Elias rankings are out: Types A and B players

by OaklandSi on Oct 31, 2007 7:44 PM PDT

The Elias rankings are out for major league players. They are used to determine whether a player is considered "A" or "B". While most players listed are not free agents right now, this of course has been used to determine what kind of draft compensation a team can expect if they lose a player to free agency.

Players' performance over the past two seasons are used to rank them. I'm sure there will be some questions about the rankings, but it's certainly interesting.

AL rankings are here

NL rankings are here

As far as our Oakland Athletics go, only Swish is rated "A" among outfielders, first basemen, and DH's. None are "type A" for 2B, SS or 3B...Ellis is a "B"...Haren and Blanton are "A" starters, while Street and Embree are "A" relievers. Street is considered the third best reliever in the AL, behind only JJ Putz and Joe Nathan.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

most importantly, i think,

Stewart and Piazza are Type B free agents. Not sure if the A's will offer both arbitration, or clear what compensation for them would be.

I find your lack of Faith disturbing...

by rebus on Oct 31, 2007 8:46 PM PDT 0 recs

Wow, Milton is a type A.

And Kendall a B. Loaiza, thankfully, did not get ranked.

So it goes.

by jeepers on Oct 31, 2007 9:04 PM PDT 0 recs

That's what the psychologist said to Milton

Type A - you need to be a bit more relaxed, let the world happen.

by MobiusKlein on Oct 31, 2007 10:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

Loaiza

Loaiza isn't a Free Agent until 2008. Then, he has a Club Option after the 2009 Season.

I can't see the A's offering Piazza Arbitration. If he accepts arby, A's are stuck w/ him for close to 8M/Season.

Stewart should get offered...probably won't accept since he can probably get a 2-Year or 3-Year deal somewheere. Maybe the A's.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 31, 2007 10:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Piazza

wants to play if he doesn't retire and he knows the A's wouldn't want him to play if he was on the team, so they could offer him arby pretty fearlessly. He's not going to take it just for the money.

by mikeA on Oct 31, 2007 10:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Padres

Why didn't the Padres offer Arby to Piazza last year?

It's not worth the risk, is it? Do we really want two DH's next season?

by Colorado Fan on Nov 1, 2007 8:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

from SuSlu's article today

Oakland general manager Billy Beane has been in contact with Greg Genske, who represents outfielder Shannon Stewart, and though Beane declined to provide details, he and Genske agreed that both sides would like at least to explore the idea of bringing back Stewart.
"Shannon had a very positive experience with Oakland and is open to the possibility of coming back, and the A's have expressed interest, too," Genske said.
"We've been in touch, but it's early in the process for them and for us," Beane said.

link

by gotgreen on Oct 31, 2007 10:41 PM PDT 0 recs

Wow

What a retarded formula.

Seriously, would you rather have Bradley than Jeff Francoeur?

(Not that it matters in Bradley's case. He's hurt, so nobody is going to sign him-- and give up a top draft pick-- during the period when SD would get compensated. But still, it's the principle of the thing.)

Also, apparently Matt Cain is not a Type A pitcher because he pitched in front of the Giants offense this year.

I mean, WTF?

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2007 11:08 PM PDT 0 recs

Well, injuries aside

(they take pt into account, but maybe not enough), Bradley was much better than Francoeur the last two years. Age/potential is sort of beside the point for these rankings.

by mikeA on Oct 31, 2007 11:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

OK, I'm surprised

Francoeur's defense is rated only average at BPro, with the result that their 2-year WARPs are almost the same. In spite of Francoeur having played over twice as many games.

I was under the impression that he was a significantly above-average right fielder.

Still, it's clear that playing time isn't weighted correctly in this formula. If I understand it correctly, it's just weighed as a single "category," rather than as a modifier which drags down all the other categories (which is what it should be).

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2007 12:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

What I've learned the past couple years here:

BPro's fielding metric is not at all trustworthy.

BPro's replacement level is wrong, which screws up a bunch of their other stats for every player.

Bottom Line:

THT has better stats (fangraphs also has better stats), so I would suggest replacing BPro in your bookmarks with THT, fangraphs, and insidethebook.com.

(That is not a response to your post, which I don't disagree with much, but you want to be up on the best stats, so there it is.)

by mikeA on Nov 1, 2007 12:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

I mainly posted these since they are used

in determining compensation for losing free agents, as well as in negotiations for contracts.

Believe me, I don't use them for their statistical reliability!

by OaklandSi on Nov 1, 2007 5:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

I know

I'm taking a shot at Elias, not you.

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

I was replying to MikeA

by OaklandSi on Nov 1, 2007 10:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

I wasn't saying anything about Elias

or you or anything like that.

by mikeA on Nov 1, 2007 11:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

what I find interesting about these ratings

is how they are used in negotiations over salaries and signings, and of course how they are used to help determine which free agents get offered compensation, which get signed, etc.

by OaklandSi on Nov 1, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

The mentally challenged formula

Here is a description of the categories used to come up with these rankings.

1B/OF/DH: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI
2B/3B/SS: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI, Fielding percentage, Total chances at designated position
C: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI, Fielding percentage, Assists
SP: Total games (total starts + 0.5 * total relief appearances), IP, Wins, W-L Percentage, ERA, Strikeouts
RP: Total games (total relief appearances + 2 * total starts), IP (weighted slightly less than other categories), Wins + Saves, IP/H ratio, K/BB, ERA

Although many of these are counting stats, apparently (based on the comments there) there is an adjustment made for time of the DL, giving players credit for phantom HR and RBI.

Francoeur isn't really that good. Yes, I'd rather have Bradley. Cain is hurt doubly (Wins and W/L %) by his lack of run support, and also an ERA that is good but not great. The real "WTF" has to be Michael Young #1 among infielders.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Nov 1, 2007 10:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

Probably going to happen

when a single counts as much as a double.

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yikes!

Sounds like a Market Inefficiency to me.

Stock up on players who will be type A rank players, but cheap.
Get cool draft picks.
Profit.

Why would Wins + saves be good for relievers with no mention of blown saves or losses, but raw Win & Win % matter for starters?

And no mention of Fielding percent for outfielders?

by MobiusKlein on Nov 1, 2007 3:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

you're missing an important step

Stock up on players who will be type A rank players, but cheap.
Get cool draft picks.
??????
Profit

I find your lack of Faith disturbing...

by rebus on Nov 1, 2007 4:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Cano > A-Rod

As long as MLB uses a formula that looks like it was designed by Andronicus Einsteinium, there will alway be a market inefficiency.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 1, 2007 6:25 AM PDT 0 recs

they must weight BA a ton

if you look at the top guys in that group, they're usually high batting average, moderate power guys. Michael Young is the top player in that group with a .315 average the last two years. Tejada is #2 with a .315 average. Cano is third with a high ba (lower if you weight this year more), but he missed about 40 games in 2006. Jeter is fourth with a very high ba (.330+), but you could knock him for his d.

Has anyone ever tried a regression to determine the weightings? It would seem to be a simple, yet time consuming task to gather all the data. A neural network approach would probably get you very, very close to the actual results. That is, assuming they actually derive these rankings based on data, rather than a bunch of drunk guys arguing in a bar.

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Nov 1, 2007 8:09 AM PDT up 0 recs

Something I don't know that anyone's

really touched on.

These formulas are extremely anti-competitive balance. They make the rich teams richer and the poor teams poorer.

For hitters, RBI is a category, despite being overwhelmingly dependant on the other hitters in the lineup. Good hitters on bad teams will not post as many RBI as similar hitters on good teams.

For pitchers, it's even worse. I've already observed the obscenity of Matt Cain being ranked below Chuck James. "Wins" are counted TWICE in the starters' formula, and "losses" are counted as well. This gives pitchers on good teams a staggering advantage over pitchers on bad teams.

Meanwhile relief pitchers get credit for ERA (which is bunkum for guys who get called in mid-inning) and wins (what?). Apparently it's OK to blow a save, as long as your team comes back to win the game in the bottom half of the inning.

I'd guess this formula gives a 5-10% advantage to hitters from the best offensive teams over hitters from the worst teams, and a 25% or more advantage to pitchers from the best offensive teams. There's no advantage to having a strong rotation, although there is an advantage for both starters and relievers (in ERA and Wins) to having a strong bullpen.

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2007 11:42 AM PDT 0 recs