from Amazon
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Replacement Level using Forecasted players
Rally Monkey gives us some good work. Here are my thoughts:
Rally starts off with my positional adjustments (per 162 G):
POSITION POSITION ADJUSTMENT
Catcher 12.5
Shortstop 7.5
2B, 3B, CF 2.5
Corner Outfield -7.5
First base -12.5
Since Rally seems to be using numbers as per 150G, those numbers become:
POSITION POSITION ADJUSTMENT
Catcher 11.6
Shortstop 6.9
2B, 3B, CF 2.3
Corner Outfield -6.9
First base -11.6
If we set the replacement level as 22.4 runs per 150 G (more on this later), we get:
POSITION POSITION ADJUSTMENT
Catcher 34
Shortstop 29
2B, 3B, CF 25
Corner Outfield 15
First base 11
Since Rally combines the three OF positions, I’ll show my numbers accordingly:
POSITION POSITION ADJUSTMENT
Catcher 34
Shortstop 29
2B, 3B 25
Outfield 18
First base 11
Ok, so all I’ve done is realign my numbers to match Rally’s scale. The weighted average of the above numbers is 22.3, and the weighted average of Rally’s last chart in his article (which I will present in a second) is 22.4.
(So, this is why I set the replacement level to 22.4… just to get it on Rally’s scale.)
Here is Rally’s chart, which uses replacement level players, and presumes that their fielding contributions are not biased (i.e., the fielding level of the replacement-level 1B is the same as the replacement-level SS, relative to the average player at those positions):
Top players not in majors
POSITION REPLACEMENT LEVEL
Catcher -30
Shortstop -29
Second base -23
Third base -23
Outfield -19
First base -17
We’ve got a perfect match at shortstop, an almost perfect match at 2B, 3B and OF.
At the two extreme points, my catcher replacement level is 4 runs higher than it should be, relative to Rally’s numbers. On the other end, my 1B replacement level is 6 runs too low. (All per 150 G)
Seeing that my gap between 1B and the corner OF is 5 runs per 162 G, I certainly can’t accept tightening up to that extent. Rally suggests tightening both 1B and C by 2.5 runs. I’m not really opposed to it, but I’m not sold yet.
And here’s the reason: Rally’s numbers are only valid if we consider fielding a wash. But, what the heck is a replacement level 1B? He might be a 1B in the minor leagues who is nothing more than a DH. That is, he really s-cks as a fielder. (Otherwise, if he was a good fielder, in the minor leagues, he’d be a 3B or 2B.) So, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that if you include the fielding talent, that this might drop the replacement-level 1B in the minor leagues enough to match my spectrum.
How about catcher? I don’t know. I get the feeling that they must be horrible fielders as well. That is, any catcher that is a decent fielder finds his way up the chain pretty fast, that hitting is a secondary consideration. So, it’s possible there is a biased population in Rally group, whereby you have some bad-fielding catchers (you know, the guys that teams hope to put a decent bat there if only they could learn to field a little in the minors). Again, pure speculation.
So, while I don’t necessarily object to tightening the C and 1B positional adjustments as Rally suggests, I’m not sold yet. And in the cases of these two extreme positions, I’d rather give extra credit to the catcher and less credit to the 1B.
Anyway, fantastic job on Rally in doing the work. I’ve always wanted to do it, and I’m glad to see how well the two different approaches converge.
On catcher, I see your point. The top hitting minor league catchers could well be a bunch of low average guys who slug .550 in the minors and make numbers-oriented fans wonder “why can’t this guy get a shot when you keep running Brad Ausmus out there” There always seem to be a lot of these players around, and their gloves are probably pretty bad.
On first base, I don’t see any reason to believe the group of players one rung down from the big league 1B/DH’s are any worse at fielding. For a lot of them, handedness is the reason they don’t play 2nd or third, but I’m not convinced the level of fielding, at least in the high minors, is significantly worse than at the majors.
In fact, when I looked at Dan Fox’s minor league SFR for 2007, and compared to the zone rating performance of 2008 rookies, the rookies actually fielded better in the big leagues!