Great Phil Rogers column in today's Trib

[cheapseats]

I know that there's already a thread on Baker's estimate that DLee's injury cost the Cubs 10-15 games, but this article is so good I think it deserves its own thread (mods feel free to merge if necessary):

 

Phil Rogers in today's Trib

 

I was about to completely give up on Rogers, but he gets it right in this article.

[Banedon]

I know that there's already a thread on Baker's estimate that DLee's injury cost the Cubs 10-15 games, but this article is so good I think it deserves its own thread (mods feel free to merge if necessary):

 

Phil Rogers in today's Trib

 

I was about to completely give up on Rogers, but he gets it right in this article.

 

A article about stats, not written by Bruce Miles, that doesn't mock stats? Unpossible.

[Soriano12]

Phil Rodgers is the John Kerry of sportswriters.

[Outshined_One]

The article was surprisingly well-written...until it hit a wall.

 

He wasted at-bats on Todd Walker and second basemen like Jerry Hairston Jr. and Neifi Perez when he should have given guys such as John Mabry and Michael Restovich (.295-26-82 in 113 games at Triple-A Iowa) the at-bats that could have gotten them going. If Baker didn't like his backup first basemen, he should have moved Jones to first and taken a look at Felix Pie or Restovich.

 

I can understand the Restovich sentiments, but the Mabry and Walker comments are head-scratching, to put it mildly...especially considering he just wrote an entire article based on win shares and VORP.

[swordsman]

He wasted at-bats on Todd Walker and second basemen like Jerry Hairston Jr. and Neifi Perez when he should have given guys such as John Mabry and Michael Restovich (.295-26-82 in 113 games at Triple-A Iowa) the at-bats that could have gotten them going. If Baker didn't like his backup first basemen, he should have moved Jones to first and taken a look at Felix Pie or Restovich.

 

As true as the rest of the article is, I'm not sure he'll get much agreement with this on this board.

[daske17]

Phil Rodgers is the John Kerry of sportswriters.

 

I voted for stats before I voted against stats.

[Soriano12]

If you are trying to measure wins via VORP it ignores intanibles that a player brings.

 

Ignoring D. Lee's offensive numbers

 

Other players in the lineup would have seen better pitches

 

Lee's defense would have masked Walkers shortcomings at 2B.

 

His leadership would have probably broken up some of those long losing streaks.

 

 

So IMO...I'll give a VORP 5 and add 3 games for intanglibles.

 

I'd say the Cubs have 8 more wins with a healhty Lee.

[abuck1220]

yeah, the real phil rogers showed up there at the end. i can't fathom any way you could determine that mabry > walker.

[cheapseats]

If you are trying to measure wins via VORP it ignores intanibles that a player brings.

 

Ignoring D. Lee's offensive numbers

 

Other players in the lineup would have seen better pitches

 

Lee's defense would have masked Walkers shortcomings at 2B.

 

His leadership would have probably broken up some of those long losing streaks.

 

 

So IMO...I'll give a VORP 5 and add 3 games for intanglibles.

 

I'd say the Cubs have 8 more wins with a healhty Lee.

 

DLee's offensive numbers are not intangibles.

 

There has been work that shows that "protection" is largely a myth. It's not an intangible. It can be measured.

 

Lee's defense at first can be measured. It's not an intangible.

[cheapseats]

yeah, the real phil rogers showed up there at the end. i can't fathom any way you could determine that mabry > walker.

 

I think what he meant was that Walker shouldn't have been getting AB's at 1st base. He should have been getting them at 2nd.

 

Bad as Mabry has been (and he's been awful), he's been better than Neifi and Hairston this year. And his defense at first would have been better than Walker's.

 

I really think that's what Rogers meant, but I realize Rogers didn't make that clear in the column.

[goonys evil twin]

yeah, the real phil rogers showed up there at the end. i can't fathom any way you could determine that mabry > walker.

 

I think what he meant was that Walker shouldn't have been getting AB's at 1st base. He should have been getting them at 2nd.

 

Bad as Mabry has been (and he's been awful), he's been better than Neifi and Hairston this year. And his defense at first would have been better than Walker's.

 

I really think that's what Rogers meant, but I realize Rogers didn't make that clear in the column.

 

Mabry was as bad as anybody on the team in April and May. There's no justification for wanting him to have played more.

[Soriano12]

If you are trying to measure wins via VORP it ignores intanibles that a player brings.

 

Ignoring D. Lee's offensive numbers

 

Other players in the lineup would have seen better pitches

 

Lee's defense would have masked Walkers shortcomings at 2B.

 

His leadership would have probably broken up some of those long losing streaks.

 

 

So IMO...I'll give a VORP 5 and add 3 games for intanglibles.

 

I'd say the Cubs have 8 more wins with a healhty Lee.

 

 

There has been work that shows that "protection" is largely a myth. It's not an intangible. It can be measured.

 

.

 

How does that work? How is it measured? I'm guessing

that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted

he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Of course I could be wrong..I just don't see how this could be measured.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm guessing that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Ramirez was crap before Lee went down. And his numbers were actually quite good, overall, during the Lee-less time. It doesn't make much sense to blame his poor at-bats on lack of production, when he was just as bad with Lee in there, and actually ended up improving with Lee gone.

[JGalt73]

 

Bad as Mabry has been (and he's been awful), he's been better than Neifi and Hairston this year.

 

2006 VORP as Cubs: Mabry -7.5; Neifi -7.3; Hairston -6.0

 

That's a combined 2 losses contributed by 3 bench players...

[cheapseats]

 

Bad as Mabry has been (and he's been awful), he's been better than Neifi and Hairston this year.

 

2006 VORP as Cubs: Mabry -7.5; Neifi -7.3; Hairston -6.0

 

That's a combined 2 losses contributed by 3 bench players...

 

VORP takes position into account, though. Walker's offensive numbers, for example, would give him a higher VORP as a 2B than as a 1B.

 

Mabry has been bad, but moving Walker to first so Neifi and Hairston could get more playing time was pretty stupid.

[dalgreen]

I don't get why Baker's comments still rile people up. I knew it was nonsense when he suggested how many more games we could've won with Lee. I think this is just another attempt of him trying to give props to a vet. I guess at this point I no longer wish to exert so much energy in this team as to dissect every ridiculous Baker comment.

[Soriano12]

I'm guessing that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Ramirez was crap before Lee went down. And his numbers were actually quite good, overall, during the Lee-less time. It doesn't make much sense to blame his poor at-bats on lack of production, when he was just as bad with Lee in there, and actually ended up improving with Lee gone.

 

I meant Ramirez's performance during Lee's DL's stint 1.

 

After Lee went back on the DL a 2nd time Aram was great.

[cheapseats]

 

How does that work? How is it measured? I'm guessing

that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted

he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Of course I could be wrong..I just don't see how this could be measured.

 

First, it's probably best to start by distinguishing between weak protection and strong protection:

 

http://www.baseball1.com/faqs/protection-faq.html

 

I totally believe that weak protection exists, but I'm not sure what difference it would have made for Aramis, who normally hits behind Lee, anyway. If anything, having Aramis in the lineup makes pitchers less likely to walk Lee, but not vice versa.

 

I don't believe in "strong protection" - at least, not on the big league level - and there's a good but long article on that here:

 

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

[goonys evil twin]

I'm guessing that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Ramirez was crap before Lee went down. And his numbers were actually quite good, overall, during the Lee-less time. It doesn't make much sense to blame his poor at-bats on lack of production, when he was just as bad with Lee in there, and actually ended up improving with Lee gone.

 

I meant Ramirez's performance during Lee's DL's stint 1.

 

After Lee went back on the DL a 2nd time Aram was great.

 

Yeah, so that pokes a hole in your theory about protection. If he was bad without protection and good without protection, you can't really say protection had anything to do with it. You can't pick and choose time periods and ignore those that conflict with your theories, if you want to convince anybody.

[cheapseats]

I don't get why Baker's comments still rile people up. I knew it was nonsense when he suggested how many more games we could've won with Lee. I think this is just another attempt of him trying to give props to a vet. I guess at this point I no longer wish to exert so much energy in this team as to dissect every ridiculous Baker comment.

 

So you'd rather exert energy dissecting comments of those who get riled up by Baker comments?

 

Baker is using injuries as an excuse, and he's implying that if everyone were healthy, he'd be managing this team to a .500 record.

[Banedon]

Mabry was as bad as anybody on the team in April and May. There's no justification for wanting him to have played more.

 

I could see wanting to have Walker and 2nd and Mabry at 1st over Neifi/Hairston at 2nd and Walker and 1st.

[goonys evil twin]

Mabry was as bad as anybody on the team in April and May. There's no justification for wanting him to have played more.

 

I could see wanting to have Walker and 2nd and Mabry at 1st over Neifi/Hairston at 2nd and Walker and 1st.

 

Even though Neifi actually outproduced Mabry in May, when this whole thing went down? Mabry has been crap. Pretending he needed more time is just reshuffling deck chairs.

[Soriano12]

I'm guessing that with Lee Ramirez doesn't crap the bed in April in May. Granted he is a slow starter..but my guess he puts up at least respectable #'s.

 

Ramirez was crap before Lee went down. And his numbers were actually quite good, overall, during the Lee-less time. It doesn't make much sense to blame his poor at-bats on lack of production, when he was just as bad with Lee in there, and actually ended up improving with Lee gone.

 

I meant Ramirez's performance during Lee's DL's stint 1.

 

After Lee went back on the DL a 2nd time Aram was great.

 

Yeah, so that pokes a hole in your theory about protection. If he was bad without protection and good without protection, you can't really say protection had anything to do with it. You can't pick and choose time periods and ignore those that conflict with your theories, if you want to convince anybody.

 

I really don't care if I convince anybody. To me a healthy D. Lee gives this team 8 extra wins...4 in the VORP(stats deparment) and 4 via intangibles. Thats just my opinion. Maybe some players dont' go into slumps...confindence is up...etc..etc..Its just my opinion..I do respect stats but I also think you have to acknlowdege the non measurable factors.

[Banedon]

Even though Neifi actually outproduced Mabry in May, when this whole thing went down?

 

I hadn't looked up the numbers, and never would've guessed that was the case.

[goonys evil twin]

I really don't care if I convince anybody. To me a healthy D. Lee gives this team 8 extra wins...4 in the VORP(stats deparment) and 4 via intangibles. Thats just my opinion. Maybe some players dont' go into slumps...confindence is up...etc..etc..Its just my opinion..I do respect stats but I also think you have to acknlowdege the non measurable factors.

 

Now you're changing your estimates.

 

This is the problem. When you arbitrarily assign value to things you are almost certain to value them incorrectly. This is how the Cubs build a team. They haphazardly put together a team with random and arbitrary stats (Jones hit .300 once, so-and-so hit great with RISP, Izturis led the league in hits for two months, etc), and the end result is a mess of a team with no direction.

 

As a fan, it really doesn't matter how you value players. You can choose to value whomever or whatever you want. But a GM, and any other person concerned with how a team is put together, has to use tangible, measurable, objective means to value the players they are considering for the roster.