"The other thing is that teams are moving away from the base offensive statistics," says another...

"The other thing is that teams are moving away from the base offensive statistics," says another GM. "They are pouring through defensive studies and seeing that below-average defenders like Ramirez and Burrell in the field depreciate their offensive numbers because of what they give up."

Gammons: Poor economy has led to slow overall movement

7 months ago RoyalsRetro Comment 38 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"Now, we know Mark Teixeira is going to sign for hundreds of millions, even if he won't get $200 million."

So, at least $300 million?

Royals, NBA, Golden Hurricane, Hawkeyes, Chiefs, and KU basketball, in that order.

by Rowyal on Dec 3, 2008 4:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’ve seen a lot of speculation from the sports pundits that Teixeira and CC are going to sign huge 9-figure contracts, but just about every other player is going to get a more modest contract. Now “modest” can mean a lot of things, but in essence their point was there isn’t going to be huge money to go around for good FA’s like Dunn, Burrell, Furcal, Hudson, etc. I think a lot of these guys are going to end up taking shorter contracts that you’d usually expect so that they can get back into the FA pool when hopefully the economy is better and the spending goes crazy again.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A 2/20 For

Furcal would look good on us.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 3, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The rumors (for whatever they are worth) is that he wants five years (O. Hudson too). I think both will end up getting three. But SS are in somewhat short supply, so someone may be willing to go four on Furcal. The the four-year deal might be at a significant discount, so he might end up preferring the three-year deal with more money per annum.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Wouldn't Want

To go more than 3/30, and if you’re right about the SS situation in MLB, that won’t get it done.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 3, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i just wonder how much of this speculation is founded on reality

yea, the economy sucks, but usually the super-rich are pretty well insulated during tough times… most of the big stock & real estate losses, which may be affectig some of the super-rich, have already happened, but we didn’t see stories like this during last offseason

then we have families like the Glasses, who may actually benefit from tougher times

Christmas is cheaper at Wal-Mart donchaknow

by royalsreview on Dec 3, 2008 11:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I do think it affects the teams decisionmaking, if not the cozy lives of ownership

if anything, though, it provides a chance for implicit collusion — “we just can’t afford those salaries now.” Look what is happening with some of the arb decisions.

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With the credit crunch

some teams, like Arizona (which carries significant debt), are having some trouble. It is not unusual for teams (or other businesses) to use credit to pay for operating expenses like payroll. When credit tightens, the teams have to make adjustments, including cutting expenses.

One of the good things Selig has accomplished was to impose hard debt restrictions for all teams (Arizona was one of the reasons for doing so), so while some teams might have to cut salary in the short term, it appears that none of the teams are anywhere close to going under. In the wake of the stock market fall in October, the NFL moved to secure long-term credit for its teams.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't Arizona

Still paying the salary of guys like Matt Williams and Todd Stottlemyre?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those, plus

the D’Backs somehow got stuck paying the deferred money on Reggie’s contract with the California Angels.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A weak economy

might not directly hurt Glass’s pocket to the point that he’ll be living more frugally, but it will certainly take its toll on ticket sales. Unless owners are all of a sudden fine with their teams hemorrhaging money, fewer expected ticket sales means smaller revenue, which in turn means less to spend on free agents.

by kcdc1 on Dec 4, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How much value has his stock portfolio dropped?

Times is tough!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 9:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I read a story about retail sales,

and indeed, it did conclude that Wal-Mart is actually benefitting from this economy.

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 4, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

KC should sign Dunn to a 3/36

that is cheap and just use a RHP/LHP platoon lineup

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Dec 4, 2008 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

then if you can somehow get rid of Guillens contract midseason in a trade

you have essentially signed the same player at a younger age.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Dec 4, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

?

Guillen and Dunn are nothing alike except they are both statues in the outfield.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 4, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thats what i was talking about their defense

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Dec 4, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm thinking

that 3/36 may not be that bad for Dunn, but I’ll have to run the numbers again. Hopefully he and his agent dont’ think “WTF? Jose Freaking Guillen, a guy who’s just like me except with less power and none of the walks and 4 years older, got that last year.”

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN was sayign he would be signed for about 8 million a year.

With typical ESPN accuracy most likely, but basically teams hate his defense a lot.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Dec 4, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On a related note

I heard a rumor that FanGraphs might start publishing updated UZR. Maybe I won’t have to subsctibe to Bill James for Dewan’s next year… even though it’s good to have both.

I also read that MGL was thinking about running UZR with both STATS (which he always has in the past) and BIS (used by Dewan’s and PMR)… Don’t know if that’s what he’s going to put out there. Even if he just sticks with stats, having both UZr and PMR freely available will really open things up…

BP needs to get their shit together, or the free data and analysis out there is going to make their subscription service irrelevant.

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You need to start a new website: sabermetricrumors.com

It would be a MLBtraderumors.com for the ultra-statgeek set, with all of the sabermetrics rumors, buzz and gossip anyone could want.

But I would love to have UZR available freely. And while I’d love to have it available daily and updated throughout the season, it is going to cause problems. Some people are going to look at a player’s UZR in May and say, “Wow, this guy’s UZR is terrific/horrible!” and draw all kinds of meaningless conclusions from it. Of course I say meaningless because you can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from 2 months of any defensive metric. Statistically, that is about the equivalent of three weeks of hitting stats. I’d be more interested in a continually updated 3-year average UZR.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't what it's going to be

But it was from an offhand remark from someone who isn’t a “gossip-mongerer” at beyond the box score, who said that MGL mentioned it on the book blog. I do know that MGL and Tango really like Fangraphs.

I think it would be updated — that’s the point. People could easily average things out themselves. As you point out, the problems with small sample sizes of defensive stats are roughly analogous to those of small sample sizes of offensive stats — any information can be misused. Christina Kahrl is famous for this. I rather have the information than not have it.

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do know that MGL and Tango really like Fangraphs.

That’s good; I do too. It is slowly becoming as close as one can get to one stop shopping for good advanced metrics, batted ball data, etc.

I think it would be updated — that’s the point. People could easily average things out themselves. As you point out, the problems with small sample sizes of defensive stats are roughly analogous to those of small sample sizes of offensive stats — any information can be misused.

I just wish more fans who used these kinds of stats recognized the particular nature of the small sample size issue with fielding stats. Sure a small sample of any stat is problematic. But I have a feeling that most people who quote RZR, UZR or Dewan’s +/- think that a year of hitting stats is as meaningful and reliable as a year of those fielding metrics. It just isn’t. A full season of hitting metrics has many more data points than full season of fielding metrics. And yet few fans hesitate to point to a player’s 2008 UZR and draw meaningful conclusions from it in a vacuum. I think that has some meaning, but needs to be added to other seasons of data.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully they will have a good introductory essay like they usually do when they introduce this stuff

On another note,

It wouldn’t be that hard for them to add a fantasy-spin to the projections database. As much as I’ve always wanted to get off my ass and subscribe to BP, if Fangraphs added league-customized fantasy auction values, PECOTA would be the only thing left at the current BP that would make me want to pay for it… and as great as PECOTA is, I’m not sure it’s worth the money by itself for a hobbyist like me.

Sorry, not trying to rag on BP constantly — it’s still the best for a number of reasons, I’m just thinking out loud about whether i should spend the money. I’d love to hear more reasons “for.” I imagine the essays on the pay side are pretty good, but I"m not sure they are that much better than the free stuff at FanGraphs, tht, etc.

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Check Fangraphs home page

They started a series on evaluating defense, which I am guessing, will conclude with the introduction of UZR or some other defensive metric.

I read the same thing (Tango’s blog?) about MGL running both STATS and BIS data to try to better understand the differences between UZR and +/-.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

isn't one difference

that UZR (like PMR) just accounts for range, and not throwing (MGL does arms separately, I think), catching, turning DPs, etc., while +/- combines it all into one?

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought UZR counted for all plays whether the out should have been made (based on where the ball was hit), which at least theoretically takes into account both range and throw (where applicable). But I may be confusing it with Dewan’s +/-.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what you describe sound slike PMR

but I’m confused, too

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Back probably in September Morse and I were debating Aviles’s defense and talking about his stats. I assume the metric we had available to us was RZR. I initially argued under the assumption that this stat just took into account the balls in play that Aviles got to (or didn’t get to). Morse claimed that it takes into account whether a ball in his zone was turned into an out (which could therefore cover both range and arm…and the pickability of the 1B, but let’s put that aside). If he’s right about RZR, I think it would also be true of UZR.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember that, I'm pretty sure

Morse (I wish he’d get fired so he could hang out with us again) was using Dewan’s.

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

which (I think) uses BIS, the same data source as RZR/OOZ

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oops.. now I'm confused

From the excellent article on FanGraphs GB referenced:

There are, essentially, two kinds of two defensive statistics available right now. The first would best be described as estimators – these include things like Zone Rating (and it’s THT derivative, Revised Zone Rating) and BP’s FRAA/FRAR. These measures have been around for a while, and because they don’t require a huge amount of precise data to calculate, offer very rough ideas of a player’s defensive value. More recently, several advanced defensive metrics have been created based on more precise play-by-play data – these include Ultimate Zone Rating, Plus/Minus, and Probablistic Model of Range.

I could have sworn that RZR/OOZ was quite different from FRAR/FRAA… anyone?

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think they are different, but similarly unreliable

Neither is awful. But neither is a particularly good way of evaluating defensive performance. RZR and FRAA are both on a tier significantly below UZR, Plus/Minus and PMR.

Sky recently posted something like this, and I largely agree

Top tier – PMR, UZR, Plus/Minus
Middle tier – RZR, FRAA
Bottom tier – ZR, RF
Basement – Fielding Percentage

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UZR, Plus/Minus, and I think PMR

use the actual play-by-play data, not just figuring out expected outs based on the type of ball hit into an area (like RZR/OOZ), or what is basically DER by zone (ZR, RF).

I know BIS uses video scouts to make sure each play is properly recorded.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

The Fangraphs author makes an interesting statement in the comments field:

You might say that the timing of these posts and a forthcoming announcement are not coincidental.

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excitement is building

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 4, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, I wonder if this will cost BJ Online subscriptions

I know they ideally one wants both, but still…

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

by devil_fingers on Dec 4, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dewan gives a range only plus an "enhanced" number

the “enhanced” number appears to include outfield arm (which he rates separately as well). The “enhanced” number is the one I usually see cited. I would guess MGL would only compare plus/minus range with UZR.

The main suspected difference is the data source — STATS v. BIS — but they do use somewhat different methodology. If I remember this correctly, UZR still uses actual zones, while plus/minus drops the use of zones and just goes off distances (supposedly making it "smoother").

by Gopherballs on Dec 4, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs