|
The MLB N/V thread has been going through some hypothetical players and figuring out who would be the best. I figured we could use a separate thread for it. Some posts to get us started: Rick and Tony: No Strikeouts vs. the Infinite Stolen Bases HAL9100 posted:Two completely league-average players receive baseball superpowers; let's call them Rick and Tony. The two players improbably have completely league average skills in every single possible category. They have average plate discipline and batted ball profiles, they hit for average power and make average contact, they have average speed, and despite the fact that in the real world these superpowers would manifest themselves in improvements in some of those areas, Rick and Tony impossibly remain entirely average in all of them. Rick can never, ever, be caught stealing second or third base, and Tony can never ever be struck out. Therefore, Rick will end up on third base literally every time he gets on base, and Tony will end every single at-bat by putting a ball in play. Who would provide more offensive value to their team? Tharizdun posted:I would imagine the guy who hit nothing but triples (the 'can't be thrown out' guy) would have more value than the guy who always put the ball into play, because while BABIP is higher than BA, he still creates opportunities for double plays and the like, and having a ball in play is no guarantee of safely reaching any base. I mean, Joey Votto never strikes out either, but that's not what makes him great. TheFlyingLlama posted:Isn't the average BABIP something like .300? BaseballRef says the average OBP of a MLB player in 2013 was .318, so Rick is apparently going to get on base more often than Tony. Combine that with Rick's magic stealing ability, and it's not even close. rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:Tony's super power is really, really lame and there's a pretty big difference between never striking out and always putting the ball in play. Tony's super power ensures he never walks or hits a homerun, and league BABIP is around 0.300 so in the end Tony probably has a lower OBP than Rick. League OBP can push 0.330 and even though it's lower in recent years it's probably still higher than BABIP. Rick is way, way, way better than Tony. Having Rick on your team is roughly like having peak Barry Bonds. KitsonGT posted:Thinking way to intensely about hypothetical baseball superpowers, but the only way I can think that Tony's superpowers would be useful is if it was "pitchers literally cannot throw strikes at him so he can stand there and just take a walk every time" - I feel like there's a number of times that the fact that a batter doesn't make contact is a good thing in isolated cases, so if he's tricked by a pitch and makes a halfhearted flail at it, instead of it just being a strike, he'd be inclined to have a lot of weak little taps to the pitcher because while he's making contact, he isn't making good contact, so his BABIP would probably be lower. Rick and Tony: 3 True Outcomes vs the BABIP Machine axeil posted:
HAL9100 posted:I'm just trying to run some numbers, though this one might be difficult to figure out. Pander posted:That'd mean he gets through about 5 1/3 innings with about 6 walks and 2 homers. Seems like he'd end up with a significantly higher ERA than 2.1, since the bare minimum at that point would be 2 ER through 5 1/3 (about 3.37 ERA). If you factor in the likelihood of walks preceding homers, it'd probably be above 4. Pander posted:You cut out the non HR/K/BB outcomes and then extrapolate the ratio of HR:K:BB to fill in the typical number of batters. That's actually not hard to do. The specific order of K/BB/HR events are hugely important to the overall success of the outing, however, as walks before homers are valuable while walks after homers are less so (unless another homer occurs before the inning ends). mentholmoose posted:Lucky for us, BB-ref has splits for balls in play versus balls out of play. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=p&lg=MLB&year=2013#hitlo axeil posted:It all depends on which of walks, strikeouts and HRs you exaggerate. Exaggerate walks and you get a very, very wild pitcher. Exaggerate HRs and you get a very, very, bad pitcher. Exaggerate strikeouts and you get the greatest pitcher ever. Greg, Randy and Matt: Because Comparing Two Guys Isn't Enough Anymore HAL9100 posted:Totally had miggy's numbers in my head but was speaking aloud about my Angels tickets for the tenth while typing. Feel free to add your own hypothetical players.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
How valuable is a guy who gets a hit in every single game he plays but nothing else? Does a manager bench a guy on a 162 game hit streak because his OBP is .220? Do I have to name him to get a response? His name is Kevin. The manager's name is ... Satoshi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:How valuable is a guy who gets a hit in every single game he plays but nothing else? Does a manager bench a guy on a 162 game hit streak because his OBP is .220? Do I have to name him to get a response? His name is Kevin. The manager's name is ... Satoshi. So he only gets a single hit? Are we assuming he's a league average defender? What position does he play? If he's a pitcher then he's pretty drat good since I don't think many pitchers end up with 162 hits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:How valuable is a guy who gets a hit in every single game he plays but nothing else? Does a manager bench a guy on a 162 game hit streak because his OBP is .220? Do I have to name him to get a response? His name is Kevin. The manager's name is ... Satoshi. Could you imagine the usefulness of that guy solely as a bat off the bench? RISP? Pinch hitter. Guaranteed runs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Could you imagine the usefulness of that guy solely as a bat off the bench? RISP? Pinch hitter. Guaranteed runs. He'd be IBB'd almost every time he came to the plate once managers figured out the pattern though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
axeil posted:Greg, Randy and Matt: Because Comparing Two Guys Isn't Enough Anymore Pretty sure Randy would be Craig Kimbrel, which as a starter would be pretty drat solid. So I'm going with Randy on this one, though the dude who doesn't walk anyone would certainly be pretty productive, too. axeil posted:So he only gets a single hit? Are we assuming he's a league average defender? What position does he play? Probably not a pitcher because I don't think anyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Is there anybody who wouldn't take Randy in that last scenario?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:17
|
|
SAVE_US.CHR
|
Goddamnit nerds Kevin doesn't sit on the bench. He's a league average defender and we don't know whether his magic spell works off the bench because it's 80 games into the year and he's on an 80 game hit streak but his OBP is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
ChampRamp posted:Is there anybody who wouldn't take Randy in that last scenario? The Ks rule all. I could see an argument for using Greg against a team with great plate discipline or Matt against a really good slugging team though. Twice the league average strikeout rate is extremely beneficial. What if he struck out twice as many batters but also allowed twice as many walks and home runs? DannoMack posted:Goddamnit nerds Kevin doesn't sit on the bench. He's a league average defender and we don't know whether his magic spell works off the bench because it's 80 games into the year and he's on an 80 game hit streak but his OBP is terrible. Ruin all our fun  While his OBP is horrifying, the fact that you know he'll always get at least one hit is really useful. If you have a guy with a great OBP you could put him behind him in the batting order and be assured of having a runner in scoring position. It'd make for a weird batting line up but I'm figuring it'd look something like this. 1. Jimmy .320 OBP 2. Jake .380 OBP 3. Kevin .220 OBP 4. Ryan .350 OBP Knowing that Kevin will always at least move Jake over and possibly score Jimmy might make up for his lack of ability the rest of the time. axeil fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Average K/9 is something like 7.13 so even if he only had 1.5 times the league rate he'd "only" be awesome. Strikeouts just kick rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
SilvergunSuperman posted:Average K/9 is something like 7.13 so even if he only had 1.5 times the league rate he'd "only" be awesome. Yeah but those strikeouts would come at the expense of other events in the distribution that they currently occur on average. So while he'd have twice as many Ks, a great deal of them would come at the expense of batted balls already converted to outs. E: I think it could be surprising to learn how much Matt would own. Dr. Tommy John fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:He'd be IBB'd almost every time he came to the plate once managers figured out the pattern though. It's the 9th inning, down by 2, runners on second and third. Kevin comes in to pinch hit. Even if they walk him, his magical powers ensure that his team will tie it up, and the game will continue until he gets a hit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:Yeah but those strikeouts would come at the expense of other events in the distribution that they currently occur on average. So while he'd have twice as many Ks, a great deal of them would come at the expense of batted balls already converted to outs. Matt is pretty much the platonic ideal of a long reliever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:Yeah but those strikeouts would come at the expense of other events in the distribution that they currently occur on average. So while he'd have twice as many Ks, a great deal of them would come at the expense of batted balls already converted to outs. One of these tricks of using someone who is "league average" is that person is already a good baseball player in the major leagues. "Replacement level" is not league average. And in this case, it is creating a player who performs PRECISELY at the league's output rather than a player who is of average value. You're also much better off using percentages instead of ratios to figure this stuff out. Pitchers struck out 20.8% of batters faced last year. Pitchers walked 12.4% of batters faced last year. Pitchers allowed home runs to 2.34% of batters faced last year. Those are the percentage of batter outcomes you need to redistribute to find out if you're making a valuable difference. Just eyeballing it, I'll take the strikeouts personally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Matt is pretty much the platonic ideal of a long reliever. If we assume that he has a permanent 0% HR/FB and otherwise normal batted ball distribution and consider the BABIP on fly balls and lack of earned runs from runners driving themselves in, he'd probably be significantly better than long relief
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Kevin is awesome, because his 162 game hitting streak would cause SAS to go ballistic when he wins the MVP over Trout in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:If we assume that he has a permanent 0% HR/FB and otherwise normal batted ball distribution and consider the BABIP on fly balls and lack of earned runs from runners driving themselves in, he'd probably be significantly better than long relief That's why I think it'd be interesting to play with the fly out/ground out/line out rates. In 2013 the BABIP was .294 with a 44.5% Ground ball rate, 34.3% fly ball rate, and a 21.2% line drive rate. The infield fly ball rate was 9.7% and the HR/FB rate was 10.5%. I can't find the rate at which each batted ball type turned into outs, but taking almost 11% of your fly balls and turning them from HRs into outs would make a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
axeil posted:I can't find the rate at which each batted ball type turned into outs, but taking almost 11% of your fly balls and turning them from HRs into outs would make a huge difference. In 2013: Grounders: .240 AVG, .259 SLG Fly balls: .182 AVG, .523 SLG Liners: .674 AVG, .978 SLG
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
How about some real superpowers. Chad and Thad are two players who will certainly win the MVP in each league of their leagues. I think you will be able to guess which is the stereotypical National Leaguer and American Leaguer. Chad will hit a single in every single at bat he has. Thad will homer one out of every four times he comes up, and strikes out the other three. Let's say his homers are randomly distributed, but at the end of the year he hits .250. Both players have 1.000 SLG. Let's say both players are replacement level in the field, play the same position, and replacement level on the bases. Who is more valuable? I'd have to imagine a guy hitting literally 1.000 has no equal... but what about against ~150 home runs? EDIT: I cannot calculate OPS in my head. Changed it to say they both have 1.000 SLG JackssWastedLife fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
It's the singles guy because an OBP of 1.0 is the baseball offense holy grail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:How about some real superpowers. That sounds like it'd be reasonably close. I'd go with 4 singles off the top of my head. Homer may be sure runs, but four singles in aggregate probably provide slightly more value. Probably depends on the team. The better the overall team OBP skills, the more the singles probably matter since each would have a better chance of driving runs in or scoring runs. The worse the overall team OBP, the more valuable a sure source of runs may be (and the less damaging those three K's would be, since there'd be fewer runners on to strand).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:It's the singles guy because an OBP of 1.0 is the baseball offense holy grail. A TEAM of OBP 1.0 guys is the offensive holy grail. A team of 1 to 3 guys who walk every at bat with the rest of the players having OBP of 0.00 would score 0 runs every single game, while even one 1/4 w/HR guy would turn the team into run scoring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Edit: Oh whoops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:How about some real superpowers. I think on a purely statistical level, Chad is better. On the other hand, 150 dingers in a season? Sign me the gently caress up. EDIT: Also just think about the publicity you'd get from that kind of output. A player breaking the Home Run Record twice over? Presumably clean of roids? TheFlyingLlama fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
According to linear weights, the value of a single last season was .888 runs (compared to the value of an out) while the value of a home run was 2.101 runs. 2.101/4 = .525, so the singles hitter would be more valuable, all else being equal. The Dingermeister would have to hit something like .420 to match him.Pander posted:Probably depends on the team. The better the overall team OBP skills, the more the singles probably matter since each would have a better chance of driving runs in or scoring runs. This is true though. The better your offense is, the more OBP helps you score, while SLG is more helpful for low-scoring teams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Pander posted:A TEAM of OBP 1.0 guys is the offensive holy grail. A team of 1 to 3 guys who walk every at bat with the rest of the players having OBP of 0.00 would score 0 runs every single game, while even one 1/4 w/HR guy would turn the team into run scoring. If you trust RC, which I've leaned heavily on through this whole discussion, the guy who literally never makes outs is 4 times as valuable. His RC is 700. Never making an out ever is very valuable! E: linear weights would be better but this is napkin math. Also the home run guy would have a 1.250 OPS which is rad. The singles guy would have a 2.000 OPS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:E: linear weights would be better but this is napkin math. Also the home run guy would have a 1.250 OPS which is rad. On the other hand, DINGERS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:On the other hand, DINGERS. To update the DINGER number a little bit, presumably you'd bat Thad anywhere from first through fourth in the lineup, so looking at the average number of plate attempts per line up spot we are looking at anywhere from 175-190 dingers. My ~150 was spit-balling with the 600 AB number that gets thrown out a lot. Super Thad would be counted in plate attempts... not silly at bats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I can't find the actual reference where I read this, but this entire 'thought experiment' came about because we were talking about my favorite baseball stat trivia of all time; If you hit a home run and a single in every single game of the year, going 2/5 162 times and finishing the year with 162 dingers and 324 hits, you would still have a lower wRC+ than Barry Bonds in '02 or '04, iirc. This is the most amazing thing about baseball to me. We are making up players who are essentially better versions of the kid from Rookie of the Year. They can do one thing that is crucial to a ballplayer's success to an impossible skill level, and then they do literally everything else better than half the players in the game (the definition of average) but they're still not as good as some actual real ballplayers because of how many ways there are to be great at baseball and how many ways some of these real men are great at baseball. Basically, Miggy owns, cares not for superpowers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
I'm using this thread to talk about hypothetical Ricky Hamilton. Hypothetical player that doesn't hit for power and doesn't walk, but every time he gets a single he successfully steals a base. Finishing the season with 89 hits and 89 stolen bases. Would this player have any value? It isn't really the same as hitting 89 doubles, but it always puts a guy on second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Harlock posted:I'm using this thread to talk about hypothetical Ricky Hamilton. 89 hits and SBs in how many plate appearances? If it's like 600 then you have the worst iteration of Juan Pierre imaginable and no he wouldn't have value even if he made it to second every time. A single + steal is lower in run expectancy than a double, and 89/500 with 89 doubles would represent a really awful slash line on its own (something like .190/.190/.380 or something). If it's in, say, 300 ABs? Then you may have a useful part-time player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Harlock posted:I'm using this thread to talk about hypothetical Ricky Hamilton. I think this is totally dependent on what the player's BA is. If he's a .300 hitter then you're looking at what is essentially a .300/.300/.600 player. Now, granted, this is a theoretical maximum since he wouldn't always be able to steal. If you put him at that theoretical maximum, he's pretty drat good (.900 OPS). If he hits only .250 though you're at a de facto maximum .750 OPS which is rather pedestrian. Anything below .250 and he's not really worth it unless he plays at a premium defensive position (catcher, pitcher). Of course you'd have to remember that these theoretical maximum slugging percentages wouldn't work like true doubles, but I think you're essentially looking at a player who at his best is equivalent to a guy who only hits doubles and at his worst (runners always ahead of him) only hits singles. Where this guy would really have his value though is as a pinch runner. If you only used him in pinch running situations you'd be able to get a runner in scoring position every time he's used. axeil fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:If you hit a home run and a single in every single game of the year, going 2/5 162 times and finishing the year with 162 dingers and 324 hits, you would still have a lower wRC+ than Barry Bonds in '02 or '04, iirc. Not to disparage Lord Barrold, but isn't wRC+ league and park adjusted? Not really sure how this could be said with absolute certainty. All glory to the power of a 200 walk season, but I'm still taking the guy with 324 hits and 162 home runs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
A 100% SB rate is more helpful than simply moving a runner into scoring position. Catchers that try to challenge a runner (that never loses) will create some errors on the throw to/catch at second. An empty first base will often result in an intentional walk, creating a better run-scoring environment. While intangibles aren't really recorded in statistical analysis, there are lots of intangibles related to stolen bases, such as disruption of pitcher timing. I was looking at the 89 hits thing backwards, axeil had it right. Batting average will drive that player's utility, ranging from worthless to superstar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Pander posted:A 100% SB rate is more helpful than simply moving a runner into scoring position. Catchers that try to challenge a runner (that never loses) will create some errors on the throw to/catch at second. An empty first base will often result in an intentional walk, creating a better run-scoring environment. While intangibles aren't really recorded in statistical analysis, there are lots of intangibles related to stolen bases, such as disruption of pitcher timing. But, if it became known that this player could always steal successfully, other teams would eventually stop trying to stop the steal so the error rate on throws and the pitcher disruption would disappear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:But, if it became known that this player could always steal successfully, other teams would eventually stop trying to stop the steal so the error rate on throws and the pitcher disruption would disappear. Assume it's not a known fact he'll ALWAYS make it safetly via magic. Every catcher would still wanna be the first guy to catch him even if he had a 100% rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Pander posted:Assume it's not a known fact he'll ALWAYS make it safetly via magic. Every catcher would still wanna be the first guy to catch him even if he had a 100% rate. If that's the case I think the error rate might be even higher than usual. The catcher would know it's very difficult to catch the guy stealing so it's more likely they'd throw excessively hard and missing the 2nd baseman. Same thing with the pitcher on pickoff attempts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Wonder how much a league average team would improve if it simply taught its player how to never TOOTBLAN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Beatnik-Filmstar posted:Kevin is awesome, because his 162 game hitting streak would cause SAS to go ballistic when he wins the MVP over Trout in a landslide. This is a reminder that during Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak, he batted .408/.463/.717. Over the same period, Ted Williams batted .412/.540/.684.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
That singles guy would own so hard. Just lift him once he's got his hit. He wouldn't have anything close to a .220 OBP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
