Jeff Francoeur is better than you think
by kcdc1 on Aug 2, 2011 11:02 AM EDT
Email
PrintI must admit I've grown a little annoyed with the Francoeur bashing that's spread like wildfire as we approached and passed the trade deadline. People are acting like he's a worthless player that got hot in April and whose true talent is a no-walk hacker that sells out for RBI without helping the team.
I get it. People formed their opinions on Francoeur when 'The Natural' crapped out with the Braves, and they lined up around the block to crack jokes when the young Jedi was finally reunited with his Darth Vader, Dayton Moore. But as amusing as that narrative has been for many, it ignores a critical fact:
Jeff Francoeur is actually good.
Now, I know what you're thinking--"Oh My God! Small sample size! Why don't you look at more than his fluky 2011 campaign, you moran!" And to this, I'd counter, "Why don't you take 2011 into consideration at all?"
In 2011, Francoeur is hitting .271/.326/.464. His .345 wOBA and 2.3 WAR both rank 13th among AL outfielders. This isn't a matter of a fluky April; we're 108 games in, and Francoeur still ranks as one of the more valuable outfielders in the game.
Granted, he hasn't been anywhere near this good since his seemingly promising career fell off a cliff in 2008 when he was just 24 years old. But just as it doesn't make sense to buy in 100% that this is a newly established performance level for Frenchy, it's equally irrational to insist that he's the washed up scrub he seemed to be when Moore picked him up off the scrap heap.
So how do we properly weigh Frenchy's poor 2008-2010 against his good 2011 to get a sense of what 2012 might look like? ZiPS thinks it has a good weighting system, and it conveniently publishes its updated projections on a daily basis. ZiPS thinks Francoeur will be a .330 wOBA hitter the rest of the way, and at Francoeur's age, we can take that as a proxy for its 2012 estimate as well.
Let me repeat that--an empirical projection system that ignores leadership and smiles and naked batting practice thinks Francoeur is a true talent .330 wOBA hitter. The league average wOBA is .316.
For purposes of comparison, a lot of people think Drew Stubbs is a good young player with a bright future--the kind of player that's a valuable piece on a championship team. He put up 4.0 WAR last year and is on a similar pace this year. Drew Stubbs is less than 9 months younger than Francoeur, and his ZiPS rest-of-season projection includes a .327 wOBA, a few ticks lower than Francoeur's .330 wOBA projection. Yes, Stubbs has a little more defensive value, but for all the vitriol this board spews at Francoeur, you'd think the comparison wouldn't be anywhere close.
I don't want this post to be mistaken as an argument defending Moore's lack of activity at the deadline. If anything, these numbers make a case that teams had reason to make good offers for the outfielder's services, and if they did, Moore should have taken those offers. This team has enough outfielders and should spend some surplus talent to fill holes on the pitching side.
But I do want this post to serve as a reality check. Jeff Francoeur is a pretty good player. He is a 27 year old that plays good right field defense, runs the bases well, and projects as an above average offensive performer. The numbers don't support a case for bashing him.
188 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
His 2.3 WAR
Also rank 3rd in the Royals outfield behind Gordo and Melkman, and I would like to see Lorenzo Cain starting in CF in 2012. So I’d still rather see Frenchy (or Melky) as a platoon player for a contending team for the rest of 2011.
Royals Review - A Jeff Francoeur Blog
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
I wish he weren't the topic that he is
I just think of him as a pretty good player that’s not nearly as interesting as guys like Hosmer, Duffy, Crow or Gordon. But my opinion of him is apparently far outside the norm around here, so I chose to state my case.
I don't necessarily disagree with you
He’s been a useful player this year and he has a higher WAR than one would expect, an above average wOBA, etc. The problem I have is that, how much use is that to this team? How likely is he to continue to be that good and be in a position to be useful to the hopefully competitive teams of 2013 and beyond?
Every time I look at Francoeur, and Melky as well, I see players who, yes, are having good years (wow there’s a lot of commas here). I don’t however believe it’s their true talent level, and I don’t think a team like the Royals should be buying into a single strong year when the track record is so bad. It’s really risky to buy into a good year and reward a player based on that when they have a huge major league track record behind them.
I also believe that Cain could at least equal Francoeur’s value. So there’s that angle as well with the whole prospect development side.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
by Lum on Aug 1, 2011 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You really should have gone with the title you really wanted
Jeff Francoeur is better than Scott thinks
by Tito42 on Aug 1, 2011 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 8 recs
You might be right
But there have been a LOT of comments dismissing Francoeur as an awful player that will inevitably suck when he’s extended. I just wanted people to rethink the ‘sucking’ part of the assumption.
Yes, there have been a lot, not just Scott or any other one person.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Aug 2, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is not, and has never been, Jeff Francoeur
I appreciate the sentiment in the post. I’ll agree that Jeff Francoeur does not suck. But there are plenty of reasons to dislike him aside from overall suckitude.
1. He cannot be benched, ever. This means that he starts against RHP with tough breaking stuff, even though he’s weak against them. It means that you can’t PH for him in the late innings when the opposition brings out a righty specialist that Frenchy has no hope of hitting. It means that he slumps during the long summer months with no respite.
2. He hits in the middle of the order way, way too much. I don’t want to get too much into lineups here because the conventional wisdom is that they don’t matter. But unless the pitcher is a lefty, there is no reason to have Frenchy hitting cleanup. Sixth or seventh would be more appropriate IMHO.
3. Lorenzo Cain. And Melky would be better in a corner spot anyway.
by moregritplease on Aug 1, 2011 8:31 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
I agree with everything posted here
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
by Lum on Aug 1, 2011 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
It sounds like your problems with him are that managers use him poorly
My post was pretty isolated to a discussion of his talent, but maybe he has attitude issues. I haven’t tried coaching him.
I'm not sure whose fault it is
I’d wager it’s both Francoeur and Neddie, honestly. Frenchy has said that he doesn’t handle being on the bench very well. Kendall-esque durability matters to him, enough that it was more or less an item in his contract. Ned has said he hates platoons in general.
Or it’s Dayton’s fault for letting Ned Yost be the manager when he obviously has no idea how to use basic common sense.
by moregritplease on Aug 1, 2011 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions
100% agree
I could honestly get to like the guy if he was just another player, playing whenever he deserves to play. Instead, he’s the FO’s next big thing, and they go out of their way to act like he’s some mixture of Frank Sinatra and King Leonidas.
by moregritplease on Aug 1, 2011 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, that's fine
Just seems that people occasionally conflate the two
Not really
Francoeur is useful as a platoon/bench bat who a team can spot against LHP (which was how the Rangers used him last year). He struggles against RHP, however, and RHP pitch about 70-75% of the time.
Against RHP, he is hitting about the same this year as his career (256/305/413 in 2011 versus 257/297/404 career).
The big difference this year is that he is hitting like Pujols against LHP (316/386/622 in 2011 versus 300/348/494 career), with the main driver being a .303 ISO. Hitting like Pujols, even for only 114 plate appearances, can really prop up an overall line.
His defense is propped up by his legitimately great arm, but he has shown below average range for years, and the arm component is highly variable given that it relies extensively on particular situations (runners in a position to advance) and teams consistently making poor decisions in those situations (running on him).
And the same point with run environment affecting WAR as mentioned in regards to Melky applies to Francoeur. Part of his increased value this year is simply a lower run scoring environment due in part to better run prevention (good pitching and good defense) but also due in part to some teams simply waving the white flag on offense. If Seattle and the other teams punting offense do not go to the same extreme next year, part of his value disappears.
by Gopherballs on Aug 1, 2011 8:44 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
Platoon splits aside, if you play him every day, his numbers come out above average
Or if you play him to his strengths benching him in bad match-ups, he’s even more valuable. I wonder how his line against RHP compares to other right handed outfielders. He’s not the only player with platoon splits.
No, but his split is particularly severe
And as I mentioned earlier, we’re not allowed to sub for him, ever. So it’s particularly noticeable. Also, it means you can pitch to him in pressure situations with ease.
by moregritplease on Aug 1, 2011 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Unless Jeff and Dayton agreed to it upon his signing
which is a very real possibility, and makes it a DM and Frenchy problem
by moregritplease on Aug 1, 2011 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn't personal about Francoeur
My problem with him isn’t him personally. My problem is the reality of Francoeur on this team. And that reality is an everyday player, not a platoon player. Sure Yost (and Moore) get the blame for that. Francoeur was promised an everyday starting job and Yost and Moore are going to honor that.
And, going forward, I don’t see him as a good player in that role that he’s cemented into for the reasons Gopherballs laid out above.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
if seattle and those teams...
go back to trying to score some runs rather than just preventing as many as possible, doesnt that help all hitters, including frenchy?…more fly balls turning into doubles and whatnot?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 1, 2011 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
less directly
if you took Seattle’s offense out of the equation this year, the AL runs per game goes by something crazy like a 10th of a run.
While we're plucking Seattle off the bottom
Can we also lop Boston off the top? They’re just as far from the mean as Seattle is.
Or we could just take the league scoring environment for what it is…..
Missing the point
Or we could just take the league scoring environment for what it is…..
You are making the same mistake with the run environment as you are with Francoeur, Melky, and probably every other Royal that has performed better than their career norms for a few months — you are assuming that what is happening this season is going to stay the same next season.
Seattle was an example of how much it was impacting the scoring environment by running out a historically awful lineup. While the Red Sox should be expected to employ another great offensive team next year, it would be shocking if Seattle’s offense was this bad next year. They should be able to make some easy upgrades by just getting rid of the replacement and below replacement level players they have used at DH, 3B, LF, and CF (after already upgrading 2B when they finally called up Ackley). The current performance is so bad that the upgrades as a whole do not have to be league average hitters to see a significant jump in runs scored. The teams have tried punting offense have not done so well, so it is reasonable to expect less teams to so next year (or at least not to the same degree).
by Gopherballs on Aug 2, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Figured you'd make this argument
So the bad hitters in 2011 will be weeded out of the Majors by 2012, but the bad pitchers are going to stick around. Of course offense will be back next year.
Or maybe the scoring trend of the last few years is real.
Again missing the point
Run scoring does not have to return the high point in early 2000s to have an impact — even a move back toward the 2010 average will have an effect. It does not require every bad hitter to be replaced by a good hitter — just some, and in the case of Seattle, swapping out the multiple below replacement level performers with easy to find modestly above replacement level (but still below average) is a reasonable expectation.
And even during the higher scoring period in early to mid-2000s, the average runs scored did not just keep going up and up. Rather, more times than not an outlier year was followed by a move toward the recent historical average.
by Gopherballs on Aug 2, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
According to Fangraphs, the Mariners currently have 1 qualifying offensive player below replacement level
His name is Ichiro Suzuki. Do you think he’ll be weeded out of the MLB offensive pool by 2012?
I count, at quick glance:
Jack Wilson -8.4 -0.4 2.5 4.8 0.7 -0.7 -0.1 ($0.4)
Greg Halman -1.6 -0.7 -0.9 2.9 -0.7 -1.0 -0.1 ($0.5)
Kyle Seager -2.3 0.4 -0.5 0.8 0.1 -1.5 -0.2 ($0.7)
Carlos Peguero -5.3 0.3 0.3 5.2 -1.9 -1.5 -0.2 ($0.7)
Luis Rodriguez -4.2 0.0 -1.2 2.9 0.6 -1.9 -0.2 ($0.9)
Mike Wilson -3.2 -1.1 0.2 0.9 -0.4 -3.5 -0.4 ($1.7)
Michael Saunders -11.7 0.2 1.6 5.1 0.2 -4.6 -0.5 ($2.2)
Milton Bradley -0.1 1.1 -8.2 3.8 -1.2 -4.6 -0.5 ($2.2)
Ichiro Suzuki -9.4 2.5 -9.1 16.0 -5.1 -5.2 -0.6 ($2.5)
Ryan Langerhans -0.6 -0.8 -6.6 2.1 -0.2 -6.0 -0.6 ($2.9)
Chone Figgins -22.2 -1.4 0.3 10.4 1.1 -11.6 -1.2 ($5.6)
plus any player who has positive WAR solely b/c of defense, such as
Franklin Gutierrez -15.4 1.1 12.0 7.3 0.9 5.8 0.6 $2.8
Not all of them qualify, but that’s a lot of bad hitting.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Aug 2, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seattle by position
C -13.1 batting runs, 0.8 WAR
1B -3.7 runs, 1.3 WAR
2B -2.2 runs, 3.8 WAR
SS -8.3 runs, 2.1 WAR
3B -28.7 runs, -1.6 WAR
LF -19.5 runs, -1.8 WAR
CF -27.7 runs, -0.5 WAR
RF -12.6 runs, -0.9 WAR
DH 2.3 runs, 0.4 WAR
Is not reasonable to expect Seattle to find swap out a few of the below replacement level hitters with merely mediocre ones?
You'd think so, but that's what everyone thought last year, and...
2010 Mariners – 79 OPS+
2011 Mariners – 79 OPS+
Never underestimate Seattle’s ability to put together a historically crappy offense.
Are those numbers including defensive value?
Because swapping out defensive talent to add offensive talent doesn’t improve the total talent in the league, and it therefore doesn’t change Francoeur’s relative value compared to the league.
"batting runs" obviously does not include defense
WAR obviously includes defense.
Because swapping out defensive talent to add offensive talent doesn’t improve the total talent in the league, and it therefore doesn’t change Francoeur’s relative value compared to the league.
No, as mentioned elsewhere, the idea is not that teams are going to swap out Sam Fuld for Brad Hawpe, just that they are likely to be less inclined to rely on players whose value excessively comes from defense. Defense is more volatile than offense from year to year.
For example, here’s the defensive numbers for the Seattle hitters near or below replacement level with the bat:
C -1.7
3B -1.4
LF -13.5
CF +7.1
RF -9.0
Other than CF, the rest are playing below average to well below average defense in this year’s sample. If Seattle replaces its replacement and below replacement players with above replacement hitters who are merely average at their position, Seattle’s defense would be expected to improve too.
In that case, Frenchy’s value relative to the league goes down.
Let’s step away from the specifics of the Mariners and Frenchy because I don’t think the names are making anything clearer.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the MLB currently has more below replacement level players than it will next year, and that by reducing the number of below replacement level players, the total talent of MLB position players will increase by next year. Am I mistaking your argument?
Then sum it up in a couple sentences
In my opinion, every player should be measured against his league. What standard should a player in 2011 be measured against?
Well, not really.
If Seattle replaces its replacement and below replacement players with above replacement hitters who are merely average at their position, Seattle’s defense would be expected to improve too.
In that case, Frenchy’s value relative to the league goes down.
That would mean that Frenchy’s value compared to the dreck the Mariners currently have would go down. The league average is somewhat more complicated than a handful of moves the Mariners can possibly make.
Nick Swisher is handsome.
If Seattle's (or any team's) runs scored goes up, the league average goes up
Frenchy’s performance stays the same, but his value to relative to the league goes down because his batting runs above league average goes down.
How much the runs scored goes up (due to Seattle or any team) obviously determines how much the league average would go up and how much Frenchy’s value would go down relative to that.
The point (in response to the previous comment’s mistaken assumption) was that his value goes down, not by how much.
You're right
according to the good old law of supply and demand, which says that if the supply of pretty decent outfielders goes up, then their market price should go down because buyers have more of them to choose from.
But do we have any reason to believe that the supply of pretty decent outfielders is going to go up?
That said, buyers are not always rational actors. They may overvalue or undervalue a commodity (i.e. an outfielder) for irrational reasons, in comparison with a rational actor with his spreadsheets and data and his attempt to be unbiased in his judgments.
Dayton may, irrationally, overestimate Frenchy’s market price and demand more in exchange for him than other rationally acting teams will accept. Thus, no deal.
"When asked who was responsible for his going down in flames
He pointed to the offices and said 'You all know their names'
So hurry home early, hurry, let's go
Boom Boom Mazzaro's facing Robby Canó" --Not Warren Zevon
Why are you fighting this so hard?
It doesn’t sound like you are just playing devil’s advocate here, or merely making sure another viewpoint is heard. Gopherballs is providing valuable information on how Francoeur should be evaluated, and particularly the weight that should be given to his 2011 stats. And it seems like you are fighting hard against that because you really, really want to believe that he’s good.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it really "fighting this so hard" to not just accept a prediction that the trend will reverse?
Would you say kcdc1 is fighting this less hard, as hard or more hard than you fight in a typical comment thread?
Each side is making good points. I’m learning. I hope this thread continues.
But I thought he said yesterday (or the day before) that he just “plays devil’s advocate” to make sure both sides of the story get told. That isn’t what I do. I have opinions and I argue them vociferously because I fully believe them. I don’t just play devil’s advocate for an argument that isn’t being argued enough for the sake of….what?…balance? But that’s what kcdc1 says he does.
But this dogged exchange where he’s fighting to the last Frenchman (no pun intended) for the notion that Francoeur is genuinely a good player, doesn’t sound like “just playing devil’s advocate.” It sounds like he’s working really hard to make himself and others believe that Francoeur really is a good player. And don’t you find it interesting that this post comes out two days after the deadline in which Francoeur was not traded? Now Francoeur will be a Royal for the remainder of the year and likely at least for 2012. And he’s blocking Cain. So for the fan who really wants to think that things are good for the Royals, this is the time when you have to make the argument that Francoeur is genuinely a good player. Otherwise, Moore is in the process of making a huge mistake which will hurt the Royals. And so this post (and others) are made. And not to play devil’s advocate.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you talking about the general discussion here
Or the idea that Frenchy’s offensive performance is going to be rendered less valuable going forward by a return to higher offensive numbers next year?
I don’t see any devil’s advocate role in the debate with gopher. I think he’s been pretty clear that he honestly disagrees with gopher’s prediction for next year and what that means for Frenchy’s stats.
This is what I don’t get. When I suggested that he was a Moore apologist becauase he works hard on a daily basis to defend Moore and the players he has acquired, he said that he does this because he’s playing the devil’s advocate because the majority on this site gang up against Moore and he needed to provide balance. So which is it? Is he playing devil’s advocate or does he really believe that pretty much everything Moore does is defensible and all of his favorite players really are much better than most think they are?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions
That's why I asked whether you're talking about the fanpost in general or the debate with gopher
I think it’s a legitimate question on the fanpost. But on the specific debate with gopher, there seems to be a real disagreement that Dayton has no stake in.
The issue of how you set a baseline for evaluation is, in my mind, only tangentially connected to the issue of how good Francoeur is
In my opinion, you compare any player’s numbers against the environment that he produced those numbers in. That’s the seemingly standard practice that produced OPS+, ERA+, wRC+, etc.
Gopher was making a case for a different standard for evaluation where you compare a player’s numbers against what he thinks the environment would be like if teams like the Mariners filled their rosters differently. (I think. Gopher, feel free to clarify.)
I strongly disagree with that notion. There are always teams that make bad decisions and players that underperform, but they’re part of baseball just as much as the good teams and good performers. Outliers on both ends have always been counted. Why would this year be held to a different standard?
As for Francoeur, I’ve said my piece. I don’t think he’s awesome. I just don’t think he sucks. After the deadline, there seemed to be a great out-pouring of people insisting that Frenchy is god-awful, so I made an argument questioning the knee-jerk evaluation we were seeing. And I think I succeeded in that purpose. The tone here has gone from, “FRENCHY IS AWFUL” to “He’s not a problem on his own, but I don’t want him back.” And that seems a lot more rational.
Mission accomplished.
After the deadline, there seemed to be a great out-pouring of people insisting that Frenchy is god-awful
Is this true? Certainly there was a lot of negativity about Frenchy because people didn’t want him around for various reasons. But have people really been saying that he’s an awful player? I mean, it seems to me like many people here don’t like him and want him gone (mostly because he’s blocking Cain at this point), but I don’t see them saying that he genuinely sucks as a baseball player.
so I made an argument questioning the knee-jerk evaluation we were seeing. And I think I succeeded in that purpose.
If the gist of your argument was that Francoeur isn’t awful, then you’d be right on and I would have been in complete agreement. It was your conclusion that he is “actually good” that made my eyebrows rise. I don’t think the data supports that.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
And as for the devil's advocate issue
I didn’t mean to make it sound like I argue for positions I don’t support. I just find myself taking moderate positions on a lot of issue. For example, one of my positions is: “Francoeur doesn’t suck.” But the attitude of this community is often far more negative than my opinion, so I wind up writing up arguments like this one where I insist that Francoeur is less than awful. I don’t think that makes me a Moore apologist, but I guess I don’t pick my own label.
so I wind up writing up arguments like this one where I insist that Francoeur is less than awful.
But didn’t you go considerably further than that? Certainly he’s less than awful. Mitch Maier and arguably even Jarrod Dyson are “less than awful.” Maier is a decent 4th OFer and Dyson is an excellent pitch runner and defensive replacement. But neither is good. And you argued that Francoeur is genuinely a good major league player.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I think that he projects as a roughly average MLB player
He’s no great shakes.
My initial guess this season after the first week or 2 was that Francoeur would wind up with 2 WAR. He stayed hot longer than I thought, so I bumped it up to 3 WAR.
Next season, I’d guess 2 WAR. And while that’s supposedly average, if you look through Fangraphs, almost everyone who’s worth a damn is on pace for at least 2 WAR. So 2 WAR seems a little below average to me.
So this was apparently about more than going against the
So apparently this post was about considerably more than merely arguing against the radicals who say that Francoeur is awful. Because you aren’t merely saying that he’s not awful (something easy to argue). The original post said that he’s “actually good.” And now you’re suggesting that he’s average. I think that is a more optimistic evaluation than his talent and performance warrants.
Next season, I’d guess 2 WAR. And while that’s supposedly average, if you look through Fangraphs, almost everyone who’s worth a damn is on pace for at least 2 WAR. So 2 WAR seems a little below average to me.
2 WAR is quite average. The average includes everyone, both the great, the awful and everyone in between. When you limit your population to “everyone who’s worth a damn”, then merely average isn’t going to look so good in that population.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Here's what I said
“But as amusing as that narrative has been for many, it ignores a critical fact: Jeff Francoeur is actually good.”
“Jeff Francoeur is a pretty good player. He is a 27 year old that plays good right field defense, runs the bases well, and projects as an above average offensive performer. The numbers don’t support a case for bashing him.”
My original version of the first quote said, “Jeff Francoeur is actually pretty good,” but I deleted the ‘pretty’ for impact.
Anyway,I think Francoeur is pretty good in the sense that he’s roughly MLB average, which makes him a reasonable asset. As far as true talent goes, I think Francoeur is the 6th best position player on the Royals after Melky, Gordon, Hosmer, Butler and Escobar.
Scott, out of curiosity, what do you think of Gopher's argument
Looking forward, should we expect the typical hitter (or, in this case, a specific hitter) to do worse relative to their league than they did this year and presumably expect the typical pitcher to do better relative to their league than they did year?
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you assume that player’s talent won’t change, then the only way their talent relative to the league changes is if the league talent changes.
And I suppose if the league is unusually flush with below-replacement talent right now, then maybe pruning the dead leaves would improve the league talent level slightly. But new dead leaves (ageing and underperforming players) will typically offset at least some of those gains.
There is a reasonable case that teams’ values will shift somewhat back toward offense over defense, and that this could raise offensive levels while decreasing defensive levels. But such a change in philosophy wouldn’t change league talent on its own—the talent would just be distributed differently. If a given player stayed the same both offensively and defensively, his offensive value would drop relative to the league, but his defense value would improve an approximately equal amount relative to the league.
What do you think?
It doesn't make sense to me on a few levels
1) the decreasing offense is a well-established trend in both leagues (five straight years in the NL; 4 out of 5 years in the AL with lower run scoring than the year before) and the magnitude of the decline this year is not out of line with previous declines. I’m not sure what makes this the outlier that he says history shows will be followed by reversion to the mean.
2) I can’t tell how much he’s attributing this just to Seattle (in which case I could see league averages moving while other players stay static) and how much he’s attributing it to something more widespread. It seems to vary depending on whether you’re talking about Boston being just as extreme an outlier.
3) If Seattle (and whoever the other teams are that are meant to be punting on offense) do change philosophies this offseason and pursue players with better offensive abilities, that changes the price of players in the marketplace that will incentivize other teams to pick up light-hitting quality defenders at newly lower prices. This dynamic effect makes it hard for me to believe that a few teams changing philosophies can really impact the overall run scoring environment in as little as a year.
4) To whatever extent it’s true that an increase in run scoring next year would hurt Francoeur’s value, it would seem that a continuation in the trend toward less offense would increase his value. Since you’re not claiming a credit for Frenchy for that, it seems you don’t need to take a corresponding debit for the possibility of the run environment reverting back to 2010 levels.
Why Seattle not Boston
Seattle is a historical outlier while Boston is not, and removing Seattle from the 2011 numbers was to show the effect of that anomaly (about one tenth of run).
Seattle is only an example of how a historical outlier can affect the league average. Seattle is a historical outlier because besides the 2010-11 Mariners, you have to go back to 1981 to find an AL team that has scored less than 3.40 runs per game (1981 Jays at 3.10). In that time, only three more teams have finished below 3.5 (1988 Bal 3.42, 1983 Sea 3.44, 1981 Min 3.44). In fact, since 1981, it was rare for any team to finish below 4.0 runs per game.
Boston is only at 5.51 runs per game this year. Last year NY was at 5.3. Only two years ago, NY was at 5.65, Ana was at 5.45, and Bos was at 5.38. Boston is not a historical anomaly.
The point here is that run environment can change year to year, and more times than not, it changes back toward recent historical averages. And even in the pre-“steroid” era of the 1980s and early 1990s, AL scoring was usually above this year’s average of 4.34. The historical perspective suggests that it is more likely (but certainly not guaranteed) to regress toward the recent historical average.
Then looking at this year, 2011 (and 2010 for that matter) is being dragged down in part by a historical anomaly, and the effect of that is significant — around one tenth of run. I think betting on the historical anomaly continuing at the same rate in 2012 is a bad bet considering the number of how many below replacement performances they have had this year. Seattle’s improvement would only have to split the difference between its current performance and the league average offense to move the league average up a fifth of a run. If other teams that clearly sacrificed offense at multiple traditionally offensive positions (Oakland, Chicago, etc.) do not do the same thing next year for at least one of those positions, it is reasonable to expect their run scoring to go up too.
Finally, the run environment discussion here really only relates to WAR (and the WAR someone posted in one year is not necessarily predictive of WAR in subsequent years). Frenchy should get credit for performing well in a low run scoring environment to the extent it is due to tougher pitchers than normal. But the run scoring environment is also affected by teams running out bad offenses (including a historically bad one). Every time Seattle scores 1 run on 4 hits, it drags the run environment down, but helps Frenchy’s WAR. Frenchy should not get credit for that.
by Gopherballs on Aug 3, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
More likely to regress to the recent historical average?
I just pulled AL runs/game for every year going back to the DH.
For every year from 1983 to now, I compared each year’s runs/game to the average of the ten-year period ending in that year. If it greater than the average, I predicted a decline the following year. If it was less than the average, I predicted an increase the following year.
The prediction was right exactly 50% of the time.
What’s the basis for the idea that reverting to the recent historical average is more likely than not?
I used AL average offensive runs per game since 1981 (30 years ago)
I compared each year’s runs per game to the immediate 5-year average. More times than not, the next year’s runs per game moved in the direction of the 5-year average (e.g., if the 5-year avearge was higher than the current year’s average, the next year’s average was higher than the current year’s average). I did this two days ago, so I do not recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 17-18 times where the movement was toward 5-year average, with 1 or 2 times the current year and the 5-year average were the same.
I think the 5-year average should work better than the 10-year average because gives more weight to the current league performances.
I just ran the spreadsheet for averages over different spans of time, and that makes a substantial difference in the results.
If you compare the current year to a 2-year average, you see mean reversion 57% of the time. As you extend the length of the average, apparent mean reversion increases up to 63% at 5 years, but then begins decreasing down to 46% at 9 years.
I just arbitrarily chose 10 years and it looks like I got one of the lowest readings. I assume you arbitrarily chose 5 years, and that just happened to produce the highest reading. I’m not sure either one says much about the robustness of the hypothesis.
I chose 5 years because the better player projection systems use 3 to 5 years
I figured 5 years was big enough to weed out a lot of the year-to-year noise but not so big that the bulk of the players would turn over in that time.
That's fine. It just happened to produce an outlier
So unless there’s some reason to believe that offense would revert to a 5-year mean differently than they’d revert to a 2-year mean (half the magnitude) or an 8-year mean (opposite of reversion), I don’t think it’s fair to say that the historical data show that offenses revert to their historical averages.
Using 3 to 5 year works reasonably well for player projections systems
It seems fair to use the same for the league.
This is not the response I expected
I just ran the numbers for the National League over the same span.
Using a five-year average, the prediction is realized 51.7% of the time.
The National League shows the same pattern of wildly different results depending on what span of time you use for the “historical average.”
I don’t think the data support the hypothesis that run production tends to revert to the “historical average.”
Also, I think your math is wrong on Seattle
Seattle’s improvement would only have to split the difference between its current performance and the league average offense to move the league average up a fifth of a run.
Seattle is averaging 3.31 runs a game. League average is 4.34. The difference between Seattle and Leauge is 1.03 runs per game. If Seattle improves by half that much, it’s .52 runs per game. Distributing that improvement in league scoring across the 14 teams in the league the increase in overall average is 0.037 runs per game. Hell, even if Seattle magically increases its scoring up to league average, it only increases league scoring by seven hundredths of a run per game.
I took AL runs scored and subtracted out Seattle's runs and games
When I did it two days ago, the difference was close to .09, so I referred to it as “about” or “something like” a tenth of a run. I should have used the same qualifying language in the immediate comment.
Seattle then proceeded to score 12 runs in two games, so when I re-did it today, I got .08 (4.34 w/ Sea v. 4.42 w/o Sea).
Right
So how would Seattle improving its offense by only half the difference between it and the rest of the league result in an effect twice as big as removing it from the league entirely?
Every time Seattle scores 1 run on 4 hits, it drags the run environment down, but helps Frenchy’s WAR. Frenchy should not get credit for that.
But every player in the Majors gets credit for it. Every offensive player is measured against league average scoring, and the Mariners bring down that average.
Even if we accept the premise that the Mariners historic crappiness artificially deflates league scoring by 0.1 runs per game, adjusting for that hurts David Ortiz as much as it hurts Jeff Francoeur.
this pertains to the comparison of Frenchy's WAR between years
His 2011 WAR (2.0), in comparison to his previous years (0.6 in 2010, 0.3 in 2009, etc.), is inflated in part by the overall crappiness of AL offenses.
Ok, when I ran the numbers and found that MLB is on pace in 2011 for an extra 30 negative WAR compared to 2010, so I’m willing to say that every player that’s in positive territory should take a hit of about 0.1 WAR if 2012 is more like 2010.
So I’m okay chalking 0.1 WAR of Frenchy’s 2011 total up to an unusual number of crappy players getting an unusual amount of playing time. But that doesn’t change Frenchy’s ranking relative to the players in the league that will still be around next year because every player gets docked the same amount. And it’s relative value that really matters most.
Also, the magnitude of the effect is quite small.
If you want to argue against Frenchy, the argument to make isn’t that the leauge just got shitty in 2011, and that his 2011 numbers don’t count. Instead, you’re better off arguing that Frenchy got lucky this year against lefties.
Good grief
If you want to argue against Frenchy, the argument to make isn’t that the leauge just got shitty in 2011, and that his 2011 numbers don’t count. Instead, you’re better off arguing that Frenchy got lucky this year against lefties.
Now go back and read my first comment on this thread making the point about lefties.
I know you made that argument
You made about 10 arguments. But the stuff about Frenchy’s good 2011 not being real because the Mariners have been bad…..well, that argument wasn’t one of the stronger ones.
I made 3 arguments, all in my first comment
None of them were that “Frenchy’s good 2011 not being real because the Mariners have been bad.” But that was the strawman that you wanted to argue about.
As I read it, your arguments shifted through the debate
But it’s fine. I think the LHP argument has some merit because the sample vs LHP remains small.
The argument about the Mariners made less sense to me, but I’m ready to move on.
Looking forward, should we expect the typical hitter (or, in this case, a specific hitter) to do worse relative to their league than they did this year and presumably expect the typical pitcher to do better relative to their league than they did year?
I think there was a typo there towards the end of that question, but if I understand you correctly, my answer is yes. I don’t expect the run environment to be like this again this year. I do think it is something of an outlier. Now it might be part of a long-term trend, but I think this is a spike even within that trend (kind of like Melky this year. He’s improved, but I don’t think this year represents his new true talent level. I think it is a spike within an improving true talent level.)
While there are no authorities to give us the final word on this (or anything really), I think the best source for sabermetric analysis, opinion and discussion is Tango’s “The Book Blog,” as it has discussion on sabermtric issues by really the best minds in the field. And this has been discussed at least a few times there. I think Gopherballs analysis on this represents the prevailing opinion I’ve seen there. Now the fact that the thought leaders in the field are of this opinion doesn’t mean it is necessarily so. But I find their opinion and analysis compelling.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
… to do better relative to their league than they did year?
I’m really not trying to be the grammar police or anything but it just a little confusing there at the last.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, gotcha
better relative to their league than they did this year
But even if teams shift away from defense in favor of offense
wouldn’t that boost any given player’s defensive value relative to the league?
Let’s say the league says, “Whoa there, we really screwed up on this whole defensive value thing. Enough gloves, we need some bats!” and dumps 5 Franklin Gutierrez’s to add 5 Manny Ramirez’s.
After this swap, all of a sudden, Melky’s bat looks pretty bad, but his defense looks awesome. And the same goes for every outfielder that didn’t get swapped.
I'm not sure the math works that way
Defense and offense don’t contribute equally to a player’s value, and I’m not sure the defense league averages are re-calibrated year to year the way that hitting league averages are.
As far as WAR is concerned, a run saved is equal to a run created.
And the way defensive value is calculated ties it to league average in the same way that ERA+ and wRC+ are always adjusted to league average.
UZR compares the number of plays a defender makes relative to league average. So taking my Gutierrez/Manny/Melky comparison:
Let’s say the AL has 40 outfielders, and that Melky has the 15th best bat and the 15th best glove among them. Then teams decide to swap out 10 no-hit Gutierrez’s for 10 no-field Manny’s (old, crappy Manny’s, so that their total value is the same as a Gutierrez). Now Melky has the 25th best bat, but the 5th best glove.
Of course, if they swapped out 10 Gutierrez’s for 10 Ben Zobrists, Melky would have the 25th best bat and the 25th best glove. But there aren’t 10 Zobrists available. The total talent of the league is not likely to increase like that.
But players don't save as many runs as the create
Defense is equal to offense in value, but most players don’t produce as much defense as offense.
But you measure both compared to league average.
I don’t know what we’re arguing about really. Fangraphs says Francoeur has produced 8.6 more runs than average with his bat and has prevented 2.4 more runs than average with his fielding.
So his bat has been more valuable compared to the league average than his glove has, but the units on both sides are runs. You can add them up and say he’s 11 runs better than average between his bat and glove.
I've gone back though the last seven weeks of posts on The Book blog
And I can’t find anything on this topic. Can you give me a pointer?
I remember them talking about it earlier in the year. June or May? Maybe even April? Could I be remembering it wrong and it was THT?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
How early in the year could they possibly have been projecting 2012?
If the idea is that defense-first strategies have failed and so we’’ll move away from them, it seems like you have to give them time to fail.
I’ll keep looking. Just coming up dry so far.
I feel like some more explanation would be helpful because this theory really doesn’t make sense to me right now.
The line of reasoning that Gopherballs is using seems completely unreasonable to me
League offense is down. That fact doesn’t change based on its convenience to your argument.
Maybe it regresses to the averages of the past decade next year, but just saying, “The Mariners are going to score more runs,” doesn’t do it for me.
There seems to be a confluence of factors at work—yes teams are valuing defense more, but steroids are also leaving the game, pitchers may be staying healthier, strike zones may have been adjusted from the early 2000’s, and people have even hypothesised about changes in the ball.
Gopherballs has essentially argued that teams have over-valued defense, that this has brought down offense artificially thereby artificially inflating various Royals player’s relative value, and that this will be corrected for as soon as next year.
And maybe on the margins, we might see a tiny bit of this correction next year. But has the way that we value defense really changed so significantly between December 2010 and August 2011? Are teams going to scrap the whole notion that defense is important and go back to take-and-rake statues in left field? And if they do, won’t that (A) help a player like Francoeur’s offensive numbers by boosting his BABIP, and (B) cause his UZR to sky rocket relative to his peers?
The idea that we shouldn’t count improvements relative to the league as real improvements is pure absurdity to me. The league is what it is. Spinning reality to suit an argument is just spin.
Spinning reality to suit an argument is just spin
Do you think this is what Gopherballs is doing here? I really don’t want to turn this personal between you and Gopherballs, but it doesn’t seem like he tends to “hate on” particular players and then doggedly spin every piece of information on that player into something negative. Do you think that’s what he’s doing?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I actually have a lot of respect for Gopherballs as a commenter around this site. His opinions are generally well-considered and clearly stated.
I just think he’s way off on the issue of whether improving relative to the league should be considered real improvement.
I strongly feel that league performance is the most fair baseline against which to measure a player’s production. It seems completely unfair to say, “Yes, this player has looked better this year compared to the league. But really, the league just got a lot worse this year, and it will be better again soon. So that guy still sucks.”
No, I actually have a lot of respect for Gopherballs as a commenter around this site. His opinions are generally well-considered and clearly stated.
I just think he’s way off on the issue of whether improving relative to the league should be considered real improvement.
That’s fine. This is certainly a point on which honest, intelligent people of good will can disagree. But then why did you say “reality to suit an argument is just spin”? I think he’s making an argument that he believes (and for the record, I believe it as well). I don’t think he’s trying to spin reality so that it supports his argument.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
To me, ignoring the current run-scoring environment to make your case is spinning reality
I don’t mean it as a personal attack. In my opinion, comparing Francoeur’s 2011 offensive numbers to 2009 offensive levels is a manipulation of numbers that obscures the truth.
I think he did a good job of fully explaining the relevance of the current run environment and how we should consider current numbers in that environment and what to expect going forward. I don’t think he’s trying to “manipulate numbers to obscure the truth.” Do you think that he’s so dead set on arguing that Francoeur isn’t very good that he’s intentionally trying to distort the data?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t question his motivations. Whether or not it’s intentional, I think it’s a misrepresentation of the data. And the assumption that the league will magically get better next year actually hurts any player you look at equally. Unless, of course, they’re one of the unnamed players that will get better.
If you read what I actualy wrote
I said the lower scoring environment is “due in part to better run prevention (good pitching and good defense) but also due in part to some teams simply waving the white flag on offense.” I take issue with you mischaracterizing my argument as that I am attributing all of it to teams punting offense (or just to Seattle).
My last comment on this topic:
We know what a player has done in recent years is generally more telling as to future performance than his current season performance. Frenchy’s 3-year line is 268/311/422, 316 wOBA, 3.0 WAR. He has been decent this year, mainly due to crushing lefties at a rate well above his career norms, but going forward, it is more reasonable to expect his 3-year average.
by Gopherballs on Aug 2, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
How to properly weigh this season’s performance against 2009-2010 is another topic entirely. I’ve deferred to ZiPS on that issue.
And I don’t think I have mischaracterized your argument as you’ve suggested. I don’t think we can know exactly what has caused the depressed run environment we’ve seen in 2010-2011. And besides that, I think we actually agree on the likely causes.
What I object to is what I perceive as a malleable standard of comparison for determining player value. It seems to me that you’re choosing to measure Francoeur against a league that is offensively better and defensively equal to the league that currently exists. And I think it’s more fair to compare a player to the league’s reality.
Maybe it is because that is not my reasoning
Maybe it regresses to the averages of the past decade next year, but just saying, "The Mariners are going to score more runs," doesn’t do it for me.
Yeah, I never said that. The point about Seattle is to show how one team as an extreme outlier can affect the league average overall — in this case, the league’s runs per game goes up by about a tenth of a run (and nearly back to the previous year’s average). As previously stated, “Seattle was an example of how much it was impacting the scoring environment by running out a historically awful lineup.” That really should not be a difficult concept to grasp.
The further point on the Seattle lineup was you should not expect outliers to continue. On offense, Seattle’s output from 5 of the 9 offensive positions (C, 3B, LF, CF, RF) has been essentially replacement level (and in the case of 3B and CF, nearly a full win below replacement). Finding upgrades for replacement and especially below replacement hitters is not that difficult but would make a huge difference (upgrading its current production 3B, LF, and CF to merely 10 runs above replacement would be a swing of about 50 runs). Again, the point here is that it is unreasonable to expect that the team’s lineup would remain historically this bad.
So again to summarize, historical anomalies can significantly affect a league’s overall average, and historical anomalies should not be expected to continue at the same level. Seattle is just an illustration. No one but the strawman is arguing that Seattle is going to single handedly increase the league’s runs per game average to 2005 levels.
There seems to be a confluence of factors at work—yes teams are valuing defense more, but steroids are also leaving the game, pitchers may be staying healthier, strike zones may have been adjusted from the early 2000’s, and people have even hypothesised about changes in the ball.
Gopherballs has essentially argued that teams have over-valued defense, that this has brought down offense artificially thereby artificially inflating various Royals player’s relative value, and that this will be corrected for as soon as next year.
Again, I never said that teams valuing defense was the only reason runs scoring was down. Here is what I actually said: “Part of his increased value this year is simply a lower run scoring environment due in part to better run prevention (good pitching and good defense) but also due in part to some teams simply waving the white flag on offense. If Seattle and the other teams punting offense do not go to the same extreme next year, part of his value disappears.” Again, given that the problems the offensive-punting teams have experienced, it is reasonable to expect that they will not go to the same extreme next year. The net result does not have to be reverting to 2005 and every team playing Brad Hawpe in the field for it have an effect. It is enough if a few teams do it.
The league is what it is.
Again, it is a mistake to assume that what has happened this year with repeat exactly the same next year. No one know for sure what will happen next year, but we can look at what has happened historically to give us an educated guess. And what has happened in the past is that when there is outlier (both on the high and low sides), more times than not, the next year regresses back toward the recent historical averages. Neither I nor anyon else is suggesting that the league’s average is going to jump north of 4.59 (the 5-year average) in 2012, but history suggests it is more likely to move back toward that number than repeat 2011 again.
by Gopherballs on Aug 2, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I'll concede most of these points to you because I don't want each post turning into a novel
But I do want to take up a couple issues:
Given that the problems the offensive-punting teams have experienced, it is reasonable to expect that they will not go to the same extreme next year.
We look at position players as a package of both offensive and defensive value. Perhaps teams will put more emphasis on offensive value next year, but that shift doesn’t improve the total talent in the MLB pool. If it is true that teams have punted offense in favor of defense, then we could take Francoeur’s relative offensive value with a grain of salt. But just as teams selling out for defense might make Francoeur’s offense look less impressive, wouldn’t it also make Francoeur’s defense much more impressive?
If teams add offense at the cost of defense next year, that doesn’t change Francoeur’s total value relative to the league. It just boosts his defensive value relative to the league at the cost of his offensive value relative to the league.
Assuming Francoeur’s true talent doesn’t change, the only way his value decreases relative to the league is if the league gets better. And in evaluating a 27 year old at the prime of his career, it seems inherently unfair to assume that the league as a whole will improve next year while he stays the same.
The point about Seattle is to show how one team as an extreme outlier can affect the league average overall — in this case, the league’s runs per game goes up by about a tenth of a run (and nearly back to the previous year’s average).
Any distribution will occasionally have outliers, but if you’re going to trim the outliers from the bottom, you should also trim the outliers from the top. Boston is as far from the mean as Seattle is. And while I understand your point that Seattle is more likely to replace its players than Boston is, replacing good defenders with good hitters boosts Francoeur’s defensive value relative to the league as much as it hurts his offensive value relative to the league.
by kcdc1 on Aug 2, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Until teams stop running on him,
then his below average range and cannon arm aren’t as valuable.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Discussed this below in the thread
Francoeur has averaged an ARM score of +9 per 150 games over his 7 year MLB career. Why should we believe 2012 will be the year that the trend stops?
Also, if Gopher’s argument is that teams will replace good fielders (bad hitters) with good hitters (bad fielders), then Frenchy’s range score is going to get a big boost.
Not necessarily
See the example where if Seattle replaces its replacement level (or worse) hitters, its defense would likely improve because most of them had below average defensive numbers too.
Or for more direct evidence, even when the running scoring environment was higher in 2008 and 2009, Frenchy had awful range numbers (-5.8 and -9.6 respectively).
Range is also expected to decline by a run a year (at least for guys over 25).
Or for more direct evidence, even when the running scoring environment was higher in 2008 and 2009, Frenchy had awful range numbers (-5.8 and -9.6 respectively).
Unless Frenchy’s defensive abilities have improved, these numbers suggest that outfield defense was roughly as good then as it is now. Which actually hurts the case that teams have punted offense for defense.
And I wish you’d just clearly state what your argument is.
Now it sounds like you’re saying that the league has more below-replacement level position players this year than it will have next year, so the league position player talent will improve next year. Am I reading this right?
No
And I wish you learned to read and understand things better.
by Gopherballs on Aug 3, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Now you're being unnecessarily personal
I’m saying Frenchy should be measured against the 2011 league.
You’re saying that the 2011 is not a good measuring stick. I’m not sure exactly what your argument is, but it has to do with Seattle fielding below-replacement position players.
My understanding is that you think that Seattle will replace it’s worst players with at least replacement level players, thereby improving its hitting without hurting its fielding. Taken from a league perspective, you expect teams to get rid of their below-replacement players and replace them with better players, thereby improving the average talent in the MLB pool.
That’s a coherent argument. I ran some quick calculations and WAR from below-replacement players in 2011 is on pace to total nearly -108 WAR. Compare that to 2010 when it totaled -77.5 WAR. If you say split that 30 WAR difference across the ~250 everyday jobs in MLB, that comes out to about 0.1 WAR per player.
If we assume that negative WAR in 2012 is more like 2010, then we should subtract 0.1 WAR from every player in 2011 when projecting 2012. And that -0.1 WAR does impact how we should view Frenchy. But it impacts Frenchy no more than it impacts any above-replacement player in the Majors.
Laugh
“Gopherballs is providing valuable information on how Francoeur should be evaluated”
Translation—Gopherballs confused logic allows me to continue to claim Frenchy is a horrible baseball player, thus Gopherballs is right!
by BlueEyes_Austin on Aug 2, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
"Confused logic"
Is it really that confusing to you? It really isn’t that hard to understand. Perhaps you should read it again.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 2, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
This only works if the cause of decreasing offense is conscious personnel decisions
If offense is declining due to league-wide factors (declining use of PEDs, limiting innings counts for young pitchers, etc), it doesn’t particularly matter what Seattle does this offseason.
Right
Maybe there’s just a lot of good starting pitchers right now. Wasn’t there a shortstop boom about 10 years ago?
And if starting pitching has improved, then an offensive player like Francoeur would have to get significantly better just to keep his numbers from falling.
The idea that we can pretend that an improvement relative to the league isn’t a real improvement bothers me. If we can’t measure a player against his contemporary peers, what measuring stick should we use?
There are many potential explanations
Blaming it all on Seattle is one of the worst of them.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Aug 2, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I do think the "Seattle Effect"--valuing defense as much as offense--is real
Calling it a “Seattle Effect” is just a convenience; teams across the league are doing it. And it is designed to produce lower scoring games.
But I’m not convinced that teams will give up on defense. Sure, it hasn’t worked for Seattle, but Seattle did it to an extreme that left them without any offense at all. Seattle’s 2011 failure hasn’t erased an all-glove player like Alcides Escobar’s place in the game for 2012.
And who is to say that the pendulum has swung too far toward defense? The Rays value defense, and they seem to do quite well. Perhaps the Mariners were doing the right thing, but just don’t have good enough players. GMs might continue this trend toward defense, bearing in mind that you can’t win if you don’t score.
teams consistently making poor decisions in those situations (running on him).
Well, if teams consistently made good decisions and didn’t run on him, that would be valuable, too, no?
yeah...the idea is for guys to not advance on the bases
this is no different than teams refusing to run on pudge in his heyday
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 1, 2011 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
not as much
an out eliminating a baserunner is worth a lot more than preventing a runner advancing 90 feet.
When do you think teams will make that adjustment?
He had a reputation for having a great arm when he came up from the minors. 7 years and a league-leading 92 outfield assists later, do you think 2012 will be the year that teams finally wise up?
He changed leagues
and teams have adjusted in the past. His “arm” results by year (2005-11):
7.5
3.5
16.6
2.5
5.3
9.7
8.2 (through July)
You just cannot assume he is going to be the same next year rather than closer to his career norm.
Doesn't that average out to about +10 per 150 games?
His numbers this year aren’t far from his career average.
Ran the numbers
It comes out to +9 per 150 games (assuming 9 innings per game).
Frenchy’s on pace for +12, so he’s been a little better this year. But I’ll compromise and take his career average as a proxy for his true talent.
“You just cannot assume he is going to be the same next year rather than closer to his career norm.”
Go, read about Bayes Theorem. Please.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Aug 2, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
How knowledgeable are you on it?
Prior data is quite important. Also, you wouldn’t be doing straight Bayes if you think there is a temporal dependency, which there obviously is here.
by play4'ships on Aug 2, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Prior data includes THIS YEAR'S DATA
That’s the point that people like gopher seem to ignore. They use a career norm prior to this year but ignore all the data generated by this year.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Aug 2, 2011 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn't he using career numbers?
…which by definition includes this year’s numbers?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
OK, I am not sure if this is just your poor reading comprehension or outright intellectual dishonesty
but I clearly included THIS YEAR'S DATA above (“2005-11 . . . 8.2 through July”) and elsewhere (his 3-year line cited above).
Remember.
Bayesian analysis is less concerned with prior data and more with prior probabilities of events happening. Since we are discussing probabilities when talking about projections, Bayesian analysis is going to compound any error that we have in estimation of what will happen going forward.
Thus, Bayes Theorem is not a good thing to use in this case. We are just going to throw in our (probably wrong) estimations of the various components (conditions). Most of this stuff should be based on maximum likelihood analysis.
"I DARE you to make less sense."
by dejackso on Aug 3, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
what's the average wOBA for a C-OF?
(not necessarily a leading question because we live in strange times and it may be horrible…)
Near what Francoeur's currently doing
So his offensive projection would be below that.
Only 18 of 60 qualifying OFs are on pace for less than 2 WAR according to Fangraphs.
He's Approaching His
Best seasonal ///: .272 .326 .464 .790 currently. If he could sustain this, he’d be fine. If……………
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Aug 1, 2011 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Wouldn't it be better to compare him to other RF?
LF offense is WAY down this year as more teams are fielding defense first guys.
I've posted this a couple times recently...
but Frenchy is basically the same player as Ankiel. He’s acceptable if he’s your fifth or sixth best player, but he probably shouldn’t be on the Royals.
"I DARE you to make less sense."
By my count, Gordon, butler, homer, melky are better than frenchy. Escobar, paulino and Duffy also have cases.
Ankiel hit 2 HR's last night
tonight – it is Freedomy’s turn
maybe Billy will get in a nad tap
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
It's annoying that the iPad turns Hosmer into homer
Joking aside, do you really disagree with what I said?
Me? No.
I’m just piling on Lee Judge.
by kansasjohn on Aug 2, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nice post
I’m ok with hanging on to him and trying for some free agent compensation. I don’t want to see an extension though as I think this is his career year and probably by a long shot.
He does have value as a player for us this year, but I’m super skeptical about him being able to repeat that next year or god forbid the next several years.
2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition
I'm surprised he's so close to Type B status
I’d think if he kept up his production rate he could reach it. Something tells me he’ll reach it, people will say “Dayton made a pretty savvy move here,” only for him to be resigned or the new CBA to take away his Type B status
I agree that if he makes Type B
Take the pick and be grateful-Frenchy has done what he does and the offensive environment changed around him to make him more valuable.
I heard Joe Sheehan say on Rany’s radio show that Cain grades out as a 4th OF. I’m not taking his opinion as gospel, but if the Royals feel the same way they should work on trading him right now because his value is probably peaking. His ML stats last year look nice and won’t change if he stays in Omaha. If a waiver deal for Wandy is on the table, Cain should be in the discussion for that package.
I hope Cain gets a shot and works out as a defensive stalwart and low cost bridge to Bubba (hopefully). But if leaving him down a little while longer means 1 or maybe 2 draft picks for OFs pulled off the scrap heap that’s not a bad outcome.
by thelaundry on Aug 2, 2011 11:48 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
the royals shouldn't be thinking about anyone as a bridge to bubba
although i could see DM referring to Francoeur as “the bridge to Elier Hernandez”
Cool...
As long as Dyson and D-Rob are a bridge to nowhere
by thelaundry on Aug 2, 2011 12:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ding Ding Ding!
And he’s not a bad player ONLY THIS YEAR, he has been awful 2008-2010. And its the principle more than deal itself.
Great post you summed my rant below in one sentence!
by GobbleforCyoung on Aug 2, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL nice rant KC! My commentary must have added to your indignation.
He hasn’t been horrible this year, butt he’s been horrible in the past (.300 OBP the past 3 seasons and a SLG% less than .400)
He’s a decent defender with a good arm, but his offensive numbers have been better this year which has given him a somewhat decent performance. Its the same reason many don’t want Melky or Chen back (who have both been better than Francour) because they feel their production won’t match their ability going forward.
I have no problem with Francour THIS YEAR, but just the idea that he’s a worthwhile piece AT $4,000,000.00 on a division contending team next year, when we have a seemingly better player with more potential that needs an opportunity to prove himself waiting in AAA, is terrible.
Jimenez is making $10,000,000 in 2012 and 2013 COMBINED, and he was acquired for Alex White (drafted 3 slots after Aaron Crow) and Drew Pomeranz (drafted 1 slot after Christian Colon) Would we have traded Colon and Crow for Jimenez? Of course we would! If this guy performs at his 2008-2010 level WE WILL NEVER COMPETE with CLE. We have no chance because they have two aces and a better bullpen and healthy as good of an offense. These are the type of great deals good GM’s make, not resigning Francour for $4,000,000. Save that money and use some of those supposedly great prospects to get an ace because our starting pitching blows.
Thats my rant
by GobbleforCyoung on Aug 2, 2011 12:00 PM EDT reply actions
his physical skill set makes comparing him to ALL outfielders a little silly.
He should probably be compared to ONLY right fielders – he doesn’t have great range and makes that up with a cannon arm. Defensively, he’s very useful in right, but he shouldn’t take more than an inning or two elsewhere.
So, comparing him to other right fielders is only fair and he’s 6th in WAR (and really, in a group of 3 tied there, so he could easily end the season 9th) and 9th in wOBA and wRC+. Put another way, he’s roughly league average this season and he’s giving a fair amount of surplus value in his FA contract.
It might be fair to project that an outfield of Gordon/Cain/Melky would be as productive and cheaper than Gordon/Melky/Franceour. It’s fair to suggest that he’d be more useful in a platoon with someone who can hit righties better. I just think that Frenchy gets a lot of hate because the haters think he represents something he doesn’t. The guy goes up to the plate just like everyone else. He doesn’t get 3 AB for every 1 that Butler does. Even Neddie can’t help that.
Considering the ABOMINATION that is the starting pitching for the Royals, I have a tough time trying to argue that Frenchy isn’t anything other than highly useful to this year’s Royals, and in 2012, and possibly beyond.
Nick Swisher is handsome.
I’d like to see a 2012 time-share between Frenchy, Melky, Gordon and Cain. Gordon only rests against tough lefties with nasty breaking stuff, Melky sits against lefties if the park and pitcher play toward emphasizing OF defense, Frenchy plays against all lefties and righties he matches up decently with, and Cain plays when you want defense or when 2 of the other OFs are rested.
You could break it down so that Gordon plays 85%, Melky plays 75%, Frenchy plays 70% and Cain plays 70%. And a smart tactical manager could do a lot with those pieces.
That's very close to what I've been thinking the last couple of weeks...
when I’ve made out potential (wishful within reason) 2012 line-ups. Like to see Francouer play less than 70%, though—just against LHs and whatever type of RH pitcher he hits well (I have no idea who that is; not saying there aren’t any, I just don’t know).
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Aug 2, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Until they start having Billy leadoff...
I would rather that Gordon played more like 95%, unless he’s DHing when he’s not in left.
Nick Swisher is handsome.
Broken record--Frenchmelk now!
If you put Alex in left and Cain in center, then you platoon Frenchy and Melky in right, you probably have the best top four outfielders in the league for a reasonable price. Melky occasionally serves as 4th OF to spell Alex and Cain. Frenchy is your RH pinch hitter and Melky is his LH equivalent. Either could pinch-run. You could put Alex in right and move the Frenchmelk platoon to left, which would probably improve the defense though it’d waste Frenchy’s cannon.
"LaPorta and Hafner gave Boom Boom a beating
Just three weeks later he was back on the mound
He gave up six runs in five innings at Kaufmann
And the blogs all demanded he should be sent back down" --Not Warren Zevon
Dayton needs a friend
You know who Dayton is? Your buddy who calls and tells you he hooked up with an ex (Frenchy) last night. He had a good time with her and she still did those special things she used to do for him (drive in runs, gun down some baserunners) and even had a new move (stealing bases). He says he’s thinking about asking her to move back in when she wakes up.
He needs someone to remind him how things went wrong before and will probably go wrong again. Sure, he could keep her around as an occasional booty call (platoon), but he’s a one woman man-that’s how he rolls.
But getting back together with her (contract extension) would be a big mistake. She hasn’t changed her bad habits (striking out a lot and not walking), and does he really want to go through another pregnancy/STD scare (.300 OBP from a full time RF and mid order bat)?
A true friend would tell him to let her go. If he’s lucky maybe she’ll even make him breakfast (compensatory draft pick) before she leaves to go back to the roller coaster that is her life (the fringes of major league free agency).
Picollo, Arbuckle, talk some sense into your bro before it’s too late.
by thelaundry on Aug 2, 2011 12:51 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 13 recs
254/314/401 since May 5th
better than you think
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!
And to this, I'd counter, "Why don't you take 2011 into consideration at all?"
Because it doesn’t support preconceived opinions? Went through this the other night with a couple of posters who thought Aviles’ ‘09 season was the most important to judge his value on while Rasmus’ 2010 was the real Colby, but Melky or Frenchy or Gordon’s 2011 production is meaningless. I’ld rather have the guys playing well now, especially when we can that Gordon changed his approach and that Melky and Frenchy lost a bunch of weight and made some adjustments.
Stick it out Jim
People will let it go eventually……
Depends
on the three games. A pitcher having three rough starts in a row suggests either injury or getting booked, like Collins early in the year. Aviles thumping three games in a row suggests he faced left-handed pitching, so that is consistent with his history this year. Life moves too quickly to avoid making decisions for two or four years, until the sample size is large enough.
by Jim Fetterolf on Aug 3, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh Jim
Attempting to draw meaningful conclusions from three games is a huge mistake. Really, it is. There’s a reason that your micro-trend argument is ridiculed. It’s ridiculous.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't think
I use three games often for a trend. Three games doesn’t even establish a range to work in. Felipe Paulino is, I think, establishing a trend that is outside of his history. Giavotella is exalted based on a two month trend where he went from hitting .300 with split problems to looking more like Clint Robinson the first two months of the season. Robinson is now trending the other direction. Kila is trending into a Matt Treanor type, lots of walks and strike outs and a sinking BA with declining power. Danny Duffy has established a rough range but is so random in performance as to defy trends. If Master Chen gets bombed again, I think that will be the beginning of a trend, getting rocked three starts in a row.
“There’s a reason that your micro-trend argument is ridiculed.”
My feelings are crushed. I so much need your approval:)
by Jim Fetterolf on Aug 3, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Giavotella is exalted based on a two month trend where he went from hitting .300 with split problems to looking more like Clint Robinson the first two months of the season
I think most “exalt” him for his overall numbers this season, which includes all four months. I don’t think people are relying on a two-month trend. If anyone is, I think they are making a mistake.
Robinson is now trending the other direction
And that trend isn’t meaningful. Or, more accurately, we can’t accurately judge if the trend is meaningful. Seasons have ups and downs. Most ups and downs aren’t particularly meaningful.
You keep pointing out trends. What leads you to give them meaning? Why do you assume they are meaningful?
"There’s a reason that your micro-trend argument is ridiculed."
My feelings are crushed. I so much need your approval:)
No, you don’t need my approval. But do you care if your analysis is any good? No statistical analyst uses short-term trends like you do. They recognize that trends based on little data have no reliable meaning. Do you think that you understand something that no one else does?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
You appear to be trying to reinvent Statistics
but excluding anything that makes it scientific. I wish you all the best with that.
Yeah, there’s a whole field of statistics (and I’m not talking about baseball statistics) which has been studied and improved upon for many years. There’s a huge base of knowledge out there. It doesn’t make sense for someone to ignore that knowledge and try to re-invent the field from scratch.
I’m not going to jump into astronomy and try to tell astronomers that the planetary bodies actually move differently from what their data shows. I’m also not going to try to tweak the Pythagorean Theorem or say that the odds of rolling snake eyes is 1-in-35.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Not
trying to reinvent statistics, just looking at smaller samples that have usage in time periods shorter than two or four years. “Statistics” aren’t much use for day to day activities that are necessarily based on small sample sizes.
“I’m not going to jump into astronomy and try to tell astronomers that the planetary bodies actually move differently from what their data shows.”
World of difference between tracking planets and tracking people. Did Jupiter blow out a shoulder and have to become a crafty lefty? Did Mars change his swing and approach at the plate? Contrary to what Oppenheimer thought, it is not possible to predict whether the man walking down the hall would turn left or right. The human element contains a lot of variables; physical, mental, emotional, and environmental and four years of history can easily miss a minute of change.
by Jim Fetterolf on Aug 3, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
World of difference between tracking planets and tracking people
Right. Don’t try “tracking people” using tiny samples of stats. Just use your eyes and gut. It will be worth just as much as your micro-trend data.
You seem to be talking about “the human element” but why are you using stat to measure this? You see that someone is hitting well for a week and you talk about that trend as if it is meaningful. Do you think that trend captures “the human element”? Based on what? Absolutely nothing. The problem here is that you are giving meaning to a tiny sample of stats. But you have no idea what meaning that tiny sample of stats has, if any. You’re guessing, and the stat don’t warrant any such conclusions.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
You see that someone is hitting well for a week and you talk about that trend as if it is meaningful.
It can be meaningful if based on a change. The tsunami of Billy-love washing over us is the result of a change in production said, by Billy, to be the result of a change of mechanics and approach. Alex Gordon made a similar change over the winter, so his small sample size this year has some weight. Escobar went through a similar adjustment to swing and approach during the year and we no longer hear the shrieks of “Pinch Hit” when he comes to the plate in the 9th. Random trends are just white noise.
“But you have no idea what meaning that tiny sample of stats has, if any.”
Context helps with the meaning. The markets right now are going through some changes. Could be random, could be statistically insignificant, could be because of looming recession caused by decreased deficit spending and compressed demand caused by high commodities and unemployment. By the time the statisticians quantify the phenomenon, we’ll be Greece.
Good discussion, Scott. I have learned a lot on this stuff and found some useful ideas. I don’t even mind the snark, definitely limp-wristed compared to playing politics and trading in the real world.
by Jim Fetterolf on Aug 4, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Further example that relying on 4 months of data instead of 3 years of data is a mistake
In the 24 hours since this was posted, Frenchy went 0 for 4 and Fangraphs did their weekly UZR update. Frenchy’s 2010 WAR is now 2.0, down 0.3.
And his wOBA projection remains at .330
And he remains on pace for a 3 WAR season.
Weird how a day’s results don’t amount to much in the context of a 162 game season.
Why are you ignoring Gopherballs point here?
He’s talking about defensive stats and that in evaluating defensive true talent level and what we can expect going forward, you should use 3 years of data rather than 4 months. Short-term UZR (and even one season is short-term for a stat like that) is very volatile and unreliable. The fact that a UZR update (weekly, I think) can change his WAR this much shows how volatile the stat is. So don’t you think that when projecting his UZR (and therefore the defensive element of his WAR), multiple years of data should be used?
Yes, he’s “on pace” for a 3 WAR season. Of course that doesn’t mean that he’ll make it. If his UZR for the remainder of this season is more like the prior years of his career than the 4 months of this season, then he’ll come up short of that. What he’s done for 4 months this year doesn’t create a true talent level all by itself. Those are 4 months which are part of a much larger set of data from which he should be evaluated.
And a 3 WAR season should be viewed in context. In the prior 3 years, he managed a total of 0.1 WAR. If he’s a 3 WAR player this year, then the average over that 4 years is under 0.8 WAR. Over his career, he’s totalled 11.2 WAR (including 3 for this year) for an average of 1.6 WAR. He still doesn’t look average to me.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough
UZR is very volatile. There’s no denying that. But his comment seemed to imply that a 1-week UZR swing suggests that 110 games of data is meaningless.
How would you weight 2011 against 2009-2001 for purposes of projecting 2012? I believe it’s common to use the last 3 years of data with the most recent year getting the most weight. What does Marcel use? 60-30-10? 50-30-20? Honest question.
How would you weight 2011 against 2009-2001 for purposes of projecting 2012? I believe it’s common to use the last 3 years of data with the most recent year getting the most weight. What does Marcel use? 60-30-10? 50-30-20? Honest question.
Are we talking about hitting or defense? Because I think they should be projected somewhat differently. I think ZiPS projections use a 5-4-3-2 weighting. For instance, for 2012, it would be an average of (5*2011), (4*2010), etc. Now that kind of simple weighting (to create the weighted average part of a projection) works for hitting because the sample sizes are bigger. With defensive stats, you need 3 years to get the amount of data you have for one year of hitting stats. I wouldn’t want to do a weighted average of the various months of hitting stats in a given year, weighting the latter months more highly than the early months. The sample sizes would be so small that you are giving greater weight to data which could easily be highly skewed just by randomness. Frankly, given that defense doesn’t have the kind of development curve that hitting does, I’d be comfortable with using career advanced defensive metrics for a player of Francoeur’s age.
.
Don’t forget that in projecting, you have to regress down towards league average. The weighted average isn’t enough.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 3, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
So would you say that the .330 wOBA ZiPS projection is reasonable?
As for defense, Francoeur’s career UZR/150 is +7. He’s aged some, and maybe teams will test his arm a little less next year, so I’d project his 2012 defense in the +3 to +4 range. Would be be in the same neighborhood?
His three-year (2009-2011) UZR/150 is +1.6 runs
The wOBA really depends on how much he plays against RHP, so I would take the under as an everyday player, over if he sits against RHP.
ZIPS update -- 263/312/414, 318 wOBA
WAR down to 1.9
Looks like it's not, from the question above
So would you say that the .330 wOBA ZiPS projection is reasonable?
Or at least don’t put too much faith in it.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Aug 4, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
WAR, what is it good for?
absolutely nothing! say it again
by beltran42 on Aug 4, 2011 5:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Francour is not good
Gordon’s WAR is 5.0 and Melky’s is 3.3..meanwhile Francour’s is 2….If Francour is “good” that means that Melky is VERY GOOD and Gordon is PHENOMENAL….average it out and our outfield is VERY GOOD, meaning top 5 to top 8 in baseball
Not a chance. Cain could have an OBP of .320 and a SLG % of .430 with better defense than Francour (all CF’s, when shifted to RF, become better defenders for the most part)
Weird way to go with the argument
But if you want to sum up season WAR for each team’s OF, the Royals are actually 2nd in baseball behind the Yankees.
Thats because Gordon and Melky have been "phenomenal" and "very good"
Its tough to argue Francour has been bad this year because his decent offensive production and defensive play state otherwise. But he was horrible the past few years and his numbers will start regressing towards the type of player he is.
Watch both his OBP and power dwindle towards .300 and .400 respectively and then we can revisit this entire post…
by GobbleforCyoung on Aug 5, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
