tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post1026910515883870112..comments2024-03-18T07:03:39.210-07:00Comments on Nationals Baseball: The formula and Danny v TreaHarperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07738813756060133236noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-31889336953814529702016-06-02T11:27:03.401-07:002016-06-02T11:27:03.401-07:00Espinosa in 378 total ABs at Syracuse: .235, 6 HRs...Espinosa in 378 total ABs at Syracuse: .235, 6 HRs, 37 RBI, 11 SB<br />Turner in 385 total ABs at Syracuse: .385, 6 HR, 39 RBI, 31 SB<br /><br />I originally searched this with the preconceived opinion that we should keep Espy. My theory being that success in AAA will be tempered at the MLB level. But when comparing apples to apples, I'm leaning towards Team Trea.Richttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389546973060137660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-27308640899574820912016-06-02T10:57:41.747-07:002016-06-02T10:57:41.747-07:00"The 2016 Nationals have the 2nd best pitchin..."The 2016 Nationals have the 2nd best pitching staff in the NL** and a below average offense."<br /><br />Whereas I tend to think this also, by most metrics (runs, OBP, OPS, etc), the 2016 Nationals have an average offense. They are middle of the pack in the NL, and middle of the pack MLB-wide.Richttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389546973060137660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-44008959654042332332016-06-02T07:28:08.879-07:002016-06-02T07:28:08.879-07:00A word in defense of Danny Espinosa. He is a very ...A word in defense of Danny Espinosa. He is a very good shortstop who routinely makes tough plays, such as last night's running-all-out, over-the-shoulder grab of a blooper in center. Last year at this time his OPS was somewhere around 800. Maybe he is streaky, but the same can be said of other good players. He spent early season this year in a lull, but the hot streaks come, and they are worth something when they do -- as illustrated by his 4 homers in the last 7 games. He is still under team control until 2018. That's important, if you put a value on the prospects we might get in return for him.<br /><br />Last year, Rizzo almost ruined Tanner Roark's trade value by exiling him to long relief, where he floundered. Williams did essentially the same thing to Danny when Rendon returned. It is in the team's long term interest to get the best out of Danny this year, and they are hoping Dusty can do that. The results are equivocal, but good enough to not warrant blowing things up.<br /><br />Harper, I'd be interested in your statistical take on the Nats' injury luck this year. My impression is that, save for the still-not-quite-back Revere, it's been awfully good. What are the odds Turner might need to be called up as quality depth, rather than as a gamble on shaking things up?<br /><br />Flapjacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-89093263219789667782016-06-02T06:41:52.213-07:002016-06-02T06:41:52.213-07:00Really, it's such an open question, because it...Really, it's such an open question, because it depends on so many variables:<br /><br />1) How good is Espinosa's defense? Fangraphs' numbers have it good enough that Danny is worth 0.7 wins even with his current 68 wRC+. He does that for the rest of the season and he's a two-win player. Baseball-Reference is less sanguine about it, having him at -0.2 WAR overall (though still of positive defensive value, just not enough to offset the offense).<br /><br />2) Will Danny's bat improve? This is who he was in 2014, but in 2015 some hot streaks had him as a 94 wRC+ for the season, just a hair under average, plus stellar defense.<br /><br />3) Will Turner hit in the majors? Who knows? He's a prospect, and until he comes up and does it we'll never know. He may require a period of adjustment, or he may get hot immediately.<br /><br />4) Will Turner field in the majors? If not, how will this affect the game?<br /><br />5) Will the change cause intangible effects in the clubhouse? Will the *lack* of change cause intangible effects in the clubhouse? Will Dusty Baker be able to do what the Nats are paying him for and make clubhouse intangibles into a net positive no matter what's going on?<br /><br />It's easy for a fan to say "replace Espinosa with Turner!" because Espi's not hitting a lick except for the occasional home run, because defensive value is hard to judge with the eye test, and because we have a highly-regarded prospect ready to replace him already in the system. (As opposed to Revere/Taylor*, Werth, or Zim, all of whom who have put up less WAR than Danny, but don't have readily apparent solutions.)<br /><br />*Think about this: by Fangraphs, Taylor has been -0.5, Revere -0.7. That means the CF spot has basically been two wins worse than Danny Espinosa through two months of the season. Can Turner pull an Ian Desmond and play center field?DezoPenguinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-43582692134148140362016-06-02T06:25:31.859-07:002016-06-02T06:25:31.859-07:00I also have a new nickname for him: EspimendozaI also have a new nickname for him: EspimendozaAlex Freemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-9865708242044256362016-06-02T06:23:49.308-07:002016-06-02T06:23:49.308-07:00Right on cue, the Washington Post tackles this iss...Right on cue, the Washington Post tackles this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2016/06/02/danny-espinosa-is-definitely-contributing-to-this-team/<br /><br />I think at this moment it's difficult to make the switch considering Espinosa suddendly remembered how to hit homers. However, I think that with Espinosa, including his defense, you have a slightly below average SS because his offensive production is, at best, a homer and three strikeouts. With Turner, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd be, at worst, a slightly above average SS. Now that bringing him up doesn't matter in terms of service time, there's no reason not to (as soon as Espinosa stops hitting homers again). Why are we playing with fire when we fully expect a dogfight with the Mets all year for the division? Turner is a better player and bringing him up now will help him develop into an even better one. The Nats window of opportunity in terms of championships may be closing. Go all in.Alex Freemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-20985302332360203432016-06-02T05:22:51.713-07:002016-06-02T05:22:51.713-07:00There is no stat that tells how much "adjustm...There is no stat that tells how much "adjustment to change" affects wins and losses. Calling up Turner and starting him is a big change. If it took him ten games to adjust, his "adjustment period" might be a major factor in a loss or two. As well, because SS is such a key position (Do defensive metrics weigh the value of each position? I'm thinking SS is far more important than LF!), the adjustments of bringing in Turner to replace Danny would affect an infield that is in mid-season and used to each other and their limitations. This is to say nothing of the personal relationships and non-statistical leadership/personal dynamics that have real effects on game outcomes.<br /><br />Turner is the SS of the future, so Rizzo will have to bite the bullet and make the adjustments at some point. A good GM chooses the right time. Often, the decision is made for the GM by an injury.<br /><br />The team is winning. The fielding is good (eye-test!). Espinosa is a known quantity who does produce albeit at a low level. Making a major change to get one win? Seems kind of risky on a number of non-quantifiable levels.Nattydreadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-63018926309858566822016-06-02T03:50:14.882-07:002016-06-02T03:50:14.882-07:00Keep up the reverse jinx talk on Danny! Another h...Keep up the reverse jinx talk on Danny! Another homer last night!!steven hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217945229037259663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-32386783042785377842016-06-01T13:04:37.535-07:002016-06-01T13:04:37.535-07:00Our current and former every-day shortstops do/did...Our current and former every-day shortstops do/did not alter their approach to hitting when they have 2 strikes on them... big Paul Bunyan axe-wielding swings-and-misses, regardless of situation. Will Trea break that trend by shortening up and making contact to protect the plate? If so, bring him up and play him.<br /><br />That said, I don't see them dumping Stephen Drew, and he would be the odd man out here, right?JE34noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-33301819414416373652016-06-01T12:51:40.355-07:002016-06-01T12:51:40.355-07:00I don't think Rizzo would keep Turner down str...I don't think Rizzo would keep Turner down strictly bc of money. They guy called up Harper, Rendon, Stroren, and others that became "super 2". What he won't do, and most other GMs won't do it either, is call Turner up a few weeks early and lose an entire year of control. We are now past that date, so theoretically he could be up any day now. I trust Rizzo to make the right call. I agree that just being in first isn't a valid reason to stick with Espinosa. As long as we aren't sticking with him bc of "moxie and will to win" we'll be ok. I still think Turner has hit everywhere he has been. I think he will hit in the big leagues. But he is still a young guy that could use some more time in the minor leagues (arguably). I'm hoping he's up by next week. Finally, his playing time last year was fairly sporadic with mostly pinch hitting and pinch running late in games. Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-25015841270864237012016-06-01T12:30:53.349-07:002016-06-01T12:30:53.349-07:00Bx, I'm right there with you on fielding perce...Bx, I'm right there with you on fielding percentage. It's even silly for trying to measure "routine" plays, because "routine" is in the eye of the official scorers - a wavering standard. And that's not including that it ignores range (see, e.g., those who tried to boost Yunel Escobar as a "great" third baseman for most of last year because of his fielding percentage). And yes, we will have to agree to disagree over the relative merits of UZR, DRS and DE for assessing overall team defense. <br /><br />Yes, DE (like BABIP) can vary with small sample sizes. But remember that DE is based on <i>every single ball in play</i>. So while at this point the BABIP of individual players are based on (at most) about 200 plate appearances, the DE of the Nationals as a <i>team</i> at this point is based on over 1300 balls in play (essentially plate appearances minus strikeouts and walks).<br /><br /><i>If you knew the Nats would win an extra game with Turner instead of Danny but Turner would cost a few more million dollars in the future, would you sit Turner? Rizzo would.</i><br /><br />Assumes many facts not in evidence. Simply put, it expresses as certainties things that are not. A reason that I defer to Rizzo is simply that he knows the likelihood of each of these (how likely is it that Trea is an upgrade of one extra game? how likely is it that this will cost more money down the road, and if so, how much is that money likely to be? And most importantly, if money is the consideration, if you assume that one extra game, <i>how much money is that worth to the team?</i>) better than I do. Because not only does Rizzo have a variety of baseball sources and resources to place the likelihood of the performance variables, I am sure that he also has a phalanx of accountants giving the future potential cashflow of the organization versus the relative value of the benefit in today's terms.John C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-58239309909945687722016-06-01T12:03:34.136-07:002016-06-01T12:03:34.136-07:00Oh. And Anon is RIGHT on target. What if we were t...Oh. And Anon is RIGHT on target. What if we were trailing the Mets by 3 games right now despite us having same record. Would we be saying "everything is fantastic! Don't try to improve the team!" Of course not. I'd wager that even if we were TIED with the Mets right now, people would be slightly more aggressive about trying to improve. Folks need to realize that the Nats are a flawed team. Mostly a terrible closer and fairly anemic offense, particularly against good pitching. You can't just say "we can tolerate this lineup hole because we're in first place." Seriously? BxJaycobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841583667789907324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-90332753445485184742016-06-01T11:59:42.524-07:002016-06-01T11:59:42.524-07:00John C.: Of course none of these stats is perfect....John C.: Of course none of these stats is perfect. Defensive metrics are way less ideal at reflecting skill and success than offensive stats. But fielding percentage is utterly useless at showing anything other than how you perform on routine plays. Because there are so few errors in the major leagues, it really isn't a difference whether your non error rate is .965 or .981. The difference comes from making outs out of balls that could easily be hits. UZR and especially DRS at least try to reflect this. Similarly, defensive efficiency is useful only insofar as you ignore luck (a team that has mostly had batted balls hit near fielders as opposed to batted balls hit in marginal areas or open areas where it could be a hit....Defensive efficiency is incredibly flawed over small sample sizes for the same reason BABIP fluctuates). So if you think over 1/3 a season, that Fielding Percentage and Defensive Efficiency (which IS helpful over a full year) are equivalent indicators defensive performance to DRS and UZR, I mean...I just enthusiastically disagree. Make no mistake: the Nats have been fine/good on defense. I just think that "don't call up Turner because he could destroy our extraordinary defense" really is a genuinely silly argument.<br /><br />Regarding your deference to Rizzo: Agreed. They have as much access to stats and data as we do AND way more when it comes to knowing the player dynamics and a million other things. Here's the problem, and it's a large one. MONEY. These interests are not symmetrical to ours. That's why their decision-making process isn't immune to questioning. If you knew the Nats would win an extra game with Turner instead of Danny but Turner would cost a few more million dollars in the future, would you sit Turner? Rizzo would. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> UZR and especially DRS at least approach how well a team is performing at the main task of defense, while taking out of the equation luck (balls mostly hit near fieldersBxJaycobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841583667789907324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-74131140285851603022016-06-01T11:51:55.222-07:002016-06-01T11:51:55.222-07:00Some great arguments being made on both sides of t...Some great arguments being made on both sides of the Danny v. Trea question. Personally, I'm an 'eye test' guy first then default to metrics to either confirm or deny my perception. Probably not a good way of going about things, but it works for this J.Q. F'anbouy who sees about 30 games a year. <br /><br />BUT, I would caution those that think our 2 game lead is any indicator of how things could trend by saying that I think the Mets are all around a better team except for one factor so far: Harvey.<br /><br />If he wins 2 or 3 of his 7 losses we are likely 2-3 games BEHIND the Mets right now and having a completely different 'who's head should be rolling right now' conversation.Froggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05425616684415704428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-20929725113940847222016-06-01T11:42:09.323-07:002016-06-01T11:42:09.323-07:00Last Anon said it best. Preach on!Last Anon said it best. Preach on!Bjd1207https://www.blogger.com/profile/08595153543505790679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-40198616717141723182016-06-01T11:37:04.859-07:002016-06-01T11:37:04.859-07:00I think "first do no harm" is probably a...I think "first do no harm" is probably a bad creed for a doctor, but it's absolutely a terrible creed for running a baseball team. Why? It places far too much significance on the status quo. That may make sense in the case of a human patient - when the status quo is being alive - but it certainly doesn't make sense with a baseball team. <br /><br />If the Nats had the best record in baseball with Espinosa hitting .000 would that justify not making a change? What if they had the best record in baseball but the Mets had the second best record and were just one game back? <br /><br />The point I'm trying to make is simple: wins matter, regardless of whether you have a lot of them or only a few of them already in the bank. And not just wins, but wins relative to your closest competition. It's coherent (but wrong) to say that Espinosa at SS gives the Nats a better chance to win going forward than Turner does. It's incoherent to say that we should stick with Espinosa because the Nats have been winning with him (or in spite of him). <br /><br />I'll give the Nats a few days grace period to make sure Turner's service time issues are resolved. But if he's not on the 25 man roster and in the lineup every day by this time next week, the Nats are CHOOSING to field a worse team than they could. Given that there's no objective reason to think the Nats are better than the Mets by more than a game or two, not calling up Turner is playing with fire. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-62497803781156762932016-06-01T11:34:44.840-07:002016-06-01T11:34:44.840-07:00Dmitri: Sure I take your point. And again, not say...Dmitri: Sure I take your point. And again, not saying experts are gods or something. But your point can also be applied to anything: our understanding of physics and anatomy and medicine has changed over time, but that hardly is a reason to trust one's own reasoning and theories over what a doctor tells you about an illness because "at one time the experts were wrong". We're not comparing experts across time periods. We're comparing fans and amateurs in this field (myself included) with folks who spend all day constructing algorithms or scouting players...I just think it's weird to disagree based on....not much.<br /><br />Chaz: What measures are they ranked at the top in besides fielding percentage?(lack of errors). When you say "we can all see they're playing great defense" to the naked eye, I think we're mostly able to consciously notice the absence of bloopers and booted balls and BAD plays and mistakes. You don't really notice when a ball drops in because of the speed of your outfielder or the range of your second baseman. So I don't really think much of the eye test vs. the advanced metrics (even admitting the advanced metrics are hardly foolproof when it comes to defense). But again....we need to stop saying the Nats are a fantastic defensive team this year as presently constituted. They're not. They've been a low-mistake team that is otherwise extremely ordinary when it comes to turning balls in play into outs. BxJaycobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841583667789907324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-32559085004581027422016-06-01T11:34:05.547-07:002016-06-01T11:34:05.547-07:00A few notes:
(1) At this point Turner can be calle...A few notes:<br />(1) At this point Turner can be called up without losing the extra year of control. To keep him from being a "Super 2" the Nats would have to wait until sometime around mid-August to call him up. <br />(2) To attack the Nats' defense by pointing out that fielding percentage is a flawed metric is ironic, given that the proposed other metrics (UZR, DRS, etc) are far from perfect. You know what the Nats are good at? Turning balls in play into outs. By Defensive Efficiency (and park-adjusted DE) the Nats are #5 in MLB. That's the best they've been since 2012 (2015: 21st; 2014: 15th; 2013: 11th).<br />(3) We can all cherrypick our own data and reach our own conclusions about the timing of the Turner/Espinosa swap. You know who has better data than all of us? The Nationals. They have their own internal metrics, they have scouts, they have coaches who watch not only the games but also the practices and workouts. <br /><br />I was firmly on the #openingdaytrea bandwagon, and look forward to getting to see him play. That said, I can easily understand the other side of the argument; it's not a frivolous/silly position to think that the Nationals are best served by staying the course <i>for now</i> (Byron Buxton, anyone?). So I cheerfully defer to the judgment of Rizzo and his colleagues on this. <br /><br />Have today's lineups been posted yet?John C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-21098913052239397262016-06-01T10:50:08.234-07:002016-06-01T10:50:08.234-07:00@Bx Fair point about trusting the experts. To tem...@Bx Fair point about trusting the experts. To temper that trust a little, remember that Matt Williams was paid money to manage last year. In fact, he was hired by at least a handful of experts. For most of history, baseball's insider experts managed baseball in a way we now mostly agree is wrong. Outside observers and bloggers knew better than the people hired to run teams (and manage teams of scouts).Dmitri Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02086802838823495057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-41168536958177152922016-06-01T10:47:37.935-07:002016-06-01T10:47:37.935-07:00No doubt defensive metrics leave a lot to be desir...No doubt defensive metrics leave a lot to be desired, but the Nats are ranked at the top of NL by many measures. Despite that, we can all see the Nats are playing great defense, clearly much better than I can remember. <br /><br />What's the doctor's oath or creed or whatever it is?- "First do no harm"- ? There's no guarantee any tinkering with the team by moving folks around is going to result in more Ws, and there is no reason to tinker right now. Why take the risk right now? Maybe at some point, but they're playing well together and there seems to be some offensive lights coming on (Zim and Rendon).<br /><br />Ok, I'm done... lol. Whew, I need to go back to work!Chas Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00306056671418831755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-73262665910238706272016-06-01T10:37:39.721-07:002016-06-01T10:37:39.721-07:00If people care, the best defensive teams in the ma...If people care, the best defensive teams in the majors by defensive WAR and def runs saved have been: Cubs, Rangers, DBacks, Giants, Red Sox, Indians, Royals. BxJaycobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841583667789907324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-30016694848616482122016-06-01T10:33:41.990-07:002016-06-01T10:33:41.990-07:00Real quick. It's not true the defense has been...Real quick. It's not true the defense has been great. Lack of errors means virtually nothing when it comes to team defensive value. The Nats are ranked 21st in MLB (below average) in defensive runs saved (-5) and fWAR. (See Fangraphs). Yes, it's good to make routine plays, but mostly defensive value in the major leagues comes from the ability to make as many non routine/difficult plays as possible and convert as high a percentage of balls in play into outs as possible. When Jaysen Werth or Daniel Murphy can't get to a ball and it drops that's not an error, but it's below average defense. According to the metrics (and the eye test), the Nats have 4 above average defenders (Bryce, Ramos, Rendon, and Danny) and 4 below average ones (Werth, revere, Murphy, Zim). They are a slightly below average major league team on defense. Sorry to burst everybody's bubble re the "fielding percentage is the most relevant stat!" myth. BxJaycobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841583667789907324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-6121312998725479272016-06-01T10:29:37.906-07:002016-06-01T10:29:37.906-07:00As a Nats fan and alumnus of NC State University, ...As a Nats fan and alumnus of NC State University, I can't really overemphasize the degree to which I am excited to see Turner come to the majors. But still, like Harper, I understand the arguments for keeping Danny up. That great defense is a huge boon to the Nats' great pitching, which is carrying the team. That is the point of the first half of the article. Pitching decides whether we end up playing in October. Defense supports pitching, so let's keep the defense as good as it can be.<br /><br />I also like the idea of getting a little unorthodox and sticking Murphy in LF, Espinosa at 2B, and Turner at SS, though barring injury I don't see that happening, because it would be kind of insulting to Werth (I know that shouldn't matter, but I think in reality it does, especially for a guy like Werth who is supposedly a captain of the clubhouse). And I don't really want to do anything that would disrupt Murphy in any way, since he basically is the entire Nats offense.<br /><br />I know the organization cares about value and control and all that, but unless you're scoping dump trucks to carry the money needed to keep Bryce Harper on the team, we don't need to be that worried about the value of a prospect that far down the line. There are way too many variables for some marginal level of control in several years to make that big a difference. This should absolutely be about how we make the team as good as it can be *right now*.<br /><br />Anyway, these are all very good problems to have. Kenny B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01104648417209196641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-52999599266888779462016-06-01T10:15:41.600-07:002016-06-01T10:15:41.600-07:00GCX - Boswell's point in the chat yesterday wa...GCX - Boswell's point in the chat yesterday was nonsensical. Most (maybe even all) of the comps he cited were shortshops drafted out of high school. OF COURSE those guys are going to get more minor league ABs than a shortstop drafted out of college like Turner. Maybe Turner needs more seasoning, but because Derek Jeter got a few hundred more ABs in the minor leagues in 1995 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on that question. Nor does it relate at all to the relevant question, which is whether Turner is likely to provide more value than Espinosa.<br /><br />To the "it aint broke crowd": Yes the Nats are winning, and yes they are in first place. That they are doing so despite not playing their best players is wonderful. But it's not a reason to keep not playing their best players! I'd like the Nats to be winning more frequently, and to have a larger lead over the Mets! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9207681.post-63040359978687283932016-06-01T10:09:29.347-07:002016-06-01T10:09:29.347-07:00Chaz R,
I agree with all of your comments. As lon...Chaz R,<br /><br />I agree with all of your comments. As long as the pitching and defense continues to be solid, I would be very hesitant to switch shortstops, particularly when the potential offensive upside is probably small and uncertain. <br /><br />I would rather trade for a veteran "rental" to replace Werth where the increase in offensive production (and defensive production) would be more certain.BornInDCnoreply@blogger.com