Why Using 2009 Results to Predict 2010 Does Not Work, or Yes, Yuniesky Betancourt Can Only Get Better
Dave Cameron at Fangraphs has a nice article on the perils of using the prior year's result as the baseline for projecting the next year's results, including a few encouraging words on postive regression involving beloved Royal Yuniesky Betancourt:
Regression “fixes” a lot of problem spots from the prior year, even if the team doesn’t make a serious effort to change out players. The Royals got a .253 wOBA out of their shortstops a year ago. I don’t care how bad you think Yuniesky Betancourt is, you have to expect that number to be higher this year. They didn’t do anything to improve their shortstop position this winter, but the level of production they got from the position in 2009 is not their expected level of production for 2010.
. . . .
This applies across the board. Injuries, clutch hitting, variance in run distribution – all of these are subject to extreme amounts of regression, and they all had a significant impact on how some teams performed last year, both in terms of “raw” wins and losses and things like runs scored and runs allowed. You cannot just look at a team’s prior year won loss record – or even their pythagorean record – make some adjustments for the off-season transactions, and presume that’s a good enough estimator of true talent for the 2010 team.
This article arrives a year too late to temper expectations for the 2009 Royals based on the 2008 Royals, but the underlying premise still applies, as the 2010 Royals may perform better than the 2009 Royals even if they really are not much better overall.
Other Fangraphs goodness:
Our own devil_fingers envies the Orioles outfield and a quick yet effective analysis of comparing ERA with an advanced pitching metric (xFIP) further suggests that Luke Hochevar was one unlucky SOB in 2009 and is a good candidate to show improved results in 2010.
23 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Complementary players
I would think that it might be a good idea (especially for an organization with limited resources) to acquire a bunch of decent-but-not great pitchers who all have high groundball numbers and put together an infield of below average hitters (for their positions) who are each very good defensively. Perhaps that is more easily said than done, but it seems like the above players aren’t overly expensive.
The immoderate moderator
Blue Jays did a fairly good job of this in the late JP era
That part of his plan worked pretty well, but it was not enough to set off his other catastrophic moves.
It can also lead to fielder platoons, like when the Red Sox used Pokey Reese as Derek Lowe’s designated 2B.
Really, groundballers are almost always a good idea. Even with bad infield defense like a certain team we know and love, allowing a higher percentage of groundball singles is still better than the extra bases given up by the extra fly balls.
That part of his plan worked pretty well, but it was not enough to set off his other catastrophic moves.
It can also lead to fielder platoons, like when the Red Sox used Pokey Reese as Derek Lowe’s designated 2B
This really seems like a fruitful strategy for a low-resource team if the GM is truly free to do as he sees fit (rather than to placate an owner). While very much untraditional, I think it is cost effective and could reap high rewards. This of course requires that a GM be willing to turn his back on traditional orthodoxy and be willing to take some untraditional “risks”.
Really, groundballers are almost always a good idea. Even with bad infield defense like a certain team we know and love, allowing a higher percentage of groundball singles is still better than the extra bases given up by the extra fly balls.
This is certainly true. I was just thinking of ways that a team like the Royals could get the most out of a guy like Hochevar, whose value to his team is reduced by the poor defensive IF behind him. While thinking about potential pitching bargains for the Royals this offseason, I thought that if Moore had built a good defensive IF, adding guys like Wang and Garland might help the team to dramatically reduce runs allowed. Not that I think the Royals should be spending much money on pitching this offseason (and probably none on starting pitching), but I like the strategy in general.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
In theory I agree too
But if you have Scotty Pods and JoGui in CF and RF, those groundball singles will see their way to doubles and misplayed triples and homers!
Moore approves your plan, but must point out that
“who are each very good defensively” should be replaced with the phrase “who each have good lateral movement”.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Bad luck only goes so far
When you get shelled as bad as Hoch did. I think (pray) his numbers last year dont translate to how good he really is, but he is starting to be a bit worrysome
Well, it is a lot more than just bad luck
Maybe a better way to put it is things outside his control largely contributed to his poor results — and for many of those things, he is due some positive regression.
The defense behind him, especially the infield defense, was terrible and particularly hurt a pitcher like Hochevar who generates a good number of groundballs. The poor defense helps explain his high 326 BABIP — with an excellent line drive percentage of 17.6% (one of the better in the league), his expected BABIP should have been just under 300. We also know that BABIP tends to regress around 300. He also was unlucky with the rate at which he gave up home runs on fly balls. We know from studies that while pitchers can control the number of home runs they allow overall by inducing groundballs instead of flyballs and generating strikeouts, pitchers have little control over the rate at which flyballs turn into home runs. Like BABIP, home run per fly ball rates have been shown to regress to around 10-11%. Hochevar’s HR/FB rate last year was 13.8%, so again, that rate should regress toward 10-11%.
Hochevar also had an unsustainably low left on base percentage — average is around 70% and most pitchers regress to the 65-75% range. Hochevar’s rate last year was 59.3% — one of the worst in baseball. Some of it is definitely Hochevar’s fault in giving up well hit balls with runners on base, but a good part of it is the defense, the bad luck, and the quality of the reliever entering the game after him. A 5% improvement in LOB% rate would make a big difference.
This is not to say Hochevar is suddenly going to turn into a great pitcher — he probably will not, and even with some positive regression, he may only be a decent fourth starter type. He certainly has work to do, especially with runners on base — again some of it can be attributed to bad luck and defense, but he does seem to turn into a different pitcher in pressure situations. But the point is that Hochever performed much better last year than his ERA indicated and is a good bet to show better results this year even if his performance does not improve all that much.
by Gopherballs on Dec 28, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
positive regression
I know the evolving standard of usage is as you use it, but wouldn’t progress to the mean be more accurate. Again, not a criticism, just a thought.
"progress" would imply he's actually getting better
whereas “regression to the mean” implies his skill isn’t changing, only his luck
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 30, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions
helpgul history of the statistical usage w/ reference to baseball
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/but-i-regress/
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 3, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
And The English
Language.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 30, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
So We Can
Look forward to Yu-Bet maybe half way returning to the halcyon days of ’06 and ’07 where his OBP was .300+ (barely) and his defensive range was just below average rather than fall-down? I can hardly wait.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 28, 2009 10:20 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
No
But he might be right around replacement level, rather than 2 wins below
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 28, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
Huzzah!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 29, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hey Hey Hey
Alex Gordon healthy, Yuni better at SS, Hoch Better, 18-11 = 2010 KC Royals Playoffs !!! WooHoo !!!
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
See, I am not all "Negative War"
by Gopherballs on Dec 29, 2009 12:12 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
And we haven't even taking into account Dayton Moore regressing to replacement level
or “1 win below Ricciardi”
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 29, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
d-f, you owe me a keyboard
I had to rec that comment – easily one of your snarkiest, funniest (and sadly, accurate) jokes in quite a while, and that’s saying something.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by 



















