Jump to content
Kyyle23

Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 

Interestingly, I found a thread that started where someone did the correlations on reddit and wRC+ only had a correlation coefficient with runs scored of 0.83 in one year. It looks like most years it's better than that, but over some long time periods that people tried, wOBA had a higher correlation coefficient than wRC+. I don't see anyone who did just raw OPS in that thread, but raw OPS as I showed above is approximately as good as wOBA and maybe sometimes better. 

So yeah, OPS has a good chance of being more tightly correlated with runs scored than wRC+. 

.83 is pretty strong. It would be good to see if OPS was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Ahhh this is where I made my mistake. Its wRC not wRC+. You are correct the adjustment for parks and etc harm it. Similarly to how ops+ is less efficient 

wRC+ is more efficient than OPS+.

if it comes down to it - wRC+ probably does a better job of summing up how truly valuable a hitter is compared to OPS, but the correlation between OPS and runs scored is so strong that you're almost never going to see somewhere where they are a consistent outlier between wRC+, OPS, and runs scored. It's like the difference between walking at 89.9 degrees from north and Due East - you're still going to wind up heading east. So, OPS really does do a great job of summing up a person's performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

.83 is pretty strong. It would be good to see if OPS was better.

Click on Balta's link. OPS is .900

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

.83 is pretty strong. It would be good to see if OPS was better.

They didn't do it in that one exercise but look above, I've linked other analyses that found it at 0.9 to 0.95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

Outs aren't a joy, and coaches prefer hits, bit baseball is a sport where a strong of hits is unlikely, especially with the bottom of the lineup. Coaches sacrificing outs to get runs means they don't like the odds of their batters succeeding without sacrificing. So outs aren't great obviously, but they are the better bet in many cases. 

No they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mqr said:

And obviously lineup limitations change the math, but on average a runner on first with 0 outs scores more often than one on second with 1 out who scores more often than a runner on 3rd with 2. Outs, in general, are almost always bad.

Again, it makes common sense but that doesn't meanit's TRUE. Until someone calculates it, you can't definitively conclude this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

They didn't do it in that one exercise but look above, I've linked other analyses that found it at 0.9 to 0.95.

Wow. That's excellent when dealing with human subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

They didn't do it in that one exercise but look above, I've linked other analyses that found it at 0.9 to 0.95.

I'm surprised batting average is at .79, while HR is .56. 

Have you found anything about runs scored or runs given up and the correlation to wins? What's more important offense or pitching/defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I'm surprised batting average is at .79, while HR is .56. 

Have you found anything about runs scored or runs given up and the correlation to wins? What's more important offense or pitching/defense?

Here's someone who did the teams for 2002 and found that runs scored has R2 = 0.46 with wins and runs allowed was 0.70. So neither one of them is a great predictor overall but they're both related, with runs allowed being slightly more correlated at that time. 

That gets you almost to the Bill James Pythagorean Wins, of (runs scored)^2 divided by (runs scored^2 + runs allowed ^2) as quite strongly correlated with wins. Basically that's a version of "run differential", which is the thing that translates most strongly to wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No they're not.

Then why do coaches sacrifice? Why do hitters move runners over? Why do pitchers bunt when people are on base and no out? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Here's someone who did the teams for 2002 and found that runs scored has R2 = 0.46 with wins and runs allowed was 0.70. So neither one of them is a great predictor overall but they're both related, with runs allowed being slightly more correlated at that time. 

That gets you almost to the Bill James Pythagorean Wins, of (runs scored)^2 divided by (runs scored^2 + runs allowed ^2) as quite strongly correlated with wins. Basically that's a version of "run differential", which is the thing that translates most strongly to wins. 

Makes sense. I remember when Bill came out with that theory. The .24 differential is significant. In that year defense had a much stronger correlation. It would be interesting to see it year after year. The differential is obviously the better way. However, as a GM, if it came down to adding the hitter or pitcher, the pitcher would be the answer.

In today's  game the answer may be different.

Edited by ptatc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Makes sense. I remember when Bill came out with that theory. The .24 differential is significant. In that year defense had a much stronger correlation. It would be interesting to see it year after year. The differential is obviously the better way. However, as a GM, if it came down to adding the hitter or pitcher, the pitcher would be the answer.

In today's  game the answer may be different.

Eh, the problem is your giving the pitchers in general the duty of preventing runs while ignoring the fact that pitchers are much more volatile and dangerous commodity...

In today's game, adding the position player is probably the answer if both players are equal in value because of the increased pitched volatility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Then why do coaches sacrifice? Why do hitters move runners over? Why do pitchers bunt when people are on base and no out? 

There are times in baseball in which scoring ONE run is more valuable to the win rate of your team than scoring multiple. In that scenario ONLY should you sacrifice an out. The frequency in which that happens is incredibly rare which is why 99% of sacrifices are bad baseball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Eh, the problem is your giving the pitchers in general the duty of preventing runs while ignoring the fact that pitchers are much more volatile and dangerous commodity...

In today's game, adding the position player is probably the answer if both players are equal in value because of the increased pitched volatility.

I don't think the pitchers are more volatile or dangerous. It's more that the analytics are farther along for the hitters than the pitchers. It's more difficult  to quantify pitching because of other variables such as the defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

if it comes down to it - wRC+ probably does a better job of summing up how truly valuable a hitter is compared to OPS, but the correlation between OPS and runs scored is so strong that you're almost never going to see somewhere where they are a consistent outlier between wRC+, OPS, and runs scored. It's like the difference between walking at 89.9 degrees from north and Due East - you're still going to wind up heading east. So, OPS really does do a great job of summing up a person's performance. 

I think the big difference is that something like OPS tells you what happened while wRC+ can tell you what will happen in different situations. A better hitting environment will result in a higher OPS and more runs, but if they moved to somewhere else they would have a lower OPS even if they stayed the exact same talent level. wRC+ is adjusted so it doesn't match the results of what happened exactly, but it can tell you the difference in quality of player in a neutral environment which is probably better for predicting future performance. Of course expected stats should be even more predictive of future performance which will likely mean they are also much worse at telling you what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I don't think the pitchers are more volatile or dangerous. It's more that the analytics are farther along for the hitters than the pitchers. It's more difficult  to quantify pitching because of other variables such as the defense. 

Pitchers are 34% more likely to reach the Disabled List and make up nearly 2/3 of the number of days spent on the disabled list (meaning they're more likely to get hurt and when they get hurt they stay on the DL for longer) according to a 2010 study, so it is absolutely true that pitchers are more dangerous due to injury.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There are times in baseball in which scoring ONE run is more valuable to the win rate of your team than scoring multiple. In that scenario ONLY should you sacrifice an out. The frequency in which that happens is incredibly rare which is why 99% of sacrifices are bad baseball

I think it's like 70% where the winning team in the MLB scores more runs in one inning than the losing team scores in the entire game, which backs up your point even more. It's rare that a single run will be the difference in a win unless of course it leads to a big inning, but only having two outs to do so is also rare.

Edited by soxfan49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Pitchers are 34% more likely to reach the Disabled List and make up nearly 2/3 of the number of days spent on the disabled list (meaning they're more likely to get hurt and when they get hurt they stay on the DL for longer) according to a 2010 study, so it is absolutely true that pitchers are more dangerous due to injury.

I wasn't taking dangerous as likelyhood of injury. I took it in the context of volatile and dangerous to predict performance. 

I agree that they have a greater likelyhood to get injured. All the more reason to have a greater number of quality ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theathletic.com/791063/2019/01/29/sarris-recent-trends-have-flipped-baseballs-conventional-wisdom-on-first-base-and-short/

Look at the aging curve in this article. It suggests that even at age 26, Harper and Machado's best years are already behind them. If that is the case, I really don't know how the players can deal with this in upcoming negotiations. The only answer is to pay players based on potential, and we already saw in the NFL that they don't like that either. I really don't know what the solution to this is for the players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

https://theathletic.com/791063/2019/01/29/sarris-recent-trends-have-flipped-baseballs-conventional-wisdom-on-first-base-and-short/

Look at the aging curve in this article. It suggests that even at age 26, Harper and Machado's best years are already behind them. If that is the case, I really don't know how the players can deal with this in upcoming negotiations. The only answer is to pay players based on potential, and we already saw in the NFL that they don't like that either. I really don't know what the solution to this is for the players. 

The solution would be to get to free agency earlier. However, I have no idea what they would need to give up to get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ptatc said:

The solution would be to get to free agency earlier. However, I have no idea what they would need to give up to get that.

Then the small market teams losing guys like Lindor after just 5 or 6 years would give up hope.  It would go against the idea of investing time and energy in following the prospects during a rebuild if you were just going to lose them.  There needs to be something like a franchise player tag or max contract or whatever to give those teams a shot.

Perhaps the current freeze is giving those guys like Jiminez and Vladimir Jr. an incentive to sign a huge long term deal before they ever set foot on a MLB field...buying out a year or two of free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

The solution would be to get to free agency earlier. However, I have no idea what they would need to give up to get that.

With most players making their MLB debut at age 22-25, I don't really think there is much they can do. Teams aren't giving up control immediately after a player's rookie season. That is the only way to get them paid during their most productive years. That aging curve is so crazy that there is no practical way to get around it. Teams aren't going to want to pay for potential or decline. If they argue that, there is pretty much zero counter argument from the players standpoint. By the time they've established themselves enough, they're already depreciating assets. It is a losing argument. I think the players have to negotiate a slice of the pie, along with giving up a cap and floor. Otherwise, they have zero leverage. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The solution would be to get to free agency earlier. However, I have no idea what they would need to give up to get that.

Salary cap + non-guaranteed deals I'd assume.

The solution to me seems to just be:  increase pay for the young guys exponentially.  Minor leagues should make a living salary, and arbitration earlier so young stud MLB players don't make < 1m for several prime years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Then the small market teams losing guys like Lindor after just 5 or 6 years would give up hope.  It would go against the idea of investing time and energy in following the prospects during a rebuild if you were just going to lose them.  There needs to be something like a franchise player tag or max contract or whatever to give those teams a shot.

Perhaps the current freeze is giving those guys like Jiminez and Vladimir Jr. an incentive to sign a huge long term deal before they ever set foot on a MLB field...buying out a year or two of free agency.

I never said it would be good for the teams, I said the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jenksycat said:

Salary cap + non-guaranteed deals I'd assume.

The solution to me seems to just be:  increase pay for the young guys exponentially.  Minor leagues should make a living salary, and arbitration earlier so young stud MLB players don't make < 1m for several prime years.

I can't see them giving up the holy grail of the guaranteed contract. The owners wouldn't give up just increasing the pay for young players for no reason. I guess they could fight for arbitration earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×