Baseball America also rated him as the organizations best baserunner and best defensive infielder (this was a system full of rangy athletes too) that year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL

People didn't even know who the centerpiece of the Josh Willingham trade was supposed to be. At some point we thought it was PJ Dean (before he vanished and retired), then during the first week of the season we felt it was Bonifacio, now many believe it is Smolinski.

 

Overall, it was a horrible trade when it happen and is still a horrible trade imo. Salary dumps ftw!

 

 

That was a horrible trade, period.

that trade was to get rid of olsen. we knew willingam was good, if not great

Willingham was great? I wouldn't go that far.

To this day, Willingham is a slugger, w/o a position who is better suited for full-time DH duty. At age 30, he's already on the downward swing of the defensive-age curve; given that he could never play defense to begin with, he has little upside long term in the NL. Willingham would be great to have in a 1B/cOF platoon vs LHP -- but those type of guys are a dime a dozen -- and can be found elsewhere more inexpensively.

 

Marlins wanted to shed salary obviously, and add some major league ready depth at 2B to potentially take over for Uggla. Given Bonifacio's struggles last season the latter part of that plan hasn't worked out so well -- but there's still time.

 

Olsen was a complete non factor to me. Although his ERA was good coming off his 2008 season, his peripherals were terrible, and there were some serious concerns about his lost velocity. I think he was a complete throw in, in the same vein the 2 other minor leaguers in the deal were. Had Olsen not been traded, he likely would've been non tendered anyway.

To this day, Willingham is a slugger, w/o a position who is better suited for full-time DH duty. At age 30, he's already on the downward swing of the defensive-age curve; given that he could never play defense to begin with, he has little upside long term in the NL. Willingham would be great to have in a 1B/cOF platoon vs LHP -- but those type of guys are a dime a dozen -- and can be found elsewhere more inexpensively.

 

Marlins wanted to shed salary obviously, and add some major league ready depth at 2B to potentially take over for Uggla. Given Bonifacio's struggles last season the latter part of that plan hasn't worked out so well -- but there's still time.

 

Olsen was a complete non factor to me. Although his ERA was good coming off his 2008 season, his peripherals were terrible, and there were some serious concerns about his lost velocity. I think he was a complete throw in, in the same vein the 2 other minor leaguers in the deal were. Had Olsen not been traded, he likely would've been non tendered anyway.

 

 

It's a bit of an exageration to call Willingham a defensive liability...He is an average LF who can swing the bat and has good power...Could We use that ? Sure, Scott Olsen will have a extensive major league career He is a LHP with very good stuff. His loss of velocity was very disconcerting If he can get back to 95 MPH on his fastball he may become the pitcher We expected him to be

yeah, Hammer is not a DH only. And he has a career OPS against RHP of .826, how is he a platoon bat? He's an above average hitter against RHP, you don't bench above average hitters.

 

If he can get back to 95 MPH on his fastball he may become the pitcher We expected him to be

 

I honestly wonder if he's labrum has been torn for awhile, or if he was suffering from some other injury, and that's what sapped his velo and if he rehabs well he can get back to his former status.

 

The main (and it's a rather big thing) that goes against that though is the fact he showed good control lately, and injury normally takes a massive chunk of accuracy away.

yeah, Hammer is not a DH only. And he has a career OPS against RHP of .826, how is he a platoon bat? He's an above average hitter against RHP, you don't bench above average hitters.

 

 

 

Because the runs he produces with the bat vs LHP (1.000+ OPS) will far outweigh whatever runs he will give back with the glove (which isn't the case vs RHP).

 

If he could DH exclusively he could be an everyday player -- but all-offense/no-glove types are a dime a dozen. In the NL he's a 4th OF/pinch hitter -- especially now that he's in his 30s where most outfielders begin to see their defense/range drop off significantly.

yeah, Hammer is not a DH only. And he has a career OPS against RHP of .826, how is he a platoon bat? He's an above average hitter against RHP, you don't bench above average hitters.

 

 

 

Because the runs he produces with the bat vs LHP (1.000+ OPS) will far outweigh whatever runs he will give back with the glove (which isn't the case vs RHP).

 

If he could DH exclusively he could be an everyday player -- but all-offense/no-glove types are a dime a dozen. In the NL he's a 4th OF/pinch hitter -- especially now that he's in his 30s where most outfielders begin to see their defense/range drop off significantly.

 

He's basically a -5 run defensive OFer...that's far far far from horrible. He's not Adam Dunn. He is far from being a 4th OF/platoon/pinch hitter.

 

5 runs is about 20 OPS points in 650 PA. Tack on the fact that he'd only get about 450-500 PA against RHP, that means his defense "drops" his OPS to .811. Meaning he is still above average OFer against RHP even with his defense

I've never seen anybody translate runs into OPS points using league average OPS as an all encompassing measurement for one's value. Besides disagreeing with the concept entirely -- you failed to make a run adjustment for position scarcity. Also, where are you getting league average OPS from -- do you have a source?

Let's use Win Values instead (it's doing what you're trying to do, but more comprehensively). Based on some of your other posts, I'm assuming you're already familiar with the methodology.

 

Using CHONE's 2010 projection let's breakdown Willingham's expected performance next season:

 

Offense: +11

Defense: -7 (he's -5.3 in his career, but coming off a -7 season. We're also accounting for the fact that he's a year older.)

Replacement: +20

Position: -7.5

 

= 17 runs above replacement (or 1.7 wins)

 

a 1.7 WAR isn't terrible by any stretch (he still belongs in the major leagues), but it certainly lines up with what a team would expect from a 4th OF. He'd be far more valuable to a team taking ABs vs LHP exclusively and pinch hitting. He'd be about 3 runs better as a full-time DH -- eliminating his defense altogether.

I've never seen anybody translate runs into OPS points using league average OPS as an all encompassing measurement for one's value. Besides disagreeing with the concept entirely -- you failed to make a run adjustment for position scarcity. Also, where are you getting league average OPS from -- do you have a source?

 

 

You can find league average OPS on basically any baseball website. Corner OF is normally between .780-.800.

 

And I do it not because it's the best metholodlogy but because, again, I'd rather be accessible. Vast majority of people don't care about what new stat is made each year that gives a .001 better correlation. And it gives the same basic results, just not as exact

The difference between wOBA and OPS has nothing to do with correlation and it has everything to do with quantification.

 

I can't explain it any better than it's already explained, so I'll just post an excerpt from Fangraphs:

 

So, why should you care about wOBA? What makes it better than OPS or any of the more famous rate statistics that measure offensive value? The beauty of wOBA lies in linear weights. Essentially, every outcome has a specific run value that is proportional to other outcomes – a home run is worth a little more than twice as much a single, for instance. What wOBA does, as all linear weights formulas do, is value these outcomes relative to each other so that they are properly valued.

 

OPS, as you probably know, significantly undervalues the ability of a hitter to get on base. It treats a .330 OBP/.470 slug as equal to a .400 OBP/.400 slug, when the latter is more conducive to scoring runs. wOBA gives proper weight to all the things a hitter can do to produce value, and is a more accurate reflection of a hitter’s value.

 

For a practical example, let’s look at Ryan Ludwick versus Hanley Ramirez. Ludwick had a .966 OPS versus a .940 OPS for Ramirez – not a huge difference, but one most people would consider significant. If you put a lot of stock in OPS, you’d probably argue that Ludwick had a better offensive season.

 

However, Ramirez actually had a slightly higher wOBA, .403 to .401. This is due to the fact that Ramirez posted a .400/.540 line compared to Ludwick’s .375/.591 mark. Ramirez’s 25 point advantage in OBP was slightly more valuable than Ludwick’s 51 point advantage in SLG, and wOBA reflects this.

 

 

For the rest of the article here's a link

Let's use Win Values instead (it's doing what you're trying to do, but more comprehensively). Based on some of your other posts, I'm assuming you're already familiar with the methodology.

 

Using CHONE's 2010 projection let's breakdown Willingham's expected performance next season:

 

Offense: +11

Defense: -7 (he's -5.3 in his career, but coming off a -7 season. We're also accounting for the fact that he's a year older.)

Replacement: +20

Position: -7.5

 

= 17 runs above replacement (or 1.7 wins)

 

a 1.7 WAR isn't terrible by any stretch (he still belongs in the major leagues), but it certainly lines up with what a team would expect from a 4th OF. He'd be far more valuable to a team taking ABs vs LHP exclusively and pinch hitting. He'd be about 3 runs better as a full-time DH -- eliminating his defense altogether.

 

 

You calculated this extremely wrong

 

For one, you gave his defense and positional value 150 games played, while his offense is only 130 games played and his replacement value only 140 games played.

 

Bumping his offense to 150 games played (650 PA) gives +14 runs (there's also the fact that Rally's wRAA is normally lower than other places like fangraphs but that's only by a 1-2 runs normally). Bumping replacement level to 150 games gives us +22 runs. So we're now at +5 runs over what you already posted, or +2.3 WAR.

 

Ontop of which, you're still extremely underselling his defense. He's -5 at worse. Total Zone has him at -0.7 in his career, and +6 last year after +6 in 2008. Plus/Minus has him at +1.7 in his career, and -2 last year.

 

Ontop of which again, UZR doesn't say his range is getting worse. In fact, it says his range is getting better. His UZR/150 was -7 last year mostly because his arm (Which previously was at +3.5 in 150 games) was at -3.8/150. His range was only -1.2/150, compared to his career rate of -6.7/150 (Most of which came in 2007, which seems to be an anomaly).

The difference between wOBA and OPS has nothing to do with correlation; it has everything to do with quantification.

 

 

 

 

 

And why is wOBA better? Because, by quantifying each individual event, it correlates better to runs.

 

I'm not saying OPS is better than wOBA (AGAIN I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IT ISN'T), I'm saying the difference is negligible (WHICH THE ARTICLE ITSELF SHOWS) when talking about broad topics.

Let's use Win Values instead (it's doing what you're trying to do, but more comprehensively). Based on some of your other posts, I'm assuming you're already familiar with the methodology.

 

Using CHONE's 2010 projection let's breakdown Willingham's expected performance next season:

 

Offense: +11

Defense: -7 (he's -5.3 in his career, but coming off a -7 season. We're also accounting for the fact that he's a year older.)

Replacement: +20

Position: -7.5

 

= 17 runs above replacement (or 1.7 wins)

 

a 1.7 WAR isn't terrible by any stretch (he still belongs in the major leagues), but it certainly lines up with what a team would expect from a 4th OF. He'd be far more valuable to a team taking ABs vs LHP exclusively and pinch hitting. He'd be about 3 runs better as a full-time DH -- eliminating his defense altogether.

 

 

You calculated this extremely wrong

 

For one, you gave his defense and positional value 150 games played, while his offense is only 130 games played and his replacement value only 140 games played.

 

Bumping his offense to 150 games played (650 PA) gives +14 runs (there's also the fact that Rally's wRAA is normally lower than other places like fangraphs but that's only by a 1-2 runs normally). Bumping replacement level to 150 games gives us +22 runs. So we're now at +5 runs over what you already posted, or +2.3 WAR.

 

Ontop of which, you're still extremely underselling his defense. He's -5 at worse. Total Zone has him at -0.7 in his career, and +6 last year after +6 in 2008. Plus/Minus has him at +1.7 in his career, and -2 last year.

 

Ontop of which again, UZR doesn't say his range is getting worse. In fact, it says his range is getting better. His UZR/150 was -7 last year mostly because his arm (Which previously was at +3.5 in 150 games) was at -3.8/150. His range was only -1.2/150, compared to his career rate of -6.7/150 (Most of which came in 2007, which seems to be an anomaly).

 

 

The offense is scaled to Runs per 150. Willingham's offense is projected to be +11 per 150 games played -- and his defense is -5.3 in his career, but -7 last year according to UZR. UZR is the most comprehensive public-available defensive metric there is. That's why it's being used. He was -7 runs defensively per 150 games last year, and is a year older. It's totally reasonable to expect him to be -7 defensively in 2010 with a greater likelihood of it being worse.

The difference between wOBA and OPS has nothing to do with correlation; it has everything to do with quantification.

 

 

 

 

 

And why is wOBA better? Because, by quantifying each individual event, it correlates better to runs.

 

I'm not saying OPS is better than wOBA (AGAIN I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IT ISN'T), I'm saying the difference is negligible (WHICH THE ARTICLE ITSELF SHOWS) when talking about broad topics.

 

I get the impression that you're easily excitable when you're disagreed with. Deep breaths...deep breaths.

 

"correlates better to runs" .. or did you mean translates better to runs? Your terminology is a bit off here -- but I digress.

 

If you scroll up you'll see that I never accused you of thinking OPS was better than wOBA. I guess I just find it silly that you would rather count on your "round about" OPS to runs translation than to use a more comprehensive system that was tailor-made for this type of discussion (Win Values).

 

There's no .001 difference in correlation as you put it -- Win Values simply provides a more complete and accurate picture of a player's value.

The offense is scaled to Runs per 150. Willingham's offense is projected to be +11 per 150 games played -- and his defense is -5.3 in his career, but -7 last year according to UZR. UZR is the most comprehensive public-available defensive metric there is. That's why it's being used. He was -7 runs defensively per 150 games last year, and is a year older. It's totally reasonable to expect him to be -7 defensively in 2010 with a greater likelihood of it being worse.

 

 

it's not more comprehensive than plus/minus, and look at what I had to say about his UZR being -7 runs last year, it had nothing to do with range.

 

My mistake on the offense though,though I also think Chone is short-changing him at a .823 OPS (Fangraphs projection has him at +23 runs in 150 games at a .267/.374/.845 line (basically his career line), but the big difference in runs there also has to deal with the difference in getting wRAA between the two sites as I said before).

I get the impression that you're easily excitable when you're disagreed with. Deep breaths...deep breaths.

 

"correlates better to runs" .. or did you mean translates better to runs? Your terminology is a bit off here -- but I digress.

 

If you scroll up you'll see that I never accused you of thinking OPS was better than wOBA. I guess I just find it silly that you would rather count on your "round about" OPS to runs translation than to use a more comprehensive system that was tailor-made for this type of discussion (Win Values).

 

There's no .001 difference in correlation as you put it -- Win Values simply provides a more complete and accurate picture of a player's value.

 

 

No, correlates better to runs. Translating them to runs is more or less estimations, the question is which estimation better correlates to actual runs that happened. The ones that correlate the best are ergo the best stats.

 

And again, they give the same result, you basically showed as much. And I already said why I post in OPS, it's not about me it's about other posters.

No, correlates better to runs. Translating them to runs is more or less estimations, the question is which estimation better correlates to actual runs that happened. The ones that correlate the best are ergo the best stats.

 

 

In the interest of staying on topic I won't even justify this with a rebuttal. Let's just say that if you're in the business of trying to make things easier for other posters to understand -- this won't get it done.

 

And again, they give the same result, you basically showed as much. And I already said why I post in OPS, it's not about me it's about other posters.

 

 

How do they give the same result when the results are completely different?

 

Your makeshift/round about OPS calculations (which are vague and leave a lot to interpretation) put him as an above average player and a starting outfielder, where Win Values (a system that tells the complete picture) puts him at a below average player, and a 4th outfielder. The difference between a 4th OF and a starting OF is significant and the difference between 10-20+ runs (in most cases).

In the interest of staying on topic I won't even justify this with a rebuttal. Let's just say that if you're in the business of trying to make things easier for other posters to understand -- this won't get it done.

 

Every poster knows what OPS is, they know what a good OPS is, they know what a bad OPS is. So yes, OPS gets it done.

 

How do they give the same result when the results are completely different?

 

Your makeshift/round about OPS calculations (which are vague and leave a lot to interpretation) put him as an above average player and a starting outfielder, where Win Values (a system that tells the complete picture) puts him at a below average player, and a 4th outfielder. The difference between a 4th OF and a starting OF is significant and the difference between 10-20 runs (in most cases).

 

Your projection system would have him at a 1.9 WAR, or 1 run below average (AKA, right on average), it doesn't say he's a 4th OFer.

 

Using your same numbers going by OPS, that'd put him at .795 OPS, or right on average.

 

You're comparing two completely different numbers lol.

 

And there's also the fact that other projections systems, i.e. the fan projection systems that are right on his career line, have him at +23 runs, which puts his war up to 3.1 even giving you the defense.

Are you seriously substituting CHONE (industry standard projection system) for the general consensus of a few hundred fans? Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see what the fans think, but if my money is on the line, I'm going with CHONE everytime (it eliminates the inherent bias -- and stays honest to the 80 some yr history of MLB player performances--since the earliest data was recorded).

 

And Willingham's Win Value using CHONE & his career UZR (with slight decline included) puts him at 1.7 WAR which would be 3 runs below average.

 

I can't think of a single starting outfielder (older than 25) who is heading into 2011 projected to produce only 17 runs above replacement.

Are you seriously substituting CHONE (industry standard projection system) for the general consensus of a few hundred fans? Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see what the fans think, but if my money is on the line, I'm going with CHONE everytime (it eliminates the inherent bias -- and stays honest to the 80 some yr history of MLB player performances--since the earliest data was recorded).

 

And Willingham's Win Value using CHONE & his career UZR (with slight decline included) puts him at 1.7 WAR which would be 3 runs below average.

 

I can't think of a single starting outfielder (older than 25) who is heading into 2011 projected to produce only 17 runs above replacement.

 

CHONE isn't the industry standard because those in the industry don't use projection systems (at least not 3rd party systems). Though I'd argue that PECOTA has become more of the "standard" to those outside the industry than CHONE.

Nny, you have a lot of patience, my good man. :lol

Nny, you have a lot of patience, my good man. :lol

 

 

Yeah, this.

 

And he's precisely right about the use of the word correlation.

Are you seriously substituting CHONE (industry standard projection system) for the general consensus of a few hundred fans? Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see what the fans think, but if my money is on the line, I'm going with CHONE everytime (it eliminates the inherent bias -- and stays honest to the 80 some yr history of MLB player performances--since the earliest data was recorded).

 

And Willingham's Win Value using CHONE & his career UZR (with slight decline included) puts him at 1.7 WAR which would be 3 runs below average.

 

I can't think of a single starting outfielder (older than 25) who is heading into 2011 projected to produce only 17 runs above replacement.

 

CHONE isn't the industry standard because those in the industry don't use projection systems (at least not 3rd party systems). Though I'd argue that PECOTA has become more of the "standard" to those outside the industry than CHONE.

 

 

I figure most teams probably have their own proprietary projection systems -- but CHONE is an industry standard publicly available tool.

 

PECOTA is an awesome system, but it's more accurate forecasting pitcher performance than offense. CHONE has been about as accurate as PECOTA offensively if not more. The problem with PECOTA is that it's held behind a premium wall and the 2010 set won't be released for another few months.