White Sox acquire Juan Pierre

[iamshack]

Pierre has skills (hitting for average, bunting, running the bases well) that have been sorely lacking in our lineup for years. There's value to having a player in the lineup that can do something other than hit home runs, walk, and play RF/1B/DH poorly.

This is another point I am trying to make. I don't care if Pierre bats 1st or 9th. I don't view him as someone to fill the "leadoff spot."

 

Does the fact that he adds a skillset that the team did not previously have make his addition more important to OUR team than the addition of a player who might have been a more valuable player overall?

[chunk23]

Well, this isn't about Moneyball, as much as the association seems to come from my mention of teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox. Unfortunately, anytime anyone mentions a team run by a GM mentioned in Moneyball, the topic seems to arise. That was not my intention at all.

 

What I am asking about is the correlation between OBP and runs scored. It's pretty obvious that teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox compiled teams filled with players who sustained high OBP's, even at the expense of any other skillset. I distinctly remember the Blue Jays, A's and Red Sox being station-to-station teams between 2003-2008 or so, and I was curious as to whether the shortcomings of having a roster full of those types of players ever overshadowed the advantages of having a roster rich in high OBP players. Or to put it another way, did their inability to manufacture runs in other ways (besides just reaching base) cause them to score less runs than perhaps another team with a lower OBP but with players with other skillsets as well, such as running the bases better, moving runners over, etc., ?

 

Perhaps there is a critical mix that exists between OBP ability and other skillsets? Sort of a point of diminishing returns or something?

 

That is more of what I am interested in here.

 

I'm glad we cleared up the Moneyball thing.

 

OPS is one of the best correlational predictors of runs scored. The better ones, like wOBA, weight OBP as more important than slugging. However, the difference between OPS and the other measures is small enough that OPS can be effectively used. I don't see OBP having a diminished return on runs scored seeing as the higher the OBP, the more likely it is a runner is on base, and therefore more likely to score. The only scenario I can think of that it wouldn't work well is if it was like the midget Veeck had bat. Yeah he got on base but there was no way he was scoring. That's such an extreme though.

 

To put it simply, all those skill sets, like bunting and basestealing, don't matter if you don't get on base.

 

Of course, defensive ability is a different story. Dunn has a great OBP but he's awful in the field. He's more valuable in the AL as a DH than he is in the NL as a OF. I suppose you can only sacrifice so much defense for OBP, but I don't know why you'd have to.

 

The Red Sox have 2 WS rings and a few more playoff appearances in the time span you designated. The Blue Jays have had exceptional pythags and would probably have made the playoffs a few times if they were in any other division.

Edited December 16, 2009 by chunk23

[WCSox]

This is another point I am trying to make. I don't care if Pierre bats 1st or 9th. I don't view him as someone to fill the "leadoff spot."

 

The fact that Pierre is our best leadoff option speaks volumes about how crappy our lineup currently is. He's an improvement over what we had before, and that's what really counts.

 

After years of people on Soxtalk complaining about our one-dimensional, station-to-station lineup, one would think that bringing in a good contact hitter like Pierre - who can actually lay down a bunt and run the bases well - on the cheap would be greeted a little more positively. Especially considering the current financial constraints.

 

[iamshack]

I'm glad we cleared up the Moneyball thing.

 

OPS is one of the best correlational predictors of runs scored. The better ones, like wOBA, weight OBP as more important than slugging. However, the difference between OPS and the other measures is small enough that OPS can be effectively used. I don't see OBP having a diminished return on runs scored seeing as the higher the OBP, the more likely it is a runner is on base, and therefore more likely to score. The only scenario I can think of that it wouldn't work well is if it was like the midget Veeck had bat. Yeah he got on base but there was no way he was scoring. That's such an extreme though.

 

To put it simply, all those skill sets, like bunting and basestealing, don't matter if you don't get on base.

 

Of course, defensive ability is a different story. Dunn has a great OBP but he's awful in the field. He's more valuable in the AL as a DH than he is in the NL as a OF. I suppose you can only sacrifice so much defense for OBP, but I don't know why you'd have to.

 

The Red Sox have 2 WS rings and a few more playoff appearances in the time span you designated. The Blue Jays have had exceptional pythags and would probably have made the playoffs a few times if they were in any other division.

The Red Sox are a difficult team to analyze because they have put such monster teams on the field during that period. I probably would have not mentioned them at all, but I anticipated someone else would, so I figured I may as well bypass that step.

 

I understand wOBA and how it is different than OPS. I am not trying to bring OPS into this discussion. I'm talking just OBP.

 

As for pythagorean expectation, I still have a bit of trouble accepting this as a valid prediction tool. I think the idea of predicting wins is a little more complex than simply run differential. There is something to the idea of winning games by manufacturing runs on a consistent basis rather than simply scoring runs in bunches in some instances but not in others. Nowhere does this become more evident to a person than by simply being a White Sox fan over the past decade.

 

I guess I should just take a look at runs scored by teams with varying team OBPs and attempt to find any distinctions when viewing their individual rosters or other team stats.

 

My guess is their truly is some realistic optimal combination of OBP, team speed, ability to move runners, etc. Of course your mention of defense makes this all the more difficult to value as well.

Edited December 17, 2009 by iamshack

[chunk23]

The reason I brought up OPS and the other measures is because they other ones weight OBP as more important than slugging, whereas OPS obviously does not. This does result in an increase in predictability, but it isn't much. As such, it appears that OBP is the most important, but slg is important too. (iirc, some believe 1 point of OBP is as important as 5 points of slg).

 

I think it's really just an issue of perspective. When people start to think of high OBP players as "Base-cloggers", it's a problem. OBP can come from walking, having speed, a high contact rate, etc. It doesn't have to be some slow hulk out there.

Edited December 17, 2009 by chunk23

[iamshack]

The reason I brought up OPS and the other measures is because they other ones weight OBP as more important than slugging, whereas OPS obviously does not. This does result in an increase in predictability, but it isn't much. As such, it appears that OBP is the most important, but slg is important too. (iirc, some believe 1 point of OBP is as important as 5 points of slg).

 

I think it's really just an issue of perspective. When people start to think of high OBP players as "Base-cloggers", it's a problem. OBP can come from walking, having speed, a high contact rate, etc. It doesn't have to be some slow hulk out there.

You're absolutely right in that assessment. However, when looking at acquiring players with a limited budget, those exact "slow hulks" are the ones mentioned, because those are the ones available at comparable dollar amounts on the marketplace. The others tend to be high dollar superstars that should not be part of the discussion anyways.

[qwerty]

Shack... read the baseball fever thread... well take a look everything in this post.

 

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48531

 

The logic is that high SLG has a better correlation with the frequency of scoring at least one run in an inning, whereas high OBP has a better correlation with big innings, and scoring runs in bunches leads to less consistency and more "wasted" runs.

 

The trend that you probably noticed is that high-slugging teams are more likely to pick up at least a run in an inning, but high-OBP teams are more likely to have big innings. The reason that this is so important is that we have shown that being able to spread your runs around different innings is more valuable than scoring a lot of runs in one inning, in terms of wins and losses, since high variance in run scoring tends to be correlated with underperforming your team’s Pythagorean Record. This means that all of our standard measures of run-scoring are overweighting the contribution of OBP towards winning and underestimating the contribution of SLG towards winning. (emphasis added)

 

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9329

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both are excellent reads.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/19/192135/078

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just for s***s and giggles...

 

White Sox GM Ken Williams said this about Scott Podsednik: “One positive is his speed, his ability to create havoc on the bases"

 

 

 

Exactly how much havoc do base stealers in general, and Podsednik in particular create? Probably not much.

 

 

 

What did all that havoc on the bases that Podsenik created do for the Brewers? They were next to last in runs scored in the NL last year. The Brewers led the NL with 138 SBs. The Giants stole only 43 yet were second in runs scored. The Red Sox led the AL in runs while stealing 68 bases, 21 below the league average. This havoc theory is a bad theory.

 

 

 

What value does stealing have? The run value of a SB is .22, according to Pete Palmer, editor of the Baseball Encyclopedia. A caught stealing (CS) is a -.38. Last year Podsednik had 70 SB and 13 CS. Using the Palmer values, that is a run value of 10.46. This would add about 1 win over a season. But, Podsednik also only had a .313 on-base percentage OBP, 20 points below the NL average and 25 below the AL average. Since the NL does not have the DH, and we should probably compare Podsednik only to position players, let’s use the 25 point differential (the NL average OBP among non-pitchers is probably around this anyway). Podsednik had 706 plate appearances last year, not counting sacrifices. That means he reached base 17.65 fewer times than the average hitter (706*.025 = 17.65). What run value does that have? In Pete Palmer’s system, a batting out is usually around -.25 and a walk is around .33. So if you turn an out into a walk, that value is .58, losing the -.25 and gaining the .33. If Podsednik had turned those 17.65 outs into walks, the run value would be 10.24 (17.65*.58 = 10.24), very close to the value he created by his base stealing. In other words, a player with no SBs or CSs and a .338 OBP would help your offense just as much as Podsednik. The stealing may have created havoc, but not runs.

 

 

 

Stealing is not correlated much with scoring at the team level, either. The table below summarizes the correlation and r-squared that various stats had with team runs per game from 2001-03

 

 

 

Stat

 

 

Correlation

 

 

R-squared

 

AVG

 

 

0.858

 

 

0.736

 

SLG

 

 

0.917

 

 

0.842

 

OBP

 

 

0.891

 

 

0.794

 

OPS

 

 

0.950

 

 

0.903

 

SB/G

 

 

-0.032

 

 

0.001

 

Net SB/G

 

 

0.136

 

 

0.018

 

SB%

 

 

0.303

 

 

0.092

 

 

 

 

 

SLG is slugging percentage and OPS is OBP + SLG. A perfect correlation would be 1.00. Notice how close the hitting stats are to it and how far away the stealing stats are. SB/G is team stolen bases per game. Net SB/G is stolen bases per game minus caught stealing per game. So, if you want to score, get great hitters first. The R-squared number is the square of the correlation. It tells us how what percent of the variation in team runs per game is explained by the variable. (Note: things are little more complicated since a multiple regression needs to be done to see the value of stealing, holding other factors constant-this analysis, too, shows Podsednik’s stealing to have little value-see below for details).

 

 

 

Do good base stealers distract the pitcher and help the hitter? Probably not much going on here, either.

 

 

 

Now it is possible that other factors affect a team’s OPS. Take base stealing for example. If a man is on, this distracts the pitcher. Maybe he throws more fastballs and the batter can be ready for this. Or a hole opens up that makes it easier to get a hit. So some of the 87% I attributed to OPS might, in fact, actually come from another source. So I looked at how both good and bad stealing teams hit with a runner on first base only.

 

 

 

I looked at the top 10 teams in SBs from 1982-92 and the bottom ten. Then I determined how much their AVG, SLG, OBP and OPS differed between having a runner on 1st or no runners on at all. I determined the runner on first data by finding the difference between the runners on base and the runners in scoring position data (from Retrosheet).

 

 

 

The top ten teams in SBs had the following increases when there was a runner on first compared to no runners on (the average across the teams)

 

 

 

AVG-.025

 

SLG-.030

 

OBP-.008

 

OPS-.038

 

 

 

That is, with a runner on first, these teams had a .025 higher batting average than they did when there were no runners on base. Slugging went up .030, OBP .008 and OPS .038.

 

 

 

The bottom ten teams in SBs had the following increases

 

 

 

AVG-.019

 

SLG-.028

 

OBP-.011

 

OPS-.039

 

 

 

The top ten teams averaged about 240 SBs and the bottom around 40. The one difference that is big is the AVG difference (.025-.019=.006). But in general, the best stealing teams had little additional benefit over what the worst stealing teams.

 

 

 

The best stealing teams had in the 900 range of ABs with a runner on first. The bottom in the 1100 range. This makes sense because the best steal and they won’t be on first as often. Also, who is most likely to be left on first base on those teams? The few guys who don’t steal, like Jack Clark (5 of the teams were Cards). But those bottom teams must have rarely had a good base stealer on, a lot less often than the best. I think if the runners bother the pitcher, we should see a bigger effect here. After all, we are comparing the best stealing teams to the worst.

 

 

 

The change in OPS for both teams is just about the same. I am still skeptical that having a good stealer on first helps a lot. Maybe the change in AVG is simply a result of the hole opened up at first. There is little change in SLG. Maybe the fast guy bothering the pitcher and making it easier for the hitter is not happening.

 

 

 

 

Using a multiple regression

 

 

 

In a regression with team runs per game as the dependent variable, the equation was

 

 

 

R/G = -5.12 + 15.46*OBP + 11.25*SLG + .353*SB - .922*SB

 

 

 

the R-squared was .919. This covered all teams from 2001-03.

 

 

 

So a SB adds .353 runs per game while a CS costs .922. For Podsednik, he gets 12.72 runs since 70*.353 – 13*.922 = 12.72. But how many runs does he cost with his low OBP and SLG? Since he would only be about one 9th of the team, his being .025 below the league average in OBP should count for .003 and his being about .060 below the league average in SLG will count for .007. Since 15.46*.003*162 = 7.51, he cost his team that many runs with his low OBP. Since 11.25*.007*162 = 12.75, that his how much he cost his team with his low SLG (it was only .364 last year about .060 below the league average, more if you don’t count pitchers). So combined, he cost the team about 20.27 runs with his low SLG and OBP, more than he gained with his stealing.

 

http://cyrilmorong.com/Havoc.htm

Edited December 17, 2009 by qwerty

[qwerty]

The reason I brought up OPS and the other measures is because they other ones weight OBP as more important than slugging, whereas OPS obviously does not. This does result in an increase in predictability, but it isn't much. As such, it appears that OBP is the most important, but slg is important too. (iirc, some believe 1 point of OBP is as important as 5 points of slg).

 

Depodesta claimed that 1 point of obp is worth 3 of slugging, which is rather inaccurate. Mark pankin breaks it down rather nicely in this pdf.

 

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/PankinM/Pankin-sabr36.pdf

[iamshack]

Good stuff as always, Qwerty.

 

I had read the stuff about the base stealing and the "havoc on the bases" theory.

 

My next question would be what about the net effect of the team simply having better base runners? Not necessarily from a stealing perspective, but more runners who could advance from 1st to 3rd and more runners who could score from 1st base or 2nd base?

 

What about the ability to make more productive outs as opposed to unproductive outs?

[qwerty]

Good stuff as always, Qwerty.

 

I had read the stuff about the base stealing and the "havoc on the bases" theory.

 

My next question would be what about the net effect of the team simply having better base runners? Not necessarily from a stealing perspective, but more runners who could advance from 1st to 3rd and more runners who could score from 1st base or 2nd base?

 

What about the ability to make more productive outs as opposed to unproductive outs?

 

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment as i'm heading out any minute, but i promise i will get back to you sometime tomorrow, unless someone clears it up for you beforehand.

[iamshack]

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment as i'm heading out any minute, but i promise i will get back to you sometime tomorrow, unless someone clears it up for you beforehand.

Perhaps I should try to find it myself instead of asking you to do all the work for me!

 

Thanks Q.

[Ozzie Ball]

Good stuff as always, Qwerty.

 

I had read the stuff about the base stealing and the "havoc on the bases" theory.

 

My next question would be what about the net effect of the team simply having better base runners? Not necessarily from a stealing perspective, but more runners who could advance from 1st to 3rd and more runners who could score from 1st base or 2nd base?

 

What about the ability to make more productive outs as opposed to unproductive outs?

Using team EqBRR (Equivalent Base Running Runs), the difference between the best baserunning team, Oakland, and the worst baserunning team, Baltimore, was 33.4 runs or approximately 3.34 wins. Over the last decade the difference has been anywhere between 22 and 44 runs. EqBRR is considered the best baserunning metric by most and the explanation for it is below. Incidentally if you're looking to add EqBRR to WAR, which is something that you should do when looking at the overall value of player, then you will need to subtract EqSBR from EqBRR, as WAR already includes SB and CS values.

 

EqBRR

Equivalent Base Running Runs. Measures the number of runs contributed by a player's advancement on the bases, above what would be expected based on the number and quality of the baserunning opportunities with which the player is presented, park-adjusted and based on a multi-year run expectancy table. EqBRR is calculated as the sum of various baserunning components: Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs (EqGAR), Equivalent Stolen Base Runs (EqSBR), Equivalent Air Advancement Runs (EqAAR), Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs (EqHAR) and Equivalent Other Advancement Runs (EqOAR).

 

EqAAR

Equivalent Air Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of their baserunning opportunities. EqAAR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix, is park adjusted, and considers the following scenarios:

 

Runner on first with second and third unoccupied, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder

Runner on second but not third, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder

Runner on third with other bases optionally occupied, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder

EqGAR

Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of baserunning opportunities. EqGAR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix and considers the following scenarios:

 

Runner on first only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited

Runner on second only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited

Runner on third only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited

EqHAR

 

Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would have been expected given the number and quality of opportunities. EqHAR considers advancement from first on singles, second on singles, and first on doubles and is adjusted for park and based on a multi-year Run Expectancy Matrix.

 

EqOAR

 

Equivalent Other Advancement Runs. Measures the number of runs contributed by a player's advancement on the bases, above what would be expected based on the number and quality of the baserunning opportunities with which the player is presented. Other Advancement takes into consideration a player's opportunities and advancement on the basepaths due to wild pitches, passed balls, and balks. The run value of this advancement is based on a multi-year run expectancy matrix and park-adjusted.

 

EqSBR

Equivalent Stolen Base Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of their baserunning opportunities. EqSBR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix and considers both stolen base attempts and pick-offs.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary...p;category=true

[iamshack]

Wow, that is fascinating.

So the difference between being an elite baserunning team and a very poor one could actually mean 3-4 more wins.

 

I guess my other concern is productive outs versus wasted outs (meaning outs that advance base runners as opposed to those that do not). I wonder what the difference is between the elite and poor teams in such situations...

[greg775]

For all your old timers out there, Brian Downing was a pretty good leadoff hitter and he didn't fit the mold.

[fathom]

For all your old timers out there, Brian Downing was a pretty good leadoff hitter and he didn't fit the mold.

 

Exactly, so tell your best friend Ozzie that a fast, slappy leadoff guy isn't always necessary.

[iamshack]

Sometimes it frustrates me when people don't even bother to look at all the great discussion that's been going on in the thread, and instead, merely start the same elementary and beaten-down arguments over again.

 

Ooops! Did I just post that?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Exactly, so tell your best friend Ozzie that a fast, slappy leadoff guy isn't always necessary.

As everyone knows, we need guys like that if we want to win in the Metrodome.

[SoxAce]

As everyone knows, we need guys like that if we want to win in the Metrodome.

 

Whoops...

[iamshack]

Whoops...

Come on Ace, don't you know KHP is pissed?

[southsideirish71]

Exactly, so tell your best friend Ozzie that a fast, slappy leadoff guy isn't always necessary.

 

Hopefully with the slappy leadoff guy in the fold, we don't handcuff Beckham into being passive while we wait for Pierre to steal. The entire purpose of Beckham being in the 2 hole is to see good pitches and to drive the ball into the gaps. I don't want to see Beckham turned into a bunting machine or just giving it up to move the runner. Beckham has a much higher ceiling and this year should be about him crushing pitches being protected by a hopefully rejuvenated Quentin. Watching him take crushable pitches waiting for Pierre to steal is going to be a waste. At that point I would rather move Beckham down to say 6th to get more out of him.

 

 

[iamshack]

Hopefully with the slappy leadoff guy in the fold, we don't handcuff Beckham into being passive while we wait for Pierre to steal. The entire purpose of Beckham being in the 2 hole is to see good pitches and to drive the ball into the gaps. I don't want to see Beckham turned into a bunting machine or just giving it up to move the runner. Beckham has a much higher ceiling and this year should be about him crushing pitches being protected by a hopefully rejuvenated Quentin. Watching him take crushable pitches waiting for Pierre to steal is going to be a waste. At that point I would rather move Beckham down to say 6th to get more out of him.

Or just bat him 3rd.

[SoxAce]

Or just bat him 3rd.

 

Ozzie probably won't do that unfortunately. In fact... I'll bet money he wouldn't do it.

[southsideirish71]

Or just bat him 3rd.

 

I would, however I don't think Ozzie would at this point.

 

 

[iamshack]

He may not be left with much of a choice.

 

But point taken.

[WCSox]

Or just bat him 3rd.

 

Considering the makeup of the rest of the starting lineup, that would make a lot of sense.