[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

i'm just not sure what skill we're measuring here. scoring runs is a function of getting on base, baserunning, and the ability of the players hitting behind you (or hitting hr's yourself) to drive you in. if murphy shows no superior ability to get on base, and has zero control over the players hitting behind him, his ability to score runs on low scoring teams is what? his baserunning is a huge differentiator? he had the ability to forecast clutch hits of his teammates?

We're measuring the bottom line of offense, which is to score and drive in runs. Whereas OPS measures getting on base, the context of scoring and driving in takes it a step further and tells you what happens after that.

Originally Posted by kflo

why should i care how many runs murphy scored in relation to the team? what is it telling me?

It puts his production in the context of the team he was on, and tells us how much influence he had on the team's overall scoring — how much he was contributing to the team's success, a la Win Shares.

Baserunning involves stealing, getting a good lead, taking the extra base on a hit, breaking up double plays, not getting caught in no-man's land, advancing on fly ball outs, utilizing the hit and run, playing the percentages of different situations. It's more than speed. Paul Molitor is probably the poster child for this.

Driving in runners involves getting them home by hitting the ball somewhere where they can advance, whether it be by a ground ball, a fly ball, or hit. It involves capitalizing on situations.


[quote=WilsonCThe real issue here is that correlation doesn't equal causation. Intuitively, a player could rate well in these metrics for the following reasons:
- He plays in a lot of games[/QUOTE]
The average number of games for those with at least 14%:

Pre-1961: 149
1961-2006: 155

Meaning, in a 154-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 144 games as there were at 154, and in a 162-game schedule, there were likely just as many at 148 games as there were at 162. This is not all that unusual of a distribution in terms of the players who were the most valuable. A player who misses 15-20 games in a season generally hasn't been as vaulable to his team as those who missed fewer games.

(I also removed the shortened seasons from the totals)

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- He's a good hitter relative to his teammates

Intuitively, yes. However, show me any pattern of this from the listed data. Of all those at 14% or higher, their teams on average were actually 6% above the league scoring average. (the last column)

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- He bats in the 3-4 spots in the batting order

That's where almost all the best offensive players are in the order. Why should we be surprised that this is where they are? They are there by design. I would venture to say not too many ineffective batters spend several years as the number 3 or 4 hitter in the lineup.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

- His lineup could be constructed in a way that he happens to get a lot of opportunities

What scenarios are you envisioning? A lineup that has more high-quality batters within two spots before him and after him, or what? How would this skew the data?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

It does suggest value - a durable player who's the best hitter on his team is usually a good player, but it doesn't really say much about the degree. Team quality and opportunity are an obvious factor here.

The team quality factor appears to be basically random. Opportunity is a function of a player's spot in the lineup, which spot is the product of that player's ability. Naturally, number 4 batters on the whole are going to produce more for their teams than number 7 batters. They're expected to produce more. That's why they're batting where they are.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Also, it assumes a zero-level replacement, which naturally overvalues durability.

This can be adjusted for. I don't think it's going to change most percentages more than a percentage point.

As for replacement, often a team has to replace a player with a substandard player, thus hurting the team in his absence. And then whatever role that player was filling before would have to be filled in by someone else, etc.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

The other thing is that it double-counts HR. A solo HR adds a R and an RBI, but is one run, not two.

We're not measuring raw runs, but instead we're measuring runs produced. A home run is a run produced unaided by other players on the team, whereas a general run relies somewhat on other players, and a general RBI relies somewhat on other players.

R = 0.5
RBI = 0.5
HR = 1.0

Originally Posted by WilsonC

This will naturally overrate power hitters and underrate leadoff-types.

Which power hitters on the list does it overrate, and which leadoff-types does it underrate?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

In order for it to tell us anything, it needs to be based on opportunities, rather than assumptions. If you were to take all PA with each runners-on/outs combination and determine how well a player capitalizes on those situations, it may tell you something about an ability.

In my mind, that takes us further away from the truth. I have very little faith that opportunities can be effectively quantified, because they introduce more undefined variables.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

As a flat, unadjusted number, however, it's a very loose metric that doesn't tell much aside from the fact that a player was a middle-of-the-order hitter.

If it were as random as you make it sound, we wouldn't see some of the same players up near the top over and over. And they're typically the players you would expect to be near the top of the list. It's much more than a function of their place in the lineup.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being the best hitter on a team. You get pitched around. When relievers come in it's often focused on the best hitter coming up in the next few spots, so if he bats left-handed, then it's a left-handed pitcher, etc.

Overall, do you think this metric undervalues anyone among those you would consider the top ten CF? Does it overvalue anyone in your opinion other than Murphy?