2007 Crane Pool Forum Rankings Thread

[Frayed Knot]

Just speaking for myself ...

Nymr83 wrote: 1. how is Castillo higher than Easley and/or Gotay on most lists?

Better OBP and better defense

2. why the LoDuca-love? he had an 85 OPS+ and is not a good defensive catcher

But he was the everyday catcher which counts for something. 3x the ABs of Castro

3. why is joe smith so low? i know he pitched less innings than wagner/heilman/feliciano (who he should be below) but they were quality innings

Not many of them were.
He started with 17 scoreless then gave up 18 runs in his next 27 innings and was essentially finished for the season by the end of June.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: 2. why the LoDuca-love? he had an 85 OPS+ and is not a good defensive catcher

By what measure is he bad?

Catcher	G	GS	IP	TC	PO	A	E	DP	FP%	RF	ZR	PB	SB	CS	CS%	CERA
Paul Lo Duca	113	112	974.0	797	754	34	9	5	0.989	7.28	0.889	2	72	22	23.40%	4.12

[nymr83]

he's the best performing Met catcher

they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.)

i'd really like to argue more about 2B though...

Castillo (199 ABs) .296/.371/.372 (98 OPS+)
Easley (193 ABs) .280/.358/.466 (116 OPS+)
Gotay (190 ABs) .295/.351/.421 (103 OPS+)

even if castillo was so great on defense, which i'm not sure about, Easley was so far superior as a hitter that Castillo would have to be Roberto Alomar in his prime for the defense to even come close to making up the offensive difference.

can someone help me out with the Win Shares (both from defense and overall) on these guys? thanks.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

hardballtimes

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.)

That's absurd.

1) It's almost impossible to be on the extreme right side of the defensive spectrum and be a net negative defensively. Just by being there and allowing better hitters to play other positions you're a positive.

2) By what standard are you claiming he (and everyone else the Mets ran out there) performed defensively beneath a replacement level catcher, let alone a general replacement level player? That's just a shocking disaster to consider and I'd imagine we wouldn't have all missed it.

i'd really like to argue more about 2B though...

Of course you would.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Here’s my 6-tier list. I am willing to argue -- between the asteriks!

30. Wright
*
29. Beltran
28. Perez
27. Maine
26. Wagner
*
25. Reyes
24. Heilman
23. Glavine
22. Alou
21. OHernandez
20. Feliciano
19. Green
18. Delgado
17. LoDuca
16. Sosa
*
15. Castillo
14. Easley
13. Milledge
12. Martinez
11. Gotay
10. Smith
9. Schoeneweis
8. Castro
7. Pelfrey
6. Sele
5. Anderson
4. Chavez
3. Mota
2. Valentin
1. Gomez
-1. Lawrence
*
-2. Burgos
-3. Ledee
-4. DiFelice
-5. Humber
-6. Newhan
-7. Franco
-8. Conine
-9. Collazo
-10. Vargas
-11. Muniz
*
-12. Ambres
-13. Johnson
-14. Hernandez
-15. Alomar Jr.
-16. Adkins
-17. Williams
-18. Park
-19. Urdaneta

[Benjamin Grimm]

30 David Wright
29 Carlos Beltran
28 José Reyes
27 Oliver Perez
26 John Maine
25 Tom Glavine
24 Carlos Delgado
23 Orlando Hernandez
22 Moises Alou
21 Aaron Heilman
20 Billy Wagner
19 Shawn Green
18 Paul Lo Duca
17 Jorge Sosa
16 Luis Castillo
15 Lastings Milledge
14 Pedro Feliciano
13 Ramon Castro
12 Ruben Gotay
11 Damion Easley
10 Endy Chavez
9 Marlon Anderson
8 Carlos Gomez
7 Joe Smith
6 Pedro Martinez
5 José Valentin
4 Scott Schoeneweis
3 Guillermo Mota
2 Aaron Sele
1 Mike Pelfrey

Edited October 16, 2007 by Guest

[metsmarathon]

wouldn't lawrence be a 0 and the remainder of the negatives be one point higher?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Question for the room:

Explain Green relative to Delgado

[nymr83]

Easley, Castillo, and Gotay have 1.4, 1.0, and 0.9 win shares from defense respectively. so you can take "defense" off your list of excuses for placing Castillo higher.

[nymr83]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Question for the room: Explain Green relative to Delgado

i had Delgado 3 spots above Green (with Alou and a pitcher between them.) The difference to me is that Delgado had about 90 ABs more than Green. they were very close on a per-ab basis.
Alou is between them for me because he just didnt have the ABs for me to place him higher than delgado (who was a net positive at 104 ops+) but he had just enough ABs where i lt comfortable placing him above Green.

[Edgy MD]

And the score at catcher was

Lo Duca 3.4

Castro 1.2

DiFelice 0.2

Alomar Jr. 0.2

so, using your logic, you can do the same with "they were all pretty bad defensively, but he was bad offensively too and he did it over more innings (hurting them more.)"

[nymr83]

they (the catchers) were all pretty bad defensively and Loduca was bad offensively too, therefore he was just BAD. Castro made a significant offensive contribution.

at 2B they were all the same defensively, but Easley and Gotay were superior hitters, and the 3 of them all played the same amount.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: they (the catchers) were all pretty bad defensively

No, they weren't. Nor should this statement lead logically to the implicit, "therefore they were a wash as far as their defensive contributions." They weren't.

Castro made a significant offensive contribution.

In far fewer at-bats, which gives him about an equal score offensively (checking win shares here, and they say exactly the same) while LoDuca's defensive win shares is a much larger number.

I think you're using this thread to hammer home your position on who should have been playing.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

Yancy,
Of Gotay & Easley, who's 12 and who's 11??

[Benjamin Grimm]

Oops!

Fixed.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: Castro made a significant offensive contribution. In far fewer at-bats, which gives him about an equal score offensively (checking win shares here, and they say exactly the same) while LoDuca's defensive win shares is a much larger number.

but contributing more wins in fewer at-bats makes you BETTER. i only used the win shares to compare the 3 secondbasemen because i knew they played roughly the same amount.
contributing more defensive wins in far more playing time doesnt make you better.

dividing the win shares by playing time might give a better idea of who was contributing more, because you'll rack up win shares the same way a shooting guard racks up points...by playing alot or taking alot of shots, but if you shoot 5-23 for 12 points did those 12 points really help your team when taking into account your 18 missed opportnities, opportunities that could have gone elsewhere if not for your ineptitude?

i feel we had this same argument when matsui was stinking up the joint, at least loduca is stinking up the joint at a more valuable position.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not yet prepared to commit to utilizing any specific method in the ranking of new york met baseball players in 2007. however, m.e.t.b.o.t.'s cumulative schaeffer voting totals make for a logical starting point.

below are m.e.t.b.o.t.'s cumulative schaeffer voting totals.

1	Wright	120.83
2	Delgado	95.96
3	Beltran	88.78
4	Reyes	88.36
5	Glavine	64.23
6	Green	61.54
7	Wagner	56.38
8	Sosa	52.76
9	Alou	51.961
10	Maine	51.43
11	Perez	47.33
12	OHernandez	46.76
13	Loduca	42.32
14	Heilman	41.25
15	Easley	35.29
16	Feliciano	34.38
17	Gotay	32.55
18	Castillo	30.98
19	Anderson	29.73
20	Castro	27.76
21	Schoeneweis	21.88
22	Valentin	20.45
23	Milledge	19.51
24	Chavez	18.38
25	Smith	18.07
26	Mota	15.86
27	Newhan	14.02
28	Franco	12.47
29	Gomez	8.52
30	Martinez	7.79
31	Sele	7.44
32	Ledee	6.44
33	Conine	5.82
34	Pelfrey	3.78
35	Ambres	2.46
36	Lawrence	2.13
37	DiFelice	2.09
38	Burgos	1.99
39	Ahernandez	0.66
40	Johnson	0.64
41	Adkins	0.46
42	Urdaneta	0.26
43	Collazo	0.24
43	Muniz	0.24
45	Alomar	0.02
46	Park	0
46	Vargas	0
46	Padilla	0
46	Sanchez	0
46	Williams	0
46	Humber	0

[nymr83]

Maine-Perez 10-11? yikes.

[Guest sharpie]

And Sosa ahead of both of them?

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: but contributing more wins in fewer at-bats makes you BETTER.

No need to capitalize it for me. I can read.

We're not measuring who is or was better. We're measuring who contributed the most.

Nymr83 wrote: contributing more defensive wins in far more playing time doesnt make you better.

No, it makes you a larger contributor to the effort.

dividing the win shares by playing time might give a better idea of who was contributing more,

So, Pedro Martinez is at the top of your pitching list?

Playing time is already factored in to win shares, and you're dividing it out.

[nymr83]

Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs
Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs
and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet)
who is higher on your list?

i'm just trying to see if you think playing time = contribution because it sure seems that way. if not where do you draw the line? because i know i'm way over towards quality over quantity.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

as a robot, m.e.t.b.o.t. finds that there can be no such thing as too much data. as a result, m.e.t.b.o.t. has compiled additional data which may be of limited utility to human rankers of the 2007 new york mets baseball season. m.e.t.b.o.t. has maintained a tally of the win probability added by each new york met in the 2007 season. m.e.t.b.o.t. has also calculated the frequency with which players contribute positively and negatively towards a winning outcome.

the results of these tedious tabulations are shown below.

SV Rank	Player	SV	WP Rank	Win %	Games	+/-
1	Wright	120.83	1	4.073	161	52%
2	Delgado	95.96	4	1.975	139	48%
3	Beltran	88.78	2	2.058	144	44%
4	Reyes	88.36	12	0.424	160	48%
5	Glavine	64.23	10	0.646	35	57%
6	Green	61.54	11	0.555	128	47%
7	Wagner	56.38	5	1.707	64	86%
8	Sosa	52.76	13	0.387	42	57%
9	Alou	51.961	42	(0.547)	85	53%
10	Maine	51.43	17	0.133	33	58%
11	Perez	47.33	34	(0.284)	29	45%
12	OHernandez	46.76	8	0.968	27	56%
13	Loduca	42.32	49	(1.719)	119	39%
14	Heilman	41.25	43	(0.645)	78	72%
15	Easley	35.29	9	0.909	73	45%
16	Feliciano	34.38	6	1.283	75	69%
17	Gotay	32.55	20	0.060	92	36%
18	Castillo	30.98	7	1.115	49	59%
19	Anderson	29.73	3	2.044	39	49%
20	Castro	27.76	18	0.070	45	38%
21	Schoeneweis	21.88	27	(0.036)	65	69%
22	Valentin	20.45	28	(0.162)	50	32%
23	Milledge	19.51	33	(0.270)	56	48%
24	Chavez	18.38	39	(0.406)	50	40%
25	Smith	18.07	30	(0.176)	50	52%
26	Mota	15.86	46	(0.938)	51	65%
27	Newhan	14.02	40	(0.498)	54	30%
28	Franco	12.47	21	0.026	38	39%
29	Gomez	8.52	47	(0.989)	46	41%
30	Martinez	7.79	15	0.219	5	40%
31	Sele	7.44	16	0.167	30	47%
32	Ledee	6.44	23	0.021	13	46%
33	Conine	5.82	36	(0.345)	19	42%
34	Pelfrey	3.78	48	(1.716)	15	7%
35	Ambres	2.46	14	0.295	3	33%
36	Lawrence	2.13	44	(0.761)	6	33%
37	DiFelice	2.09	32	(0.267)	13	31%
38	Burgos	1.99	31	(0.259)	16	69%
39	Ahernandez	0.66	18	0.070	3	67%
40	Johnson	0.64	41	(0.520)	9	11%
41	Adkins	0.46	22	0.023	1	100%
42	Urdaneta	0.26	26	(0.021)	2	50%
44	Muniz	0.24	24	0.012	1	100%
43	Collazo	0.24	25	-	5	40%
45	Alomar	0.02	35	(0.314)	6	17%
49	Humber	0	29	(0.165)	2	0%
46	Park	0	37	(0.354)	1	0%
48	Williams	0	37	(0.354)	2	0%
47	Vargas	0	45	(0.801)	2	0%

relief pitchers are observed to contribute positively to wins with a better success rate than either starting pitchers or hitters, 67% to 49% to 44%

the average positive contribution of a relief pitcher is 0.057 per game, compared to 0.086 for hitters and 0.209 for starters.
the average negative contribution of a relief pitcher is 0.113 per game, compared to 0.060 for hitters and 0.219 for starters.

m.e.t.b.o.t. also looked at these contributions in wins and losses. the below table shows these results as well.

	SP in Wins	RP in Wins	Hit in Wins	SP in Loss	RP in Loss	Hit in Loss
WP+	16.775	13.953	42.559	3.336	3.011	18.281
% Pos	23%	19%	58%	14%	12%	74%
% tot	16%	14%	41%	4%	3%	21%
WP-	(4.078)	(2.935)	(22.433)	(17.596)	(13.431)	(30.749)
% neg	14%	10%	76%	28%	22%	50%
% tot	4%	3%	22%	20%	16%	36%
Tot	12.697	11.018	20.126	(14.260)	(10.420)	(12.468)
% Tot	29%	25%	46%	38%	28%	34%

the first three columns show starting pitchers in wins, relief pitchers in wins, and hitters in wins. the next three columns show the same in losses.

WP+ means win probability added. WP- means win probability subtracted. TOT is the net win probability added or lost by each category of player in a win or loss.

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not yet capable of interpreting, or even correctly defining the above terms. m.e.t.b.o.t. merely presents the data, and allows human posters to decide if it is meaningful at all.

m.e.t.b.o.t. regrets that m.e.t.b.o.t. has not yet been programmed with the ability to change the size of text within tables embedded into online fora, as the below table may occupy far more window space than is required. m.e.t.b.o.t is designed to perform tasks in an efficient manner, and this lack of utility runs counter to that directive.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list?

The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more.

Feel free to draft Player A in your simulated league and play him more.

i'm just trying to see if you think playing time = contribution because it sure seems that way.

No it doesn't. But you sure like framing things in black and white.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more.

so a guy who is actually a negative at the plate is more helpful than a guy who was positive in a small sample size? i guess you're a big fan of "chuckers" in the NBA who score lots of points by ball hogging and you hate those guys who quietly go 6 for 10 for 12 points.

[Chad ochoseis]

Two cents...

Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list?

I'd think that a player who sits is about equal in value to a replacement player. So add in replacement value performance (call it .230/.300/.310) for 500 ABs for Player A. That gives him the equivalent of .258/.333/.358 in 600 ABs.

So I'd take Player A in the extreme example, but not by much.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

...

[metsmarathon]

ramon castro's VORP (value over replacement player) is 13.1 - that is ramon castro contributed 13 runs more in his plate appearances than a replacement player would have been expected to have contributed.

paul loduca's VORP is 9.2.

so, ramon castro's offense contributed 4 runs more to the mets' offense this year than paul loduca.

but what about defense? well, lets look at another metric or three, also from baseball prospectus.

ramon castro's BRAR (batting runs above replacement - effectively the same as/similar to VORP; what's the difference, i couldn't tell you) is 11. paul loduca's BRAR is 7. same 4 run differential. ramon castro's FRAR (fielding runs above replacement) is 5. paul loduca's FRAR is 17. so, ramon castro contributed a net of 16 runs more than a replacement player, while paul loduca contributed a net of 24 runs more than a replacement player. ramon castro's WARP (wins above replacement player) is 1.8, whereas paul loduca's WARP is 2.6.

[Valadius]

Yeah, but a guy who plays more while putting up slightly worse numbers can have contributed more than a guy who plays less while putting up better numbers. It's not Castro's fault he was hurt. But that still doesn't mean he contributed more than Lo Duca. I'm sorry, not buying it. Lo Duca over Castro.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Player A goes .400/.500/.600 in 100 ABs Player B goes .250/.300/.325 in 600 ABs and they're both DH's because i don't want to hear about defense (yet) who is higher on your list? The second one, and isn't that close. There's only so much you can help your team if you don't play. Sorry to the secret slugger. The second guy gave his team about 40% more. so a guy who is actually a negative at the plate is more helpful than a guy who was positive in a small sample size? i guess you're a big fan of "chuckers" in the NBA who score lots of points by ball hogging and you hate those guys who quietly go 6 for 10 for 12 points.

Can we just stop posting about the NBA? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

A guy with a .625 OPS is not a negative contributor. He's not helping his team win too many games, but he's producing above replacement level.