A Study in Value

No

Jeter IS Player B... Player A is NEVER going to be mentioned as an MVP candidate this year by anyone not on heavy drugs and he basically contributed as much as Jeter on the field. Player A created 25 more outs in 26 more at bats (a wash), they created almost the same amount of runs and Player A is responsible for 90 more outs in the field - 30 more DPs, 30 more assists and 30 more POs - that's pretty close for a season's worth of data.

Young is NOT player A. Maybe I should have put him up there too. Not the point.

The point is "value" as it refers to a single player is often misconstrued as wins for a team, VORP or some list of immeasurable contributions. It's the LEAGUE'S Most Valuable Player award. My theory is the most valuable player in the league would be most valuable for any team in the league...

Bugs Bunny is the only baseball player I ever saw that did it all hit/pitch/field/run/throw...

After all, like I pointed out on the chart above, shortstops (or any other player) don't pitch, they don't bat in all 9 slots and they don't make 27 putouts a game. So one player can only be responsible for a certain ratio +/- over 1/9.5th (9 position players and a DH in the AL) of his team's success.

(I have nothing else to say about this other than HOW can Derek Jeter be MVP when his measurable contributions are so similar to crappy-assed player A in 2006???)

I guess I am on drugs, because I had Tejada listed 7th on my top ten list for MVP.

Jeter has a much higher OBP and is a better baserunner than Tejada. Also, Tejada has about 25 more at bats.

Manny, I am just curious... Do you know what VORP is?

Of course I know what VORP is... merely a mathematical calculation that tells nerds what most baseball people can see with their eyes.

"Jeter has a much higher OBP and is a better baserunner than Tejada"

Imagine you're a pitcher... you're facing the Yankees... WHO in that lineup do you go at and who do you pitch around? Now ask the same question of the Orioles (or almost any other team). Miggy doesn't get the prime opportunities to use the bat and obviously he doesn't like to walk...

Jeter gets WAY more hittable pitches than any other "Superstar" because the lineup behind him is disgustingly murderous!

Suggested reading, Manny...

Runs Created

Value over replacement player

Oh, hell, just look at the whole thing. You know, to get enlightened.

Thanks for the insult...

Of course I know what VORP is... merely a mathematical calculation that tells nerds what most baseball people can see with their eyes. Hey, just making sure you knew what you were bashing...

I trust my instincts and baseball experiences enough to watch a player and calculate in my mind whether he's good or not. What I lack is the ability to let other people's opinions of a player become mine own. (like Norm Van Brocklin said - If I ever need a brain transplant, give me a sportswriter's because theirs hasn't been used yet.) Baseball is played on grass not a calculator.

Baseball is played on grass not a calculator. But you literally quoted 30 stats in your table! So let me get this straight: it's okay for you to cite stats, but when other people bring up (far superior) stats, they're nerds who think baseball is played on a calculator? C'mon, Manny. Let's at least be consistent here -- unlike Derek Jeter's defensive efforts...

No I put the stats up there to say... They're basically very similar players. But one has prevelantly been mentioned as an MVP and the other doesn't hear but whispers... If you switched them would Miggy (or ANYONE else) be mentioned as an MVP with Jeter's production?

As for any calculation being superior, that's foolish. No stat matters in your next at-bat. See: Tom Lawless 1987 .080 and NO home runs in the regular season, yet he went 1-10 in the world series with a Game WINNING HOME RUN!!! 1988 - Mickey Hatcher, as another example... All stats are a measure in the past, not the present - so if you're saying "Who was better this year?" stats can be used as a baseline of discussion. If you're saying who is better? Sorry, I have to stick with baseball knowledge and my eyes and watch them play - which is a less quantifyable but truer way to see a player's ability.

I've playted with guys who were minor leaguers and I played with guys that went to the majors... I didn't need to see a stat sheet to notice the difference between them...

I know alot of you moneyball guys think calcualtaions are gold, but scouting fills in all the gaps you can't add up. There should be a balance of both to some degree but if good scouting will overrides good numbers every day. A player can easily manipulate stats with different focus, they can't manipulate their capabilities (without HGH)

That's fair enough. You know, the funny thing about the fact that we've slipped into this whole "Scouts vs. Stats" debate here -- which, by the way, I was never trying spark; my point was simply that if you're going to use stats, at least use the smart ones (which you do to a degree, at least you've got OBP and SLG up there) -- is the fact that the central figure in the argument remains Derek Jeter. Your position in the other "value" article was that Jeter has been massively overrated throughout his career (which is true), and this article only serves to further highlight the fact that other players, like Tejada, are pretty much of equal value to Jeter (also true -- Miggy's having a fine season as well). Yet in the debate, you're taking the side of scouts, and I'm defending stats... Why is that funny, you say? Because stats guys have always bashed Jeter for being a bad defender, for not slugging enough, etc., while scouts have always fawned over his "leadership", "intangibles", jump-throws in the hole, and that magical (read: lucky) flip to tag Giambi. So while we started out on the same side (Jeter is overrated), the argument somehow morphed into stats vs. scouting -- both of whom, incidentally, love Jeter this year! I guess we'll just agree to, well, half-agree, then, because I'm pretty sure he's not putting up another year like this one again...

As for the idea that experience, instincts, and knowledge are all that you need to effectively evaluate players -- well, I used to feel that way, too. However, eventually the realization must be made that the naked eye is generally an inadequate tool for proving anything, whether it be a major leaguer's value, or something as obscure as whether or not sumo wrestlers are throwing matches... Why? For one thing, our eyes can be easily deceived; for another, the sample size involved with using our senses is almost always too small -- we make sweeping assumptions based on very little actual data. In other words, to make precise decisions, we need precise data -- in the form of numbers. Bill James stated the dilemma of using our senses thusly:

"Think about it. One absolutely cannot tell, by watching, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter. The difference is one hit every two weeks. It might be that a reporter, seeing every game that the team plays, could sense that difference over the course of the year if no records were kept, but I doubt it. Certainly the average fan, seeing perhaps a tenth of the team's games, could never gauge two performances that accurately -- in fact, if you see both 15 games a year, there is a 40% chance that the .275 hitter will have more hits than the .300 hitter in the games that you see. The difference between a good hitter and an average hitter is simply not visible -- it is a matter of record.

But the hitter is the center of attention. We notice what he does, bend over the scorecard with his name in mind. If he hits a smash down the third base line and the third baseman makes a diving stop and throws the runner out, then we notice and applaud the third baseman. But until the smash is hit, who is watching the third baseman? If he anticipates, if he adjusts for the hitter and moves over just two steps, then the same smash is a routine backhand stop -- and nobody applauds ... So if we can't tell who the good fielders are accurately from the record books, and we can't tell accurately from watching, how can we tell? By counting things..."

And that's why I weigh stats more heavily that scouting data.

Incidentally, I think I just set an AGM record for "longest comment"...

Obviously, you need stats and scouting, but I would like to do this in a showdown format, not as an argument but an educated discussion. It gets people thinking. My personal opinion is there is NO difference between a .275 guy and a .300 guy it just comes down to the breaks... the variances bounce year to year - some guys will have variances of up to .100 points! but I can look at 2 swings and see who I'd rather have batting - even though that could change day to day - Good stuff D21Dub!+++ I like intelligent discussion, I enjoyed that!!! (I grew up reading Bill James Abstracts)

They play to win fantasy, not the real game.

it's a good indication of who they'd rather have at shortstop... I bet if you took all the Jeter lovers out of the draft, he'd be ALOT lower

ding ding ding - Not that it even matters, But did you do it without looking? I showed these numbers to about 10 people at work today that I consider to be mildly knowledgable and they were ALL shocked!

I had a hunch, then I looked it up to confirm.

I agree with you Manny, and have mentioned so previously, only to get shredded by Yankee lovers and AL East sympathizers. I have been been reading these threads intently. I just have choosen not to participate. It seems both sides are entrenched in their beliefs, not a fun discussion or discourse. Numbers are just numbers, they do everything from charting simple statistics to determining national elections. They however cannot tell how actually valuable a player is on the field. There is no calculation VORP or otherwise that can be made to determine who is the most valuable, let alone who is even better. These decisions are made by witnessing the players perform. You can't measue how many outs a player might have had if his arm were stronger, this isn't in errors. You can only see that by watching a game and estimating yourself over the course of the season. Dontrelle Willis the other night pitched into the 9th allowing 3 ER while hitting two HRs of his own for 3 RBIs. That is the definition of value to a team, he guaranteed that his Marlins could not lose that game. A hitter can hit 9 home runs and have his team lose, a pitcher can throw a perfect game into the 9th and lose; in determining value, you must decide what player aids his team the most in their ultimate pursuit of them winning the game, regardless of how much they are paid, or how the media views them, or how big their cheesy smile is, its how much do they contribute towards their teams wins.

^^^ Me