Your response is dripping with irony. Let's do as you suggest and check the facts and see whose opinion they come closer to. While I admit that it is sometimes difficult to compare players using numbers, you use three of the worst stats (AVG, 2B, & RS) that correlate to offensive production. One of my favorite numbers to use when comparing players is OPS+, which takes a player's OPS and corrects it for his home park, then compares it to the rest of the league. OPS takes two of the stats you mentioned (AVG & 2B) into consideration in its calculation. Runs scored is a terrible comparator stat because it is almost entirely dependent on the players that bat behind him (RBI falls into this category as well). A better player could have scored much more than 100 runs batting ahead of Kent and Berkman. Corey Patterson scored 91 runs last season with an OBP of 0.320 - it didn't mean he had a good season, it meant that the guys behind him had good ones. Biggio's OPS+ last season was 106, which means that, corrected for Minute Maid's park effects, he was 6% better than league average. So mediocre may not have been the right word, maybe slightly better than mediocre would be a better descriptor. So now let's look at the defensive facts. Once again, you choose one of the stats (Fld%) that is almost entirely ineffective when judging true defensive talent). Granted, defensive numbers are much less dependable then offensive stats due to the subjective nature of judging defense, but when multiple numbers tell you the same thing, you kind of think they're on the right track. In 2004, Biggio's Range Factor was 2.13 in CF and 1.64 in LF. The player with the worst RF in CF was Corey Patterson with a 2.18, and the player with the worst RF in LF was Moises Alou with 1.66. So, if Biggio qualified, he would have had the worst range factor at both positions. His ZR (Zone Rating) was 0.796 in CF and 0.764 in LF. The player with the worst UZR in CF was Andruw Jones with a 0.836, and the player with the worst UZR in LF was Matt Holiday with 0.815. So, if Biggio qualified, he would have had the worst zone rating at both positions. Once again, I would like to point out that I am not 100% sold on any defensive metric (one that ranks Jones last has something wrong with it). However, when they all say the same thing, ie Biggio ranked last in every category in 2004 at both LF and CF, then I am inclined to give the notion some merit. In fact, using ESPN's historical records, Biggio's ZR are the worst (again, for LF and CF) of any player over that past 5 years at both positions. Combine these facts with Biggio's terrible arm, and you can see why I can conclude that he was the worst defensive player at both positions in the NL last season. So, I did what you asked, I looked at the cold, hard facts, and that's how I came to my conclusion. I'm willing to be that it's a little more thorough look than you did. And I didn't say anything about Lane this year, other than suggest that Houston has been screwing him for so long that they would probably find a way to do it again. What I did say was that the team could have almost certainly gotten a similar or better season from Lane last year at about 10% of the salary (300k vs 3 mil).
I skimmed your response and saw OPS+ and RF and knew that I didn't have to waste my time actually reading it. No stats tell the whole story--but some are *worse* than others. Anyone who would use OPS+ to say that Craig Biggio was "decidedly mediocre" from the offensive side last year, from example, is a prime example of someone who has divorced himself from reality in favor of useless numbers. *Anyone* can get *any statistic* to say *anything* he or she wants. Numbers are easy to manipulate. You want some "cold, hard, facts"? Consider watching the damn game. If you think Craig Biggio was mediocre, you weren't watching, or you don't know what on earth you're looking at. Oh, and by the way: Runs Scored is immeasurably more important that "OPS+". You don't win games with OPS, you win them by scoring more runs than your opponent. And, don't waste your time, I won't read your response where you disagree--I've read the same drivel all too many times. Some people take stats too far.
Once again, your post blasts off of the irony meter. You tell me to look at the facts, then when I do, you tell me how they don't matter. Interesting.
Facts and OPS+ are two different things entirely. I understand that we don't agree on that. That said, it's most likely obvious to you that the whole statgeek mentality is royally irritating to me--because the manipulation of these numbers causes otherwise reasonable and intelligent people to arrive at conclusions that appear, well, ridiculous. (To say that Biggio is not close to what he once was is accurate; to say that last year's performance was mediocre is not. Ensberg was mediocre.) *Anyway*, all that to say my tone in the above posts is without excuse. "Statgeeking" and whining really irritate me, and I've been piling on hard lately, and when I come back and read I come off like a jackass (although I still think I'm right ). Please excuse the arrogant tone, and thanks.
Just because you can't understand a basic concept such as OPS doesn't make the stat useless. Fact: Craig Biggio was a below average outfielder in 2004. This can't be denied by anyone. He was horrible in the field and merely average offensively when compared to other outfielders in the league. You know guys like Bonds, Berkman, Ichiro? Those guys that played in the outfield. I'm actually going to defend Biggio this season though. He deserves to be out there every day. The reason? Compare his STATS last season to every other 2nd baseman in the league and they matchup pretty well. The thing is just because you don't understand how a certain stat works doesn't make it worthless. OPS especially is a pretty basic stat that you dismiss. You do understand that all it is is On Base % + Slugging % right? How freaking hard is that? It may get a little fancy when you factor in park adjustments, but with extreme pitchers parks like Detroit and hitters parks like Colorado you have to do this.
Fair enough. But could you please explain to me why you are so quick to dismiss stats like OPS which, as Xenon mentioned, is quite a simple calculation - OBP (AVG, BB, & HBP) + SLG (1B + 2B +3B + HR). It encapsulates every single thing that goes into offensive production except for stolen bases, which is a moot point for Biggio anyways. So why is it treated as some abstract idea that requires a back-room supercomputer to decipher? As Xenon said again, OPS+ is simply OPS corrected for park effects, and compared to the league average. A 30-HR season in Coors Field and a 30-HR season in Dodger Stadium are two completely different animals, so OPS+ corrects for park effects as best possible.
Umm, I *do* understand it. Slugging percentage is the amount of bases per ab. On base percentage is the percentage of PA's a hitter gets on base. OPS is the useless combining of those two that tells us nothing that each stat alone doesn't tell us. No, that's an opinion. And a stupid one at that. And therein lies the problem with the average whiner fan. If someone isn't Ichiro or Bonds, he's "mediocre" or subpar. Do you have any concept of the middle ground between good and incredibe? And I'll defend because I *watch* the game and he *looks* better than some others. But, to each his own. Rotogeek. I understand park adjustments, too. And era adjustments, even! Assumption is a dangerous playing field, and you've made assumptions about me having never met me. I've read, I've grasped the concept, I'm extremely good in math, trig, and calc, and OPS, along with many other modern stats, is a steaming pile. That's my opinion. At least I'm not confusing my opinion with fact.
I explained why I don't consider this stat very valuable above, before I read your post. It's not the abstraction that makes it worthless to me, it's that it leaves out so much--seriously. How do you measure if a guy hits well behind the runner? How do you measure if he's smarter on the bases, so he scores more getting on less in front of lesser hitters than other guys with higher OBP? How do you measure a baserunner that distracts a pitcher enough to make him throw 3-4 extra pitches, or even a mistake pitch? How do you measure a hitter who does the little things to help his baserunner get a better jump? How do you measure a guy who hits his sac flies high and deep, making it easier for the runner to advance? Stats are useful, but incomplete. And when someone authoritatively takes *one* stat, even one of these so-called "all-inclusive" stats, and uses it to say something about any player that simple observation will disprove, it hardens me agains stat-heads.
Hokey outdated bs. You show me a guy that hits well behind a runner and I'll show you a guy that just plain hits well and it will reflect in his STATS. Umm...runs. You know a STAT. Stolen Bases. You know another STAT. A guy that distracts the pitcher is a guy that can steal bases. You mean like drawing more pitches and extending counts? Well typically guys like that have a good eye and this will reflect in his OBP% and his SO numbers. If you're also talking about guys that swing when the runner goes. Well who doesn't do that? Rbi's. You know another STAT. No they are not complete, but you can't tell me that a guy with a .320 obp is worth more offensively than a guy with a .370 obp. Differences like these are too big to discount.
You are correct in that there is no single all-inclusive stat that can authoritatively describe a player, but using the data that is available, you can certainly reach some conclusions using a multitude of different numbers. You are also correct in that there is no stat that encompasses the thing that you mention. The reason for that is that those things just don't matter, for a few reasons. First, you can't prove that any of those things you mention have any value at all. Even if they do have value that's indiscernible, that value would be infinitesimally small when compared with the things that really do matter - hitting, pitching, and defense.
They *do* matter. Playing the game right matters. It affects the other teammates' performance. It is amazing to me that the only things that matter are the things that rotogeeks can cook into another stat. This is the impasse I always arrive at with the whole stat/rotogeek crowd. I'll play the game and watch it; you enjoy measuring it--at least the precious few pieces that can be measured.
It wouldn't be a bad idea if we could get some nice prospects out if it. Or we could try to pick up a couple of bats and make this season worthwhile. Still hoping for Aubrey Huff at 3rd.
I'm surprised it took you this long to get the 'Baseball is played on a field not in a spreadsheet' response. I'm fairly certain that I watch more baseball games than you do, I watch more than most anybody that I know. I attended about half of the Astros home games last year and watched almost all of the rest on TV, and I'm not even an Astros fan.
I would suggest that you check out a few articles at Baseball Prospectus.com. They will help you understand a bit better what people like me, 'rotogeeks' as you describe them, feel about baseball and what they are trying to do. There's a good series on BP Basics that they have published this year. Here is the introduction to the first article from the series. Even if you don't agree with what they say, you can at least see what things looke like from a different perspective.
