When we started this website, my goal was to bring the player’s point of view to baseball fans. I’d been lucky enough to hang out with a lot of ballplayers and their conversations about a game often differed from what was reported in the media the next day. The newspaper would say a game was lost in extra innings and the players would say it was actually lost in the 7th.
I was looking for a way to help fans think like players, when I came across Ron Polk’s Most Valuable Player Chart. I thought it would be useful because it recorded many of the same things players talked about: like moving runners over, 8+ pitch at-bats and less than 12-pitch innings. It would force people (and me) to pay attention to the small, but important parts of the game.
Ron Polk’s credibility didn’t hurt either: he’s won more games than any coach in any sport in the history of the SEC, led his teams to eight College World Series appearances, five SEC championships and 23 Regional appearances, he’s in two Halls of Fame, he’s seventh all-time in NCAA head-coaching victories, he’s been National Coach of the Year three times, he’s produced 35 All-Americans, 75 All-SEC players and 21 major leaguers, he’s had seven tours as a member of the coaching staff of the USA National Baseball team and has served as a coach on the U.S. Olympic team twice. I thought any baseball fan would be interested in how this guy thinks about the game.
Boy, was I wrong.
His system for measuring player contribution was attacked almost immediately and has been called stupid, a waste of time, a joke and crap. I’ve also been called a moron for thinking it had any merit. Interestingly enough, people who played the game at a high level don’t feel the same way. In fact, former Royal Brian McRae, uses the system when coaching his teams and the same goes for hundreds of baseball programs around the country.
So why the violent dislike for what Ron Polk created and hundreds of coaches find useful? I blame math (which has been the source of many of my problems). If you judge the system in terms of math, you’ll never understand it. If you look at it in terms of baseball, it makes sense.
Here are a few examples of the ‘math’ complaints and the ‘baseball’ answers:
Why one point deducted for a strikeout swinging and two points deducted for a strike out looking? They’re both one out.: A perfectly legitimate math complaint, but the two strikeouts are different to ballplayers. With two strikes the hitters is expected to expand his zone, stop being picky and try to get the ball in play. A strike out looking does not give the hitter or his team a chance and is considered by many coaches to be bad baseball.
Why three points deducted for getting picked off first and six points deducted for getting picked off third? Again, they’re both one out.: Same answer. They’re both one out, but much different in terms of baseball. The runner on first is 270 feet away from scoring and is trying to do everything possible to get in scoring position. While getting picked off is regrettable, it’s understandable and is considered part of doing business. The runner on third is 90 feet away from scoring, is a much more valuable runner and most of the time isn’t going anywhere until the ball is put in play. Getting picked off third is a much bigger mistake than getting picked off first.
Why two points for a sacrifice bunt or fly? That’s as many points as a double.: Well, if I were creating the system I might not have given two points for a sac bunt or fly, but Clint Hurdle once told me the most important thing you can do as a manager is convince 25 guys that the team is more important than they are. Once you do that, amazing things are possible. A sacrifice is just that: someone saying the team is more important than they are and if Ron Polk thinks it’s worth two points, I’m not inclined to argue with a coach who knows more than I do. If you think you know more than Ron Polk, be my guest.
Critics have also complained that the system is subjective (it is, just like balls and strikes), that it gives too much credit to defense (seems fair, I think other measurements give too little credit to defense) and that I’m an idiot (OK, you’ve got me there).
Frankly, scoring a game and keeping track of the Polk system categories is a lot of work and every season I think about dropping it. Is it really necessary? But then I remember what I’ve learned from it and see its value. Here are a few things that might’ve slipped by without the Polk system:
Scoring mental mistakes helped me identify Gregor Blanco as a player who lost focus on a regular basis. He tried to leave the field before there were three outs on more than one occasion, once had to be told to take his base after losing track of the count and another time ran a non-existent contact play. When I asked about him I was told Blanco’s mental mistakes contributed to Atlanta’s willingness to let him go.
Paying attention to mental mistakes also revealed that Billy Butler sometimes neglected his defensive assignments. On more than one occasion he was not in position to act as the cutoff man in the middle of the infield.
Mental mistakes also pointed out that Jeff Francoeur sometimes missed the cut-off man. Although in Frenchy’s case, he’d do it out of enthusiasm (I think I can get that guy), not laziness or inattention and sometimes made it work.
Keeping track of breaking up the double play and heads-up base running revealed that the 2011 Royals were a much better base-running team than they’d been the previous year. It also showed that Billy Butler, of all people, was fairly successful at forcing the pivot man to move laterally and that prevented some double plays. Billy wasn’t getting there and flipping the pivot man, but his size made the middle infielder take an extra step to the side which delayed the throw to first.
Keeping track of walks that score showed the destructive power of a base on balls. By the time a run comes around, we often forget how that runner got on in the first place. Time after time the margin of victory or defeat was a walk that scored. In 2010 the system showed how Gil Meche destroyed his season with walks.
Keeping track of outstanding defensive plays revealed the worth (much to some people’s dismay) of players like Jason Kendall and Matt Treanor. Their ability to block pitches in the dirt allowed pitchers to use their entire arsenal with a runner on third. In 2010 Kendall blocked a pitch in the dirt with a runner on third in nine one-run wins. (And no, this is not a routine play. One of the reasons the Royals moved John Buck and Miguel Olivo was because this play was not being made.)
Outstanding defensive plays also showed that Eric Hosmer was making the entire infield better. Of Hosmer’s 83 outstanding defensive plays in 2011, at least two-thirds of them were on bad throws from teammates.
The system showed what makes Chris Getz valuable (another thing that made some readers angry). Because Polk’s system keeps track of a lot of small things in different phases of the game, Getz was able to consistently score points through actions that often go unnoticed. He’d rarely knock your socks off in any one category, but night after night, consistently found a way to contribute.
The system also showed the worth of staying healthy. It’s the difference between being the most talented player on the team and being the player that contributes the most. If your best player can’t get on the field, he’s not helping you.
I realize that if you hate Ron Polk’s system I probably haven’t changed your mind, but even if you think the points are off, it does reveal patterns of play. You might not think Melky Cabrera deserved the most points in 2011, but the fact that he took a lot of extra bases ought to be of some interest.
Trust me, nobody finds Ron Polk’s MVP chart a bigger pain than I do…I’m the one that has to score it. But I’ll score it again in 2012.
The hitting lesson
Even though I played baseball poorly, playing the game has helped me write about it. Unless you’ve stared up into the sun trying to maneuver under a wind-blown pop fly, you just don’t know how difficult it is. Playing a ball off the fence, being overmatched at the plate or deciding whether to send the runner home has helped me understand what players and coaches go through.
In fact, I still go to the batting cages regularly. I’ve gone to Kevin Seitzer’s hitting facility (Mac-N- Seitz in Martin City) so often, I think I’ve financed one of Kevin cars. So when Kevin suggested I take a hitting lesson, I took him up on it. I’ve played against Kevin in the Men’s Senior League, so he’s seen my swing…and he hates it. (Hey, so do I, but I’ve learned to live with it.) At my age I’m guessing I’m not going to get a lot better before my kids put me in a retirement home, so I suggested my son, Paul, take the hitting lesson. I’d watch and learn.
I don’t know how many major-league hitting coaches offer lessons to the public, but I thought it would be a cool experience for my son and well worth the money. It would also give me a chance to watch Kevin teach. He started by asking Paul to take a few swings so he could see what he was working with.
After a half dozen swings Kevin said, “Paul, where’d you get the good mechanics?” I cleared my throat and pointed to myself, after which Kevin turned back to Paul. “Like, I said, where’d you get the good mechanics?” When Kevin got done dogging me, he went to work on Paul’s swing.
Most of the basics were in place, but Kevin wanted to increase Paul’s ‘load’ (the motion back before the swing starts forward). They also worked on keeping the hand loose and independent of the front shoulder (swinging a bat without jerking your front shoulder open is a lot harder than it looks). Finally they worked on the finish (both hands to the back of the neck).
I asked Kevin how much more complicated the work gets when coaching major league ballplayers like the Royals. What he said was amazing: they work on the exact same stuff. Players’ mechanics don’t go bad in one day: it happens bit by bit. They make a slight, maybe even unnoticeable, adjustment and then another and another. One day they wake up and their swing is so fouled up they don’t know how to get back to where they were. That’s when a hitting coach can be invaluable.
When Mike Moustakas was in the middle of his slump I asked if he was working on something new or trying to get back to where he’d been. He said he was working on getting back to his old swing. Moose took a couple days off and during those two days took about 700 swings, searching for his old stroke. Fans often think players are ‘natural athletes’, but I’ve never met a ‘natural athlete’ who wasn’t working his rear end off.
So Kevin worked with Paul and Paul got better. I stood there and tried to absorb as much as I could. Because you never know…that retirement home might have a softball team.
A word of advice
Kevin would ask Paul to work on something and have him take a few swings. While this was happening, Kevin would watch silently. The hitter needs to concentrate and talking to him splits concentration. Kevin was always encouraging and when Paul would make an adjustment successfully, praised him. In two half-hour lessons Kevin’s teaching method had Paul hitting the ball harder and more consistently.
I’ve been going to the batting cages for two decades and I’ve seen a lot of fathers working with their kids. Too often this amounts to criticizing the kid after every swing. So here’s my hitting lesson: your kid is going to be your kid a long time after he or she quits being a ballplayer. What you teach them about being a good person if far more important than what you teach them about being a good athlete. Be kind, the game is hard. If it wasn’t, you’d be playing instead of harassing a child.
And pay for a damn lesson.
Focus
Ted Williams once asked Mickey Mantle if Mickey was top or bottom-hand dominant. Mantle said he couldn’t hit for two weeks after that. As Yogi Berra once said “I can’t hit and think at the same time.” So after a hitter polishes his mechanics, he’s got to forget them once he steps inside the batter’s box. It’s far too late to try to figure out which hand is dominant.
That’s why you see those practice swings outside the box. Once the hitter steps in, it’s all about relaxing and seeing the baseball. The hitter then reacts, without conscious thought, to what he sees. That’s also why you see those rituals between pitches.
Fans who haven’t played can’t understand why someone needs to adjust their batting gloves between each pitch. The hitter doesn’t really need to adjust his gloves, he needs to adjust his mind and the physical ritual helps. David DeJesus once talked with me about his routine: David would hold the bat up in front of his face, take a breath and a practice cut and step in the same way every time. He was trying to clear his mind of outside thoughts. A routine that he didn’t have to think about would aid that process.
On the other hand, I had a routine (I’d wonder how I was going to make an out this time) and it never really seemed to help.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoExcellent piece.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoThe Polk System is a winner. Success is in the details…especially in the course of 162 game season.
LOVE THIS… I’ve been going to the batting cages for two decades and I’ve seen a lot of fathers working with their kids. Too often this amounts to criticizing the kid after every swing. So here’s my hitting lesson: your kid is going to be your kid a long time after he or she quits being a ballplayer. What you teach them about being a good person if far more important than what you teach them about being a good athlete. Be kind, the game is hard. If it wasn’t, you’d be playing instead of harassing a child.
AMEN.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoJust curious…is there any standard error of measure between players with Polk’s system?
Steven A Hurst
1 year, 4 months agoThis system makes sense to me.
“Advanced Metrics” seems best used in programing a video game.
Max Rieper
1 year, 4 months agoCritics have also complained that the system is subjective (it is, just like balls and strikes).
True, but you’re not an umpire. You are trying to measure something quantitatively, so arbitrarily applying points pretty much throws your entire value system off. You’re inventing values without any idea of whether or not the values reflect what wins games.
Its a nice effort, but I don’t think its of any real benefit other than showing that Chris Getz is a good bunter.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“You’re inventing values without any idea of whether or not the values reflect what wins games.”
I think Coach Polk’s resume show an idea, as does Lee’s background of coaching and managing and years of contact with actual professional baseball players.
Most detractors seize upon the value given for sac bunts as a fatal flaw to the system and use Chris Getz as the poster child for a failed system while probably being unaware of Chris and Esky’s success rate at getting hits from bunts or being aware that that the anointed one who will deliver us from Getzie had a higher per game points average than Getz or Billy Butler. I think two points is too high, but it hardly invalidates the underlying ideas and is a statistically insignificant part of the overall system.
Max, you might consider looking at Lee’s previous column and the comments about some “advanced metrics”. A lot of points were covered, including UZR and OBP, among others.
Scott Matteson
1 year, 4 months agoWhen it was introduced, I thought the Polk system had merit to it and I still do. But I’m glad to see your blog this year differ so much more than in Year 1, and it’s evident from the readers responses.
And, Lee…you were called a moron for a lot of other things other than the Polk system…you may have used that phrase with me once or twice when I was on the mound !
Have a great New Year !
Max Rieper
1 year, 4 months ago“I think Coach Polk’s resume show an idea, as does Lee’s background of coaching and managing and years of contact with actual professional baseball players.”
I respect Coach Polk, but if we are just basing this value system on his opinions, it is just an opinion-based system trying to pose itself as a statistic, which is ridiculous. I would much better appreciate the points Lee and Coach Polk were making if they simply tried to explain why bunting is important rather than trying to invent an arbitrary statistic to try to justify it.
Lee himself admits the whole point of the stat is to show the value of “the little things”. The problem with this is you are already approaching a question with the answer you want. You want to justify the little things - therefore you assign higher values to little things than necessarily warrants. It would be like designing a metric to determine how healthy you are, but since you really like eating donuts, you want to show how healthy it is to eat donuts, so you assign a value of 2 points for every donut you eat, and 3 points for every vegetable you eat. You’re not even asking the fundamental question - are donuts even healthy?
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed the piece. I would’ve responded sooner, but Paul and I just got back from the batting cages. We’re working on the mechanics Kevin showed us and the results are interesting.
I told Paul whether or not this makes him better as a hitter (but it already has…so much for critics who think hitting coaches make no difference) it will make him a better baseball writer.
He now has greater understanding of what hitters and, more specifically Royals hitters, are going through.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoLee does not insist that the system is to show the value of the little things for only the sake of the little things. Rather, it includes an overall value of a performance that includes the little things that win ball games. The system is a holistic value. It permits a game total, series total and season total. It identifies patterns in the short and long term. To a coach, that is more valuable than WAR. What has more value, the HR or the bunt? If it is a game winning squeeze play, the single matters. If it’s a HR with a team down by 6 in the 8th (Pujols), who cares…unless he is on your fantasy team.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoZack: Glad you liked the piece, but you made me look up ‘standard error of measure.’ My hold on the concept is shaky at best, but, as near as I can tell, the ‘standard error of measure’ is me.
I would freely admit that I do not run the system perfectly and some of it is subjective. Categories like ‘outstanding defensive play’ are up to the observer and I had to make up my mind early on as to what constituted such a play.
Someone else scoring the same system would no doubt come up with different totals. This is not math, there isn’t just one answer.
On the positive side: it’s being scored by a person who is recording every play of every game and has access to the players involved.
I wouldn’t take any of these point totals too seriously, but the patterns of play that the system reveals are worthwhile.
I wouldn’t swear on a stack of Bibles that Eric Hosmer made 83 outstanding defensive plays. Maybe it was 73 or 93, but the fact that he put up 166 defensive points in 2011 and Billy Butler put up less than 20 in 2010 gives you a rough idea of their relative worth at first base.
Stephen Coleman
1 year, 4 months agoFirst, I continue to love reading your column and for my own sake, wish it were daily (though that would mean the season is underway and I think many of us would be okay with that). Second, I just got a job as copy editor, and would you mean to use ‘dominant’ instead of dominate in that last paragraph? Not meaning to come across as a snob…been reading too many of our own press sheets to do anyone any good. ;) Love your work, and counting down the days til the Kids of K Kick some tail next year!
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“but the patterns of play that the system reveals are worthwhile.”
This is important. Aggregate or average statistics lose meaning in specific circumstances, while a players’ patterns, his trends, take on greater meaning. Attempting to steal 3rd with one out may be a bad idea on average, but with Ubaldo on the mound and dealing and with the struggling Moose at bat and a .250 hitter on deck, it was the smart play. And Hosmer actually beat the throw:)
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoLee, that’s what I thought, and I fully appreciate that answer. I am a varsity basketball coach. There are certain stats I find more valuable than others. I value steals and forced turnovers. Don’t care about giving up layups. My Stat sheet is tailored to what I best believe contributes to success for my team. There is a threshhold on my stat sheet that when we cross it, we always are successful. I think Polk’s system fits that notion.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoSteven: OK, everbody remember this because I’m about to defend advanced metrics: Advanced metrics have an important place in the game and can reveal a great deal about a player. If I were a GM, I’d want those numbers.
I’ve said this just about every time the subject comes up and I just said it again.
What I’ve objected to is the idea that these statistics are infallible. Systems of measurement have flaws (and that includes the one I’m using). UZR, WAR, range factor and Ron Polk’s system have flaws and that’s why you can’t just look at one number and say that’s it: this is the answer. Yuni’s got a bad UZR rating so he’s a horrible shortstop.
Lots of people are trying to make a contribution into how the game is viewed. My effort is just one of many, but nobody (including me or Ron Polk) would say it’s the only way or even the best way to measure players.
But it is a legitimate way and reveals some interesting things that might have been missed otherwise. Having said that, the results should be taken with a grain of salt.
And I’d say the same thing about advanced metrics.
Max Rieper
1 year, 4 months ago“Maybe it was 73 or 93, but the fact that he put up 166 defensive points in 2011 and Billy Butler put up less than 20 in 2010 gives you a rough idea of their relative worth at first base.”
How does it when we have no context? Is Eric Hosmer eight times better than Billy Butler defensively? Do we know how much time each player spent at first base? Is Hosmer’s 166 defensive plays good relative to the league?
They just seem like numbers with very little meaning behind them.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoStephen (Coleman): OK, now you’ve got me: I can’t find where I used the word ‘dominate’, but if I should’ve used ‘dominant’ I’m going to blame the Star’s copy editors and suggest they look into hiring you.
On the other hand, if I only made one mistake per article, I’d be pleased…and I’m glad you’re enjoying my efforts.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoScott: I’m taking abuse from strangers and now I have to take it from friends? Dude, I know where you live…OK, actually I don’t. but I bet I could find it.
And I’m glad you’re enjoying the website (what the hell’s the difference between a website and a blog?). The whole effort is evolving and will continue to do so.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoMax: I’ve said in every way I can think of that much of Ron Polk’s system is subjective. Of the 42 categories the system tracks, five require the observer to make a judgement. On the other hand, all 42 categories are assigned a point value and once again that’s totally arbitrary. Ron Polk himself said there was nothing sacred about the categories or the points assigned.
If you read the description of the system in the ‘About’ section, you’ll see that it was never intended to compare players league-wide. He wasn’t designing a system to help people pick a second baseman for their fantasy team, he was designing a system that measured contribution to a single team.
He wanted to measure outfielders, infielders, designated hitters and pitchers in a way that allowed him to compare their contribution to his team. It’s called the ‘Most Valuable Player Chart’ for a reason.
But if it doesn’t make sense to you, ignore it. I’ve said that a hundred times…make that 101. At the top of the piece I said I thought people would be interested in how a guy with his background thinks about the game. Many do find it interesting. Many don’t.
What’s the problem?
And, yes, Eric Hosmer is precisely eight time better on defense than Billy Butler.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoLee…you’re a rock star.
Daniel Wesley
1 year, 4 months agoI’m a sabermetric guy, and I’ll readily admit that I like the Polk system, it’s fun - and I don’t mean that in any condescending way. It’s fun in the RBI/Runs/Batting Average way, a traditional counting stat that means something good had to have happened for you to accumulate those numbers.
In my opinion, the flaw is attempting to use the system to evaluate individual players. Just like the RBI is really a team stat and a bad method to judge how productive an individual player really is/was, the Polk system can be abused into tricking yourself that Chris Getz is better than he really is. (I say that thinking Getz is an okay player)
… and just to be fair, without question the newer sabermetric methods of evaluation can and are abused regularly as well.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“Just like the RBI is really a team stat
Daniel, we had a nice discussion on the previous column about how OBP and many other stats are also really team stats. Funny thing about baseball, it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to separate the individual from the team in most instances. Doesn’t make either view completely right or wrong, does suggest that the most understanding can from looking at things from both perspectives.
Greg Tatro
1 year, 4 months ago“Keeping track of walks that score showed the destructive power of a base on balls.”
I’ll second that. Especially since the Royals pitchers have a problem with walks. They like to nibble at the strike zone and end up with lots of walks instead of being aggressive at hitters. Put it this way…I’d be more satisfied if a hitter earned his way on base with a hit (or even accepting a HR if it happened) instead of the pitcher giving the hitter a free pass.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoDaniel: I agree with most of what you’re saying. One of the running themes of this website is that nobody should take any one view too seriously. As Jim consistently points out (and I agree) both points of view are helpful.
I haven’t met a player or a coach who totally dismisses numbers. They might be interested in different numbers than some, but the most common view I’ve heard mirrors Jim’s attitude: you need stats and eyeballs to get anywhere near the truth.
I think the point totals throw some people off (and we considered discarding them, but decided against it). If you think the sacrifice bunt is a stupid move, giving Chris Getz positive points for laying down 14 of them doesn’t make sense.
It all depends on what you value.
What I hope is different and worthwhile about this site is the chance to hear from players and coaches. You may not agree, but this is how they view the game.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoGreg: Make a .300 hitter swing the bat and you get him out 70% of the time. Walk a .210 and hitter and he always gets on base. Seems simple, but so many pitchers still issue walks.
Watch them on a 3-0 count and they’ll drill a fastball down the middle. I always wonder why they didn’t do it before they got to 3-0.
Pitchers give hitters too much credit: like every fastball strike is going to get hammered. In my opinion, that’s part of why the NL is more of a fastball league: pitchers have to go to the plate and realize hitting isn’t that easy.
Dan Quisenbarry told me he became a good pitcher once he decided to let the rest of the team play: trust your stuff, throw a strike and let the defense do its job.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoOK, good story other than my mispelling ‘Quisenberry.’
Gaines Arnold
1 year, 4 months agoLee, I enjoy your column for the access to players, but, being an engineer, I sometimes cringe at the subjectiveness of the observations. However, I realize that it is impossible to take out that aspect of the articles and your analysis of the Polk system. I do enjoy the fact that you qualify your reading of the players abilities by saying that you are not the expert Ron Polk is. It seems that for someone as experienced as Polk, the system is very useful, and, in a way, it is useful when someone with your access uses it also. But, I do take everything I read here with a “grain of salt” because I realize that it is imperfect as the game is imperfect.
I would say one thing. It seems that you take the criticism from stat heads a little too personally. You come off condescending in many of your statements as does Jim. I believe that you have an appreciation for stats, but that you trust the Polk system because you understand it and trust it more than you do simple statistics. It seems that taking both the reasoned and experienced opinion of baseball men and statistical measurment into consideration would be the best course; I realize that you try to do this to some extent. So, in the end I actually admire this site because you try to do both even though you have an obvious bias for the unscientific “eye test”. Just put this down as qualified praise from an acknowledged stathead.
Stephen Coleman
1 year, 4 months agoPS- the dominant/dominate debacle is in the first paragraph of the Ted Williams/Mickey Mantle story at piece’s end…
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“You come off condescending in many of your statements as does Jim.”
Speaking solely for myself, the condescension is more a matter of style than absolute certainty, although I have been involved in my share of discussions on stats and found that condescension runs in both directions.
I use stats, and have for years long before I ever heard of Bill James, and that allows me to see the limitations of some of sabermetrics’ favorite ones, like OBP or UZR, the first heavily contextual, the second bordering on fantasy. UZR was examined at some length in the previous column and I recommend that because of Lee’s good writing and insightful points and the commentary, which will give a better idea of the tone of the community and the approach of many of the people who read and post here.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoZack: If I’m a rock star, where are the groupies?
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoStephen: I’ve written a lot of words in the last two day, sorry. You’re right, I meant dominant. Don’t hurled it against me.
Stephen Coleman
1 year, 4 months agoDidn’t mean to sound as if I was…behind every stellar writer should be an editor or two keeping the writer in the forefront…if I get the chance, I’ll try to help keep you straight! Now if only I can find the stat that says Brayan Pena is as good as I think he is…. :)
Gaines Arnold
1 year, 4 months agoI would say that my point is made in your pose Jim.
Gaines Arnold
1 year, 4 months agoI mean “post”, of course, not “pose”.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoGaines: Thanks and I apologize if at times I’ve come across as condescending. As I said at the beginning of the article, I assumed that baseball fans of all types would be interested in what a coach with Ron Polk’s background thought about the game.
Within days of the site going public I was being attacked by some of the less reasonable ‘statheads.’ Unfortunately, I responded in kind, which is not to my credit. It just seemed ridiculous to me that people who had never played or coached at a serious level would dismiss Ron Polk’s ideas as ‘crap.’
It’s fine to disagree and point out flaws, but the total dismissal of a well-respected baseball man because he had ideas other than those currently in fashion, struck me as ludicrous.
A running theme on the site has been poking fun at myself (nobody deserves it more) and, at times, the people I cover. I extended that to the metric community and they didn’t find the joke funny.
I’ve since decided I have no interest in carrying on a feud which has marginal interest for readers, but I will continue to do my best to bring the players’ and coaches’ view of the game to the public.
(There, that seemed reasonable, didn’t it?)
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoGeez, Stephen, now you’ve got Gaines screwed up. Unfortunately, we pose or post comments and then have no recourse when we’ve made an error.
I can go into my articles and correct a mistake, but I haven’t figured out how to do that with a comment yet.
And, you’re right, Stephen, I should blame my editor.
John Wilson
1 year, 4 months agoLee,
I’m glad to hear you will be following Ron Polk’s system once again. You have mentioned before how all the sports writers write about the big stats and how you what to emphasize the little things and this system does just that.
Spring training can’t get here fast enough for me. Outside of pitching, last year’s team was a real ray of sunshine. The games were fun to watch and the fans noticed. September attendance was up from the previous months. Knowing we have the same crew on the field this year, with the exception of Melky (moment of silence) gives me real hope that we will have something to cheer about come August and September - if only our starting pitching can improve.
And I can’t wait to see what video treats you come up with this season :-)
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJohn: Thank you. I’m looking forward to this season as well. I’ve got no clue what direction the site will take in 2012, but I can tell you Frenchy wants me to play golf with him if I come to spring training.
I suck, so I’d love to bring a camera along and record how that trip comes out. There would have to be a few laughs in there somewhere.
Chuck Smith
1 year, 4 months agoTrue, but you’re not an umpire. You are trying to measure something quantitatively, so arbitrarily applying points pretty much throws your entire value system off. You’re inventing values without any idea of whether or not the values reflect what wins games. Its a nice effort, but I don’t think its of any real benefit other than showing that Chris Getz is a good bunter
Arbitrarily and subjective are two different things. Having different umpires judging balls and strikes on different nights is much more arbitrain.
Lee doing the scoring himself all the time but the subjectiveness is consistant. Not only that, but Lee talks with players & coaches to ensure he gets things correct.
This is a great website, and Lee using the Polk system has taught me a damn site more about baseball than anywhere else i’ve ever seen. Not only that but he has changed my fledging baseball intreste into an avid game watching participation.
Last but not least, when a guru like Ron Polk developes and shares a system, pay attention and test it. Too few leaders share thier knowledge these days, when one does take, be smart enough to take advantage of it.
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoLee Judge: “And, yes, Eric Hosmer is precisely eight time (sic) better on defense than Billy Butler.”
I can’t imagine this being a serious comment, but you’ve proved me wrong before.
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoI don’t think anybody really argues that viewing things through a sabermetric lens exclusively is correct. However, Ron Polk points is not a valid way of looking at baseball ever. Doing so distorts your perception of baseball so that you believe Chris Getz is a good player. Fact: If you have 9 Chris Getz’s, you won’t win many games.
At least the Royals FO is starting to realize this. You have to have good players to realize how valuable they are. Even though hardly anybody really appreciates just how superb Gordon’s 2011 was, it is helping those in charge realize what type of player helps you win.
All you need to know is that the Royals had one player in 2011 that was in the running for the AL MVP (even with being undervalued), and that player didn’t come close to having the most Polk Points.
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoThe point about the MVP shows that even old school analysis of players is better than Polk. Sabermetrics tells us that Gordon was the 7th best offensive player in the AL last year. MVP voting shows that Gordon was something around the 20th most valuable player (don’t remember exactly) in the AL. Polk Points shows that Gordon was barely the second best player on his team. So you can view it however you want, as long as it’s not Polk Points.
I know, I know. Polk Points aren’t for evaluating. Okay, then don’t add them all up for each player. Doing so represents an evaluation. Put them into their separate categories and then rank each player within that category. That way, we can look under Doubles and see how many Gordon had and how many Getz had. And we can ignore “strike out looking” because penalizing someone more for that is so obviously a logical fallacy.
Rick Langtry
1 year, 4 months agoMatt Sossamon of Webb City loves you column and my comments.
Phil Worden
1 year, 4 months agoLee - a very interesting article - and in many respects, an even more interesting set of exchanges in the posts that followed. I particularly love your stories of exchanges with and what you learn from the players, like the hitting lesson with Seitz.
I just finished the end notes of Moneyball last night which discussed how negatively the members of “The Club” first reacted to the book in 2003. Today, for all the blogs and stat-oriented writers I sometimes pursue, it seems as if the “outsiders” now many times have the same manic know-it-all attitude as the members of “The Club”. It seems there should be a middle-ground somewhere…and I personally see your posts as being as close to that proverbial middle-ground as I have found.
Keep up the great work…and I don’t mind the occasional mis-used or misspelled word!
Larry Tindle
1 year, 4 months agoLee: Does any system look at outfield assists and measure whether an infielder was involved. Example, Gordon makes the catch and throws to Esky who relays the ball home to nail a runner at the plate. Gordon gets the assist but Esky gets nothing. Personally under the present system I feel the infielder should also get an assist or maybe they both get a 1/2 credit. If Esky makes a bad throw Gordon gets nothing and Esky may get an error. I personally feel outfielders should only get credit for an assist if the play is a direct throw from the fielder to the base or plate. I guess this helps point out this is a team sport and should be viewed as such.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoChuck: Thank you, glad you’re enjoying the website. In your case it sounds like Ron Polk’s system did exactly what I hoped it would: it started you thinking about the game in new ways.
Once you begin to notice some of the small details, the game becomes more interesting.
A confrontation between a pitcher trying to freeze the runner at second and a hitter trying to move that runner over can be fascinating.
I’m glad this site and Ron Polk’s system increased your enjoyment of baseball.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“Sabermetrics tells us that Gordon was the 7th best offensive player in the AL last year.”
Polk looks at the total game contributions.
“MVP voting shows that Gordon was something around the 20th most valuable player”
And some of the people who finished ahead of him reminds us that the MVP, like the All-Star game, is a popularity contest, not any sort of analytical exercise.
“Fact: If you have 9 Chris Getz’s, you won’t win many games.”
Try winning with 9 Billy’s or Verlanders. As Gio’s daily average was also high, higher than Chris’ as I remember, I would say that many of Getzie’s points come from the position, as do the CF Cabrera, the SS Escobar, and the catchers over the year. That’s because they get lots of chances. LF gets fewer chances and many of the OF’s assists also gave an assist to the cut-off men, Escobar and Getz most of the time. Middle-infielders also turn DP and receive throws on attempted steals.
“And we can ignore “strike out looking” because penalizing someone more for that is so obviously a logical fallacy.”
It wasn’t a fallacy back when I was taught to choke up on the bat, expand the zone, and shorten the swing with two strikes. Swing for the fences early in the count, make contact with two strikes. It’s one thing to swing and miss a good pitch, quite another to think you’ve got a better eye than the ump. As I remember, Billy takes few called third strikes, which is why he has so many long at bats. And he does have a fairly good eye.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoChris: OK, I’ll answer your complaints in order…
1.)Do I really have to start labeling the jokes?
2.)Yes, I believe there are people who think looking at one stat gives you an answer: just look at Yuniesky Betancourt. The ‘worst shortstop in baseball’ label that’s been thrown around so often came from one flawed metric.
3.)Hardly anybody really appreciates Alex Gordon? He was the Royals Player of the Year, won a Gold Glove and had a shot at being on the All-Star team. The Royals realize exactly what a player like Gordon is worth (and may prove it shortly when they sign a new contract), but there aren’t a lot of players like Alex available.
4.)Yes, Alex finished second in Polk’s system in 2011. As I’ve said repeatedly: change the categories, the points awarded or the person scoring and the results will change, too. But Melky Cabrera had a pretty decent year, also.
5.)If total points make you crazy, ignore them. I can’t name a ballplayer who cares about the points and, increasingly, I don’t either. As much as anything, I find them an interesting conversation starter. But every player and coach who has looked at it does care about patterns of play (and so do I). You can accomplish what you’re suggesting by going to the season grid. There, you can compare players within a single category.
5.)Really, you can’t see the difference between striking out looking and striking out swinging? Scott Podsednik could fly and was hitting from the left side. Any dribbler to the right side gave him a good chance (remember his swinging-bunt move?). Yet, Scott took a lot of third strikes which cost him and his team a chance. If you still can’t see the difference, I can introduce you to plenty of players and coaches who do.
Chris, everybody has a right to decide what makes sense to them. As I’ve said over and over, if Ron Polk’s system for measuring player contribution doesn’t make sense to you, ignore it.
But, as I tried to point out in the original post, the system (whether you agree with its point totals or not) has revealed interesting patterns of play: It’s worth knowing that Gregor Blanco is spacing out or Billy Butler is ignoring defensive assignments.
Just ignore the parts that don’t make sense to you and try to enjoy the parts that do.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoRick: I don’t know who Matt Sossaman is, but anybody who loves my column and your comments is OK with me.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoPhil: Thanks very much. When we started the site they told me I could respond as much as little as I liked to readers comments.
I decided to try to respond to everybody and make this a conversation: I now find the comments section to be one of the best things about the site. When they told me I’d have to have a Facebook account to comment I hated the idea, but it’s turned out to be a good thing.
I’ve seen a lot of sites where the comments quickly turn into trading insults. Here, even when people disagree, things remain fairly civil.
And the fact that we don’t always agree and that’s a good thing: it forces us to think about our positions and make our arguments.
And, yes, there ought to be a middle ground: nobody has all the answers and that definitely includes me.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoWow, just noticed the screwed up numbering in my response to Chris. If we’re arguing over numerical values and accuracy, I think he just won.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoLarry: As far as I know, and I just reread that part of the scorebook, an infielder relaying an outfielder’s throw to home plate does get an assist.
But a routine infield play and a spectacular relay from the outfield count the same.
I try to take that into account by scoring an ‘Outstanding Defensive Play’ for an infielder when he relays a successful throw to the plate.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Can I leave you in charge of responses when I go on vacation?
By the way, I looked up Butler’s ‘strikeouts looking’ and he had 14. Gordon had 41. I once asked Alex if he thought he was being too picky with two strikes and, during the course of the answer, realized he had no idea he was leading the team in strikeouts looking.
I decided not to point that out to him. Some hitters don’t want to know that stuff. They don’t want it floating around in their head. Kevin Seitzer has everybody’s offensive game broken down and I figured if he wanted Alex to know that statistic, he’d tell him.
Plus, when you’re going good you don’t want to change a thing. You take the good stuff and live with the bad.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoLee, sure on responses. As you’ve noticed I have plenty of free time.
On strike outs looking, a way to view it is that the average chance of getting a hit on a ground ball in play is about 3 in 10, so Billy’s extra 17 possible contact swings give an extra 5 hits, very roughly, based on BABIP and assuming Billy doesn’t have a swinging strike 3.
I was taught to shorten up and just try to make contact. Worst case you foul balls off and make the pitcher throw more pitches, a benefit later in the game. Long at bats also give following hitters more of a chance to see what the pitcher has got that day, plus increases the chances for a walk, as pitchers get frustrated and overthrow, putting balls in the dirt or to the backstop.
Just as a test, next time you’re spending the grandkids’ college fund on buying Seitzer a new car, try shortening up and intentionally hitting ten consecutive foul ball grounders. It’s easier than you might imagine.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: As for hitting foul ball grounders on purpose, here’s a story you’ll like: Jerry Dipoto, current Angels GM, was pitching for the Indians and faced Wade Boggs for the first time.
Jerry said he lit up the radar gun on the first pitch and Wade took it. No surprise, at that point of Wade’s career he was supposed to be losing bat speed. Jerry figured he’d do the same thing again and threw another heater. Wade took that one also, which was a surprise.
The Indians had a team rule that if you gave up an 0-2 hit you got fined, so Jerry went to his filthiest pitch: a splitter that dove straight down, figuring Boggs takes it and Jerry gets to 1-2 or Wade swings over the top for strike three.
Boggs then does exactly what you’re describing: flicks the ball sideways out of the zone. At that point Jerry’s confused because Boggs took two fastballs down main and half-swung at a pitch out of the zone.
He figures it’s not his problem and tries to waste another pitch. Boggs flicks that out of the zone also. This goes on for pitch after pitch: Jerry can NOT get ball one past Wade Boggs.
He finally says screw it and throws the pitch he intended to get Wade out on: a slider under the hands.
Jerry said, “It was perfect, right where I wanted it. Now, I don’t finish in the greatest position, but the next thing I felt…” Boggs hit a screaming line drive off Jerry’s shin. Jerry’s down, sock torn, bleeding like a stuck pig and he looks over at first and Boggs is standing there laughing.
I asked, “So you’re telling me Boggs has ‘swing’, ‘take’ and ‘too close to take’ in his arsenal?”
Jerry said Boggs was waiting on the slider the entire time and just ruined every two-strike pitch that was too near the zone.
Now that’s bat control.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoONE MORE TIME: Y’know, I got to thinking about what I said at the top of this post: my goal was to bring the players’ and coaches’ point of view to this website.
There are plenty of sites that offer the metrics viewpoint. Lots of people enjoy them and find their insights helpful. I find many of the statistics available on those sites helpful as well.
But the players and coaches are often ignored to some extent. Beat writers have so much to cover that they can’t dwell on the guy who broke up the double play to keep the inning alive so the next guy could hit a three-run home run. They can’t write three paragraphs on the correct way to apply a tag or who’s supposed to act as the cut-off man on a ball to the wall.
Having no assigned topic, I can.
When I’m talking to a player, I try to avoid getting so locked into my point of view that I’m not listening to what they have to say. In fact, I start a lot of conversations with, “I got nuthin’. What’s up with you?”
Time and time again a player or coach will then tell me great stuff that I never would have heard if I’d already made my mind up about what I needed from the player. (By the way, the player’s hate that. If a media representative has already decided what the story is and then asks the same question six different ways to get the desired response, players feel, as Mitch Maier put it, that the reporter is ‘conniving’ to get an answer.)
I’ve learned a lot by assuming that the people who have played and coached this game all their lives have something to teach me and that was the point of using Ron Polk’s system in the first place…it’s a coach’s point of view.
You don’t have to agree with it and something else may make more sense to you, but listening to players and coaches has never seemed like a waste of time to me. If I keep my ears open, I always learn something.
Gaines Arnold
1 year, 4 months agoI think the swinging versus the looking third strike argument is nullified by the fact that a single is worth more runs than a walk. By this I mean that anytime a player is swinging there is a greater chance of a run than when a player does not swing.
Lee, I appreciate the way you are answering everyone and that you maintain the civility ofthe site. reading other sites may do more to sate my sabermetric hunger, but, often, those sites are vitriolic. I may not appreciate the Polk system as much as you do, but I enjoy the banter in the comments section.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoThat’s insane!
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoLee, I’m sorry. I cannot ignore the problems with your system. You publish them on an oft-visited website and it appears that your supporters are ardent supporters, who are probably spreading the word. That’s what makes this a problem. It would be one thing if you were just a random person posting on the internet, but you do it on the Star’s website, and that in itself gives you credibility. And when someone challenges your method, you simply double down to “many players and coaches agree with me.” That’s fine, but that’s also why we’re seeing the game change. GMs started changing because of the tenets of Moneyball (which, to be clear, is not that OBP rules everything else, but finding the market inefficiency is). Managers are now starting to change a little as well - it’s tough because you prefer managers to have major league experience, and most former players haven’t been spending their time studying the game in a completely different way. Just ask Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver. But if you want to cite managers, I’ll throw Earl Weaver in there. He’s probably my ideal manager because he managed based on his personnel, but there were some things he never compromised-like giving up outs.
Anyway, I’ll try to address some of your comments (props to you Jim and Lee, most were very funny). Jim, on MVP voting. It’s not a popularity contest like the All-Star game because it is at least writers voting. Still, there’s understandably a bias. But that only strengthens my point that Alex Gordon’s season was truly great because he finished 21st, when it’s very easily argued that he should have finished in the Top 10. Traditional analysis from biased baseball writers puts him 21st in the league - that’s impressive. Also, Jim and Lee - great response to my 9 Chris Getz’s point. “Gordon can’t pitch either!” Strong point, but I am talking about in a lineup. You can’t win games with players that do the small things. You need talent well above all else.
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoThe strike out looking thing… Okay, again, you doubled down on what your coaches taught you like it means something. My coaches taught me that too, and it’s probably best in little league, but it’s different in the Major Leagues. Not swinging with 2 strikes is a great way to extend an at-bat or to take a walk. When a batter is walked, he reaches base 100% of the time. When a batter swings and makes contact on a pitch, it’s around a 30% chance that he gets on base. This is completely ignoring the fact that swinging at a pitch like this is probably not swinging at “your pitch.” Making contact with a pitch out of the zone is going to be tough, and if it is put in play, it’s going to bring that chance of getting on base down from 30%. Therefore, ideally, you want a hitter with a good eye who can take pitches with 2 strikes and still help his team. Gordon does that because he has the ability to do so. Sometimes he strikes out, usually rightfully, although sometimes it’s a bad call. This can give his team a better chance if executed correctly. Obviously, different situations call for different methods, but that would take a novel.
Yuniesky’s label as “worst shortstop in league” came from 1 flawed metric? News to me. I’m pretty sure that came about because of just about every metric because of his dreadful 2009 season. .245/.271/.351! And it’s not like UZR was alone in condemning his defense. Of course, his work ethic has been called into question before, but not since 2009. Until the 2011 Playoffs when he lollygagged on a groundball through the middle.
You say Gordon was adequately recognized, partly because he almost made the All-Star team and won a Gold Glove. Here’s the problem with that… he didn’t make the All-Star team because he wasn’t chosen by Ron Washington. But forget the All-Star Game. It’s ridiculous; we know that. He won a Gold Glove. Well, he shouldn’t have. He got recognized for a part of his game that was good, possibly great, but not the best. Anybody outside of Kansas City would probably tell your Brett Gardner was easily the best LF in 2011. Not too difficult considering his ability to catch almost everything hit his way. And a bunch of outfield assists don’t change that. Gordon still wasn’t recognized for his offense, and that’s the problem. The only thing I will give you is that the Gold Glove has become an offensive award in part, and that Gordon was recognized in that way - but that’s a tough argument based on how well he actually did play defense.
Okay, that’s it. All in vain anyway. Little league and college coaches know more than MLB front offices apparently. And yes, I know your anecdote about a Royals FO guy - but FOs on the whole are thinking much differently now because their goal is to win, not romanticize players that are gritty and can do many insignificant things well.
Chris Hawkins
1 year, 4 months agoGaines Arnold: You’re right that a single is worth more runs than a walk, but you’re misunderstanding the point that walks can never be an out, but contact in play usually is.
By the way, how did you know a single is worth more runs than a walk? Can you tell me how much more? Please let me know if Ron Polk knows more about this than Tom Tango.
zack_delmont
1 year, 4 months agoIt’s only an evaluation system. Look at the title of the post…it works for Lee. I’m certain he will be thrilled that he has so much influence with MLB. Every evaluation system, even beyond baseball, has shortcomings. You’ve pointed them out. Great. Lee for President. I’m your groupie.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“My coaches taught me that too, and it’s probably best in little league, but it’s different in the Major Leagues.”
Chris, great posts even if I disagree with some things.
On wasting a pitcher’s pitch, Billy is quite good at that, as is Getzie, both near the top in 8+ pitch at-bats. That doesn’t mean they are hacking wildly at out-of-the-zone pitches, that means they are able to waste nasty stuff within the zone and on the edges that is too close to take with certainty. When facing a pitcher who is dealing and unlikely to give you a pitch you can do something with, hanging tough and wasting pitches til the pitcher gets frustrated and makes a mistake or gives you a walk is the good approach, much better than taking a borderline fourth pitch and walking back to the dugout grumbling about the ump.
“Little league and college coaches know more than MLB front offices apparently.”
The fact that Getz was starter last year and Yuni was signed as a UIF does suggest that the FO and Ned Yost take a similar view as Coach Polk. And the Royals’ front office does have access to data that Tom Tango won’t have for awhile, most obvious will be FieldFX, a major upgrade from current defensive metrics, said metrics said by Bill James to Joe Po to be only about 65% valid.
FieldFX should also improve pitching metrics as it will give velocity and vector relative to a defender’s actual position on the field rather than just breaking a ball in play down to grounder, fly, and line-drive. I think the new info will explain why Bruce Chen has been “lucky” the last two years; he’s hard to square-up and he hits his spots.
Good posts. Glad to have the chance to discuss things with you.
Craig Scholes
1 year, 4 months agoI love how swinging strikeouts and a called third strike are worth different points… It rewards people like Yuni who are free swingers by swinging at pitches out of the zone, but punishes the guys who take pitches out of the zone that are called strikes.
Why is their no point for advancing a runner to second, when a single will almost always score a runner from second.
Also its absolutely insane to me that a Wild Pitch and a Walk are worth the same in negative points. If the first pitch of the game is a wild pitch, half of these points are dependent on the play of a players teammates, good evaluations only judge what that player has control of.
Craig Scholes
1 year, 4 months agoAh hell… I didn’t reread that last paragraph
Also its absolutely insane to me that a Wild Pitch and a Walk are worth the same in negative points. A wild pitch without any body on base is just a ball, but a walk will always advance a runner, this system is just to inconsistent and weights the little things on par with the big things, and half of these points are dependent on the play of a players teammates, good evaluations only judge what that player has control of.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoOK, I’ve been working on other stuff and neglected the site most of the afternoon.
To everybody: agree or disagree, I appreciate that everyone is being civil. We started this thing up again in the winter so I could kick off a discussion with a column and then the site could be used as a chat room (kind of) and that appears to be happening. So I’m happy for that.
Obviously, not everybody finds worth in Ron Polk’s system. That’s fine, if something else makes more sense to you, look at that. I’d argue that looking at both could be helpful: even if the points don’t make sense to you (as I keep saying) the system reveals other things worth knowing.
And even if you don’t care to know those things, I’d hope the site has enough other features (insights from players and coaches, stories from the clubhouse, etc.) that you’ll continue to find it of interest.
In fact the only bad thing that came from today’s discussion is finding out that the only groupie I have is Zack Delmont.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“half of these points are dependent on the play of a players teammates, good evaluations only judge what that player has control of.”
The crux is, what things do a player have control of? We looked at UZR the other day and I have pointed out the variables in OBP that make it less than an independent statistic. We have discussed bsr in earlier days, noting that the guys in the foul line boxes on the field have a great deal to do with runners trying to take an extra base. In the last column we looked at the “independence” of outfield assists and UZR and the dependence of both on other players.
My favorite stat for comparing among league offensive players is aSLG, adjusted slugging percentage resulting from total bases plus walks plus HBP plus net steals divided by PA. When I first tried it, before the ASB, Frenchy had .512, Alex .509, Butler .508, Melky .504, Hoz .483. Prince Fielder was .651, Jose Bautista .918. Seemed reasonable at the time.
A second stat I use within the team is RSD, runs scored and driven in; runs plus rbi’s divided by PA. No, neither is sanctioned by Tom Tango nor based on studies dating back to the dawn of cricket, but seem to yield usable evaluations of individual contributions.
We’re all into stats in our individual ways, but some of us weight eyeballs heavier than others and in my case, I’m more concerned with trends and ranges than with history that can’t factor in Alex or Billy changing approach and swing and moving ahead of Hoz in the order or Melky and Frenchy losing weight and changing approach or Bruce Chen completely reinventing himself as a pitcher, making irrelevant his history as a power pitcher who got injured and became a completely different pitcher.
Jeff Frost
1 year, 4 months agoI think Polk’s system is great. The key point it IS subjective and DOESN’T play favorites! It would be interesting to put this system in place for the 1985 or 1977 Royals. I’m guessing you’d see that their best player(s)- the Bretts, McRaes, Cowens (1977), White on offense were doing all the little things. Did you EVER see Brett or McRae not hustle or break something up? Freddie sacrificing? Leo and Splitt throwing strikes? How many 12 pitch innings did Splitt and Gura have- tons! Go to 1985 and you have the same thing- Brett doing EVERYTHING to win. Sheridan, Motley, and Sundberg doing all the things that earned a lot of points. Sundberg would be huge in this system. The staff- Quiz, Sabes, Black, Liebrandt- ALWAYS throw strikes. Tons of 12 pitch innings. The bottom line is they did what it took to win. 1977- 102 wins, 1985, even though no super star other than Brett, a World Championship. A good lesson for Eiland and Yost to our young pitchers- and even Hoch and Soria this year, 12 pitch innings! They have to throw strikes and trust an amazing defense. Hell, I’d lob it up there and let Escobar or Hos eat it up! Moose is getting much better at D and the outfield is amazing and Cain is an upgrade. Salvador will be the best catcher ever for the Royals. Bottom line and Polk’s system will say this- THROW STRIKES GUYS!!!! That is how 1976-1978, 1980, 1984-1985 won! Doing all the little things- Ron Polks system! Thanks again Lee! You always our the best!
Craig Scholes
1 year, 4 months agoNot in theory… But the point values are way off. I don’t have a problem making judgements on what is perceived to be a “mental error” and such things, but I do have a massive problem with the point values.
A HR is only worth twice as many points as a sac bunt… Say that out loud, does that really make since at all?
When was the last time this scoring system was updated? Because like it or not the collective knowledge of baseball is far different than it was even 10 years ago, but this system doesn’t seem to reflect it.
There also is some inconsistencies in the justification of the system but thats a whole other argument.
Matthew LaMar
1 year, 4 months agoLee,
I enjoy your site and the insights offered into the things often not talked about in baseball. These illuminations are often fascinating, and when not, are explanatory.
I also admire your quest to understand baseball more and more. Despite this, and despite your position that stat-inclined people are close-minded, I think you are less open minded than you believe you are.
Lee, I think your writing would greatly improve if you honestly considered statistics rather than dismissing it as you have done. You have mainly received criticisms (in my opinion) not because your blog does not include advanced statistics, but because your blog is condescending towards those who use statistics. You don’t have to write statistically (it is more interesting to me if you don’t), but try not to be insulting.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJeff: I’m glad you’re enjoying the site and I imagine some of the players from the past would do very well in Ron Polk’s system.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoCraig: Like I’ve been saying all day, if the point values seem off to you, feel free to ignore them.
Ron Polk said there was nothing sacred about the categories or points awarded. People could make up their own system that reflects the things they care about and what they’re worth to them. Heck, they could even start a website that shows those totals and argue their case.
This stuff isn’t written in stone, it’s merely another way to look at the game. Lots of readers have focused on the points and whether they find them accurate. As I’ve already said, the real value of the system is what it reveals about the way people play the game, not how many points they pile up.
And, yes, we’ve slightly updated the system each season. Ron said that when he created the system pitchers threw more complete games, whuch is why you see all those categories.
We added ‘quality start’ (another stat some people hate) to reflect the way pitchers are now used and I’ve been trying get ‘holds’ added to the system for the past year and a half. (Apparently our IT guys have bigger fish to fry.)
Bob Wilson
1 year, 4 months agoLee - love the column and the comments; keep it up. Note to Jim - a tweaking of your RSD stat - runs scored plus RBIs minus HR. Baseball Digest used to show a stat they called runs produced; HR need to be subtracted so they don’t count twice.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months ago“But the point values are way off.”
Some may be. I’ve disagreed with the sac bunt, thinking a single point might be better so as to avoid fractions. But again, that is a statistically insignificant part of Coach Polk’s system, so hardly a deal breaker.
As for condescension, the sabermetricians should drop by Royals Review and mention either Lee or me. Most of the other sites I visit are “nerd” sites and this place is a church lady’s tea party, without the cookies, in comparison to some. One thing Lee does well is douse the competitive fires flung from both camps, the old hot stovers like me and the young folks who grew up in a stat oriented approach to the game, and keeps things calm and respectful, which gives us all the chance to discuss and learn from each other, which makes us better, I think, fans of the Royals.
Keep reading and posting and discussing, I think you’ll find some value here.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoMatthew: I’m glad that you’re enjoying aspects of the site, but I really don’t think I’ve dismissed statistics.
If you read through the posted comments above, you’ll see me say over and over again that numbers have merit and advanced metrics have value. I just don’t think they’re the complete answer when analyzing players.
There are plenty of sites devoted to metrics. I’m hoping to offer something different.
As for being condescending, I’m sorry if you see me that way. I do believe it’s only logical that players and coaches who have spent their lives in baseball are going to know more than people who haven’t.
And I definitely count myself as someone who hasn’t. Baseball is a hobby with me and I’d be stunned if Dayton Moore didn’t know more about GM issues than a hobbyist with incomplete information.
Same goes for Ned Yost, Kevin Seitzer, Doug Sisson…well, you get the idea. I’m sorry if that seems condescending, but remember, I put myself in the ranks of people who know less than the professionals.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoBob: Welcome to the site and I’m glad you’re enjoying the columns and the comments. I think today’s back and forth has been especially good.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Thank you for your kind comments (even if I don’t serve cookies).
Aaron Stilley
1 year, 4 months agoWhere would one find past Judging the Royals posts? I can’t find any other than the most recent one on the front page.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoAaron, click on “Your Views” up at the top right, under the “s” in Royals. That will take you to selected comments from previous blogs, then click on the “Recent comments from game “X” blue line. That will show the whole blog and all comments. Not sure how to get to previous off-season posts.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoAaron: When the IT guys built this website it was set-up so I’d have to enter a game to create a new page. Nobody anticipated me writing in the off-season. (Yup, we’re geniuses.)
Once we decided to post columns during the winter, they had to alter the site to allow posts without creating games.
Unfortunately, the public currently can’t see previous off-season posts and, for some reason, even the ‘By game’ material from 2011 is now gone.
I’ll ask the IT department to make everything visible to the public: off-season posts and material from 2011 and 2010. They’ve had several big projects thrown at them (it’s two guys) and fixing this hasn’t made it to the top of the list.
In the meantime, Jim is right, you can at least see game notes and comments by going through the ‘Your views’ section. (Jim, if I was even making minimum wage on this thing, I’d put you on retainer.)
By the way: HAPPY NEW YEAR!
May 2012 see peace in the Middle East, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans and mutual tolerance between sabermetricians and the ‘eyeball’ guys.
Oh, and as long as I’m at it: the Royals in the playoffs.
First, Happy New Year
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoFirst post of 2012 and I screw it up. So THAT’S how it’s going to be?
Clinton Thomas
1 year, 4 months agoGood piece, but you hit on one of my top pet peeves. In your paragraph about Williams and Mantle, you used the word “dominate” when you meant “dominant”. Dominate is a verb. Dominant is an adjective. Unfortunately, it’s one of those things you have to catch yourself, because spellcheck or grammar check won’t notice.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoClinton: You’re the second reader to notice that (see comments above) and you’re both right: clearly I meant “dominant”.
Brian Barnett
1 year, 4 months agoWhile I love the articles about each game I just cannot get behind any system that wants to give a player more points for a sac fly RBI than an RBI single. I could not take anyone seriously that honestly believes the sac fly is more valuable or an indication of a better player. I would even go so far as to say that the player with the RBI single is a better team player because he’s giving his team a better chance to score even more runs.
All in all though, this really is one of my favorite sites on the Royals. I just have to learn to ignore the Polk system :)
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoBrian: Try looking at it like this: (By the way, I don’t think this argument is going to sway you, but here goes): A home run is worth more than a single, but would you think a player who constantly swings for the fences is a team player?
Or would you rather have a player who gave the team an at-bat appropriate to the situation?
In 2011 the Royals came to the plate with a runner on third and less than 2 outs 308 times. Even though their team batting average was .275, the Royals drove in that run from third with less than two outs .578 percent of the time. They succeeded in getting the run home so often partially because of productive outs.
If the run mattered, would you want a hitter playing the .275 odds or the .578 odds? And they were even better if the infield was in: in that situation they were able to drive in runner from third with less than two outs .823 percent of the time.
So again: would you want a hitter trying to get a hit and succeeding 27% of the time or trying to get a hit, but making sure he hit the ball in the air while doing so, and succeeding 82% of the time.
As I’ve mentioned before, I probably wouldn’t have set the points up exactly the way Ron Polk did, but I’ve got enough respect for his background to not mess too much with what he created.
The sacrifice points are the ones that make everybody crazy, but I think I get what he was doing: trying to reward team play.
If you compare the RBI single and RBI sac fly in isolation, clearly you’d rather have the RBI single. But lots of players make selfish, unproductive outs while trying to get a base hit. I can see why Ron wanted to reward a guy who put the team first and had a good situational at-bat.
A player who does that can influence other players to do the same thing: quit trying to be the hero and put the team first. Down the road, maybe the sac fly RBI IS worth more than the RBI single.
I’m guessing you’re still not convinced and that’s OK. I don’t think there’s one ‘right’ way to look at the game. Everybody’s free to focus on what makes sense to them.
I’d suggest that everyone who feels like you do take the same reasonable attitude: enjoy what you can and ignore the parts that don’t make sense to you.
Scott Matteson
1 year, 4 months agoI just figured taking crap from friends was easier than from strangers ! On the other hand, I’ve enjoyed this website/blog since day 1 and was excited by the imrovements made in Year 2. Se what advanced planning can do ? Especially love the videos…I was a much better third base coach this year based on what I learned. Keep up the good work and don’t let anyone sway you otherwise. While I see a flaw or two in Polk’s sytem, history says it works, so I’ll let it lie there
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoScott: Thanks, I haven’t been in the coach’s box sent Eddie Rodriguez made those videos for us, but I had the same thought: I’d be a better coach after listening to him.
One guy told me he watched the videos and after seeing how complicated it was, would never boo a third-base coach again.
As for Ron Polk’s system: it’s doing what I hoped it would. It’s not perfect, but it’s started some interesting conversations and forced me to pay attention to events I might’ve missed otherwise.
Dave Beal
1 year, 4 months agoOh my goodness I am so glad I found this. Will definitely be a new groupie :)
There is so much more to baseball than the statistical metrics. They have their uses, but I will take the coaches and players perspective any day over some zealous stat head telling me with absolute certainty that they know best. I can’t wait to keep up with your posts, all of you. Lee thanks for putting so much effort into something that you are not being overly financially rewarded for, yet is obviously a passion for better understanding. Same could be said for Jim’s contributions.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoDave: First, let me get over my disappointment that all my groupies are men.
And second, let me say thanks.
I do think the metrics community has added a great deal to how the game is viewed. Frank White once told me, that when he played, nobody thought too much about walks, you were up there to hit. Analyzing numbers helped change the way we think about the base on balls.
I’d like to think that what I’m attempting to do will add something to the game also. It’s a chance to hear what coaches (including Ron Polk) and players have to say about baseball.
I really don’t think there’s a ‘right’ way to view the game: each point of view adds something. Insisting that everyone see the sport the way the same way would reduce the flow of information provided by various observers…plus, that would we have to argue about?
And you’re right, Jim Fetterolf is worth his weight in fungo bats.
Larry Tindle
1 year, 4 months agoLee: I’m in Phoenix as I write this. Nice town but not the same when spring training is not going on. Envy you getting to come down this year. I have already schedule my trip for next year. Somehow my wife thinks we need to do something else this year. Really looking forward to your reports from here.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoLee, my wife will trade me for two fungo bats and autographed pictures of Luke and Aaron. She thinks they’re purty.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoLarry: Enjoy it while you can, it’s a bit nippy in KC right now.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: At least your wife wants something in return. I think mine is happy just to have me out of the house.
Kurt Vancil
1 year, 4 months agoI can’t believe I just read this entire post and all of the comments - i’m sure there were many other productive ways to spend my time (jokes, just jokes).
Lee - When I first started reading this site many things drove me crazy (specifically what I considered to be too much love for Getzie) and I thought the Polk system was flawed for many of the reasons already posted. I kept coming back though because of the different insights you were able to give from the players.
After a while I started to ignore the Polk system because baseball cannot be “systemized” perfectly. Advanced stats can’t do it, traditional stats can’t do it and the Polk system can’t do it. Baseball is too complicated - I think that is why I like it so much (and why some people can’t stand it). So I stopped paying attention to it and just focused on the players and coaches insights that went beyond stats because that is what helped me focus on different parts of the game. The debates between “statheads” and “Lee’s groupies” will never end - because people have already made up their minds about what is important and what should be focused on.
Also, I don’t think you are condescending because you actually respond to the people who make comments and try to understand their perspective. I think every person who said you were condescending were being condescending by saying so (hope that made sense).
Looking forward to the Royals success in 2012!
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoKurt: Thanks for hanging in there and looking for the parts of this website that made it interesting for you.
I totally agree: there’s not one perfect system for analyzing the game, including the one I’m using.
It’s just one more view that may help some people enjoy the sport in a new way. For others, the system seems inaccurate and irritating. To each their own.
This website took a while to develop and I’ve taken a while to figure out how best to use it, but it does seem like a great chance to hear from the players and coaches about the small details of the game that often get overlooked.
I’m glad to have you on board.
Andy Zibuck
1 year, 4 months agoWhere can I find archives of Judging the Royals? Namely the (apparently) last one before this one. I enjoyed this post and would like to do something similar for the youth team I coach. Would have to be many less and perhaps different categories, but I like the concept. I’m down with modern stats, but also still play in a senior league and also coach, so completely get it.
Chris Campbell
1 year, 4 months agoGreat piece Lee.
A lot of the people that hate the Polk system are probably stat nerds that don’t really know much (if anything at all) about baseball.
You see the same thing in corporate America these days with people in management. They all trot around with their MBAs thinking that statistics tell them everything they need to know, and base their decisions solely off of the beans that they’re counting.
It’s no small wonder corporate America is getting killed in the global economy, but that’s an arguement for another day. The point is that judging ANYTHING, not just baseball, off of statics alone is sheer folly. In doing so you’re missing half of the information that’s available to you.
Statistics are definitely a powerful tool, but they’re not the ONLY tool. Ron Polk knows that, and thankfully so do you.
I can’t wait for next season. It’s been a LONG time since I could say that and truly mean it.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoAndy: Unfortunately, the only way to see the 2011 archives at this point is go to “Your views” and click on the number that shows how many comments were generated. That will take you to each game and you’ll be able to see the original posts and comments.
We’re intending to fix this before the season gets started.
As for the system I’m using: there’s nothing sacred about the categories or points awarded. Lots of teams use some version of this and add or delete categories.
Think about what’s important to you, what you’d like to encourage and what you’d like to discourage, but remember: someone will have to score it. Make the number of categories manageable for their sake.
And thanks for checking in.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoChris: Let me defend ‘stat-nerds’ for a moment: lots of them know a great deal about baseball and keeping track of numbers is a good thing.
Kevin Seitzer keeps track of bunt situations, for example, because otherwise memory can play tricks on you. Something dramatic will stick with you, something more mundane will fade away. It’s good to record what actually happened over the course of a season.
In fact, all players and coaches to some degree are stat-nerds. They’re just interested in different stats. Doug Sisson doesn’t think much of UZR, but is intensely interested in how long it take a pitcher to deliver a ball to home plate. Shoot, I’m counting how often someone goes first to third.
I think the mistake that has been made on occasion is thinking stats tell the whole story. And as you point out: a great deal of important information doesn’t show up in any number.
And I’m right there with you: looking forward to 2012.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoI was going to ask for at least one more person to call me condescending so we could reach 100 comments on a single post (a personal best).
But this plea gets us to 100 comments, so you can save those insults for this weekend’s column.
Thanks.
Chris Campbell
1 year, 4 months agoLee,
I’m not saying that stats aren’t an important and powerful tool because they are. What I’m saying is that you’re a fool if you try to base your opinions of how good or bad something is or isn’t purely off of stats. Unfortunately we see people do precisely that whether it’s a baseball fan or a CEO. The same can be said for those that ignore statics and go to the other end of the spectrum.
In short I guess that I’m calling those that are discarding Ron Polk’s system as flawed and useless are fools. There’s a couple of them that have posted right here int eh comments section.
The sad part is that they JUST DON’T GET it, and they’re too dense to realize that they just don’t get it. I’m not saying that they’re stupid or anything like that, but they are TOTALLY missing the point when it comes to Ron Polk’s system. They’re getting too caught up in the numbers that the system is generating. They are apparently incapable of understanding what the system is really trying to tell them.
Yes, the numbers ARE subjective and arbitrary because you’re attempting to measure the inmeasurable. The value one person places on a sac bunt is going to be different than the value the next guy is going to place on a sac bunt.
Playing good defense, taking the extra base, etc. ABSOLUTELY help a baseball team win games, and anyone that fails to understand that and fails to understand why someone like Ron Polk would want a system to help measure those things is a bonehead. I may come off like a jerk for saying that, but that’s how I feel about it.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoChris: Hey, if there’s anything I believe in, it’s people’s right to their opinions.
Obviously, I too believe that there’s something to be learned from Ron Polk created.
I just don’t want to add the negativity (any more than I already have) that too often overwhelms the internet.
I’m just glad you’re getting something out of what I’m trying to do here.
Robert Blakey
1 year, 4 months agoCan’t wait for the season to start. I read your column after every single game. I get the most out of it if I watch or listen the game. It is interesting to see your take compared to Dutton’s or the AP take on the opposing team - which I read every time too.
No system is perfect, but if college and major league coaches find the Polk system worthwhile, I should too.
In the army we always used the phrase “another tool in your belt”. This is what I consider the system to be, another tool to use with the stats.
For me, the points are secondary to the commentary you provide on both the plays in the game, and the players/coaches reactions to them.
Look forward to 2012!