The Pujols Effect: Does it exist?
by fourstick on Jul 2, 2010 4:38 PM EDT
Email
Print
Mysterui brought up how the "Pujols Effect" on hitters batting directly in front of him might be a fallacy, so I dug into Baseball-Reference and mined some data to see if I could come up with some conclusions based strictly on hitter performance.
An objective analysis of the Pujols Effect would also look at pitch selection thrown to those hitters, but I'm not sure you're going to be able to get that data, and even if you are, it's going to have a ton of noise related to it because you'd have to account for each pitcher's repertoire, how often they generally throw each pitch, how often they throw strikes, and then determine whether there's a significant change in how they pitch when Pujols is in the on-deck circle. This would be something for VEP or someone with a database of pitches from Pitch F/X to try and tackle if they could come up with a query that would search out that type of stuff. It's way above my head, so you'll just have to settle for my quick and easy method here.
Here are the Cardinals 2nd hitters' sOPS+/tOPS+ since Pujols started hitting 3rd on a regular basis in May of 2003 (sOPS measures the difference between the teams' hitter in that spot and the league average hitter in that spot. 100 would be equal to league average, > 100 would be better than average, etc., just like OPS+ normally distributes, tOPS+ measures how much better a better did in this spot in the order)
Year tOPS+/sOPS+ Player Games Hitting Second
2009: 94/92 Rasmus (74), Ryan (21), Ankiel (15)
2008: 120/132 Miles (34), Ludwick (30), Duncan (17)
2007: 133/128 Duncan (45), Ankiel (36), Taguchi (26)
2006: 99/98 Duncan (54), Taguchi (32), J-Rod (22)
2005: 96/103 Walker (44), Edmonds (34), Nunez (26)
2004: 105/117 Renteria (53), Walker (34), Lankford (30)
2003: 94/104 Drew (46), Edmonds (34)
Again, what were looking at is whether these guys performed better in the 2nd spot than they did elsewhere in the lineup (the first number) and how that spot in the lineup did compared to the league average 2nd spot for all teams combined, including the Cardinals (sOPS+, the second number). Considering Tony likes to bat power hitters in the 2nd spot and other managers don't, I would expect the sOPS+ to be above 100 most of the time for the Cardinals, and that's pretty evident here I think, so we probably should handicap the sOPS+ just a tad, adding 3-5 points or so as a WAG. I could look back historically with LaRussa, but that would take a lot of time, and it's Friday, and I'm blowing off a bunch of work I need to get done to do this anyway, so you'll just have to make this assumption with me.
As far as I'm concerned that's a pretty neutral distribution, because the two strong years are carried by guys who happened to have career years that season (Duncan/Ankiel in '07, Ludwick in '08) never to see similar numbers like that again, it just happened to be that they hit in front of Albert. It's really, really hard to state that those guys wouldn't have hit well elsewhere in the lineup had they been batting there. The numbers below 100 feature a lot of Jim Edmonds, who hated batting second (regardless of who was batting third) and voiced that opinion numerous times as I recall. Also, 2006 and 2009 would probably look very similar if it wasn't for Duncan's breakout late in the season.
Conclusion: It's not much of an advantage to be batting in front of Pujols, at least in the macro sense.
FWIW, the most successful guys seems to have hefty splits (Duncan killed RHP, terrible against LHP; Ludwick destroys RHP, not good against LHP; Taguchi destroys LHP, terrible against RHP; Ankiel destroys RHP in '06, struggles with LHP; etc.) TLR seems to like to put platoon guys there, whether that says something about the "Effect" I have no idea.
48 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sounds about right
Like mysteryui said in the main thread, you’d think that pitchers would be best served to go about their business trying the best they can to get the hitter out.
I'd have to check my math
But I’ve got hitters in front of Pujols with about an extra ~1% fastballs compared to their other spots in the order over 2008-2009. Definitely not a significant result.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 2, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I would think that would show up in the results in my analysis
if they were getting 20% more fastballs, because most hitters crush fastball strikes if they get a lot of them, and they sure aren’t in terms of production.
I’m sure most pitchers stick to their gameplan most of the time, but one would think that subconsciously they’d still be wary of #5 in the on deck circle. If they are, it doesn’t appear to be helping our hitters out much.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Agreed on all counts
Good analysis by the way. Forgot to mention that earlier.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 2, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't have the data in front of me.
I think you are correct, but it’s not the order of magnitude we’d expect. I’ll look when the kiddo takes a nap.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 4, 2010 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Looks like
~1.6% more strikes in 2008 and ~2.6% more strikes in 2009. I think “fat” pitches would be interesting too, but I haven’t sliced the data that way yet.
Both of these sets are only doing a WOWY type analysis on the hitter. They ignore the pitcher aspect.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 5, 2010 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks
There shouldn’t be any bias so it’s probably not neccesary to control for pitchers. It looks like the effect is small, but hitting in front of Pujols is probably better for guys like Ludwick who can pound fastballs in the zone, even if only slightly. It may be enough to offset some of the differences in batting order (which are very small as welll).
Does it mean anything that tOPS+ and sOPS+ are so well correlated?
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
They're really measuring similar things, so yes.
We’re essentially measuring the hitter in that spot in the order against himself in other spots in the order and against everyone else who hits in that spot using the same statistical measurement. FWIW, it probably even correlates well with regular old OPS+, but that’s not really the point of the exercise here.
One thing to note: Because of the overwhelming use of what looks like platoon players in that lineup spot, I would guess that we would rank better than average compared to league average, but also better than average against other spots in the lineup. If Duncan ‘06 is playing against a lefty, you’re not hitting him 2nd, you’re probably hitting him down in the order. Same with Ankiel, etc. They are bound to have more success against their best platoon split, and you want successful hitters in front of Albert. That mucks up the analysis a little bit, but I think the conclusions here are fairly consistent with what you would find with a deeper and more thorough analysis.
If Steve is right in his math, then there really seems to be little advantage to a hitter batting ahead of Pujols rather than in any other spot in the order in terms of selection of pitches to hit either.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
i think it's interesting that
in some years, #2 hitters in all of baseball are slightly above average, but in some years they’re slightly below average.
Perhaps shows that the sabremetric thinking (best hitter should be #2 or #4 in the order) really hasn’t permeated very far in management circles, and people are still overwhelmingly using barely average players in that role.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 6, 2010 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions
nice work
interesting to see… baseball is pretty random, eh?
*now with more veterany veteranness and a higher grit factor
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2010 6:27 PM EDT reply actions
There might be a few guys who have a different view
Splits from 2008-2010 from the guys who have hit #2 most often:
2008
Aaron Miles batting 2nd: .358/.390/.444/.834
Aaron Miles not second: .289/.331/.368/.699
Ryan Ludwick batting 2nd: .339/.407/.701/1.108
Ryan Ludwick not second: .287/.352/.557/.910
2009
Colby Rasmus batting 2nd: .283/.333/.432/.766
Colby Rasmus not second: .197/.253/.365/.618
2010
Ryan Ludwick batting 2nd: .308/.389/.524/.913
Ryan Ludwick not second: .190/.205/.392/.597
and there was also this recent experiment:
Matt Holliday batting 2nd: .400/.445/.850/.1.292
Matt Holliday not second: .290/.360/.451/.811
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
I'm not sure those numbers prove anything about a "Pujols Effect" though.
For one thing, they’re all going to be smaller samples of PA’s (and what’s the point of a “Pujols effect” if you can’t predict it and take advantage of it?), for another, you can’t legitimately prove that them hitting better in the second spot has anything to do with Pujols himself hitting behind them. Perhaps they just hit better in the second spot overall, perhaps they only get put in the second spot in situations when they have an advantageous split. They are also included in my analysis up above, so if it was Pujols causing them to hit better, wouldn’t that apply across the board to everyone? And if it doesn’t, how can it be labeled an advantage for our club?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Those are all valid questions
However, I think the experiences of the players who hit in that position most often are likely to accurately measure any true effect more than including a handful of at bats from various non-entities and even some from pitchers due to double switches. For example, I think Colby’s 326 PAs there last year tell us a lot more than the 56 PAs of an injured DeRosa or the 29 PAs from K. Greene or the combined 100 or so PAs of compromised players like Ankiel and Duncan. If the premise is that hitting in front of Pujols gives a hitter more favorable pitches to hit, then it would probably be best to test that premise against hitters who can actually hit and also get a chance to have more than 5-10 games in that position.
It would be interesting to see what would happen with a fairly known hitter with lots of PAs to draw conclusions from who got to hit in front of Pujols for an entire season. Also, I have a quetion – did you eliminate the games Pujols missed or did you include all games for the #2 hitters?
Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying the Pujols Effect is an absolute provable fact. I don’t think you can prove anything much given the way TLR shuffles players around, but I don’t think the numbers you have presented really prove anything either.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
Exactly, which is why my conclusion was this:
Conclusion: It’s not much of an advantage to be batting in front of Pujols, at least in the macro sense.
In other words, everyone that thinks you can plunk someone down in front of Pujols in the order and that guy will immediately become an improved version of himself hitting there is going to be disappointed, because that’s not how it works.
Pujols hasn’t played fewer than 145 games in any of those seasons, so we’re talking about less than 17 games of PA’s that I would have to pull out — not really a significant sample. Second, it’s every hitter who’s hit in the second spot in the lineup, including all of the players you brought up, and others. I’m guessing that over a season’s period, the number of pitchers double switched into that spot accumulated < 2 AB’s. Again not a significant sample.
By pulling out certain hitters who’ve done well, you now have an even more prevalent selection bias, which is what I wanted to eliminate. I think if there is a “Pujols Effect” there has to be some way to predict it or it’s an absolutely worthless effect. I would guess that Aaron Miles would suck just as much hitting second now as he does hitting ninth, so his 2008 numbers really aren’t predictive of anything that helps our ballclub.
It would be interesting to see a hitter with tons of AB’s hitting second for another team come to the Cardinals and hit second in front of Pujols. I just don’t think that’s going to happen as long as Tony is around though.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Yet another clarification
I didn’t “pull out certain hitters who’ve done well”, just those who have hit in the position most often in the last three years. Regarding the ptitchers, you are correct. I was in too much of a hurry and looked at games for 2009 (17), not PAs (1).
I still don’t think the numbers are inconclusive as you can find substantial improvements with most players who spent a significant amount of time in the role, especially those who were decent hitters. If you can’t really hit then seeing better pitches won’t help you much.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
I definitely agree with this:
If you can’t really hit then seeing better pitches won’t help you much.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Just to be clear:
However, I think the experiences of the players who hit in that position most often are likely to accurately measure any true effect more than including a handful of at bats from various non-entities and even some from pitchers due to double switches.
Those players who have more AB’s there in a given season will have a larger share of the overall sample, so in this analysis, they actually are telling you a lot more than the other players.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
In 2009,
Cardinals no. 2 hitters posted a slash of .267/.316/.411/.727, which was 19th in MLB by OPS for the no. 2 spot. In 2008, Cardinals no. 2 hitters batted .315/.371/.493/.870, which was second in MLB by OPS. In 2007, Cardinals no. 2 hitters batted .309/.372/.498/.870, which was the best in MLB by OPS. In 2006, the club hit .271/.338/.426/.764, 14th in MLB by OPS. In 2005, the line was .265/.332/.414/.747, 12th in MLB by OPS for the no. 2 spot.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
But you have to filter out
the noise that TLR generates by putting lousy hitters in that role. Here are the guys in 2009 who brought the numbers down and their performance in the #2 spot:
Duncan (39): .257/.333/.400/.733
Ryan (85): .275/.310/.363/.672
Ankiel (68): .234/.279/.375/.654
Robinson (16): .267/.250/.267/.517
K. Greene (29): .192/.276/.231/.507
DeRosa (56): .115/.145/.250/.395
Stavinoha (12): .182/.167/.182/.348
Can even TLR’s most ardent supporters tell me that TLR using the spot in front of the greatest hitter of our time as some sort of half-way house for wretched hitters doesn’t have something to do with the poor performance? I think a pretty good argument could be made that not one of these hitters who combined for 305 PAs should ever have gotten even one PA in front of Albert. So, when you look at the overall numbers you are not going to see the Pujols Effect because of the LaRussa Tax.
I would love to present some more numbers but b-r has been acting awfully goofy for me – i guess it is the crazy ill-behaved Disney ads…
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
Why do I have to filter out the poor hitters who hit there?
If there is a Pujols Effect, wouldn’t it affect every batter similarly? The whole question is premised on the batter behind these individuals in the order, not the skills of the batter in the no. 2 slot. What you have just shown is that it doesn’t seem to exist. Good hitters hit well in front of Pujols; bad hitters don’t. If there were an effect, I would think our OPS from the no. 2 slot would be consistently amongst the league’s best.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Well if you insist
on including the injured, the crippled, and the talent challenged in the numbers I am certain you will find nothing. Again, if the effect is that hitters see better pitches then it is incumbent upon the hitters to do something with those better pitches. I don’t think the guy with the titanium plate in his neck, the guy with the bad wrist, the guy who doesn’t have any plate discipline whatsoever, the guy with the mental issues, and the AAAA players are valid tests. If you want to put equal emphasis on those PAs as on those with legitimate top-of-the-order hitters like Rasmus, Ludwick and Holliday who would actually be able to make a difference with better pitches to hit then go ahead, but I don’t think that is the path to understanding what is going on here.
It’s the Pujols Effect, not the Pujols Miracle.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
It seems like selection bias to me.
You are deciding who should be cast out of the analysis because they didn’t hit well enough in the no. 2 slot for your liking. If you are saying that there is a clear Pujols Effect because of how well all of these good-to-great hitters hit while batting in front of Pujols while leaving out other players who didn’t hit well in front of Pujols, that’s a problem if you are trying to determine whether there is a legitimate benefit to batting in front of Pujols.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 5, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
You can slice it however you like
but I just went to the hitters with the most PAs in the position and followed the numbers. You are the one with the bias that says every hitter has to be included, and benefit from hitting in front of Pujols, for the concept to have any validity.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
i think i'm with you on this one
is the supposed pujols effect that the batter will get better pitches to hit in front of him, or that the batter will hit better in front of him – basically a process/result argument. to me it is the former, and the latter one would think would be the result. so if miles bats second, would he get better pitches to hit? probably not, as the pitcher would presumably just attack him as usual (you also have to consider where he would be batting if not second, perhaps, such as eighth in front of the pitcher, in which case he might walk a little more because of 2-out risp situations, and so you could argue he would see more strikes in front of apu, but that’s a whole other thing). would luddy see better pitches in front of apu, when in years past he may have had molina batting behind him – probably so. so i think to really answer the question in the title it becomes very difficult, but i believe it begins with whether the batter sees better pitches to hit, rather than with does he hit them better – pujols might be able to influence the first, but even he can’t affect the latter.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The question is what the pitcher is throwing,
so I think you are right cardball and giveml and I are wrong. Results don’t necessarily matter as much as the pitches being thrown, which stevesommer05 has data on, and is discussing above.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 6, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I totally agree with this, and I pointed that out in the first paragraph.
I just don’t have the data to do that type of analysis.
However, over time, if every hitter that is hitting second is getting better pitches to hit, or all the good hitters hitting second are getting better pitches to hit, that should show up in the result data. If it doesn’t, then there really isn’t much of an advantage to the effect. Perhaps hitting in front of Pujols puts undue pressure on some hitters and causes them not to perform as well as they would in other spots in the lineup. There’s a psychological element to this as well that is impossible to measure.
What I don’t like about giveml’s analysis is that he’s simply selecting the guys who’ve hit well there and then saying the this so-called “effect” only helps those hitters. Well, how do you know? That’s just a selection bias no matter how you describe it. If you’re measuring an effect, then you have to have some constant that you’re selecting by. You can’t say “only good hitters are helped by this” and then select Aaron Miles’ 2008, who’s a replacement level hitter by any standard during his career but had a career year in 2008 and also had a decent slash line that season when not hitting second that year. The number of PA’s are so small they’re nearly insignificant. You’re just selecting data that supports your argument instead of selecting all the data and see how it works out.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Again
I only picked the guys who hit there the most, I didn’t cherry pick for success. Look at the numbers:
2010: Ludwick 211 PAs, next 27
2009: Rasmus 326 PAs, next 87
2008: Miles 163 PAs, Ludwick 146 PAs, next 78
So, while I am flattered, I think it is a bit much to call this an analysis. I wrote a fanpost on this a couple of years ago that was more of an analysis and it (mostly) showed the same trend.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
Fine
Then go all the way back to 2003 like I did.
What I think you’ll find is that the guys who hit there the most from 2003-2007 DIDN’T fare very well. So that makes your analysis look puffed.
My analysis includes all of the players you decided to pull out for your own purposes. You’re not measuring anything that isn’t measured above, so stating that your version of this is different than mine is really just stating that your selection is more biased than mine is, as well as being inconsistent with what you say it is (i.e. “Well, if you only look at the non-injured, talented hitters”, and then include Aaron Miles, who’s wasn’t injured, but certainly isn’t talented, while also selecting a season heads and shoulders better than anything he’s ever done before or since, and then neglected to mention that fact as well. Question: Would Aaron Miles v. 2010 put up those numbers hitting in front of Pujols? Because if what you’re saying is correct, then he should immediately become that hitter if plopped in the #2 spot every game).
FWIW, Tango and others have looked at the so called “defense” or “protection” of hitters and found that there is no significant improvement in either pitch selection or performance relating to it. If there is a difference, it’s very, very slight and certainly not predictable, so for practical purposes it’s not an “effect” at all.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Going back to 2003
would there have been a claim to a “Pujols effect” then? Were pitchers then as worried about pitching to Albert that Tony or whoever could convince themselves that batting a player second gave them a significant advantage?
Not just Albert.
Would you want to put a player on first with Pujols (.462 wOBA), Edmonds (.415 wOBA), and Rolen (.390 wOBA), all due up?
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Exactly
If this exists (and I’m pretty dubious about it) 2003 and 2004 would have been even more pronounced, because you had 3 of the top 10 hitters in the National League coming up behind the 2 spot.
Plus, Albert had been runner up for the MVP the season before, won ROY and was 4th in the MVP voting in 2001. It’s pretty clear he was one of the best hitters in the game at that time as he was getting intentionally passed more than anyone not named Bonds.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
How do you explain
the weighted tOPS+ of the 2-spot below that shows the tOPS+ for that spot to be 109, 106, 119, and 120 over the last four seasons?
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
Pujols, Smujols
let Albert be Albert and not extend it beyond what he is, which is a very very good hitter.
Not criticizing you guys or any discussion of it; I’m down on LaRussa here!
I so long for the days of an archetypical, legitimate 2-hole hitter. Ted Sizemore and Grudz come to mind.
Put him there and KEEP him there. LaRussa, grrrr.
In fairness, Tony gets a pass right now because this current roster doesn’t really have such an animal (each either better placed 5 thru 8, Rasmus, eg. or simply not prolific enough for the 2 spot, Boog, eg)
I’d entertain Yadi there, if he wasn’t so f-ing SLOW.
I actually like either Holliday or Ludwick batting second
preferably Holliday, but Ludwick does well there also.
*now with more veterany veteranness and a higher grit factor
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 3, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
I prefer Holliday-Pujols-Ludwick. That seems like the best option.
....my quick smells like french toast...
Twitter: @mstreeter06
should be a deadly combo in the second half
*now with more veterany veteranness and a higher grit factor
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 6, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Ludwick destroys RHP, not good against LHP
Not sure that’s wholly fair. His .333 wOBA vs lefties trails his wOBA against righties (.369) but they’re still both above average, and he certainly doesn’t sit against lefties (in fact, TLR sits him more often than not against righties).
I think his split is heavily luck-driven, too; he has a slightly better BB/K ratio vs lefties, yet his BABIP is .266 vs lefties and .334 vs righties, despite having a similar line-drive rate and batted ball profile against both. Whilst it could be that he hits the ball a little bit less hard against lefties, we can’t really make that distinction without hitFX.
I think it’s easy to forget he’s only played a couple of full seasons in the majors, so he actually only has about one full season (just over) of PAs vs LHP; it just happens that that “season” seems to be a very unlucky one.
Still bitching to contact.
I was just stating that he has a reverse split
and that platooning him like Chris Duncan would actually be a bad move because he hits righties better than lefties. I was trying to give the impression that platooning Ludwick in the second spot would be a net negative rather than a net positive like it would be for Duncan.
We could call it unlucky, but a full season of PA’s is going to factor out of a lot of luck, imo. His BABIP may be lower because he doesn’t hit the ball as hard against lefties and doesn’t square it up as much. I don’t have any way to prove that, but it would be fitting if his percentage of balls in play are similar.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Yep I agree with that
although I strongly believe that Ludwick’s negative split is just luck, and he hits both sides just fine. I think his ball-in-play data supports that. He certainly shouldn’t be platooned against anyone, though.
On another point, talking about platoon splits, it’s annoying that now he’s injured we haven’t got Jay/Craig platooning in RF – I’m guessing that’d be our best plan in 2011 if we traded him or didn’t re-sign him, and it’d be nice to get a look at it now.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 6, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I need some help understanding tOPS+
B-R defines tOPS+ as, “OPS+ of this split relative to the player or team’s overall OPS”. So, which one is it? From looking at the numbers on the 2009 team page, it looks like it just just comparing the performance of the aggregate of all the PAs in the 2 spot and comparing it to the team OPS+. If that is the case does that stat really tell us anything about hitter performance in the 2 spot versus other spots in the lineup?
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
You've got the wrong definition
You have to look at the splits page to get the proper one:
“OPS for split related to player’s total OPS. A number greater than 100 means a batter did better than his usual split. A number less than 100 means a better did worse than his usual split”
So, yes, when looking at the player(s) in that lineup spot, it compares the overall performance to their normal split hitting elsewhere.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Question
If I took the individual tOPS+ for each hitter who batted in the two spot, multiplied it by the % of the total PAs, then summed the numbers should I get 94? Or is that just too simplistic?
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
You ought to be able to get the team tOPS+, oughtn't you?
Yes, on baseball-reference.com, they have it under team. And, it seems that your calculation is correct: 94.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 6, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Right
I am trying to get clear in my mind that the tOPS+ on the team page is measuring the same thing as the individual tOPS+. To my statistically unsophisticated mind it seems like the team stat of 94 is measuring the contribution of that spot relative to the rest of the lineup spots, not the cumulative relative performance of each hitter in that role. If I follow the method I outlined in my question i get a tOPS+ for the two spot of just over 106. The individual data seems to support that 94 is not the right number as the overwhelming number of PAs were taken by guys who had tOPS+ of well over 100. It doesn’t seem like the suckiness of those who sucked would be enough to drag the number down that low.
I guess I should just run the numbers for all 18(!) hitters who had at least one PA in that position
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
you need to talk to tony
get a set lineup, or at least 2-hitter. hopefully that’s holliday when luddy and freeze return.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Does this make sense?
I weighted the individual tOPS+ for each hitter that hit in the two spot based on the percentage of total PAs. Here is what I got:
2010 109
2009 106
2008 119
2007 120
2006 87
2005 86
2004 105
2003 90
I don’t know if this is an appropriate method or not, but I am convinced that the tOPS+ on the team stats page only measures the aggregate performance of the spot versus the team total. I don’t think that number gives us any insight into whether or not there is a Pujols Effect.
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything.
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
- 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
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
