Valboner

[Blarg]

33 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yunel Escobar is a hypothetical too. For now.

OK, I guess you got me there but at least he's on the 40 man Roster. 

[Blarg]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

How about Brandon Phillips (288/323/411) or Gallo (211/337/546)?

Not a positional comparison. You have to put players on the field not just in the batting order. 

 

[Blarg]

33 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Come on guys.  Arte is doing the best he can.

He has been staying out of it so you are right about that. And since he has left operations to his people the team is improving. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Not a positional comparison. You have to put players on the field not just in the batting order. 

 

We weren't talking about a real lineup. Just about evaluating players offensively.

This whole thing started because I was trying to make the point that batting average is not a good indicator of offensive performance.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Jeff Fletcher

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I'd rather have a second tier leadoff hitter (Escobar) than a .197 guy you have to bury back in the 7th or 8th the spot hoping he gets a hold of a pitch once every 8 games like Valbuena. The home run is kind of a false stat if the rest of the batting line is empty. And I'm not saying Revere is that guy but then again you tossed in a 4th outfielder with good defensive skills in a conversation about a poor utility infielder. 

HR is a false stat?  You create an RBI all by yourself.

[Blarg]

Then it is a conversation without a goal other than trying to say one skill set trumps another without context of what you are going to do with these guys. What the Angels need isn't based around one narrow focus.

 Guys built solely around slugging percentage can drag a team down waiting for their hot streak if the team isn't balanced enough to sustain the offense through those droughts. The Angels are not that team. 

For that reason I believe Valbuena is not really moving the Angels forward towards the playoffs. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Blarg

[DMVol]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

How about Brandon Phillips (288/323/411) or Gallo (211/337/546)?

That's a fair debate....I guess first you have to separate the overall profile of the two....Phillips is 37, Gallo is just 23 and has a lot of potential so you'd certainly take Gallo based on age and upside....But in a vacuum, based on 2017 numbers alone, I'd probably take Phillips, but not by a ton...It's a good debate...

[Angel Oracle]

Either Cowart stays as a utility guy, or converts to being a pitcher.   At age 25, it may not be too late to do so.  

Back on the batting discussion, certain players have good worth in the MOTO, while others have good worth as table setters.   While Valbuena's BA isn't anything to write home about, his OPS since August 5 is approaching .900.   That is rock solid in ANY MOTO lineup.  Same thing with Gallo's near .900 OPS, and despite his .211 BA his .337 OBP doesn't look too bad.

A Revere brings value as a leadoff guy because of his speed, as long as the OBP is at least say .330.

Escobar is meh as a leadoff guy, and of course isn't suited for the MOTO.     

The biggest thing for the TOTO (top of the order) is OBP.   The biggest thing for the MOTO is OPS.

[Inside Pitch]

9 minutes ago, DMVol said:

That's a fair debate....I guess first you have to separate the overall profile of the two....Phillips is 37, Gallo is just 23 and has a lot of potential so you'd certainly take Gallo based on age and upside....But in a vacuum, based on 2017 numbers alone, I'd probably take Phillips, but not by a ton...It's a good debate...

The two biggest factors when it comes to run production are getting on base, and hitting for power.   In Phillips you have a player who is worse at both of those things...  

In a fantasy world where you could have one guy field all 9 spots in the order, a team of Gallos would pretty significantly outscore a team of Phillipses.  Whatever gains are made by Phillips' superior ability to get on base via hit, (resulting in runs driven in), would end up falling behind the greater number of men on base and significantly greater power.

[well_red]

4 hours ago, DMVol said:

Therein lies my problem, Jeff....Although I am not a stat geek (surprise), I certainly recognize that BA isn't everything, by any means...but I don't buy into dismissing Valbuena's awful BA because you can use his power and walks to make a case that he's really a decent hitter....I certainly appreciate that a guy who is hitting .197 but has power and walks at a decent clip is better than a .197 hitter who has no power and doesn't walk much.....but Valbuena is still hitting .197....that's awful and his power and walk rate don't overcome the BA for me....agree to disagree...

The point of wOBA is that it is grounded in reality, not fantasy.  You use a stat as the basis for your point of view (in this case, BA), but then balk at the notion that the stat should actually correlate with the desired outcome (in this case, run value etc)?  you are taking it solely on faith that BA is the most meaningful statistic, when the data clearly says you are wrong.  OBP and OPS correlate much higher than BA, and wOBA is higher still.  

Anyway, saw this and thought it was somewhat relevant (all the favorites are mentioned, Valbuena, Pujols, Napoli, Mathis, etc):

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20744991/welcome-era-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-30-home-run-hitter

[Jeff Fletcher]

57 minutes ago, DMVol said:

That's a fair debate....I guess first you have to separate the overall profile of the two....Phillips is 37, Gallo is just 23 and has a lot of potential so you'd certainly take Gallo based on age and upside....But in a vacuum, based on 2017 numbers alone, I'd probably take Phillips, but not by a ton...It's a good debate...

Well the point of my even wading into this discussion was about the value of batting average, so ... no, it doesn't matter what their names are or what their positions are or what their ages are.

The question is: what stat more highly correlates to producing runs?

BA is behind OBP, SLG, OPS, wOBA and plenty of other things.

 

[DMVol]

30 minutes ago, well_red said:

The point of wOBA is that it is grounded in reality, not fantasy.  You use a stat as the basis for your point of view (in this case, BA), but then balk at the notion that the stat should actually correlate with the desired outcome (in this case, run value etc)?  you are taking it solely on faith that BA is the most meaningful statistic, when the data clearly says you are wrong.  OBP and OPS correlate much higher than BA, and wOBA is higher still.  

Anyway, saw this and thought it was somewhat relevant (all the favorites are mentioned, Valbuena, Pujols, Napoli, Mathis, etc):

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20744991/welcome-era-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-30-home-run-hitter

Show me where I said BA is the "most meaningful" stat?....I merely reacted to morphing Valbuena into a good offensive player, with a .197 BA....If BA is not meaningful, why in the hell did we release Espinosa and trade for Phillips? All stats are "relelvant", but they should be read together....Again, I didn't proclaim BA to be the holy grail of stats and I certainly don't dismiss OBP and OPS but I think you need to mix them all together to evaluate fairly....  and I still don't think anybody who hits .197, is a very good player....that is too big of a deficiency in one area (getting hits) to be a good offensive player....If you want me to go the other route on BA,  I've always thought one of the most overrated players ever was Rod Carew---good BA but didn't bring enough to the table in other areas for me....good guy and deserving of a lot of the praise he received....but I've just always thought his BA inflated his worth....but that's my opinion only....

 

[Dick B Back]

Whenever you see Dave Kingman mentioned in an article, you should know what kinda hitters we're talking about.

[ksangel]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

 

For that reason I believe Valbuena is not really moving the Angels forward towards the playoffs. 

This is why I started the thread...not to compare Cowart to Valboner in the long term but the last 13 games.

As evidenced by Cowart's solid defense at 2B on Sunday would putting him at 3B the remainder of the year and take what he'll do on offense and know his defense will save runs be a better option to having bone head defense at 3B and maybe a HR here and there?

This is playoff type baseball and defense wins games.

[DMVol]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

The two biggest factors when it comes to run production are getting on base, and hitting for power.   In Phillips you have a player who is worse at both of those things...  

I guess it's just too simple for me to rely so much on this stat or that stat....what if you have a guy who is a heckuva hitter (over .300) but who doesn't walk a lot and so his OBP isn't the greatest and he doesn't have great power but, he's fast, steals bases and therefore gets in position, a lot, to score runs....Does he get minimized a little by power guys with decent OBP? (sounds like why I like Revere, in his prime, more than you)....Or, and I'm getting even further away from analytical stuff here, what if you have a HR hitter who never seems to hit one when it matters, lots of solo shots when a game isn't close (not saying that is Valbuena, since we're talking about him, because it generally isn't--he's hit some big dingers this year)....Or you have a guy who is pretty average across the board but who seems to get a lot of hits when it matters--Benjie Molina for instance...I know there are "clutch" stats to quantify those things but, regardless, it just seems too simple to me to say one size fits all....you have to evaluate across the board....just my opinion....

[well_red]

1 hour ago, DMVol said:

Show me where I said BA is the "most meaningful" stat?....I merely reacted to morphing Valbuena into a good offensive player, with a .197 BA....If BA is not meaningful, why in the hell did we release Espinosa and trade for Phillips? All stats are "relelvant", but they should be read together....Again, I didn't proclaim BA to be the holy grail of stats and I certainly don't dismiss OBP and OPS but I think you need to mix them all together to evaluate fairly....  and I still don't think anybody who hits .197, is a very good player....that is too big of a deficiency in one area (getting hits) to be a good offensive player....

Fair enough.. I think you can use just about any offensive stat to justify jettisoning Espinosa.  I'm just saying that Valbuena isn't as bad as his BA indicates, not that he's good.  As you said, you are weighting different offensive outcomes in your head to determine offensive worth, by whatever criteria you think are important, but wOBA does that for you in a scientifically sound way.  He's just below league avg for wOBA, OPS, and that is including his atrocious start to the year, whereas his BA is garbage.  I don't particularly enjoy watching players like Valbuena, but his value comes in how he contributes to run scoring and ultimately winning.

 

5 minutes ago, DMVol said:

I guess it's just too simple for me to rely so much on this stat or that stat....what if you have a guy who is a heckuva hitter (over .300) but who doesn't walk a lot and so his OBP isn't the greatest and he doesn't have great power but, he's fast, steals bases and therefore gets in position, a lot, to score runs....Does he get minimized a little by power guys and decent OBP? (sounds like why I like Revere, in his prime, more than you)....Or, and I'm getting even further away from analytical stuff here, what if you have a HR hitter who never seems to hit one when it matters, lots of solo shots when a game isn't close (not saying that is Valbuena, since we're talking about him, because it generally isn't--he's hit some big dingers this year)....Or you have a guy who is pretty average but who seems to get a lot of hits when it matters--Benjie Molina for instance...I know there are "clutch" stats to quantify those things but, regardless, it just seems too simple to me to say one size fits all....you have to evaluate across the board....just my opinion....

I think this gets to the heart of the world view of stats lovers vs haters.  You see the particular game situations and how different offensive profiles would contribute to those unique situations.  BA or steals or clutch HR's are important because in those particular situations they would help create a run, etc. 

But you can't really construct a team that way, each game plays out differently and you can't control or foresee the situations you'll see in a game.  The stats side is more concerned with predictive power in the face of this game-to-game uncertainty.  Obviously people like Eppler are payed well and work long hours to bridge the gap between the aggregate analytics and how that player profile fits into the lineup.  

[DMVol]

4 minutes ago, well_red said:

Fair enough.. I think you can use just about any offensive stat to justify jettisoning Espinosa.  I'm just saying that Valbuena isn't as bad as his BA indicates, not that he's good.  As you said, you are weighting different offensive outcomes in your head to determine offensive worth, by whatever criteria you think are important, but wOBA does that for you in a scientifically sound way.  He's just below league avg for wOBA, OPS, and that is including his atrocious start to the year, whereas his BA is garbage.  I don't particularly enjoy watching players like Valbuena, but his value comes in how he contributes to run scoring and ultimately winning.

I think this gets to the heart of the world view of stats lovers vs haters.  You see the particular game situations and how different offensive profiles would contribute to those unique situations.  BA or steals or clutch HR's are important because in those particular situations they would help create a run, etc. 

But you can't really construct a team that way, each game plays out differently and you can't control or foresee the situations you'll see in a game.  The stats side is more concerned with predictive power in the face of this game-to-game uncertainty.  Obviously people like Eppler are payed well and work long hours to bridge the gap between the aggregate analytics and how that player profile fits into the lineup.  

Fair points and well put....

[Adam]

38 minutes ago, DMVol said:

I guess it's just too simple for me to rely so much on this stat or that stat....what if you have a guy who is a heckuva hitter (over .300) but who doesn't walk a lot and so his OBP isn't the greatest and he doesn't have great power but, he's fast, steals bases and therefore gets in position, a lot, to score runs....Does he get minimized a little by power guys with decent OBP? (sounds like why I like Revere, in his prime, more than you)....Or, and I'm getting even further away from analytical stuff here, what if you have a HR hitter who never seems to hit one when it matters, lots of solo shots when a game isn't close (not saying that is Valbuena, since we're talking about him, because it generally isn't--he's hit some big dingers this year)....Or you have a guy who is pretty average across the board but who seems to get a lot of hits when it matters--Benjie Molina for instance...I know there are "clutch" stats to quantify those things but, regardless, it just seems too simple to me to say one size fits all....you have to evaluate across the board....just my opinion....

I agree that in aggregate, a guy like Valbuena is more valuable than say, Ben Revere. I think many of us assess players based on how they have performed recently, in memorable situations. For instance, if the Angels are down 1 in the 9th tonight with two outs and a guy on third base, I would prefer to have Revere up in that spot, because he's more likely to produce a run than Valbuena in that specific situation. 

[Blarg]

They would probably walk Revere to get to Trout.

 

 

 

[Inside Pitch]

51 minutes ago, DMVol said:

I guess it's just too simple for me to rely so much on this stat or that stat....what if you have a guy who is a heckuva hitter (over .300) but who doesn't walk a lot and so his OBP isn't the greatest and he doesn't have great power but, he's fast, steals bases and therefore gets in position, a lot, to score runs....Does he get minimized a little by power guys with decent OBP? (sounds like why I like Revere, in his prime, more than you)....Or, and I'm getting even further away from analytical stuff here, what if you have a HR hitter who never seems to hit one when it matters, lots of solo shots when a game isn't close (not saying that is Valbuena, since we're talking about him, because it generally isn't--he's hit some big dingers this year)....Or you have a guy who is pretty average across the board but who seems to get a lot of hits when it matters--Benjie Molina for instance...I know there are "clutch" stats to quantify those things but, regardless, it just seems too simple to me to say one size fits all....you have to evaluate across the board....just my opinion....

This is starting to move away from a Phillips .vs Gallo choice and I'm not looking to enter into that kind of a debate -- not saying that to be dismissive at all, I just wasn't responding to that sort of a thing.  

In regards to some of what you're saying above..   there will always be breakpoints where a high average or too low an average can elevate or downgrade a player ...  But, in general two things are always true.

Getting on base more is better than getting on base less.     
Hitting for more power is better than hitting for less power.    

In the Phillips .vs Gallo scenario the differences in OBP and SLG were large enough where Gallo's ugly batting average doesn't keep him from being the more productive offensive player.   Gallo ranks 36th in MLB in wRC+ (weighted runs created), at 126 -- tied with Buster Posey who's gone .313/.397/.454.  Phillips comes in 120th out of 149, with a figure of 92.   Dee Gordon who many are also fond of comes in just ahead of him at 93.

Again -- we can find outliers or create scenarios where the opposite might be true but for the most part getting on base and hitting for power are king.   That's not to say you take a guy with a marginally better OBP and significantly worse batting average because, a hit is worth more than a walk, but in a case like the one presented it really is a bit of a no brainer.

 

[DMVol]

54 minutes ago, Adam said:

For instance, if the Angels are down 1 in the 9th tonight with two outs and a guy on third base, I would prefer to have Revere up in that spot, because he's more likely to produce a run than Valbuena in that specific situation. 

Or, if you want a Revere comp for old timers, Luis Polonia...little son of a gun didn't walk much but he could hit, particularly when it mattered (or so it seemed)....

[Adam]

I think the instances of failure that stick out most to me are those that simply require the ball to be put into play. Guys like Valbuena fail often in those spots.