The Best and Worst Advanced Metrics, Part One

The advanced number-crunching has been shedding light on the baseball universe for well-nigh a generation now, sufficiently long, and sufficiently entrenched into the fabric of the game, that it should hardly be called new anymore. 

It's also been stirring the baseball pot for long enough that we have competing analyses, overlapping metrics and even obsolete "new" statistics.

The new analysis has given us a bouillabaisse of acronyms and measuring sticks: WAR and WARP, OPS and wOBA, FIP and FRA, BABIP and Zone Rating, and the projections systems PECOTA, ZIPS, STEAMER, MARCEL, etc. 

As you might imagine, some are more useful than others. Over the next few weeks, let's sift through them and see which make it through our colander. First, the king.

The grand, high, exalted, mystic ruler of offensive statistics is Offensive Wins Against Replacement, or oWAR, the alpha and omega of offensive stats. oWAR considers a player's offensive contributions in total, adjusts for the park and compares it to a replacement level player at the same position. It helps us compare Robby Cano to Miguel Cabrera even though the latter plays an offensive position and the former a defensive one. Indeed, it helps us compare players across eras, relative to their competition.

Suppose you want to compare 60s and 70s Yankees second baseman Horace Clarke to just-released outfielder Jeff Francoeur. You can do so, despite the passage of years and different positions. Dan Shaughnessy or Murray Chass might note that Francoeur hit over .280 four times., slammed 140 bombs and knocked in 100+ runs twice while Clark hit .280 once, totaled 27 homers his entire career and never reached 50 RBI in a season. In their eyes, Frenchy was clearly a more valuable asset at the plate.

oWAR tells a very different story. It corrects for era -- the late 60s represented the basement of offensive baseball -- and for position -- the bar is set lower for keystoners. Clarke wasn't a better hitter than Francoeur but he would have been more difficult to replace. Francoeur was worth two wins over a replacement outfielder in his career while Clarke was worth 14 wins over a replacement second baseman.

That's because, although Francoeur hit 8% better compared to league average, Clark stole three times as many bases at a much higher success rate, played a position that required more defensive skill and came to the plate 300 more times. (This assumes Francoeur is done. It does appear that way.) 

(Clarke took home about $350 grand in his career. Francoeur's grandchildren can thank the Marvin Miller and the MLBPA for $26 million in career earnings.)

The glaring shortcoming, or rather, limitation, of oWAR (and its many cousins: VORP, wRC, BWARP, etc.) is that it doesn't address the bottom of the inning. If Clarke had been a butcher in the field and Francoeur a magician, the latter might have been more valuable. (Not only isn't that the case, adding defense actually accentuates the difference. But there are other players for whom it's more of an issue.) Fielding statistics are still not wholly reliable, though they are improving all the time, which is why WAR and WARP are not yet among statistical royalty. Their day is coming, though.

Next time, we'll consider the life and times of BABIP, which created an epiphany in baseball analysis and was then relegated to the dog house.

Most Valuable Parttimer

I posted this blog...to the wrong site...the day after the World Series. Probably not worth resurrecting, but, well, you're getting your money's worth regardless.

Ultimately, the vote for MVP of the World Series has all the clout of an Afghan election. Seven games -- or two pitching starts -- is not exactly a barometer of anything.

Bestowing the honor on a player who batted in three games and fielded in none takes us from the ridiculous to the...um...really ridiculous. Hideki Matsui basically earned the trophy for getting three hits in the culminating event. Woo!

More to the point, it adds another data point against the wisdom that there are "big game" players, or that one guy is great in the post-season and another guy is not. It's just absurd to assume that a player's batting average or ERA in two playoff series is indicative of anything beyond those games themselves.

Which is why great players sometimes fare poorly in the playoffs and vice versa. It's not a character flaw; it's a small sample. Or maybe it's pitching match-ups, which is what put Ryan Howard on ice this World Series. The Yankees threw four lefties at him, and while Howard is Samson against righties, he swings a stickball bat against southpaws.

I'm sure there is a three game stretch in Horace Clarke's career when he went eight-for-13. And I'd be shocked if Babe Ruth never went one for 22 with nine strikeouts at various junctions in his career. Nonetheless, in case you hadn't heard, Ruth finished several spots ahead of Clarke in Hall of Fame voting.

This case was long ago made and proven, but you'd never know it from baseball writers and sportscasters, who continue to congratulate Alex Rodriguez for "stepping up," loosening up" or "coming up big." It's another example of ignorance being the dominant force in the profession.