Master Index of Archived Threads
2006 Crane Pool Forum Rankings Thread
| Frayed Knot Oct 20 2006 02:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 04 2008 07:38 AM |
|
And now that our season's over (moment of silence) ... it's never too early to start contemplating this year's rankings project!!
|
| TransMonk Oct 20 2006 03:11 PM |
|
Mostly from the gut:
|
| Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 07:44 PM |
|
I usually start sorting through the year by looking at the pitchers and position players seperately. Merging the two lists together is the tough part.
|
| Elster88 Oct 25 2006 11:41 PM |
|
Does postseason performance factor in? If it's weighted by regular season wins I would guess not.
|
| Elster88 Oct 25 2006 11:55 PM |
|
Hitters/Fielders:
|
| Edgy MD Oct 26 2006 05:34 AM |
|
|
Post-season counts. Though part of me thinks we shold rate post-season performance seperately, but we never have.
These are nearly the same trait.
|
| Frayed Knot Oct 26 2006 07:35 AM |
|
"Does postseason performance factor in?"
|
| Edgy MD Oct 26 2006 07:41 AM |
|
Somebody's got a case of the Thursdays.
|
| Vic Sage Oct 26 2006 02:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 03 2006 02:01 PM |
|
30) Beltran - some ups and downs, but mostly ups; taking Strike 3 in game 7 doesn't overshadow a great season.
|
| Edgy MD Oct 26 2006 02:34 PM |
|
I don't think of this as a career year for Valentin. From 2000-2003, he showed more power with less OBP, but did it playing fulltime did it at shortstop.
|
| Nymr83 Oct 27 2006 09:33 PM |
|
|
this was done solely for my benefit wasn't it? i agree mostly with Frayed Knot's hitter rankings above. i'd like to question putting LoDuca ahead of Delgado (someone did that) Delgado was clearly the better hitter and even if the "defensive spectrum" put LoDuca ahead i'd argue that Delgado's postseason should have swung things back. whoever it was that mentioned a choice between Tucker and other scrubs for the bottom of the list i'd go with Tucker by a longshot, check out that OBP in limited playing time, he wasn't hurting the Mets when he was in there.
|
| TransMonk Oct 28 2006 09:50 AM |
|
|
I did that. You'd have to prove to me that Delgado was "clearly the better hitter", since LoDuca's average was 50+ points higher. Delgado hit a ton of homeruns, which we expected him to do, and he compiled a lot of walks due to the HRs he was hitting and the fact that Wright was hitting below expectations much of the 2nd half, but I would have liked to have seen Carlos' batting average closer to his career numbers. There isn't a huge margin between the two as far as their worth to the team in 2006, in fact, I would put them about equal. They both thrived in their first year in New York, they both played their positions as well as expected, they both became leaders on the team, and they both provided fits for the spots they occupied in the batting order. I listed LoDuca higher on the list because he was much more consistent all season long, he played through greater injuries and he handled a pitching staff that sent 12 different starting pitchers to the mound this year. I'm not going to fight the fact that Delgado will be higher than LoDuca when the final list is compiled. In my opinion, I think that they were both great assets to the team and if Delgado is part of the "A tier" of hitters, then LoDuca would have to be there too.
|
| Nymr83 Oct 28 2006 10:05 AM |
|
batting average is less important than OBP, where Delgado holds a slight edge, but the real difference is 120 points of slugging percentage, you just can't make up for that.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Oct 28 2006 10:07 AM |
|
What surprised me was, that in our MVP Voting thread three people didn't even put Lo Duca in the top ten.
|
| TransMonk Oct 28 2006 10:42 AM |
|
Chicks dig the long ball, stat debaters dig the OPS.
|
| seawolf17 Oct 28 2006 07:28 PM |
|
30 Reyes
|
| Nymr83 Oct 28 2006 10:42 PM |
|
Wright had a better regular season than Delgado i think, if only barely... does Delgado's higher spot on your (Seawolf) list indicate a bump for the postseason or would you have had this same order on October 1st?
|
| seawolf17 Oct 29 2006 06:06 PM |
|
Nah, Wright's second half bothered me. (But apparently not as much as Delgado's first half bothered me.) David will have plenty of chances to top Seaver down the road; gotta keep him humble for now.
|
| Vic Sage Oct 30 2006 08:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 01 2006 02:11 PM |
|
|
"stat debaters"? people who attempt to use data to understand baseball "dig" the stats that have the highest correlation to run production and run prevention. OPS is certainly a good one, though there are some even better. you "dig" stats, too, otherwise you wouldn't reference batting average to make a case for LoDuca. The problem is you're using a 19th century statistic, which was of some use before the invention of the microchip, but of dubious utility since then. as for OPS, LoDuca ranked 6 out of the 8 hitters in the regular lineup (7th if you include Nady over Green, with only Chavez/Floyd ranking below the Duke). As a catcher, he ranked 7th out of 16 starting catchers in the NL, and tie for 12th out 30 teams in MLB. now he certainly was a good guy to have on the team... leader, good with the pitchers, played every day, yyybbb. But a guy with over 500 ABs that drives in only 49 runs while hitting behind Jose Reyes (who scored 122 runs) demonstrates a serious lack of clout. He lacks power and speed, and (with only 24 walks) his BA is the sum total of his offensive contribution to a lineup. And it's not like he's got a howitzer that stifles the other team's running game. So one has to really twist oneself into a pretzel to give anything but the most polite tip of the cap to Paul LoDuca. MVP? Puhleez. By the way, both Roberto Hernandez and Ben Molina had equivalent, if not better, offensive seasons, and both are better defensive catchers. And both were signed for around what LoDuca is getting paid, and acquiring them wouldn't have cost us players, to boot. Oh, and Piazza hit better, too.
|
| Vic Sage Oct 30 2006 09:05 AM |
|
|
your right of course. 2000-01 were both better years, and he also had a good year in 96 with Brewers. I should've said that this is is his best year in the last 5 seasons and, on a per/AB basis, this ranks along with the better years in his career. It certainly was not a season anyone anticipated at this point in his career.
|
| Edgy MD Oct 30 2006 09:19 AM |
|
No, nobody anticipated it. Certainly not me.
|
| Vic Sage Oct 30 2006 09:22 AM |
|
absolutely. I give Omar props for the type of non-roster types he's brought in, and willie certainly saw something in Jose to give him the shot when Matsui cratered.
|
| TransMonk Oct 30 2006 09:55 AM |
|
|
Well, I'm already doughy and salty, sooo... No one is claiming that LoDuca is the MVP of this team. The argument, at least as I understand it, is if LoDuca meant as much to the 2006 team as Delgado did. If games were played on Strat-o-matic or in sim leagues, then, yes, give me Delgado every time. However, rallys killed and playing with pain are not stats that appear on the back of baseball cards. Delgado did an great job as a cleanup hitter as his SLG percentage would indicate. But he had some wicked slumps this year, and long strings where he was almost useless at the plate. LoDuca performed consistently nearly every time he was in the lineup despite a torn ligament in his thumb, and despite his not having good second halves in the past. Comparing the value of a slugging cleanup hitter who getting exta base hits to the value of a consistent #2 hitter who can get the leadoff runner to third and not strike out is like comparing apples to bananas. In my opinion, consistent #2 hitters are harder to find than consistent cleanup hitters. Having LoDuca hitting #2 makes everyone around him better, including Delgado. And like I said before, I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind. I just appreciate LoDuca's overall value to the team as much as Delgado's.
|
| Vic Sage Oct 30 2006 10:09 AM |
|
|
there you go again. "Playing in pain" only matters if it leads to more runs scored or more runs prevented. Thats why its not on the baseball card. Because if it actually did impact those numbers, then it IS reflected in the stats. And to the extent it DIDN'T significantly impact those numbers, then all it is is a nice thing to say about somebody. Delgado was dinged up too. If you think a powerless, speedless, walkless contact hitter is harder to find and as valuable to a lineup than a guy who averages 40 bombs, 100 runs and 120 rbis a season (with a lifetime OB% close to .400), then you simply aren't watching the same game i am.
|
| TransMonk Oct 30 2006 10:44 AM |
|
|
I guess I think a guy near the top of the lineup who extends innings with hits and productive outs creating more run scoring opportunities for the leadoff, #3 and cleanup hitters is as valuable as a power hitter who is as likely to strikeout or hit into a DP as he is to drive in those created run scoring opportunites. Again, it's apples and bananas. Without either, you are missing part of a winning fruit salad. As far as watching the same game as you, I thought that was the point of this thread. We can debate the value of players to the team without strictly going by the year end stat totals. Otherwise, we might as well list all of the offensive players by decreasing OPS and call the rankings done and not have to watch the games at all. Where is Eli Marrero anyways?
|
| Valadius Oct 30 2006 12:54 PM |
|
Here's my initial take on this year's rankings.
|
| Nymr83 Oct 30 2006 02:26 PM |
||
|
do you have evidence that he (a) does these things and/or (b) that these things help clubs win more than the things delgado does? he "extends innings with hits"? does that mean he's tougher with 2 outs than with none out? is this a positive? if so how? a power hitter who is "as likely" to hit into a DP as drive in a run would be pretty valueless indeed, but delgado has more RBI hits than doubleplays by a longshot sorry top nitpick but i'm trying to figure out what exactly loduca does to make him better than delgado
winning isn't a salad that tastes better with multiple fruits. a lineup of 9 delgados would vastly outscore a lineup of 9 loducas
|
| TransMonk Oct 30 2006 04:48 PM |
|
|
I guess I'd like to see the evidence to back that up. Once again, we're back to stratomatic sim games that have nothing to do with flesh-and-blood team baseball. For the third time, it's fine. I'll concede Delgado should be higher than LoDuca on the 2006 rankings. This is an argument that I've spent enough time on for not caring that much about.
|
| Frayed Knot Nov 01 2006 01:14 PM |
|
Getting around to the hurlers ...
|
| Frayed Knot Nov 01 2006 02:56 PM |
|
30 - Beltran
|
| Nymr83 Nov 01 2006 04:13 PM |
|
30 Beltran - team MVP
|
| Nymr83 Nov 10 2006 06:03 PM |
|
i really feel this would get more discussion tacked to the top of the baseball forum
|
| Johnny Dickshot Nov 26 2006 08:48 PM |
|
30. Beltran
|
| Nymr83 Dec 11 2006 03:14 PM |
|
Hi guys!
|
| Benjamin Grimm Dec 27 2006 12:56 PM |
|
30 Carlos Beltran
|
| Edgy MD Dec 27 2006 01:04 PM |
|
|
He blew a game against the Yankees! Chyuh! I'm looking at the rankings of our catchers not named LoDuca and it strikes me that we would have been lost if Paulie had gotten injured.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Dec 27 2006 02:22 PM |
|
somebody with time and chartmaking ability ought to line up our rankings against one another.
|
| Frayed Knot Dec 27 2006 02:36 PM |
|
I'm on it.
|
| Edgy MD Dec 29 2006 09:08 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is what I've got. We're pretty set up top.
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 09:24 AM |
|
edgy, you might want to double check your chart. williams comes in at 7 high, not 4. pedro comes in at 22 high, 15 low, not 23/14.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Dec 29 2006 09:25 AM |
|
My votes weren't included.
|
| Edgy MD Dec 29 2006 09:26 AM |
|
Nothing personal.
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 09:35 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
here's my list, based on my own schaeffer voting:
|
| Benjamin Grimm Dec 29 2006 09:46 AM |
|
|
No offense taken.
|
| Nymr83 Dec 29 2006 09:47 AM |
|
you either mislabeled the chart, or pulled things out of your ...
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 09:56 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
and here's another chart that combines win shares and wins above replacement, averaged together, sorta. i divided win shares by three, and then averaged that with WARP3, and ranked based on that average. feel free to ignore it if you like - its more for informational purposes than anything.
|
| Edgy MD Dec 29 2006 10:10 AM |
|
Yeah, I messed up sorting and royally messed up Monk's list.
|
| Edgy MD Dec 29 2006 10:13 AM |
|
I messed up everybody by grabbing too many columns in my sort.
|
| Frayed Knot Dec 29 2006 10:59 AM |
|
Yo marathon, are you willing to defend;
|
| Frayed Knot Dec 29 2006 11:13 AM |
|
The composite we've got to date includes the 8 lists submitted so far:
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 01:02 PM |
|
|
maybe... its all based on my schaeffer voting. are you trying to imply that there's a flaw with how i voted! what nerve! of, and i forgot to include the postseason. hee. i'll take a look at what i've done here. i'm not sure my next tabulation won't raise equally many problems...
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 01:38 PM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
updated, in such a fashion as to rectify my voting silliness, as well as to account for the post season.
|
| Edgy MD Dec 29 2006 02:33 PM |
|
That's always a philosophical question that is hard to apply mathmatically --- what's the season worth compared to the post-season.
|
| metsmarathon Dec 29 2006 03:54 PM |
|
i was toying originally with three and five, but then that'd almost force me to go with the world series being 10 times as important as the regular season, and that's a bit much. the postseason would then be worth between 9+20+40 = 69 games minimum and 15+35+70 = 120 games maximum.
|
| Nymr83 Dec 29 2006 04:46 PM |
|
rather than weighing it with a number, since i'd be unsure what number to use, i make my regular season list (with tiers) and bump guys up and down based on the postseason, with a very good or very bad postseason needed to move to a different tier.
|
| metsmarathon Dec 30 2006 11:36 AM |
|
i feel compulsed to attempt to do it quantifiably, even if the method for quantification is flawed.
|
| Nymr83 Dec 30 2006 03:02 PM |
|
I'm not comfortable with Oliver higher than Bradford and especially Heilman
|
| cleonjones11 Dec 30 2006 04:24 PM |
|
This is Mets calculus to me. I'm lost.
|
| metsmarathon Dec 30 2006 09:07 PM |
|
i wish these rankings were as easy as calculus!
|
| Nymr83 Dec 30 2006 09:58 PM |
|
calculus has a right answer, these questions don't have absolute rights and wrongs, though some positions are alot more right or wrong than others.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 25 2007 08:51 PM |
|
This needed to be rescued before it fell off into archive-land.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 20 2007 07:51 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 21 2009 08:29 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guess it's time to put this one to bed
|
| Gwreck Feb 20 2007 09:45 PM |
|
Is the list (updated with 2005 and 2006) available?
|