Mark Ellis, perhaps the best-fielding 2B of our generation
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 6, 2009 11:51 PM PST
Email
PrintHow much is a great fielder worth? 25 runs.
Last year in 2008, with Mark Ellis on the field — perhaps the best-fielding 2B of our generation — the A’s allowed 457 runs while recording 3035 outs. This means they allowed 4.07 runs per game. When Ellis was not on the field, they allowed 233 runs on 1270 outs, or 4.95 runs per game. That difference is a whopping 0.89 fewer runs per game, when Ellis is on the field. In 2008 anyway...
<go to the web site for more>
22 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's unfair to say that Ellis is worth .89 runs per game
Aside from being completely unrealistic, what is ignored here is that when Ellis was healthy, the A’s also had better pitchers. Then he got hurt at the same time all the young guys were in there. That has a whole lot to do with that difference, too.
by thejd44 on Mar 7, 2009 12:58 AM PST reply actions
Harden and Blanton
Leaving might have something to do with that as well, wouldn’t it?
It would, but the OP only posted Tango's first paragraph
And didn’t quote it, so he passed it off as his own. Somebody needs to edit that paragraph to be a block quote.
by thejd44 on Mar 7, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
.89 runs * 162 games = 144 runs
tangotiger, sorry for inadvertently taking credit for your provocative statement. I prefer not to post full articles, since the web sites deserve to be visited…because it’s their original content.
To me, tangotiger’s data is astounding: Mark Ellis was in over 70% of the A’s and when Ellis played the defense allowed almost a full run less per game. If I am a fiction writer, I’d write tales that Ellis not only covered the entire infield, he made leaping grabs at the fence. If I’m Ellis’ agent, I’d use that stat and say Ellis’ defense is equally important as A-Rod’s offense; thus, Ellis deserves $25 million/year.
The statistic that the A’s gave up 0.89 runs less with Ellis on the field is a huge statistical aberration and I can’t even fathom what it means that it happened over so many outs (113 games worth). Did Geren never play Ellis when Gio Gonzalez, Dan Meyer, Sean Gallagher, and Lenny Dinardo pitched? Is Geren the agent for Mark Ellis? Did Beane and Geren conspire to put Ellis in situations to succeed defensively at the expense of Eric Patterson so as to win arbitration hearings with Eric? No need, Eric’s offensive prowess took care of that.
Harden and Blanton Leaving might have something to do with that as well, wouldn’t it?
Yes, it’s probably some combination of things like this. I like how you got to the likely correct conclusion in 15 words or less.
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 7, 2009 7:28 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, Tango, I know this. The OP of this thread sort of twisted your words and implied that by only copying half your thought on Ellis
And when I posted, he hadn’t quoted the paragraph so I thought he was making that judgment based on something you wrote.
by thejd44 on Mar 7, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
I hope this doesn't mean...
…the 2009 post-Blanton+Harden team will give up 0.89 more runs per game. Panic sets in.
FWIW, projections have our ERA going from around 4.00 to around 4.50. And our offense is supposed to score 0.85 more runs per game that last year. Deep breath.
The point of that post is lower down, i.e. this:
I came up with 68 such seasons since 1993. The total number of games played was 5386 games on the field and 5400 games off the field. You have to admit that that’s alot of games. When the star fielders were on the field, their team allowed 4.60 runs per game, and when they weren’t on the field, they allowed 4.83 runs per game. Per 162 games, this difference comes out to 37 runs.
I repeated this exercise with the outfielders: Erstad, Beltran, Cameron, Endy Chavez, etc. Ichiro was part of my initial group, but since he barely misses any games, he’s not included. I have 60 outfielder seasons. Their teams allowed 4.89 runs with them, and 5.00 without them, for a difference of 19 runs per 162 game season.
The part at the beginning is just introducing the topic. A fielder being worth .89 runs per game is absurd, which of course tango knows, and the whole point of the post was that the very best fielders are worth less, namely ~25 runs…
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
But the provocative 0.89 runs saved per game statement is so much more fun...
…because we can say “with 9 Mark Ellises, our opponents would score negative 3 runs per game.” Then, Ellis’ subpar offensive output in 2008 wouldn’t matter.
But in reality, 25 runs saved for the best fielder in the game. Got it. Pujols created 160 runs last year offensively. +25 runs saved for the best fielders defense sounds about right.
heh, nope...
25 runs above average. Pujols was not 160 runs above average. You have to compare gross to gross or above average to above average. Pujols was about 70 runs above average, which is a good indication of the ceilings for offense and defense. 70/25 shouldn’t offend you too much, right?
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Good to know 90 runs is the average...
That’s why I said +25. I understand there is a minus some really bad number that Cust would approach if he played OF full time. 90 makes sense. 90*9 means the average team of average guys scores 810 runs…though the AL averaged 775 runs (86.1 runs/batter) and the NL averaged 734 runs (81.5 runs/batter) Does the 90 average not include pitchers as hitters? Still too big of a difference. Rainouts are negligible. Maybe the average for real batters (not pitchers) is really about 87 runs created. Sorry, I don’t like to give away points on offense.
Win Shares 2008 says Kurt Suzuki was worth 20 wins, then Cust with 19 wins, then Duke with 14 wins. Ellis had 13 wins. I thought Suzuki with his ability to hit for a catcher made him more valuable than Ellis. But I didn’t think it was enough to make him more valuable than Cust. I eat my words saying Cust was one of the top 30 players in the AL. I should have said “top 30 hitters” (whew, 22nd according Win Share’s batting stats).
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 7, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
1)Runs created is not a very useful stat.
2)Win shares is not a very useful stat. Also, those Win share numbers should be divided by 3. Why? Because win shares are tallied in thirds of wins. Why? For complex reasons detailed in like 90 pages of a book. Why are WS so complicated? I don’t know, but they are very silly.
Use rate stats. Ops is fine. Ops+ is better. wOBA or eqa are best.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
1 WS= 1/3 of a win
If Suzuki was worth 20 wins last year, he’d have been worth 60 WS, which I think would be the single greatest season of any player ever, according to the WS measurement. So I’m pretty sure Zook was worth 20 WS last year, which is a good, solid season.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Oh, one more thing
The argument in favor of using WS is that it’s designed to allow you to measure dissimilar players. So, what if you wanted to compare Holliday to Haren this year (since they’re connected by the trade last off-season). How should you compare a pitcher in the NL with a hitter in the AL? WS is designed to give you a common measuring stick. It may not be a particularly good stat, but it’s got a purpose — wOBA and eqa don’t measure hitters vs. pitchers, AFAIK.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
yeah, but it compares them very poorly, and it doesn't allow you to even understand the basis of the comparison
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Oh yeah, like I said, it may not be a particularly good stat
but James had a very good reason for putting it together. It’s like a unified field theory of baseball stats — in principle, you can use WS to compare Huston Street to Lloyd Waner.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I strongly disagree that WS and RC are not very useful
…and I second what Nick said about wOBA and EQA (a stat I like).
The Fangraphs stats that I’ve been directed to say the 2008 versions of Raul Ibanez was worth $2 million/year and Bobby Crosby was worth $2.6 million. If I’m not mistaken Ibanez got $10 million/year this offseason and we couldn’t get anybody to take Crosby’s $5.5 million contract.
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 7, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
Ok
1) You have no idea what WSs actually are (few do.)
2) “The fangraphs stat” says Ibanez was worth 10.3 million last year. So…..
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
My bad. I was looking at Ibanez' 2007 value
Maybe I should slow down and listen. mikeA, thanks for correcting me and being patient.
That said, I still think something’s a little off. Hannahan, Crosby, and Rajai Davis don’t seem like they are worth $8.4 million combined. And Ibanez’ $5.9 million seems low (adjusted down from $10.3 million to reflect real salaries). For last year that seems $1-2 million low. That said, the Phillies probably weren’t the smartest to give Ibanez $10 million for 3 years. At 36 years old, he is way past his prime. Luckily for Raul, as his production declines, the Phillies fans will let him know how much they love him.
Fangraphs really is an impressive site. I thought that even when questioning the data. And Cameron’s article Win Values Explained: Part Six was one of my favorite articles this off-season.
by BillyWannabeane on Mar 7, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
RC and WS were both good in their times ...
they were among the original modern sabermetric stats … we’ve moved well beyond them, now, but they were revolutionary in their time. It doesn’t make them any more useful now, but considering them in that context could be helpful helping others understand their limits and why more modern stats are better …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
