Rangers who hit

by Adam J. Morris on May 14, 2008 9:30 AM CDT

Checking out BP's updated offensive stats page today...

Not only are the Rangers second in the majors in EQA...but they also have three of the top four players in the A.L. in terms of runs above replacement for the position, in Josh Hamilton, Ian Kinsler, and Milton Bradley...

Kinsler is quietly having a very nice season, despite his power dropoff this season...he still has a solid OBP, and he's 11 for 11 in steals. I'm not a big stolen base guy, but anytime you are on pace for over 40 steals in a season while not getting caught, that's a very good thing...

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

We don't

attempt enough steals…

Say your sorry to Ron Washington

by miles on May 14, 2008 9:34 AM CDT 0 recs

If you have guys

with high stolen base percentages, you need to let them run.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 14, 2008 9:37 AM CDT up 0 recs

So we sac bunt CONSTANTLY

...which I hate that we do so much with no outs when we are hitting well. RW is too obsessed with the sac bunt.

"Gabbard's not gonna hit Richie Sexson. You got a guy coming up there who can't hit water if he fell out of a boat. And you think hes gonna throw at HIM?" -TAG

by FuturePants on May 14, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

+1

by philkid3 on May 14, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

+2

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

David Murphy rocks, so Ellsbury can just go get himself a taco or something.

by lonestarJon on May 14, 2008 6:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

-1

by philkid3 on May 14, 2008 5:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

And there's a decent chance

that Blalock would be on that list if he had enough PA’s. Meanwhile Young’s slugging has fallen and he’s down to around .760ish OPS I think, after being in the low 800’s a couple weeks ago.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 14, 2008 9:34 AM CDT 0 recs

So help me out on the RBI argument

I understand that the RBI is an overrated stat, however I couldn’t help but think that Vasquez should get some love for his sac fly last night because it came at a crucial time. Any thoughts? Ayjayem?

by OKC Ranger Fan on May 14, 2008 9:53 AM CDT 0 recs

Not

so sure the RBI is overrated. Yes, it is a stat of opportunity but teams go to great lengths to create those opportunities. The guys who collect them (as did Vasquez) deserve some love.

by Jea103 on May 14, 2008 10:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

that's what i think

while i think too much emphasis is put on RBI’s, it still has it’s place.

by OKC Ranger Fan on May 14, 2008 10:16 AM CDT up 0 recs

Managers

deserve some of the love too for the RBI, line-up shuffling to create opportunities for the right guys is a big part of it.

by Ryan1700 on May 14, 2008 10:17 AM CDT up 0 recs

I think the RBI argument

ties in largely with the “does clutch exist?” argument. If you believe in clutch players, then RBIs hold meaning. If you don’t, then RBI is merely a factor of chance.

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 10:20 AM CDT up 0 recs

It's not just that.

It’s the idea of trying to isolate what is in a player’s control, and RBI opportunities are not.

Sac flies are included in EqA, though.

by philkid3 on May 14, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

I agree with what you're saying

But I was responding more to the idea of playing Vazquez in a pressure situation because he’s come through in other pressure situations, and RBI in “pressure situation” (RISP, RISP while losing, etc.) being an important metric in such a case.

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 11:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

Got it.

by philkid3 on May 15, 2008 1:42 AM CDT up 0 recs

The Problems with RBI

1) It’s not a predictive stat. RBIs are largely a function of how often people in-front of you get on base and how many HRs you hit. There is how well you do when you have people on base while you’re hitting, but studies have shown that most MLBers produce in that situation about as well as they normally hit.

2) It’s value as an evaluative stat is no good either, mainly because it relies so much on the hitter’s teammates.

3) It’s value as a “clutch stat” is unuseful, because it combines the hitter’s teammates value into it and there are other stats you can look at to measure “clutchness.” OPS w/ RISP, OPS in late innings in close games, etc.

by Requiem on May 15, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

Kinsler

Really loving taking him at the end of the 4th round of my 5×5 league. (OPS subbed for AVG, which raises the value of a great 2B tremendously)

Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash "blogs" is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, "This book sucks. Fuck you, Tolstoy -- your medium is worthless!" - Ken Tremendous

by TheBZA on May 14, 2008 9:56 AM CDT 0 recs

Young

It seems to me, and I am no expert, that Young is trying too hard to take everything to opposite field. His power numbers went down and he became a better overall hitter by learning to go opposite, but now it is starting to look like he is behind everything. I would like to see him pull the ball a few times to get back on the old Micheal Young pace we are used to.

by Ryan1700 on May 14, 2008 10:01 AM CDT 0 recs

Two batting order things

I know Kinsler is doing well in the leadoff slot, but I think he needs to be hitting a little lower to take advantage of some RBI situations.

Also Bradley and silly OBP need to be hitting in front of Hambone.

Cat/Young/Bradley/Hambone/Kinsler should be our first five versus righties.

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 14, 2008 10:02 AM CDT 0 recs

Switch

I would probably switch Kinsler and Bradley in that line-up, but the rest I agree with. Vasquez could lead-off during his hot streak he is on now.

by Ryan1700 on May 14, 2008 10:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

The way they've been playing I wouldn't change a thing.

Looking at it from a statistical standpoint you make good points, but I wouldn’t mess with a good thing, shaking anyone’s confidence moving them up or down in the order.

by TheBZA on May 14, 2008 10:26 AM CDT up 0 recs

Seems like Kinsler is hitting more like a top of the lineup guy

than a middle of the order guy, at least right now.

You want a good OBP and BA, with decent baserunning up there. Power is less necessary for the 1 and 2 slots (though always nice). Seems like that is exactly what Kinsler is providing.

At a 5 and 6 hole, you want more power and are willing to sacrifice OBP for it (because it is more likely guys will be on base while you are hitting, and less likely that just getting on base will lead to a run since the guys behind you aren’t as good).

Interestingly, last year Kinsler had a .390/.394 OBP/SLG as leadoff, .389/.523 batting 2nd, and .361/.444 batting 7th. If he is really adjusting his approach to the plate according to where he is hitting, then I’m pretty impressed. Though those are small sample sizes (about 20-40 games each)

by JBImaknee on May 14, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up 0 recs

Kinsler

Kinsler is tied with Hamilton for the lowest BA/OBP differential on the team at 54 points. Last year, Kinsler’s differential was 92 points.This year Kinsler has 1 walk per 15.25 plate appearances (worst on the team), last year it was 1 every 6.82. Basically, in order to be a good leadoff guy, Kinsler needs to maintain a .300 BA and/or take more walks.

by Randy Richardson on May 14, 2008 7:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ian...

can be a good leadoff guy even with a low BB total. Look at Ichiro.

I would like his OBP to be higher as well, but I like it when he is aggressive at the plate. He will probably be around .300 all year and can hit with some power as well. Plus I like his speed in front of MY and Hamslam. I don’t think he will ever be the typical leadoff guy, but that’s ok. You only leadoff a game once.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 14, 2008 10:09 PM CDT up 0 recs

From my experience

BA/OBP differential is one of the more consistent numbers in baseball. I think Kinsler’s “natural level” is somewhere around .070, so I would expect about 15 more points give or take, but not much more than that. At end of year, Id guess he is between 060 and 080.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 15, 2008 8:54 AM CDT up 0 recs

What is your experience?

if you don’t mind me asking …

"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."

- The D-tron

by Chase Irwin on May 15, 2008 9:11 AM CDT up 0 recs

OMOT

105 OPS+

"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."

- The D-tron

by Chase Irwin on May 14, 2008 10:11 AM CDT 0 recs

Ice Cream Gerry is doing pretty well

Above average for a catcher and building his value…keep it up Soft Serve.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 14, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

Kinsler power dropoff?

BR has his SLG for this season at .439, which is two points below last season’s SLG.

I tell you, I think I’ll take the occasional defensive miscues for a guy who makes the spectacular play and has an OPS+ if 122.

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 10:23 AM CDT 0 recs

His ISO is much lower than last year, though

by Adam J. Morris on May 14, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up 0 recs

Ah, okay.

I didn’t think to check that.

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 11:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

Nerd.

by Athos on May 14, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up 0 recs

Heh

"For the record, I did not and do not like the Volquez trade, even though Hamilton is awesome and our best player and I think he’s going to be one of the best players in baseball." philikid3

by Brian Thomas on May 14, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

You don't know the half

I’ve been getting Jeff Sullivan to help me with some pitch f/x stuff (he was at a pitch f/x symposium last weekend)...when I start doing posts about that, you’ll really think I’m a nerd…

by Adam J. Morris on May 14, 2008 1:59 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'll be glad when you do.

That f/x stuff makes my eyes cross and I love reading analyses that make it understandable. I just do not have the patience to really look at those things.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 14, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

Pitch f/x?

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

from MLB Gameday

by TexasTiger on May 14, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

New technology

“Pitch f/x claims to be accurate to within a half-inch, and it’s constantly building a pool of data.”

http://tinyurl.com/3v3j2e

"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."

- The D-tron

by Chase Irwin on May 14, 2008 2:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

Neat!

I watched a GameDay cast one day when ESPN’s gamecast died unexpectedly. I wonder when we’ll see Umpire ratings now…

I can conceptualize the way they build this data, although I have no idea how accurate I’d be on such a guess.

by jwiscarson on May 14, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

Sorry

I can’t see the merits of Jack Cust. So, what if he walks allot, that’s all he does. RBIs are more important then walks.

by SanDiegoKev on May 14, 2008 11:30 PM CDT 0 recs

RBI are more important than walks.

And it takes a player to get on base to get an RBI, and Cust does that. At a rate of well over .400 so far this season, and .408 last season.

That is a really good thing. That is a merit. A huge merit. He also slugs pretty decently, but a player who gets on base at a high rate is ALWAYS good for a team. Outs are the most precious of resources, and he conserves them and creates a chance for the batters behind him to knock in runs. And he’s pretty decent at advancing base runners himself.

90 runs creates in 124 games last season. Pretty nifty.

by philkid3 on May 15, 2008 1:45 AM CDT up 0 recs

OBP>SLG

That is one of the reasons why OPS is a flawed metric.

I prefer GPA: [(OBP * 1.8)+SLG]/4

.265 average
.300 above average

GPA to runs is PA * 1.356*(GPA^1.77).

Dalton

by jparks77 on May 15, 2008 1:09 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm not a big numbers geek, but...

...aren’t stats that use random numbers like 1.8, 1.356 or 1.77 kind of flawed? How does somebody come up with those calculations? Perhaps those numbers aren’t as random as they seem, but they look like they’re pulled out of a hat for those of us that don’t know the methodology behind them.

"Hello win column..."

by rangersfan34 on May 15, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

Random numbers

Not exactly random numbers but I see your point. I personally think OBP deserves more weight in the equation than SLG and 1.8x seems like a reasonable balance. There are others who prefer the equal balance of OBP/SLG=OPS (I assume because its easier to compute). While some in the sabermetric world suggest an even greater weight assigned to OBP because of the overall run impact involved.

Dalton

by jparks77 on May 15, 2008 4:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

It's definitely not random.

It’s based on a crap ton of research. The accepted value for OBP is that it’s 80% more valuable than slugging. I believe Tom Tango talks about it in The Book. I can’t remember where it was, but you could probably find the methodology somewhere.

by philkid3 on May 15, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up 0 recs