PDA

View Full Version : Neat New Stat in NYTimes : Sheff AL MVP



incarnadine
11-08-04, 04:07 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/sports/baseball/07score.html

The AL Cy Young is Joe Nathan, the NL Cy Young is Gagne.


A.L. M.V.P. Sheffield, with a 5.60 WRAP, edges out the Angels slugger Vladimir Guerrero (4.45). Ramirez ranks sixth because more of his hits came in game situations that did not have a big effect on the outcome of Boston games.

N.L. M.V.P. Bonds (12.16) tramples the runner-up, Albert Pujols of the Cardinals (6.85), demonstrating that Bonds's walks did indeed help the Giants by setting the table for subsequent, however disappointing, hitters.

More evidence that Bonds, by all imaginable measures, is the greatest of all time.

And that Gary Sheffield (and also ARod) had a knack for getting into and performing well in situations which had a disproportionate impact on winning games.

And that Mo and Flash were the key pitchers for the season.

incarnadine
11-08-04, 04:08 AM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/07/sports/07scoregraph.jpg

Mattingly Sideburns
11-08-04, 06:43 AM
I'd like to study the methodology of hitters more, but the pitching ratings seem rather skewed to me. These rankings are skewed towards closers because they are used in high leverage situations. However, it doesn't state how a "league average" closer would do on their scale. Certainly a pitcher like Santana is more valuable than Joe Nathan, because a starter that can dominate like Santana did is much more rare than the regular season versions of a Rivera, Nathan, Gagne, Smoltz....

cubswin
11-08-04, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by incarnadine
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/sports/baseball/07score.html
...nd that Gary Sheffield (and also ARod) had a knack for getting into and performing well in situations which had a disproportionate impact on ...


How do they determine what has an impact on a game's outcome?

WiffleWOOD
11-08-04, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by cubswin



How do they determine what has an impact on a game's outcome?

Any contribution late in the game has a greater effect on the game's outcome, in this system, because it greatly increases the team's chances of winning (because it is much more difficult for the other team to come back with less outs left, etc.).

Therein lies the problem with this system...it relies too heavily on the idea of "clutch" performance. It is interesting, however, to see that the leaders in each category are pretty much the same people everyone's talking about anyway.

Calvin and Hobbes
11-08-04, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by WiffleWOOD



Therein lies the problem with this system...it relies too heavily on the idea of "clutch" performance. It is interesting, however, to see that the leaders in each category are pretty much the same people everyone's talking about anyway.

The pitching leaders are hooey. Because they rely on late game production so much, too many of the top guys are short relievers. The hitting leaders are fine, but there's no way I'm picking a closer in both leagues this year.

JeffWeaverFan
11-08-04, 01:38 PM
Interesting stat and it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sheff was #1 in the AL in it.

kamikaze
11-08-04, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by incarnadine
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/sports/baseball/07score.html

The AL Cy Young is Joe Nathan.



NO WAY........

he gotta be KIDDING........
In any category how can he be better than Santana,Schilling and MO.

ClayParker
11-08-04, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by WiffleWOOD


Any contribution late in the game has a greater effect on the game's outcome, in this system, because it greatly increases the team's chances of winning (because it is much more difficult for the other team to come back with less outs left, etc.).

Therein lies the problem with this system...it relies too heavily on the idea of "clutch" performance. It is interesting, however, to see that the leaders in each category are pretty much the same people everyone's talking about anyway.

I guess one has to read the paper. I would hope that they somehow weight things in a sensible way.

For example, a starter who shuts out the side in the first inning. How is his contribution measured? Should it really be any more or less than a reliever who shuts down the side in the 9th? Are their marginal contributions to winning any different? Or is the value of a reliver derived from the fact that he often comes into RISP situations caused by other pitchers, while starters never do that?

Also by focusing on individual games, you can lose sight of the big picture. For example, a starter who can go 8 or 9 innings, maybe giving up an extra run in the process versus a reliever, would seem to add value by saving the bullpen over the long run.

JeffWeaverFan
11-08-04, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by kamikaze


NO WAY........

he gotta be KIDDING........
In any category how can he be better than Santana,Schilling and MO.
Well, he was better than Mo was this season. But, the article stated that the stat favored relief pitchers so you can take that one with a grain of salt.

Fenway1912
11-13-04, 03:19 PM
This is an interesting stat, but I wouldn't build my team around it. You need production the whole game. It is interesting, however, to see who performs well in the clutch.