how terrible are they?
by lboros on Dec 18, 2007 9:14 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
Printthe last couple of off-seasons i've run a little exercise using projection data. i aggregate the individual player projections into team totals, then adjust the numbers based on likely playing time. the end result is a team run-scoring projection. in 2006 it was spectacularly accurate --- the exercise yielded an estimate of 780 runs, and the team actually scored 781. last year, not so lucky --- the exercise once again forecast about 780 runs, but the cardinals only scored 725; missed by 7.5 percent.
i normally don't do this projection until the roster is pretty well set, and the 2008 roster may very well change; the cards might still add a hitter, or then again they might trade rolen. so it's premature to be conducting this exercise. but with edmonds and eckstein gone and the cards moving into full-blown rebuilding mode, i got curious about where they stand as of this moment. so i decided to take a preliminary look, based on the roster currently in hand.
let's dispense up front with the obligatory warnings about the hazards of using projection data (i'll be working with ZIPS and CHONE today). whenever i invoke projection data, somebody inevitably points out in the comments section that these systems often get it wrong (as if we needed someone to tell us) and argues that, therefore, the whole exercise is pointless. it's true that the projection systems are often wrong --- about 30 percent wrong, empirically. but that means they're 70 percent accurate, hence far from pointless. every big-league front office runs a version of this same exercise --- a more sophisticated version, using better projection data and more accurate assumptions about player health and playing time --- to gauge their rosters' strengths and weaknesses. if teams are allocating big chunks of time and money to this sort of thing, then i guess there's no harm in our devoting an occasional post to it.
so here we go. i constructed this roster out of the following core players:
infielders: pujols, kennedy, ryan, izturis, rolen, spiezio
outfielders: duncan, ankiel, ludwick, schumaker, barton, rasmus
catchers: molina, larue
for each guy, i plugged in dan szymbroski's ZIPS data (which came out back in october) and pro-rated it for likely playing time, so that my team ended up with a realistic number of at-bats position by position; e.g., i assumed about 1900 at-bats for the outfielders (they took 1905 last season), about 1270 for the middle infielders (1245 last year), etc etc. i tossed in a generic batting line for pitchers and another for replacement players (the minor-league callups and dfa acquisitions who move on and off the roster every summer) and ended up with a full season's worth of at-bats. here's my chart:
| AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | W | AVG | OBP | SLG | BR | |||
| pujols | 545 | 177 | 33 | 1 | 37 | 103 | .325 | .432 | .593 | 130 | ||
| ryan | 500 | 133 | 23 | 3 | 5 | 37 | .265 | .315 | .351 | 53 | ||
| rolen | 480 | 123 | 32 | 1 | 11 | 54 | .255 | .331 | .387 | 62 | ||
| duncan | 455 | 119 | 23 | 1 | 23 | 59 | .262 | .346 | .472 | 72 | ||
| ankiel | 450 | 108 | 18 | 2 | 25 | 27 | .241 | .284 | .458 | 59 | ||
| kennedy | 440 | 110 | 24 | 2 | 2 | 37 | .251 | .309 | .332 | 43 | ||
| ludwick | 400 | 105 | 25 | 1 | 19 | 41 | .262 | .330 | .476 | 61 | ||
| molina | 400 | 98 | 21 | 0 | 7 | 36 | .245 | .307 | .349 | 42 | ||
| itzturis | 330 | 83 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 21 | .252 | .296 | .318 | 29 | ||
| schumaker | 240 | 65 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 15 | .272 | .314 | .370 | 26 | ||
| spiezio | 200 | 51 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 29 | .253 | .347 | .392 | 27 | ||
| larue | 175 | 36 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 24 | .206 | .301 | .354 | 19 | ||
| rasmus | 150 | 37 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 19 | .245 | .328 | .419 | 20 | ||
| barton | 150 | 37 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 18 | .245 | .325 | .357 | 17 | ||
| repl players | 340 | 88 | 21 | 2 | 5 | 32 | .259 | .322 | .376 | 40 | ||
| pitchers | 300 | 45 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 15 | .150 | .177 | .190 | 10 | ||
| PROJ TOTAL | 5555 | 1414 | 288 | 19 | 160 | 560 | .255 | .323 | .400 | 701 | ||
| 2007 TOTAL | 5520 | 1513 | 279 | 13 | 141 | 560 | .274 | .340 | .405 | 736 |
that big bold red number is this roster's projected output over 162 games --- 701 runs, using the base runs estimation model, for those of you scoring at home. the actual 2007 team totals are provided for context; the st louis offense projects to be about 35 runs worse than last year's, a dip of almost 5 percent.
ouch.
basically, ZIPS doesn't think the cardinals can maintain the high batting average that kept them near the middle of the pack last year. insofar as the cards let go of some high-average players (eckstein, taguchi, and miles to name 3), that's not an unreasonable conclusion for ZIPS to draw. the system also doesn't think either ankiel or ryan will hit as well over a full season as he did in a small sample last season; again, not unreasonable. it assumes molina's hitting will regress to its former level of crapitude and that rolen's will remain at its current level of crapitude; i think ZIPS is wrong on both of those counts. but on the whole, ZIPS thinks the cardinals have an atrocious offensive team; 701 runs would have ranked 14th in the nl last year, ahead of only the giants and nationals.
i ran the same numbers using CHONE projection data and got a result that isn't quite as dire:
| AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | W | AVG | OBP | SLG | BR | |||
| ZIPS | 5555 | 1414 | 288 | 19 | 160 | 560 | .255 | .323 | .400 | 701 | ||
| CHONE | 5555 | 1439 | 280 | 23 | 171 | 589 | .259 | .330 | .410 | 733 | ||
| 2007 TOTAL | 5520 | 1513 | 279 | 13 | 141 | 560 | .274 | .340 | .405 | 736 |
CHONE is considerably sunnier than ZIPS on rolen, and slightly more so vis-vis kennedy and ankiel; it even figures cesar izturis will manage a .320 on-base pct. per this sytem (or my distillation of it anyway), the st louis offense has gotten neither better nor worse. it wasn't very good to begin with, so maintaining the status quo is nothing to brag about, but at least we're not talking about finishing dead last in the league in runs.
if there's anything encouraging to be taken from these estimates, it's that both systems figure the cards will hit for more power than they did last season. but by and large, these cocktail-napkin figures reinforce our gut impressions of this offense: it ain't very good.
133 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's hoping we don't look back...
Ouch
Um,
Gut-wrenching!!!
I think Kennedy, Rolen, Molina, Ryan, and Barton are all likely to turn in better numbers... and to a lesser extent Duncan and Ankiel. Of course I have no history of success when projecting players.
The replacement player line is better than seven of the guys listed...three of which are starters.
cardzfanbub,
Feh.
Like I said, I think those are a little pessimistic, but even if not, yeah, they're brutal, and yeah, I can live with it.
my thoughts
Some infusion of talent is needed though. Barry Bonds, despite the baggage, would help offensively. He'd need enough off days that the youngsters still get some development time.
These systems
by Toddius396 on Dec 18, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Barry
I know Bond is good
by SpringfieldDude on Dec 19, 2007 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
By the way, Lb,
Barton
I am very curious to see some estimations other than guesses off last year's MLEs.
It is not going to be a fun year
I have followed the Cards
How much better in '09?
I'll be surprised if Ryan gets 170 more ABs than Izturis, and if I'm right that makes the projection even bleaker. (blort)
my 2 cents
Obviously the projections for Ankiel, Duncan, and Ryan are going to regress to the mean -- they kind of have to since they've never played a full season. If Duncan gets 500 AB's and stays healthy I don't see any reason that he can't hit 30-35 homers and drive in 100 runs. If he's hitting behind Albert he's going to have plenty of opportunities to drive in runs.
Ankiel is still learning how to hit at the professional level. Everyone seems to think that Rasmus should start the season at Memphis, but nobody seems to look at the fact that Ankiel has actually played fewer games and had fewer AB's as a position player than Colby has. Let's give the kid a shot to play every day and see how he adjusts as pitchers begin to make adjustments to his aggressiveness at the plate. His upside is a line around .285/.330/.515 with around 30 homers. He doesn't walk much, but plate discipline is something that can be learned through experience, so lets give him some time to work on things.
For those of us thinking the organization is going to trade Duncan for pitching -- how bad is this lineup minus Duncan? He's the only other regular (+400 AB's) besides Pujols with an OBP over .340 and we have no idea what he can do at the plate over a full season when healthy. We do know that, in spurts, he can put up a .900+ OPS and has legit slugging capability. Unless they can trade for Adam Dunn or someone of that ilk I don't think they can move Duncan at the present time without crippling the '08 team offensively.
Agreed
I am not against moving Duncan down the road, but I don't think now is the right time....We clearly aren't in a "win now" season.
by plaz on Dec 18, 2007 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
He's not that good
Actually
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=6423
OPS of .804 batting second, .916 batting 4th
Didn't Duncan
by Ray Lankford on Dec 18, 2007 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Duncan
And those of us who are writing off 2008 think we should flip him for someone who is a better fit for 2009 and beyond.
+1
by RosevilleRedbird on Dec 18, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
i dont understand
it seems to me people (in general not you) are really down on Duncan for any reason and really high on Ankiel. Truth is IMO that we have way more of an idea what Dunc will do than Ank.
Ank scares me, he had a great streak, then completely died and never recovered.
But then again thats why there is next year
by jealousblues on Dec 18, 2007 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
One, lazy reason:
Compare Stats
1. Luke Scott (964)
2. Corey Hart (940)
3. Joe Charboneau (936)
4. Bill Howerton (935)
5. Chris Shelton (934)
6. Troy Neel (928)
7. Mike Jacobs (927)
8. Mark Quinn (925)
9. Angel Echevarria (925)
10. Mike Simms (923)
Similar Batters through Age 26
Compare Stats
1. Daryle Ward (956)
2. Kevin Mench (948)
3. Dick Stuart (946)
4. Larry Sheets (944)
5. Craig Wilson (942)
6. Brian Giles (941)
7. Joe Charboneau (937)
8. Jimmie Hall (937)
9. Harry Anderson (936)
10. Mark Quinn (935)
Aside from Brian Giles, those are a bunch of guys who were awesome to good over the short term and then fell completely off of table, Daryle Ward's ability to destroy the cardinals nonwithstanding.
Ankiel
- Injury prone
- Question his mental toughness in the spotlight.
great point...
Furthermore, I really don't agree with this list much at all. Daryle Ward, for instance, has never hit more than 20 homers in a season despite having two seasons with more than 400 AB's. Duncan's done it twice, and hasn't had more than 400 AB's yet...last year's final 150 AB's could also probably written off because of the injury that he played through, but it's statistically apparent in his splits from August and September last year that it hampered his ability at the plate.
Mench has only slugged above .500 one time in his career, Duncan did it his rookie year and needed and terrible slump of 1 HR in the last two months to dip below .500 last season -- he still finished with .480, 15 points better than Mench's career average.
I could go on and on, but I think Duncan really compares all that closely with any of these players. Even if I cherry pick out the two best years from most of these guys, Duncan's OPS of .884 career is better than most of these guys' in their BEST TWO SEASONS. While I'm a big fan of Bill James for the most part, these comparisons and how they're built can be way off for certain players because they simply don't compare well to other players of the same age/experience. I believe that to be the case with most of the players on this list.
As far as Ankiel's favorability over Duncan...the kid hit a ton of homers at Memphis last year, has only been swinging the bat for two full seasons, and hit the cover off it for about 5 weeks in his call-up last year. I think a lot of people are looking at his lack of experience and wondering if he might really be something special. Not sure where his head is at, which is something to be concerned about, what's not to like really? He's probably never hitting for a high average, and he's going to look silly against certain pitchers who can take advantage of his aggressiveness, but it still looks like he can rake, so I'll certainly be interested to see his strides this offseason and how he reacts to playing full time in'08 which it looks like he will.
Missing high average guys
if that's true
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
re Kennedy
I 'see' Zubin, and 'raise' him one: Adam K will be gone by June 1.
** also, tho I know he's got a bum knee... LaRue is better than .206. HE, at least, was a solid pick-up; he's also an out-going personality, a 'gamer.' I don't think he will see 175 AB tho.
I thought this was Christmas season
Ryan's AB's
maybe the assumption
ryan
by johnstonburg on Dec 18, 2007 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
ryan gets 500 at-bats
i also think ryan will get more playing time as the year wears on, because by july / august izturis becomes a lame-duck player --- a few months from free agency. ryan will remain part of the club's future and therefore will get more playing time, imho. so that's why i put him down for such a large share of the ABs.
now watch reality shatter all that careful reasoning to smithereens . . . . .
I'll buy that
Agree
Enough with the Izturis bashing already
OPS+ for Shortstop A
82
48
71
62
OPS+ for Shortstop B
88
66
57
60
Both had almost no power but good speed and excellent fielding ability. SS A joined the Cardinals at age 27, SS B at age 28.
If you haven't figured it out already, Ozzie is the first player. Cesar is the second.
I'm not suggesting that Izturis will accomplish what Ozzie did. But Izturis does have the tools to add overall value just a notch below Smith's - with gold glove fielding capability, low strikeouts, good speed, and, yes, solid offensive production for a shortstop.
Izturis has shown signs that when he is healthy, his offensive production can be not much worse than Eckstein's CURRENT capabilities. In 2004 Izturis had a batting average of .288 and an OPS+ of 88. This is half a notch below Eckstein's 2007 offensive production: .309 average and 93 OPS+. In 2005, though, LESS THAN TWO FULL SEASONS AGO, Izturis hit .333 in April (102 AB) and .350 in May (117 AB) and his OPS was .782 and .838 in those two months, respectively. That was before he got hurt. He hasn't had a steady position since that year, because he has either been recovering from Tommy John surgery (usually ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS OR MORE - i.e., until about now - for full recovery) or he has been bounced around as a utility infielder.
Cesar's offensive production in 2004 and, before he got injured, in 2005, indicate that with a regular role his offensive capability could easily be every bit as good as Eckstein's is right now. The difference is that Izturis is a much better fielder and he will be only 28 next year, in his prime years, while Eckstein will be 33, in decline. Izturis also costs a fraction of what Eckstein is seeking.
I am surprised at how many VEB fans are ignoring how much injuries can mask the talent of players (cf. Chris Carpenter when the Cardinals acquired him) and how many have ignored the great value that can be added by Izturis defensively if he is managed effectively, with teammates like Pujols and Molina who play a hard nine and will insist that Cesar does the same.
For perspective, here is an excerpt from the Dodgers' official MLB.com site:
"Izturis had the biggest range by a shortstop that I have seen. He usually could throw the runner out from anywhere in his range....
"The small young shortstop had the fastest hands that I have seen on a baseball field. Izturis grabbed line drives before I could focus on the play. He fielded ground balls smoothly and quickly. He turned double plays effortlessly....
"In 2004, Izturis committed only 10 errors, earning him the National League Gold Glove.... Although many fans overlook the importance of the defense, having great defense enabled the Dodgers to win their first National League West Division title since 1995....
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071130&content_id=2314791&vkey=news _la&fext=.jsp&c_id=la
Bottom line: It was reasonable for Mozeliak to place a one-year bet on Izturis in hopes that he would signifcantly improve the Cardinals' defense at SS and thereby improve the performance of the entire pitching staff (worst rotation in franchise history in 2007), especially while the Cardinals continue to gear for groundball pitchers. And with Cesar's return to regular play at shortstop and adept management by LaRussa, Izturis could make a solid offensive contribution as well.
please don't ever compare the fielding
Izturis has not shown signs of being a decent player for several years.
He did compare them
by Ray Lankford on Dec 18, 2007 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
right
Izturis has been more than replacement level since 2004. Maybe it's the injuries . . . or maybe he becomes the new Aaron Miles for this team. An overrated player based on intangibles and a very small skillset who gets too many at bats.
bad comparison
One and one half years ago Izturis was an All-Star
Please understand that Izturis was recovering from Tommy John surgery the last year and a half. His arm is reportedly back to full health, so the logical projection would be that he will perform at the level he did the last time he was at full health.
If you don't believe such projections, look at the history for Chris Carpenter in the two years before he pitched a full season for the Cardinals. When the importance of health in performance analysis is disregarded, the entire analysis cannot be taken seriously.
Yet the Izturis bashing continueson blind faith that his performance in 2008 will be comparable to his performance in 2007 and the last half of 2006, when he was not at full strength.
The confidence interval for Izturis projections is wide, given the uncertainty of how well he has recovered. But the logical midpoint projection remains the same, by your own adherence to the principal that the last year of a player's performance must have the greatest weight. The data from mid-2006 cannot be considered the "last year" in such an analysis because of the confounding factor: the arm surgery. So you should put the most weight on his performance in the last year of good health. Look at those numbers and you'll feel a lot better about the Izturis signing.
And then let's see how he actually performs on the field before we draw any firm conclusioins about what his value actually will be in 2008.
All Star appearances do not indicate success?
Meanwhile, let's look at the hard data for Izturis' actual performance on the field the last year he was healthy, not someone's speculation or conjecture on a computer screen:
Performance in 2004 after the All-Star break:
.322 OBP, .401 SLG, .723 OPS
April 2005 (102 AB):
.370 OBP, .412 SLG, .782 OPS
May 2005 (117 AB):
.402 OBP, .436 SLG, .838 OPS
azruavatar will confirm that any statistical analysis should put the greatest weight on the last year of comparable data (not data drawn from conditions that differ significantly from conditions expected going forward). So when we project the numbers for Izturis in 2008, we need to focus primarily on the data above.
you're right about weighting
Let's talk about how Izturis did
My math is fine thanks
I understand the situation with Chris Carpenter. It's why teams have scouts and medical teams. I watch a lot of baseball (probably one reason why I'm not as far on my thesis as I should be . . . hmmm) and Izturis throwing hasn't seemed to be the problem to me. His range has deteriorated somewhat as often happens to guys who rely on speed at this age. He's not as quick as he used to be.
He's turned in 2 years where he was a negative with the bat. In 2005 he only accumulated 21 VORP in 700+ PAs. That's astoundingly bad for someone who got that many PAs. UZR had him worth 10 runs in 2004 which is where he peaked. This idea that we should only consider years where players are completely healthy is flat out WRONG -- that is called selective sampling. When you look at aging curves for players like Izturis (speedy, slap hitters) they don't project well into their late 20s.
So the problem isn't that I don't understand math. The problem is that you have flawed analysis. You want to cherry pick stats without any real knowledge of the impact of his injuries. You don't understand defensive contributions (of which Izturis may be slightly above average) or how anemic his hitting is. By all means lets see how he does but the probability of him rebounding is not in his favor from a statistical perspective. He might come back -- and that would be a credit to the Cardinals scouts and medical team -- but we don't have any real reason to expect it.
Data for an injured player are invalid predictors
Of course you understand math, az. I was speaking in jest. I have no doubt that you're a very intelligent guy. I often enjoy your commentary. And I appreciate your efforts to derive insights into players' actual value compared with their peers.
One thing I learned before I got my own Ph.D., years ago, and that I have come to understand more and more the longer my experience in the real world, is that information and assumptions about qualitative matters are absolutely crucial and integral to quantitative analysis. If you have faulty assumptions or your data are skewed or there are confounding factors that are not taken into account, then no matter how sophisticated the number crunching, then the analysis must be considered invalid and no conclusions can be drawn. jWe all know that familiar summary of this principle: "garbage in, garbage out."
The fact that you construe the application of fundamental principle of focusing on performance under comparable conditions as "cherry picking" is a rather salient indication that you have work to do in understanding statistical analysis and the "philosophy of science" before your thesis committee grants you a degree. By the same logic, comparing a player's homerun rate in a spacious ballpark with his rate in a bandbox as "cherry picking". Yet you and all of us take such variations in conditions into account.
Yet you persistently insist on analyzing the data for the performance of Izturis when he was not in full health as the basis for projecting his performance going forward, when he is expected to be in full health again. That is what is "flat out WRONG".
The problem with making such adjustments in data when someone is injured is that we have no quantitative adjustments that apply to the impact of the injury, as we do with the impact of a ballpark's dimensions. Most injuries are far to idiosyncratic to allow precise adjustments in the data. Thus, we have no alternative but to simply throw such data out, if we wish to make serious projections.
It is one of the fundamental principles of statistical analysis to focus on comparable data and to exclude data that are confounded by factors unlike the conditions expected going forward. As you point out yourself, "it's impossible to attribute all of Izturis being terrible to injuries". Quite right. But you leave out the other side of the equation. It is equally impossible to discount the degree to which Cesar's performance suffered because his "tools" or skills have declined. Yet you proceed directly to rely on confounded data in making your projections about Izturis in 2008.
I trust Luhnow is experienced enough in making his projections to avoid your mistake. That doesn't guarantee what Izturis will do in 2008. The confidence interval is very wide, given the variance in the data and the lack of recent data in comparable conditions. Izturis could be a total flop, or he oculd be All-Star caliber again. But the most likely case, based on his actual performance in the most recent year under comparable conditions (good health) is that he will perform about as well as he did in the last two thirds of 2004 and the first third of 2005.
We have 2 people dropping Ph. D.
As far as not having enough data to accurately predict Cesar's production...the guy has 2751 career ABs with 11 career HRs, a career OBP of .295, and a SLG of .334, good for a career OPS+ of 67. It sounds like he has been injured his entire career.
Way to hype that guy. I am looking forward to his healthy contribution to the Cardinal offense.
And let's remember that Ozzie
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 18, 2007 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
I understand the argument that
There is no statistical evidence that I can see which has any predictive value for Izturis being more than a marginal player. What's the best case scenario? A .290/.340/.380 type year with above average defense -- um. . .yay. . .? These endpoints that you are trying to set are impossible to discern unless you're the medical physician on the Dodgers team. (Are you the medical physician on the Dodgers team??? That would be pretty cool.) I could find similar sets of 100 ABs in Edmonds and Rolens numbers from previous years but they aren't predictive.
I think there's a justified reasoning for predicting Izturis to be a replacement level player. It's possible that he'll be better than that but from the outside, I don't see anything which indicates so, even making concessions for injuries. I think we're pretty well both set in our opinions at this point however.
(Also, to other commenters on this thread -- I'm not getting my PhD. It's a thesis for my Masters program. . .and it might be the death of me.)
Also
Don't worry az
Opinions are what make the hot stove league fun
azruavatar wrote:
"Izturis could overperform now that he's allegedly healthy.... Earlier you sample out some very small portions of the data set and say "Here's what Izturis can do!" but the point is that we KNOW he can't do that for a sustained time, injured or not."
Is that last assertion a bit opinionated? How exactly do you KNOW Izturis can't perform as he did in 2004 and early 2005 for a sustained period? You offer no empirical support for that speculation.
When you use the term "overperform" it implies that what we've seen from Izturis when he's unhealthy is his norm, so that any improvement over that would be "overperforming". Please present a valid, reliable empirical basis for that conclusion.
Your claim that the data I cite for Izturis are "very small portions of the data set" is sadly mistaken, az. In fact, Izturis had 670 AB in 2004, his best year. Add in 219 AB in the first two months of 2005, before his physical ailments began and you have a "data set" of 989 consecutive AB's. That's over a third of his career 2751 AB's. Throw out the data for the 225 remaining AB's in 2005 after he was injured and the 192 AB in 2006 when Izturis was still recovering from Tommy John surgery and leave. To be conservative, leave in the 314 AB's for 2007, even though recovery from Tommy John surgery usually takes a year and a half. The data set of 989 AB's then has a denominator of 2082 career AB's in good health.
Then the "data set" on which I base the case for Izturis' potential is actually 42% of his representative career data (i.e., when healthy). This is hardly a "small portion of the data set".
Here's some more qualitative information to provide very important contextual information about why Izturis' performance might have suffered after his health declined:
"In 2005, Izturis was bothered by an array of physical ailments. His season ended with a major Tommy John surgery. During the offseason, ...the Dodgers needed a leadoff hitter to be competitive, so Ned Colletti signed Furcal. When Izturis returned to the diamond, he became a third baseman. The limited time that Izturis played third base for the Dodgers was a pleasure to watch. The Dodgers didn't appreciate Izturis' defense because they wanted more offensive production from a third baseman, so Colletti traded Izturis for Greg Maddux.
Let me put the question to you again, more directly, az: How do you KNOW that the diminished performance we saw from Izturis in 2006 was a reflection of Cesar's actual "normal" level of performance rather than a refelction of his recovery from Tommy John surgery and being moved from regular play in a regular position.
How do you KNOW that his confidence or motivation were not damanged by his experiences during this period?
You don't think such factors are important? Jim Edmonds said this week that Tony LaRussa helped him "grow up" and made him the player he was from 2000 to 2005.
Brad Lidge has never been the same since he delivered a single pitch to Albert Pujols in a NLCS game a couple of years ago; the vast majority of observers regard the change in Lidge's performance as attributable to a loss of "confidence". I'm sure you gag at such "subjective" assertions.
Alex Rodriguez said on "60 Minutes" this Sunday that performance in baseball is 90% mental. He's not the first to make that sort of remakr.
How do you know that damage to Cesar's motivation and confidence and being given irregular opportunities to get his batting stroke and fielding back on track have NOT had some effect on Izturis? Please note, I'm not saying I "KNOW" that these are the actual determinants of Izturis' decline in performance. I'm just saying we have no way of knowing, since the data are confoudned by too many factors since the first third of the 2005 season.
Yet you boldly claim that KNOW that Izturis will continue to play in 2008 as he did in 2006 and 2007 If you are consistent, then you must confess that you also asserted at the time the Cardinals acquired Chris Carpenter that his performance during during his years of physical struggle just before the Cards acquired him were "valid" indicators of the "real" ceiling of his capabilities. You must have protested loudly about what an awful move it was to acquire him. And you must refer to his Cy Young season as "overperforming".
It's fortunate for St. Louis that you weren't the one making the personnel decisions for Cardinals back then....
when I was refering to overperforming
I'm more than willing to say he slightly underperformed the last two years because of injury. I'm not willing to draw lines in the sand to pick out subsets of his offensive lines during that time. You're assuming those two months where he performed well are directly associated with him being healthy. I'm saying that there's no way to know that. When you quote 42% of the his career at bats as when he's healthy, that's outside of our area of knowledge (unless you know his specific medical history from the doctors at the time). He could have been healthy during other parts of the last 2 years.
If we take 2004 as our baseline for Izturis (since there's no question of health that season) and apply aging curves that match Izturis' skillset. . .I don't think that projects well for him. We don't even really know what "healthy" means in terms of Izturis. You assume it means 2004 and the first 2 months of 2005. What if it means 85% of what he used to be able to do? Again, no way to know.
I'm falling on the side of the projection systems and a somewhat skeptical viewpoint of Izturis. I'm not crunching a Marcel to get my conclusions. Izturis isn't the ideal player for a projection system but can you initial argument (way back when) was that you don't understand "how many have ignored the great value that can be added by Izturis defensively". I can understand it. . . I can understand it completely. Izturis looks like Aaron Miles who might be above average defensively at SS. I hope I'm wrong but the idea that that's an inconceivable conclusion is puzzling to me.
Additionally, I do have a hard time ascribing things like motivation and how a player is "feeling" to their offense or fielding. When a player is at the plate, they have a few seconds to react. When they're fielding that groundball, do they really have time to question whether their confident enough to get their glove all the way down. (If you want to talk about those things in terms of conditioning -- Miguel Cabrera, I'm looking at you -- then I can understand that.) But when they're on the field in the moment. . . I'm very skeptical of the confidence arguments.
Alex Rodriguez can say that its 90% mental but I think I've got the mental part down. I can't, however, swing a bat very fast or throw 90mph or run down every ball in the outfield. Tragically my mental game didn't get me to the bigs. That's a garbage quote that's meant as a pretty one-liner in a story.
(This is an interesting discussion but the day that I'm "the arbiter of what is a valid statistical analysis" is the day that I officially stop commenting. I'm just debating the validity of your Izturis optimism.)
wow that was long
Personally,
by the red baron on Dec 19, 2007 7:12 AM EST up reply actions
We have yet to reach the nadir
I blame Izsuckis.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Did I bash Izturis?
In any case, I said none of that before.
wow
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 18, 2007 10:36 AM EST reply actions
Wainwright:
He also said that he thinks Ryan can play SS every day.
He sounds
Funny: half-jokingly he said that Brendan's not right in the head. "He's a different cat."
Hopefully that audio will make it to insidestl.com. We could all use a dose of Adam Wainwright right now.
Gotta love
by Toddius396 on Dec 18, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
For those worried about losing
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 18, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
Wainwright audio is up
http://www.insidestl.com/morningafter/index.php?p=501
Bottom of the page.
my first listen to this site
Thanks anyway for posting the addy.
you
Yecchhh!
It's my opinion that Molina has improved enough as a hitter that last season's output is closer to his actual "mean" than figuring in his previous seasons. After he settled on one batting stance, Yadi became, if not decent, at least better than the "black hole" category he'd been previously.
I'm also of the opinion that Ankiel will continue to improve with additional at-bats. Yeah, he's still learning, but there's an swful lot of talent there.
I expect Rolen not to be traded, and to bounce back from his last two injury-riddled seasons. The question there is, how far will he bounce back?
The middle infield is the big question mark... who plays where, and how much? An Izturis/Ryan platoon might be fairly effective (given Cesar's splits); will Kennedy bounce back, or is it possible he'll lose his job to Hoffpauir?
AP may see a Bondsian walk rate this year... unless Rolen/Duncan can provide a little "protection" in the cleanup spot.
I strongly suspect that the roster that comes out of Jupiter will change quite a bit before the end of the season... Hope springs eternal!
Scroll back through Izturis' splits
so, our offense will suck
LOL
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 18, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
trade options
They will go down
Same for Rolen. Even if, in some wacky world. we'd get Chone Figgins.
I don't see a lot of likely scenarios that get us more OBP at the leadoff spot which at least gets Pujols more opportunities with men on base.
Ah,
by raisin @ Viva El Birdos on Dec 18, 2007 11:53 AM EST reply actions
"ain't very good..."
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 12:02 PM EST reply actions
welllllll
I have hope that something good will be done with that cash. Until it happens, though, I'm not counting it as a good thing. I'm in wait and see mode. "Show me!" I guess I learned something from my 2 1/2 years living in the Loo. :-) That, and how to pronounce 44 (far-dee far).
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 18, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
How has trading Edmonds...
From the front page post a couple days ago, in 2007 Edmonds posted a .250/.324/.403 in 352 ABs, while all other CFs posted a .298/.338/.435. Plus, at age 37, Edmonds doesn't project to improve any great amount in '08.
I've got a nickle that says
If Edmonds was moved to Skippy's role and Skippy was sent packing, the team would still be better than it is now.
We replace Bennett with LaRue, Eckstein with Izturis. I don't really see how those were great improvements.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Edmonds and Skip may be a wash...
Well
Skip isn't the name or persona that Edmonds is, but he also doesn't make 8 million to play a glorified platoon position. Simply getting rid of Edmonds salary makes this team better in a sense that they now have more flexibility. I'll also take your nickel bet -- Skip may not have the power Edmonds has, but he'll hit for a higher average with more speed and adequate defense. Oh yeah, and cost about 7 mill less.
by Ray Lankford on Dec 18, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
That was a whole lot of words
This team has gotten worse offensively.
-Do you believe that Cezar Izturis will outplay David Eckstein offensively?
-Do you believe that Jason LaRue will outplay Gary Bennett offensively?
-Do you believe Skip Shumaker will outplay Jim Edmonds offensively?
-Do you believe Brian Barton will outplay So Taguchi offensively?
Barton is the only one on there that honestly can outplay the others offensively. Edmonds was a wreck in '07 injury-wise. Even at his advanced age, if he stays healthy, he'll outhit Skippy and his abnormally high BABIP.
We saved money. We can't send a stack of dollar bills up to the plate and believe they will drive in runs.
As I said, every move we've made has made the team worse offensively. Will we make moves that will make them better? Maybe. We haven't yet.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
To finish that thought
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
Skip Schumaker...
Who will be?
Taguchi got 307 ABs in 2007.
Ludwick got 303 ABs in 2007.
We had an outfield last year of:
Duncan 375
Encarnacion 283
Edmonds 365
Ankiel 172
Skippy 177
Wilson 64
Taguchi 307
Total 1743
We are going into 2008 with an OF of:
Duncan
Ankiel
Ludwick
Barton
Skippy
Let's imagine that Duncan gets 450 ABs in the LF slot. Ankiel will get 400+ ABs splitting between CF and RF. Ludwick will be forced to 400 ABs in a full season.
Duncan 450
Ankiel 400
Ludwick 400
Total 1250
That leaves 493 ABs for Barton and Skippy to split unless a) Rasmus is called up (which they are saying won't happen) b)someone gets injured and they get MORE ABs.
Of course, they could ALL get fewer ABs (other than Barton) because they are all lefthanded.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 18, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
According to Strauss:
Ankiel played 137 innings in center in '07, Schumaker 64, Ludwick 22. Barton will also likely be on the roster and Rasmus may make an appearance later in the season, assuming he doesn't win the job out of ST.
Any or all of these guys could totally flop, so projecting playing time is probably not wise. I'd say it's a Ankiel/Barton tandem at the outset with Ludwick/Rasmus/Schumaker in reserve.
Sheesh, who WON'T
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 18, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Here's my point
-any offense lost in 2008 will be replaced by 1)defensive gains in 2008, 2) the opportunity to develop young, cost controlled talent for 2008, 2009, 2010, etc. and 3)payroll flexibility (hence giving us the option to pursue other players -- "send a stack of dollar bills to the plate?" -- gimme a break).
But yeah, I guess if you want to take a micro-cosmic view of where the club is heading, you can do that too. (oh, and isn't admitting that Barton can "outplay the others offensively" the same as admitting we didn't "get worse offensively with every move?")
by Ray Lankford on Dec 18, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'll take LaRue over Bennett
If you think
I'm just concerned that the other CFs you refer to will not patrol the position better nor hit better. A year of having Jimmy around would have given these youngsters a chance to learn from him. I'm also concerned with the idea of team stability. Lineup changes at SS, CF, possibly 2B, RF if Ankiel moves to CF, possibly 3B if Rolen gets moved -- combine that with the acquisition of Freese, who's not a zero, but still, all in all, an acquisition based on potential, and in my mind you get:
JEdmonds > what we got back
The future evaluation of this equation hinges on what happens with that $6M salary savings. Until that $6M is spent, we got the short end of that trade.
But hey, I know people who were miffed when we traded Bottenfield and Kennedy to get Jimmy. I loved the trade then, and I'm sure my valuation of him is as much about sentiment as it is about his ability to produce in '08.
TSF
by TedSimmonsFan on Dec 18, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
it would be interesting to see
by jealousblues on Dec 18, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
I know most people know
by Toddius396 on Dec 18, 2007 12:29 PM EST reply actions
Barry Bonds
That may make sense...
If the Cardinals held
I'm not a PR specialist, though, so it's possible that wouldn't help. That would work if they told me that. At this point, however, I have less faith in the Cardinals PR ability than I do their medical diagnostic ability.
I am a PR specialist
by RosevilleRedbird on Dec 18, 2007 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
The Cardinals should be...
I always begged Cardinal-nation as being a bit more moralistic than "average" baseball fans. Plus the team has a reasonably good thing going with its fan base both in terms of overall numbers and dedication to the team.
Just seems like a lot of downside risk with Barry, especially with his indictment and the report coming out within the past month.
And then hold another press conference
The Yankees
I'll just have to lay this one to rest on my part -- my own personal preconceived notions prevent me from seeing why STL fans would hate Bonds so much. . .
Bonds
All that to say, I think there'd be an initial backlash of protest, but we'd collectively get over it once the season starts.
and we would STAY ...
And we still love him when he stands at the plate watching one of his high fly balls bounce off the wall, and he ends up with a single, on a poke that would have been a double for ANY other player and a triple for maybe some?
Yes we would
Pettit and Giami aren'et awaiting prosecution
What does 70% accurate mean?
To me that would suggest to me they are completely accurate 70% of the time - but that seems extreme. Is that an R-squared of 70%? If so then that's not the right interpretation.
yes, R squared of 70
70% accurate
The correct way would be to say the model explains 70% of the variation, but for this to mean anything we need to know what exactly we are measuring here: OPS?, OPS+, RC... Also we should know if the model is for individual players or teams.
It has 70% less squared-error than the mean.
here.
R-squared is a PRE measure (Proportional Reduction in Error) where it measures the reduction in (squared) error rate relative to some baseline guess, in this case the overall sample mean. That is, compared to the mean, these projections have a 70% smaller squared-error rate (or it explains 70% of the variation around the mean).
However, in terms of forecasting, this interpretation assumes we knew the 2008 mean ahead of time in statistic "blank" (OPS,AVG,RBI). Guessed that for each case (be it team, player) and then compared that error rate to to the ZIPS/CHONE projection. This is a weird way of forecasting and, thus, not a really good way to evaluate a forecast.
Ouch.
That ended
Looking to the future
Here's his conclusion:
In three years, Luhnow has turned around the Cardinals farm system, bringing it back up to the middle of the pack. As the club's new GM, Mozeliak has faith in Luhnow's crops of talent, as evidenced by his already opening up a hole for Rasmus, but also not sitting still, adding David Freese and Brian Barton this month. Freese is something of a Wes Helms clone at third, while Rule 5 pick Barton is probably a fourth outfielder. Both offer value in this organization.While the Astros have sold out their future this winter to mount some sort of shot at competing in 2008, the Cardinals are showing signs of doing the opposite, with an eye towards developing a more home-grown supporting cast to surround Albert Pujols. It was once true that the future of the Cardinals needed to come from outside the organization, but the long-term plan Mozeliak and Luhnow are developing looks to change that.
Maybe i'm just a homer...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 18, 2007 3:01 PM EST reply actions
it's a sad day
but we know what
And we should be healthier, and younger.
And as important as anything, in my view, is that we KNOW we start the season without Carpenter, whereas last year it came out of the blue the first week of the season, one of the main kicks in the stomach it took us a while to adjust to.
Some reasons for optimism:
Also, Molina's numbers in 2006 were unduly affected by bad luck; even taking speed into account, his BABIP was ridiculously bad for a guy who hits line drives 19% of the time. Dave Studeman did a study which showed that players who lined out a large amount of times one year improved significantly the next; yadi's performance in 2007 was quite in line with what I would have expected given his 2006 peripherals. In another study, yadi's name came up as a "true .300 hitter", one of only about 2 dozen in the league. His BA in 2007 was not a fluke even if it was out of line with his past performance.
I think the projection nailed schumaker though. I did a quick calculation yesterday to correct his 2007 for luck and got .284/.315/.394. He was playing over his head (much like hanley ramirez) and I really hope management doesn't see him as a true .330 hitter.
Our pitcher's hitting last year was well above league average. That's worth some runs. Also, I don't see HBP anywhere; unless you included that into the walks column, that'll boost the overall numbers somewhat. Surprisingly, simply plugging in last years HBP count (56) raised the team OBP 6 points.
A major nitpick: It's more correct to use the team totals rather than individual totals for calculating BR. Calculating BR for each player and then adding them up assumes (for instance) that skip is hitting in a lineup of 8 other skips. He isn't, so in reality he'll create more runs than predicted because sometimes he'll drive in pujols or duncan and sometimes he'll be on base when they come up. Of course it also assumes APu is hitting in a lineup of 8 APu's, but our lineup has more skips than APu's right now.
In this case, plugging your "PROJ TOTAL" numbers into the "basic formula" for base runs on the wikipedia page (can't go to blogspot from this computer) and not accounting for HBP I get 724.8 runs, while accounting for HBP I get 742.2. That's a pretty good boost.
hmm
Confirmed
Also, SleepyCA, I agree with many of your other points, as well. However, while Larry's first pass may be a tad pessimistic and more of a rough sketch than a "complete" analysis, having to scratch and claw to find "missing" runs here and there does reinforce the intended "gist" of the projection: i.e., runs will indeed be very hard to come by in 2008.
This team will likely have to fight just as hard to create runs in the real games come spring as we will have to in our projection attempts this off-season...
runs are always hard to come by ;)
That gives me reason for hope, not despair! There's no way we'll be as bad as this prediction, yet even if we ARE this bad, we'll be better than we were last year. Given this information and how I think our outfielders will really perform, I think there is a very good chance that we'll score 800+ runs this season.
Agree and I don't see it outrageous to
re the hbp
as for the 701 vs 710 --- i don't think summing the individual BRs is a valid use of the formula. there's a certain amount of variation / uncertainty built into the formula, and that effect is greater the smaller the sample size. hence each of the individual player totals (based on only 200 to 600 at-bats) is less reliable than the overall team total, which is based on 5500+ at-bats. so i still think 701 runs is the best projection based on this data.
also, please understand that those aren't my pessimistic assumptions; i didn't make those numbers up. the ZIPS projection system did; i just molded them into something resembling 162 games' worth of offense. personally, i would agree with you that 735 runs is a better estimate than 701 --- and indeed, the CHONE system is more bullish on the cards' hitters and projected just that.
but ZIPS is pessimistic --- not because of a calculation error or misreading of the data, but on the merits. ZIPS just doesn't expect our hitters to hit much.
let's hope ZIPS is wrong.
oh yes
Anyway thanks for clarifying the HPB issue, even if it's not what i wanted to hear (sigh). The problem is that I'm trying to replicate the math and I just can't make it work (or even get close, really). It looks like you are saying that you applied the "base runs" formula on the whole team's stats to get the 701 number? If so, which formula did you use?
When I apply agonistes' "basic" formula to the 2007 numbers in your table (which match B-R's except for AB, which should be 5529) I get 762.4, not 736, and I get 724.8 for the 2008 team projection. It's very frustrating because I can't find my mistake.
(but at least I've killed a boring afternoon at work learning about "base runs"! ;)
OT, but interestingly enough when I apply the more complicated version and add in SH to the "out" column, it gives 731.6, which is very good agreement to the actual 725 we scored...
i used the same formula
the "A" component is H + W - HR, or 1414 + 560 - 160 = 1814
the "B" component is 1.4*TB - 0.6*H - 3*HR - . . . AHA!! here's the mistake, and it's mine. in the complicated "B" formula, i have been subtracting .1*BB, when in fact you're supposed to ADD that factor.
once i do that, i derive estimates of 725 base runs for the ZIPS projections and 758 base runs for CHONE --- way more optimistic than i came up with this a.m.
nice work Sleepy CA --- your afternoon was not a complete waste. thanks for your persistence. i'll pass on the good news tomorrow a.m.
Pretty bleak...
I know Ankiel hasn't shown an abilty to draw a lot of walks, but I'm pretty confident he can keep his OBP above .300. I'd put it around a .320 mark, but the experience is so neglibable with him you could use such a wide range. .280 is clearly on the low end and if he's hovering around that mark by summer he's going to get replaced and won't have 450 AB's.
Count me in as one that thinks Molina has turned a corner. Not that he's a difference maker, but I think last years performance is probably more in line with what he can do than previous years. He's seemed to make some adjustments and still has been early in his development, so I just don't see much, if any, regression there.
Rasmus, Barton, and even Schumaker are crapshoots. Some projections will be accurate, but there should be a decent chance of outperformance somewhere in that mix. And that person ought to be pulling more AB's since it's appearing to be an open audition.
Not that those 3 items tranform the offense into a juggernaut. So the overall point stands, we're not looking that good. I just have a hard time believing it's going to be that pathetic. I'm thinking more middle of the road, but maybe that's grounded on the shaky foundation of optimism.
by Merry CRasmus on Dec 18, 2007 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
How are important are Runs anyway
I agree with lb's overall point here. We can't say that runs are not at all important or that the use of such projections will not be indicative of how the cardinals will perform next year. It is clear this team is lacking pop in the line up. there is really no since in arguing about which players will over/under achieve next year . lb says that the projections are about "30 percent wrong" so lets assume yadi hits 30 % more (1.8) or even 50% (3) more home runs next year- big deal. Or lets say that Adam Kennedy improves any or all of his stats by 30% next year- great we will have an average 2b. My point is that clearly the current team's offensive predictions look horrible next year in terms of run production unless we add anther BIG bat. But runs don't always mean everything. Now for a little research:
Team Run productions over the last three years-
2007
Ny Yak 968
Philly 892
Det 887
Boston 867
Colo 860
La Ang 822
Texas 816
Clev 811
2006
Ny Yak 930
Clev 870
Chi sox 868
Philly 865
Atl 849
Tex 835
Ny mets 834
Detroit 822
2005
Boston 910
NY Yak 886
Texas 865
Cinci 820
Philly 807
StL 805
Clev. 790
Toronto 775
No surprise that the pin stripes were at the top the last two years- but where are their world series. I know were ours was in 06 even though the cards came in 14th (a severe drop off from 2005.) And what about 2005? Where are the Astros on the 05 list- a miserable 24th. (no wonder they couldn't win a game.)
Don't get me wrong, I can read. It is pretty evident that if you are at the top of this list your doing ok. Teams like the Boston, yanks and now Detroit (as if they need any more help) see a lot of off season hype and free agent deals which pay off in runs. But outside the SOX where are the championships. I think it is clear that if you score a lot of runs your on the bus. but just bc you don't score runs doesn't mean that your shit out of luck as far as making the play offs.
Consider Philly- Philly was 2nd and 4th respectively the last two years leading the national league in 07 and 06. Philly also pulled out a second in the NL for runs in 05. However the phills always seem to hover around the playoffs and are rarely a "lock".
And did you notice the Rangers. They score more than wilt chamberlain (runs that is) and they are nowhere near the playoffs. So while I am certain that our line up is potentially week (and doesn't look to be getting much better through the free agent market)- we may be ok if we get some pitching. This will prob take a little bit of luck as well- considering that many of these free agent pitchers are either coming of injures or are just plain suspect.
So what's the rule?-good pitching always beats good hitting.
As pessimistic as I am about next season the runs thing doesn't really scare me just yet.
by the cardinal rule on Dec 18, 2007 8:09 PM EST reply actions
Um scoring runs is about 49% of the game or so
Pitching projections w/ runs projections
Also, working in the financial world we are always working with risk vs reward statistics. I'm sure everybody knows about standard deviation, but there is also another statistic called coefficient variation which measures the amount of risk taken to obtain the average return. In laymen's terms, are you taking more risk than you need to be to get a certain return?
OK, now to my point, lets put it into baseball terms. I wonder if there is a way we can correlate offensive production with a team's payroll. How much offense are we getting compared to the payroll we are paying.
Looking at the Yankeess, does the Yankees payroll justify their offensive production. I'm curious how the Cardinals compare to the Yankees? Also, looking at a team like the Marlins, how does the Cardinals compare to them?
I hope this makes sense...
by STL Faithful on Dec 18, 2007 11:30 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
