Braves offense and 2017

[yeezus]

Probably true. But the opposite happens as well. The saber community holds up players and organizations as poster children of when it goes right. It's the opposite sides of the same coin.

I don't think you can point to the Cubs (for example) as a great saber organization and tie their current success back to that without admitting that a lot of their success is due to either good or lucky draft acquisitions (Bryant, Schwarber, Baez), good or lucky trades (Arrieta, Strop, Russell) and good or lucky International signings (Soler, Contreras) where saber statistics likely played only a small part if any.

The same goes for the Red Sox where you can't simply write off the Panda and Ramirez acquisitions as flights of fancy of a rich team while connecting their current success to their saber practices when it's obvious that they are more than a strict saber organization or else they wouldn't have stepped on those expensive land mines.

The original idea of saber metrics, as I understand them, was to identify under-appreciated and under-valued positions and players allowing the team with the special knowledge to exploit that value getting exceptional production per dollar, be it in the form of offense, defense, speed, whatever.

Now, you have agents, teams and fans using saber metrics to justify contracts to players based on their value according to non-traditional stats without regard to the actual team process of baseball. This essentially flips the whole idea of value recognition and exploitation away from the teams over to the agents and players. So, when a relatively non productive bat like Heyward gets almost $200M, based primarily on his defense, baserunning (not even stolen bases) and offensive potential, and gets a player based opt out clause as well putting even less risk on the player and more on the team, it was a clear sign to many that it would be a bad contract. All while the strictest of the saber adherents defend the signing as completely appropriate based on a dollar per WAR basis simply because it is in line with industry dollars per WAR. But, that thinking doesn't break it down to dollars per WAR component - How much of the $200M is going to Jason for his actual production with the bat? How much for his defense? How much for his baserunning? How much for his unrecognized potential? How much for his durability? And how does THAT compare to dollars per WAR component distribution around the league?

IMO, you MUST take into consideration the composition of the team as part of the true value of the player to a particular team. So, a relatively light hitting RF who is great defensively and running the bases will have a different team value on a team that can afford to carry his lack of offensive production as opposed to a team that desperately needs production from that position on the field. But, given that, a team that can afford to carry a non traditional RF bat because they are so good offensively elsewhere should be able to easily find a very cheap defense and baserunning OF option and save the $200M while investing that somewhere else for team value (this is where the Cubs are now).

I for one am glad that it's the Cubs who are paying Jason and not the Braves. The Braves don't have the ML team nor finances to carry that kind of mistake. They don't have the team nor finances to carry the other bad signings they have (or had until recently) and that was a big part of the absolute necessity of a rebuild.

I have no problem with advanced stats as a tool to be used. However, I don't think there is any such thing as a Universal tool. And experience, common sense, intuition, "make up," etc. all play their part because there is always the human element which is part of the equation that cannot be reduced to 1's and 0's.

Bravo.

 

[Knucksie]

And to be honest, I don't think it has anything to do with Heyward personally. Simply a big giant "eff you" to the sabermetric community, since Heyward has turned into a poster child of sorts of when sabermetrics goes wrong.

Lot of truth in that, but it goes further. When he first arrived, he was going to the Braves next superstar. He was supposed to have this tape measure HR power, and was going to be busting car windshields every spring in Florida and getting bear hugs from Chipper. He's had an unfortunate injury history, and maybe was a little gun shy. Think most fans like him personally, but it was the way the goal post kept shifting by his more overzealous fans.

He was still held up with this legendary status, while his career was respectable it certainly hasn't been earth-shaking. Then, his less than impressive offensive figures shifted attention over to his defense. Wow, like we've never seen a Gold Glove OF before!

When WAR became the trendy stat du jour, Heyward became the poster child for its supposed inherent genius at player evaluation. (Never mind that few, if any, can explain the differences among the 3 or 4 different versions.) It's similar to when Kelly was the golden calf, and was going to be 1.000 OPS, when that was flavor of the month. This magical method of identifying hidden talent will never surface from this mode. If the player is going to achieve greatness, it will be apparent in other ways, besides whatever they say at Fangraphs.

Doubt the Cubs were targeting Heyward specifically because of some sabermetrics fascination. It probably has at least as much to do with poaching a player from the Cardinals. We haven't really been offered conclusive proof that relying completely on analytics will result in a championship. Yes, it's understood that Bill James influenced Red Sox decisions in some ways...but their budget influenced performance rather heavily too!

Maybe there's lingering "stathead vs. scouthead" sentiment from the Scout days. Hopefully not. Both have their places, and the Braves have been utilizing both for years. Just want to see people attend games or watch on TV, and then give an honest assessment without feeling obliged to indulge the groupthink that often pervades.

 

[Enscheff]

What I find the most odd about folks throwing Heyward in the faces of statheads is the fact that nobody predicted he would post a .626 OPS at the age of 26. None of the genius scoutheads foresaw this either.

The argument was always over how valuable his elite defense was in a corner OF position (I think WAR overrates defensive contributions by about 50%), and it was always assumed by everyone that he was a .750+ OPS talent with real potential to turn the corner and become a 900+ OPS beast (which he was and still is).

The defense has been as good as expected, so to mock the Cubs for signing a defensive player to a big deal and having his offense unexpectedly (to everyone) tank shows just how stupid most scoutheads are. Not only do they not understand player valuations, they can't even line up logical arguments to support their views. Most scoutheads are scoutheads precisely because they can't back up arguments with concrete facts or data, and since the scouting side of things leaves so much open to subjective opinions, they can hide behind the fact that "scouting is hard".

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Probably true. But the opposite happens as well. The saber community holds up players and organizations as poster children of when it goes right. It's the opposite sides of the same coin.

I don't think you can point to the Cubs (for example) as a great saber organization and tie their current success back to that without admitting that a lot of their success is due to either good or lucky draft acquisitions (Bryant, Schwarber, Baez), good or lucky trades (Arrieta, Strop, Russell) and good or lucky International signings (Soler, Contreras) where saber statistics likely played only a small part if any.

The same goes for the Red Sox where you can't simply write off the Panda and Ramirez acquisitions as flights of fancy of a rich team while connecting their current success to their saber practices when it's obvious that they are more than a strict saber organization or else they wouldn't have stepped on those expensive land mines.

The original idea of saber metrics, as I understand them, was to identify under-appreciated and under-valued positions and players allowing the team with the special knowledge to exploit that value getting exceptional production per dollar, be it in the form of offense, defense, speed, whatever.

Now, you have agents, teams and fans using saber metrics to justify contracts to players based on their value according to non-traditional stats without regard to the actual team process of baseball. This essentially flips the whole idea of value recognition and exploitation away from the teams over to the agents and players. So, when a relatively non productive bat like Heyward gets almost $200M, based primarily on his defense, baserunning (not even stolen bases) and offensive potential, and gets a player based opt out clause as well putting even less risk on the player and more on the team, it was a clear sign to many that it would be a bad contract. All while the strictest of the saber adherents defend the signing as completely appropriate based on a dollar per WAR basis simply because it is in line with industry dollars per WAR. But, that thinking doesn't break it down to dollars per WAR component - How much of the $200M is going to Jason for his actual production with the bat? How much for his defense? How much for his baserunning? How much for his unrecognized potential? How much for his durability? And how does THAT compare to dollars per WAR component distribution around the league?

IMO, you MUST take into consideration the composition of the team as part of the true value of the player to a particular team. So, a relatively light hitting RF who is great defensively and running the bases will have a different team value on a team that can afford to carry his lack of offensive production as opposed to a team that desperately needs production from that position on the field. But, given that, a team that can afford to carry a non traditional RF bat because they are so good offensively elsewhere should be able to easily find a very cheap defense and baserunning OF option and save the $200M while investing that somewhere else for team value (this is where the Cubs are now).

I for one am glad that it's the Cubs who are paying Jason and not the Braves. The Braves don't have the ML team nor finances to carry that kind of mistake. They don't have the team nor finances to carry the other bad signings they have (or had until recently) and that was a big part of the absolute necessity of a rebuild.

I have no problem with advanced stats as a tool to be used. However, I don't think there is any such thing as a Universal tool. And experience, common sense, intuition, "make up," etc. all play their part because there is always the human element which is part of the equation that cannot be reduced to 1's and 0's.

Harry, I'm ready to give you a big, wet kiss on the lips.

Mmmmmmwah

 

[chop2chip]

Maybe there's lingering "stathead vs. scouthead" sentiment from the Scout days. Hopefully not. Both have their places, and the Braves have been utilizing both for years. Just want to see people attend games or watch on TV, and then give an honest assessment without feeling obliged to indulge the groupthink that often pervades.

Very well said.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

So how can WAR over rate defense, but then people who want to upgrade 3B, say Pardo provides 3 War because of his defense? So we want to spend 8 -10 million per MORE on a guy who will provide only a slight increase in OPS at 3rd but 2 war better because of defense but really not 2 war because defense artificially inflates War. interesting!!

 

[chop2chip]

What I find the most odd about folks throwing Heyward in the faces of statheads is the fact that nobody predicted he would post a .626 OPS at the age of 26. None of the genius scoutheads foresaw this either.

The argument was always over how valuable his elite defense was in a corner OF position (I think WAR overrates defensive contributions by about 50%), and it was always assumed by everyone that he was a .750+ OPS talent with real potential to turn the corner and become a 900+ OPS beast (which he was and still is).

The defense has been as good as expected, so to mock the Cubs for signing a defensive player to a big deal and having his offense unexpectedly (to everyone) tank shows just how stupid most scoutheads are. Not only do they not understand player valuations, they can't even line up logical arguments to support their views. Most scoutheads are scoutheads precisely because they can't back up arguments with concrete facts or data, and since the scouting side of things leaves so much open to subjective opinions, they can hide behind the fact that "scouting is hard".

I think the bigger issue is that that the sabermetric community has evolved from a group of people that have interesting ideas and a better (IMO) way of evaluating players. Ten years ago statheads were treated condescendingly by the traditionalists. Now that the industry as a whole has embraced sabermetrics, I sort of feel like that sense of condescension has flipped. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's almost always better to try to be agreeable and look for reasons why someone maybe right rather than adopting a cynical mindset.

 

[thewupk]

So how can WAR over rate defense, but then people who want to upgrade 3B, say Pardo provides 3 War because of his defense? So we want to spend 8 -10 million per MORE on a guy who will provide only a slight increase in OPS at 3rd but 2 war better because of defense but really not 2 war because defense artificially inflates War. interesting!!

Then we realize that using just offense Prado is 2 WAR better than Garcia anyways. So yes if you can spend 8-10 million and get a 2 WAR increase then that's a no brainer.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Maybe there's lingering "stathead vs. scouthead" sentiment from the Scout days. Hopefully not. Both have their places, and the Braves have been utilizing both for years. Just want to see people attend games or watch on TV, and then give an honest assessment without feeling obliged to indulge the groupthink that often pervades.

This is kind of what I've been dancing around in my last several substantive posts. Any comment not having acceptable statistical analysis supporting it is just ridiculed like the commenter is a flat earther. Too often I find myself defending nuance and intangible qualities which are not valued from some of the louder members of the board. For instance, if I notice a flaw in a pitcher or talk about WAR as anything less than gospel - say, Kemp is not useless, not worth 0.0 - I have to wade through an avalanche of posts questioning how long I've felt the earth is flat.

Incidentally, I've felt Heyward's swing is too flat for quite a while, and note from the Statcaster data that his average launch angle is 31 vs. ML average of 35. Also his average distance is only 201' versus ML 214'. If he can get with a coach who can help with that, his hitting might bounce back big time.

 

[chop2chip]

Then we realize that using just offense Prado is 2 WAR better than Garcia anyways. So yes if you can spend 8-10 million and get a 2 WAR increase then that's a no brainer.

I agree with that. Although, I do find the notion of a "2 WAR increase" a bit silly. Since WAR assumes a 1 WAR margin of error, then, hypothetically, Prado and Garcia could still be worth the same amount of actual value if you applied the margin of error to each. Especially since they would be contributing value in substantially different ways.

 

[thewupk]

I agree with that. Although, I do find the notion of a "2 WAR increase" a bit silly. Since WAR assumes a 1 WAR margin of error, then, hypothetically, Prado and Garcia could still be worth the same amount of actual value if you applied the margin of error to each. Especially since they would be contributing value in substantially different ways.

It's possible, sure. Prado could really be a poor defender whereas Garcia could be really good. Good enough to make up for the 60 point difference in OPS. To me the value in offense is pretty much locked down and on point.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I think the bigger issue is that that the sabermetric community has evolved from a group of people that have interesting ideas and a better (IMO) way of evaluating players. Ten years ago statheads were treated condescendingly by the traditionalists. Now that the industry as a whole has embraced sabermetrics, I sort of feel like that sense of condescension has flipped. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's almost always better to try to be agreeable and look for reasons why someone maybe right rather than adopting a cynical mindset.

Well said.

I think everything is better with checks and balances. For instance, would the Braves have acquired Olivera if there had been clear statistical evidence against him over the protests of the scouts who fell in love? I don't think that there was enough clear US based baseball stats to sway any decision because of timing. But, IMO, the Braves were taken advantage of by the Dodgers because the Dodgers had an imbalance of data - in this case scouting data, where the Braves scouts were in love from past workouts and the Dodgers scouts had seen enough over a large enough sample size to determine that Olivera was in fact fool's gold (even though they were initially fooled too to the tune of $31M). I would be really interested to know if the Braves started out by asking for Olivera in the deal or were persuaded to accept him in exchange of another but we will probably never know.

Traditional scouting is flawed. Scouting by stats alone is flawed. I think the smart teams use both together as checks and balances against one another and establish a consensus fairly easily. But, even those franchises likely have decisions that come down to a gut feel based on experience and intuition more often than they would like.

 

[smootness]

What I find the most odd about folks throwing Heyward in the faces of statheads is the fact that nobody predicted he would post a .626 OPS at the age of 26.

Exactly. How is a terrible year from him proof that it was a terrible contract at the time? The argument was whether Heyward at an offensive level around .800 or a little below was worth the contract.

No one would argue that Heyward OPSing at his current level is worth that deal. Players improve and regress all the time. The only things that can be considered are past performance and predicted future performance.

No one had reason to predict this would be his future performance.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

It's possible, sure. Prado could really be a poor defender whereas Garcia could be really good. Good enough to make up for the 60 point difference in OPS. To me the value in offense is pretty much locked down and on point.

Pardo is 32 and has a career OPS of .768. Adonis is 31 and in far fewer ABs of course, is a career OPS of .746.. Where is the 60 points at> are you comparing Prado's year this year when his last 3 years were below his career OPS.. you are saying Pardo will become a ~.800 ops'er again?

 

[thewupk]

Pardo is 32 and has a career OPS of .768. Adonis is 31 and in far fewer ABs of course, is a career OPS of .746.. Where is the 60 points at> are you comparing Prado's year this year when his last 3 years were below his career OPS.. you are saying Pardo will become a ~.800 ops'er again?

The difference is in their OPS this season. Going forward it may not be that much but I feel Prado is a step up both offensively and defensively. He has starter ability whereas Garcia is more of a bench player on a good team.

 

[chop2chip]

No one had reason to predict this would be his future performance.

That's true. To be fair, though, one of the main arguments for the contract was for offensive upside. I think it's fair to say there were just as many trends that signaled regression. Granted, I know that's a lame post hoc argument.

What's ironic is that our evaluation of Heyward as a hitter is skewed positively based on a scout's bias. There's nothing in his stats profile that signals a player that can be a .900 OPS player.

 

[Enscheff]

So how can WAR over rate defense, but then people who want to upgrade 3B, say Pardo provides 3 War because of his defense? So we want to spend 8 -10 million per MORE on a guy who will provide only a slight increase in OPS at 3rd but 2 war better because of defense but really not 2 war because defense artificially inflates War. interesting!!

This is precisely the boneheaded argumentative stuff I'm talking about from folks that just want to argue against "stats" and "data" no matter what.

Prado and Garcia as essentially the same age (31 vs 32), and Prado has accumulated 28.8 career WAR to Garcia's 0.9. Prado has a career OBP that is 35 points higher than Garcia's. Every single defensive metric says Prado is an above average defender that can handle multiple positions, while Garcia is only capable of butchering 3B. According to literally every single measure available, including the "eye test", Prado is the far superior baseball player in every way imaginable. It is laughable to compare Prado and Garcia as if they are even in the same realm of talent.

Yet someone still makes the argument that it's not worth giving Prado $10M over sticking with a AAAA player at 3B because....reasons.

It is truly mind boggling.

 

[Knucksie]

This is kind of what I've been dancing around in my last several substantive posts. Any comment not having acceptable statistical analysis supporting it is just ridiculed like the commenter is a flat earther. Too often I find myself defending nuance and intangible qualities which are not valued from some of the louder members of the board. For instance, if I notice a flaw in a pitcher or talk about WAR as anything less than gospel - say, Kemp is not useless, not worth 0.0 - I have to wade through an avalanche of posts questioning how long I've felt the earth is flat.

Incidentally, I've felt Heyward's swing is too flat for quite a while, and note from the Statcaster data that his average launch angle is 31 vs. ML average of 35. Also his average distance is only 201' versus ML 214'. If he can get with a coach who can help with that, his hitting might bounce back big time.

As we all know, baseball's always been about stats.

Zeets and maybe a couple others, besides me, like hockey. Now, there are attempts to include more advanced statistics in the NHL, as well. It can't be a bad trend, but not everything will show up. Some years back, A Scott Stevens hit could alter the entire course of a series. This would show up as only one hit.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Funny that not one time have I said I didn't want Pardo over Adonis, but merely posed a point of thought.. now some around here like to ASSume from ones post how one feels.. but never asks or tries to carry a thought that might differ from what is obviously correct. Pardo hasn't had an OPS over .750 for the last three years until this year. I would say that this year is more of a one off year. So I would say .750 is a very fair estimate for Prado. Adonis basically has one full year under his belt and is about a .750 OPS average. take his minor league avg and he is about a .750 OPS.. So again I think it is fair to say Adonis should be around a .740 OPS (take some for age regression).. Now there is more to the game than OPS, but is that enough to justify the added cost? Do we really know who Adonis is?

I loved Prado.. would love to have him back...I really like Adonis, I think he has shown a lot this year..

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Funny that not one time have I said I didn't want Pardo over Adonis, but merely posed a point of thought.. now some around here like to ASSume from ones post how one feels.. but never asks or tries to carry a thought that might differ from what is obviously correct. Pardo hasn't had an OPS over .750 for the last three years until this year. I would say that this year is more of a one off year. So I would say .750 is a very fair estimate for Prado. Adonis basically has one full year under his belt and is about a .750 OPS average. take his minor league avg and he is about a .750 OPS.. So again I think it is fair to say Adonis should be around a .740 OPS (take some for age regression).. Now there is more to the game than OPS, but is that enough to justify the added cost? Do we really know who Adonis is?

I loved Prado.. would love to have him back...I really like Adonis, I think he has shown a lot this year..

To me, there is more to it than "would you rather have Prado at 3/10 or Adonis next year at 1M?"

I think most would agree that in all likelihood Prado is and will be the better player. If you accept that, then it becomes several questions: 1. is Prado's additional value worth the difference in money and years? 2. Do you think Prado will decline (this question is less of a concern for Adonis because he could just be released without anything else owed whereas Prado's money and years will be guaranteed). 3. Could you accept the performance difference at a lesser cost of Adonis over Prado and use the money saved elsewhere to improve the team more in another place? 4. Why tie up multiple years of money on a player that improves 2017 but likely retards 2019? 5. Prado's history suggests you know what he will be. Does anyone think Adonis has significantly more growth, even though he is the same age? I think that a fair question given his lack of ML experience and his growth throughout this year.