In Defense Of: Keith Law???

 

I'll be honest.  I was trying to find something to write about, so I perused the web in search of saberdouchery.

Saberdouchery is when a baseball analyst makes some sort of argument that goes against traditional baseball thinking.  He'll make a point to deliver the message in the most arrogant way possible, letting everyone know how much smarter he is than the Luddite traditionalists.

I figured that Keith Law was a good bet to supply me with some material, so I looked through his article archive on ESPN.com.

I expected to find saberdouchery.  Instead, I found this article: 

The Stats I Can't Live Without 

(Article requires an ESPN Insider subscription to read. Sorry for all you non-subscribers)

Law starts out by putting a disclaimer on WAR, pointing out that without knowing how the WAR value was calculated, it doesn't really provide much insight into a player's value.  Next, he points out that because players build their WAR in different ways, it's not necessarily a great tool to analyze players going forward.

What? Was I reading this correctly?

He uses Michael Bourn as an example.  Much of Bourn's value is based on speed.  As he ages, his speed is likely to decrease, meaning that Bourn's value will likely decrease faster than other players with a similar WAR value.



Michael Bourn's WAR may not be indicative of future performance

He then goes on to talk about a few key statistics, what they are designed to do, how they can be misleading, and why they are useful in analyzing and predicting a player's performance moving forward.

I was shocked.  This was a helpful and accessible article from an unlikely source.

Despite what some people may think, I have made an effort to understand and appreciate sabermetrics.  I feel I have gotten a solid grasp on how most of the more prominent statistics are calculated and why they are considered valuable.  But it certainly wasn't easy for me to do so.

If analysts like Law really want sabermetrics to fully gain mainstream acceptance, they need to produce more articles like this one.  This article should have been placed on the front page of ESPN.com and been made easily accessible to everyone who wanted to gain a better handle on sabermetrics.

I'm not saying it's a perfect article.  Law can't completely avoid showing some disdain for the non-believers when he makes a comment about the Trout vs. Cabrera debate.

But had I read something like this a few years ago, it's possible that my whole outlook on sabermetrics might have changed.  Maybe this site would be called "Sabermetrics Rule" instead!

Well...probably not.  There still would have been plenty of saberdouches out there doing their best to earn my disdain.

Regardless, I look at this article as a step in the right direction.  Good job, Mr. Law!

In Defense Of: Ruben Amaro - Part Two

As expected, many saberfans did not enjoy my defense of Ruben Amaro.

Sadly, I think many of them saw the name of the blog, got their hackles up, and were simply determined to hate anything I had written.

So I thought: How can I make the blog more accessible for them?    How can I show them that I'm not just full of anti-sabermetric hate?  How can I show them that I actually hear and value their opinions?

The answer came to me: I need to bring in a lovable character from pop culture to help me out!

Fans of the book The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will be thrilled when I introduce today's special guest.  He's short.  He's shiny.  He talks like Hans Gruber.  He's Marvin the Paranoid Android!

Sigh

Much like many saberfans who follow the Phillies, Marvin is pessimistic about this year's team.  (Although to be fair, Marvin is pessimistic about everything)  And much like many saberfans, Marvin behaves like a robot.  He can analyze numbers and statistics with precision, but sometimes he has some trouble understanding how to put those numbers in the right perspective.

It may have been unfair to saberfans when I didn't give them a voice in part one.  So this time around, Marvin will serve as their spokesperson.

Thanks for joining us, Marvin!

Marvin: I wish I could say that it's a pleasure being here.  But it isn't.  It isn't a pleasure being anywhere.

Cutter: Well, thanks regardless.  Let's get started.  What's your first complaint about Amaro?

Marvin: He's overpaid for players and now the Phillies have no money left to improve the team.

Cutter: Overpaid is a funny word to use.  If you're just making your judgements based on some sort of dollars-to-WAR scale, then I'm sure the Phillies have overpaid.

While it is great to have money available, it's even better to spend that money on good players.

I get the impression that some Phillies fans would prefer that the team act like a small-market team who has to try and find market inequities so that they can outsmart the big boys.  They seem to think that it would somehow be more fun if the Phillies were made up of a bunch of Ben Zobrist types who have been unappreciated by the market, but are super valuable according to WAR.

I think it's more fun that our GM can say, "We need a reliever.  Who's the best one on the market?  Papelbon?  I'll take it!"

Finances in baseball aren't equal.  A Papelbon might not be a wise signing for most teams, but for a team in the Phillies' position, it does make sense.

If Ruben wants a Papelbon, then Ruben shall get a Papelbon!

Marvin: I thought you weren't going to use negative stereotypes regarding saberfans?

Cutter: You're right.  That was probably a bit of an exaggeration.

So why are you under the impression that the Phillies have been financially restrained?

Marvin: Amaro didn't make any moves to improve the team this offseason.  He didn't sign one of the free agent outfielders who were available.

Cutter: But wasn't the consensus that just about every free agent outfielder got "overpaid" this offseason?  You're criticizing Amaro for overpaying players...because it prevented him from overpaying other players?

Remember all the panic last season that the Phillies wouldn't be able to re-sign Cole Hamels?  Well, they re-signed Cole Hamels.

Still a Phillie

Marvin: Even that was a bad move.  Had they signed him earlier, they could have gotten him cheaper.  Players get more expensive the closer they get to free agency.

Cutter: That's usually true.  But there's no indication that Hamels would have signed any earlier than he did.

Some players sign early extensions because they're very comfortable in their situation and they'd rather have immediate financial security. Other players would rather take the risk that they'll stay healthy and productive and be able to make more on the open market.

I'm sure that at some point, Amaro did indeed say something to Hamels' agent along the lines of, "Here's what we think you're worth.  Please sign this contract."

Hamels' agent probably responded, "That's sweet and all, but if Cole becomes a free agent, some team is going to offer him more money than that."

So what's your next complaint?

Marvin: The Phillies are an old team because Amaro let them get old.

Cutter: The Phillies are indeed an old team.  But that's mostly because they've had a very good team for a few years, and now that core has gotten older.

But could that have been avoided?

When you've got a team in contention, is that the time to start rebuilding?  Was he supposed to break up a 102 win team after the 2011 season?

Championship quality cores don't come around all that often.  Amaro needed to do all he could to help that core to win another championship.

Besides, being an old team doesn't necessarily keep a team from being good.

Marvin: But he seems to go out of his way to make the team older.  All of the players he's picked up over the years have been older like Raul Ibanez and Placido Polanco.

Cutter: Once again, when you've got a championship level core, would you rather add younger, unproven players, or proven veterans? 

It would be nice if the Phillies had picked up some young stars who were about to enter their primes, but those players aren't readily available, especially if they're really only supporting pieces to the core of the team.

I don't recall the other available options, but I don't think there were any 28 year old All-Star outfielders on the free agent market.

Speaking of 28 year old All-Star outfielders, want to talk about Hunter Pence?

Many saberfans regard the Pence trade as a bad idea

Marvin: Ugh, yes.  What a horrible trade. Amaro traded some top prospects for one year of a player who would be only a marginal upgrade.

Cutter: Let's re-visit the 2011 trade deadline.  The Phillies were essentially a lock to make the playoffs.  However, the lineup was still a slight question mark.

In the 2009 and 2010 playoffs, the team's fatal flaw was probably it's vulnerability against left handed relievers.  Opposing managers used lefty specialists to great effect against the Phillies hitters.

Pence was an attempt to correct that flaw.  He was a 28 year old right handed hitter in the midst of an All-Star season  Was he overachieving that season?  Probably.  Was he the best available option to improve the Phillies' chances of winning the World Series?  I think so.

And here's the part that people seem to forget: Pence wasn't supposed to be a one-year player.  Part of the reason Amaro wanted him was because he was under team control through the 2013 season.

Did they trade away a top prospect in Jonathan Singleton?  Yes, but keep in mind that Singleton is a first baseman, and the Phillies have a guy signed long-term at that position.  (No matter how you feel about the Howard contract, that was the reality at the time of the trade)

Personally, I thought it was a bad move to trade him away last year, as he would have been a solid part of the lineup this season.  But maybe Amaro felt like a top catching prospect (Tommy Joseph) was too much too pass up.

Marvin: If they hadn't traded for Pence, they would have been able to trade for Justin Upton this offseason.

Cutter: That's probably true.  But trading for Justin Upton now wouldn't have helped them win the World Series in 2011.  (And yes, I know that they didn't.  But as I've said, I think the trade for Pence helped their chances)

Marvin: It was just one example of Amaro's insistence on destroying the team's farm system.

Cutter: No, it was an example of Amaro using those prospects as ways to help his current team.

Marvin: But then you have nothing left for tomorrow.  This is the reason that teams have "championship windows."  Doing things like trading away prospects causes those windows to close.

Cutter: I'll ask again: Which would you rather take a chance on?  Adding a piece to a championship caliber team or a bunch of prospects who might never pan out?

Every team has a window.  The only way to truly extend it is to have the minor leagues develop players as good as the ones who have gotten old or departed.

Marvin: Yes, and Amaro hasn't done that.

Cutter:  That is indeed an issue.  It certainly doesn't look like the Phillies are producing new talent that can capably replace the aging core.  Part of that is because they Phillies have given up both draft picks and prospects in an attempt to "win now." 

You should remember that the draft system is designed to promote parity.  It's much easier for losing teams to build a good farm system.

Losing teams get better draft position.  Losing teams can trade away players for prospects or obtain extra draft picks when their players leave as free agents. 

The Phillies have been in the opposite situation and it has hurt them.

Marvin: It doesn't matter why the minor league system is weak.  You admitted that it is, and therefore, there's no chance to rebuild, and therefore there's no hope for the future.

Cutter: Why are you acting like Amaro has failed at a rebuilding process that hasn't really begun?

The way I see it: The core of this team has one more chance in 2013. If they fail, then veterans like Chase Utley, Roy Halladay, and maybe even Carlos Ruiz are likely gone.  They'll then have plenty of money to spend to build around the remaining core.

And even though the farm system looks a little weak right now, as I mentioned in part one, that can turn around in a hurry. If Dom Brown pans out, and if prospects like Jessie Biddle and Tommy Joseph continue to develop, then all of a sudden, the Phillies farm system looks pretty good.

Marvin: Dom Brown?  He's not going to pan out because the Phillies signed Delmon Young, and Young is going to take all of Brown's playing time without providing any value.

Cutter: Why are you so upset about Delmon Young?  Young is signed to a one-year contract for less than a million.

He also was once a top prospect and minor league player of the year (What was I saying about prospects not always panning out?) who is still young enough that he might fulfill his potential given a second chance. If not, then the Phillies can easily part ways with him.

Not worth the angst

Marvin: I doubt that. Amaro and Charlie Manuel will always favor veterans. Just look at Chad Qualls last year.

Cutter: Always? How many games did Luis Castillo or Dontrelle Willis play for the Phillies?

As for Chad Qualls, he wasn't blocking anyone's progress. He was pitching because Antonio Bastardo was inconsistent, and guys like Michael Stutes and Justin DeFratus got hurt.

If Dom Brown (and Darin Ruf as well) prove more worthy of playing time than Delmon Young, then they'll likely receive it.

I don't think that the Phillies success hinges on Delmon Young.  And it certainly doesn't hinge on Yuniesky Betancourt, another low risk singing Amaro made this offseason.

This year's team will depend on their expensive players playing up to their capabilities. If Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Roy Halladay, and Cliff Lee all play well, then I think the Phillies make the playoffs.

Marvin: Your optimism depresses me.

Cutter: I know.  It does the same to me sometimes.  But thanks for coming here, Marvin.  I had fun!

Marvin: That makes one of us.

I'll conclude by saying this:

Am I making guesses and assumptions regarding Amaro's motivations and thought processes.  Yes, but I think that's no different than what most of his critics have done.  I think that if you like Amaro, then you'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the best.  If you hate Amaro, you'll do the opposite.

We can speculate over which moves were the right ones, but all we know for sure is the results. And despite what some Amaro critics might have you believe, Amaro has gotten results.

The team improved its record every year from 2009-2011, and in each of those seasons, Amaro made moves which increased the team's chances of winning the World Series.

Did those moves all work out?  Obviously not, since the team didn't win the World Series.  But there's a difference between a bad move and a good move that didn't work out.

I feel the 2012 Phillies missed the playoffs because Roy Halladay, Ryan Howard, and Chase Utley suffered injuries that caused them to miss time and be less effective.  I feel they also had some veterans suffer disappointing seasons.

I am optimistic that given good health (Which I know is certainly no guarantee for an older team), the Phillies will rebound in 2013.

If the Phillies fail, then I think that Amaro needs to concentrate his efforts towards rebuilding.  But he should certainly be given a chance to do that.

My point is this: Until the Phillies actually encounter failure under Amaro, I don't see any way that you can declare him to be a failure as general manager.

A failure?  No.

I Am Not a Troll

Since I've had a lot of new readers come by the site in recent days, I thought it was appropriate to re-state and clarify the intention behind this site.

I realize that by naming the site Sabermetrics Suck, it makes it appear that this blog is either an attempt to instigate, or a parody of an anti-sabermetrics traditionalist.

I assure you that it is neither.

Unfortunately, the title "Sabermetrics Are Good When Used in Moderation But Some People Take It Too Far" seemed a bit clunky.  Also, "Sabermetrics Suck" is definitely catchier.

The goal of the site is not to whine about "geeks with calculators sitting in their mother's basement."  I am not complaining that "these newfangled stats have ruined baseball."   

I accept that the battle between traditionalists and saberfans is pretty much over, and the saberfans have won. 

It's pretty tough to deny that fact when I look at ESPN.com and see several baseball writers who focus on advanced statistics.  They even include WAR on their statistics page!

So then what is the point of the site?

In my eyes, the empowered sabermetric crowd has become the new arrogant elite.  It feels like many saberfans were held down and mocked by the traditionalists for so long, that now that they've gained acceptance, they carry themselves with a know-it-all attitude.

Prominent saber-minded writers like Rob Neyer and Keith Law certainly aren't helping that reputation.  Instead of educating and enlightening people to the ways of sabermetrics, they seem to drive people away with their snarky arrogance.

Saberfans portray traditionalists as stubborn, unyielding old fools who refuse to give up antiquated ways of thinking.  Yet from my experience, saberfans can be even more stubborn and refusing to yield.

The best I can tell, this stubbornness comes from the saberfans having "numbers on their side."

Ah yes, numbers and statistics.  I believe Homer Simpson said it best:

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”

The typical sabermetric thought process seems to be along these lines:

1. Come up with a hypothesis.
2. Find a statistic that backs up that hypothesis.
3. Convince yourself that the statistic offers irrefutable proof.
4. Refuse to yield.

It's kind of fun to do, actually!  Here's an example:

1. Hypothesize that RBIs are an important measure of a player's offensive production.
2. Check the rosters of every team in baseball, and add up the number of RBIs for each player.
3. Find that the teams with the highest player RBI totals were the highest scoring offenses.
4. Conclude that RBIs are a good measure of offensive production.
5. Refuse to yield.

I'm not advocating abandoning statistical research in baseball.  I think it has indeed provided people with more insight about the game.  I regularly read sabermetrics-focused sites to try and gain more knowledge, and have learned some things that I find fascinating.

What I'm trying to do is to remind people that while baseball is about numbers, it is also more than just numbers.  It's about team chemistry, luck, clutch plays, and moments both amazing and bizarre that make it fun to be a baseball fan.

It's about a team having a "1 in 100" chance of winning, and still finding a way to pull out a victory.

I think that some people have just gotten a little too deep into the numbers to see what's really going on.  I'm trying to help people see the big picture.

The "pendulum has swung" to the side of the saberfans.  The blog represents the start of the back swing.

I just hope some of you stick around to enjoy the ride.

WAR is not the Answer

It would be great if we had a universal statistic that took all of the players in baseball and gave us a fair way to compare them.

Arguments about baseball would practically cease.  There would be no reason for them, as this one magical statistic would settle everything.  It might usher in a new era of understanding that could eventually lead to world peace.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a statistic is possible.  But even if it was, WAR is certainly not it.

This is not the stat you are looking for.

A quick primer for the uneducated:

WAR stands for Wins Above Replacement.  It is supposed to measure how many wins a given player has contributed to a team compared to a theoretical replacement player.  For a more detailed explanation, please check the WAR section on Baseball-Reference.com.

I understand why people want WAR to work, and I will concede that the statistic does have some worth.  For instance, it rewards players who are versatile and help their team in many ways, as opposed to statistics like home runs, which only measure one particular skill.

But does it accurately determine a player's value to his team?  I don't think so.

Admittedly, most saberfans do not claim that WAR is the ultimate statistic, or that it is the best measure of a player's value.  They claim that it should only be used as a "conversation starter."

And yet, it seems like every time a saberfan debates a player's value, WAR is the first thing they point to.

Don't believe me?  Check out some of the things that were written during the 2012 AL MVP debate:

WAR backs up Trout's MVP candidacy

Stats Revolution doesn't have enough clout

Mike Trout is your AL MVP

It seems like every saber-minded writer was required to do two things when weighing in on the MVP debate:

1. Make it clear that WAR is not perfect and they are not basing their judgement solely on it.
2. Use Trout's WAR value as evidence that he deserved the MVP.

Some of these guys would make great politicians the way they endorse WAR while also refusing to fully commit to it.

On the other hand, I will take a firm stance: I don't like WAR.

I don't like it because I don't like the fundamental concept of a replacement player that the statistic is based on.

I tried to determine just what makes someone a "replacement player."  I've searched the web, and I've never been able to find an answer that isn't vague at best.  From what I can gather, a replacement player is a borderline major league player who can be easily obtained from the minor leagues.

But should a judgement be made based on a theoretical player?  If you're going to try to determine how many "wins" a player is providing over his replacement, then shouldn't you consider the actual player who would replace him?

For example, let's say that the Dodgers have Joe Shortstop playing the shortstop position. (Crazy coincidence, huh?)

Pictured: Joe Shortstop, or as some people call him, "Hanley Ramirez."

Joe puts up solid numbers both offensively and defensively.  According to the formula behind WAR, shortstops are more valuable than most of the other positions, because it is typically more difficult to find a good shortstop than a left fielder or first baseman.  Since he performs well at an important position, Joe has a high WAR.

Unfortunately, Joe suffers and injury and has to miss a few months of the season.  At first glance, it seems like the Dodgers are screwed because based on Joe's WAR, it will be very tough to replace him.

Thankfully for the Dodgers, they have their top prospect Billy Shortstop playing at AAA.  The Dodgers call up Billy, and he ends up playing about as well as Joe did.

According to WAR, Joe is more valuable simply because he plays shortstop.  But if you're going to reward him based on his position, don't you also have to deduct him some points because he doesn't actually provide much more value than his replacement?

Of course, there's no way to accurately determine just how well a given player's replacement would perform.  The best that could be done would be to project the production of all of a team's potential replacements, and make a calculation based on that.  But even that would be mostly guesswork, and nearly impossible to measure.

That impossibility is the main reason why WAR doesn't really work as a measure of true value.

As I said, I understand the motivation for coming up with a universal statistic.  But in this case, much like Marvin Gaye once said: WAR is not the answer.

The AL MVP Debate: Trout vs. Cabrera

We are in the midst of baseball's award season in which Major League Baseball recognizes the standout players from the preceding season. 

Yesterday, they announced the winners of the Cy Young Award.  This criteria for this award used to seem rather simple: Give it to the best pitcher in the league regardless of his team's position in the standings.  After all, a pitcher could only affect the games that he himself pitched, so why should he be penalized for poor performance by his teammates?

With the rise of sabermetrics, the situation has become more complicated.  A pitcher's win total used to go a long way towards determining the winner, but since the sabermetric devaluation of that statistic, wins have been less influential.  For an example, look at recent winners Felix Hernandez in 2010 (13 wins) and Tim Lincecum in 2009.  Ten years earlier, they probably don't win due to their relatively low win totals.

If the Cy Young Award has become difficult to decide, then the MVP award has become a complete quagmire.

This award has always given people some difficulty based on its name.  There are differing opinions as to what makes a player "valuable."  Some believe that the best player is automatically the most valuable and he should receive the award.  Others feel like the winner should come from a playoff team, or at the very least, a contender.  Because if a player couldn't get his team into contention, just how valuable could he be?

With that kind of inconsistency as the benchmark, it is no wonder that sabermetrics has only muddied the waters of the debate.

The 2012 American League MVP award has become a key battleground in the battle between traditionalists and sabermetrics advocates.  The traditionalists favor Tigers third baseman Miguel Cabrera while the saber fans favor Angels outfielder Mike Trout.

Miguel Cabrera is the MVP choice of most traditionalists

Both players are having excellent seasons, and chances are, no matter which one wins the award, nobody is going to look back a few years from now and wonder, "How did that guy win MVP?"  But one of them is going to win, and one of the groups is going to claim the decision as a grand victory for their philosophy. 

Here's a breakdown of the typical arguments for both camps:

Traditionalist: Cabrera won the Triple Crown!  That means he's the MVP.

Sabermetrics: The Triple Crown is an arbitrary grouping of three offensive statistics, two of which are vastly overrated.  Trout led the league in WAR which is a much better indication of his value.

Traditionalist: WAR?  WAR is just some trendy statistic that even you people can't agree on.

Sabermetrics: Whichever version you use, it's still the best statistic we have for measuring a player's overall value.  Shouldn't we look at all facets of a player's game rather than just three offensive categories?  Even if you think that Cabrera was the better offensive player, Trout was far superior on defense and on the base paths.

Do Trout's defense and baserunning give him an edge?

Traditionalist: Defense is overrated.  And I don't know how you even measure the effect that a player's baserunning has on a game.

Besides, Cabrera's team made the playoffs.  Trout's team did not.

Sabermetrics: Yes, but the Angels had a better record!  They were just unfortunate to have played in a stronger division.  Why are we giving Cabrera credit for things out of his control?

That's the whole basis for using WAR.  Eliminate all peripheral factors and judge the player's performance on its own merits.

Traditionalist: Except that's not how baseball works.  Baseball is a team game, and a player's value has to take into account how well he helped his team perform.  Just look at how well Cabrera performed down the stretch while his team was fighting for a playoff spot.  That was an MVP performance.  Meanwhile, Trout's numbers slipped a bit in the late going.

Sabermetrics: That is irrelevant.  Games in June count just as much as games in September.

Traditionalist: In theory that is true.  But the MVP is really just a measure of baseball history.  And baseball history goes beyond just statistics.  For example, Bobby Thomson hit 32 home runs in 1951, but only one of them is known by just about every baseball fan.

"The Shot Heard Round the World."

Take a home run that is hit in the 9th inning of a 10-2 game in April. Compare that to a home run hit in the 9th inning of a 4-3 game in September. Do you really feel that the same value should be placed on both?

Sabermetrics: Yes, because in the long run, those types of things tend to even out.  That's exactly why we need to use WAR.  It eliminates personal bias and emotion from the decision. 

Trout had the highest WAR.  That means he supplied the most value to his team.  Hence, he is the MVP.

Traditionalist: If you eliminate emotion from baseball, then you might as well just play the game on a computer.  Cabrera won the Triple Crown and led his team to a playoff spot with a strong stretch run.  That makes him the MVP.


If someone wants to look at Trout's WAR and decide that he is the hands down MVP, I understand.  Personally, (and this should come as no surprise based on the name of this blog) I think that you do need to factor in stretch run performance and even RBIs, since they measure success in a team setting.

Both men are worthy candidates, but I feel that Cabrera deserves the MVP.