Stats On The Fourth Of July

by James Kannengieser on Jul 4, 2009 7:00 AM EDT in Commentary Comment 32 comments

I saw this post by Regis at Metsblog and was inspired to write about a popular topic - the use of statistics by fans and bloggers. Here are some snippets from the post:

The Mets have the fewest strikeouts and the highest team batting average in the NL at .273...

They also lead the league with 79 stolen bases, have the second most hits, and are tied for the lead in on-base percentage with the Dodgers at .349.

…looking at this from afar, you would say there is no way this ballclub could be just a .500 team...

…this has to be attributed to the men they leave on base day in and day out…

Forget for a minute that more goes into a team's record than just hitting. The fact that the Mets lead the league in batting average (BA), on-base % (OBP), and stolen bases yet are just 6th in runs scored per game is not surprising at all. They're 9th in the league in slugging % (SLG), a measure of a team's power. It is essential to look at SLG in order to gauge offensive ability. In fact, SLG correlates slightly better with runs scored than does OBP, as highlighted nicely in this piece from The Hardball Times. Regis is right that leaving runners on base is a problem for the Mets - a problem that can be alleviated by hitting for more power.

This post isn't directed at Regis specifically. It's directed at the continued use of BA as a meaningful statistic for player evaluation. Yes, BA is useful for providing a general picture of what type of hitter a player is, when coupled with OBP and SLG. For instance, one can tell that a .250/.400/.550 hitter walks a lot and hits for power. A .315/.350/.380 hitter rarely walks and is more of a singles hitter. However, as a predictor of how many runs a team should score, it stinks. Here are the BAs of all National League teams, ranked 1-16, and where these teams rank according to runs scored per game:

Team	BA	BA Rank	Runs/Game	Runs/Game Rank
Mets	.273	1	4.51	6
Dodgers	.271	2	4.82	3
Pirates	.267	3	4.38	7
Astros	.266	4	4.19	14
Giants	.261	5	4.03	15
Braves	.259	6	4.22	11
Nationals	.258	7	4.31	10
Rockies	.257	8	5.03	2
Marlins	.257	9	4.59	5
Phillies	.256	10	5.18	1
Brewers	.254	11	4.72	4
Cardinals	.254	12	4.36	8
Reds	.248	13	4.19	13
Cubs	.246	14	4.21	12
Diamondbacks	.243	15	4.34	9
Padres	.236	16	3.77	16

To sum up briefly - there is a poor correlation between BA and runs scored here (R-squared of .13 for the nerd-inclined). The team that scores the most runs per game, the Phillies, is 10th in BA. The 2nd worst team at scoring runs, the Giants, is 5th in BA. So which stat should one look to in order to assess offense? The answer is weighted on-base average (wOBA). This stat factors all of the offensive contributions of a player, including hits, walks, extra-base hits, and stolen bases, and is scaled to OBP. A wOBA of .330 is about average, .300 is poor, and .380+ is elite. Daniel Murphy's wOBA is .297, David Wright's is .402. Click here for more on wOBA, which is available at Fangraphs. Let's perform the same exercise, comparing team wOBA to runs/game:

Team	wOBA	wOBA Rank	Runs/Game	Runs/Game Rank
Phillies	.341	1	5.18	1
Rockies	.337	2	5.03	2
Brewers	.333	3	4.71	4
Mets	.332	4	4.51	6
Dodgers	.330	5	4.82	3
Nationals	.329	6	4.31	10
Pirates	.323	7	4.38	7
Marlins	.320	8	4.59	5
Cardinals	.320	9	4.36	8
Astros	.319	10	4.19	14
Braves	.318	11	4.22	11
Diamondbacks	.317	12	4.34	9
Cubs	.317	13	4.21	12
Reds	.313	14	4.19	13
Padres	.307	15	3.77	16
Giants	.306	16	4.03	15

There is a pretty strong correlation here (R-squared of .82). The 2 best teams according to wOBA are also top 2 in runs scored. It is also evident that the Mets 6th place ranking in runs scored is not very surprising, given their 4th place rank in wOBA.

Some people have no interest in learning about improved stats and that's perfectly fine. A person is free to enjoy the game however they like. My main issue is with those who cite inferior stats to support assertions when much better and readily available stats are out there. There is no shame attached to not understanding a stat, nor is lack of understanding reason enough to flat-out dismiss it. To this end, we will soon be posting a reader's guide to the stats frequently cited at Amazin' Avenue, so stay tuned. Fans and bloggers: if you're going to discuss statistics, atleast use meaningful ones. It's the American thing to do and President Thomas J. Whitmore would certainly agree:

2 recs | Comment 32 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting, but I’m wondering, could this be impacted by Beltran and Delgado being out? Both of them have pretty good stats with men on. Now without those two the Mets are still getting the men on base but are trying to power them home instead of playing small ball with this quasi Triple A Roster.

by WebBard on Jul 4, 2009 7:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Beltran and Delgado being out

doesn’t change the fact that the Mets are scoring runs like they should be in line with their wOBA.

Our wOBA would be better with Beltran, Delgado and Reyes in the lineup, which is why we would be scoring more runs, getting Cora, Murphy/Tatis, and F-Mart/Reed out of the lineup would be a god-send.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Jul 4, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats are great to help understand the game

But 2 things bother me, especially in the game threads:

1) Only accepting stats
It’s not like ~~everyone~~ anyone is a pro scout to evaluate players (and even scouts make mistakes!), but some people accept only stats as proof.
Example: early in the season, after some Murphy flaws in the LF (not all were officially registered as errors), claiming “Murphy is a good LF, because his UZR is +”, ignoring what happened in the field.

2) Using stats as if they were flawless
How reliable is UZR?

Some people have no interest in learning about improved stats and that’s perfectly fine. A person is free to enjoy the game however they like. (…) There is no shame attached to not understanding a stat, nor is lack of understanding reason enough to flat-out dismiss it.

That said, I think a “AA reader’s guide to the stats” is a great idea. (+rec thread)
Myself, I’ve been watching the Mets game with the Fangraphs page opened lol.

by Michkin on Jul 4, 2009 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stats

1. Stats don’t tell the whole story, but they tell much of the story, and are far more reliable than (a) our eyes and (b) our memories. Daniel Murphy could be a good fielder and still botch some plays defensively. One thing we’ve learned about defense over the years is that getting to more balls (i.e. range) is a lot more important than not making errors (i.e. fielding percentage). This isn’t to say that errors aren’t costly; they are. Ideally you would have a defender who had great range and fielding ability (for lack of a better word), but saying someone is a good fielder who happens to make some errors (or non-error gaffes) are not necessarily incompatible claims.

2. No stat is flawless; the key is to understand what a stat is telling us and how accurately it’s doing it (and to acknowledge its flaws while focusing on its merits). While defensive stats are notoriously less reliable than their offensive counterparts, UZR is particularly problematic because the secret to how the sausage is made is proprietary and closely-guarded. The link you provided to the THT post on UZR’s reliability is a little misleading; its intent is to show how well UZR correlates from year-to-year, but as one of the article’s comments notes, UZR is more about telling what happened, not predicting what will happen.

That said, UZR has usually been shown to corroborate what our eyes see (i.e. “good” fielders rate well; “poor” fielders rate poorly), and it’s scaled to runs saved (and therefore wins saved) and now, thanks to FanGraphs, it’s available throughout the season, not just at the end of it. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have right now. And a note: a clear misplay in the field that doesn’t get scored an error does count as a demerit in zone-based metrics like UZR (assuming the play was within the player’s defensive zone).

by Eric Simon on Jul 4, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice, well put

In any endeavor, the science never equals the knowledge, its just a means to refine the understanding. Its a question of precision. But any question of precision also implies a degree of imprecision, just as any probability also implies a degree of improbability.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on Jul 4, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

What bothers me is that not everyone “acknowledge its flaws while focusing on its merits”. The small sample size (SSS) is the only thing people remember. Even then, most don’t usually know what sample is reasonable. Link for future reference.

The question is basically the defensive stat (and it’s secret formula).
Interpreting and questioning the numbers like this UZR Hates The Mets Outfield is what I would like to see more often.

Don’t get me wrong, I use UZR a lot for reference, but Beltran posting a -4.0 UZR and -7.9 UZR/150 really means he has been awful this year?

by Michkin on Jul 4, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UZR

The sample size needed is more than for most offensive stats, so it’s best to have at least 2-3 seasons. It’s not that reliable year to year.

I think there is likely another issue with this year’s stats, though, and that is park effects. It’s too soon likely for there to be useable park effects for Citifield. I’d like to know what the UZR for Mets opponent is this year in Citi, though. My guess is there will end up being a substantial adjustment there and Beltran will end up looking better once that comes into play.

If you look at the Mets team, everyone has been negative this year in CF. Pagan and Beltran are actually the two best, at -7.7 and -7.9 UZR/150. Reed, Church, and Martinez are all worse.

by acerimusdux on Jul 4, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only point of the THT article was that UZR doesn't correlate well from season to season

That doesn’t necessarily mean the stat is flawed.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 4, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tatis

Tatis has been lousy all year and I have been thinking he should just sit. But looking at his wOBA compared to Murphy (.318 vs .296) would it make sense to make Tatis the everday first baseman?

by blains2000 on Jul 4, 2009 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Once Nick Evans cools off

it would make sense to have someone better than Murphy or Tatis playing first.

by Eric Simon on Jul 4, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you know this isn't the real Nick Evans?

EVANS 4 MVP!

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jul 4, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watching A-Rod move around everyday makes me more and more wary of this.

He has not looked very mobile/healthy and he is much younger and more athletic than Delgado.

This team needs a contingency plan…one that will get us through and that can also be useful should Delgado come back. Omar needs to bite the bullet and go out and get Mark Tehean.

He can play the OF if Del comes back successfully and he is not a rental player.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but Jerry abuses the privilege.

by AnthonyR on Jul 4, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

is he really better than a Huff or Dunn

with his 9 homers and 28 rbi’s

by Jadden Hopkins on Jul 4, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Better than Huff, but not Dunn

He seems more getable than Dunn does. I would take Huff as well.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but Jerry abuses the privilege.

by AnthonyR on Jul 4, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teahen

I like Mark Teahen, but he isn’t really a solid contingency plan for first base. This is a guy with a career OPS+ of 99 and is a .258/.315/.412 hitter away from Kauffman Stadium. Even his 2009 overall slash line of .289/.348/.451, while better than anything the Mets are doing at first right now, is well below that of the average NL first baseman’s line of .278/.368/.485

by Eric Simon on Jul 4, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's better than what we have and it sounds like he could be had.

At this point, that’s all we need. I wouldn’t look at him as the future 1b though.

Point being, I think it’s ridiculous that we stand pat and don’t do ANYTHING waiting for Del to come back when it is no sure thing. The best option is to get a player with some versitility in case that he does. If you go get a Nick Johnson or Russell Branyan, they are redundant the second Delgado returns (if he does).

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but Jerry abuses the privilege.

by AnthonyR on Jul 4, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus.

He’s got a LOT of versatility (credible if not amazing 3B/1B, and passable 3 outfield positions ad 2B), which provides Jerry with more double-switch-y options. So…

Oh, wait.

by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Jul 4, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's also played in the AL for the entirity of his career

And as we all know, that is the much tougher league. His numbers would probably receive a nice bump going to the NL.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 4, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

You’re probably thinking of pitchers. Unless pitching in the AL is considerably superior to that of the NL (I’m not aware that it is) I wouldn’t expect Teahen to do any better by switching leagues.

If you’re talking about Teahen’s performance relative to the rest of the hitters in the league, yes, he might do better by switching to the NL; but that’s just relative performance. His raw numbers shouldn’t improve simply by virtue of the league change.

by Eric Simon on Jul 4, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All teams are much better in the AL

BtB thinks it’s about 12 games. A lot of it is the DH, but still, it’s reasonable to assume that pitchers and defense are a lot better in the AL than the NL, right?

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 4, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The lack of slugging

Is the main reason the offense struggles, no doubt. It takes bunching 4 hits/walks together to get a run or 2. It’s why the team hardly ever scores multiple runs in an inning. This is what happens when you have guys like Castillo, Cora, the catchers and Murph in the everyday lineup.

by David G on Jul 4, 2009 2:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Independence Day

Easily one of the cheesiest and worst summer movies ever. It was groundbreakingly bad. So bad it opened up the floodgates for horrible summer movies for years to come like Pearl Harbor, Deep Impact, The Fast and the Furious, Transformers 1 and 2, etc.

by David G on Jul 4, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not flat-out disagreeing, especially about Pearl Harbor and Transformers 2

but could you name some of the better summer movies ever?

by James Kannengieser on Jul 4, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Define "summer movie":

Is it any movie that opens during the summer months, or must it belong to the “big budget” “special effects” genres (as if those are really genres)?

by Eric Simon on Jul 4, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll say big budget, usually action-ish

I wouldn’t call Wedding Crashers or Knocked Up a summer movie by this definition. This summer examples would be Transformers 2, Terminator: Salvation and Angels & Demons.

by James Kannengieser on Jul 4, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Summer Movies

Jaws
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Die Hard
The Empire Strikes Back
Ghostbusters
The spring/summer line-up of 1982 has about 4-5 stone cold classics
The Dark Knight
Spider Man 2
any Pixar film released in the late spring-summer (except Cars)

Yeah, some of these were released in the spring, but way back in the day (even before I was a teenager, before I had status (never had a pager!)) films had way longer runs in theaters.

Point being, “Summer Movies”, however you define them, don’t just have to be dutch angles, lens flares, and editing by the neighborhood spastic hyped up on pixie stix – they can have such minor details as plot, story and acting.

by keepcoolbutcare on Jul 4, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a great list and I would consider all of them summer movies, even the Disney/Pixar stuff

Many of them were released before my time. I need a break from drinking and the Mets suck so I’ll do a list of the best “summer movies” of my conscious life:

1993: Jurassic Park: Along with Jaws, I think the quintessential summer movie. Jeff Goldblum at his finest, special effects pioneering, Sam Jackson in a minor but awesome role. And this one has some substance, with the ethical debates, mostly provided by Ian Malcolm. Although more of that is covered in the book.
1994: True Lies, The Lion King: 2nd only to Terminator 2 as far as Arnold movies go. The Running Man is a close 3rd. This one has action, comedy, and a young Eliza Dushku. The Lion King is the best animated Disney movie, and watchable to this day no matter your age. All star voice casting, memorable music, great story.
1995: Die Hard With A Vengeance: I go back and forth about DHWAV vs. Die Hard as best of the series. The addition of Jeremy Irons was welcome, and I am probably biased due to its NYC location. Lots of memorable lines and scenes in DHWAV.
1996: Independence Day, The Rock: Independence Day was listed by someone above as shite, but it’s flat out awesome. Big Will was getting started, and it’s full of Big Will-isms (“welcome to Earth”… “I ain’t heard no fat lady”) and once again Jeff Goldblum at his finest. The Rock is an underrated classic. Michael Bay catches a lot of flack, but his movies are fucking awesome (save Pearl Harbor and Transformers 2). I’ve watched The Rock more times than any movie ever. Mission: Impossible also came out that summer, which I enjoyed after like the 4th viewing when I figured out what was going on.
1997: Men In Black, Air Force One: Big Will really hits his stride here with MIB, and the Bernard Gilkey cameo and inclusion of Shea and the World’s Fair sold me. Tommy Lee Jones provided some excellent comedic relief, playing up his Deputy Sam Gerard persona to the fullest. Vincent D’Onofrio and Tony Shalhoub in a summer movie is also rare. AFO is the last great Harrison Ford movie, and is forever rewatchable. William H. Macy, Gary Oldman, and Xander Berkeley are awesome.
1998: Saving Private Ryan, Armageddon: Private Ryan isn’t your standard summer movie, but I’m including it cause it’s in my top 5 of all time. All around brilliant, and a visit to Normandy will make one appreciate it even more. Armageddon is a frequent target for the anti-Michael Bay crowd, and I don’t doubt that it’s totally absurd. However, I can watch this over and over, mostly for unintentional comedy and some nice supporting performances from Will Patton, Steve Buscemi and Michael Clarke Duncan, amongst others.
1999: The Phantom Menace: This shit sucks, fuck you Jar Jar. Duel of the Fates and Darth Maul saved this.
2000: Gladiator: Probably weak for a Best Picture winner, but it’s still very good. The opening scene and the Battle of Carthage are worth watching the entire thing.
2001: I’m not including Harry Potter movies, cause I never read the books or got into it. 2001 was an awful year for summer movies. I guess the best of the shit (Planet of the Apes, Pearl Harbor, Rush Hour 2, Jurassic Park 3) is Shrek: Shrek is good. I liked it. Not much else to say.
2002: Spiderman: Inferior to the sequel, but still worthwhile. It was an event movie when it came out. Not since Titanic did I feel as big a buzz going to the theater as when I saw this. Attack of the Clones is underrated. It took a lot of flack for the Hayden Christensen casting, but I don’t hate it. The Battle of Geonosis is eminently watchable.
2003: X2: X United, T3: Rise of the Machines, Pirates of the Caribbean: A great year for summer movies, X2 is the best of the X-Men franchise, Pirates 1 is the best of that trilogy, and T3 is an underrated entry. Many fans of the Terminator franchise were disappointed, but I think it’s outstanding. Nick Stahl was a good casting decision for John Connor, and the final scenes are both depressing and hopeful simultaneously. Also noteworthy is Finding Nemo, probably the best of the Pixar movies.
2004: Spiderman 2: The best of the Spiderman trilogy by far. The only entry that really delves into Spiderman’s relationship with New Yorkers, and Doc Oc is the most justifiable and sympathetic of the villians.
2005: Batman Begins, Revenge of the Sith: The first half of Batman Begins is better than the 2nd half, with the League of Shadows back story. “When Rome burned… we were there.” The lightsaber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan is one of the best individual battles in movie history, and “Battle of the Heroes” is a great John Williams track to accompany it. It’s no Episode 5, but I’m a big fan of Revenge of the Sith. War of the Worlds is pretentious shit, courtesy of Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg and Tim Robbins. Spielberg lost his fastball after Munich.
2006: A weak year for summer movies. The Pirates sequel is trash. Superman Returns is overlong trash, almost salvaged by 1 or 2 scenes. X-Men: The Last Stand is average, with the Juggernaut’s scenes saving it. My pick here is Da Vinci Code. Not a popular choice, but I give bonus points because I feel the book is a tough one to translate to the big screen. Tom Hanks was a poor casting choice; I would have gone with Bill Paxton. The rest of the casting is great.
2007: Transformers and The Bourne Ultimatum: A friend of mine deemd Transformers “the greatest action movie of all time”, and on some days I would agree. Great action, casting, hot chicks – all you want in a no-brainer summer movie. I could’ve done without the disastrous John Turturro casting, but whatever. Not every movie has to be artistic and deep like “There Will Be Blood” or “The Lives Of Others”. Ultimatum is the best of the Bourne trilogy, and was especially nice as a late summer release. The original Bourne has become underrated, and Clive Owen’s brief role as “The Professor” is memorable. Pirates: Dead Man’s Chest is so awesomely bad that’s it’s good. It’s epic, over the top, and classic Bruckheimer. I saw it the night Carlos Delgado hit a walkoff homer against the Giants, and received a text mid-movie that the Mets had won. That might be clouding my memory of the film, but Pirates 3 was supremely entertaining.
2008: Iron Man, The Dark Knight: Robert Downey Jr. is immensely talented, and I was thrilled to see him cast as Tony Stark. I knew the film would be pure win when I heard that. It’s an approachable film, whether you were a fan of the character or not (I wasn’t a big Iron Man fan). Enough has been said about the Dark Knight and Heath Ledger so I don’t have much to add. Aaron Eckhart is underrated as Harvey Dent, overshadowed by the tour de force Joker.
2009: It’s early in the summer, but I loved Star Trek, especially the casting. Chris Pine is charismatic as a young Kirk, and Zach Quinto is weird/mysterious as Spock. I have high hopes for Public Enemies and Inglorious Basterds.

by James Kannengieser on Jul 4, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Summer movie

Is any movie displaying the summer season, has “summer” on it’s title or shows the sun in the background for more than 17 min. Including, but not limited to: desert settings, lack of water, hot girls in bikinis, car crash, bombs, explosions, unlimited ammo guns, sounds in a vacuum.

by Michkin on Jul 4, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

congrats!

Congrats to Adam Dunn on hitting his 300th, a monster shot off of Hanson. Thanks a lot, Omar, for not even giving the dude even a look-see this past offseason.

by JE on Jul 4, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yes!!

it 5-3 nats.lets hope that bullpen holds

by Jadden Hopkins on Jul 4, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh James

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

by keepcoolbutcare on Jul 4, 2009 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Park Effects

We still have a very limited amount of data to judge the impact of Citifield, but I think you do have to consider the data we do have so far, especially given the evidence of the size of the park, as well as statements from players, which would suggest it could have a significant impact on scoring.

RS + RA
173+155 = 328 Home
181+214 = 395 Away

(OPS + OPSA)
(.749 +.691)/2 =.720 Home
(.745 + .791)/2 =.768 Away

RC + RCa
178.7 + 159.4 = 338.1 Home
193.2 + 210.7 = 403.9 Away

I calculate a park factor of .830 based on runs, and .837 based on runs created (using OBP*TB). That would be a multiplier of .915 or .919.

Now, this is based on a small sample, it really takes near 3 years of data to get reliable park factors, so we shouldn’t put too much faith in this. But, if we apply that multiplier to the Mets RS and RA, they go from 7th in the NL in RS, at 354, to 4th at 387, and they go from 10th in RA, at 369, to 15th, at 401.

Even if the actual park effect is substantially less than that, there is likely at least some effect in this park, enough so that I think you can say that the Mets, even missing substantial time from Beltran, Delgadfo and Reyes, are still probably one of the top 5 offenses in the NL. The pitching meanwhile, even if it isn’t really the 2nd worst in the league, is likely at least in the bottom 5.

by acerimusdux on Jul 4, 2009 8:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs