A Mark Ellis note for devil_fingers

d_f, I asked a Mark Ellis question to Christina Kahrl at BP for you. Basically, she was underwhelmed by the signing. Here's the Q&A in case you missed it:

Scott the Stathead (NY, NY): I've been dying to read what you have to say about the Mark Ellis signing. Good deal for the A's? Is he worth the risk? What is his value given his hitting, defense, age and injury history?

Christina Kahrl: Lamentably, the A's were one of two teams I didn't get to in the article that's about to be published, but I expect to comment on their moves (Joe Dillon is free!) and the Blue Jays' after we wrap up here. But to be terse (by my standards), the word that sums up my feelings on keeping Ellis is 'resigned' (as opposed to 're-signed'). OK, we kept him, and in the long and unhappy history of second base in A's history, Ellis is sort of our generation's Dick Green, a nifty player, but not a great one. For that money, it's not a great deal, and given that it's spread out evenly, this isn't even a situation like Terrence Long's contract, where we can always hope Billy gets somebody else to pick up the heavy back end of the tab.

She wrote a longer piece about the Ellis signing shortly thereafter which expanded on this, but the bottom line was essentially the same. Not a bad deal, but not a particularly good deal either.

2 months ago NYRoyal Comment 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thanks, I saw that

I can’t find the longer piece without a subscription. I guess I just disagree with that, as does just about every non-BP analyst I’ve read (although, with all due respect, I’m beginning to think of Kahrl and Goldman as more “writers” like JoPo than analysts — not a criticism, just a description). I wish I could read her reasoningn for it. Everything I look at shows Ellis to be at least as valuble as Hudson or Furcal over the last three years. I mean… Terence Long?

C’mon.

WIthout having her reasoning for it (and perhaps even moreso, depending on the reasons), these sorts of articles justify certain disgruntled (and perhaps unfair, but undoubtedly hilarious) criticisms of Kahrl’s work such as this.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 7, 2008 9:51 AM EST 0 recs

How can you take a Mark Ellis analysis seriously if it ignores his defensive value?

She wrote a longer synopsis in her regular column and committed the same crime. BP does not have a viable defensive metric, so instead of citing someone not on the BP payroll, she omits defense entirely.

BP’s philosophy seems to be to ignore problems rather than fixing them.

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 12:20 PM EST up 0 recs

That's what I figured

Like Fifth Outfielder, I eagerly await for her discovery of “sample size.”

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 7, 2008 12:35 PM EST up 0 recs

Better

I eagerly await the BP analysis of Adam Dunn which rates him as below replacement level because “he simply can’t play defense… why would anyone sign a guy like that?”

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 7, 2008 12:47 PM EST up 0 recs

Nobody

has a viable defensive metric.

by kcdc1 on Nov 7, 2008 1:29 PM EST up 0 recs

That's simply not true

No one has developed one as precise as metrics for offense and pitching (which have 100+ years of data available), but Dewan, MGL, Pinto et al. certainly have developed viable metrics for evaluating defense. Plus/minus, UZR, and similar systems will continue to get refined as there is more play-by-play fielding data available (as there is less than 10 years data right now).

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 2:07 PM EST up 0 recs

Depends what you mean by "viable"

Better than nothing? Sure. Plus/Minus and UZR are both modifications of zone rating—all three of these systems rely on a premise that players will record a certain number of outs per ball in play, and that the number of outs they manage to record captures their defensive value. The problem is that not all balls in play are created equally. Plus/Minus improves the system slightly by taking into account the pitching staff’s tendencies to a degree, while UZR attempts to take into account that balls hit near a player are easier to catch than those hit farther away. They’re both steps forward, but there are many many more problems to solve. For example, if play a good 3B, but your SS is absolutely phenomenal, don’t you think you might let him grab a couple extra balls that either of you can get to? Conversely, if your CF is slow as hell, don’t you think the RF might not get called off a few extra fly balls? Plus/Minus and UZR will bump the 3B down and the RF up, but do either of these movements reflect on the defensive abilities of these players at all? This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with defensive metrics.

by kcdc1 on Nov 7, 2008 2:23 PM EST up 0 recs

Yeah, probably shouldn't use them at al

also:

gaps in fossil record = evolution is false

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 7, 2008 2:37 PM EST up 0 recs

Plus/Minus and UZR are nothing like what you describe

Here is a nice interview with Dewan that provides some of the basics of Plus/Minus. MGL did a seriers of articles for Baseball Think Factory awhile back that explains the basics of UZR. Neither system penalizes a fielder in the way that you hypothesize or for a play made by another fielder.

The metrics are not at the point where they can say that Jose Guillen’s fielding cost the Royals exactly 21.89 runs last year, but it is certainly valuable information to know that Guillen cost the Royals in the neighborhood of 20 runs (or if you want a range, 15-25 runs) when evaluating a player’s contribution to the team.

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 3:14 PM EST up 0 recs

Yes

They do penalize (or reward) a fielder for his teammate’s abilities. I’ve read this interview before. It says very little about how plus/minus works, and more to the point, it doesn’t say anything about how it could account for the abilities of a defender’s teammates.

by kcdc1 on Nov 7, 2008 3:28 PM EST up 0 recs

If a play is made,

there is no penalty for the other fielders.

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 3:53 PM EST up 0 recs

....

But if the CF catches a fly ball, the RF doesn’t get credit for catching that fly ball. The CF gets priority, so a good centerfielder will cause the RF and LF to catch less flies. That means any system that grades defensive ability based on number outs recorded will reward corner outfielders for being paired with a slow CF and punish corner outfielders for being paired with a fast CF.

by kcdc1 on Nov 7, 2008 4:19 PM EST up 0 recs

They grade on the number of outs versus the number of expected outs,

not simply number of outs recorded. Plus/minus and UZR use actual play-by-play data. If the CF catches a ball, it is not considered an expected out for the RF, so it has no effect on the RF’s evaulation. For the CF, it is recorded as one actual out and one expected out.

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 5:33 PM EST up 0 recs

That doesn't change anything

If you’re playing RF, and your 90/100 so far this year, and the CF makes a great read and calls you off a ball you’d catch every time, sure, you’re still 90/100. Sure, it’s better than being 90/101, but if you didn’t have damned 26 year old Torii Hunter playing next to you, you’d be 91/101 and looking better relative to your peers.

Defensive metrics are like RBI’s in this way—they’re very context dependent. The player(s) fielding next to you aren’t even the end of the context that affects how your contributions are measured. They’re still better than nothing, so feel free to use them because they’re the best we’ve got for now. But it’s very reasonable for people to distrust them.

by kcdc1 on Nov 7, 2008 5:56 PM EST up 0 recs

So you should disregard the offensive numbers of guy who got pinched hit for

because if he had that one more at bat, he would have got one more hit?

Also, how many 26 year old Torri Hunters are in the league right now?

Even skipping past the problem with your premise, the difference in the tortured hypothetical is miniscule. The ratio of the hypothetical RF who loses the out because he is the one guy stuck playing next to 26 year old Torii Hunter is 0.90000 (90/100). The ratio of the hypothetical RF who plays next to 99% of CF who are not 26 yar old Torii Hunter and makes the catch is 0.90099. That is a whopping difference of 0.00099.

by Gopherballs on Nov 7, 2008 6:51 PM EST up 0 recs

atta boy...nailed it

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Nov 7, 2008 2:08 PM EST up 0 recs

Pinto (the PMR guy) addressed "Ball Hogging" in the OF on his blog entry

today. His conclusion?

So, it’s tough for an outfielder to get a huge boost by ball hogging. They don’t stray that far into another’s territory, and when they do there are fewer outs to be gathered in anyway.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Nov 8, 2008 2:22 PM EST up 0 recs

A interesting point about the graph shows

why DDJ would very easily be a plus defender in left while not being as valuable in right field.
His being in left field would also decrease the defensive value of a centerfielder, (play stright up or shade slightly to the right) but at the same time decrease the liablity of someone like Guillen in right field who could shade toward the line.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Nov 8, 2008 3:36 PM EST up 0 recs