Ryan Jeffers Is More Impactful Offensively Than Luis Arraez

[LonelyseatinMOA]

2 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You're...you're arguing that Gallo has been good this year?  

 

No, he has a 102 WRC+ as a 1B, which is well below the average for 1B. But he has been average (across all players) at creating runs 

[TwinsDr2021]

7 minutes ago, LonelyseatinMOA said:

I chose my language carefully. 

 

If you're having trouble understanding the argument I invite you to reread the article 

wOBA is a great stat for generalizing, but is flawed in so many ways. Because it always says a home run is more impactful than anything which isn't always the case or that a double is more impactful than a single but again that isn't always the case. 

For example bottom on the 9th, tied game, base loaded and one out. Is a homer more impactful than a sac fly, walk or single? Or any lead off hitter hits a double and the next guy hits a home run. Was that double more impactful than a walk or single?

[Trov]

If you looked at all star break you could not say this, but today yes. Arraez in month of August has had just a terrible month. With similar plate appearances as every other month, he has OBP of .236.  For him that might be the worst of his career.  He went from being the great story of can he hit .400, to will he even win the batting title. 

I still love watching him play, but while some were upset at the trade in the first half, it sure is looking good now. 

[TwinsDr2021]

7 minutes ago, LonelyseatinMOA said:

No, he has a 102 WRC+ as a 1B, which is well below the average for 1B. But he has been average (across all players) at creating runs 

You mean per at bat?

[Woof Bronzer]

29 minutes ago, LonelyseatinMOA said:

No, he has a 102 WRC+ as a 1B, which is well below the average for 1B. But he has been average (across all players) at creating runs 

I'm guessing the 30 MLB teams who will decline to sign him to a major league deal this offseason will disagree that he's been "average".  

[Rik19753]

14 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

For example bottom on the 9th, tied game, base loaded and one out. Is a homer more impactful than a sac fly, walk or single? Or any lead off hitter hits a double and the next guy hits a home run. Was that double more impactful than a walk or single?

The two examples you gave are completely different IMO.

The first example does indeed illustrate a flaw of wOBA in that it fails to consider productive outs. In certain situations a hitter's job is to just move the runner over; However, in the eyes of wOBA, doing so successfully won't earn you any points.

The second example isn't a flaw because the fact that the extra base earned by a double might be meaningless depending on the sequence of events is indeed considered in the weighing of various events. 

[LonelyseatinMOA]

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

wOBA is a great stat for generalizing, but is flawed in so many ways. Because it always says a home run is more impactful than anything which isn't always the case or that a double is more impactful than a single but again that isn't always the case. 

For example bottom on the 9th, tied game, base loaded and one out. Is a homer more impactful than a sac fly, walk or single? Or any lead off hitter hits a double and the next guy hits a home run. Was that double more impactful than a walk or single?

In the case of run creation the home run is 4 runs, and the double 2-3, and so on. But yes they all lead to a win.

You are right that it isn't situational like WPA or another stat like that. But its far better at predicting future success than something like WPA. 

We're getting to the point where "impact" or "impactful" is going to need to have a mutually agreed upon definition or we will be talking in circles. If it means 'that which leads to more wins' I could say WRC+ and wOBA are highly related to winningness, more than stats like Batting Average 

People don't like these stats "cuz spreadsheets" they like them because their highly related to current and future success. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I get what you are saying and per at bat it is true. but the Title of the article is Ryan Jeffers Is More Impactful Offensively Than Luis Arraez, maybe it should have included per at bat?

This is one of the ridiculous arguments that somebody is trying to tell you not to trust your lying eyes. For some reason Jeffers is better but the twins have decided to give him 271 less plate appearances than Arraez and that somehow magically it is better to have a .271 BA, .372 OBP and .467 SLG compared to .349 BA, .391 OBP and .446 SLG. (The difference in SLG is .021).

It is that silly argument that Arraez gets no credit for putting up the numbers over an additional 271 plate appearances and Jeffers gets no discount for not having those 271 plate appearances. We have no idea what numbers Jeffers would put up if he was put into more situations or against less favorable matchups, what we know he is has been pretty darn good in his limited time this year, but to compare a full time player to a part time player based on per at bat stats and claim the part time player is more impactful is like I said above SILLY.

 

Sure, they should've added "per at bat" to avoid this argument.

[Rik19753]

21 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I'm guessing the 30 MLB teams who will decline to sign him to a major league deal this offseason will disagree that he's been "average".  

I'm an analytics nerd, but even I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Gallo has been average. That being said, I don't think wRC+ is grossly overvaluing his production this season, it's just that he has been so bad for so long that our perception of him has soured.

We have to remember that he was putting up MVP type numbers in March and April. He was pretty much the only bright spot in the lineup and singlehandedly won us some games. If you look at his numbers from May on his production has been 18 percent below average, which I feel is much more in line with what we think of Gallo nowadays.

I'm sure if Gallo's production had been more even and if he had come through in clutch situations more we would view his season a little differently. 

[jdgoin]

15 hours ago, NeverSeenATwinsPlayoffWin said:

I don't understand why you think Joey Gallo is miserable offensively. 

Because in 44% of his plate appearances nothing happens.

[MinnInPa]

personally ..I'm old school. i could care less about all your analytical data.. i still care about Avg, RBI's, and strikeouts. i'd take 9 ball players averaging over .270 any day ( maybe a slick SS and good catcher batting .250)..i could careless about their HR's. you have a team putting the ball in play instead of being K Kings you will score runs. its nauseating/sickening watching baseball games these days with players hovering around .225 BA and K rate over 30%. 

[MABB1959]

I would go with apples vs oranges. Jeffers position is so different  Arraez does what he is supposed to do well, get on base and score runs which the Twins desperately need.  He also has a decent about of RBI's.  Going to guess those numbers would have made a difference and lastly he doesn't kill rallies by striking out.  Last 30 games Arraez 8 strikeouts in 121 at bats, Jeffers 30 strikeouts in 103 at bats .  Too bad we can't have both!

Was Lopez worth it?  

[Linus]

2 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

I would go with apples vs oranges.  Arraez does what he is supposed to do well, get on base and score runs which the Twins desperately need.  He also has a decent about of RBI's.  Going to guess those numbers would have made a difference and lastly he doesn't kill rallies by striking out  Jeffers position is so different.  Too bad we can't have both!

Was Lopez worth it?  

I say yes and I feel even more strongly about that than I did when the trade happened. 

[RedBull34]

My criticism is that wOBA correctly treats all hits differently, it doesn't do the same for outs.  A ball in play IS more valuable then a strikeout, even if the result is the same.  You can't move players up or generate a possibility of an error on a strikeout (or rather the odds are much lower) then a ball in play.

[Jack C]

This is all just crazy and driven by guys who tried to understand baseball rather than play it an a high level.  Analytics completely ignore the human element of sports.  Have you ever said:  "He's hot."  "He's in a slump".  "That guy is clutch."

Analytics give us raw numbers, despite the attempt to put some context on the numbers by breaking them down into more and more complex subsets.  They are one piece of information.  All you have to do is look into a dugout and watch human emotions like momentum, anger, excitement and human desire ramp up when the line keeps moving.  Compare what happens in a dugout when a team scores 3 by batting around with a 3 run homer capped by a Correa double play.  Same value on the score sheet.  Complete difference in the dugout.

It isn't your own stats.  It's picking up and inspiring teammates, not just your own result at the plate.  A great at bat might be a 12 pitch K if you need to get your pitcher a breather.  A great at bat might chew up the opposing team's pitch count when you want a guy off the rubber. 

In other sports, it's the point guard's job to make everybody better.  We here that about QBs as a litmus test.  Used to be that was often your lead off guy.  The guy who stirred the drink.  In the days of modern Twins, none of that matters.  Guys are seen as interchangeable.  They hit wherever they hit.  They play wherever they play.  After all, they're all professionals and "we have confidence in our guys".  Numbers don't lie.

And that, in a nutshell, is how you take a team with this much talent and guarantee a .500 record, +/- 5.

Pretty simple.  If it's all on the line and your best player doesn't hit lefties as well (numbers, people!) as another guy on the bench, do you pinch hit him?  Baldelli is the guy who could come up with a set of numbers that would pinch hit Gallo over Puckett. 

In his world, the confidence to read the tea leaves, to look a guy in the eye and decide he'll succeed or fail is generated by numbers alone.  Any of those leadership qualities that require understanding human nature, motivation or thinking outside the 9 dots are completely missing (or deliberately subjugated) from his DNA.

When the time comes (okay this is a joke) where the home 9 needed the win to advance, which are you going to say?

-Baldelli carried the team on his back

-Jeffers carried the team on his back

-Arraez carried the team on his back

There are plenty of guys in the HOF who arrived there because of when and how they delivered, not because of pure numbers.  Case in point...the GOAT of catchers is Yogi.  Bet Baldy (and our esteemed writer) could come up with some analytics to plug in Jeffers instead.

[jdgoin]

8 minutes ago, Jack C said:

 Analytics completely ignore the human element of sports. 

You're correct. Because analytics are not trying to measure the human element. Player makeup is someone else's job in a player evaluation/valuation. Analytics are like 1/5th of an evaluation.

[Jack C]

Just for purposes of stirring the pot, I think the article's nom de plume is appropriate.  So #NeverSeenATwinsPlayoff Win, maybe the reason you haven't is because the Twins are the poster boys for Analytics.  In my case, I'm really old and having lived in a handful of cities over my life have been fortunate to see a number of home teams win and go deep.  The common denominator was chemistry and momentum.  Period. 

I ask: can changing chemistry change numbers?  Of course they can!  Otherwise, why bother watching?  We can pretty much predict outcomes before the first pitch is even thrown.  I ask, how did those analytics set you up for all that Sox success?  That stuff cuts both ways.

[Jack C]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:17 AM, jdgoin said:

You're correct. Because analytics are not trying to measure the human element. Player makeup is someone else's job in a player evaluation/valuation. Analytics are like 1/5th of an evaluation.

You bet.  They should be 20% of a leadership process.  Baldelli is reversed.

[RedBull34]

4 minutes ago, Jack C said:

Just for purposes of stirring the pot, I think the article's nom de plume is appropriate.  So #NeverSeenATwinsPlayoff Win, maybe the reason you haven't is because the Twins are the poster boys for Analytics.  In my case, I'm really old and having lived in a handful of cities over my life have been fortunate to see a number of home teams win and go deep.  The common denominator was chemistry and momentum.  Period. 

I ask: can changing chemistry change numbers?  Of course they can!  Otherwise, why bother watching?  We can pretty much predict outcomes before the first pitch is even thrown.  I ask, how did those analytics set you up for all that Sox success?  That stuff cuts both ways.

The poster boys for Analytics is the Tampa Bay Rays. You know, one of the most successful $/win teams of the last two decades.

It's far from being the Twins.

[jdgoin]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:19 AM, Jack C said:

You bet.  They should be 20% of a leadership process.  Baldelli is reversed.

Sounds like a human problem and not an analytics problem.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

54 minutes ago, RedBull34 said:

My criticism is that wOBA correctly treats all hits differently, it doesn't do the same for outs.  A ball in play IS more valuable then a strikeout, even if the result is the same.  You can't move players up or generate a possibility of an error on a strikeout (or rather the odds are much lower) then a ball in play.

A batted ball can be more productive than a K. It can also be the same as a K, and less productive.

 

Double plays usually happen on batted balls.

[NeverSeenATwinsPlayoffWin]

1 minute ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

A batted ball can be more productive than a K. It can also be the same as a K, and less productive.

 

Double plays usually happen on batted balls.

There is a new stat that I think is coming out soon called "Deserved Runs Created." It is supposed to take negative plays into account. 

Overall, I agree that there is not a difference between an 80mph flyout and a K. Most outs are as productive as Ks.

[Woof Bronzer]

3 minutes ago, NeverSeenATwinsPlayoffWin said:

Most outs are as productive as Ks.

You're comparing the outcome of a batted ball to the outcome of an at bat.  There are 3 outcomes of an at bat:  putting the ball in play, walk/HBP, or K.  K is far less productive than either of the other 2 outcomes.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 minute ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You're comparing the outcome of a batted ball to the outcome of an at bat.  There are 3 outcomes of an at bat:  putting the ball in play, walk/HBP, or K.  K is far less productive than either of the other 2 outcomes.  

A ball in play can be a double play or triple play

[Woof Bronzer]

8 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

A batted ball can be more productive than a K. It can also be the same as a K, and less productive.

 

Double plays usually happen on batted balls.

The Twins have 1093 hits, 99 GIDPS.  Putting the ball in play you are 10x more likely to get a hit than GIDP.  They've also struck out 1382 times, or 7x more outs than GIDP outs.  Putting the ball in play is far more productive than a K and it's not close.  

[Riverbrian]

3 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

If the Twins offered Jeffers for Arraez straight up, would the Marlins would take that deal?

Jeffers has 4 years of control and Arraez has 3 and I do not believe that the Marlins would take that deal regardless of the extra year.  

With that said... If Jeffers does this again next year.

His Value is going to sky rocket because catchers are always over valued. 

[Woof Bronzer]

5 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

A ball in play can be a double play or triple play

Or, much, much more frequent than either of those outcomes, a ball in play becomes a hit.

[USAFChief]

22 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Or, much, much more frequent than either of those outcomes, a ball in play becomes a hit.

Or moves a runner(s).

Zero percent of Ks drive in a run.

[insagt1]

I figured this topic was eventually going to come up again.

Here's what I see: Baseball is played on the field, not on paper or computer. Baseball is played by humans who ebb and flow constantly. Its amusing that Arraez is being compared, right now, with Jeffers. Arraez has cooled off considerably and right now Jeffers is a mess at the plate, striking out nearly every AB and looking bad doing it.

As the calendar turns to September the games are more important. Playoff positions are at stake and one lousy series could doom a team. So right now, players have to be at their best, even if they werent before, A hot streak in Sept can make the difference. Gallo--since May, he has added just about nothing impactful offensively. He has not helped the team win these important games. And since its a team effort to win games, thats really all that matters. Jeffers has made some real ugly outs over the past 10 days or so. When the Twins blow a game like yesterday, when perhaps a key hit may have made the difference, you can't get that loss back.

Theres a reason Rocco went to a pinch hitter for Gallo so early yesterday..and sadly had to use someone who is right now just as bad as Gallo. But he knew they needed contact and Gallo isn't that guy, at all. Honestly has there been a less impactful 20 HR's on the team. You have to keep winning. When a team gets on a roll, emotion plays a huge, uncalculable role. A happy, energized dugout pays dividends. You win games you shouldnt normally win.

As the proverbial 'old-timer' like some of you here, I don't care what the papers say; I care about what I see in the 9th inning of a close game and who comes through and who doesn;t. Arraez is helping his team try to snatch a WC. Jeffers, up until recently, has helped the Twins stay on top. But if he continues to add 0-fers and k's, none of what he had done previous will matter to the fans. On every game you get the 27 allotted outs. How you use them, that day, determines if you get the 'W' and it takes the entire team to make it happen. All the stats in the world can't decide what  Correa may or may not do, at that critical moment, with one out, runner on 1st. If he grounds into a DP with Twins up by 9 runs, big whoop. But if he does that with the tying run on 1st and 1 out, different story, Same result for him, but not for the team.

Was it statistically accurate that Duran would make such a horrible pitch with 1 strike to get and game hanging in the balance? Horrible outcome. Game played on the field, emotion. Cleveland was jacked and Twins deflated for sure. That game still bothers me. ITS WHEN you do WHAT you do that makes the difference, on that day. If it results in a win on a pennant clinching game, do we care who did it or how? Heroes are made daily in baseball. Thats what we (I) watch the games for.

OTOH, when I see a guy with a terrible BA, a near 50% k ratio and very little meaningful contribution to my team's success offensively over several months, I'm not terribly impressed that his games in April and early May have skewed his stats perhaps making him seem more valuable than he currently is.

[Otaknam]

You totally lost me with minutiae of the newly minted  baseball stats that have emerged over the past several years. Some of them make sense, some make me think that people are trying too hard to make us think they are a baseball savant. Baldelli’s over reliance on analytics was a disaster last year, especially for starting pitchers. Sometimes the manager has to rely on instincts and show trust and confidence in the players, rather than over analyzing. To write that “Joey Gallo (owner of a 103 wRC+) is 80.5% of the hitter that Luis Arraez is (in terms of weighted runs created)” is a head scratcher. Arraez’ getting on base, maybe with only a single, changes the approach of the pitcher and the defense. He moves runners along and gets RBIs. Gallo strike out 50% of the time. One in awhile he hits a home run. Offensively Gallo isn’t half the player that Arraez is.