[2] Their philosophy of run prevention - solid defense and pitching - is still preserved with this signing. His hitting in Fenway will definitely improve, it seems like everyone the Sox get to play in that park turns into a HoFer.
Ha! We're going to crush them, Sensei Kreese style. They traded defense for offense when they needed more offense. The trouble wasn't preventing runs last year (108 ERA+). It was scoring them (105 OPS+), especially since the magic offense in their bandbox doesn't translate to the road.
Yanks got the better pitching and the better offense. We're looking at 105 to 110 wins.
[4] If Beltre doesn't start wearing a cup, the Sux won't be the only things getting crushed when the Bombers come to town and start pelting the hot corner.
[8] I imagine so, but not necessarily on offense. Beltre is younger and, it seems, more durable. Though both Lowell and Beltre played in fewer than 120 games last year. And how old is Beltre really? That super freaky peak season at age 25 and possible major decline season at age 30 look a couple of years suspicious to me.
[9] One-year deal, I like it. Though Sox "O" is nothing to fear this year, and Cameron will be a boo-bird favorite with his 150+ Ks and low .OBP. (Beltre too now that he's arrived..)
[7][8] If you take the UZR rates at face value, Beltre was not much better than Lowell until last season. Over the past five seasons, Beltre's UZR/150 was 9.4, 15.6, -3.4, 15.7 and 21. Lowell's rates, meanwhile, were -1.2, 7.7, 8.0, 15.6 and -14.4.
Two things jump out:
(1) Even though he is a top 3B defender, Beltre's 2009 value was boosted by a UZR rate that was inflated. If the previous 4 seasons are any indicator, he isn't likely to perform as well in 2010. Even if he only regresses to his very good 2008 and 2006 levels, his value will be significantly diminished. Should he drop to his 2005 and 2007 rates, however, then his value will drop off the charts. In other words, Beltre MUST hit more in order to maintain his value. Can he do that? I am not so sure. As earlier noted, Beltre has pretty much been a league average hitter since leaving LA, so I see no reason for that to change now. While he may get a boost from Fenway (Beltre isn’t a dead pull hitter, so the boost may not be as much as expected), every Red Sox right handed batter (or lefty who can go the other way) enjoys that advantage, so that basically cancels itself out.
(2) Mike Lowell has been a very valuable member of the Red Sox. He definitely had a down defensive year, but that can be attributed to his recovery from hip surgery. Lowell, an older player, may never again recover, but the Red Sox did have 12 million reasons to give it a try. Quite frankly, Beltre’s most reasonable best case scenario is a healthy Mike Lowell, so the Red Sox essentially have $22mn locked up in one position, all while they are downgrading at other positions.
While Boston was wise to not invest multiple years in Beltre, it still remains to be seen how much they have improved, if at all. Beltre remains both a performance and an injury risk, making this signing somewhat speculative (and not at a bargain rate either). Maybe it will workout for Boston, but it is amazing how many pundits are treating this signing as if it was a major addition.
I don't buy this whole "new philosophy" of the Red Sox, by the way. Theo is going to buy the most VORP for his buck, whether it comes on offense or defense. The idea that they dumped Lowell because of some new philosophy is nonsensical. I do think it's possible that Theo and Bill James have determined that defense is undervalued in the current market. But my bet is that the whole story is mostly a smoke screen.
[4] Sensei Kreese, awesome. I can almost hear Joe now...
Fear does not exist in this dugout, does it? Pain does not exist in this dugout, does it? Defeat does not exist in this dugout, does it?
The Hoss thinks it is a good move though not a major one. Measured against what Lowell HAS given them, this is treading water, at best. Measured against what Lowell is likely to be going forward, it is an uptick. They are improved defensively with both additions (Youkilis is a very good 1st baseman). Texas and Seattle last year both showed how D upgrades do matter. Is it a scary acquisition. Nope. Is it a useful one, looks like it. They do have ti dump Lowell somewhere now, for sure. No place for him.
I was given a copy of the Hardball Times annual for 2009 and - big surprise - checked the Yankee numbers first. I am NOT a sabr geek at all, though I do wince when I hear a lot of 'my eyes tell me X' because it sounds way, way too much like Joe Morgan on a rant. So, here are a few argument starters I gleaned.
1. Jorge looks really really bad in his impact on era. To the point where, if I buy it, I might have to rethink my 'he's only worthwhile behind the plate' general view. Team era with him is 5.04 (which is lousy) and with the other 3 catchers it is about 3.43 (in same number of total innings, pretty much). This is a whopping difference.
2. Gardner does NOT pop up a lot! This surprised me, since we are all so sure he has an uppercut. His flyball % is 33% against league average of 38%, his groundball is 49% against 43% average. Even in line drives he is 18% against average of 19%. Swisher led the team in flyballs, Jeter by a lot in ground balls (57% - and THAT is why he hits so many DP balls, and - neat - he hit ONE infield pop last year!)
3. Tex was no great hell defensively in RANGE, bit below average. Jeter was still below average (in RANGE) and Pena was NOT so great (small sample, mind you). Gardner was our only plus range OF, except for Melky in right - Melky was negative in CF. This is just a range number, not an overall fielding stat.
1) Catcher ERA is mostly meaningless because it doesn't take into account a myriad of other variables. For a simple example, if Girardi was using Molina to catch games when he expected that the opposition would be less likely to score (either because the Yankee pitcher was strong or the lineup was weak), that would have a direct impact on the comparison.
2) I think the perception exists because at 33%, he is still hitting too many balls in the air for his kind of player. Also, there is a difference between pop-ups and flyouts. I'd bet a large percentage of the balls Gardner puts in the air are pop-ups (i.e., weakly struck, short-to-medium range fly balls).
3) Not sure what metric you are using, but stats like UZR are notoriously inaccurate for 1Bmen. As for Jeter, he was a very healthy +8.4 in UZR/150, so at least one metric gave him relatively high grades in 2009.
I have to admit that there feels to be a LONG gap between 'there are other variables' and 'mostly meaningless'. William, a run and a half is a ton! When you add the other three catchers' innings, they are close to Jorge's, and ... it is a run and a half. I think we start to look Luddite or head-in-sand if we just say 'means nothing'.
Brett had the 3rd highest ground ball percentage on the team, behind Jeter's astonishing 57% and just behind Melky's 50% (Gardner was 49%). Flyball (predictably) was also third lowest. I think it is fair to say our eyes are misleading us on this one, though if you want to say he's fooled too much and pops up a fair bit when he DOES miss, okay, but it just adds to how the eyes miss things, no? His K percentage is 14% against a league average of 18% but he only walked a league average of 10% (I suspect he's getting thrown to in the bigs). (Cano was 5%, Alex and Swish led the team at 16%.)
Not my metric, just relaying data. They have an out of zone stat, plays made outisde of predicted 50%+ chances played range. I saw the uzr too and my eyes (hah!) suggested he was doing better this year, seems to be working out off season and better positioning.
[18] For starters, it looks to me as if Jorge caught over 100 more innings than the others, so it's not quite that "close". That aside, the reason (I think) catcher’s ERA is irrelevant is because it doesn’t factor in variables that can easily be taken into account. In other words, it’s a lazy statistic. For example, Jorge Posada caught about 75% of Wang’s innings. If you remove those innings from his ledger, Posada’s ERA would drop to 4.80. If you remove Claggett’s disaster inning, it drops further to about 4.70. Those are just two obvious examples that illustrate why you can’t take the catcher’s ERA stat at face value. There are several other subtle variables that also have a major impact.
As for Gardner, I don't see why out eyes have to be misleading us. Gardner is the type of player who should put the ball on the ground a lot more than he does. The fact that he might be near league average isn't relevant because he should be well above (if he wants to take advantage of his speed).
Finally, two things to keep in mind with all of these zone stats are: (1) human beings are observing whether balls are in the zones; and perhaps most importantly (2) the physical location of these human beings differs from ballpark to ballpark.
Jeez, william, you have any terrier in your family?
1. 100 innings is 11 games over 162. ALL the mention was designed to do was make sure no one thought this was skewed wildly by innings caught. If he caught 5 fewer games and they caught 5 more would you think it mattered a lot? Bad starts and wild innings matter, of course. They matter for era, too, william. Over a year they tend to average out. If your point is that they didn't, and you can support that, I'd happily accept that he's only 1.2 runs worse, not 1.5, and still find it significant. We might also find a disaster inning for Molina too. Or Cervelli. As I said, I am not a stathead, but the scale of discrepancy should - surely - make us look, rather than say, 'means nothing'?
2. You weren't reading what I wrote. He's 3d best on the team, not league average, in most ground balls, fewest fly balls. Jeter was 8% better than him and that was a stunning % (57% ground balls!). Again you are arguing (snap! growl!) around the point being mildly made: that Gardner is not an uppercut fly ball hitter. Period. You now say: he should be MORE of a ground ball hitter. Maybe, but not the point: the eyes were still deceiving.
Agreed on zone stats as a work in progress, applies (for me) to all fielding stats so far.
[21] Did you not want a serious reply? If so, I apologize. If not, I hope you wont be offended by the following:
1) 11 games is significant. Also, the Wang example is not insignificant because it illustrates how catcher's ERA can be skewed by known variables. Because it is easy to do an indepth analysis, and the variables involved require that it be done to come to a meaningful conclusion, relying on the catcher's ERA is both lazy and meaningless. The curiousity you speak of should lead us to look well beyond catcher's ERA.
2) Maybe your eyes have been deceived, but my observation has always been that Gardner doesn't hit the ball on the ground enough for a player of his ilk. I am not trying to refute your observation, just stating how mine is different.
The whole point of using a large sample to draw inferences is that it ensures there is a very low chance that variables that cannot be isolated or controlled for are affecting the outcome. In other words, the effect of particularly bad pitchers evens out.
The difference is so large and over such a large sample that I would be very surprised if it is not statistically significant. But I would be happy to do the appropriate statistical test for you if you will give me the raw data (IP, ER).
We could even do the analysis with Wang's innings omitted to see if it is still significant.
The off-season of the Yanks and Red Sox has been pretty good.
Adrian Beltre career at Fenway .179/.299/.232 (3 2Bs) in 56 ABs
[2] Their philosophy of run prevention - solid defense and pitching - is still preserved with this signing. His hitting in Fenway will definitely improve, it seems like everyone the Sox get to play in that park turns into a HoFer.
Ha! We're going to crush them, Sensei Kreese style. They traded defense for offense when they needed more offense. The trouble wasn't preventing runs last year (108 ERA+). It was scoring them (105 OPS+), especially since the magic offense in their bandbox doesn't translate to the road.
Yanks got the better pitching and the better offense. We're looking at 105 to 110 wins.
[4] If Beltre doesn't start wearing a cup, the Sux won't be the only things getting crushed when the Bombers come to town and start pelting the hot corner.
[5] BOO-Yah!
Beltre's OPS+ by season (not including his first year as a part time player):
101, 114, 91, 97, 88, 163, 93, 105, 112, 108, 82
Hmm...♪ ♬ which of these things is not like the other♭♪...?
Seriously, the Sox really, really want to get rid of Lowell, but does Beltre represent that much of an upgrade?
[7] Huge upgrade in "D" though, isn't it?
[8] I imagine so, but not necessarily on offense. Beltre is younger and, it seems, more durable. Though both Lowell and Beltre played in fewer than 120 games last year. And how old is Beltre really? That super freaky peak season at age 25 and possible major decline season at age 30 look a couple of years suspicious to me.
[9] One-year deal, I like it. Though Sox "O" is nothing to fear this year, and Cameron will be a boo-bird favorite with his 150+ Ks and low .OBP. (Beltre too now that he's arrived..)
Not scared
[7] "which of these things is not like the other"?
well, the flatted 1/8th note is different than the 1/8th note that is followed by some weird box. what'd i win?! ; )
[12] You win...a cup of coffee: ☕
[7] [8] If you take the UZR rates at face value, Beltre was not much better than Lowell until last season. Over the past five seasons, Beltre's UZR/150 was 9.4, 15.6, -3.4, 15.7 and 21. Lowell's rates, meanwhile, were -1.2, 7.7, 8.0, 15.6 and -14.4.
Two things jump out:
(1) Even though he is a top 3B defender, Beltre's 2009 value was boosted by a UZR rate that was inflated. If the previous 4 seasons are any indicator, he isn't likely to perform as well in 2010. Even if he only regresses to his very good 2008 and 2006 levels, his value will be significantly diminished. Should he drop to his 2005 and 2007 rates, however, then his value will drop off the charts. In other words, Beltre MUST hit more in order to maintain his value. Can he do that? I am not so sure. As earlier noted, Beltre has pretty much been a league average hitter since leaving LA, so I see no reason for that to change now. While he may get a boost from Fenway (Beltre isn’t a dead pull hitter, so the boost may not be as much as expected), every Red Sox right handed batter (or lefty who can go the other way) enjoys that advantage, so that basically cancels itself out.
(2) Mike Lowell has been a very valuable member of the Red Sox. He definitely had a down defensive year, but that can be attributed to his recovery from hip surgery. Lowell, an older player, may never again recover, but the Red Sox did have 12 million reasons to give it a try. Quite frankly, Beltre’s most reasonable best case scenario is a healthy Mike Lowell, so the Red Sox essentially have $22mn locked up in one position, all while they are downgrading at other positions.
While Boston was wise to not invest multiple years in Beltre, it still remains to be seen how much they have improved, if at all. Beltre remains both a performance and an injury risk, making this signing somewhat speculative (and not at a bargain rate either). Maybe it will workout for Boston, but it is amazing how many pundits are treating this signing as if it was a major addition.
[13] And a PB&J sandwich.
I don't buy this whole "new philosophy" of the Red Sox, by the way. Theo is going to buy the most VORP for his buck, whether it comes on offense or defense. The idea that they dumped Lowell because of some new philosophy is nonsensical. I do think it's possible that Theo and Bill James have determined that defense is undervalued in the current market. But my bet is that the whole story is mostly a smoke screen.
[4] Sensei Kreese, awesome. I can almost hear Joe now...
The Hoss thinks it is a good move though not a major one. Measured against what Lowell HAS given them, this is treading water, at best. Measured against what Lowell is likely to be going forward, it is an uptick. They are improved defensively with both additions (Youkilis is a very good 1st baseman). Texas and Seattle last year both showed how D upgrades do matter. Is it a scary acquisition. Nope. Is it a useful one, looks like it. They do have ti dump Lowell somewhere now, for sure. No place for him.
I was given a copy of the Hardball Times annual for 2009 and - big surprise - checked the Yankee numbers first. I am NOT a sabr geek at all, though I do wince when I hear a lot of 'my eyes tell me X' because it sounds way, way too much like Joe Morgan on a rant. So, here are a few argument starters I gleaned.
1. Jorge looks really really bad in his impact on era. To the point where, if I buy it, I might have to rethink my 'he's only worthwhile behind the plate' general view. Team era with him is 5.04 (which is lousy) and with the other 3 catchers it is about 3.43 (in same number of total innings, pretty much). This is a whopping difference.
2. Gardner does NOT pop up a lot! This surprised me, since we are all so sure he has an uppercut. His flyball % is 33% against league average of 38%, his groundball is 49% against 43% average. Even in line drives he is 18% against average of 19%. Swisher led the team in flyballs, Jeter by a lot in ground balls (57% - and THAT is why he hits so many DP balls, and - neat - he hit ONE infield pop last year!)
3. Tex was no great hell defensively in RANGE, bit below average. Jeter was still below average (in RANGE) and Pena was NOT so great (small sample, mind you). Gardner was our only plus range OF, except for Melky in right - Melky was negative in CF. This is just a range number, not an overall fielding stat.
[16] Just a few responses to your gleanings:
1) Catcher ERA is mostly meaningless because it doesn't take into account a myriad of other variables. For a simple example, if Girardi was using Molina to catch games when he expected that the opposition would be less likely to score (either because the Yankee pitcher was strong or the lineup was weak), that would have a direct impact on the comparison.
2) I think the perception exists because at 33%, he is still hitting too many balls in the air for his kind of player. Also, there is a difference between pop-ups and flyouts. I'd bet a large percentage of the balls Gardner puts in the air are pop-ups (i.e., weakly struck, short-to-medium range fly balls).
3) Not sure what metric you are using, but stats like UZR are notoriously inaccurate for 1Bmen. As for Jeter, he was a very healthy +8.4 in UZR/150, so at least one metric gave him relatively high grades in 2009.
Hi william,
Thought you'd pop in here!
I have to admit that there feels to be a LONG gap between 'there are other variables' and 'mostly meaningless'. William, a run and a half is a ton! When you add the other three catchers' innings, they are close to Jorge's, and ... it is a run and a half. I think we start to look Luddite or head-in-sand if we just say 'means nothing'.
Brett had the 3rd highest ground ball percentage on the team, behind Jeter's astonishing 57% and just behind Melky's 50% (Gardner was 49%). Flyball (predictably) was also third lowest. I think it is fair to say our eyes are misleading us on this one, though if you want to say he's fooled too much and pops up a fair bit when he DOES miss, okay, but it just adds to how the eyes miss things, no? His K percentage is 14% against a league average of 18% but he only walked a league average of 10% (I suspect he's getting thrown to in the bigs). (Cano was 5%, Alex and Swish led the team at 16%.)
Not my metric, just relaying data. They have an out of zone stat, plays made outisde of predicted 50%+ chances played range. I saw the uzr too and my eyes (hah!) suggested he was doing better this year, seems to be working out off season and better positioning.
[18] For starters, it looks to me as if Jorge caught over 100 more innings than the others, so it's not quite that "close". That aside, the reason (I think) catcher’s ERA is irrelevant is because it doesn’t factor in variables that can easily be taken into account. In other words, it’s a lazy statistic. For example, Jorge Posada caught about 75% of Wang’s innings. If you remove those innings from his ledger, Posada’s ERA would drop to 4.80. If you remove Claggett’s disaster inning, it drops further to about 4.70. Those are just two obvious examples that illustrate why you can’t take the catcher’s ERA stat at face value. There are several other subtle variables that also have a major impact.
As for Gardner, I don't see why out eyes have to be misleading us. Gardner is the type of player who should put the ball on the ground a lot more than he does. The fact that he might be near league average isn't relevant because he should be well above (if he wants to take advantage of his speed).
Finally, two things to keep in mind with all of these zone stats are: (1) human beings are observing whether balls are in the zones; and perhaps most importantly (2) the physical location of these human beings differs from ballpark to ballpark.
[13] [15] damn monkeypants, i don't drink coffee! you'll have to send it RI Yank, he's closer in proximity anyway! ; )
Jeez, william, you have any terrier in your family?
1. 100 innings is 11 games over 162. ALL the mention was designed to do was make sure no one thought this was skewed wildly by innings caught. If he caught 5 fewer games and they caught 5 more would you think it mattered a lot? Bad starts and wild innings matter, of course. They matter for era, too, william. Over a year they tend to average out. If your point is that they didn't, and you can support that, I'd happily accept that he's only 1.2 runs worse, not 1.5, and still find it significant. We might also find a disaster inning for Molina too. Or Cervelli. As I said, I am not a stathead, but the scale of discrepancy should - surely - make us look, rather than say, 'means nothing'?
2. You weren't reading what I wrote. He's 3d best on the team, not league average, in most ground balls, fewest fly balls. Jeter was 8% better than him and that was a stunning % (57% ground balls!). Again you are arguing (snap! growl!) around the point being mildly made: that Gardner is not an uppercut fly ball hitter. Period. You now say: he should be MORE of a ground ball hitter. Maybe, but not the point: the eyes were still deceiving.
Agreed on zone stats as a work in progress, applies (for me) to all fielding stats so far.
[21] Did you not want a serious reply? If so, I apologize. If not, I hope you wont be offended by the following:
1) 11 games is significant. Also, the Wang example is not insignificant because it illustrates how catcher's ERA can be skewed by known variables. Because it is easy to do an indepth analysis, and the variables involved require that it be done to come to a meaningful conclusion, relying on the catcher's ERA is both lazy and meaningless. The curiousity you speak of should lead us to look well beyond catcher's ERA.
2) Maybe your eyes have been deceived, but my observation has always been that Gardner doesn't hit the ball on the ground enough for a player of his ilk. I am not trying to refute your observation, just stating how mine is different.
The whole point of using a large sample to draw inferences is that it ensures there is a very low chance that variables that cannot be isolated or controlled for are affecting the outcome. In other words, the effect of particularly bad pitchers evens out.
The difference is so large and over such a large sample that I would be very surprised if it is not statistically significant. But I would be happy to do the appropriate statistical test for you if you will give me the raw data (IP, ER).
We could even do the analysis with Wang's innings omitted to see if it is still significant.