CUBS: sign Derosa and Blanco

[Propertarian]

I was using FRAR as totaled by BP. Do you have a better suggestion? BP's aren't perfect by a long-shot, so if you think their is a better measure, I'll take a look at it soon.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting Derosa was more than 18 runs above replacement in the field? If so, that's an absurdly large number.

[/ QUOTE ] No, it's not. Blanco is measured at 21 as a part time catcher. A league average SS is worth 20 above replacement level per 150 games. 18 is about 150 games of average center field work.

[Propertarian]

As for the economics part, I realize the difficulty involved in forecasting market value. However, I didn't realize the cash flow was so high.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I was using FRAR as totaled by BP. Do you have a better suggestion? BP's aren't perfect by a long-shot, so if you think their is a better measure, I'll take a look at it soon.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting Derosa was more than 18 runs above replacement in the field? If so, that's an absurdly large number.

[/ QUOTE ] No, it's not. Blanco is measured at 21 as a part time catcher. A league average SS is worth 20 above replacement level per 150 games. 18 is about 150 games of average center field work.

[/ QUOTE ]

UZR (not available anymore) or Dewan's +/- system in the Fielding Bible (comes out in February I think) are much better. David Pinto also has a stat called PMR which is also pretty good and available now for 2006. link

Chris Dial's zone rating translations are a decent quick and dirty estimate, but they only list the top players at each position, so they are of little use for evaluating a utility guy. link

These are all PBP, or play by play derived stats. Basically meaning they are based on soem sort of zone system that records where each ball put into play went, and into whose (if any) area of defensive liability the ball was hit. This we can more accurately assess a fielder's range with PBP systems. There is a lot more to each system, but that's the essence.

As I understand it, BP's fielding stats (FRAA, FRAR) are based off of their "rate" stat, which is what was originally called the Davenport Fielding Translations. I believe BP 2002 has an article with a much more up to date and accurate explanation of the methodology, but basically Clay Davenport is taking tradional fielding stats (chances, errors, assists, etc.) and translating them based on stuff like gb/fb and handedness of the staff and balls the staff allows in play (as opposed to Ks and HRs). Clay is more or less trying to get a good estimate of how many balls a fielder *likely had* the chance to field, and then comparing that to how many chances they had, while the PBP-based stats actually count the number of balls hit in a certain player's "zone" or area of defensive reponsibility.

The DFTs were developed in the context of the WARP system, with and the goal of developing a comprehensive system that allows us to compare players from many years ago to today. The problem is that such a system is not as accurate as the more modern systems that use PBP data. Obviously, Clay was trying to acheive a different goal than the most accurate system for evalauting today's players. So its not like rate, FRAR and FRAA are wrong, but they are not as accurate as PBP based stats because they are trying to acheive a different goal.

Clay described the DFT process back in 1998 as:

[ QUOTE ]
I. Overview of the method

Like Palmer's system, DFTs depend on the basic defensive statistics kept by organized baseball, not the ratings and information that has been accumulated in recent years by Elias or STATS. The biggest difference is the formulation of a sort of "park factor" for each position and team, a factor that depends not so much on the park, but on the teammates of the player involved. In principle, this "fielding factor" is an estimate of how many more, or fewer, real chances this player is likely to have had relative to the other players at his position. Only with that knowledge can you make a reliable use of the defensive statistics.

So what goes in to these factors?

1. Balls in play. The single biggest error in Palmer's work, in my opinion, is that it uses the game - 27 outs - as its rate counter. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, because every team, no matter how good or bad it is in the field, is eventually going to get 27 outs. Errors are the only way he'd differentiate a good team from a bad one; but in most cases it's not the errors, it's the hits that are getting through that define a bad defensive team. So I estimate the number of balls the team's pitchers allow into play, essentially at-bats minus strikeouts minus home runs (which is, in essence, James' Defensive Efficiency Rating), to get a much better foundation for the system. I do take the overall park factor into account here, an obvious flaw that I overlooked before the book went into print, which will cause some numbers I present here to differ from those in this year's book.

2. Ground ball/fly ball teams. Some pitchers, and consequently pitching staffs, have definite leanings towards one type of out or the other. There are ballpark tendencies that influence this; the Cubs and Red Sox almost always seem to have groundball-leaning staffs, while the Oakland As of the `70s and `80s put up the highest flyball ratios in history. Team groundball-flyball ratios can generally be estimated well by comparing total infield assists to total outfield putouts, but it is impossible to be certain whether a given ratio results from a genuinely uneven distribution of ground balls and fly balls or a genuine defensive imbalance between the two. In handing out the ratings, I assume that both are at work evenly; if a team's ratio is .90, I rate the team at .95. In biblical words, I split the baby.

3. Left/right splits - Primarily in the modern game, the handedness of the pitching staff affects the distribution of balls towards the pitcher's opposite hand. Lots of left handed pitching usually means more chances for third basemen, less for first basemen, with a smaller effect on second basemen and shortstops.

Currently, the ratings are set by considering the entire pitching staff as a whole. It is certainly conceivable that treating the pitchers as individuals, and summing their individual contributions, would result in different team ratings, and that's an area for future research.

The three factors above produce a rating for a position, like .91, that I interpret as a chance modifier; a player who played in 100 real games only got as many chances as an average league player would have gotten in 91 games, so we shouldn't be surprised that his defensive statistics are lower. It is no surprise to me that league-leading assist performances are often accompanied by ratings of 110-120 relative to their peers.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they will platoon Jones but they definitely should.

I just about punched the wall when they decided to carry Freddie motha [censored] Bynum instead of Restovich this Spring...Restovich is a huge upgrade over Jones against lefties. But so is Neifi Perez...

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Jones that bad against lefties? I know he wasn't good, but he didn't seem to be as bad as he was made out to be. He def. can't hit a good lefty, but he seemed to do okay against the crappier lefties. I'll have to look in a bit.

[Your Mom]

Jones in 06

.261/.416/.677 vs. LH
.358/.528/.886 vs. RH

Okay, I was way off. Damn, Jones is pretty damn good against Righties, better than I thought. Damn, Jones is pretty damn awful vs. Lefties, worse than I thought. He should def. be platooning which would also give the Cubs a power bat off the bench on days Lefties start. Maybe a Jones/Murton platoon if we sign a big bopper to play left?

Murton in 06

.356/.426/.782 vs. RH
.385/.485/.870 vs. LH

[J.R.]

Propertarian,

<u>Here</u> is a more recent BP article (2004) discussing the DFTs/Davenport Fielding Runs and how they calculate their feidling stats like FRAA and FRAR. Its basically the same as the older article I posted above.


<u> Here </u> is a link to a discussion on Tangotiger's old baseball primer blog discussing this article and DFTs/ Davenport fielding runs/FRAA/FRAR construct as compared to PBP systems.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Jones in 06

.261/.416/.677 vs. LH
.358/.528/.886 vs. RH

[/ QUOTE ] In 04-05, Jones was WORSE then that against lefties. He IS a platoon player, and when used as one is a valuable player to have on the squad.

[Propertarian]

Thanks for all the links J.R. I appreciate it.

[rwperu34]

Cubs pick up Cotts.

[Propertarian]

Cubs acquired Neil Cotts from the White Sox for minor league relief prospect Vazquez and David Aardsma.

Cotts has the most upside of the three because his stuff is good enough to start games, and it is possible that the Cubs will try him in the rotation. If they do, I like this trade. Otherwise, I'm apathetic to it. Cotts allowed 1 home run in 60 innings in 05, and 12 in 54 innings in 06, which was where most of the 3.2 run difference in his ERA came from...I'm not sure what to expect from him.