Tough Decision Time on Ohtani ?

[laagamer]

18 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

Which doesn't discount the possibility that he may suck bigtime, up here.

A DH who sucked. Didn't we  have one of those last year?

i'd rather see him suck down there and work it out where it wont cost the Angels up here. We are not a shoo-in for a WC spot. 

We lived with suckdom in LF for three years and didnt make the playoffs. It sucks to have a DH who sucks, even more. Been there, done that.

I think he'll make the opening roster on his pitching merits. The bar isn't that high on the Angel's starting staff.

 

I actually agree that it would be good for him. But there's simply no way it's gonna happen. 

[WeatherWonk]

16 minutes ago, laagamer said:

I actually agree that it would be good for him. But there's simply no way it's gonna happen. 

No, you're right. Arte won't give up the advanced ticket sales......because he is losing money on the Angels.

[Stradling]

I think we’re ignoring the simple fact that while he may not be ready with the bat, I’m guessing he’s still one of our five best options at starting pitcher.   So to say he will cost us games, that’s only true if we have better options.  Our DH sucked the most, but according to fangraphs only three were worth more than 1 win and one was Dickerson and he had some defensive value.   So basically almost all  DHs sucked.  

[Chuck U Farley]

9 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

No, you're right. Arte won't give up the advanced ticket sales......because he is losing money on the Angels.

Source?

[Angel Oracle]

We all need to remember that he missed a good chunk of the 2017 season in Japan.   He has to work back from that, in addition to getting accustomed to MLB pitching/hitters AND adjusting to living in a new country.   By 2019, he should be settled in much better.  

[WeatherWonk]

2 hours ago, Dino Ebel's Rotator Cuff said:

Source?

Some press guy's interview with Arte only a couple weeks ago. Maybe it was Fletch, I cant remember.

[Hubs]

On 3/12/2018 at 1:31 PM, AngelsLakersFan said:

Well, consider only four DH's had more than 1 war last year, and of those four two played significant time in the field, and the other two had over 600 PAs.

 As a DH, with 250 PAs he'd have to keep around a 130 wRC+ to finish around 1 war.

For him to have more upside as a hitter he will need to either give up pitching or move to the national league.

250 PA is roughly 50-60 games as DH. Do you think he only DH's twice a week? I think if he does that, you are right, he'll only be able to get to 1 WAR.

If he gets 400-450 PA as DH, and hits 20 HR with 20 2b and 20 steals... he'll can be a 3 WAR DH with the bat.

Brad Fullmer in 130 games in 2002 mainly as a DH, though he did play some 1B, had 2.8 WAR in 479 plate appearances.

 

[WeatherWonk]

I guess I read it on AW.com, so there's that.

 

[Ohtaniland]

4 hours ago, SuperTroopers said:

I think we’re ignoring the simple fact that while he may not be ready with the bat, I’m guessing he’s still one of our five best options at starting pitcher.   So to say he will cost us games, that’s only true if we have better options.  Our DH sucked the most, but according to fangraphs only three were worth more than 1 win and one was Dickerson and he had some defensive value.   So basically almost all  DHs sucked.  

It always surprises me that soo many DH’s suck. Why do teams fill a DH spot with players that can’t hit. That’s their only job. Every full time DH in baseball should be a .850+ ops guy or they should be replaced. 

[WeatherWonk]

9 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

It always surprises me that soo many DH’s suck. Why do teams fill a DH spot with players that can’t hit. That’s their only job. Every full time DH in baseball should be a .850+ ops guy or they should be replaced. 

It IS surprising. It's probably because they are mostly former position players who skills are eroding, due to age. They cant cut it in the field, so they hit. But their hitting skills have eroded some, too.

Time for some HOF love for Big Papi and Edgar and Baines.

[Ohtaniland]

6 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

It IS surprising. It's probably because they are mostly former position players who skills are eroding, due to age. They cant cut it in the field, so they hit. But their hitting skills have eroded some, too.

Time for some HOF love for Big Papi and Edgar and Baines.

But why does a DH position always have to be filled with some old yeller. There has to be at least 15 young AAA guys throughout ML baseball that would rather DH now than wait for a position to open someday that never comes. 

[WeatherWonk]

Heck if I know. Maybe younger players just refuse to give up on the hope that they can be a complete player and resist simply being a DH. It can limit your desirability to teams. Bigger paydays for complete players, I suppose.

[Docwaukee]

27 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

It IS surprising. It's probably because they are mostly former position players who skills are eroding, due to age. They cant cut it in the field, so they hit. But their hitting skills have eroded some, too.

Time for some HOF love for Big Papi and Edgar and Baines.

WAR for DH is faulty because they start out with negative defensive value of 1.2 I think.  League avg hitter typically has a WAR of 0 at DH or even slightly negative.  It's one of the flaws of WAR imo.  

[Hubs]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

WAR for DH is faulty because they start out with negative defensive value of 1.2 I think.  League avg hitter typically has a WAR of 0 at DH or even slightly negative.  It's one of the flaws of WAR imo.  

Ya, I don't like the positional adjustments that much. We all know where the big bats are supposed to be but a player is productive no matter where he plays shouldn't be penalized because a team uses him at a corner OF instead of CF, or at 1B or DH instead of at 3B or 2B. If a guy is good defensively, the WAR will show it, which makes him valuable. I am not saying that there shouldn't be positional adjustments, just that they seem too high for some spots. (DH and 1B to me being those). 1B is on par with Corner OF. Maybe a little below.

Remember that this adjustment is not a players defensive value, rather, it's a run adjustment because players at certain positions are easier to find, and thus less valuable, but I just don't by that a DH is 17 runs worse than a 3B. I'd think that the C value is ok, SS should be dropped to +5, RF and LF to -5, 1B to -7 and DH to -10.

Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are:

1. C: +9 runs
2. SS: +7 runs
3. 2B: +3 runs
4. CF: +2.5 runs
5. 3B: +2 runs
6. RF: -7 runs
7. LF: -7 runs
8. 1B: -9.5 runs
9. DH: -15 runs

[Stradling]

51 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

But why does a DH position always have to be filled with some old yeller. There has to be at least 15 young AAA guys throughout ML baseball that would rather DH now than wait for a position to open someday that never comes. 

Because they aren’t better than the guys they’d be replacing. 

[Ohtaniland]

22 minutes ago, SuperTroopers said:

Because they aren’t better than the guys they’d be replacing. 

Well a DH doesn’t necessarily have to be some big brut. It would not hurt to have a good obp athletic base runner type. Someone with power would be a plus but getting on base should be the priority. Go pick 6 please. I’m waiting to see your opinion on that.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Hubs said:

250 PA is roughly 50-60 games as DH. Do you think he only DH's twice a week? I think if he does that, you are right, he'll only be able to get to 1 WAR.

If he gets 400-450 PA as DH, and hits 20 HR with 20 2b and 20 steals... he'll can be a 3 WAR DH with the bat.

Brad Fullmer in 130 games in 2002 mainly as a DH, though he did play some 1B, had 2.8 WAR in 479 plate appearances.

 

I just don't see it as realistic that he gets that many ABs. I would be surprised if he ever cracks 400 PAs without some change to the current situation. 300 PAs is a decent guess, thats about half of the games at DH.

[AngelsLakersFan]

57 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Ya, I don't like the positional adjustments that much. We all know where the big bats are supposed to be but a player is productive no matter where he plays shouldn't be penalized because a team uses him at a corner OF instead of CF, or at 1B or DH instead of at 3B or 2B. If a guy is good defensively, the WAR will show it, which makes him valuable. I am not saying that there shouldn't be positional adjustments, just that they seem too high for some spots. (DH and 1B to me being those). 1B is on par with Corner OF. Maybe a little below.

Remember that this adjustment is not a players defensive value, rather, it's a run adjustment because players at certain positions are easier to find, and thus less valuable, but I just don't by that a DH is 17 runs worse than a 3B. I'd think that the C value is ok, SS should be dropped to +5, RF and LF to -5, 1B to -7 and DH to -10.

Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are:

1. C: +9 runs
2. SS: +7 runs
3. 2B: +3 runs
4. CF: +2.5 runs
5. 3B: +2 runs
6. RF: -7 runs
7. LF: -7 runs
8. 1B: -9.5 runs
9. DH: -15 runs

The problem is that the defensive adjustment in fWar is literally a defensive adjustment, not a scarcity adjustment. There is no scarcity adjustment in war, but the defensive adjustment makes it seem that way.

The actual published logic for those numbers is to say that a second basemen moving to first base would gain an extra 12.5 runs defensively at first base, while a first basemen moving to second would cost his team an additional 12.5 runs at second. This is overly simplistic and not completely rational.

This is generally not a big deal because this is mostly a semantic argument. It makes sense for batters to be judged solely on the value of their offense (the OFF component of war on fangraphs). The way they rate defense is in comparison to others at the position. This is great, but it requires them to need some way to say that a short stop is more valuable than a first basemen.

[Troll Daddy]

Do teams actually use WAR in their decision making process? or does WAR give the writers and fans something to talk about ... used more as a cheat sheet or quick study. 

[Hubs]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The problem is that the defensive adjustment in fWar is literally a defensive adjustment, not a scarcity adjustment. There is no scarcity adjustment in war, but the defensive adjustment makes it seem that way.

The actual published logic for those numbers is to say that a second basemen moving to first base would gain an extra 12.5 runs defensively at first base, while a first basemen moving to second would cost his team an additional 12.5 runs at second. This is overly simplistic and not completely rational.

This is generally not a big deal because this is mostly a semantic argument. It makes sense for batters to be judged solely on the value of their offense (the OFF component of war on fangraphs). The way they rate defense is in comparison to others at the position. This is great, but it requires them to need some way to say that a short stop is more valuable than a first basemen.

I agree with you here as it really a baseline problem. Yes Replacement level first baseman and DH's are easier to find than replacement level 2b or SS or CF, but honestly, is starting at 15 runs negative as a DH, fair to DH's?

The 10 run switch in the OF is another  big issue, like is Trout playing CF instead of say LF worth 1 full WAR to start?

 

[Hubs]

20 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I just don't see it as realistic that he gets that many ABs. I would be surprised if he ever cracks 400 PAs without some change to the current situation. 300 PAs is a decent guess, thats about half of the games at DH.

If he plays in 90 games, he'll crack 400 PA.

That is roughly 60% of the games at DH. That's about what I think he'll get.... if he hits well.

He'll start the season on a 2 day a week DH, and finish it with 4 days a week.

[Chuck U Farley]

2 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

Some press guy's interview with Arte only a couple weeks ago. Maybe it was Fletch, I cant remember.

I'd seriously question the accuracy or at least the scope of such a report.  Seems more likely to me that it's really a question of whether one includes media $ in that equation, or whether losing some nominal amount of money (to a billionaire, anyway) is of any great concern to AM at this stage of his life.  I suspect that if we examined all financial considerations relating to the club, we'd find Arte to be well in the black.  And if not, it wouldn't be by enough to affect his motivations as an owner/fan IMO.  He wants to field a winner and is willing to pay for it.

That said, I don't think he'll want put his thumb on the scale when it comes to deciding what to do with Ohtani.  Given the general shift in tenor of the organization's moves over the past few years, it really does seem like he's found some comfort in letting his "baseball people" call the shots.  Billy Eppler is no Tony Reagins (thank goodness). 

Ohtani will be in the rotation all year and will perform just fine overall.  Yes, there will be a learning curve, just like with any other young player.  But he's ready and will improve with time.  Hitting-wise, I'm not so optimistic -- but we will see.

Exciting times to be a Halo fan, right?

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

I agree with you here as it really a baseline problem. Yes Replacement level first baseman and DH's are easier to find than replacement level 2b or SS or CF, but honestly, is starting at 15 runs negative as a DH, fair to DH's?

The 10 run switch in the OF is another  big issue, like is Trout playing CF instead of say LF worth 1 full WAR to start?

 

The problem is that the DH doesn't really fit into the logic of the game, and thus the math feels just as arbitrary as the position itself.

If you think about it, in the long run each non-DH position, in the aggregate, should have roughly the same total value - assuming managers are deploying players optimally. This is because each position has a different level of athleticism and defensive talents required, and therefore different levels of potential defensive value available to be earned. Managers try to balance that potential defensive and offensive value at each position - as the potential defensive value drops managers will try to move better hitters in those spots. Think Mark Trumbo at third base.

This is why I don't like the idea of positional adjustments in general. When you consider the DH and the huge adjustment, I feel like the calculation is missing the inherent value of a roster spot. It makes sense that the DH baseline should be 'the best hitter you can find in AAA' or un-signed in March, but it doesn't consider the defensive value available at other positions. When you think only of the DH and take defensive value out of the equation, the high baseline makes sense, but rosters are never built under the assumption that a player will only ever play one position - most DH's are expected to provide defensive value on days when they are not DHing.

[Hubs]

16 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The problem is that the DH doesn't really fit into the logic of the game, and thus the math feels just as arbitrary as the position itself.

If you think about it, in the long run each non-DH position, in the aggregate, should have roughly the same total value - assuming managers are deploying players optimally. This is because each position has a different level of athleticism and defensive talents required, and therefore different levels of potential defensive value available to be earned. Managers try to balance that potential defensive and offensive value at each position - as the potential defensive value drops managers will try to move better hitters in those spots. Think Mark Trumbo at third base.

This is why I don't like the idea of positional adjustments in general. When you consider the DH and the huge adjustment, I feel like the calculation is missing the inherent value of a roster spot. It makes sense that the DH baseline should be 'the best hitter you can find in AAA' or un-signed in March, but it doesn't consider the defensive value available at other positions. When you think only of the DH and take defensive value out of the equation, the high baseline makes sense, but rosters are never built under the assumption that a player will only ever play one position - most DH's are expected to provide defensive value on days when they are not DHing.

If you look at Brad Fullmer's 2002 season, he played the vast majority of his games as the DH, but a small amount of games as the 1B. He had a negative -1.1 WAR as the dWAR component in just 29 games at 1st. (He started 27 times). This despite a .995 fielding percentage and only 1 error at the position. So his defensive runs saved must've been horrible, due to what, range? My point with this is that in his 94 games as a DH, he was arguably better served for the team being the DH, because his defensive value is then 0, rather than -1.1, but he still likely lost a similar value in the WAR calculation due to being a DH, when arguably, it was better for the team that he was a DH.

Had he played an only as a 1B, he likely would've provided no additional offensive value, and very likely would've cost the team runs because of his lack of range, but the positional adjustment remains negative.

Granted it's not a defensive adjustment, its a scarcity adjustment, but I contend that DH is actually kind of a difficult position to play. It is not as easy to just hit, but apparently it is arbitrary.

By the way, Fullmer's OPS that year was .888 -- from the left side. We have had just one left handed batter put up an .888 or greater OPS in the last 16 seasons. That Was Mark Teixiera in his limited stint in the organization in 2008. Kendry Morales did it as a switch hitter, and Anderson almost reached the mark at .885, but it shows that a professional hitter can be immensely valuable.

Lets hope a left handed batter like Ohtani can put up a similar OPS and a similar value (maybe not quite the 2.8 WAR because he won't play in the 130 games Fullmer did, but maybe we can hope for 90 and a 2.0 WAR.

 

[Docwaukee]

17 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The problem is that the DH doesn't really fit into the logic of the game, and thus the math feels just as arbitrary as the position itself.

If you think about it, in the long run each non-DH position, in the aggregate, should have roughly the same total value - assuming managers are deploying players optimally. This is because each position has a different level of athleticism and defensive talents required, and therefore different levels of potential defensive value available to be earned. Managers try to balance that potential defensive and offensive value at each position - as the potential defensive value drops managers will try to move better hitters in those spots. Think Mark Trumbo at third base.

This is why I don't like the idea of positional adjustments in general. When you consider the DH and the huge adjustment, I feel like the calculation is missing the inherent value of a roster spot. It makes sense that the DH baseline should be 'the best hitter you can find in AAA' or un-signed in March, but it doesn't consider the defensive value available at other positions. When you think only of the DH and take defensive value out of the equation, the high baseline makes sense, but rosters are never built under the assumption that a player will only ever play one position - most DH's are expected to provide defensive value on days when they are not DHing.

my guess is that when they were developing WAR and doing the regression analysis to determine how strongly it correlates to actual wins, they found it needed tweaking in order to improve the coefficient.  So it works when taking the whole lineup into account, but isn't as accurate for some of the individual positions.  I feel the same way about how it treats relievers.