Lookout Landing

nathaniel dawson - January 23, 2010 reply

Yeah, I don't think you could call that a done deal just yet.

We can hope that this move works out, but it may take him more than a year to work on his game to get it up to standards, or he may not take to the position at all. Everything is up in the air about that move still.

Would Felipe Lopez possibly be a better choice than Hudson if Loafie is indeed traded?

He’s also a switch-hitter, has better defensive numbers than the other two, and can play multiple positions of need be.

Then again, though, he might cost too much because of the season he had last year.

I Lick Squirrels - January 22, 2010 reply

I'm interested in making the Felipe bet.

He’s such an enigma though. I don’t see any reason that he should cost more than Hudson given his inconsistency. I think he may have more upside, and may be the best of the three defensively.

coreyjro - January 22, 2010 reply

felipe lopez might cost too much

he’s a little younger than Hudson (he’s 29), and he’s coming off a career year. Throw in the fact that he’s a Scott Boras client and it starts to look like a 1 year deal might not work out for him.

Now it’s true that other Boras clients have taken 1 year contracts to boost their value (see Beltre, Adrian), but Safeco isn’t a great place for that because of its tendency to depress offensive numbers.

I think the M’s probably wouldn’t want to get anyone for 2B long term because they have guys coming up in Triunfel and Ackley that they won’t want blocked when they’re ready.

Also he had a .360 BABIP last year.

moyerLIVES - January 22, 2010 reply

Felipe Lopez has awful defensive numbers.

I Lick Squirrels - January 23, 2010 reply

Awful?

His UZR the last three years at 2B has been 2.4 in 2007 (in only 373.1 innings, granted), -5.3 in 2008 (780 innings), and 7.8 in 2009. Over his career, he has a 2.6 UZR/150 there. He looks decent at 3B too in limited innings, with a 6.0 UZR/150 career. He really only looks bad at SS. Contrast that with Hudson, who’s shown what looks like a pretty clear decline in defensive abilities in recent years. After being really good in 2004 and 2005, his UZR numbers have been -1.3, 0.5, -5.1, and -3.3. Factoring in age, I don’t see how you can project Felipe Lopez as worse defensively than Hudson going into next season. At worst, they might be about the same.

Awful was overstating it, but you cannot just ignore his numbers at SS

and only use the small sample at 2B. The 2B/SS/3B grouping has well known positional translations. Lopez is should be about a minus 5 glove at 2B by UZR and there’s also +/- data which doesn’t like him either.

Spider Jerusalem - January 22, 2010 reply

Hudson and Liriano or

Lopez and Sheets? Wouldn’t it be simpler?

bilbo - January 22, 2010 via mobile reply

Depends what Sheets costs

OlSalty - January 22, 2010 reply

And if he wants to come here.

Liked the writeup

I don’t think Hudson is gonna be quite as good which leads to me thinking this trade would effectively be pretty close to a wash.

Just had a few quick questions:
- Do you think its possible that Jack and co. are overvaluing the “key factors” you state (like defense…Kotchman)?
- Does Hudson get an offensive bonus for hitting left handed? He doesn’t really hit home runs or balls in the air for that matter. I’m guessing you gave Hudson +5 but really what you meant was that Lopez should get a -5 from park effects (same thing in the end, just wondering logic).
- I’d be interested to hear your opinion on Hudson’s weird GB, Infield hit rate and BABIP. I just think its strange that he hits so many GB however doesn’t get infield hits and somehow has a very high BABIP.

Edgar for Pres - January 22, 2010 reply

IIRC - Toronto once offered Hudson to Bavasi in exchange for Soriano.

Bavasi declined, of course only to later swap Soriano for HoRam.

If I ever Bavasi walking down the street, I am going bash him in the head with a stick.

That's assault, brotha.

If I did it in Seattle, I'd likely get off with counselling and community service.

12 Indifferent Men.

Actually I would cheer, then be sad that it wasn't me.

There’s no way they let me on that jury.

Double dare him!

JAH - January 23, 2010 reply

Sorry, I don't see Hudson as an upgrade.

I’m not a member of the Big Bat Bunch but I think Lopez is better offensively and equal defensively and has some potential upside compared to Hudson due to their age difference. He s also cheaper than Hudson, money that can be spent elsewhere. Liriano is high risk/high reward, paying extra millions to get Hudson adds to the high risk but not the high reward. I think giving Fister, Vargas, et al a chance to duel it out for a rotation spot in spring training has some merit. However, I think the Z-Crew are going to come up with something more constructive.

maqman - January 23, 2010 reply

I don't see it either.

Only the net rats seem to want to trade Jose. I think if Zduriencik wanted him gone, he’d be gone already. If Jose can’t hit at Safeco, then explain his numbers in 08. If the 08 numbers are a small sample size then so is 09.

Hudson is not an upgrade to Lopez.

Docmilo - January 24, 2010 reply

Net rats?

Aaron Campeau - January 24, 2010 reply

(Like the commenter above you)

Poochie - January 24, 2010 reply

Lopez has a career .689 home OPS

We are also not the only people who consider him pretty much the most available player on the team.

Jeff Sullivan - January 24, 2010 reply

I know that Liriano use to be good, but had a rough season last year.

My question, is it worth the risk to trade Lopez for Liriano if Lopez’s replacement costs more and preforms about the same overall?

I really wish someone would just kick Lopez in the ass. He’s just too lazy.

If Lopez's replacement performs about the same overall, the player you get in exchange (salary aside) is basically free.

You’re basically exchanging Lopez for Hudson to get a better free agent than what is currently available.

Well...

Above average starting-pitchers are far more valuable then average infielders.
For that reason alone it probably wouldn’t be a straight Lopez for Liriano swap, and you’d have to take into consideration the value of the players offered for the chance that Liriano can become something close to what he once was.

Adam B - January 23, 2010 reply

I like that line "... a slight up ick for Lopez to Hudson..."

It’s like the difference between the two is a hairball.

Lopez hudson

with all due respect, statistics are helpful, but not the holy grail. Who is going to hit 3,4,5 on this team, certainly not Orlando Hudson. Lopez can improve his plate discipline, sure, but he has the potectial to hit .300, and his power numbers have improved. He probably would hit 3 on this team right now, At 26, he has not hit his peak, and hopefully he can make it through a season without a family tragedy interupting his season. He is average defensively, but he can flat out hit, anyone who has been around the game can see his vision and bat speed are superb, that he can hit, and is a good kid with the ability to acquire more discipline at the plate. To trade for a pitcher who has had a major arm injury, and bring in a 32 year old national leaguer is something a numbers geek might consider, but a true baseball man would not. This reeksssssssssss of Jeff Cirillo mentality.

gitanoloco - January 23, 2010 reply

Alternatively.

With respect to discipline: Last year Lopez swung at a higher percentage of pitches than ever before in his career. He swung at at more pitches out of the zone than ever before in his career. At 26, Jose Lopez has shown a complete lack of interest in improving plate discipline. It’s not going to magically start happening.

With respect to bat speed: See Hittracker. Then look at other “sluggers”. His average speed off bat on homers is 102.5. Endy Chavez did better in his two homers. So did Ronny Cedeno. Yunel Escobar too. I’m cherrypicking a bit, but his bat speed isn’t anything special, let alone “superb”.

And just for fun, Orlando Hudson hit 9 homers with an average speed off bat of 102.3.

With a higher average distance.

Park effect, location affecting air density, ball spin? I can't think of anything else that would do that.

That’s kind of a strange item you found there.

Launch angle.

Crap, didn't think of that one. Which is stupid because that's basic ballistics and I've a passing familiarity with the subject.

Manliness, too. Hudson gets bonus distance for that.

Stop, you know what that kind of talk does to me.

With all due respect, making ill-informed comments bracketed by inflamatory rhetoric is going to get you banned if you ever do it again

Overreaction much?

okdan - January 23, 2010 reply

This isn't the first time

No.

We’re trying harder as moderators, and as a community, to be more welcoming and overall nicer to others and new people. But that does not, in any way, mean that we’re just going to roll over. Disrespect will not be tolerated nor will it be allowed to hide behind ignorance of its use.

Exactly. gitanoloco walked in the door and pissed in the punchbowl while flipping everyone off.

Not wise and in no way was he looking for a conversation.

Sec 108 - January 25, 2010 reply

Whoa. No one is saying that stats are the holy grail,

but you get a pretty good idea of what a player can and can’t do once they’ve been in the majors for a few seasons. One of the things Lopez can’t do very well is avoid making outs, and the thing you most want from the top of your order (well, anywhere in your order really) is hitters that don’t make outs.

Lopez has two tools as a hitter – contact ability and mediocre pull power. He’s not fast, so he’s not always going to get a good batting average out of the contact he makes, and he’s got a terrible eye for the zone so he’ll never compensate for it by making pitchers work and getting on base. The power is nice but it is not sufficient to consistently get the ball over the LF wall against a headwind, which is what he has to do half the time.

Now, do you really want your third batter to make an out in 70% of his plate appearances? 68% in a good year? Probably not, and especially not if the uptick is a .450 slugging percentage. If you read closely, you’ll notice that the post above is actually very positive about Lopez – he’s an average player on a cheap contract. What the post is getting at is that Lopez is such a poor fit for this park and lineup that…..

Well I see this is being handled by the higher ups.

If there productive outs.

Lopez has that whole Suan Alexander inside the 10 yard line thing going.
He always found a way to score, dug deeper or something?
Lopez is the same way, he finds ways to drive in runs. Certain skills can’t be measured really and it seems he’s always apart of a big inning. I know he doesnt hit opposite field home runs but it seems to me just watching (I don’t know much when it comes to stats) but when he needs to go the other way to move a runner or hit a sac fly, he does. I like Lopez and I just don’t think we can find someone to replace him this year. Whether his HR’s are barely over the fence or not, they are still HR’s.

Please write more coherently

If we have to stare at a sentence in order to figure out what’s being said, it’s not going to contribute to the conversation. It’s disrespectful to publish something that’s difficult to read.

Sorry

Sorry.

I've been thinking LL should post this quote somewhere.

The writer who neglects spelling and punctuation is quite arrogantly dumping a lot of avoidable work onto the reader, who deserves to be treated with more respect.

Lynne Truss

Sec 108 - January 25, 2010 reply

A few things:

1) “Finding a way to drive in runs” is a combination of a player’s normal skill level, timing and luck. Yes, Lopez is often a part of big innings, but by definition big innings involve a lot of different players.

2) For the most part, if it is a skill it can be measured.

3) Plenty of players can move over the runner, hit sac flies or what have you. That’s not much of a reason to value a player’s offensive contribution.

4) HRs that are barely over the fence have a lot of luck behind them. On any given day, those balls that barely clear the fence could be caught at the warning track.

Aaron Campeau - January 23, 2010 reply

He must be shoving more and more horseshoes up his ass?

11HR’s to 17HR’s to 25HR’s…
Is there a Clutch-o-Meter out there somewhere?
That is something some people have in many different sports, whether it’s the game winning shot or bottom of the ninth 2 on and 2 out. Some people want that shot or AB and some don’t or can’t. I think Lopez has it.

So yeah, if it’s a skill, your right it probably can be meassured. I’m just saying there are certain things that you can’t look at a stat you just have to say that guys got it.

You really don't.

If you choose to feel that way, fine, but there’s plenty of evidence suggesting that clutch hitting is not a repeatable skill and until shown compelling evidence otherwise I will continue to believe this to be the case.

Aaron Campeau - January 23, 2010 reply

It's not just hitting.

It’s in every sport. Some people thrive under pressure and some don’t. It can’t be messured but its there!

Ok. Prove it.

Ichiro has a net positive career clutch rating using fangraphs "clutch" stat

He also has a positive clutch stat every year of his career. This has to be something although I bet it is more complicated with other factors responsible for his clutchness.

Edgar for Pres - January 23, 2010 reply

Really? You call that proof?

No, I just thought it was curious. I wasn't trying to say its proof of clutchness.

I’m sure there is a better explanation than him being clutch. I wonder what it is though.

Pujols has roughly no net “clutch” using this stat so it isn’t just that good players come out ahead using this stat. The probability of Ichiro having clutch>0 is 0.196% or roughly a 1 in 500 chance if we assume this stat must have an average of 0 and an even distribution of outcomes. This chance seems too tiny so something funny must be going on to effect it. Just glancing through, it looks like leadoff hitters might do better than average but I’m not totally sure about this.

Edgar for Pres - January 23, 2010 reply

Two words

Derek Jeter

I’m teasing.

Some things can't be directly measured.

Like dark matter.

Ask Mariano Rivera if he believes in clutchness when talking about Edgar Martinez. Some people are just wired differently. They have ice in their veins, they are cool under fire, they rise to the occasion. There are a ton of sayings. Ignoring that because you can’t put a slide rule on it doesn’t make it untrue.

If you had one at bat that made all the difference in the history of baseball and you could choose one batter for that AB, who would you choose and why?

Docmilo - January 24, 2010 reply

Let's say you attend an NBA game and are chosen at random to shoot a shot from halfcourt for a prize.

NBA players are remarkably good at hitting these sort of shots in practice, but they certainly miss quite a few. You step up and, lo and behold, hit the shot. You now have a career record of hitting every halfcourt shot you take on an NBA court.

Here’s the quiz portion of this comment.

You are:
A.) The greatest shooter in NBA history. In a big time situation, you are perfect at hitting halfcourt shots. This proves that ice water runs in your veins. You are better than NBA players and you just proved it.
B.) Lucky. Considering you’ve only done this once, it would be ridiculous to draw any sort of conclusion about your ability on the whole. Sure, you made one when it counted and that won you a Toyota Tundra or a lifetime supply of mongoose lard. That doesn’t make you Ray Allen.

abender20 - January 24, 2010 reply

You are the greatsest shooter in NBA history.

Final answer!

Not actually true

Check this out.

That’s an article from a while back by Andrew Dolphin, who co-wrote The Book with Tango and Litchman. I’ll excerpt some relevant passages:

Over the course of a season, an average hitter will get approximately 150 clutch plate appearances, in which he will get on base 49 times with a standard deviation due to randomness of 5.7. The difference between a “one standard deviation good” and an average clutch hitter amounts to only 1.1 successful appearances, while the difference between a good and an average overall hitter amounts to 3.9 successful plate appearances. In short, any argument that clutch skills should be ignored could equally well be an argument that all batting skill should be ignored in clutch situations, given that randomness is the largest factor of all.

So clutch hitting is a skill, but it’s overshadowed by clutch luck to the point that it takes a very large sample size to even detect clutchiness. There is therefore zero chance of proving clutch skill via anecdote, as people seem fond of doing. His conclusions make almost perfect sense, too:

1. Clutch hitting is an important skill in baseball.
2. The difference between a good and a bad clutch performer is about 28% the difference between a good and a bad hitter, a much larger effect than had previously been thought from sabermetric work. So it is unlikely that any 0.250 hitters turn into 0.400 hitters in clutch situations, but there are 0.285 hitters who turn into 0.300 hitters.
3. Because of random effects, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to peg a specific player as a clutch performer or choker with a high degree of certainty. (For that matter, it is extremely difficult to ascertain much of anything about a player’s batting skills to an accuracy better than 20 points of OBP based on one season’s stats.)
4. That said, power hitters that perform better in the clutch are fairly rare, as are singles hitters that perform worse in the clutch. This can be used to make an educated guess of a player’s clutch tendencies.

Graham you are probably right.

But here is an intresting read.http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenumbers/ortiz/060405

You mean the one that says that clutch hitting has happened but it's non-predictive?

Can we at least all agree that there is "clutch situations"?

Of course

Obviously there are high-leverage situations in every game in every sport.

Okay so you don't think that there are athletes

that excel in those situations more than others? Athletes that don’t let thier nerves get the best of them or that some peoples bodies are going to produce and react to adrenaline differentley?

Adrenaline is a natural stimulant made in the adrenal gland of the kidney. Its biological name is epinephrine, from the Greek nephros for kidney. Adrenaline is carried in the bloodstream and affects the autonomous nervous system, which controls functions such as the heart rate, dilation of the pupils, and secretion of sweat and saliva.

Fight or Flight?
Adrenaline is the body’s activator, and is released in response to anxiety, exercise, or fear. This is the basis of the so-called ‘fight-or-flight’ reaction. When an animal is threatened, the options are usually either to stand its ground and fight, or run away as fast as possible. Both responses would require extra supplies of blood and oxygen in the muscles. Fright causes the brain to send signals to the renal glands which start pumping large amounts of adrenalin into the bloodstream. This increases the heart and breathing rate in preparation for the ensuing action.

Please do lecture me on the autonomic nervous system.

Please answer my question.

Yes, I do

The ones that don’t excel in high pressure situations are not major league baseball players

Or just not good major league baseball players.

All major league baseball players don't excel in high pressure situations.

They don't all excel equally, no.

But they have all faced thousands of high pressure situations in their lives and excelled. It would be near impossible for anyone to make it the big leagues without having some degree of what we would call ‘clutch’.

The fact is that several thorough attempts have been made to study it, and the near unanimous result is that while clutch is obviously not uniform across all players, the amount that the variability impacts the game is minuscule.

Yes, they have all been in pressure situations

However, calling them “high” pressure situations is overstating it a bit. I’m not sure how many, if thousands of high pressure situations you run into in A ball or AA, ect.

I would think, and I am probably wrong but the amount of “high” pressure situations a ball player would come across are few and far between. I view a high pressure situation as the classic 2 on 2 out bottom of the ninth or a tie game rivalry, need this win to get to the postseason.

I think on the way to the bigs, there are so little high pressure scenarios. The bleachers don’t have 30,000 butts in the seats and there is’nt millions hanging on every pitch, no pennant races or rivalries and no October. I just don’t think a player faces thousands of high pressure situations thier life. I guess it really it comes down to what you consider high pressure or a clutch situation.

*in their life

Moving target much?

Aaron Campeau - January 24, 2010 reply

I started to reply.

Then I stopped.

d0nkey - January 24, 2010 reply

It's not about fight or flight.

It’s about being prepared. It’s about mastery. It’s about repetition. It’s about doing a thing over and over and over again until you no longer have to think about the situation.

If you and I were to step into the box against a 95 mph heater, it may be fight or flight. With elite hitters, and all mlb hitters are elite compared to you and I, it’s about training the reaction. It’s about seeing 10,000 pitches in the minor leagues and learning to deal with it.

Docmilo - January 24, 2010 reply

You can't train for postseason play

A lot of hitters don’t get those big time, high pressure situations, to say that every basbeball is prepared for them just is’nt true. Sure all mlb players are elite compared to you and I and quite a few mlb players are elite to the rest of the mlb.

x

If Lee felt any anxiety in his Series debut, facing the team that led the majors in wins, homers and runs, it didn’t show. And if the Phillies were supposed to be intimidated of the pictures of Babe Ruth and all the Yankees greats on the giant videoboard, it didn’t happen.

“To be honest I really never have been nervous in the big leagues. This is what I wanted to do my whole life. This is what I take pride in. For me there is no reason to be nervous,” Lee said.

“Game time is the time go out there and have fun and let your skills take over. It’s kind of weird. Boils down to confidence and trusting your teammates,” he said.

Poochie - January 24, 2010 reply

It's about that first cup of joe on a cold morning

OlSalty - January 24, 2010 reply

Just before you saddle your horse

Kermit. - January 24, 2010 reply

Weird, I just came across this article earlier today and was going mention it

I take it he's a Washburn fan

.Taylor - January 23, 2010 reply

Ha ha ha, Love him!

No not really, He looks like a little rat.

I was making a Dolphin joke.

.Taylor - January 23, 2010 reply

Dammit I'm turning into Matthew

.Taylor - January 23, 2010 reply

Don't take this the wrong way but

you’ve got a long way to go

My jokes would have to be so subtle that only Nicholas Cage shitfaced in a cardboard box could get them.

.Taylor - January 23, 2010 reply

And more hilarious.

Zygomorphic - January 23, 2010 reply

Based on conclusion points 2 and 3, I would disagree with conclusion point 1

Clutch hitting is an important happening in baseball.

Yeah how can you claim it's a skill when you can't possibly measure it for individual players?

Interesting.

But is it actually meaningful? If the affect is that small, I’m not convinced that it is.

Aaron Campeau - January 23, 2010 reply

Thanks

I was going to ask about this in the forthcoming* stats questions thread. I agree with Matthew though, point 1 seems like a contradiction.

*I’m sure I saw it mentioned at some point, I know it’s been done before and I think it’d be a good idea to do another one.

Eyeball Kid - January 23, 2010 reply

In 2009 Jose Lopez had a .709 OPS in high leverage situations vs. .766 overall

Jeff Sullivan - January 23, 2010 reply

I have said a couple times, I'm probably wrong on the matter.

Graham said it best though, “I’m right, you’re wrong”. It would be intresting though to see what players numbers look like only in, 9th inning tie or down or extra innings. See if there is one or two guys maybe more in the majors that really stands out.

I wouldn't advise throwing "numbers geek" around here

Anyway, depending on how you view Hudson’s regressing defense, as well as how his bat plays in the AL, he likely wouldn’t represent a huge upgrade over Lopez. And I just don’t think there’s a good enough market for 2B right now to get enough value for Lopez in trade, GMZ or not.

CKel - January 23, 2010 reply

Lopez' contract makes him more valuable

And it’s never going to be a straight up Lopez for Hudson kinda deal. You do get something for Hudson, and that something could push the team over the 90 win threshold, which is a big big deal.

Dammit

something for Lopez

Oh I remember you.

What's interesting is that Jack Zduriencik would and has considered this very exchange!

Jose Lopez’s career high in walks is 27. Over the past three full seasons, he’s drawn 61 unintentional walks. 61. His swing rate on balls out of the zone last year was among the worst in the league. He seems like one of the last players you would ever think is capable of learning discipline.

He is not that good.

Jeff Sullivan - January 23, 2010 reply

But, but...

This reeksssssssssss of Jeff Cirillo mentality.

.Taylor - January 23, 2010 reply

What is Jeff Cirillo mentality?

Other than the desire to nail your sister given some conditions.

Spider Jerusalem - January 23, 2010 reply

I have no idea, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Not looking for a pink elephant moment.

I think it's the mentality, espoused by various "old school" baseball types, ..

… of choosing to remain ignorant of how combining numeric analysis with scouting analysis can result in better decision. This is also the mentality that believes that clutch performance is a demonstrable, easily repeatable and that clutch players can identified by experienced baseball executives. Examples of clutch players, obvious to experienced baseball men, include Jeff Cirillo, Scott Spiezio, Rich Aurilia, and Jose Vidro.

Just as there are clutch players, there are unclutch players, such as Carlos Guillen and Mke Cameron.

nathaniel dawson - January 23, 2010 reply

At 26, he probably has hit his peak.

There’s good evidence that players peak defensively in their early to mid 20’s, and offensively in thier mid to late 20’s. A 26 year old player is right in theat peak age area. Any one player might peak earlier or later, we just don’t know, but he’s in the age range now where the majority of players are at their peak. You just wouldn’t be projecting him to get much better at this point.

Your right, but you would'nt expect a decline either.

It’s more likely that he will get better rather than worse or he could just stay the same.

Age isn't everything.

Skills/tools are more important than age and Jose Lopez has skills that are not likely to get better.

True.

I’m saying that they are more likely to get better than worse. I don’t think they are likely to get better though.

You don't think Lopez's power numbers are going to increase at all?

Edgar for Pres - January 23, 2010 reply

Read it for exactly what it says.

I think if anything his power numbers will get better. Throw out 07 and his numbers have gotten better every year since his rookie season and at 26 I think he still has room to improve.

Oohhh, cherry-picking is a wonderful game. Let's all play ....

Since we’re arbitrarily throwing out years, I ge to throw out 2009. Now it’s clear that he’s reached his peak and there is very little probability that he’s going to get better.

That means it’s critical that the Mariners trade him now while his value is at it’s peak.

I don't count it against him because of family issues.

Look at his monthly tOPS+ splits for 2007, you can see where the death in the family occured and it can be argued that he didn’t play the same for the rest of the season.

tOPS+ (from Baseball-reference):
154 – April/March
113 – May
133 – June
45 – July
94 – August
72 – Sept/Oct

I thought Lopez performed well in stressful situations

wouldn’t a death in the family bring out the best in him? Look at the Angels post Adenhart’s death – there’s a clutch performance!

Look at Adenhart post accident, what a quitter.

If that guy had balls he would have soldiered on.

Who said anything about stressful situations?

A team losing a player and someone losing a brother are a little different but yea, compare the two.

But that decision is still unsupported and arbitrary

Correlation is not causation. Mistaking correlation causation is probably the most pernicious misuse of statistical information extant.

You can’t just throw out the data because it’s convenient for your argument to do so. The act of filtering data is inherently risky and it’s virtually impossible to filter a data set without introducing personal bias. Unless one can show a cogent argument to exclude data, backed up with solidly supported rationale, data that are properly collected should be retained.

This is not an impossible standard. An example of data that I believe can reasonably be filtered is command data for pitchers in their first year back from a Tommy John procedure. But history is rife with examples of erroneous inferences drawn on the basis of data that were improperly filtered because data were excluded because they were "clear outliers’, "obviously errneous", and such.

In the case of personal tragedy, there is no rationale that I am aware of for deciding to exclude a set of information. I don’t think you can equate "personal tragedy" with "invalid data". Speaking from my personal experience, the finest professional performance year I ever experienced immediately followed a profound personal tragedy. That’s not to say that everyone’s experiences are similar. It is to say that unless you are able to bring forth data showing that Lopez is part of a population for which it is reasonable to exclude data following the audden death of his brother, your decision to throw out his 2007 season is an unsupported decision.

That does not mean your decision is invalid; it does mean the decision is unsupported. Unsupported does not mean incorrect; we make many decisions in our everyday that lives that are unsupported.

nathaniel dawson - January 24, 2010 reply

People tell me I'm "obviously errneous" all the time.

And I don’t think they mean that in a good way.

Better that than obviously extraneous.

Steve Nelson - January 24, 2010 reply

You threw it out because of family issues?

His sister died last season and by all accounts he was much closer to her than his brother. Is he clutch in grief as well?

Aaron Campeau - January 24, 2010 reply

good point - I forgot about that ...

… which supports my contention that Andrew E’s discarding of Lopez’ 2007 data is simply confirmational bias on parade. He remembers the death of Lopez’s brother – and ascribes correlation to it – because it confirms what he wants to believe. The situation with his sister is overlooked or ignored because it’s not confirmational.

Note that I’m not saying this is deliberate. This is simply the way the human mind operates. We all participate in confirmational bias, and when we do we are absolutely convinced that we are being objective.

+++++++++++++

To me, this gets to the very core of the numeric analysis discussions. The value of numeric analysis is not the numbers. Anyone who makes decisions from numbers deserves all of the trouble they get themselves into. That absolutely includes engineers and scientists who are cranking physical data; the most egregious examples of confirmational bias I’ve seen in my career have involved technical professionals who simply ought to know better.

The value of numbers is in their use to calibrate our thinking and help us identify and manage our preconceptions and biases. “At the end of the day” (to borrow Jackspeak) we need to look at the results and ask ourselves (and others) if the numbers make sense. If they don’t make sense we then should dig in to find out if there is a problem with the data or a problem with our thinking.

And that is the point where we also need to be rigorous about how confirmational bias screws us up. Because there is always a tendency to find reasons to not believe data that doesn’t conform to our expectations, as well as to place too much faith in data that supports our basic suppositions.

Steve Nelson - January 24, 2010 reply

I bow to you Steve!

nathaniel dawson - January 23, 2010 reply

No, he's not more likely to get better.

He’s at an age where you really wouldn’t expect a player to improve. Or decline. Unless he’s just a player that isn’t going to follow the predominant aging patterns that basball players usually follow, and of course, we cant know that about Lopez, or any one player.

On the issue of his chance for decline, there’s actually a lot of reason to think that he might. His production the last two years has been significantly better than anytime in the past, which could be the result of random occurence more than an increase in talent level. Hey, maybe he has improved that much, but more likely, he’s imoroved some, but not as much as the results would suggest. There’s a good chance we see him fall back some this year.

Batting Order

I think Bradley is the #3, Gutierrez should probably be the #4 vs. lefties, and I guess Kotchman has to be the #4 vs. righties, or Griffey when Bradley plays LF.

Baconburger - January 23, 2010 reply

But the analysis here is respected by real baseball men!

Poochie - January 23, 2010 reply

DON"T DO IT!

Hudson is on my NL Strat keeper team. I need him to stay in the NL. Don’t do it JackZ!

algionfriddo - January 23, 2010 reply

NCAYFT

That's your reason?

You don’t want to see the Mariners get better but your own fantasy team. Come on.

Kirk - January 23, 2010 reply

Hold on

Don’t you advocate signing Hudson here?

Dewey N - January 23, 2010 reply

Zduriencik and Lopez

Someone may have noticed this already, but I noticed something very interesting in the recent Baseball Prospectus Q&A with Zduriencik. Jack was talking about the importance of stability and how everyone position player was signed thru (at least) 2011. He mentioned Guti, Ichiro, Bradley, Jack Wilson, Kotchman, Figgins, and the catchers. Does anyone see anything missing? He did NOT mention Jose Lopez. The only only position player Jack Z didn’t mention.

Coincidence? My guess is no. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next several days/weeks with regards to Jack Z’s final few moves. Even if it isn’t O-Dog, why not look at a guy like Felipe Lopez to replace Lopez if he gets traded? Something to think about…

Here’s the link to Zduriencik’s interview: http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9967

usabaseballfan - January 23, 2010 reply

I may be wrong but I believe sirbrianwilson commented on that in the comments to the Fanshot with this link

Good eye though.