The Good and the Bad of Lindy's Pre-Season Judgments

[rog]

In Lindy's pre-season annual, they have a section picking the top players in certain areas.  Joey Votto, for instance, is the only two-time pick IIRC, being picked the game's best hitter and hitter with the best strike zone control.  Giancarlo Stanton was chosen the best power hitter.

Now, not surprisingly none of the Giants made the list, but one was mentioned as #3 in a category.  The infielder who was chosen to have the best range was -- surprise of all surprises -- Andrelton Simmons, but Brandon Crawford was mentioned third, right behind Javier Baez and before Jose Iglesias.

A couple of comments:

.  Lindy's said that few players make the Hall of Fame based solely on their gloves, but that Simmons might be among them.  They compared him to Ozzie Smith.

.  Iglesias was a bit of a surprise to me, but he was rated very highly in each category of the likelihood of fielding the ball, particularly on unlikely, even and likely plays -- slightly less so on remote and routine plays.  We know that fielding percentage is a poor indicator of fielding, let alone range, but I found it intriguing that in 266 games the past two seasons, Iglesias has made only a dozen errors and that only four of those were fielding rather than throwing.  Simmons and Crawford, for instance, are extremely sure-handed, yet Andrelton made 24 errors the past two seasons, 7 fielding, and Crawford made only 22 errors, 11 of them with the glove.

I didn't know much about Iglesias, but it appears he's pretty good.  And we know that Simmons, Baez and Crawford are really good, with Baez having the disadvantage of lacking consistency.

Back to the Giants, a strong defensive rebound by both Joe Panik and Buster Posey would be a big help.  And of course their bats are highly important as well.  It seems likely both will bat in the top three or four batting positions.  McCutchen's being moved to right field and Pence's being moved to left may pay nice dividends as well.  And Boagie would tell us that even if his mother were to play center field, the Giants would improve defensively there.

A separate locker room might be required, but I've heard the ball dudes are all for it.

[Islandboagie]

They should have built the other locker room two years ago so Span didn't spread his plague to his teammates.

I have one question...what the he'll is a Lindy?

[sfgdood]

Lindy's is a stats geek publication

[rog]

Randy of course likes to slant things his way and take every opportunity to degrade. Maybe he's right. I came across the magazine in the grocery store and took a quick look (in part so the checkout lines would dissipate). The feeling I got in my brief time was that Lindy's was probably aware of analytics, but I couldn't seen anywhere enough of them to say they were heavily slanted in that direction.

But we know what direction Randy will go if given the slightest opportunity. Let's be honest, if Randy were in a GM role he would be upset with all the analytics he received from his staff, and would miss out on being a good GM.

Let me ask you a question, Randy? If analytics are so bad, why are teams using them hundreds of percent more often than in the past?

And please don't dodge around the question like you do with most questions that require any type of facts, logic and/or analysis.

As for Span, I think the Giants were still considered a pretty good defensive team in 2016, but like almost everything else, their defense fell apart in 2017.

[sfgdood]

GMs are getting lazy. Soon even the most brain dead GM can have a winning team because watching players will not be part of the job description. All the GMs will be nothing more than video game nerds. Heck soon after that we wont need players either...just computers

[klaiggeb]

I'm not sure I agree with Randy; that GM's are getting lazy.

But, outside of the Giants and a few other places, they ARE getting younger.

Sabermetrics are all in vogue right now, and as GMs continue to get younger, that trend is likely to continue.

I don't see SM as a bad thing... just not the ONLY thing, NOR the most important thing.


I like them for tracking trends or tendencies in a player.

I don't like them for analyzing players because too often we get hung up in the numbers rather than the intangibles that a player has.



I've used this example before, but in 1962, fans were on the case of Tommy Davis because so many of his RBIs were coming in games in which they were ahead, far ahead, or didn't impact the game.

But looking back at the sabermetrics, they tell a different, and I would argue, INCORRECT story.

I was there.

I read their arguments and they were right!


But when I only look at the numbers and not the entire picture, those numbers tell a different tale.

boly

[rog]

The numbers tell the tale. They can be misinterpreted, but they tell the tale.

And here is what they say:

With Runners In Scoring Position and two outs, Tommy drove in 45 RBI's in 97 at bats. Outstanding.

In late and close situations, he drove in 17 runs in 98 at bats. That's good, not great.

In tie games, he drove in 40 runs in 202 at bats. That's very good to excellent.

In games within one run, he drove in 78 runs in 348 at bats. Excellent.

In games within two runs, he drove in 105 runs in 442 at bats. Excellent.

In games not as close as two runs, he drove in 48 runs in 223 at bats. Very good to excellent.

In high leverage situations, he drove in 65 runs in 149 at bats. Outstanding.

In medium leverage situations, he drove in 55 runs in 205 at bats. Excellent.

In low leverage situations, he drove in 37 runs in 261 at bats. OK.

Against the Giants, he drove in 27 runs in 84 at bats. Outstanding.


What we find is that Tommy was at least good at driving in runs in every above situation except for low leverage situations, where he was still OK. We find he was outstanding with runners in scoring position and two outs, in high leverage situations, and against the Giants. He was excellent in games within one run and within two runs.

On the other hand, Tommy drove in more runs in the first three innings and the second three innings than he did in the final three innings.

Davis drove in 126 of the 374 runners who were on base for him. He drove home 30% of runners on second base, the best in baseball. Despite finishing only 21st in the majors with 27 homers, his 10% rate was fourth in driving home runners from first base.

In short, Tommy wasn't bad at driving in runs almost no matter what the situation. And he was really, really good when the game was within two runs. When it got a bit one-sided, he was still good, just not as good.

So why do the stats tell a different story than you remember?

First, did you see all his at bats?

Second, were you influenced by those who said he drove in low-leverage runs?

Third, is your memory 100%?


Willie Mays, who drove in 141 runs, was even better at driving in runs that season than Tommy. But Willie drove in 92 runners, while Tommy drove home 126. Willie was much better at driving himself in; Tommy was better at driving home the runners who were on base.

I didn't go through the entire season game by game, but I did look at the Dodgers' first 62 games (58 of which Davis started). The Dodgers were outstanding in those games, winning 49 and losing only 13. In eight of those wins, Tommy drove in at least as many runs as the Dodgers' margin of victory. In other words, without his RBI's, the Dodgers wouldn't have won the game. If we prorate that over the full season, Tommy's RBI's would have been instrumental in 20 wins. Can't say if that is what happened, but it seems likely that Tommy directly influenced at least 15 Dodgers wins. That's a lot.

I just took a look at Willie's first 62 games. He was instrumental in 6 wins, or almost as many as Davis. Over the full season they were likely pretty close. 1962 was one of the best seasons of Willie's career. His 141 RBI's were the highest of his career by 14.

If Tommy was in Willie's league that season, he was probably better than you think.

Here is what I would ask. You said that when one looks at the entire picture, he sees a different story than from looking solely at the stats. Specifically what is missing when one looks solely at the stats.

You said that you read the arguments of the fans, saying that Tommy's RBI's were mostly empty. Would you agree that when a game is within two runs, each RBI is likely important? When the game was within two runs, Tommy drove in a run every 4.2 at bats. When the margin in the game was three runs or more, he drove in a run every 4.6 at bats. Both figures are excellent, but his mark in close games (a margin of two runs or fewer) was even better than his mark in one-side games (a margin of three runs or more).

Just what is it that those stats miss?

[klaiggeb]

Within 2 runs is certainly important.

But if TD was such a 'good' RBI guy... what happened?

His career sure didn't show it.

And after that sudden, break out, 27 HR season in 1962, he never EVER came close to those season numbers again.

He never eclipsed 20 HRs again, and his most RBIs after or before, was 89 in 1969 and 1973.

[rog]

GMs are getting lazy.


Rog -- Illustration? Example?