it.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:54 amWorst trade in Mariners history.
And best trade in Red Sox history.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:55 amWeren’t you going to work? When the Twins cut David Ortiz, they were roundly criticized by people with a basic level of understanding of player evaluation, and the Red Sox quickly picked him up, realizing that he was a good hitter who had been treated poorly by Minnesota. No, no one realized he’d become a perenniel MVP candidate, but he certainly wasn’t scrap heap material.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:55 amThe baseball cube shows Ortiz’s minor league stats as .311/.386/.564. It is hard to believe that he would be dumped by the M’s and the Twins with those kind of numbers.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:09 amAt least Hollins hit .351/.438/.479 for the M’s after the trade. (I mention this the way Red Sox fans mention Larry Andersen).
July 20th, 2007 at 10:15 amMost common save situation: final half-inning, bases empty, team ahead. Yeah, that’s telling.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:17 amAt least Hollins hit .351/.438/.479 for the M’s after the trade. (I mention this the way Red Sox fans mention Larry Andersen).
True, but it was only in 28 games. (I see your Larry Andersen and raise you a Doyle Alexander. Of course, Alexander did go on to pitch two more seasons in Detroit.)
July 20th, 2007 at 10:24 am1997 ERA+
Ayala 119
Timlin 117 (SEA only)/Timlin 142 (total)
Slocumb 110 (SEA only)/Slocumb 89 (total)
1997 WXRL
Ayala 2.237
Slocumb 1.376 (SEA only)/Slocumb .030 (BOS only)
Timlin 0.138 (SEA only)/Timlin .617 (TOR only)
Slocumb had the worst season of the three. He was a disaster for Boston, but performed slightly above average for Seattle. Timlin pitched better overall, but declined with Seattle and fared poorly in limited high leverage situations. Ayala, as frustrating as he was, was probably Seattle’s best reliever in 1997 — an honor akin to being the best hockey team in Arkansas.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:32 amYou can’t use straight ERA+ to really evaluate relievers, either. Relief pitcher ERAs are significantly lower than starting pitcher ERAs. That’s even more true for high leverage relievers. It’s yet another reason why I don’t love ERA+ - the lack of distinction between starters and relievers.
If you used something like ERA+ compared to just relievers, Slocumb would come out well below average compared to his peers that season. Despite what DAMellen thinks, he was a lousy player who didn’t help the team win.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:36 amThat Jim Moore piece has some great tidbits there, but it has to be one of the worst written articles I’ve read in a while. At the end, when he just throws in that bit about not knowing she was pregnant until 5 months in? Not only is it totally irrelevant, but it’s thrown in like a laundry list item: “Oh well, didn’t get a chance to mention this… eh, I’ll just put it here.” Terrible.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:44 amFYI DAMellen, all of our relievers were terrible in ‘97. I went to 74 games that year, and if my memory serves correctly I believe I saw over 15 blown saves.
My favorite memory of that summer was catching a game winning homer by Lenny Webster of I believe the Orioles. I think Charlton served that one up in the 9th. I was so mad that I tried to hit Charlton with the ball. Cora caught it on a hop. Noodle armed me.
Also, read the primer Dave asked you to read. I did, and I learned alot.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:46 amDave, what would be the best sabermatic stat to evaluate relievers?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:47 amDave, what would be the best sabermatic stat to evaluate relievers?
There isn’t one stat that works in all cases, really. Relievers have different skills and are employed in different ways. If you absolutely have to use one number, I’d probably suggest FIP (not xFIP - regressing a relievers HR/FB rate back to 11% is not correct), but even then, that’s still not going to be perfect, because it ignores leverage and usage patterns.
I’m still a fan of a prism view of evaluating talent - there are lots of different skills, and I’d rather evaluate all of them then trying to sum them up in one number.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am“Now that we’ve mostly cleared a big hurdle in getting people to accept the value of the kind of analysis we do here at USSM, more and more, I’m going to try to get people to use skillsets, and not current statistics, to project players going forward….Green’s skillset has proven effective for a good number of relievers.”
Hmm. The issue here isn’t specifically about stats v. scouting or stats v. skillsets. I liked Green before liking Green was cool, but you’ve got to admit that the change in his arm angle *does something* to his skillset. Given that sidearmers typically have more extreme platoon splits than others, this seems relevant. The stats are just a way to quantify it. And, for the record, his splits this year (with new delivery) are utterly unlike they were last year. yes, yes, small sample size, etc. etc. It’s also true that looking at some sort of career average (in his Major or Minor league stats) would be utterly pointless. The guy’s reinvented himself at least a couple of times.
So: you don’t think the sidearm delivery hurts his chances v. LH? It’s unrelated to his skillset, or any negatives brought about by the arm angle are more than made up for with the other aspects of his skillset?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:51 amOr is the claim more like, for a number of guys, the arm angle and its attendant platoon disadvantages simply don’t matter - they’re good enough that, like Sherrill from the other side - they can be 8th inning guys without too much of a worry.
[Slocumb] was a lousy player who didn’t help the team win.
I’m not going to jump on the (one-man) Slocumb as a star bandwagon, but doesn’t a WXRL of 1.376 (post #48, I’d didn’t try to look it up) suggest he helped the team to a win and a half?
And if Slocumb was 1.376 WXRL for a couple months, Timlin was .138 in the same period and Ayala was 2.237 for the season, wasn’t Slocumb the Mariners best reliever?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:53 amI’m not going to jump on the (one-man) Slocumb as a star bandwagon, but doesn’t a WXRL of 1.376 (post #48, I’d didn’t try to look it up) suggest he helped the team to a win and a half?
No, because leverage doesn’t belong to the reliever - it belongs to the situation. If you looked at the average closers WXRL over the same timespan, I guarantee you Slocumb would come out below the baseline.
The relativity of value is an important concept to keep in mind when using stats that include leverage.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:59 amWhile Ortiz for Hollins looks horrible in hindsight, it was a reasonable decision at the time.
The Slocumb trade looked horrible at the time it was made and looks worse in hindsight.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:01 amI’m still a fan of a prism view of evaluating talent - there are lots of different skills, and I’d rather evaluate all of them then trying to sum them up in one number.
Maybe a radar chart (Excel can do them, in absence of a real stats tool) with a few of the favorite measures. That would provide a visual way to quickly compare a number of relievers.
If you were consistent, and always used the same measures in the same order, then after a short time the basic shape of the chart would tell you what kind of reliever you were looking at.
Maybe some author somewhere is already doing this…
July 20th, 2007 at 11:01 amWXRL is a new one to me. Can someone describe it, or point me to a definition? What does it measure?
July 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amI liked Green before liking Green was cool, but you’ve got to admit that the change in his arm angle *does something* to his skillset.
Absolutely - it gives him more tilt on his slider, giving him a strikeout pitch and a real weapon against right-handed hitters.
Given that sidearmers typically have more extreme platoon splits than others, this seems relevant.
Sure - but Green’s not really a sidearmer. He’s dropped his armslot, but he’s not a right-handed Brian Fuentes or something.
So: you don’t think the sidearm delivery hurts his chances v. LH?
I’m not saying it doesn’t have any effect - I’m saying we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it will make him unable to get lefties out just yet, which, if I read it correctly, was your initial question.
It’s unrelated to his skillset, or any negatives brought about by the arm angle are more than made up for with the other aspects of his skillset?
It’s definitely not unrelated. I just think it’s early to write him off as a guy who has no chance of getting lefties out.
Or is the claim more like, for a number of guys, the arm angle and its attendant platoon disadvantages simply don’t matter - they’re good enough that, like Sherrill from the other side - they can be 8th inning guys without too much of a worry.
I think that Green will always be a guy who posts a significant platoon split, but if he can sustain his recent level of command of the sinker/slider, he can be tough enough on righties that his relative issues with lefties won’t be a problem. I’m not a fan of strict roles anyway, so I wouldn’t say that his skillset makes him a great fit as a pure 8th inning setup guy (i.e. Scot Shields), as you wouldn’t really want to bring him in to face 3 or 4 consecutive left-handed batters, but he’s good enough that he doesn’t need to be strictly a ROOGY.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:05 amWXRL is a new one to me. Can someone describe it, or point me to a definition? What does it measure?
WXRL is BP’s version of Win Probability. It’s basically trying to measure the same thing as Fangraphs WPA.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am“I’m saying we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it will make him unable to get lefties out just yet, which, if I read it correctly, was your initial question.”
OK, maybe that’s part of the issue - I said ‘would it hurt his ability to get lefties,’ not ‘will he ever get a lefty out again?’
Funny that you mention Fuentes; that’s exactly who I hope he turns into. Fuentes’ career platoon splits are noticeable, but they’re not awful, and he’s obviously been able to make himself a nice career in a role that *forces* him to see lots of righties. If Green can do something roughly equivalent, and Fuentes shows that it’s possible even with a sidearmy delivery - awesome.
Agreed on the ’strict roles’ thing too. There’s simply no need for it when Sherrill’s around (or O’Flaherty). Nice to see them use Green/Sherrill together in the 8th inning of the M’s victory over Baltimore on Monday. That was basically flawless bullpen management.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:15 amI just got sent a meeting notice for this afternoon. 2pm to 3pm. ARRRRRRRGGGGHHH! I have been looking forward to Dave’s appearance on KJR all week. If it gets archived somewhere, can some kind soul post a link here? I would love to hear it.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:16 amWPA is straightforward. Fangraphs has an easily-understood definition.
Looking at BP’s defintion of WXRL, they don’t really tell you how it’s calculated, or what adjustments are built in. I’m always skeptical when I don’t understand the underlying math.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:16 amThat’s one of the reasons I use WPA and not WXRL.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:20 amThanks Dave, I have to admit I’m lazy. I’ll go with FIP when discussing relievers with my buddies from now on and if that # is close look at the things you have discussed above. You rock! (Secret man crush on Dave!)
July 20th, 2007 at 11:25 amFunny that you mention Fuentes; that’s exactly who I hope he turns into.
That’s definitely a best case scenario, I think. Within the realm of possibility, much like Wlad turning into Magglio Ordonez, but probably not something I would bet on.
Nice to see them use Green/Sherrill together in the 8th inning of the M’s victory over Baltimore on Monday. That was basically flawless bullpen management.
I actually would have probably left Green in to get the last batter of the 8th. 2 outs, nobody on, up by 2 - the chance of Green giving up the lead there is nil. Even if he gives up a homer (highly unlikely), you have Sherrill ready, and if he doesn’t, then George gets the night off.
In one run games, I’d be much less willing to let Green face a lefty. With a multiple run lead and no one on base, I’d like to see him get the chance to stay in there.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:26 amI only used ERA+ and WXRL for a quick and dirty comparison — I think Geoff Baker has used ERA+ so it is somewhat known; in addition to BP being well known, I knew WXRL took leverage into account; and the Hardball Times only had FIP going back a few years (thanks for the tip on historical FIP at Fangraphs). In other words, I wanted to keep it somewhat accessible, hopefully avoiding a DAMellon asplode.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:29 amI enjoy WPA, but there’s one part of it I have trouble with. We tend to use it as a measure of clutch performance when we apply it to players, but it doesn’t tell us who started rallies, only who put the rally over the top. The guy who starts a rally is often in a low-leverage position, but the high-leverage position wouldn’t have been reached without the first guy getting a hit. When we use it as a measure of clutch performance, it seems to me that we’re doing a more sophisticated version of the traditional valuing of RBI more than Runs Scored.
Am I crazy? Is there something fundamental I’m missing? (n.b.: I’m not criticizing the usefulness of WPA at all; I think it’s marvelous. I’m only questioning the way we sometimes use it in analysis.)
July 20th, 2007 at 11:31 amSlocumb was an All-Star in 95 for the Phillies. I think his B-R page just got more hits in a couple hours than it has in 10 years or however long its been up.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:35 amIs there any good material you can recommend on how arm slots or delivery effect a pitcher’s usefulness?
July 20th, 2007 at 11:37 amSlocumb gets the bump in hits every July around the trade deadline.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amIs there any good material you can recommend on how arm slots or delivery effect a pitcher’s usefulness?
Not really, unfortunately. I’ve never read a really good article about arm slots online. Most of what I’ve picked up was through my own experience as a catcher and through discussions with scouts.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:43 am“my own experience as a catcher…”
Hey, Dave, just a random question out of curiosity: What level did you top out at? (I never made it out of little league. Sigh.)
July 20th, 2007 at 11:47 amYesterday’s story about Putz is right now one of the big front-page stories on MLB.com. Nice to finally see him get some respect.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amJust how under the radar is Sean Green? When you do a google search on him, the first hit is for Shawn Green. The engine assumes you were trying to search for the other S. Green, and adjusts accordingly.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:57 amNot exactly. The way I think of it is that it measures the difference in win probabilities before the batter to after the batter.
So, by getting on base, a hitter is credited with changing the situation. Getting on base increases the team’s probabilities of scoring a run, and the probability of scoring multiple runs (depending on which base, how many outs). And of course the score and the inning are important to WPA.
Yes, the guy who drove in a run is going to get credit, but again it is depending on the game situation before the at bat compared to afterwards.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:58 amTo expand #77 a bit:
As the rally progresses, at each stage the win probability increases and each batter gets credit for their individual increment of contribution.
So the batter who gets the hit that plates the run doesn’t receive credit for the entire rally, only for the contribution created by his hit.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:53 pmHey, Dave, just a random question out of curiosity: What level did you top out at? (I never made it out of little league. Sigh.)
I played through high school. I asked to move out from behind the plate my senior year, since I wanted to be able to walk when I was 30, so I spent my last year as a third baseman.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm#57– Andriesen had a nice article about the trade last year.
some Mariner synchronicity — according to Ortiz, it was Jose Paniagua who got him to play baseball in the first place …
“Ortiz had been sitting in the visitor’s dugout in Camden Yards talking about how he became a ballplayer. “I loved basketball, man,” he said. “I wanted to be Michael Jordan. But Jose Paniagua, the guy who later pitched for the Mariners, he used to be on me all the time about playing baseball. The basketball court was next to the baseball field, and he was on me all the time asking me to come play. Finally I played, and I hit a home run my first at-bat. Paniagua, he was crazy, man. He said that if he saw me playing basketball anymore, he would kick my butt. I used to be dribbling on the court, watching for him, and guys would steal the ball from me. When I’d see him, I’d jump over the fence to the baseball field. “Eight months after I started playing, the Mariners signed me.” That was in 1992, when Ortiz was 17.”–Boston Globe, Sep 12, 2003
July 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pmum. here in the link to Andriesen’s piece.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWhile Ortiz for Hollins looks horrible in hindsight, it was a reasonable decision at the time.
Only if you weren’t paying attention. David Arias (as he went by then) was only in A-ball when we dealt him, but I was still ticked.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pmIf you’re gonna criticize the Arias for Hollins deal, you’ve also got to consider context. Arias/Ortiz had no real defensive position and the M’s had a pretty good DH at the time, you might recall, who was only 33.
I tend to remember that they were getting Hollins at the tail end of his career, but he was only 30 when the M’s picked him up. The M’s were desperate for a 3B (think Russ Davis), and Hollins was a switch hitter with some power who’d underachieved for a couple years with injuries but they thought he was finally healthy. Unfortunately he didn’t stay healthy.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pmand as Andreisen points out, Russ broke his leg, making them even more desperate.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pmNo, the batter receives credit for the contribution created by his hit and for the high-leverage situation the batter did not create (and of course the batter is penalized for that situation if he fails).
I know what leverage is measuring, and I think it’s useful, especially when analyzing the importance of game situations. But when speaking of the contributions of players, I think that using WPA as the sole measure of important offensive contribution is inadequate.
Let’s say the the Mariners are down by three in the ninth with two outs. Ichiro gets a single that leads to a rally in which four runs are scored. Belte hits a single that knocks in the go-ahead run. Now, Beltre’s hit occurred in a much higher leverage situation. But Beltre’s hit couldn’t have happened without Ichiro’s hit. WPA gives Ichiro very little credit, because the vast majority of singles in that situation still lead to a loss. But in that particular case, the win would not have happened without his hit. Arguably, it is as important as Beltre’s hit to the win. We know that at the time, but in the final accounting, WPA gives Beltre huge credit for the win, and Ichiro very little.
I know that I may be missing something, and I’m open to hearing it, but (and please don’t hear this in a cranky tone of voice), I don’t need to have what WPA does explained to me again. (I think.)
July 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pmBut when speaking of the contributions of players, I think that using WPA as the sole measure of important offensive contribution is inadequate.
I think you could replace WPA in that sentence with absolutely anything and still have a valid point. I really hope people get away from the search for an uberstat at some point.
We know that at the time, but in the final accounting, WPA gives Beltre huge credit for the win, and Ichiro very little.
And then, when Beltre gets an out in another high leverage situation that he also didn’t create, it will give him huge blame for the loss, even though, if the batters before him hadn’t gotten on base, he wouldn’t have had the high leverage opportunity to ruin anyway.
It cuts both ways, as you note, and for most hitters over the course of a season, it evens out.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pmOkay, Dave, that makes sense.
It does feel to me like WPA as a player-evaluation tool is analogous to RBI — a lot more sophisticated, of course — and I’m curious whether there’s a metric that calculates the importance of runs scored in specific game situations, which could then be applied to the players scoring those runs.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI remember Tango mentioning WPA/LI several times. It made sense to me, as it would remove leverage of the situation, but I don’t see how it would any more useful than the better (park adjusted) Runs Created Above Replacement type stats. I think, in the end, like any stat, it’s a matter of sample size. The larger the sample, the less regression is necessary
July 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#85:
No disagreement - and not only would I say that WPA is inadequate as the sole measure of offensive contribution, I would further say that it should not be used at all as a measure of offensive contribution. At least not until someone can show there is such a thing as “clutch” performance.
I think that Paul and I were merely reacting to what sounded a bit like a common misperception about WPA and “clutchiness”.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pmSounds like scraps wants something that measures offensive performance, either in addition to or instead of WPA. Or at least, that is what WPA is missing.
Something like OPS+ or RC/9 or something even more sophisticated.
WPA is fun, and I enjoy looking at it and talking about it, but since it is so situation specific it probably (I am making an assumption here) has almost no predictive ability for future performance. Other than the really obvious (e.g., if a hitter has a negative WPA day after day after day after day, it’s a good bet his other numbers are going to be grim) that is.
think Russ Davis
I do, everytime I walk past Safeco and see his statue (the glove with the hole in it).
July 20th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIt does feel to me like WPA as a player-evaluation tool is analogous to RBI…
I’d say it’s a lot more like those “close and late” numbers they flash up on the screen from time to time. You never get penalized for failing in an RBI sitaution, while WPA dings a hitter who fails more often in high leverage situations.
and I’m curious whether there’s a metric that calculates the importance of runs scored in specific game situations, which could then be applied to the players scoring those runs.
It sounds to me like you want is a leveraged linear weights, where the value of a specific hit isn’t differentiated based on sequence, but is separated based on game situation. If I’m reading correctly, you want the leadoff single in a one run game to count more than the RBI in single in a 10 run game, but you don’t want it to count anymore than the RBI single that follows the leadoff single. Right?
Honestly, to me, that sounds like a lot of work for very little value added.
I think we all understand that WPA is a nifty tool for certain things, but it has pretty significant limitations. I agree that it shouldn’t be used as the be-all, end-all stat for offensive valuation, but as a measure of what actually happened, it does a nice job of quantifying people’s emotional responses.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pmWell, Russ Davis did hit the first home run at Safeco.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pmHey…Russ Davis had a Teflon mitt, not one with a hole in it.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWPA is fun, and I enjoy looking at it and talking about it, but since it is so situation specific it probably (I am making an assumption here) has almost no predictive ability for future performance.
I’ll see if I can find a link, but David Appelman looked at the correlation of WPA on a year to year basis, and it was basically the same as batting average. It’s not great, but it’s not nothing.
Okay, here’s the link:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/is-wpa-predictive-for-batters/
July 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThere’s nothing wrong w/ WPA for what it is (win probability added), it’s just that people should be careful and not view it as predictive. That said if somebody is consistently +1 to +2 above expected over a couple year period, then maybe that has some predictive value. I have two problems with the current cluch numbers being used, I believe (I may be wrong on this) they’re based on OPS. That said if someone came up with a good expected WPA formula (like using the difference of BaseRuns replacing that player with an average player on an average team, with park adjustments, or something), and somebody outperformed it for 3 or so years (or however regression says you should, again, no idea), then I might buy they have been truly clutch.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI believe (I may be wrong on this) they’re based on OPS.
WPA has nothing to do with OPS. It uses Tango’s win expectancy tables, and simply subtracts the win probability from one game state to the next.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSorry, the other problem is it does not tell you why the win probability change occured, much like the problems with OPS, AVG, etc. Some day we’ll have information on how hard people hit balls, where they hit balls, the angles, along with position of the fielders and what not.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pmNot WPA, the clutch numbers, on fangraphs specifically, I thought they were based on OPS wins:.
Just looked Clutchiness = WPA - (OPS Wins * pLI)
Sorry, poorly written. I’ve read people quote those clutch numbers. I’d avoid doing that. It sounds suspect.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pmGrox just dropped a “the M’s are the team that drives the ’stat guys’ crazy” with Blowers. You GO, Dave.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThe M’s aren’t driving me crazy. This is the most fun I’ve had blogging about this team since we started USSM.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pmRight.
You’re probably right. I’m no mathematician.
Yeah. I guess it has seemed to me that the danger of having such a precise metric for our conception of clutchness is that it both legitimizes the idea of clutchness as a skill and marginalizes the importance of contributions that we already emotionally discount. Probably just my own emotional reaction.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pmYeah. I guess it has seemed to me that the danger of having such a precise metric for our conception of clutchness is that it both legitimizes the idea of clutchness as a skill and marginalizes the importance of contributions that we already emotionally discount. Probably just my own emotional reaction
I like how lookout landing uses it, as part of a daily recap of the game. It quantifies who was the hero and who was the goat that day.
But that doesn’t imply that it is something more.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI think there are some practical advantages to using WPA as an indicator of value, especially for relievers. J.J. Putz is lapping the field in WPA right now, and in this case, it’s an accurate assesment of how awesome he’s been. Because Hargrove/McLaren have been willing to give him some 8th inning work, he hasn’t had very many easy 3 run saves, and since the few runs he has given up have been in non-crucial situations, he’s legitimately been one of the most valuable players in baseball.
I think I can properly use WPA to show why J.J. Putz is a legitimate Cy Young candidate, and potentially an MVP candidate as well, where most writers will simply dismiss Putz as a 70 inning reliever.
These are the situations where I think WPA can really provide some useful insights. We’ve covered its limitations pretty well, but let’s not totally discount it’s usefulness.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHonesty, while I may be in the minority, I’d be more interested in seeing who folds in high leverage situation then who over-performs, and even I’d take that with a grain of salt. When you shuffle random hitting events (hits, xbh, HR, SB, CS, outs, etc) over a wide range situation, there’s going to be tons of noise.
Also, I’m well aware of what WPA is Dave.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI don’t recall it being mentioned here, but Jim Moore’s piece on Hargrove a couple of days ago is worth the read. It might not resonate with the youngsters, but it will for those of us closer to retirement than college.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:06 pmDave –
That was kind of my point. Gas likes to toss it out there too.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pmFor Cy Young and MVP, I think WPA is a great tool, as it is a measurment of value added to the team, but it is not necessarily a measure of futruee value. I think WPA + Positional Adjustment + Defensive Runs Saved (like UZR) + Base Running could be a great tool for MVP voting, and maybe even HoF someday.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pm105:
Did read the Hargrove piece but it still doesn’t make sense for him to walk away. I’m glad he did though. I don’t think we’d have Ichiro locked up for the next 5 years right now if Grover was still calling the shots.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pmWhat do you mean, Russ Davis’ glove didn’t have a hole in it? Isn’t that a monument to it outside of SafeCo?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm“I don’t expect people to understand it, I really don’t, because at times I don’t understand it myself”– Mike Hargrove.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pmGood luck, Dave…. hopefully the segment goes really well, and marks a turning point in the regrettable history of sports radio.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pmC’mon Dave! Right the wrongs of this format!
Make us proud Dave!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pmYay our boy is up next.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pmDavid Cameron - Clap Clap, ClapClapClap!
//LookoutLanding joke…
July 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pmCan someone maybe do a brief transcript type thing, only being outside the US, KJR’s online listening has a block on any international ip addresses.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pmIt feels like a surreal moment hearing that Dave will be on the radio and USSM getting represented. I have never listened to KJR being from Colorado but the comments I have heard it sounds like they would get thrown in the queue.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pmMan, I forgot how much I hate listening to the radio. Only Dave Cameron can make me listen to the hell that is radio.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pmAnyone else on the online stream?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pmyes, listening online
July 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe online stream is working good for me.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pmalso online
July 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmman dave talks fast
July 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmWoah, Dave is nervous!!! Talking very fast…
July 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmDave’s a fast talker.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmtake a breath Dave..talking way too fast…lol..
July 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThis would be using WPA as the sole measure of batting contribution (after positional adjustment), and that’s exactly the kind of thing I was objecting to.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm*deap breath*
July 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBooming KJR Guy’s volume: 10
July 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pmDave’s volume: 4? 5 maybe?
It definitely sounds like a typical fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants Groz interview.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pmthank goodness for the internet — listening from St. Louis @ work.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pmAlmost puked??? What???
July 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm“Ichiro is a singles hitter like Maddux is a strike thrower.”
Fabulous quote!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pmNo idea Dave sounded like a 14 year old kid going through puberty on his first date.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pmNice….good constructive shot at Vidro.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pmLots of things to say + Not a lot of time to say it + Talking about things that he cares deeply about = Talks faster than Ichiro moves.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm133. A low blow, but hilarious nonetheless.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIs Dave nervous, or is that how he talks normally?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThe comments are coming in faster for Dave’s interview than during a Putz save opportunity
July 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pmlol..great material he is talking about but due to the speed of the delivery, I wonder if anyone will be able to decipher it..
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIt’s USSM on the radio, of course he’s talking fast. You have to take advantage of the time given!
Nice work, Dave.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIf there is a podcast on this we will need to listen at half speed.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAh c’mon. You guys have been to USSM feeds, right? Dave’s like this all the time, when talking M’s baseball.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#134 - agreed. It was subtle, but a zinger nonetheless.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDave is a fast-talker, but he is speedier than usual today …
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDave is speaking very quickly but …. he is speaking intelligently, not using “uhs” and gives good responses when prompted. The second time up he will take care of the speed talking thing and do just great. I give him a solid B+.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDave rocks, that is why. If we called KJR to say these things they would rip us and dump us fast!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDave talks at a perfectly acceptable rate, I think
Neat broadcast (good thing I happened to be checking the blogs at just the right time to catch it!)
July 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI’d like an hour with Dave instead of 10 minutes.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI have to admit, I won’t ever read one of your smackdown-ish posts the same after hearing that.
Great job, Dave.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmGreat interview! #133, lol
July 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmWhat’s up, Posi? I recently found KJR’s web stream and have been loving it.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThat was more entertaining then half the games the M’s play. Somebody get Dave a paper bag, I think he is hyperventilating.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pmawesome….slow it down a bit….and it will be a great segment. Groz kinda shotgunned it with the questions, but with time…they’ll get a rythm going.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pm[]
July 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWow. We sure got our 8 minutes worth, didn’t we…
July 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWow. We sure got our 8 minutes worth, didn’t we…
Or, should I say — there was more intelligent info given in the last 8-minute segment than given in the last 8 months on KJR. Heh.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pmYeah, Dave did talk fast.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:38 pmExactly the right speed … 15 minutes of content in 10 minutes. Great interview. I agree with 148, I wish you could have had the whole hour.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pmGreat Job Dave! Way to cram 30 minutes of info into 10 minutes!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm146 — I think that’s the best part of this. Hopefully it will encourage more intelligent analysis on the part of the hosts, and at the very least some embracing of those of us who might actually call KJR if they wouldn’t just summarily dismiss us outright.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pmGreat job dave.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pmDave’s on FIRE!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSpeaking from experience, cracking the mic for the first time is a bit stressful. For my $$$, you did great Dave.
Now for something a little different…Is velocity determined more so by physics/mechanics or by the physiology of the pitcher?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm157 - Dave said knock off the trade speculation.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pmNice work Dave. I managed to catch it online just as it began. Groz seems like he’s a USSM convert, even citing a couple of posts and mentioning other meaningful stats in player evaluation. USSM, educating the baseball fan, one person at a time!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pmGrrr couldn’t connect.
I hope this becomes a regular gig, Dave.
Curious what the calls will be like after this, and Groz’s responses.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pm165 - In reality he probably said, ‘knockoffthetradespeculation’.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pmAds…ads…must have ads… They’re already late, it’s 2:22.
(The following “transcript” isn’t verbatim, there are a couple of comments that are paraphrased, sorry)
Groz played a clip from McLaren, talking about the buzz in stadium these days.
Groz intro, referring to Chaves/Felix reaction to open letter.
New frontier, new step forward for a blog
Dave: says he’s been a Felix nerd, logging pitch-by-pitch and noticing a measure of predictability, got the observations “to the right people”.
USSM has grown tremendously, from 3 fans who just wanted to talk about the team. Mission now to help educate the fanbase.
Groz referred to the tremendous amount of time invested in the blog.
Dave: joked about talking Mariners baseball to his mother, her feedback…the blog is an outlet to talk about a subject near to his heart (paraphrase). Mentioned the great change in the past 20 years about how players are evaluated, there’s a lot of nerdy people out there who want to quantify (a player’s production)…
Groz: How are they [the Mariners]looking?
Dave: A little bit lucky, outscored by only x runs and to be 14 games over .500.
Groz: Sean Green piece complimented.
Dave: Sean Green is criminally underrated…very little credit…happy to see him pitching in the 8th now…
Groz: Do you see a difference, now that McLaren has succeeded Hargrove?
Dave: Same things, little difference in managing from Hargrov