This is a great analysis. One thing though. It seems to me the runs from position scarcity is an iffy stat. Essentially, Utley gets runs simply for being a second baseman while Berman loses runs for bring a right fielder/first baseman. If I understand it correctly, their actual performance or abilities doesn't matter with this number. I know the stat guys use this, but it has always seemed to me to be a questionable part of the defensive stats. Take these out of the picture and both players are just about even in value. Me? I'll take Berkman.
Bill, think of it this way. If Jeff Bagwell could have played shortstop, he would have been a lot more valuable. Instead of running out a weak hitting Ricky Gutierrez or Adam Everett to shortstop, the Astros could have found a league average first baseman, who hits a lot better than those guys. That team would be better. I didn't use Berkman in my example because he throws left handed, which complicates things--he could never play shortstop. But the broader example works. If a good hitter can handle a defensively challenging position, it's better for his team.
I get all that. And very much appreciate your analysis and how this stat is used. But, I still think the stat doesn't match with reality. Bagwell, Berkman, Bonds, DiMaggio, etc. couldn't play play first short or second. So the comparison of value to a team is theoretical; they didn't really have that choice. Also, it doesn't actually measure the contribution of the individual players. In this case, it measures the theoretical contribution of Utley at second against his theoretical contribution at first. Or something like that. I'm all for measuring the actual defensive contributions of individual players. Clearly, Utley saved many more runs than Berkman. But those are already accounted for. I just question the value added by this one particular stat. Thanks again. This was a great article.
Great peek behind the numbers, Brian! I think Lance is suffering from being in a baseball "small market." Put pinstripes on his exact-same numbers, or land him in Boston or L.A., and he'd be first-ballot! Much like in show biz (or, more particularly, the record biz), it's a lot about PR and ink volume:
If you're constantly on TWIB, your team was clamored for every Game of the Week, the lead on SportsCenter, and Berman made you a funny nickname, your name is front of mind when the writers receive their ballots. I think if one looked at more than a handful of HOF-ers, you'd find plenty whose numbers are far lower/worse than Berkman's, but were on a far more "famous", mid- to large-market team....and yet, there they are!
This is a great analysis. One thing though. It seems to me the runs from position scarcity is an iffy stat. Essentially, Utley gets runs simply for being a second baseman while Berman loses runs for bring a right fielder/first baseman. If I understand it correctly, their actual performance or abilities doesn't matter with this number. I know the stat guys use this, but it has always seemed to me to be a questionable part of the defensive stats. Take these out of the picture and both players are just about even in value. Me? I'll take Berkman.
Bill, think of it this way. If Jeff Bagwell could have played shortstop, he would have been a lot more valuable. Instead of running out a weak hitting Ricky Gutierrez or Adam Everett to shortstop, the Astros could have found a league average first baseman, who hits a lot better than those guys. That team would be better. I didn't use Berkman in my example because he throws left handed, which complicates things--he could never play shortstop. But the broader example works. If a good hitter can handle a defensively challenging position, it's better for his team.
I get all that. And very much appreciate your analysis and how this stat is used. But, I still think the stat doesn't match with reality. Bagwell, Berkman, Bonds, DiMaggio, etc. couldn't play play first short or second. So the comparison of value to a team is theoretical; they didn't really have that choice. Also, it doesn't actually measure the contribution of the individual players. In this case, it measures the theoretical contribution of Utley at second against his theoretical contribution at first. Or something like that. I'm all for measuring the actual defensive contributions of individual players. Clearly, Utley saved many more runs than Berkman. But those are already accounted for. I just question the value added by this one particular stat. Thanks again. This was a great article.
Great peek behind the numbers, Brian! I think Lance is suffering from being in a baseball "small market." Put pinstripes on his exact-same numbers, or land him in Boston or L.A., and he'd be first-ballot! Much like in show biz (or, more particularly, the record biz), it's a lot about PR and ink volume:
If you're constantly on TWIB, your team was clamored for every Game of the Week, the lead on SportsCenter, and Berman made you a funny nickname, your name is front of mind when the writers receive their ballots. I think if one looked at more than a handful of HOF-ers, you'd find plenty whose numbers are far lower/worse than Berkman's, but were on a far more "famous", mid- to large-market team....and yet, there they are!