Selective Application of Statistics

[haveacigar]

here is some interesting stuff on Bay and fangraphs defensive reviews. Even god himself, by that i mean Bill James, says the results are inaccurate...or some of the posts i've found have stated. I have yet to find his quote on it. I"m assuming its out there since i've seen it now in multiple spots.

http://seattlesportsinsider.com/news/weekender



this was a follow up post in the thread;

Well, the simple answer to that post would be "Jason Bay is judged harshly despite the same amount of put outs, because he saw more balls enter his zone." Fenway could very well screw with UZR data in LF. To take that piece of evidence and decide that UZR is useless is pretty short-sighted though. Besides, Bay was listed as a pretty poor fielder in Pittsburgh too.

One specific example of screwy calculations, even if true, doesn't disprove an entire metric. That would be like if I suggested home runs are not a reliable stat because Brady Anderson managed to hit 50 in a season once.

[HoustonGM]

If the translation of WAR to a dollar figure is meaningful, then looking at WAR in terms of percentages is meaningful. It might be reasonable to say that neither makes sense, but if someone says that Cameron is worth $10m and Bay is worth $8m, then it isn't wrong to say that Cameron is 25% better. WAR defines the metric with which you are measuring players.

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was misleading. 25% seems like a lot, but in the context of the stat, it really isn't.

These two comments are just spin city and the type of arrogance I was referring to. Others opinions are cast off because they are apparently "ignorant" in the minds of statheads, ie. "people who don't know what they're talking about". If its truly a blend of stats and scouting than one would have to agree IMO that the stats are flawed because no scout IMO will say that the 09 Cameron was worth more than the 09 Bay.

Uh, what? Maybe there are scouts that WOULD say that.. how would either of us know? 200tang did just mention two scouts that very well might think Cameron was more valuable. And, even if there aren't, that doesn't mean that we believe scouting has no place in player evaluation. And, as was mentioned, scouting isn't meant to measure the value of players. It's meant to measure the skills of players. Any decent front office will use both statistics and scouting and nobody would ever argue that scouting shouldn't be part of the process (though, there are still ignorant people that will argue that advanced stats shouldn't be).

[dickay]

Well, the simple answer to that post would be "Jason Bay is judged harshly despite the same amount of put outs, because he saw more balls enter his zone." Fenway could very well screw with UZR data in LF. To take that piece of evidence and decide that UZR is useless is pretty short-sighted though. Besides, Bay was listed as a pretty poor fielder in Pittsburgh too.

One specific example of screwy calculations, even if true, doesn't disprove an entire metric. That would be like if I suggested home runs are not a reliable stat because Brady Anderson managed to hit 50 in a season once.

its kind of amazing to me that you guys refuse to even question your stats. its actually scary when people take the numbers spit at them through a computer as fact without questioning the formulas, ESPECIALLY when common sense and the eye test scream somethings wrong.

i have not said they are entirely useless at all....but i have said that if i used these frequently I would seriously question the validity of the defensive measurements. The post I linked, of which there are many on the web with similar stances, makes some very valid and concerning points. The measurements don't seem "a little" off...they appear significantly off in terms of Bay analysis at Fenway. If thats way off, how valid are the rest of the measurements????

It appears that from the way they measure defense at least at Fenway, the only way Bay could be an average LF'er, he'd have to be superman, cape and ability to fly included!!!

[HoustonGM]

its kind of amazing to me that you guys refuse to even question your stats. its actually scary when people take the numbers spit at them through a computer as fact without questioning the formulas, ESPECIALLY when common sense and the eye test scream somethings wrong.

Well, first off, as I said already, common sense and the eye test DON'T scream something wrong to me and others. Secondly, you keep yelling at us for refusing to "question our stats", yet aren't you refusing to question your "eyes"? Eyes are an absolutely pitiful way to evaluate a player's value, anyway. It's literally impossibe. Thirdly, haveacigar isn't refusing to question anything. He's pointing out the gigantic flaw in your argument that reeks of very shoddy evaluation. You're taking one example and using that to determine that the entire stat is flawed. As he said, Fenway may have an effect on UZR...I don't know, I haven't looked into it...but that doesn't mean that the stat is wrong or useless or flawed.

It appears that from the way they measure defense at least at Fenway, the only way Bay could be an average LF'er, he'd have to be superman, cape and ability to fly included!!!

Than I guess he had those things this past year when TotalZone or FRAA is used to calculate his defense?

[filihok]

It appears that from the way they measure defense at least at Fenway, the only way Bay could be an average LF'er, he'd have to be superman, cape and ability to fly included!!!

Rickey Henderson had a 13.5 UZR/150 in 2002 with the Red Sox in an admittedly small number of innings-378.

I'm not a Red Sox expert so I don't know too many other Red Sox LFers besides Manny and Bay who have the vast majority of the LF innings since 2002.

[haveacigar]

its kind of amazing to me that you guys refuse to even question your stats. its actually scary when people take the numbers spit at them through a computer as fact without questioning the formulas, ESPECIALLY when common sense and the eye test scream somethings wrong.

i have not said they are entirely useless at all....but i have said that if i used these frequently I would seriously question the validity of the defensive measurements. The post I linked, of which there are many on the web with similar stances, makes some very valid and concerning points. The measurements don't seem "a little" off...they appear significantly off in terms of Bay analysis at Fenway. If thats way off, how valid are the rest of the measurements????

It appears that from the way they measure defense at least at Fenway, the only way Bay could be an average LF'er, he'd have to be superman, cape and ability to fly included!!!

So because I pointed out an obvious and significant flaw in that person's methodology, I refuse to question my stats? Get the F out of here with that nonsense.

I'll try again, and actually try and read my post this time instead of assuming that I'm not willing to question the oh holy grail of UZR (for the record, I don't even think it's the best defensive metric out there): Jason Bay could very well be unfairly penalized by the difficulty in calculating UZR in Fenway's LF. That wouldn't surprise me one bit, because they have an enormous wall in LF. However, even if you prove that UZR calculations are unreliable in Fenway's LF, all that proves is that they are unreliable AT FENWAY. Fenway is an obviously unique situation. If the monster makes it impossible to get an accurate reading, what do we say about every other outfield that is normal? The post you cited only referenced the one example. Again, one example does not disprove an entire metric, ESPECIALLY when there are major reasons why that particular example is completely unique.

You don't think it's possible that the green monster screws with UZR data, but every other outfield in the bigs that is normal rates normally? Because if that were the case, then there'd be nothing wrong with UZR, you just wouldn't be able to use it to rate Boston left fielders.

[dickay]

So because I pointed out an obvious and significant flaw in that person's methodology, I refuse to question my stats? Get the F out of here with that nonsense.

I'll try again, and actually try and read my post this time instead of assuming that I'm not willing to question the oh holy grail of UZR (for the record, I don't even think it's the best defensive metric out there): Jason Bay could very well be unfairly penalized by the difficulty in calculating UZR in Fenway's LF. That wouldn't surprise me one bit, because they have an enormous wall in LF. However, even if you prove that UZR calculations are unreliable in Fenway's LF, all that proves is that they are unreliable AT FENWAY. Fenway is an obviously unique situation. If the monster makes it impossible to get an accurate reading, what do we say about every other outfield that is normal? The post you cited only referenced the one example. Again, one example does not disprove an entire metric, ESPECIALLY when there are major reasons why that particular example is completely unique.

You don't think it's possible that the green monster screws with UZR data, but every other outfield in the bigs that is normal rates normally? Because if that were the case, then there'd be nothing wrong with UZR, you just wouldn't be able to use it to rate Boston left fielders.

wow, and I'M THE ONE THAT CAN'T READ??? LMFAO. This whole thread has been about Bay vs. Cameron. And all i've said is that if it in fact is flawed in the ratings of Bay, than the prudent person WOULD at minimum question the validity of the system as it may be flawed elsewhere. I'm not saying that the system as a whole is poor or wrong...but that there very likely is other "significant" problems if there is one here involving the Bay / Cameron comparison which to me is significant.

Oh no....its much easier and surely more accurate to simply admit with a flaw in the Fenway calculation ONLY. Surely if there is a flaw there, it is there and there only. No way could it be in the calculation as a whole, or anywhere else.

If the monster makes it impossible to get an accurate reading, what do we say about every other outfield that is normal?

lol, are you really reading what you type? Normal?? What is a normal OF? What dimension? I didn't know every OF dimension outside of Fenway was the same.

Than I guess he had those things this past year when TotalZone or FRAA is used to calculate his defense?

And this is why nobody can have a rationale discussion with HGM, and the exact arrogance many stathead have that proves my point. He KNOWS full well we've been discussing fangraphs and fangraphs only as flawed yet deliberately puts words in my mouth, distorts the argument purposely with something nobody has said merely to make it look like the person questioning the stats is ignorant.

Well, first off, as I said already, common sense and the eye test DON'T scream something wrong to me and others. Secondly, you keep yelling at us for refusing to "question our stats", yet aren't you refusing to question your "eyes"? Eyes are an absolutely pitiful way to evaluate a player's value, anyway. It's literally impossibe. Thirdly, haveacigar isn't refusing to question anything. He's pointing out the gigantic flaw in your argument that reeks of very shoddy evaluation. You're taking one example and using that to determine that the entire stat is flawed. As he said, Fenway may have an effect on UZR...I don't know, I haven't looked into it...but that doesn't mean that the stat is wrong or useless or flawed.

Please read. I've said multiple times that I question my and others "eye tests" and agree it is often wrong. I respect statistical measurements. Haveacigar is not pointing out ANY GIGANTIC FLAW. If you find one seemingly SIGNIFICANT error in a mathematical measurement than its PRUDENT to question the entirety of the mathematical formula.

So if we agree its wrong at fenway, which from what i've found many people saying your holy one Bill James does, then why is it you would write it off as solely being wrong at Fenway? Doing that is a GIGANTIC FLAW. Doing that reeks bias towards the statistics, where one won't use common sense and at least question the validity elsewhere

And while we're on questioning the validity of FANGRAPHS (in caps for HGM), the mere fact that they claim Cameron was worth 19 mil last year has me questioning their accuracy in Mil now too, not just BOS. Its a complete farce, and the eye test is 100% accurate on it. In no world was Cameron worth 19 mil last year and HGM you're lying to yourself if you wish to sell yourself on that. Its crystal clear in these two instances that fangraphs methods of evaluating defensive contribution is extremely flawed. But...i'm sure its in these two instances only. Nowhere else is this possible.

[haveacigar]

wow, and I'M THE ONE THAT CAN'T READ??? LMFAO. This whole thread has been about Bay vs. Cameron. And all i've said is that if it in fact is flawed in the ratings of Bay, than the prudent person WOULD at minimum question the validity of the system as it may be flawed elsewhere. I'm not saying that the system as a whole is poor or wrong...but that there very likely is other "significant" problems if there is one here involving the Bay / Cameron comparison which to me is significant.

Sometimes, when you are having a conversation, you bring up tangential points and start talking about those instead. I didn't realize I'm only allowed to talk about Jason Bay vs. Mike Cameron. You presented a criticism of UZR, I responded. And while you may not have called UZR useless, the criticism you posted said exactly that, and that was what I was responding to.

Oh no....its much easier and surely more accurate to simply admit with a flaw in the Fenway calculation ONLY. Surely if there is a flaw there, it is there and there only. No way could it be in the calculation as a whole, or anywhere else.

Why wouldn't I assume that Fenway is unique? Do you really not understand the whole idea of scientific rigor? If the flaws exist in other calculations as well, then present some evidence of that. If UZR as a whole is flawed, the flaws would exist across to board, not in one specific instance. So, if you would like to prove that all of UZR is flawed, present some evidence instead of rolling your eyes.

lol, are you really reading what you type? Normal?? What is a normal OF? What dimension? I didn't know every OF dimension outside of Fenway was the same.

I don't know, how about a outfield that doesn't have a 30 foot wall in left field?

And this is why nobody can have a rationale discussion with HGM, and the exact arrogance many stathead have that proves my point. He KNOWS full well we've been discussing fangraphs and fangraphs only as flawed yet deliberately puts words in my mouth, distorts the argument purposely with something nobody has said merely to make it look like the person questioning the stats is ignorant.

So, is your point to discuss the merits of UZR, or to whine about how arrogant statheads are? This thread is 8 pages long, sometimes other points are brought up and discussed. This isn't debate class.

Please read. I've said multiple times that I question my and others "eye tests" and agree it is often wrong. I respect statistical measurements. Haveacigar is not pointing out ANY GIGANTIC FLAW. If you find one seemingly SIGNIFICANT error in a mathematical measurement than its PRUDENT to question the entirety of the mathematical formula.

UZR isn't the quadratic formula. It isn't going to be accurate 100% of the time. No one would ever say it is. But I did point out a significant flaw in that person's analysis, in that he wholesale rejected UZR with only one specific example cited. That would never fly in the scientific world, and I sure as hell am not going to let it fly here. There's a LOT of support and evidence over the years in favor of UZR. You presented a post that argued that it was all useless because of one example. Sorry, not buying it.

So if we agree its wrong at fenway, which from what i've found many people saying your holy one Bill James does, then why is it you would write it off as solely being wrong at Fenway? Doing that is a GIGANTIC FLAW. Doing that reeks bias towards the statistics, where one won't use common sense and at least question the validity elsewhere

Because Fenway has a very obvious unique left field in which there's a 30 foot wall dude. I'm more than willing to examine flaws elsewhere if you'd like to present evidence of them. I mean, am I even allowed to defend UZR here because any time someone does, you accuse them of bias and spin.

And while we're on questioning the validity of FANGRAPHS (in caps for HGM), the mere fact that they claim Cameron was worth 19 mil last year has me questioning their accuracy in Mil now too, not just BOS. Its a complete farce, and the eye test is 100% accurate on it. In no world was Cameron worth 19 mil last year and HGM you're lying to yourself if you wish to sell yourself on that. Its crystal clear in these two instances that fangraphs methods of evaluating defensive contribution is extremely flawed. But...i'm sure its in these two instances only. Nowhere else is this possible.

Wait, what is your evidence that Cameron wasn't worth 19 mil last year? That you say he isn't? Because of your "eye test"? How does one even eyeball WAR? And this is right after you allege HGM of arrogance, you categorically deny the possibility that Cameron was "worth" 19 mil last year, simply because "it's a complete farce" or something. All I see in this particular paragraph is you taking for granted that Cameron couldn't possibly be worth 19 mil in 2009. I don't know why I'm supposed to just take your word for it, I certainly don't think it's farfetched to believe that Cameron played really good defense last year.

Look, if you don't want to agree that Cameron was better than Bay last year, don't. It's no skin off my nose. But if you want to have this conversation and actually analyze the positive and negatives of UZR, then stop accusing people of spin anytime they provide a counter argument. It's not arrogant to disagree, and bias can't be avoided in these conversations. We support UZR, you don't. Obviously, we are going to be biased to the sides of the argument we support. You need to recognize this and stop being so adversarial when people don't accept your evidence as gospel. You certainly don't accept our evidence as gospel, nor should you.

[dickay]

Sometimes, when you are having a conversation, you bring up tangential points and start talking about those instead. I didn't realize I'm only allowed to talk about Jason Bay vs. Mike Cameron. You presented a criticism of UZR, I responded. And while you may not have called UZR useless, the criticism you posted said exactly that, and that was what I was responding to.

Thats fair...as the post I linked did go a bit further than I did. I didn't realize you were critiquing the post.

Why wouldn't I assume that Fenway is unique? Do you really not understand the whole idea of scientific rigor? If the flaws exist in other calculations as well, then present some evidence of that. If UZR as a whole is flawed, the flaws would exist across to board, not in one specific instance. So, if you would like to prove that all of UZR is flawed, present some evidence instead of rolling your eyes.

I have no desire to examine UZR as a whole. I merely pointed out my issue with the Bay/Cameron analysis which IMO is significantly flawed. I did this a few weeks ago on these threads and to my surprise I learned with this thread that there are quite a few others across the blogosphere that have posted similar sentiments. Many of those are far more educated in UZR than I am. My ONLY point has been that if the errors in Bay are this big, than I can't see how that wouldn't bring the system as a whole in question. You've got one system calling Bay an average to plus fielder and another saying he's one of the worse of alltime. The post I liked pretty clearly showed that Bay would have to have been superman to be an average LF last year. Thats gotta be a red flag. I don't see why that would simply be written off as a "Fenway anomalie (spelling)".

I don't know, how about a outfield that doesn't have a 30 foot wall in left field?

This is really kind of silly IMO considering what I posted in the above paragraph. All OF's have different dimensions and wall heights for the most part. I can't see how you can just write off a significant flaw as being the only one. Put it this way...if I was a subscriber to UZR and was shown that there was a major problem in its fenway evaluations....while I may not write off UZR as a whole I'd certainly have reservations about their calculations elsewhere. Surely they may not all be inaccurate....but surely there may be other significant flaws.

So, is your point to discuss the merits of UZR, or to whine about how arrogant statheads are? This thread is 8 pages long, sometimes other points are brought up and discussed. This isn't debate class.

Sorry...but when someone consistently posts false truths to derail the discussion, its upsetting. My point was that I feel they are flawed. Rather than discuss the flaw he attempts to discredit me by trying to portray me as ignorant with things i've never said. That is a method that happens often when questioning people who feel there stats can't be wrong.

UZR isn't the quadratic formula. It isn't going to be accurate 100% of the time. No one would ever say it is. But I did point out a significant flaw in that person's analysis, in that he wholesale rejected UZR with only one specific example cited. That would never fly in the scientific world, and I sure as hell am not going to let it fly here. There's a LOT of support and evidence over the years in favor of UZR. You presented a post that argued that it was all useless because of one example. Sorry, not buying it.

I certainly don't think the whole thing is worthless either. While I don't trust their evaluations entirely, I welcome the advancements in statistical measurements.

Because Fenway has a very obvious unique left field in which there's a 30 foot wall dude. I'm more than willing to examine flaws elsewhere if you'd like to present evidence of them. I mean, am I even allowed to defend UZR here because any time someone does, you accuse them of bias and spin.

That is untrue, and unfair. I do find it irrationale however for someone who claims to believe in scientific analysis to simply write off one significant inaccuracy as just that, and not at minimum question the validity elsewhere. I respect that you've posted that UZR is not entirely accurate. Thats basically been my only point this whole time lmfao. Yet for the most part, far and away those in support of UZR have been unable to admit that in this thread.

Wait, what is your evidence that Cameron wasn't worth 19 mil last year? That you say he isn't? Because of your "eye test"? How does one even eyeball WAR? And this is right after you allege HGM of arrogance, you categorically deny the possibility that Cameron was "worth" 19 mil last year, simply because "it's a complete farce" or something. All I see in this particular paragraph is you taking for granted that Cameron couldn't possibly be worth 19 mil in 2009. I don't know why I'm supposed to just take your word for it, I certainly don't think it's farfetched to believe that Cameron played really good defense last year.

My evidence is common sense. There are very few OF's who are paid 19 million per year. I realize many of them may not earn that dollar figure, but IMO there's no way Camerons value is in the 19 mil ballpark. I don't view Bay as in that ballpark and I don't see Camerons value as close to Bays. His offense certainly isn't near that ballpark and I can't see his defense being that much better than a replacements to make him worthy of that figure. It just doesn't seem plausible. As I've said, for fangraphs to make him worth 19 mil, they are IMO giving way too much value to defense. I too believe he played really good defense, but 19 mil is absurd IMO.

Look, if you don't want to agree that Cameron was better than Bay last year, don't. It's no skin off my nose. But if you want to have this conversation and actually analyze the positive and negatives of UZR, then stop accusing people of spin anytime they provide a counter argument. It's not arrogant to disagree, and bias can't be avoided in these conversations. We support UZR, you don't. Obviously, we are going to be biased to the sides of the argument we support. You need to recognize this and stop being so adversarial when people don't accept your evidence as gospel. You certainly don't accept our evidence as gospel, nor should you.

I think its pretty clear that my comments have been civil in here, with the few exceptions of responding to assualts from HGM and some from 200tang. And then of course you telling me I can't read. I'm not trying to say UZR is worthless and should never be used and you all should change your opinions of it. I'm merely sayign what I believe is common sense, and that if there is a significant flaw found....then surely the prudent and scientific thing to do is to question the system to see if the flaw exists elsewhere.

How do you explain this;

According to Fangraphs, Bay was "expected" to make 327 outs. That would make him (in theory), a perfectly average LF. That was the most outs made by ANY LF in all of baseball.

to me, that says for Bay to be AVERAGE he'd have to lead the league in putouts, amongst other things of course. According to the post Bay recorded the second most putouts in all of baseball, 17 behind Crawford. Because he didn't lead the league he's automatically behind the curve. I could see if historically LF in Boston's stats were padded and he should be leading the league, but I have seen nothing to say that is true.

How do you explain this;

How many LFs in all of baseball posted a 2.3 RF/9 in LF? Three -- Crawford, DeJesus and Bay. To believe that Bay is *HORRID* in LF, I have to believe that a RF VASTLY above that of any LF in baseball would be required for him to be AVERAGE.

[HoustonGM]

And this is why nobody can have a rationale discussion with HGM, and the exact arrogance many stathead have that proves my point. He KNOWS full well we've been discussing fangraphs and fangraphs only as flawed yet deliberately puts words in my mouth, distorts the argument purposely with something nobody has said merely to make it look like the person questioning the stats is ignorant.

I read your post wrong. Read it as if you were lumping all defensive metrics together, considering you've done that a lot. Sorry. I guess it's better to just jump on me in what has otherwise been a perfectly civil conversation.

So if we agree its wrong at fenway, which from what i've found many people saying your holy one Bill James does, then why is it you would write it off as solely being wrong at Fenway?

For one, we don't agree on that. I don't know if it's wrong on Fenway. For two, can YOU cut it with the arrogant and stupid crap like the "holy one" comment?

And while we're on questioning the validity of FANGRAPHS (in caps for HGM), the mere fact that they claim Cameron was worth 19 mil last year has me questioning their accuracy in Mil now too, not just BOS. Its a complete farce, and the eye test is 100% accurate on it. In no world was Cameron worth 19 mil last year and HGM you're lying to yourself if you wish to sell yourself on that. Its crystal clear in these two instances that fangraphs methods of evaluating defensive contribution is extremely flawed. But...i'm sure its in these two instances only. Nowhere else is this possible

So, you're saying that it's utterly and completely impossible that Mike Cameron saved 10 runs on defense compared to the average last year and Jason Bay gave up 13 runs less than average? COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE?

The "worth", as has been pointed out to you, is simply the player's WAR times the price a "win" was worth in free agency that year. Here is the article explaining it.

All the dollar value says is that in this specific time frame, this player's production (defined by WAR) was worth X amount of dollars compared to the average cost of wins by free agency. It's really just an easier way to visualize a player's WAR, because the dollar value is calculated by just multiplying WAR by the average cost of a win. It also is a handy way to judge a team's return on investment when you compare it to the player's salary. But that's all it is, a handy visualization.

So, let's make it clear exactly what you're objecting to. I tried to do this before when I went through the WAR calculation step by step, but that seemed to have been pretty much ignored. I assume you're fine with the offensive calculations. Those are pretty set in stone and vastly accepted. The replacement level adjustment, as well, is universally accepted. That leaves two adjustments - position and defense.

The positional adjustment is relatively well accepted, as well. An average center fielder is worth about 9 runs more than an average left fielder. Do you disagree with that?

The defensive adjustment is where I'm assuming your major issue is. Cameron is listed as a +10 defensive center fielder in 2009, or the 5th best center fielder in baseball. Do you disagree with that? If so, where would you place him in terms of defense?

Bay is listed at -13 at defense in left field, or the 5th worst left fielder in baseball. Do you disagree with that? If so, where would you place him in terms of defense?

As I said, the difference between the two according to FanGraph's WAR is 8 runs. I'm trying to figure out just where the huge issue you have is and I suppose what common sense and the eye test tell you the two were worth.

[HoustonGM]

And, for reference, here are players that in 2009 were worth within the 19-21 million dollar range:

Ian Kinsler, Felipe Lopez, Justin Upton, Marco Scutaro, Alex Rodriguez, Joey Votto, Robinson Cano, Brian McCann, Raul Ibanez, Michael Bourn

Does Mike Cameron not belong around that level of player (again, in 2009, which is why a guy like A-Rod's name stands out since he missed a month)?

[200tang]

Michael Bourn is ridiculous on the base paths.

[SirKodiak]

About the WAR -> $ conversion: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...alue-of-a-win/

Here is an example of how you should use the valuation. We have Chone Figgins’ 2009 value at $27.4 million, based on his +6.1 win season. No one is going to pay Figgins that much this winter, of course, nor should they. However, we can say that if the Angels wanted to replace what Figgins gave them last season, they should expect it to cost them about $27 million in free agent spending. Figgins produced at a very high level in 2009, creating a large surplus value for the Angels. The dollar to win valuation quantifies that surplus value, showing how much that performance would have cost if they could have expected to receive it and had to pay the going market rate for that performance.

That’s why we write that he was “worth” $27 million. It does not mean that we think the Angels should have paid him $27 million, or that they should pay him $27 million now, but he produced at a level equal to what you would expect if you had spent $27 million in free agency a year ago.

[HoustonGM]

Thank you, SirK. I was looking for that article when making my previous post but couldn't find it for some reason.

[HoustonGM]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...yball-approach

I wonder how different the book would be if it written today, though, because we are currently in the midst of a market correction based on statistical analysis agreeing with long held scouting beliefs. Defense is at a premium while high strikeout sluggers are struggling to find offers, and this charge is being led by the "smart teams" that Lewis would espouse are doing things the right way.

The Mariners focus on defense under Jack Zduriencik is a well known story by now. But, they aren't the only ones heading that direction. The Boston Red Sox signed Mike Cameron to replace Jason Bay and have made their interest in Adrian Beltre well known. The A's signed Coco Crisp and currently have an outfield with three center fielders penciled in as starters. Defensive specialists Adam Everett, Alex Gonzalez, Jack Wilson, Placido Polanco, and Pedro Feliz have all signed, while the guys who provide value with their bats are still sitting on the market.

The teams that use statistical analysis the most are doing what their scouts have been recommending for years. Stats geeks are validating the insights of scouts. If Lewis was following the game right now, documenting stories from inside a "smart" front office, the tone would have to be dramatically different, even if the point was still the same - good teams spend money on undervalued assets.