wondering about the pitchers' worth v. hitters' worth

by tas7b on Jan 20, 2009 2:58 PM PST

hello everyone. i'm new here, but i've been checking the blog regularly for a couple years now and must say that this is by far the best sports blog i've seen. oh, and i'm a huge a's fan.

i just have one random question. it seems that people generally consider the position players as being worth more than pitchers (hence certain award voters excluding pitchers altogether in the mvp voting, etc.). but is this really true? first, there's the commonly made statements to the contrary, such as "big league quality starting pitchers are the rarest commodity," or the fact that rangers have rarely won anything w/ some of the league's best offenses while our a's have won quite a bit w/ what seems to be average-at-best offenses but w/ quality rotations.

the question i would love for any of you stat-wizards to answer is this: if you have a team w/ five johan santanas (i.e., the best pitcher) and league-average players at all other positions, and another team w/ five albert pujols (i.e., the best position player, and for the sake of argument let's say that pujols occupies 1b/2b/ss/3b/cf) and league average players at all other positions, which team would win? Without doing any math, I would think the former. Is there any way to run numbers to prove this one way or another?

thanks.

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It's simple really

Hitting is roughly 45% of the game; pitching 40% and defense 15%.

Do the math— the average everyday player contributes 5% toward the offense and, depending on the position, 1-3% toward the defense. That’s 6-8%— for the average everyday player. Your stars might go to as much as double that.

Whereas if the average starting pitcher throws 180 innings— or roughly 6 per 30 starts— then he contributes less than 15% of the overall innings the team will pitch, placing his value at about 5% with a smidgen more thrown in for defense.

Position players are more valuable.

by windyfelix on Jan 20, 2009 3:04 PM PST reply actions

thats why pithing wins championships felix?

If you had a lineup of 9 Jack Custs who hit(Cust career average) .239 AVG, .382 OBP, and .475 SLG, then your team would score 6.12 runs per game-totalling to 991runs a season.The 08 rangers lead the majors in runs score with 901.

by 9Custs on Jan 20, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

or pitching

by 9Custs on Jan 20, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

Dave Cameron just covered this actually.

If you sum up the 2008 win values for the position players and the pitchers that we have here on the site, you’ll notice that we’re handing out 583 wins to position players and 445 wins to pitchers. That’s 1,028 marginal wins – 57% of them are earned by position players and 43% of them are earned by pitchers. You know that whole "good teams are built around good pitching" thing? It’s bunk. Position players are more valuable than pitchers.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/wrapping-up-win-values/

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 20, 2009 3:16 PM PST reply actions

thanks

i don’t doubt the numbers, but i guess i’m still having trouble reconciling those general numbers to my hypothetical (5 santanas+avg crew v. 5 pujols+avg crew).

by tas7b on Jan 20, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

Hm, but the average starter is 1/5 of his starting rotation

and the average position player is only 1/9 of the lineup. If relief pitchers amass 1/4 of the pitchers’ value and backups amass 1/10 of the position players’ value, the values for starters are 32% and 51% respectively. Divide that by the requisite number of players and starters actually come out (very slightly) ahead.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 20, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions

Last year relief pitchers accounted for more than 1/3 of innings pitched (35% for the A’s, 34% for the AL as a whole). And I’d guess it’s more likely that a given position player gets 1/10 of his team’s PAs (about 600 PA) than a given pitcher makes 1/5 of their starts (about 190 IP).

But, yeah, on a per-player basis it’s pretty close.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 20, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions

Right, but relief pitchers are worse than starting pitchers

hence are less likely to provide value on average.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 20, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions

You can't ignore defense

If hitting plus defense is 60% of game— even if an average everyday player plays only 90% of the innings— or 145 games— then they contribute 6% to a team’s value.

For a starter to contribute 6% of a team’s value they most throw close to 15% of a team’s innings— probably about 14%+ change once you include their more meager defensive contribution. So if a team plays 1445 innings (roughly the Al average the past 4 seasons) that means a pitcher would have to throw just about 200 innings to equal the everyday player that plays 145 games. 15 AL pitchers threw 200 innings last year— or roughly 1 per team. 41 AL position players— or roughly 3 per team— played 145 games.

Even if one adjusts for a 5 person rotation vs. a 9 person lineup— then roughly 20% of each team’s pitchers are approximately equal to a third of their position players. So while it is theoretically possible for one starting pitcher to have an extraordinary season and be the MVP in a given league, the odds pretty strongly favor the position players to have more value.

by windyfelix on Jan 20, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions

again, i don't doubt

how the numbers work out, assuming your value distribution is correct. but how exactly are you (or whoever else provided the numbers) deriving 45/40/15 distribution? i’ve suspected the same thing that Cheesezombie mentioned below, which would make the issue a whole more complex.

i guess the trouble is that i have very weak handle on the numerical side of the game (though i’m finding it utterly fascinating and trying to learn), which is why i keep coming back to the simple question: would i rather have five santanas (in his prime) or five pujols? my answer still would be 5 santanas, as misguided as that may be. what do you all think?

by tas7b on Jan 20, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions

Bill James

He came up with that split, and I’ll yield to his expertise on this one.

by windyfelix on Jan 20, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions

oh

i think i will, too lol

by tas7b on Jan 21, 2009 7:06 AM PST up reply actions

and of course relief pitchers are not "worse"-- they are more valuable, not less

Last year their ERA was 4.13 to starters’ 4.48 in the AL; and OPS allowed was 726 to 760, so it wasn’t simply a distortion caused by the mid-inning relief appearances. As a group, per inning pitched, relief pitchers are more valuable than starters.

by windyfelix on Jan 20, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions

Neither one of those stats tells you much of anything about how good a pitcher was.

Some relief pitchers face higher leverage situations than starters, but to say that relief pitchers are more valuable than starters is pretty inaccurate.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions

do you want to use sunflower consumption instead??

It’s real simple. Per inning pitched relief pitchers are more effective than starters. Overall starters are more valuable because they pitch more innings— that was never the question. Some one asserted that relief pitchers are “worse” than starters— implying poorer performance, not value. They are not. He hypothesized that they throw 1/4 the innings, when actually it’s more than one-third.

I never intended to mean that they are, collectively, more valuable. The clear meaning is that they are more valuable per inning. As they are.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 6:54 AM PST up reply actions

I'd correct all the massive mischaracterizations of my statement contained here

but that would involve engaging you in debate. Let’s just leave it at “I said nothing of the sort.”

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 21, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

good reason why you don't want to debate

here is the exact quote— even if you try to slip away from the meaning of “worse”—

“hence are less likely to provide value on average.”

I’d say that is pretty darn clear— and could not be more wrong. But since you don’t want to debate it, I’ll just leave it at that.

And relievers being 1/4 of the overall pitching value was part of your thought process— well if they perform better and they throw about 1/3 the innings, obviously their value is substantially greater than 1/4.

And since you didn’t account for defense at all— which is a significant part of the game where pitchers value drops considerably compared to position players, I thought that was a meaningful omission.

Listen, you strike me as one that is quick to harp on a hole in an argument— which is fine— just be prepared to take your medicine because you left some holes out there when you concluded “starters come out (very slightly) ahead” big enough to drive several Mack trucks through.

They don’t. It’s not close. It’s not really debatable.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

Read this.

Some back of the envelope math tells me that the average team got about 5 WAR out of its bullpen last season. Since the average team gets about 35 WAR total, they’re providing 1/7 of team value.

Subtract that out from the pitchers’ total cited by RJ and the starters are providing 2/7 or 29% of team value, so each starter is giving just under 6% in a full season. The gap between starting pitchers and positional starters is very close by this measurement, but it’s still fractionally favorable to the SP.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 21, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

Those numbers

confirm that the starters:relievers breakdown is approximately 2:1 (the same as innings pitched) not 3:1.

And they actually give the average full-time starter (1/5 of 2/7) exactly as much value as the average full-time position player (1/10 of 4/7). I think that’s just the way the numbers happen to come out, not some deep truth about baseball, and in any case we don’t really know these numbers with a high degree of precision, but it’s a nice easy to remember heuristic.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 21, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

Nice data

Is defense part of the mix, or not?

And if this is all based on fangraphs then I’d be curious why it is viewed as the best metric. And of course because of injury the “average” starting pitcher is not a 1/5 proposition— but in fact a lot closer to 1/6.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, to the question

As for injuries, position players suffer injuries too. Obviously a guy who doesn’t play his share of games won’t provide his share of value.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 21, 2009 11:47 PM PST up reply actions

Starting pitchers are almost always better than relievers. Is that really in question?

As far stats to use, anything defense independent is preferable to ERA and OPS Against.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions

it certainly is

How does one define “better”?

If “better” is defined as which pitcher is better able to handle the demands of a multi-inning start every 5th day, that’s one thing;

If better is defined as which better gets more outs with less damage, that’s another;

I will accept that the majority of major league teams arrive at the proper conclusions to Question 1 and staff their teams accordingly, though I’m not sure they are anywhere near completely successful in this task;

But the answer to Question 2 is pretty apparent— relievers do better per inning pitched than starters. Of course part of the reason is that they are used situationally (platoon advantage and short spans where they can use their best stuff), but again they also have to pitch on consecutive days and sometimes as much as three-four times a week, which presents its own challenges.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

which "pitcher", not which "better"

Memo- to Blez and Co.— can we have an edit/modify function? Too many dumb mistakes like I just made!!

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions

Better should be defined by ability.

The ability level of starting pitchers is almost universally higher than that of relievers.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions

"almost universally higher"

Pretty strong statement and, depending on your criteria, could be right or wrong.

If your criteria includes stamina, you are closer to right.

If your criteria is limited to stuff, ability to locate, thought process, etc..— then you are almost certainly wrong. This game has become specialized for a reason— teams are increasingly making sure that some of their best arms are pitching from the 7th inning on.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions

starters stuff would improve

if they were in a one inning relief situation in which they wouldn’t have to conserve their arms

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jan 21, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions

The original question

was not about ability, but about value.

It may be true (I think it is) that the average starter has more ability than an average reliever. But because they’re used for shorter stints, the average reliever’s performance is actually better than the average starter’s performance – last year in the AL relievers had an ERA of 4.13 and starters had an ERA of 4.48.

So if you measure value by comparing a pitcher’s ERA (or some luck-adjusted version of ERA) to league average, relievers are more valuable on a per-inning basis. A better way to measure value would probably be to compare starters to a replacement-level starter, and relievers to a replacement-level reliever, and on that basis I would guess the per-inning values of a starter and a reliever are about the same.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 21, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

Leverage and value are two different things.

Starters are better pitchers than relievers with very few exceptions.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions

You're the only one talking about leverage

Ability and value are also two different things. The original issue here was about the latter.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 21, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions

I guess I brought up leverage because I don't see how you can say relievers are more valuable than starters without considering it.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions

Not being able to throw multiple innings is a HUGE disvalue.

To stock a team full of relievers, you’d need 7 to 9 per game, and at least double/triple that to prevent overusage. 20 pitchers is just not feasible. So you take your best pitchers and let them throw 5 to 7 innings every fifth day. They perform worse, but are making your team better. Guys who can’t pitch multiple innings effectively are left in the bullpen. It’s not hard to find those guys. So the baseline level for relievers is much higher. They are less valuable.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions

I think this is amazingly inaccurate

I think there are probably on the order of 50 relievers in the bigs—mostly closers and set-up men— who are better pitchers than most #5 starters and a lot of #4 starters.

That’sa far cry from “almost always”

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions

If they were good enough to start they would be starters.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions

The best of the best relievers would probably be more valuable as starters, but it might not be worth the risk.

Take a 72 IP reliever with a 3.25 FIP. That seems pretty good. He probably deserves a 1.5 LI. His value is (4.75-3.25) x 72 / 9 × 1.5 = 18 RAR.

Take a 180 IP starter with a 4.25 FIP. That seems decent. His value is (5.50 – 4.25) x 180 / 9 = 25 RAR. The starter is 30% more valuable.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 22, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions

agreed acblue

you can’t compare starters and relievers by ERA and OPS allowed

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jan 21, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions

No.

It’s easier to be a relief pitcher than a starter. Going from relieving to starting adds about 1.00 run to your ERA and vice versa. So, as starters, the group of relievers would have about a 5.13 ERA. That’s bad.

Another way to look at it is replacement-level. You can easily find a reliever with a 4.60ish ERA. You can really only count on an easily-findable starter to post a 5.50 ERA these days. The starters’ ERAs might be worse, but they represent more talent above replacement-level.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions

welcome to AN

and good, interesting first post. I think that pitchers so rarely get the MVP because they have their own award. Its like the Oscars. Animated movies never win because they have their own category, even if they do deserve it on occasion

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft

by harendaman365 on Jan 20, 2009 4:12 PM PST reply actions

Agreed.

Awesome first post, actually.

I think another reason is that your typical everyday MVP player probably contributes in about 150 games, whereas your typical Cy Young pitcher contributes in maybe 30-33ish. It’s just easier to give an award to someone who is out there almost every game rahter than one who is in 1/5th.

"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."

by VORP is too nerdy on Jan 20, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions

to extend my metaphor to ridiculous lengths

in animated movies, all the actors used is their voice, while in live action they have to act…..ok fine, im still pissed The Incredibles didn’t get a best picture nomination. so sue me…

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft

by harendaman365 on Jan 20, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions

could it be possible that pitchers are more valuable

based on how good they are compared to the alternate? Is a replacement level hitter closer to an average hitter than a replacement pitcher is to an average one? a replacement pitcher compared to a top one?

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Jan 20, 2009 9:25 PM PST reply actions

to me it seems that the standard deviation of pitchers is larger than it is for hitters

i don’t have any numbers on that, so i could be totally wrong.

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Jan 20, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions

Problem with that is injury and thus consistency

Position players can replicate their seasons over and over; pitchers, even the very best, can bounce up and down or even miss significant portions of seasons more often than their position player counterparts.

So yes the standard deviation is greater, but which group does that make more valuable? I’d say the more dependable side.

But the metrics are not even close— whichever you choose. As pitching has become more specialized with the universality of a 5 man rotation and the virtual disappearance of complete games, hardly any pitchers earn as much value as a top 5 or so position player in each league every year.

by windyfelix on Jan 20, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions

good point, because pitchers tend to get injured more

one tweak in their mechanics can fuck everything up

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Jan 20, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions

This is the key.

How much more valuable is one average position player than a replacement-level position player

compared to

the difference in value between one average starter compared to a replacement-level starter?

It doesn’t matter the overall group value as much. Ten guys worth 2 WAR each will provide more value in total than five guys providing 3 WAR each, but each of those second five guys are more valuable than each of the ten guys.

In general, position players are slightly more valuable than starters, who are both WAY more valuable than the average reliever.

Last year, Webb and Sabathia were pretty equivalent in value to the best non-Pujols players, fwiw.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions

Actually, you don't have to frame the debate like that.

On an individual basis, the average starter and average position player are almost equally valuable, and the average reliever isn’t worth much at all.

On a group level, the position players are way ahead of the starters, mostly because there are 8/9 position players and 5 to 7 starters. Relievers are overrated, other than one bullpen ace and maybe a good set up man.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions

I think hitters are more valuable

in the sense their value is more stable and predictable. Pitchers are notoriously unpredictable, and could totally lose their value in one really bad confidence blowing outing (see Ankiel, Rick). Thats why spending top tier millions of dollars on pitchers is almost never worth it, and also why I never draft a pitcher early in a fantasy baseball draft. Thier performance is too unpredictable. Hitters on the other hand, while still somewhat of a risk, are way less of one.

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft

by harendaman365 on Jan 21, 2009 6:28 AM PST reply actions

Playoffs

Also a first time post for me.

To change the subject a little, how about the playoffs? Seeing a Santana or Pedro twice in a 5 game alds really changes things, and since everyones ultimate goal is to win the world series, I would think having 5 santana’s in a rotation would be more valuable than 5 Pujlos’.

I do agree that hitters are more valuable during the regular season though.

by j_rich36 on Jan 21, 2009 8:51 AM PST reply actions

From a non-statistical point-of-view

I liken the baseball pitcher to the quarterback in football. He becomes the most valauble player on any given play because of the ability to dictate the action. Thus, a QB has enormous control over 60% of the plays (passing plays), and a pitcher has somewhat similar (but less) control over (virtually) 100% of the plays in baseball. So, I tend to think that using statistics to determine value doesn’t provide the total picture in this case. If you have pitchers that display good control and velocity, chances are that the team will be relatively successful rather than those who stockpile hitters (hearken back to the A’s vs. Rangers mention in the OP, also consider the Yankees teams of recent years).

I also feel that a proven starting pitcher in his prime (i.e. Santana, Randy Johnson in his prime) has more value than your top slugger (ARod, Howard, Ramirez). The expected performance compared to his peers should be (on average) much better than the slugger, because the slugger will generally have more competition for value at his position. The starting ace sets himself apart from the competition more than the slugger, in my opinion, especially if he is very healthy.

by Athletic Supporter on Jan 21, 2009 8:51 AM PST reply actions

"Using Statistics to Determine Value Doesn't Provide the Total Picture"

Have we jumped into a time machine and gone back to 1970?

How else can you determine value?

I’ll compare your theories with the last 5 years of Win Shares— how about that? Your assumption is that the dominant starting pitcher is more distinct than the dominant position player, even if the position player is more valuable in direct comparison.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions

OK, here goes

I’m using Win Shares since it’s pretty user-friendly— if someone wants to do this with VORP, no problem. I’m sure the result will be similar.

Last 5 seasons— both leagues.

The 10 most valuable pitchers finished as follows in terms of overall value in their leagues:

2008 Lincecum 8th
2007 Peavy 24th
2006 Webb 26th
2005 Willis 17th
2004 Johnson 19th

2008 Lee 9th
2007 Sabathia 13th
2006 Santana 14th
2005 Santana 23rd
2004 Santana 8th

I think, frankly, these results sort of end the argument, since the average top pitcher is simply not even in the conversation any more for MVP— in only 3 of 10 seasons did one crack the top 10 and never the top 5.

Now your point about relative value to peers does have some merit—

In 8 of the 10 position player cases, the MVP finished somewhere betweeen 11 and 20% better than the average for the next 5 position players. The exceptions, interestingly enough, were both in 2004, and featured Garry Sheffield on one end, only 8% better than the next 5, and the real outlier here— not to reopen another can of worms— Barry Bonds at 41% better than the next 5 position players.

For pitchers it is a somewhat schizophrenic story.

In 5 of 10 cases, the difference mirrored that of the position players— somewhere between 14-20% higher than the next 5 pitchers in terms of value. But the other 5 were wider— ranging between 26 and 44% (Santana vs. the rest of the AL in 2004).

So your point about a standout pitcher has some merit— but that is simply ONE pitcher— out of at least 70 starters in the AL and 80 in the NL. After the top dog, from what i can tell, the pitchers tend to cluster in value just about as much as the position players.

So if we are saying that the top pitcher is nowhere near as valuable— in direct terms— as the top position player, but that same top pitcher does often have a relative advantage in value over other top pitchers compared to the position player’s edge— but that beyond that, it is pretty clear that as a group the position players are much more valuable than starting pitchers, what do we have here?

A slamdunk, that’s what. As for the postseason and short series, that is an entirely different question, because now the 5th— and sometimes 4th— starters leave the equation entirely and the best pitchers pitch a much higher percentage of the overall innings. Someone else can take that ball— but in the regular season there really isn’t a debate here.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 10:53 AM PST reply actions

Win Shares drastically under-values pitchers, fyi.

I’d use Fangraphs numbers.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions

Pitching correlates more directly to WINNING than Offense

Win Shares is a nice tool, but it undervalues pitching (IMO).

Last year, I ran some numbers ranking the AL teams by various stats. I only went back a few years, so the sample size needs to be enlarged, but the sample showed a higher correlation between pitching statistics and winning than offensive stats and winning.

AL playoff teams were ranked an average of 4.3 (out of 14 teams) in ERA, 4.6 in Walks Issued, and 4.6 in Home Runs Allowed. In contrast, Offense OBA was 4.8, Batting Average was 5.1, and Slugging was 5.7. Fielding Percentage and Stolen base ranking were over 6.0 each.

“How else can you determine value?”
It’s fun to throw stats around, but actual winning requires going beyond the numbers. Coachability, clubhouse presence, position versatility and mental makeup factor in to whether a player and/or team fails or succeeds. The 2008 Angels are an example of a team that didn’t look that good on paper, but in actuality, were a very good team. Strong pitching and a smallball offense helped them cruise to the best record in the bigs.

So, I don’t think offense being more valuable than pitching is a slam dunk by any stretch…

by Athletic Supporter on Jan 21, 2009 11:53 AM PST reply actions

well, we're now delving into a lot more area

such as how good were teams like the 2008 Angels or 2006 A’s, for that matter. Not anywhere near as good as their records indicate, IMHO. and as for “actual winning requires going beyond the numbers”— it really doesn’t. Sometimes exceptions do prove the rule— did Barry Zito’s surprisingly good BABIP numbers hold up over time? no. Did the 2006 A’s come anywhere near repeating their good fortune in winning 96 games? No. Will the angels this year— or better put, would they have even with all cylinders still firing? No. The numbers will tell us the vast majority of the time. And the numbers say that the best position players are unequivocally more valuable to a team than the best strating pitchers.

As for your correlations, I don’t think we really disagree— or the data doesn’t. To begin with, defensive efficiency is a much better metric than fielding percentage; for another, defense plus pitching is more important to winning than hitting— all metrics basically agree on that— and defense is included in the most meaningful pitching correlation you cited— ERA. So really there’s nothing new here.

by windyfelix on Jan 21, 2009 12:23 PM PST reply actions

Here's an interesting article

That seems to support what you’re saying – somewhat. It says that regular season winning is dictated more by offense, although pitching is more important in the post-season. I guess it depends on which set of numbers you use… anyway, here’s the link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E5DC1E31F933A15756C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=

by Athletic Supporter on Jan 21, 2009 1:04 PM PST reply actions