|
Post by Rog on Feb 25, 2014 19:26:32 GMT -5
The MLB Network recently went over the concept of the value of an average player. Doesn't sound as if such a player would have much value, but he does.
In fact, a full team of average players would likely win around -- you guessed it -- 81 games. So if a team is built so that all of its players are at least around average and say one is far above average, one is well above average and one more is slightly above average, the team might win enough games to make the playoffs. But it's not as difficult to build a team where all the players are above or average. Even if that is the case overall, some players will almost certainly have down seasons, opening some holes for the present season.
If we look at the key Giants players, let's see how many would seem to fit into which quartile.
Pitchers:
Madison Bumgarner -- Top quartile Matt Cain -- Top quartile Tim Hudson -- 2nd quartile Tim Lincecum -- 3rd quartile Ryan Vogelsong -- 4th quartile
Sergio Romo -- Top quartile Santiago Casilla -- 2nd quartile Javier Lopez -- 2nd quartile Jeremy Affeldt -- 2nd quartile
Others -- 4th quartile
Position players:
Buster Posey -- Top quartile Brandon Belt -- 2nd quartile Marco Scutaro -- 2nd quartile Brandon Crawford -- 3rd quartile Pablo Sandoval -- 2nd quartile Mike Morse -- 3rd quartile Angel Pagan -- 3rd quartile Hunter Pence -- 2nd quartile
Bench -- 4th quartile
Looking at the team overall, there aren't serious weaknesses at any position. That's not to say there are none. Mike Morse is a huge gamble. Likewise Ryan Vogelsong, although he seems a decent gamble for a #5 starter. Vogelsong, Hudson, Affeldt, Marco Scutaro, Pablo Sandoval, Morse, Pagan and even Posey are injury risks.
Which focuses in on the Giants' top weakness, which continues to be depth. There are a couple of ways of looking at this:
First, it's a lot better to have a depth weakness than a lack of regular players. The Giants seem above-average with regard to the lineup, the rotation and the top of the bullpen.
On the other hand, the greater the injury or inconsistency risk, the more valuable the backup players. The Giants would appear to have both an above-average risk injury and a well-below-average depth.
Which brings us to the team's pockets. Signs are that they are deep enough to fill a couple of holes at the trade deadline if the Giants are still in the hunt at that time. Unless they fall prey to a plethora of injuries as they did last season, it would appear the Giants should be in the hunt two-thirds of the way, which is when the trade deadline materializes.
The Giants look like an above-average team with the pockets to overcome their lack of depth. As long as they limit their injuries and down seasons, the Giants should be able to fill in a single hole among the primary 14 or 15 players. And add a little depth as well.
With mostly average to good seasons from their players, the Giants should be right there. Injuries look like their top candidate for derailment. The top players themselves look pretty solid.
Most of them appear to be at least average or close to it. Coupled with a few stars, those "average" players do have value.
The Giants entered last September with many potential holes. They appear to have done a good job of filling most of them. And average can be OK.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 25, 2014 19:31:37 GMT -5
You lost me.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 25, 2014 19:31:49 GMT -5
You lost me.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 25, 2014 20:28:13 GMT -5
Ok Rog, in baseball history, what successful team had the most average players and fewest superstars, or even stars?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 25, 2014 21:00:15 GMT -5
For Boagie:
A team full of average players will win around 81 games (probably give or take 5 or 6). If a team doesn't have serious weaknesses (average players or above), a couple of stars or maybe even a single superstar can put that team over the top.
There will still be a range of performance based on injuries and up/down seasons, but if a team doesn't have pronounced weaknesses, it may not have to enjoy too many stars to be competitive. The Giants may have such a team.
For Allen, I don't know. Off the top of my head I would guess the first Mets championship team.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 25, 2014 23:21:46 GMT -5
Ok Rog, in baseball history, what successful team had the most average players and fewest superstars, or even stars? dk..The Miracle Braves of 1914.....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 26, 2014 0:17:08 GMT -5
Don't know much about the 14 Braves, the 69 Mets is a good answer I was thinking of the ,72-74 A's. One flawed superstar in Reggie, a not overpowering ace in Hunter, and a closer in Fingers. The rest were pretty average and they won three in a row.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 26, 2014 3:31:05 GMT -5
I guess I just don't understand the logic.
I'd figure you'd end up losing a lot more games if your #1 starter is just an average starter and your closer is just an average reliever, all this while having an offense that's just average. To me, that seems like a team that would be playing well under .500.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 14:44:05 GMT -5
Boagie -- I guess I just don't understand the logic. I'd figure you'd end up losing a lot more games if your #1 starter is just an average starter and your closer is just an average reliever, all this while having an offense that's just average. To me, that seems like a team that would be playing well under .500. Rog -- A team with average players will likely win about an average number of games. Why wouldn't they? Take your starter example. Yes, we would expect our average team to lose more often than not to the #1 and #2 starters of other teams. Just as we would expect them to come close to splitting games against other team's third starter and winning more often than not against their 4th and 5th starters. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the Giants are a team without many weaknesses among their starting players, nor among their top four or so relievers. The depth is lacking, but there are also some pretty good players in Posey, Bumgarner, Cain, Pence, Sandoval and Belt. The Giant are built as the type of team without big holes and with some good players to carry them over the top. Mike Morse might be a starting lineup weakness, but he could also be a strength if fully healthy. The biggest risk the Giants face is a lot of injuries which would expose their depth. Looking at the starting lineup, Posey is only the real star, but the lineup is loaded with average to good players. The rotation seems at least average. The bullpen has several pitchers who have succeeded lately, although many of them may be in decline. But the Giants look like a good average team with a handful of stars to put them over the top. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2194/importance-average#ixzz2uSUf2A74
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 26, 2014 14:50:15 GMT -5
Btw, Rog. To my knowledge there is no such thing as a 4th quartile. I was led to believe there are only 3 quartiles dividing the numbers into four groups. The upper quartile would represent the first 25% of numbers while the lower quartile would be the last 25%. I'm not sure what the upper middle and lower middle would called. Maybe you know more on the topic?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 15:08:03 GMT -5
The 1914 Braves may have been a case of decent players having good seasons, but they weren't without stars. Their story is one of the most fantastic in baseball history and has been well-chronicled here, but it has little to do with not having stars.
To begin with, they played two Hall of Famers, John Evers and Rabbitt Maranville. But their top two players that season were pitcher Bill James (26-7, 1.90) and outfielder Joe Connolly (.886 OPS), both of whom were stars whose careers appear to have been cut off by World War I.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 26, 2014 15:27:06 GMT -5
My curiosity got the best of me.
"In descriptive statistics, the quartiles of a ranked set of data values are the three points that divide the data set into four equal groups, each group comprising a quarter of the data. A quartile is a type of quantile. The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set. The second quartile (Q2) is the median of the data. The third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set."
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 15:27:20 GMT -5
As for the A's, they had three Hall of Famers in Jackson, Rollie Fingers and Catfish Hunter, plus a big-time star in Vida Blue. Joe Rudi was a star who twice finished #2 in the MVP voting. Sal Bando finished #2, #3, and #4. Campy Campaneris stole over 600 bases. Ken Holtzman was darn close to being a star if he wasn't one. Gene Tenace was a star that nobody knew was a star.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 15:39:48 GMT -5
The 1969 Mets had Hall of Famer Tom Seaver, plus stars or near stars in Jerry Koosman, Tommy Agee, Bud Harrelson and Cleon Jones. Donn Clendenon was probably a star, but he didn't start much.
The 2010 Giants had Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Brian Wilson plus rookies Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. The 2012 team wasn't replete with stars, either.
It has long been said that if a team can put out a lot of average players and a few stars, they can be pretty good. Perhaps the Giants can be such a team in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 26, 2014 15:50:38 GMT -5
How about the 2001 Seattle Mariners?
They had Ichiro and Edgar Martinez who would likely be considered stars. But most of their players were average or below average players who had a nice season.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 26, 2014 16:23:49 GMT -5
As for the A's, they had three Hall of Famers in Jackson, Rollie Fingers and Catfish Hunter, plus a big-time star in Vida Blue. Joe Rudi was a star who twice finished #2 in the MVP voting. Sal Bando finished #2, #3, and #4. Campy Campaneris stole over 600 bases. Ken Holtzman was darn close to being a star if he wasn't one. Gene Tenace was a star that nobody knew was a star.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 26, 2014 16:37:56 GMT -5
I believe I mentioned the three HOFers, although Jackson was very flawed and Hunter was a finesse pitcher. Tenace and Bando struggled to hit .250. At times, it would be hard to call them average. Vida went 6-10 in 72, and17-15 in 74.Rudi was a solid hitter with below average power. Campy was very underrated, quite an offensive catalyst. The team often struggled to get a .200 average out of their second base and catcher positions. With this they won five straight division titles and three world championships.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 26, 2014 18:05:22 GMT -5
The 1914 Braves may have been a case of decent players having good seasons, but they weren't without stars. Their story is one of the most fantastic in baseball history and has been well-chronicled here, but it has little to do with not having stars. To begin with, they played two Hall of Famers, John Evers and Rabbitt Maranville. But their top two players that season were pitcher Bill James (26-7, 1.90) and outfielder Joe Connolly (.886 OPS), both of whom were stars whose careers appear to have been cut off by World War I. dk..the team was known as the hitless wonders...Rabbitt had the lowest (?) BA of any regular player elected to the HOF....
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 18:53:37 GMT -5
Boagie -- My curiosity got the best of me.
"In descriptive statistics, the quartiles of a ranked set of data values are the three points that divide the data set into four equal groups, each group comprising a quarter of the data. A quartile is a type of quantile. The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set. The second quartile (Q2) is the median of the data. The third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set."
Rog -- Good question you asked. The three dividing lines would be between 75% performance, 50% performance and 25% performance. Thus, the four quartiles are 75% to 100% performance (top quartile), 50% to 75% performance (2nd quartile), 25% to 50% performance (3rd quartile) and 0% to 25% performance (bottom quartile).
I would be curious as to your own judgments of the expected performance quartiles of the Giants players for this season. No doubt our opinions will vary a bit, especially since performance can be around the margins.
Again, though, my primary point was that the Giants have no glaring weaknesses among their top say 17 players (8 position players, 5 starters, 2 top relievers). Vogelsong and Morse might be weaknesses, but each has performed at or close to a top quartile level in the recent past. I think there is a good chance that they will provide at least close to average performance -- and in Vogelsong's case, likely better-than-average performance for a #5 starter.
This, if the Giants can stay healthy and their stars (Bumgarner, Cain, Posey, Belt, Sandoval, Pence and Romo) put up above-average performance, the Giants should be in good position.
I think the Dodgers are likely to be very tough, but it isn't impossible that the Giants would beat them out for the NL West title. Not likely IMO, but certainly not impossible. 20% chance maybe? (Just a guess.) But the Giants should be strong enough to strongly contend for a Wild Card spot.
This is pure speculation, of course, but I would put the Giants' chances of winning the NL West at around 20%, their chance of winning the top wild card slot at 25%, and their chance of winning the bottom wild card slot at 30%. Actually, that adds up to 75%, so let's reduce each one by 5%. That leaves a 15% chance of winning the NL West and a 45% chance of gaining a wild card berth.
That would give the Giants a 60% shot at making the postseason, and that seems about right to me.
Again, I'm just speculating, so I would enjoy hearing others' thoughts.
One more thing: In a way it doesn't seem like a 3 out of 5 chance is enough for a team like the Giants. But let's not forget that even in winning two out of the past four World Championships, the Giants didn't achieve the 60% plateau. They are at only 50% the past four seasons. If they make the playoffs this season, they will have made the playoffs 3 of the past 5 seasons -- or exactly 60%.
I think there is a good chance the Giants' hitting this season will be better than in EITHER 2010 or 2012. Thus, the primary question becomes their pitching.
In 2010, the Giants led the NL in pitching. In 2012, they ranked 5th (Lincecum). Last season they fell to 12th (Lincecum, Vogelsong, Cain).
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 26, 2014 19:32:43 GMT -5
Allen -- Tenace and Bando struggled to hit .250. At times, it would be hard to call them average Rog -- I would say that Buster Posey was below average the second half of last season, so of course you're right. That said, Tenace's 136 OPS+ may make him one of the most underrated hitters of all time. Today he would be far more appreciated. His ability to play two positions and even more in a pinch only enhanced his value. He actually hit better as a catcher than as a first baseman, making him an even more excellent hitting catcher. (Yeah, I know. Only .245 as a catcher and just .241 overall.) Gene wasn't known as a great defensive catcher, and I don't think he was one. Still, he threw out 36% of runners compared to a league average 35%. Don't know how his pitchers performed under his direction. You mention the A's hitting problems at catcher and second base. you're absolutely right. And that is part of the reason they needed more superstars and stars in order to accomplish what they did. Back to Tenace, Gene hit into a lot of double plays and wasn't a great contact hitter. But with the fleet Campy leading off, I wonder if the A's might not have benefited from batting Gene second and hitting and running quite a bit. Gene was going to get on base a lot. If he swung and missed, Campy had a good chance of stealing successfully. And by hitting and running often, he would avoid some of the double plays. Another advantage with regard to batting Tenace 2nd would have been that he wouldn't have had all that many runners on. Obviously the 8th- and 9th-place hitters weren't going to get on a lot, and Campy's OBP was only .311 over his career. We have discussed whether it is more important to have a base stealer leading off or doing it with a high-OBP guy. Campy was certainly the former, and he scored 100 runs precisely the same number of times Ted Williams got 200 hits. Here's one for you. Despite batting much lower in the order (usually 6th), Tenace scored about the same number of runs per at bat as Campy did. This is probably heresy here, but it is quite possible that even though he might have been of best value hitting 2nd, Tenace might well have made a better leadoff man than Campy. Want some evidence? With Campy leading off and having the best hitters behind him, one would expect him to score a lot when leading off an inning. Yet Campy scored clearly LESS often per at bat when leading off an inning than Tenace did. The comparison of the scoring of Campy and Tenace actually makes a nice case or having a high-OBP guy leading off rather than a speedy guy who doesn't get on base so much. Obviously Campy was much faster, stealing more than 600 more bases than Tenace. But he got on base only 31% of the time compared to Gene's 39%. Not only would the A's have scored at least as much from the leadoff spot, they would have scored more runs with their 2nd, 3rd and 4th hitters, as well. Why is that? Because 8% of the time, those guys would have been batting with one fewer out. And the fewer outs when you bat, the better your chances of scoring. I'm actually surprised at how MUCH the comparison of Campy and Gene shows that getting on base is more important than speed. It seems highly likely the A's would have scored more runs if thay had had Gene bat 2nd -- or even if they had him lead off. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2194/importance-average?page=1&scrollTo=19019#ixzz2uTXw5yPr
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 26, 2014 19:53:10 GMT -5
Actually, Campy hit second alot, especially when Giants legend Billy North was with Oakland. I was an A's fan, (and a big Campy fan) in those days. The A's didn't necessarily share your opinion of Geno's catching skills, often preferring Dave Duncan, and later Ray Fosse.. I suspect they thought they handled the pitchers better than Tenace. I still think this team did more with less than any other. Other teams may have had a one year breakthrough, but the A's were able to sustain their success.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 27, 2014 11:51:33 GMT -5
Rog- Pitchers:
Madison Bumgarner -- Top quartile Matt Cain -- Top quartile Tim Hudson -- 2nd quartile Tim Lincecum -- 3rd quartile Ryan Vogelsong -- 4th quartile
Sergio Romo -- Top quartile Santiago Casilla -- 2nd quartile Javier Lopez -- 2nd quartile Jeremy Affeldt -- 2nd quartile
Others -- 4th quartile
Position players:
Buster Posey -- Top quartile Brandon Belt -- 2nd quartile Marco Scutaro -- 2nd quartile Brandon Crawford -- 3rd quartile Pablo Sandoval -- 2nd quartile Mike Morse -- 3rd quartile Angel Pagan -- 3rd quartile Hunter Pence -- 2nd quartile
Bench -- 4th quartile
Boagie- Since quartiles are fairly broad I can't disagree with your assessment too much. However, with Blanco, Sanchez and Arias I believe our bench is at least in the 3rd quartile.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 27, 2014 15:27:36 GMT -5
To best assess quartiles it might help to define the average player. Also, bench's players should be compared to the average bench player, not the average everyday player.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 2:36:35 GMT -5
Rog -- Bench -- 4th quartile Boagie- Since quartiles are fairly broad I can't disagree with your assessment too much. However, with Blanco, Sanchez and Arias I believe our bench is at least in the 3rd quartile. Rog -- You may be right. And if that is the case, I would consider it a win for the Giants -- since the bench is likley their biggest weakness. Tyler Colvin could be a nice addition. With the Rockies in 2012, he hit .290 and hit for over 1.8 bases per hit, including 18 homers. On the infield, apparently the Giants are somewhat worried about the ability of Marco Scutaro to play a full schedule. Andrew Baggarly says that if they still have that concern around the middle of March, they may look for a trade. Meanwhile, although Tony Abreu has far more power and is showing a healthier range this spring, Andrew himself would choose Ehire Adrianza for the final infield spot. Both players are out of options, so the decision between them is important. If a trade comes down, the Giants could lose both players. Apparently Nick Noonan still has options, so he would need to strongly outplay the other two to beat them out. As you mention, Sanchz, Arias and Blanco are decent backups. It is the final two backup backup positions behind those guys that may be particularly weak. But the closer I look, the more I agree with you about the bench's being in the third quartile. Given the uncertainty of those final two spots, that's not really all that bad. If Colvin can provide left-handed power off the bench and one of the backup players competing for the final infield job turns out to be fairly strong, maybe the bench could approach the second quartile. Likely your third quartile evaluation is pretty accurate though. I was probably too harsh judging them to be in the bottom quartile. And unless they really strike it rich with the final infield and outfield backups, the second quartile is probably too wishful. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2194/importance-average##ixzz2ubAL46Sk
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 2:43:46 GMT -5
Boagie - To best assess quartiles it might help to define the average player. Also, bench's players should be compared to the average bench player, not the average everyday player. Rog -- You are absolutely correct that the average players need to measure up to should be defined by the role the player fills. Very few backups are likely to be an average player overall for their position. As for defining the average player for hitting, one can go to Baseballprospectus.com and see the average hitting by position for the NL, the AL, and for MLB overall. As for pitching, I'm going off the top of my head for this, but I believe the average ERA for a starter is a little over 4.00, while the average ERA for a reliever is more like 3.60 or so. An average position starter is likely to bring his team somewhere between one and two Wins Above Replacement per season. Throw in a few stars, and one can have a pretty good team. By the way, Baggs is predicting a good but not special season for the Giants this year. They're probably a little over an 85-win team, but actual wins can vary by as many as 10 or so wins in either direction. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2194/importance-average?page=1#scrollTo=19027#ixzz2ubGl59Rx
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 2:52:46 GMT -5
By the way, Colvin was at one time considered as high as the #75 minor league prospect in all of baseball. He was drafted by the Cubs, three spots behind Tim Lincecum.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 2:57:00 GMT -5
On the 2001 Mariners, John Olerud was definitely a star, and they may have had one or two other starters. They may have had as many as three stars in their rotation, plus Brett Tomko and Ryan Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 2:58:33 GMT -5
Colvin's problems have been going outside the zone and not making enough contact.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 28, 2014 3:05:34 GMT -5
Campy had 6021 at bats leading off and 1728 batting second. He scored just about as frequently from either spot in the order.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 28, 2014 3:34:32 GMT -5
I had no idea the Giants signed Colvin until you mentioned him here. I like Colvin. In fact I believe I mentioned him this off season as a possible addition. I like this move because if he's healthy, not only will he be a good bat off the bench, he may even be a legit starter in LF if Morse is a dissapointment.
|
|