Crashburn Alley

By Bill Petti on Aug 31, 2011

“Howard is having a down-year in BABIP as well. His .297 mark is the second-lowest of his career and is about 30 points below his career average. For pitchers, we usually write this off as a fluke, but BABIP for hitters is different and tends to be representative of skill.”

The year-to-year correlation for batter BABIP is really low, roughly .35, so I might quibble a bit with the above. Just like with pitchers, any variation in BABIP needs to be looked at along with other factors before saying it’s more or less representative of skill.

Just my 2 cents.

By Dave on Aug 31, 2011

It’s a bummer to see. I hope he doesn’t get the boo treatment in the last two-three years of his contract. We Phillies fans can be a fickle bunch from time to time.

Bill, thoughts on the Grantland column?

By Bill Pettti on Aug 31, 2011

Fair point, absolutely.

By bill on Aug 31, 2011

Someone said on WIP today that Howard was the Phillies’ MVP this year. Ugh.

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6910166/father-time-philadelphia-phillies

By Grant on Aug 31, 2011

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6910166/father-time-philadelphia-phillies

Is the Grantland Article. A wonderful doomsday scenario piece about the winningest team in baseball. In the race to be the first to say “I predicted that back in…” Mr. Jazayerli is out to an early lead.

Furthermore I don’t see the fans turning on Howard too quickly. While his power numbers are generally down he still does the two things that make the crowds cheer (HR and RBI) more than any other Phillie, so the average fan will still cheer for him at the games. Especially if he keeps up his trend at swinging at less god-awful-junk out of the zone.

By Spree75 on Aug 31, 2011

I thought this article was very interesting on how the prevalence and easy use of information is changing the game of baseball.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6908844/information-age-changing-way-game-played

To me it signals that a good hitter may have 1-2 historic years of hitting before pitchers and defenses have built up enough at bats to neutralize their prodigous outputs. Truly great hitters should be able say “I don’t have tendancies. I can hit anything you send at me.” But those type of players are few and far between…

I think some of the rookies that are currently demolishing pitching are in for some rude adjustments in a couple years. Is Heywards downward offense all injuries and personal failure or have defenses and pitchers discovered his tendacies to drive down his BAIBP and batting average?

I would hope that the reverse could be true for batters to improve their offense but I think hitters tendacies are easier to predict and take advantage than pitch selection (which is a pitcher/catcher equation) or individual fielding. The most I could see happening is using your own batting data to predict what the next pitch will probably be. Or changing mechanics so that all the data collected is meaningless. Batters are such creatures of habit though that I think the latter would require a special type of hitter to accomplish.

By JB Allen on Aug 31, 2011

Regarding the Grantland article, what is with the canard about Howard not hitting lefties? I get that he hasn’t been that great against them, but to say that he could never hit lefties is really kind of dumb. If Joe Sheehan hadn’t gotten so pissed that the Phillies pantsed the Mets back in the day, would this have ever been an issue?

By bsizzle on Aug 31, 2011

We know the league’s got a book on him, but what adjustments do we want to see Ryan make now though? Especially considering his prodigious opposite field power has seemed to wane.

By Benmoneyog on Aug 31, 2011

Confused on what Howard has to do for people to leave him alone. Hes a guy who drives in runs, hits hr, and strikes out a lot. Thats who he is. Hes not Albert but we all know that. Its a game dominated by pitching now, so that also plays a role as to why you may not going to see this guy hit 50 plus hr. He still has time to develop and make adjustments. There are a lot of basbeball players who got better when they got older or were at least very productive. The guy nobody talks about who is on the decline is utley which also contributes to Howard struggles.

By Curtwill on Aug 31, 2011

This is an great article. You make interesting points, what I don’t understand that short of an emphasis of opposite field hitting, and less pulling, I don’t know what he would have to do to stem this decline if he is declining.

I don’t see this as a decline of skills(i.e. bat speed declining) though. I don’t think he’ll be that 45HR/140 RBI, 950+ OBP, 140 OPS+, 135+ wRC, kind of player anymore, but I can deal with 30/115-120, 820+ OBP, 120 OBS+, 115-120 wRC, hitting from him.

As for his baserunning, it is what it is. He will never be a great baserunner, why expect it from him? As for his fielding, that too, even though he has tried to improve in that area. I know the big issue is the concract, and as a fan of his, I can admit that he is overpaid, but there are a lot of overpaid players in the league. Not to mention, arbitration is why he is getting this money in the first place, meaning that they gave him this so that he wouldn’t test the free agency market. According to Fangraphs, Ryan is “worth” 5-6 Mil, according to his WAR vale. Does anyone think that even this season of “decline” that he is worth only 5-6 mil?

By Curtwill on Aug 31, 2011

@Benmoneyog

Because even though Chase’s BA and HR and RBIs are on decline, his WAR value(It is almost 4 according to Fangraphs) and overall sabermetrics are high. He’s over 130 in wRC and his OBS+ is 122 not to mention, he picks it very well at 2nd Base(though his arm can be shaky at times), therefore, he is actually having a great year if looked at from that aspect.

By Curtwill on Aug 31, 2011

@Bill Baer….

But see, I don’t like that(And Howard “drives in runs” only as a function of the hitters in front of him.). Yeah, they(The Phillies) have great and intelligent baserunners, but Ryan drives in runs because as this has been debated over and over again, he’s very good with RISP and yes, we know he gets a lot of opportunies as all #4s does.

It goes hand and hand, you can’t just give ALL of the cred to those in front of him and he is a clean-up hitting, driving in runs is part of the job description, note I said part of, I do know he should be creating runs better. We all know his flaws, but most fans appreciate what he brings to the table, I don’t understand the continued debate on this.

By Benmoneyog on Aug 31, 2011

I admit the guy stikes out and doesn’t hit the ball the other way more than I would like but how is Utley not on the decline? He is not driving the ball like he use to which has led to a dip in average and power. You can say injuries but Howard still has dealt with his ankle not being 100 percent. Also I get you need runners on base to drive in runs but you still have to hit the ball when the runners are on base and in scoring position which is what Howard does and somebody like Jayson werth struggles with. All I am saying is Howard deserves more credit than he gets something the majority of philly sports writers even say about the fans.

By Curtwill on Aug 31, 2011

^^^So then let’s trade for them and see what they can do in the clean-up spot for the Phillies…

By Benmoneyog on Aug 31, 2011

@ Curtwill

Yea Chase’s defense is fine but honestly Sabermetric stats like War I dont even bother with and here is why. People have different opinions on how to gage War. One site will calculate it one way and another site calculates it their way. When I look at the number 3 hitter in a lineup im expecting to see quality power numbers. Leadoff type hitters are what I want high on base percentage for. If you guys are trying to tell me the utley these past seasons is just as good as the utley of 2006-2009 then I don’t see it.

By Benmoneyog on Aug 31, 2011

Chase missed games in the past and still came back and was productive. Ill just go with you guys like Utley and expect more from Howard.

By Benmoneyog on Aug 31, 2011

My consistency is I look at the numbers like average, hr’s, rbi’s and what I expect from each player based on where they hit in the batting order. I do not hate Utley and love Howard. Im just going by where they hit in the order and what they are doing this year. Thats all we can do. For example if howard had 40 hr and 60 rbis at this point to me thats not what Im looking for from my number 4 hitter because it tells me hes coming up short with runners on base. You can say my approach is old school but thats how I feel and seeing Utleys numbers are not something I classify as good for a number 3 hitter. They are the numbers I would expect from a number two hitter.

By Richard on Aug 31, 2011

Bill, while I agree with much of what you write here, it nevertheless does come off as piling on.

First, this is strange: “the narrative has been that Howard is having another typically great season.”

Where is this narrative? While I’m sure some believe that to be true, the fact is Howard is constantly the subject of articles explaining how bad or overrated he is. Granted, those articles get lots of dumb comments, but seriously, the overriding narrative is not, this season, that he’s having another great one. (Frankly, I see more of a narrative that Utley is in decline.)

Second, at this point, why even talk about his contract? I think there’s no question he’ll never justify it in a WAR sense. It’s clearly an overpay for the amount of production the Phillies will get, even if he maintains his current level. This is pretty obviously true, but I don’t know that it’s worth saying over and over again. In the context of the Phillies, what will matter is if he actually falls off a cliff relative to his current output, which is the main question.

Third, you compare his numbers with his career (and in doing so, of course, decline is very clearly there), but you fail to note that this year is pretty much in line with last year. The main difference is his BABIP, with baserunning and fielding fluctuations.

Finally, I’m glad Spree75 posted the link to that Jayson Stark article about the “information age”, given that the effect such the use of such info has had on Howard is prominently featured. I think it tells us a lot about what has happened to Howard’s game (for one thing, the article notes the big disparity when Howard hits with RISP: there is a big difference; your pointing to BP’s OBI% leaderboard sort of overlooks this, while also ignoring that he is one of the few guys who is consistently in the top 30 on that list; all the other sluggers move in and out of it). It’s not so much that he’s “in decline” as that opposing teams have been able to pitch him much more effectively than they ever would have been able to before. The question, I think, is if that trend can continue, or if we’re at a kind of stasis (meaning, perhaps there’s only so much that can be exploited in that way), where Howard can be productive (if, yes, overpaid), and worth playing going forward.

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

““the narrative has been that Howard is having another typically great season.”

– Every article on philly.com about Howard
– Every radio host in this town

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

“Third, you compare his numbers with his career (and in doing so, of course, decline is very clearly there), but you fail to note that this year is pretty much in line with last year. The main difference is his BABIP, with baserunning and fielding fluctuations.”

He devoted three paragraphs to Howard’s BABIP, while also noting that his wOBA is significantly lower than his previous low.

By Richard on Aug 31, 2011

The point I’m making there is that there is not much if any decline relative to last year. I’m suggesting there’s a plateau. But, hey, maybe not.

As for the narrative, ok, fair enough, I suppose. I don’t listen to Philly radio, other than the games themselves. I hadn’t really noticed “every” philly.com article about Howard was about that, other than the unreadable ones by Conlin. But ok.

By Pete on Aug 31, 2011

@Bill

“Counting stats in general are inherently biased towards players who get a lot of playing time, like Howard.”

True. But isn’t there some truth in a bias towards players who get a lot of playing time, i.e., stay healthy? Do any of the saber stats give an everyday player a bump in value? In other words, do saber stats (other than WAR) ignore the fact that Chase Utley is missing 40-50 games per year with injuries? Chase is clearly the Phillies best player, when he is on the field, but do the saber stats give Howard any credit for being on the field more?

I feel like this may have been covered before, but cannot remember. Sorry if I am asking for a rehash.

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

I listen to Philly radio on a daily basis, which indicates that I must hate myself. It’s kind of a like a car accident, I can’t not look.

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

A plateau is certainly possible, but it seems like that’s the best case scenario right now. Anything worse than a plateau, however, is a bottom-rung first baseman making top-5 money.

By Richard on Aug 31, 2011

I think what the Phillies have to hope for is that Howard remains more or less average, overall. If he’s still at that level, it’ll be ok. Obviously if he craters, we have a problem. Or he’s better able to adapt to the diet of junk he’s going to continue to get.

I wonder what would have happened had the Phillies not extended him when they did. It seems unlikely they would have extended him this year, given what we’ve seen in his play. Yet would they have not pursued him after this season, in an attempt to go after Fielder (for example)?

By jauer on Aug 31, 2011

They probably would have kept Singleton at all costs, which may have forced them to give up Dom Brown, or more second-tier prospects, for Pence.

By Phillie697 on Aug 31, 2011

@Benmoneyog,

I dare you find some players as old as Howard who got BETTER as they aged and didn’t play in the steroid era aka the way Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, and Palmeiro did. Even Joey-Bats’ turn around happened before 32 (in fact it happened in his age 29 season, still before 30). It’s almost impossible for Howard to be nothing more than an average 1B AT BEST going forward. People get old… It’s just a fact of life.

BTW, a player who does nothing but hit HRs in 700 AB, even if he say hits SEVENTY of them, would be batting a .100/.100/.400, an ungodly useless OPS of .500. And if he has some players who get on base in front of him? Avg 2 RBIs a HR would give him 140 RBIs. By your logic, this player would be God, yet he would suck more than Ibanez circa 2011.

By Phillie697 on Aug 31, 2011

@Richard,

If we didn’t extend Howard, RAJ would be licking his chops thinking that he might be able to get Pujols on the cheap given his decline (and by decline for Pujols it means a 5 WAR season… Amazing…) this year. I mean, at this point, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that Pujols might sign for $25 million, or exactly the same amount we will be giving Howard for his 1.3 WAR suckage?

And the worst case scenario is that we re-sign Howard, but not at $25 million a year. Heck, even at $15 million a year it looks pretty good right now, and even THAT is overpaying the man.

By Brad. on Aug 31, 2011

Tonight’s game had a nice illustration of how RBI is an often silly stat. Because the top of the Phillies order did its job (as it so often does this year), there were men on first and third with one out when Howard hit a weak groundball to first. Instead of ending the rally with a giant thud, the Reds screwed up the throw back to first, and Howard was safe, and Shane scored from third. It was the worst possible batting result for the hitter–an inning-ending, rally-killing doubleplay–but because the Reds only got one out instead of two, Howard gets another RBI. Mr. Clutch.

Sorry for the long description, but it seemed like a good concrete illustration of an element of this debate.

By Phillie697 on Aug 31, 2011

About a month ago Fangraph did an article on Howard, and one of the commentors suggested that Howard should bunt to 3rd base every time when he comes up with bases empty, when “the shift” has the most negative impact on Howard. This could be the late-career “improvement” Howard can learn to do! With nobody on base, it’s infinitely better for Howard to go for the almost-guaranteed hit than to try for something better than a single. On top of that, if the defense changes its shift to account for it, he can go back to hitting normal and get a boost in production close to what his production is when there are men on base (which I believe is almost a 100 point OPS difference), which presumably is what his “true” ability is if the shift is neutralized. Either way he wins. Somebody should call and suggest this to him/Charlie/RAJ.

By Phillie697 on Aug 31, 2011

@Brad,

As far as today’s game goes, I’m just glad Charlie seemed to have learned something from that stupid Halladay melt-down start a few weeks ago and took Lee out instead of trying to let him finish the game, even tho there were two outs already. Let’s hope this means Charlie will be better at handling pitchers come playoff time… One can only dream right?

By LTG on Sep 1, 2011

BB,

I’m confused by your claim that Utley is not on the decline. Perhaps some of his skills are not declining (fielding), perhaps some are improving (plate discipline) but his power numbers are in decline. His ISO has gone from ~.230 (05-09) to ~.170 (10-11). I wonder what his wXB/AB looks like because ISO undervalues doubles, but I doubt the difference would bring him over the .200 mark. Further, his power-skills were an important part of his value. Now, despite the decline in power, Utley maintains an all-star caliber WAR because he contributes in other areas (fielding, baserunning, OBP), unlike Howard. Thus, he is still an important member of the starting 8, and you might have meant this when you claimed he is not in decline. But, as a general statement, it looks like it is false to say that Utley is not declining.

By LTG on Sep 1, 2011

Nitpick: The Grantland article claims Ruiz is in decline. Is the evidence for that his regression to the mean from last season? I didn’t know mean regression was a sign of decline.

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

I was waiting for someone to mention the possibility of Howard’s bunting because I assumed he/she would articulate it better than I could, and Phillie697 came through.

By B Dub on Sep 1, 2011

Is there a stat that clearly measures success rate of driving in runs vs. a player’s opportunity to drive in runs? Maybe a ratio or something? I feel like that stat could end a lot of arguments about RBIs in general.

By Tanksfurnutin on Sep 1, 2011

Is there a dead horse around here somewhere. Next post will be titled “Chase Utley the Greatest Player Ever Wanna See Some Saber Numbers.”

By Cutter on Sep 1, 2011

@Bill:

“If you want to use injury as a reason for decline, I can see that, but I’d wait for a full, healthy season from Utley before we start writing him off.”

I’m also waiting to win the lottery. Let’s see which happens first.

I don’t think anyone is writing Utley off. He is still a very good player, but it seems obvious that he has declined from his peak performance numbers.

@Brad:

Yes, your example shows a case where RBIs may be a bit overrated. Yet, you could probably find similar situations to discredit any statistic in baseball.

As for the hand wringing about Howard’s contract, I want everyone to imagine this scenario:

Howard never got the contract extension, and the Phillies win the 2011 World Series. Howard then leaves as a free agent.

You think the fanbase is going to be happy about that?

While the statistics might say its a wise move, the bottom line probably says otherwise.

By LTG on Sep 1, 2011

BB,

1) What is the rate of ISO decline in MLB? Is it similar to Utley’s ISO decline?

2) As you are obviously aware, ISO is a rate not a count, so the loss of time does not affect the information the stat provides. If you mean that he is not playing at full health in those years, then I think you are in denial. He certainly played most of his playing time in the 2010 season at full health (or what counts for full health with Utley), and this year, if the knees have continued to bother him, it is just as likely, if not more, that they will never stop as it is that they will. Injuries are a part of decline, and this is true for Utley as much as it is for Polanco or J-Roll.

Conclusion: Unless Utley’s loss of ISO is less than or equal to the league-wide rate, the reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that it is more likely than not that Utley’s power is declining. (Oh, and I love Utley.)

By Del Ennis on Sep 1, 2011

This article makes a lot of good points, but frankly, I’ve read the exact same thing about 37,000 times since he signed the contract, and I may hang myself if I have to continue to do so every day for the next five years. Pretty much every competitive team has bad contracts – I wonder why Howard has to be everybody’s punching bag.

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

Because he’s on the Phillies.

By Ace on Sep 1, 2011

@Cutter

A la Pat Burrell 2008? People weren’t exactly marching down south Broad with pitchforks when they let Pat go.

By DrPete on Sep 1, 2011

RE: Howard
While agree with your overall picture, I think the decline in his power is a bit overstated. His ISO is still high and on par with the other top NL 1st basemen. ISO is just down for everyone.
The drop in his SLG and wOBA is largely due to his very low BA, which is likely due to the lack of opposite field hits as you noted.
Finally, the shift really does kill his ground ball numbers. Obviously teams won’t stop shifting on Ryan and I wonder how much teams shift Votto/Fielder. I don’t think there is a good way to see that, minus FieldF/X?

By Jay on Sep 1, 2011

I don’t have the resources to update this info, but as of August 16, only 1 player in the ENTIRE National League would have more RBIs than Ryan Howard given the same number of opportunities. For each player, perform the following calculation:
Adjusted RBI = HR + 375*(RBI-HR)/Base Runners. With 375 being the number of BRs Howard had at the time. With this calculation, Only Ryan Braun would have had more RBIs with 99, than the 95 Howard had at the time, and Berkman would have been tied with Howard. Sabermetricians would like you to believe RBIs are not important at all, but I don’t think any of them realize that the team with more RBIs at the end of the game wins more often than the team with the higher OPS+ at the end of the game. Driving in runs is a SKILL that Sabermetricians refuse to meausre, and Ryan Howard is still an ELITE talent in this game.

By B Dub on Sep 1, 2011

I’d like a stat that weights differant RBI situations. Driving in a run with a guy on first and no outs is not the same as a guy on third with no outs. Just counting ducks on a pond doesn’t fully measure opportunities.

RBI is a dumb stat, but it doesn’t mean run production doesn’t exsit as a skill.

By Cutter on Sep 1, 2011

@Ace:

Slightly different cases. Burrell didn’t lead the league in HRs, go to multiple All-Star games, set the club’s single season HR record, or win an MVP award.

@Jay:

Projections like that are tricky.

As for OBI%, I felt it was a bit limiting since it does exclude HRs. Remember, every time a player steps to the plate, he has the chance for at least 1 RBI.

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

Listening to the midday show on 610; they are currently ranking the 2011 Phillies from most valuable to least valuable.

Here is their top 3:

1. Victorino
2. Howard
3. Halladay

The vast majority of Phillies fans doesn’t read Crashburn or Fangraphs. When you have a large percentage of the fanbase that actually thinks Howard has been more valuable than Halladay this year, blog posts like this will (and should) never end.

By Spree75 on Sep 1, 2011

Here’s a couple of stats/spray charts I’d be interested in seeing. I am not conversant with Fangraphs or other sabremetric sites to do this myself so I’m hoping someone could pull up the data.

The article I linked earlier about information overload being used in baseball got me thinking.

1) Teams are using a defensive shift on Ryan Howard because they know that he has a tendancy to hit liners towards the 1st/2nd base side.

2) However, if there are base runners involved (especially if there is a runner at 2nd or 3rd) the defense can’t (or I should say shouldn’t) shift as dramatically.

3) If a non optimal shift is employed when there are runners on base then there should be a greater likelihood of Howard hits towards the 1st and 2nd base side.

4) Sum it all together and you get Ryan Howard = “better” hitter with runners on base = gets RBIs. Since I really don’t think Howard is actually changing his mechanics with runners on base my conclusion would be that he just seems better because the defense is not able to exploit all of his weaknesses.

These are the spray charts that I would like to see.

1) at bats with no-one on base
2) at bats with a runner at first only (I would think a big defense shift could still be used here)
3) at bats with a runner at second or third
4) at bats with a defensive shift employed (SS between 1st and 2nd, 2nd baseman in shallow right filed)
5) at bats with no defensive shift

I would imagine that 3) and 5) look dramatically better than 1), 2), or 4) with the difference being that there would be many more hits between first and second base and into shallow right field.

By Del Ennis on Sep 1, 2011

@ Jauer

Fair enough – I don’t live in Philly so I don’t hear that type of homerism about Howard. I do agree that, at the very least, it might be useful to educate people about the awesomeness that is Halladay (and Lee, and Hamels, and (still) Utley, etc.).

By bill on Sep 1, 2011

To all this saying this is beating a dead horse:

The media that the majority of people in Philadelphia read think Ryan Howard is a great player due to RBI’s and HR’s.

Until that ridiculous notion is dispelled, articles like this need to keep being written.

By mratfink on Sep 1, 2011

@jauer
I’m just astonished that WIP recognizes Victorino as our best everyday player this year. I agree he has probably less valuable than Halladay but Vic has had a fantastic season

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

here is another side of the argument from another blog entry:

http://philliesnation.com/archives/2011/08/howard-approaching-another-30-hr100-rbi-season/

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

Bill,

I promised that I would provide this comment every time you posted something about Howard’s production and refused to recognize his outstanding OPS when there are runners on base.

You seem to think that his increase in OPS with runners on base is either random or attributable to other players. But then you will concede that there is an identifiable reason for the increase in OPS: opponents can no longer apply the shift that makes him less effective when the bases are empty.

Although Howard’s ability to hit better with runners on base is related to a skill set over which he seems to have little control (because he can’t reverse it when bases are empty), that skill set is still valuable in a clean-up hitter. And his base-running skills are less important. No one would ever advocate batting Howard be a lead-off hitter.

Maestrobe

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

I should also credit Spree75 for taking up this fight with me.

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

B Dub, like your comment about another better stat to measure run production. It probably exists, unless hard core saber people just don’t believe run production is a skill (only a function of situation and other offensive metrics).

In general though just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to read a comment board filled with knowledgeable thoughtful comments. Maybe not 100% right, certainly not 100% that I agree with, but such a stark contrast to the comments on philly.com. I have a hard time swallowing that Howard is a below average 1B, or close to it, but this is not the forum to attempt to argue based on gut feel instead of numbers, and I have no numbers to support that.

By Phlogiston on Sep 1, 2011

I’ve also been wanting a better stat than RBI to measure run production. I think Base-Out Wins Added might be it.

By TMC on Sep 1, 2011

somewhat off-topic: did anyone see Marcus Hayes’ column yesterday where he says the Phillies are “2 for 3″ on the Halladay, Howard, and Lee contracts?

Guess which one is the “mistake,” according to Cliff Lee, because he’s too streaky. Howard’s contract is a win because the Phillies have ~190 consecutive sellouts.

I know people here say this is beating a dead horse, and to a certain extent it is: there is plenty of stuff like this written by the sabermetrically inclined online community. But the mainstream media and the majority of fans are pretty demonstrably of the opinion that Howard is an ELITE player. The problem is, he’s probably not even going to ever go to another All-Star game (barring a rash of 1B injuries), and it’s fair to point out that he’s going to be grossly overpaid for the next 5 years, which could limit their ability to improve other areas of need.

By TMC on Sep 1, 2011

Also, a few people in here have written things along the lines of “what do you want him to do?” and “he’s not good at defense or baserunning. You just have to accept it.”

to #1 : well, I guess what a lot of people want him to do is stop swinging at balls in the dirt. That’s reasonable, right? Even Greg Gross said it during one of those on-field interviews when they asked him about lineup protection and Pence: “The only way Ryan is going to get better pitches is if he stops swinging at bad pitches.” I mean, this is within his control, and there’s no reason he shouldn’t be expected to improve, since he gets a gigantic raise next year.

2: It’s probably true he’ll never get better at defense/baserunning, and he’ll probably get worse. That doesn’t seem like a good defense of a huge contract.

By KH on Sep 1, 2011

The two most common themes on this blog seem to be taking a critical look at Howard and talkin about how over-rated he is and praising Utley. Not that Howard isn’t somewhat over-rated and Chase isn’t great but sometimes it seems like over-kill to me. By the way has anyone noticed Chase is going into his usual late season swoon again at the plate? He has been struggling at the plate for weeks it seems like. Regardless, the Phillies are going to need both of them to hit in the play0offs.

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

TMC – I’m right with you until you get to the part about him getting a huge raise next year. So what? More money is not going to make him a better player, you’ve got the cause and effect backward. If he wasn’t trying as hard as possible to be the best player he could for $15MM a year, don’t think another $10MM (and financial independence for life) will make him do it. Not saying he is slacking, I have no idea, just that getting paid more money will have no positive impact on his play.

By Eric on Sep 1, 2011

Rob, I think you missed his point. He wasn’t saying “expected” in the sense of “this is likely to happen.” He was saying “expected” in the sense of “a standard to which someone is held.”

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

OK, even so my expectations of the effort from a $15MM player are the same as a $25MM player. Max effort. Don’t see how the increase in contract is relevant to what we think we’ll see from Howard next year, or what we should expect of him, if you want to differentiate the two.

By Charlie on Sep 1, 2011

I really don’t see the point in continuing to argue about how much Howard will be overpaid. It’s one thing to analyze his statistical decline, but Howard being over paid was pretty much inevitable.

He went on an impressive run that included all kinds of awards and statistical titles while playing on the most successful team in the league. All done in a big market. How was he not going to be overpaid?

The Phillies have the second highest payroll in baseball; the team is not the moneyball A’s or TB Rays. When looked at from a sabermetric perspective I’d bet that all big payroll teams vastly overpay some of their stars. For these teams it’s really just about avoiding the huge failures like a Bay with the Mets (so far) or a Zito (Giants). I don’t see Howard anywhere near that level of overpaid-ness, although maybe the next 3 or 4 seasons will prove me wrong.

By Eric on Sep 1, 2011

In general, people hold those paid more to a higher standard. While it may be aggravating for a $15 mil player to shirk his duty to improve upon his biggest fixable flaw, it is even more egregious if he is paid $25 mil. To most people, anyway.

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

I hear you Eric, just saying when you get into the range of $15-25MM, not sure it makes any difference at that point. I think there’s a certain point where you just expect everything from a player, and the $$ over that limit doesn’t change your expectation (since it’s already as high as possible). In my mind, $15MM is above that limit. That’s how I look at it.

BTW, I don’t know that Ryan Howard’s decline or shortcomings are based on him shirking his duty at all. I have never heard any evidence to that effect. I also don’t know enough about the mechanics of an MLB swing to say it is fixable. More theoretical.

By Jim Z. on Sep 1, 2011

Can someone tell me again why Amaro signed Howard to that ridiculous contract extension again? Wasn’t there some other option, such as allowing him to play out his previous extension and then letting him “test” free agency as a 32-year-old player and then signing him to a smaller, shorter deal if he comes back empty-handed (I have a hard time imagining that any big spending team such as the Yanks or Sox would throw big money at him, especially now that they have Texeria and Gonzalez, respectively)?

By Matty B. on Sep 1, 2011

Here’s where I think the biggest problem lies.

The difference between “run production” and “run creation.”

I realize those words are technically synonyms. Let me explain.

Many casual fans look at a guy like Howard and say, “He hits cleanup. His job is to drive in runs. He is awesome at that. Therefore, he is awesome.”

Now, someone like me who is more stats-oriented would say, “It’s the job of every hitter in the lineup to do what he can to help the team score the most runs.” When measured using any run creation metric out there, one that factors in things like getting on base, base-running, etc., Howard lags behind the competition.

The casual fan doesn’t care much about that stuff. That person only sees a cleanup hitter whose job is to drive in runs, and who does it well.

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

Bill, do you feel the same way about runs scored as a stat as you do about RBIs? Just curious, I’ve seen many people assail the RBI as worthless, but less about Runs scored which seems to be the inverse.

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

Jim Z, in hindsight that would probably have been financially prudent. However, at the time the prevailing wisdom was that Pujols would get $250-300MM, and Howard would be a comparable (not as good clearly) and benefit from that. Was also before the Red Sox traded for AGonz, before the Cubs appeared to be total non factors in every way, and the Mets and Dodgers were bankrupt, so there appeared to be more possible suitors. That being said, it was viewed as an overpay from day 1 I believe, but the landscape was slightly different making it look even worse now.

By LTG on Sep 1, 2011

Anyone else catch the Amaro-in-the-booth moment. Wheeler tried to corner Amaro into praising Michael Martinez, and Amaro tactfully avoided it. What the hell was Wheeler thinking?

By Zach on Sep 1, 2011

RBIs and HRs are a legitimate stat. (I hope half of you don’t stop reading here). They measure results. Sabermetric stats try to determine individual talent, but that stuff is only really useful for lead off hitters (only one time a game is this guaranteed), Pitchers (only as cold blooded as Halladay), and evaluating talent (for the future).

Howard fits well in the phillies line up. He has star power that drives in fans to the ball park. He is proven to produce runs and create tension in pitchers.

I do think Howard may not have 35/120+ seasons in the future due to health, age, weakening line-up, etc. I hope his 25 million per year does not become a clogged artery in the phillies pay roll. But in the MLB, you get payed for past performance…Do you remember WFC??? I think the situation is not as bad as it is presented here and not as good as WIP (POP MEDIA/GIVE ME MONEY).

The Phillies will get younger as the next years progress. Raul will be leaving (hopefully with bling) in a few months, which will make our outfield really young, with Victorino as the vet. Polonco should make it one more year, and I am hoping we can develop, trade, or sign a smart young third baseman.

Its all about the intangibles dudes!

By Rob on Sep 1, 2011

Wow. Zach, I really wish I had stopped reading when you asked me not to.

By TMC on Sep 1, 2011

Rob– I think we pretty much agree. The debate there stems primarily from a poorly written sentence by me.

What I meant to say was this: there is this one camp that seems to believe the contract is irrelevant, Howard is what he is, so why worry about it? My feeling is that it’s totally reasonable to worry about the Phillies giving a gigantic raise to a player who is demonstrably performing worse, and has been for several years. Ideally, if you give a guy a 66% raise, you ought to be paying for improved performance, but the Phillies are doing the exact opposite, barring some kind of miracle turnaround.

I don’t think it’s about effort, however, although clearly there’s some kind of issue with focus at the plate– I’m sure he practices laying off those terrible pitches, works on it with GG, watches video, etc. But once he gets up there, he can’t help himself. Maybe a semi-good analogy would be something like Shaq being so great at everything, but totally helpless on the free throw line, despite the fact that he reportedly went to great lengths to improve there. (ie- he was a great FT shooter in practice).

By TMC on Sep 1, 2011

Zach– I would be very interested in hearing an explanation of your first paragraph, because, to be quite honest, I don’t understand it at all.

By Cutter on Sep 1, 2011

The Phillies have their best ever regular season team. While that is largely based on their pitching, since midseason, their offense has been among the league’s best as well.

And in the middle of it all is Howard batting cleanup, putting up big traditional power numbers (among league leaders in HRs and RBIs).

And yet, saber fans seem to go out of their way to rip the guy or criticize him. For whatever reason, Howard has been made the center of the old stats vs. new debate.

But why?

Is it because his apparent status as an outlier might dent some of the sabermetric theories of value?

Or is it simply due to his contract? There has certainly been a good deal of hand wringing about that.

But have the Phillies shown any indication that his contract is going to hamper them in any way? It didn’t stop them from getting Cliff Lee or Hunter Pence.

Will Howard be overpaid in the last couple of years of the contract? Yes, it’s possible. But I believe that his presence will give the Phillies a better shot at winning the World Series in the next two seasons than they would have without him.

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

Yes, it’s generally more difficult to win a World Series without a man standing on first base when the opponent hits a ground ball.

By B Dub on Sep 1, 2011

I understand RBI is based on a faulty premise, I just feel we are never going to end the RBI debate unless we find a way to measure RBI vs opportunity. My hypothesis is, such a stat would show either static or players that are good in other advanced stats are also good in whatever RBI vs opportunity stat could exist.

Or people will believe whatever they want no matter what the numbers say, because that’s what they do outside of baseball too.

By Matt in NYC on Sep 1, 2011

@Cutter–

Nothing about Howard’s performance “dents some of the sabermetric theories of value.” The reason he is a common target of criticism is:

(1) His apparent value (read–HRs, RBIs, preeminent slugging) is far greater than his actual value (OPS, WAR, wOBA, wRC); and

(2) The contract pays for that apparent value, rather than his actual value.

On the first point, the mistake many make is seeing those RBI and attributing that entirely to some innate ability Ryan Howard has, rather than giving appropriate credit to the abilities of those batting in front of him, most notably the terrific Shane Victorino and Chase Utley.

On the second point, while that contract may not have stopped the Phillies from getting Lee or Pence, it may in the future prohibit them from re-signing players such as Cole Hamels or Shane Victorino, players who are significantly and demonstrably more valuable than Howard, or from bringing in reinforcements as their current stars decline given an increasing lack of farm system depth from which to deal. Every team has a limit.

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

@Matt in NYC…

And here has been my question for every person who have a problem with his contract or don’t think he is overvalued, what then he is/was worth, then?

Because according to Fangraphs, last season and this season, he’s worth 5-6 Million according this “WAR value”. I am sorry, he’s worth more than that if we are talking fair market value. To me, WAR undervalues him in this case. He’s not worth 25 Mil, I didn’t think it when he first signed it, but he’s not a 5 mil or less player like some of you probably think, since people who are his destractors focus on his WAR value.

So what is he worth then? Be honest.

By Matt in NYC on Sep 1, 2011

@Curtwill

IMO I think fair value would be about $10MM or maybe $12MM/year, and I wouldn’t go beyond 3 years or so. B-Ref values him at 2.1 WAR this year and 2.0 last year, and I tend to prefer their WAR over Fangraphs, which I feel puts too much weight on fielding via UZR. (Not that I don’t think fielding is valuable, just that I don’t think it is currently as measurable as hitting and so it needs to be weighted accordingly to account for that.) Add to that that he is most definitely trending in the wrong direction and on the bad side of 30, and assuming $5-$6MM per win, that contract would seem fair to me, as a very back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Do I think that would have gotten a deal done? No, but in that case he walks and you can buy more value on the open market with $25MM than Ryan Howard will provide.

Further, it’s fine if you think WAR undervalues him, but (as Bill referenced way above, from Tom Tango), you need to provide an alternative way to value him that is consistent with how you value all players. You can give him points for being the face of the franchise, holding an MVP, ROY and several club records, or whatever else you’d like, but the important part is to be consistent and apply that to how you value all players. I happen not to think those things are worth much, if anything. After all, Ichiro has those accolades and is very much the face of the Mariners, but running him out there every night still isn’t putting fannies in the seats in Seattle. Only winning does that, and Howard’s contract has a very good chance to have a negative impact on the Phillies’ future win totals.

By Dynon07 on Sep 1, 2011

I think people are overreacting by saying the contract is a horrible failure before he has even played a year on it….

Yeah the statistical trends point to a decline, but there is no guarantee it will be a fact. He should at least be 2 years into the thing before someone writes it off as a failure.

My two cents.

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

Bill,

You will apparently never answer the question about why Howard’s increased OPS with runners on base is not a valuable asset. You answered it last time by saying I wanted to give “extra credit” for the efforts of the hitters in front of him. But, really, all I want to do is give fair credit for an asset that you choose to discount because Howard will only have that opporunity if the players in front of him do something with their opportunities. But that’s the time when Howard’s asset simply comes into play. His teammates don’t make him hit better there– his skill set in that situation does.

Maestrobe

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

I think people are overreacting by saying the contract is a horrible failure before he has even played a year on it….

Yeah the statistical trends point to a decline, but there is no guarantee it will be a fact. He should at least be 2 years into the thing before someone writes it off as a failure.

My two cents.”

This is like saying, “Even though I amputated my own arm yesterday for no reason, you can’t tell me it was a bad decision, because I might win the lottery in 2 or 3 years, and maybe I wouldn’t have won the lottery if i still had both arms.”

If Ryan Howard somehow has a career year at age 35, the contract will still be a failure. Poor decisions sometimes yield good results.

By Cutter on Sep 1, 2011

@ Matt in NYC:

1. There have been articles on this very site that have mentioned that Howard may be an outlier when it comes to statistical analysis due to his performance with runners on base.

2. That of course assumes that the stats you cited are in fact true measure of “value.” There are some very good baseball people who might disagree with you.

Even if I was to agree on that point, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, there are other factors in play (fan loyalty, marketability) that do increase his value to the Phillies.

In the hurry to discredit RBIs due to them being based on faulty logic, I feel some faulty logic has been used in turn.

Maybe it’s foolish to assume that an RBI is all the responsibility of the player. In some cases, it can be more a reflection of the runners ahead of him.

On the other hand, some people seem to be of the opinion that the batter has no part in getting those runs home.

To get those runs home, Ryan Howard had to do something. And based on the RBI totals, he seems to do that something quite often.

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

@Matt in NYC

Good post. My opinion is he is probably worth 15 Mil, but 12 is fine too. His WAR is low, but his WPA is actually very good(In the top 10 of the NL): http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=nl&qual=y&type=3&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

And his WPA/LI is also very good(In the Top 15 of the NL, according to fan graphs) as well as his RE24(12th in NL) and top 15 in REW(Runs Expectancy Wins) and interesting enough, Shane is very high up there in both categories, higher than Ryno believe it or not in pretty much all of them(I mention him because you named him in your first post) and I agree that he should be a big priority in resigning because his WPA, WPA/LI AND his WAR is high. He’s an MVP candidate and should be rewarded for that. It’s great that he is getting MVP publicity.

My whole thing is that this debate go to two extremes, either overvalue or undervalue Ryan. Overrate him or underrate him(yes, I said underrate). He’s no Babe Ruth but he’s not Adam Dunn either. And he’s 31, it’s not like he’s 41, players play in their 30s and do well and even if they decline, the good ones don’t usually decline really fast. It’s not like he is going to be 35-40 HRs, 125-130RBIs, .820(and above) OPS, 120(or above) OPS+, wRC+ of 115 or more, .239 ISO and etc this year and then be 10-15 HRs, 70 RBIs, .750 OBP, 95 OBS+, wRC+ of 75, .150 ISO the next.

People were saying the same stuff about David Ortiz in 2008 and 2009 and he is having a “renaissance” of sorts the last couple of years, especially this year and he is 36 years old. I think Ryan will be fine.

By Matt in NYC on Sep 1, 2011

@Cutter

I would never say that RBI are absolutely worthless as a measure of player valuation, or that WAR, wOBA, and the like are the only true measures of value. What I am comfortable saying is that WAR and wOBA are FAR better measures of a player than RBI, and I think that’s awfully difficult to argue against. So sure, use RBIs if that’s all the info you’ve got, but when you have so much more, why would you? You can navigate by the stars, but why would you when a GPS does it so much better?

As for Howard’s value in terms of fan loyalty and marketability, as I said in my response to @Curtwill, I feel that those have far less value than some would claim. If you disagree, feel free to point out a team that failed to draw fans after letting a star leave but continuing to win, or one that kept drawing fans while finishing in last place with a “face of the franchise” on the field every day.

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

@Bill Baer.

But he STILL has to swing the bat in order to get it done and execute. It’s not all “luck” or just the people in front of him. And it’s not guaranteed that it will get done either.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen hitters fail at “situational” hitting. Especially with RISP. Not driving the ball deep enough to get a sacrifice fly to get the runner home. Then again, baseball is a game of failure so it’s expected but still.

So even though his power #s have declined though not that bad especially with offensive numbers being down period, especially in the NL, he still has enough power to pose THE THREAT ob being able change the game with one swing. In fact, he actually has more HRs with the base empty than with runners on. He has 17 of them so that means 84 RBI with runners on.

Yeah, RBIs are team dependant, most people in here would acknowledge that, but it’s not like if So and So hitter was on the Phillies, and had as many opportunties as Ryan does, he would be able to do and exceed what Ryan does. I think there are hitters who would, but people make it seems like ANYONE who grabs a bat and plays on an MLB team can do it.

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

*87 not 84….

Typo….

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

@Cutter

Precisely: (Maybe it’s foolish to assume that an RBI is all the responsibility of the player. In some cases, it can be more a reflection of the runners ahead of him.

On the other hand, some people seem to be of the opinion that the batter has no part in getting those runs home.)

And what gets me is that when a hitter ISN’T that proficent at it, fans will dread him coming to the plate or bemoan the fact that they aren’t as proficent at it. Runs don’t score themselves, unless people are advocating for Stealing Home or Wild Pitches to prove a point, most of the time, it’s someone getting the bat on the ball either on a Ground out, Sac Fly or any kind of hit, or even a walk to get that run home.

By B Dub on Sep 1, 2011

Thanks fir the link!

By Dynon07 on Sep 1, 2011

Jauer

What you said below makes no sense, that analogy is really bad.

Look I get people think the guy is overpaid, but it’s an over with, done deal. As Phillies fans we just have to deal with it. He could have five good years, he could have five awful years, NO ONE KNOWS. We will really see how “stupid” it is after the amount of Prince Fielder & Pujols contract.

“This is like saying, “Even though I amputated my own arm yesterday for no reason, you can’t tell me it was a bad decision, because I might win the lottery in 2 or 3 years, and maybe I wouldn’t have won the lottery if i still had both arms.”

If Ryan Howard somehow has a career year at age 35, the contract will still be a failure. Poor decisions sometimes yield good results.”

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

@BB

Are you sure about that? (If you put them in the Phillies’ lineup, they would have similar RBI totals.)

Because for one, SLG can contribute to RBI #s but NOT ALWAYS. A double with the bases empty is different than with RISP. And who is to say that their APPROACH would be different if they were in that situation and not to mention their skillset don’t fit doing what Ryan is probably asked to do from the Phillies.

Both of them aren’t even Clean-up hitters as Peralta has only done it once and Joyce only 66 AB at the #4 spot. Maybe they could, but we’ll never ever know.

And not only this, you said that if you gave someone his skillset, they could do what he does, but that’s the point, not everyone does. You can argue how many, but not everyone does and that in of itself makes it valuable.

And you’re saying that what he does is a skill, by saying that it is a skillset. Now we can argue how valuable it is, but it is still a skillset. That’s the point and not EVERYONE can do it. And I am not saying that he is the only one that can do it either. But when I say so and so hitter, I am talking saying that you can put Ichiro or Derek Jeter in the 4 hole and they will do what Ryan does year in and out. Because that’s not their games.

By Jeff G. on Sep 1, 2011

I think the only solution here is to bring Ruben aboard, ask him to trade Howard to the Mariners, see how many RBIs he gets.

By jauer on Sep 1, 2011

its an extreme analogy; reductio ad absurdum.

By Curtwill on Sep 1, 2011

LOLOLOL

@Jeff G.’s statement

By JC on Sep 1, 2011

I may have missed if someone already said this, so forgive me if it’s repetitive. I think Howard’s high RBI totals are helped not only by people getting on in front of him but also because they are such good baserunners (more likely to go from 1st to 3rd) etc.

By Dynon07 on Sep 1, 2011

No one is thoroughly excited they will have five more years to scrutinize Howard and his potentially helpful/harmful effect to the Phillies?

I would think this would be a sabermetric fantasy to the objective observer.

By Matt H on Sep 1, 2011

Bill, sorry to bring this up again (I love to repeat myself), but of course there is value in RBI as a stat (even without the obvious weighting by opportunity, which is a no-brainer). wOBA is a better comprehensive statistic, but there is information in RBI that wOBA doesn’t catch.

Also, you don’t need to refer to “clutchness” to explain a larger diff-in-diff in OBP, SLG, and ISO for Howard than the league average. It is large, stable, and theoretically justified.

Let me check – good. I didn’t bash WAR anywhere in this post. It’ll make it through the spam filter

By paulma2zak on Sep 1, 2011

Could someone explain how runs created are calculated? I’m assuming it’s based on wOBA? And if so, how often do the linear weights change in wOBA? I understand that the average HR is appox. 3.0 times as valuable as a single (or somewhere close), but any chance in today’s depressed run environment it may be a couple points higher? Thanks.

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

@bill

Whatever. I give up. If you can only spew what you’ve been taught, you’re not worth arguing with. Under that theory, a lead off hitter who could only hit singles and steal second and third would be worthless bc he would have no value without someone to bat him in. If players stats get better for an identifiable reason in a high-leverage situation, that’s value, regardless of what you think.

By JC on Sep 1, 2011

@Maestrobe

“If players stats get better for an identifiable reason in a high-leverage situation, that’s value, regardless of what you think.”

- I think the identifiable reason (or, to be totally fair, part of the reason) there, as others have alluded to, is the lack of shift (or such a major shift) that allows the hits to get through. That’s not an intrinsic quality of Howard that suddenly makes him better in those situations. It’s just the removal of the fielder from that spot.

By Matt H on Sep 1, 2011

Bill, I think that Maestrobe is talking about the diff-in-diff. Which obviously nets out what “everyone has”. Maestrobe, sorry if I’m misrepresenting your stance.

By Matt H on Sep 1, 2011

JC – whether or not it is an intrinsic quality (and I think your description of the phenomenon means that it actually IS), it is valuable and repeatable, yet not accounted for.

By JC on Sep 1, 2011

Matt

But its not an intrinsic quality of Howard that makes him better with RISP. It just is a reflection of the shift.

By Matt H on Sep 1, 2011

JC – I’ll happily accept that a positive percentage is due to the (absence of the) shift. In fact I had already mentally agreed with that part of your statement when I made mine.

Strategic positioning is a regularity of baseball just like the short porch in some home ballparks. It is captured, messily, by RBI. It is captured in poorer fashion by wOBA. So the “intrinsic quality” of Howard to pull all of his GBs that Bill has illustrated for us a few times is punished by the shift sometimes and not others. The others are more valuable times to get a hit, hence Howard is undervalued by wOBA.

I actually think he’s undervalued for a bunch of reasons by WAR, but that’s a very good one that it seems you and I can easily agree with.

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

It is an intrinsic quality if it makes him better with RISP. I have repeatedly conceded that it’s not a skill. It’s his hitting tendencies, over which he seems to be unable to exercise any control. And, again, it’s not just that his OPS goes up. Based on stats quoted the last time I raised this point, Howard’s OPS goes up much more dramatically than even other players against whom a bases-empty shift is more effective (e.g.Ortiz). If that’s the case, doesn’t his more dramatic increase in OPS with runners on base have some effect on predicting his future value as a hitter, let alone a clean-up hitter. Couldn’t that (also help) explain why Howard is consistently an outlier in terms of RBIs relative to OPS? I don’t know how you account for the relative increase in OPS with runners on base in Sabermetrics, but point is that it should be part of the calculus.

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

*my point

(sorry, on iPhone.)

By Maestrobe on Sep 1, 2011

See? Matt H gets it. I don’t think being left-handed is a skill, either, but I bet it plays a role in a pitcher’s effectiveness, depending on the line-ups he typically faces.

By Zach on Sep 1, 2011

“If you gave a hitter Howard’s skillset, he would have the same amount of RBI as Howard. It’s not like Howard has some innate, immeasurable ability that turns a first-and-third into a bases loaded situation where he drives in three runs as opposed to other players’ two.”

I like this blog but it is so caught up in sabermetrics that it improperly analyzes the sport. It is just a step or two up from studying fantasy stats and saying you know baseball.

Howard is Howard. You can’t just find someone with Howard’s skill sets. You can argue Phillies may be better with Pujols or Texiera or Gonzo or Votto or however the mets have. But they may not either.

By LTG on Sep 1, 2011

Maestrobe,

Your point, which is correct, is that Howard hits well against a traditional alignment. If he always hit against that alignment he would be a .300+ hitter and over .900 OPS every season. So, when he faces that alignment in RBI situations, he gets runs home. Good. Done and done. No one should argue with that.

What doesn’t follow from that is the claim that this is a special skill or disposition that Howard has over and above hitting as a typical skill set. Other players paid at Howard’s soon-to-be level drive in as many runs while not suffering from shift-related value depletion. In fact, Howard’s value is rather accurately measured by things like wOBA and WAR and they account for his increased success (not ability) with RISP. Most of his value comes from hitting with RISP and the (ever less frequent) solo homer. Since he isn’t good at a) getting on base or b) running the bases, he doesn’t contribute to creating as many runs as other players would in situations where no one is on base or a man is on first. I take it that you quibble with none of this and so really don’t disagree that WAR is an accurate reflection of the value Howard adds to the team (and I’ll grant rWAR over fWAR for argument’s sake), even if you would like to because you have a chance to win the argument that way.

If I’m right, then you should concede that Howard is a fine guy to have in the middle of the lineup and perhaps better than some teams have, but that none of that justifies the money the team is about to invest in him. Nor does it justify the praise Howard receives from the mainstream Philly media and fanbase.

The only evidence I have found that Howard, over his career, is more successful than other comparable players with men on base is that 19% of runners on base score during Howard’s at bats. Other players like Ortiz, ARod, and AGon are around 17 and 18%. Assuming a full season’s allotment of ABs, that is about 5 runs per percentage point difference per season. So, we can say that Howard, for whatever reason, creates about five more runs per season with men on base than ARod, e.g. But that number is not terribly significant against Howard’s lack of OBP, running, and fielding skills, and it is unclear whether the slight statistical variation is significant or a sign of any kind of extra value over the creation of which Howard may have control or not. (Now that is a good relative clause!)

Finally, I’m disappointed that you all have gotten so stat obsessed in the debate over Howard’s value that you are ignoring some ocular evidence. I, at least, have noticed Howard often this season attempt to drive the ball the other way in the air, come up short, and react as if he missed the pitch or is surprised it is not a homer. This suggests that he is not able to generate the opposite-field power he is accustomed to generating. If so it is an ominous portent. And, to those who will try to crucify me for this, I acknowledge that this last point is speculative in two sense. First, I am trusting my eyes for accurate information. Second, I am inferring from the observation an explanation that is not exhaustive of nor unique for the phenomena to be explained.

By Block215 on Sep 1, 2011

one of the reasons ppl complain is that babip stat..most teams have the 3 man right side shift on him and instead of adjusting like closing his stance a little or just even trying to hit the ball oppo field he just plays right into the shift which has cost him prolly like 20 hits this season which would adjust his avg from .248 to .289 which is a huge diff. The reason ppl get so mad imo are the strikeouts, he plainly just not good at recognizing pitches out of pitchers hands and thats the reason for the K’s..Just look at Votto, the total opposite of Howard as a lefty.

By LTG on Sep 2, 2011

To the tired criticism of saberists that they watch stats not the game:

While it is now possible only superficially to understand the summary stats such as wOBA and WAR and make claims about player-value on that basis (which will be reliable but not infallible), the true saberist presses into the foundations in order to understand the grounds for the sabermetric account of baseball. The foundations of sabermetrics is a meticulous attention to the game as it has been played for well over a century. The linear weighting system is based on empirical research that tracks the probability of value-creation (or depletion) as a result of various events in various circumstances. What could be watching the game more closely than that?

To say that watching the game with the naked eye is superior to watching it with a sabermetric eye is like saying that one can understand the stars in the night sky without the aid of astronomy. Before the rigorous charting of the stars’ nightly motions, we only had myths of the stars not knowledge. It is no coincidence that Ptolemy only provided the first astronomical account centuries after the Egyptians began measuring the stars’ motions and the appearances of wandering objects (planets).

Perhaps it is more aesthetically pleasing to some to watch the game with the naked eye and not be burdened by the saber-analyst’s anxiety. (I myself could not live without anxiety.) This is both fair and immaterial to the knowledge of the inner-workings of the game.

By Matt H on Sep 2, 2011

LTG – I know you aren’t replying to me but some of your points are rebutted by what I wrote earlier. I don’t think anyone gets excited about Ryan Howard hitting all his GBs to the right hand side except Bill when he’s joking around, but this is a feature (bug?) of Howard’s hitting that is disproportionally punished in low leverage situations. wOBA is context neutral, so wOBA misses this.

Second, since RDI% is higher for Howard than elite players for whom there is no significant split (beyond the league average) between MOB/bases empty, but the split IS significant for him, then you are underestimating the # of runs that results from such a correction.

Sorry to butt into your conversation.

By LTG on Sep 2, 2011

Matt H,

No need to apologize. I always appreciate reasonable responses from anyone. But I’m confused by the claim that wOBA’s context neutrality underestimates Howard’s contribution. Does wOBA not incorporate the linear weights that tell us the value of a kind of hitting event based on the various possible outcomes of that event in various contexts? Wouldn’t this incorporate the contexts that you think it underestimates? Even if you are right about the underestimation, by how much does the conglomeration of probabilities into linear weights underestimate Howard’s run production? If you can’t show that the underestimation is significant then your point doesn’t carry much weight in the argument over whether Howard’s value is accurately measured by sabermetrics.

So, let’s try to measure it using RDI% (by the way, I didn’t understand your point about this at all so you may have to correct me here). The difference between Howard and ARod in their careers is 19% to 18%. That is to say, 1 more runner scores when Howard hits with men on per 100 runners than when ARod hits. Let’s say Howard and ARod get 500 runners (probably too many right?), then Howard has driven in 5 more runs than ARod, and now let’s give all of the credit for that run scoring to Howard, which is simply a falsification since he couldn’t have driven them in if they hadn’t gotten on in the first place. Then, let’s make the further falsification that all of the extra runs were produced by something Howard did rather than a balk, wild pitch, etc. Ok, so Howard is 5 runs better than ARod at driving men in. Of course, this small advantage is overwhelmed by Howard’s lack of fielding, running, and on-base skills, but we’ll ignore that. For argument’s sake, we’ll tack on .5 WAR to Howard for driving in those runs. Still, Howard projects to a 2-3 WAR player, i.e., not even an all-star. If you can provide better math than this for estimating wOBA’s underestimation of Howard’s talent, please do, but that this the level of rigor you would need to substantiate the significance of your claim.

You might try using Should Hit (abb. ShH, not, well, you know) as an alternative method of evaluating Howard’s run production. It takes HR%, K%, and BB% with BABIP to find a player’s expected wRC+. Search it on Fangraphs. It is a useful tool but you should read up on its development before trusting its calculations. I expect it will be more optimistic about Howard’s value because it emphasizes the events he has most control over, regardless of defensive alignment. But even then, will it make him the stud he is made out to be by some because his RBI numbers are so high? I don’t think so.

By Matt H on Sep 2, 2011

LTG – no problem and I appreciate the response. I’ll try to do all those things. In the meantime, an example of how wOBA underestimates (but not proof that the difference is large):

The linear weights for each type of PA outcome are based on weighted average of run expectation, so since a single creates on average .49 runs that’s what you get (plus the .3 for a “no out”, times 1.15 to scale up to average OBP as of 1990). A single with MOB is worth more, with the bases empty worth less. A higher percentage of Ryan Howard’s singles occur in the MOB scenario than for just about any other player. If you believe it is luck, then you dismiss this. If you believe it is something else (which in this case, of course it is), then you do not.

My goal here isn’t to prove that Ryan Howard is a better player than WAR indicates (although that is my operating assumption), but if it were I would point out that the linear weights should be tilted more towards power in the NL and especially in this low run environment, plus a whole lot of stuff that seems too far afield from the current topic.

Again, I need to get to sleep but I’ll demonstrate the RDI% later if you’re still curious. It was a really interesting thing to bring up and I appreciate that. Thanks for being a good sport.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“Except Utley isn’t on the decline. And Howard “drives in runs” only as a function of the hitters in front of him.”

Average OBI% (% of “other” runners on base batted in) from 2006-2011

Howard: 18.5

A-Gon: 16.5

Pujols: 17.4

Fielder (2007-2011): 16.2

Cabrera: 18.3 (with 67 fewer HRs than Howard)

Tex: 17.3

Howard’s career OPS is very high with runners on base and with RISP. He hits a lot of homers. The notion that his high RBI totals is merely a product of the runners on base when he bats is a myth.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

Sorry if this appears twice – not used to this user interface.

“Except Utley isn’t on the decline. And Howard “drives in runs” only as a function of the hitters in front of him.”

Average OBI% (% of “other” runners on base batted in) from 2006-2011

Howard: 18.5

A-Gon: 16.5

Pujols: 17.4

Fielder (2007-2011): 16.2

Cabrera: 18.3 (with 67 fewer HRs than Howard)

Tex: 17.3

Howard’s career OPS is very high with runners on base and with RISP. He hits a lot of homers. The notion that his high RBI totals is merely a product of the runners on base when he bats is a myth.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“The only evidence I have found that Howard, over his career, is more successful than other comparable players with men on base is that 19% of runners on base score during Howard’s at bats. Other players like Ortiz, ARod, and AGon are around 17 and 18%. Assuming a full season’s allotment of ABs, that is about 5 runs per percentage point difference per season. ”

You’re leaving out his better production from driving himself in with HRs.

Also, please note that you’re comparing him to the elite hitters of the game and saying that he’s only marginally better. So your point would be that being marginally better than Pujols means that he isn’t and All-Star?

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

Thanks to both LTG and Matt H for different reasons: (1) to LTG, for at least trying to explain the extent to which Sabermetrics attempts (or could attempt) to take Howard’s value-added hitting tendencies into account and (2) to Matt H, for taking up the cause. Truth is that I have very limited experience with Sabermetrics. I was just making what I thought was a logical argument and trying to see if Sabermetrics accounted for it or rejected it.

By Rob on Sep 2, 2011

I must admit I am puzzled by the notion that Howard hitting better with men on base (likely due to no shift) is not valuable to the team? The notion that this is not a skill makes no sense to me. Ryan Howard has the skill to get a lot of hits when the defense is not playing a severe overshift. Now, it would be even more valuable clearly if he could get as many hits against the shift as well (or force teams to not play a shift by hitting to all fields more consistently). That doesn’t diminish the fact that the ability to get a single with men on base is clearly more valuable to the team than the ability to get a single with nobody on base. I have not seen either of these things:

1 – Someone debate that Ryan Howard is not better at hitting with men on base than without men on base.
2 – Someone say that a hit with a man on base is not more valuable to the team than a hit with no men on base.
3 – Someone who understands WAR say that this is factored into the calculation in some manner.

I think the argument against RISP stats is they vary too much and eventually all return to the mean. But if there is a tangible reason that we recognize that Howard does hit better with men on base (and I would imagine this applies to some other LH power hitters as well), maybe that argument doesn’t apply as well.

Now there are 140+ comments, I read many but not all exhaustively. I am not pro-Howard or anti-Howard, just trying to rationalize all of the information I’m seeing here.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“Because it’s not a skill. The problem with RBI and RISP stats is that they give credit entirely to the hitter when he is just one part of the equation.

Howard has produced RBI/ab at rates equaled or bettered by only a handful of players in the game.

Part of the reason for that is that he’s had a lot of players on base when he hits. But the top of the order during his time with the Phillies probably doesn’t have an historic OBP.

So what’s the answer? Howard knocks himself in with HRs at an historic rate, and his rate of knocking in the runners on base when he steps to the plate is extremely high. It is as high or higher than virtually every other hitter currently playing. I would assume that it is similarly elite when compared to HOFers (many of whom played in an era when offenses, in general, were more productive).

Howard’s #s when the shift isn’t being employed are elite. The reason being because of positional strategy mixed with an increase in the # of fastballs he sees when runners are on base.

Bottom line – your notion about the worthlessness of RBI as a measure of Howard’s value to the team severely undervalue his skill at doing what a cleanup hitter is paid to do – knock in runs. Howard knocks in runs better than any other player in the game – independent of the variable of how many runners are on base when he bats. Add in the fact that when you have a team that puts runners on base ahead of the cleanup hitter, then the cleanup hitter you want is the one who knocks in runs at the highest rate.

That’s why he’s getting the big bucks.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“I must admit I am puzzled by the notion that Howard hitting better with men on base (likely due to no shift) is not valuable to the team? The notion that this is not a skill makes no sense to me. Ryan Howard has the skill to get a lot of hits when the defense is not playing a severe overshift.

Exactly right. People try to say that production with runners on base isn’t a sustainable skill – but in Howard’s case it is, and the shift, along with the increase in # of fastballs he sees, is the reason why it is.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“1 – Someone debate that Ryan Howard is not better at hitting with men on base than without men on base.”

Actually, I’d like to add to that if I might. I’d like to see someone debate that:

1a – Howard is better at any other player currently in the game at hitting with men on base.

1b – Howard is better than only a handful of players in the history of the game at hitting with men on base.

By LTG on Sep 2, 2011

Phlipper,

1) In order to get the comparison off the ground I had to make lots of falsifying assumptions, which I noted, about the explanation for why Howard had a higher RDI% (OBI%). We actually can’t be sure it reflects a skill he has without further study (except the skill that he has as a hitter in general, which is tempered by the shift-effect when men are not on base). My conclusion that he is not an all-star was based on a generous .5 WAR addition, for the sake of argument, on the assumption that this represents whatever some people claim is his extra skill with men on base. The result of the addition still did not raise his overall value (which includes hitting with no one on, fielding, and running) as a player to the all-star threshold. Would you care to address that part of the reasoning before inferring that I have drawn a crazy conclusion?

2) No reasonable person thinks that Howard’s improved slash-line with men on base reflects a special skill he has. It reflects the shift and the lack of it in those circumstances. In other words, Howard’s skill set as a hitter, which is the same through every at bat, has peculiar success conditions because of the defenses he faces. This is why he had a monster season when teams were not employing the shift against him. (Also helped by a higher rate of fastballs.) See Maestrobe and Matt H’s arguments for why this fact gives us reason potentially to value Howard a little higher than his wOBA would otherwise indicate.

3) The only way to establish from evidence that Howard has a special RBI-skill is to look at RDI% compared with other players with supposedly similar hitting abilities. When we do that we don’t know whether we can attribute the statistically small difference to Howard’s skill or the skill of the players around him or just chance. We don’t even know whether Howard’s slightly raised RDI% compared to some others is statistically significant without some help from a statistician.

4) Even granting that Howard’s value added to the team when he hits with runners on is elite, it nevertheless follows that the manifestation of that skill depends entirely on having guys on base for him. Unlike other players with his hitting profile with men on base, Howard adds much less value when hitting with no one on. This means the Phillies will be paying $25 mil/year for a guy who more than other comparable players needs to have good players around him to add significant value to the team (e.g., Victorino whom we might not be able to resign). This seems problematic.

5) Let me just say for the record that, as long as Howard doesn’t take a steep decline soon, he’ll be useful to a winning Phillies ball club during at least part of his extension. I just hope the Phillies are willing to break the bank for the end of this run and keep the good players he needs around him.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

I could be wrong but OBI/RDI% does not factor in where on base the runners were when they were driven in. So, again, the ability of the baserunners in front of Howard to go 1st to 3rd etc helps him there.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

LTG-

“We actually can’t be sure it reflects a skill he has without further study ”

It’s a product of his better performance, over a long-term data set (2006-2011) with runners on base. It’s a product of his OPS with runners on base and the fact that he hits a lot of HRs – which isn’t sufficiently capture in OPS.

You can look at the spray charts, and the increased number of fastballs he sees when runners are on base, and his production when he gets fastballs, to see how that’s attributable to a skill set.

Sorry – I don’t buy the notion that his better production with runners on base than virtually any other player in baseball, including the elite hitters in the game (and remember, you have to add HRs to %OBI), is just a matter of luck. And at any rate, his %OBI shows that he has been extraordinarily productive with runners on base throughout his career. Saying that his RBI rate is simply a product of the numbers of runners he has on base is a counterfactual.

“Would you care to address that part of the reasoning before inferring that I have drawn a crazy conclusion?”

I don’t think your conclusion is crazy. I think that some people fail to fully capture Howard’s value due to an over-reliance on the invetiable imperfections that accompany a statistical analysis. I don’t doubt your calculations and their implications to his WAR. I doubt the effectiveness of WAR to capture Howard’s production throughout his career. Stats like WAR are useful in many ways. They don’t explain reality. The reality is simple. Howard has been more productive at knocking in runners than all but a handful of players who ever played the game. That fact is a product of (1) a lot of runners on base, (2) a historic hr/ab rate, (3) a high OPS with runners on base throughout his career. Sure, let’s acknowledge one, but factors 2 and 3 are also extremely relevant to evaluating Howard’s value.

“2) No reasonable person thinks that Howard’s improved slash-line with men on base reflects a special skill he has.”

I think that is a backwards way of looking at it. The use of a shift diminishes the impact of his special skills.

Howard’s relatively poor performance with the bases empty is also part of the evaluation of his worth as a player. He isn’t as good a hitter, in general, as many other hitters in baseball.

Thus far in his career, he has produced as a cleanup hitter at a rate that is better than all but a few of the cleanup hitters who ever walked to the plate.

“When we do that we don’t know whether we can attribute the statistically small difference to Howard’s skill or the skill of the players around him or just chance. ”

Averaged over seven years, he has a significantly better %OBI than many of the elite hitters in the game (Braun’s is better). Add to that his HR production. Given the long-term data, I don’t think that’s purely a matter of chance. Add in his numbers with runners on base over that time, his better production against fastballs, and an analysis of where he hits the ball, IMO, it becomes extremely unlikely to be an artifact of chance. But even if it were, at worst what you’re saying is that his superiority over the other elite players is a matter of chance – which still puts him in company with the elite players with respect to his production as a cleanup hitter.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“I could be wrong but OBI/RDI% does not factor in where on base the runners were when they were driven in. So, again, the ability of the baserunners in front of Howard to go 1st to 3rd etc helps him there.”

They do break it down by the position of the runners on the basepath when they were knocked in. I didn’t control for that factor when I did a back of the envelope calculation of Howard’s %OBI compared to other elite players – and yes, Howard has always had pretty good speed ahead of him in the lineup, but that would be true for most lineups. I doubt that the speed at the top of the Phillies’ lineup during Howard’s tenure is as historic in nature as has been his rbi/ab rate.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

BTW – when I used “statistically higher” above – it wasn’t in a technical sense. Yes, it’s true that I don’t know if his difference in %OBI reaches a bar of statistical significance. But I’d say that on the order of 10% better on data collected over seven years and many ABs might reach that bar.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

I think a lot of these debates are also centered around perceived value (from his past) and current value (which is in decline).

But I agree with LTG about skill sets and shifts. If a hitter like Howard drives a lot of balls towards the 2B side without runners in scoring position (and the shift) there is not a special skill that helps him do that with RISP (and without the shift). It’s the SAME skill set and more a reflection of the defense. Defensive adjustments are designed to get players out. Now if he were to start driving the ball towards the 3B side then that could be development of a skill set he would utilize without RISP. Then the defense would have to adjust for that in all situations.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

@JC

It’s not necessary for it to be a skill for it to affect performance in a predictable and calculable way.

By MAB on Sep 2, 2011

Bill

While I , for the most part, agree wit you on Howard, you stated that “Howard has slightly above-average RISP numbers because opposing defenses employ the shift with the bases empty and can’t when runners are on base. It’s because of Howard’s flaws that he’s good with RISP, ironically enough.”

this makes no sense to me. Wouldnt it be that his flaws are the reason he struggles with bases empty, not the reason he is good with RISP?

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

@Maestrobe.

So his ability to drive in runs is not a skill?

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

@Maestrobe.

So then his ability to drive in runners is really out of his control?

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“this makes no sense to me. Wouldnt it be that his flaws are the reason he struggles with bases empty, not the reason he is good with RISP?”

That’s how I see it. I don’t think that anyone says that he employs a special skill set when runners are on base. He hits the same way whether runners are on base or not (which could be used to argue for why he’s not a better hitter than he is – although I question what the ultimate outcome would be if he tried to change his approach). It just so happens that his skill set is one that is very productive when there are runners on base.

Let’s say that you plugged Pujols into all the situations where Howard has batted over his career. Based on %OBI, my assumption is that you would have likely had fewer “other” runners knocked in and fewer runs scored by virtue of the batter “knocking himself in” on a HR (Howard has 38 more HRs since 2006). I would also assume that Pujols would have scored more runs by virtue of being knocked in by his teammates that follow in the batting order. Let’s say that a higher %OBI netted 5 additional runs times seven years, plus 38 more homers = 73 more runs over that span. Would Pujols have been plated 73 more times by teammates during that period? Sure, I’d say that’s likely. But if the alternative results would have been relatively close, that would mean that as a cleanup hitter, with the objective being for the team to score runs, Howard would be relatively close in production to the best hitter in baseball.

Of course, you need to account for differences in fielding ability, the impact of tiring pitchers by taking more pitches, etc. But all that granted, I think in the end a blanket dismissal of Howard’s RBI production severely undervalues his contributions to the team.

By curtwill on Sep 2, 2011

^^^I think he is saying that his strengths are his weakness also, depending on the situation.

By curtwill on Sep 2, 2011

@MAB

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

@JC

He hits better with runners on base for an identifiable reason (that is not attributable to his skill, but the hitting tendencies over which he seems to have no control). But that doesn’t change the fact that his hitting stats improve to elite levels when there are runners on base (and [for Bill] they improve more than most other players’ to a significant degree). I don’t see why it matters that the reason is not attributable to a skill, per se. His hitting tendencies still become an asset when there are runners on base.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

Because his hitting “tendencies” or skills should matter when there is no one on too..

By Rob on Sep 2, 2011

JC, of course his tendencies matter when there is no one on. If he could beat the shift more consistently with no one on base he would be even more valuable. That doesn’t diminish what he does with men on base.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

And the reason he does that with mean on base is due to defensive alignment (at least some of it, not the HR obviously- which he is good at), not due to some intrinsic skill with RISP.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

^ men on base. Although maybe he is really mean when he does it. Mean like pushing toddlers over to get a free ice cream cone.

By LTG on Sep 2, 2011

I don’t think JC and Maestrobe are disagreeing about anything. They are describing two aspects of the same thing. JC, Maestrobe, eh?

By the way, I did a rough calculation of Howard’s ShH (or FIB), and it says he should be worth 136 wRC+ rather than his actual 118 wRC+ (assuming his current BABIP is representative of what we can expect in the future). The difference between these numbers might suggest that wOBA undervalues him for the reasons offered by Maestrobe and Matt H. In order to be confident in that inference I would have to re-read the articles about ShH on Fangraphs.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

True LTG. I think it’s more of a “well what does that mean/tell us” thing…which is good. I love hearing other sides of arguments.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

Oh, they matter. My point is that his hitting tendenicies make him more valuable with runners on base and RISP than with the bases empty.

Let’s assume Howard’s ocverall OPS is .900 (higher than this year, but lower than his career average) and that his OPS with runners on base and/or RISP is 1.000 (a very slight exaggeration) and .800 with the bases empty (a slight understimate for his career, I believe). What if a hypothetical player had the identical overall OPS (.900), but his OPS with the bases empty was .880 and .920 with runners on base and/or RISP.

Who would you rather have as your clean-up hitter? Howard or the hypothetical player? I would much prefer Howard because he hits better when it matters to the team the most, i.e., when his PA is the most likely to produce one or more runs. I think that, if you plugged those numbers into a computer, Howard would produce more runs and wins than the hypothetical player over the course of the season.

Of course, if the difference in the two secenarios (bases empty vs. RISP) could be attributable to randomness, you wouldn’t care so much. But it’s not randomness (as borne out by the numbers from year to year): it’s attributable to a specific, identifiable reason that everyone concedes but refuses to take into account in evaluating Howard via Sabermetrics.

I thought the point of Sabermetrics was to predict future value based on statistics flowing (to the extent possible) from non-random and identifiable data points. It seems hypocritical to me to claim Howard is an outlier re: WAR and OPS relative to RBI simply because he plays on a better team when there is a concrete, identifiable reason (backed up by statistics) that explains his improved performance with runners on base and RISP.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

Assumption assumed. Question: Is the difference in OPS due to OBP or SLG? OBP is more important than SLG, so if the hypothetical hitter got on base more than Howard did but with a lower SLG that could lead to more runs (not will but could). And with the baserunning ahead of that spot, it’s possible that the RBI total would be similar even with the lower SLG.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

Do comments at this site fail to get posted for perhaps somewhat reasons other than profanity or other over-the-top rhetoric?

I will try this post again – although the first time I tried to put it through I gave the argument a more thorough treatment.

Similar to Maestrobe’s post above:

If you replaced Howard with Pujols over the course of every AB over his career, given a lower %OBI, Pujols would have knocked in fewer “other” runners. Say 5 runs fewer each year plus fewer runs scored by virtue of “knocking himself in” on HRs brings a total of @ 73 fewer runs.

Of course, that would be offset by Pujols getting knocked in more by the batters behind him in the lineup by virtue of getting on base more.

But all in all – would the more runs scored balance out the fewer runs knocked in? And even if it were, or even if the more runs scored more than accounted for the fewer runs knocked in – we are talking about replacing Howard with the best hitter in the game.

Of course, defense, tiring pitchers out by taking more pitches – all need to be taken into account when comparing players. But the notion that Howard’s elite performance with runners on base is not an explanation (along with the high number of runners on base ahead of him) for his historic RBI production just doesn’t add up, IMO.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

Let’s assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the hypothetical player is identical/proportional to Howard in all other respects (proportional in terms of ratio with respect to SLG and OBP and identical with respect to defense, base-running and other hitting skills).

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

Then I guess I would have to wonder how many more runs the player creates by getting on base without RISP. Does the potential increase in runs created that way balance out any extra RBI with RISP?

By Jeff G. on Sep 2, 2011

1. Howard’s SLG w/ runners in scoring position this year is not that good, he’s still behind like 8 first basemen that are all being paid less then him.

2. Just simply knocking in runs is only half the battle. He’s not getting on base, and not advancing baserunners for the guys behind him.

He’s just not that good anymore. Give me Adrian Gonzalez at $21M and spend the other $4M on a reliever or utility player.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

@ JC. The average OPS would still be .900. The point is that the increase in OPS of .080 in the two different situations for the comparable players would be less impactful for the hypothetical player because his advantage over Howard comes only when the bases are empty. (HP has a higher OPS by .080 when the bases are empty; RH has a higher OPS by .080 when there are RISP and/or runners on base). Howard’s PAs will thus produce more runs because the more effective ones come when a run is far more likely to be generated from a hit/BB by Howard.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

But if HP gets on without RISP that doesn’t mean that he is the only runner on. He could have advanced another runner from 1st to second or 3rd (since RISP assumes someone is at least at second base). How many runs would that create? How many runs would it create just by giving opportunities to the hitters behind HP?

I don’t think you can just average out the OPS like that and assume less impact.

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

My mention of Howard bunting with bases empty ended up being a non-starter… Is it because people really can’t see Howard bunting? I mean, he’s in this to help the team win right? Him bunting with the bases loaded will help the team create more runs, period. If I am RAJ, I would say to Howard, “For 25 effing million dollars, you will learn to bunt and like it! Either that or learn to hit balls to the opposite field, which you obviously have failed to learn all your life. Your choice.”

@Maestrobe, you can look at his increased production with RISP as making Howard “more valuable,” or you can look at his inability to produce with bases empty because he can’t beat the shift as making him less valuable. If Howard is hitting the way he hits with RISP all the time? Nobody would be writing articles about how his production doesn’t justify his contract. You look at this “ability” to produce with RISP as a “skill,” when in reality, there is no skill involved. It’s his inability to produce because he’s so predictable that a shift would work so well against him, that’s his fatal flaw. There is nothing skillful about it.

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

Ooops, I meant to say “Him bunting with the bases EMPTY will help the team create more runs”, LOL.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

But not as high as the rent.

By Cutter on Sep 2, 2011

It really is a matter of how you define a hitter’s value.

If you want to adhere to the principle that getting on base is the most important thing a hitter can do, and a hitter’s value can fully be defined by OPS or wOBP or whatever statistic you prefer, then you’ll think Howard is overpaid and overrated.

The pro-Howard camp (which I am part of) feels that the numbers don’t tell the whole story.

I think that for many people who think that Howard is valuable, and hold on to the RBI is because they think that Howard’s low OPS isn’t actually reflecting what is happening in the game.

If Howard goes 1-5, but the one hit is a three-run homer, then many people will consider that to be a good game, even though advanced metrics wouldn’t back that up.

Take this scenario:

In two at bats, would you rather have a player who strikes out once and homers the other time, or the player who hits two doubles?

While the two doubles will raise a player’s OPS, it isn’t clear if they resulted in a run being scored. If the player hits a home run, then you know a run was scored.

Perhaps they need to come up with a statistic that shows whether or not a player’s efforts resulted in a run being scored.

Well, the good news is that they did. It’s called an RBI.

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

@Bill,

What do you expect when you write an article about Ryan Howard’s suckage? LOL.

By JC on Sep 2, 2011

Your scenario is a moot point if a) the doubles drove runners in or b) resulted in runs scored.

And wOBA accounts for homeruns.

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

@Cutter,

Another problem with your “conclusion” of “a statistic that shows whether or not a player’s efforts resulted in a run being scored” is that somehow the fact that the player whom you drove in got on base in the first place doesn’t seem to matter in that run being scored. You can hit doubles all day, and you won’t get ANY RBI if no one is on base for you. It wasn’t your effort that resulted in a run being scored, it was a team effort. This is why RBI is a flawed stat.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“RBI tells you a completely arbitrary fact about a player, that a run scored when he did a good thing.”

%OBI is not arbitrary in the least.

When RBI production is the result of a high %OBI (that results from a high OPS with runners on base), plus a very high hr/ab rate – RBI is NOT an arbitrary stat.

Your argument assume that there is not any way to control for the variable of how many opportunities a player has to drive in runners.

Once again – Howard’s historic rbi/ab rate of production is a product of his excellent performance with runners on base along with his high hr/ab rate plus the fact that he has a lot of opportunities. All three variables factor in. It’s as if you only want to look at the # of opportunities and base your conclusion about the value of his RBI only on that variable without considering the other two.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

@JC. Sorry, but I can and do assume less impact. And I was very careful to always say “RISP and runners on base” vs. “bases empty.”

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

@Phlipper,

If Howard can hit an OPS of 1600 with men on base, while maintaining his mediocre production with bases empty, I guarantee you no one would be suggesting he’s not worthy of his contract, because his OVERALL number will still be awesome. Of course, that begs the HUGE question why he couldn’t just hit 1600 OPS ALL the damn time, regardless of whether anyone is on base or not, but that would be a different article altogether.

The Pro-Howard camp keeps focusing on how he hits better with men on base… Sorry, but those at-bats where there were no men on base? They kinda matter too. Howard’s OPS with men on base BARELY justify the $25 million to begin with if he can maintain that all the time, but the fact that he can’t and sucks so much when there aren’t men on base? That’s why he doesn’t deserve $25 million.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“Sorry, but those at-bats where there were no men on base? They kinda matter too.”

Of course they matter. I don’t know if my post went through – but I addressed that, specifically, earlier.

But his historic rate of rbi production matters also – and it is particularly germane to his production as a cleanup hitter.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“- Batting order position
- OBP/SLG of preceding hitters
- Speed, aggressiveness, and efficiency of base runners
- Park factors
- Quality of opposing defenses and pitching”

I see no reason to think that the differences in these variables, as opposed to say, Pujols batting when he has runners on base, would explain a significant difference in %OBI over a period of seven years and thousands of ABs.

And it isn’t just Pulols.

Howard’s %OBI over the past seven years has been higher than every elite hitter I listed above. Do you think that an advantage that he’s had in all of those variables as compared to Fielder, A-Gon, Tex., etc., would explain his higher %OBI?

I doubt it. I think that the explanatory factor is his relatively high OPS with runners on base plus his historic rate of HRs/AB.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“His OPS is over 100 points higher with RISP in his career, but it’s almost entirely explained by BABIP (mostly singles), a.k.a. the shift. Howard’s ISO is only .015 higher with RISP (again, could be explained by the shift) and his BABIP is .026 higher.”

You are neglecting to factor in his historic rate of HRs/AB.

By Maestrobe on Sep 2, 2011

@ Phillies697.

Fine. If you can address Rob’s points above, I will be satisfied and go away.

“[Rob] ha[s] not seen [any] of these things:

1 – Someone debate that Ryan Howard is not better at hitting with men on base than without men on base.
2 – Someone say that a hit with a man on base is not more valuable to the team than a hit with no men on base.
3 – Someone who understands WAR say that this is factored into the calculation in some manner.”

Can you make any of the claims that Rob and I are both waiting to hear?

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“I’m not even buying the claim that Howard’s numbers are better with RISP in any meaningful way other than that he doesn’t have the shift.”

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that.

I, at least, am not arguing that there is some discrete skill that he applies when runners are on base.

The point is that when he doesn’t face the shift, he gets more hits (whether they be singles, doubles, triples, or HRs) – because:

(1) the position of the defense
(2) concurrent with the shift he is getting more fastballs (because the shift is not employed when runners are on base).

His skill set is the same at all times: a good fastball hitter (and a terrible breaking ball hitter) with exceptional power.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

And again, I want to add these points to be addressed – riffing off of Rob’s points:

I’d like to see someone debate that:

1a – Howard isn’t better than any other player currently in the game at hitting with men on base.

1b – Howard isn’t better than only a handful of players in the history of the game at hitting with men on base.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“As I mentioned above, SLG absolutely plays a factor and that’s Howard’s calling card. But why do you need RBI when you have his SLG? RBI is only telling you an arbitrary fact about what happened in his AB’s.”

RBI is not, in and of itself, dispositive. No single measure is. But his historic rbi/ab rate is a product of certain variables. We have the high rate of opportunities – or perhaps other factors such as those you listed above (park factors, baserunning ability of men on base ahead of him, etc.). But we also have his OPS with runners on base plus his historic hr/ab production.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

If you isolate one year you loose a full perspective.

You have to look at his career OPS with runners on base (and RISP), and then factor in his extraordinarily high HR/AB rate.

I think that if you look at career OPS with runners on base and RISP, you will see that it is in an elite group of current players (also examined over an extended time period). And his HR/ab rate is higher than any other player in the game over that period, I believe.

As to what to predict in the future, it’s possible that his OPS with runners on and RISP this year is a better predictor than his career #’s. I think that the jury’s still out on that. Think of Ortiz, as an example that makes such assumptions questionable about future performance based on a short time window as opposed to career #’s.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“RISP isn’t a skill that hitters have. ”

I’m not saying that it is – although people keep reducing the argument to that.

Once again – it isn’t that he’s doing anything differently with RISP.

It’s that with RISP he gets better production from what he ordinarily does because of:

(1) defensive positioning
(2) he sees more fastballs.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

“…(and having defenders in sub-optimal positions is not a skill of Howard’s).”

Once again, I have never argued differently.

Howard’s skill is in murdering fastballs (to all fields) and hitting the ball to the right side of the infield.

Those are his skills – and they have different levels of production depending on whether a shift is employed or not.

By Jeff G. on Sep 2, 2011

Can anyone find out who leads the league in RBI without actually recording a hit? I think this would clear some things up. Compare Howard and Kemp this year. Kemp has come to bat with 217 runners on first and 67 runners on third. Howard is at 196 and 86 respectively. So of course Howard is going to have a higher OBI%, he’s had more runners that he’s only had to advance one base, and less three bases. It’s actually pretty sad that his OBI% is only 0.2% higher given that.

By Cutter on Sep 2, 2011

In the haste to rip apart my RBI argument, claiming that it is a flawed stat, you all seem to forget that pretty much every stat is a flawed stat.

RBIs are somewhat dependent on the hitters in front of the hitter. Agreed.

But isn’t the value of OBP also dependent on the hitters around a hitter?

After all, if a batter reaches base, but gets stranded there, he hasn’t actually contributed anything towards the team’s winning.

As for the RISP argument, both sides are saying the same thing, but both claim it backs up their point of view.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

As for point #2 – this article has some interesting info:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6908844/information-age-changing-way-game-played

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

From that article:

“[Howard] sees fewer fastballs in “fastball counts” (55.0 percent) than any hitter in either league. And that percent has been plummeting precipitously, from 77.8 when he first reached the big leagues in September 2004 to 64.7 percent in his rookie of the year season in 2005, to the 50s shortly thereafter. Some fun.”

Pitchers know he can’t hit breaking balls – particularly ones out of the strike zone. It stands to reason that they will throw him fewer breaking balls out of the strike zone with runners on base (which is concurrent with the removal of the shift – which results in better production when the shift isn’t on/when runners are on base).

Of course, if the actual data show that he doesn’t get more fastballs when runners are on base, my whole theory is pretty much shot and Howard’s a bum.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

Jeff G.

That’s a good point – except you have to look at longer data sets to get a better sense of what’s going on.

I’d say that the chances of Howard coming up with a higher % of runners of the runners on base at third as compared to first – in comparison to other elite hitters over seven years of data – is probably pretty small.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

You want me to do the hard work of statistical analysis!!

It’s much easier to sit back and carp about other people’s analysis.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

True –

But you are making a conclusion also, without a sufficient handling of all the relevant data.

I am saying that his career production with runners on base (measured by OPS) is stellar. Add to that, a high %OBI (career), and a high hr/ab rate (career), and you have the conclusion that his performance as a cleanup hitter is at a very elite level.

I am not saying I have the lock-tight explanation for why his OPS with runners on base is high – but I am offering two hypothetical explanations. Whether they are the reasons or not doesn’t change the fact of his production with runners on base.

By Jeff G. on Sep 2, 2011

Last three seasons (percent of total runners on base):

Howard: 1st-48.9% 2nd-31.4% 3rd-19.6%
A-Gonz: 1st-50.7% 2nd-33.2% 3rd-15.9%
Pujols: 1st-51.8% 2nd-31.6% 3rd-16.6%
Fielder: 1st-49.6% 2nd-33.4% 3rd-17.0%
Cabrera: 1st-52.5% 2nd-31.0% 3rd-16.3%
Teixeira: 1st-49.6% 2nd-34.3% 3rd-16.0%

I can go back further but I’m pretty sure it won’t change much.

By Phlipper on Sep 2, 2011

Well – the fewer on second mitigates the greater number on third as compared to first. And how many of the runners that he knocked in from third were knocked in a runner if he were on second also (single, double, triple, HR)? And even if his higher %OBI is a product of that difference in % on 3rd as compared to % on first, you bring him down to the same level of %OBI production as you have with those other, elite players. Then you add in the additional RBIs from greater HR production.

Still looks elite-level to me.

By Matt H on Sep 2, 2011

Bill – you’ve done it! I have been convinced to calculate Ryan Howard’s personalized linear weights. Don’t worry, I will re-scale. Will be back in a little while when I have had time to do it.

Care to hazard a guess on his wOBA over the past 3, 2, or 1 years? I am curious. My prior is an ignorant one – perhaps a 0.1 increase in wOBA, and my error bar on my prediction is +/- 0.2.

By Mark on Sep 2, 2011

I would like to know why Howard and the Phils don’t try to have him change or work harder at his hitting so he can get rid of that shift with a higher average that would stop the shift. I really like having him bungle a few times and if he gets on base it would change.
Onhis money

By Geo on Sep 2, 2011

Don’t the improved numbers for BABIP (caused by grounder singles) with runners on base simply stem from the change in the defensive alignment and are thus the very reason he’s a better scorer with runners on base?

By Geo on Sep 2, 2011

*better HITTER with runners on base

By Mark on Sep 2, 2011

I would like to know why Howard and the Phils don’t try to have him change or work harder at his hitting so he can get rid of that shift with a higher average that would stop the shift. I really like having him bungle a few times and if he gets on base it would change.

On his money I agree he over paid by about ten million but as far as that hurting Phils getting more talent I doubt that will effect them until and if they start over paying to many players even with luxury tax.

By Cutter on Sep 2, 2011

“That’s a non-sequitur argument, Cutter. OBP isn’t dependent on the hitters around a hitter, unless you want to argue that hitter OBP significantly fluctuates based on runners on base (and you’d need to provide sufficient evidence for such a claim).”

No, but the value of the OBP to the team is indeed dependent on the hitters after him.

If a player with a lower OBP is scoring many more runs than a player with a higher OBP then maybe there is something behind it rather than just the surrounding lineup.

By Phillie697 on Sep 2, 2011

@Maestrom,

1. Yes, I can in fact claim Howard isn’t a better hitter with men on base than without. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying. He’s “better,” stat-wise, only because the shift isn’t as effective against him with men on base, as they have to pay attention to the runners as well. Howard is still the same exact hitter whether there is men on base or not. He just isn’t penalized as much for his fatal flaw. As I said, even JUST looking at his career OPS with men on base and extrapolate that to a full season, he BARELY justifies $25 million a year because he is a liability on the base paths and on defense. Basically, your claim of the BEST version of Howard is not even that good.

2. The point of wOBA and the research behind it is that over the long-haul, a hit (single, double, triple, whatever) is equally valuable whether it’s done with men on base or not. You forget, a hit with no men on base means SOMEONE ELSE is going to hit with you on base, giving that person this supposed “advantage” you speak of. People keep forgetting this is still a team sport. Ryan Howard was not responsible by himself for those 100+ RBIs.

3. Understand the above two concepts, you’ll realize why people say all of that is factored into WAR. What makes WAR incomprehensible to people who have not really learned all the advanced statistical research that has been done over the years is they have too much pee-conceptions that have basically been debunked to realize why WAR, by in large, is a much better stat than traditional stats people cling onto. Obviously every stat has its flaws, but why would you ever want to cling on to using your fingers to do math when you can buy a calculator or even a computer to do it for you?

By Geo on Sep 2, 2011

Sorry to jump in here, Maestrobe and Phillipper, but I really would like to help. . .

1. The point Rob was trying to make (i think) is that it is indisputable that RH is more effective with runners on base. The reason is what you concede. He hits where defenders are not when they can’t employ the shift. No one thinks it’s a good thing that he can’t do so with the bases empty. But that doesn’t change the fact that a PA by him with RISP is more likely to produce a positive result. And we know it’s not random– you agree so yourself. (And, until we have Matt H’s statistics let ‘s just assume that Howard’s improvement with RISP is meaningfully more significant than other hitters. That’s the underlying premise of this argument.)

2. You say a hit is a hit is a hit. But is it? Sabermetrics assumes that it is because the theory is that when a batter gets a hit ( and for how many bases) is not affected by runners on base, except to the extent that having runners on base helps all batters equally (bc the pitcher is pitching out of the stretch, he’s distracted by base-stealers, not ideal defensive alignments, etc.). But what if one player has hitting tendencies that give him an extra boost in that situation? The result would be that the player helps his team more when there is a greater opportunity to score runs. It doesn’t matter whether RH drives in the runs. He predictably gets more hits when his team has a chance to drive in more runs. Why is that not more valuable than the theoretical player whose OPS does not meaningfully change when there are RISP?

3. I understand your points, but I don’t think you understand the logical arguments that others are trying to make. No one is discounting math or taking off his shoes to counter your arguments. We are suggesting another variable that we think should be plugged into the calculator. In the end, it may not be a meaningful variable. And Howard certainly doesn’t deserve praise for predictable element of his game that, in fact, hurts his team when the bases are empty. But I thought the goal of Sabermetrics is to take meaningful, non-random variables into account and to explain outliers with stats, not play games with praise and blame. The goal is predicting future success. Why are additional variables not helpful merely bc they don’t come from what you deem a skill?

By Nathan Buydos on Sep 2, 2011

People cut down Ryan Howard. I’m sorry any major league baseball player that can have his stats for his first 6 full years is a great player. Age does have it’s disadvantages. Michael Jack Schmidt is 8th on the all time strike out list. Ryan is put down for his strike outs, so was Schmidt. If a player can hit 30 plus homers and have 100 plus RBI’s each season who cares about the rest of his stats. You’re also talking about 80-90 runs scored a season. Give Ryan a break. There is no one in baseball that can do this.

By Matt H on Sep 3, 2011

Phillies697-

Point 1 is arguable, and in fact more interesting than the current debate for a couple of reasons. But it is a digression from the point at hand.

Point 2 is demonstrably false. You do not understand wOBA.

Point 3 is true insofar as computers are better than calculators are better than hands. But you are militating in favor of a flawed stat in the face of an argument over its flaws. This is an asymmetric fight. No one is saying “RBIs Rulz”. There is no single comprehensive stat that precludes value of other advanced or traditional stats. The creators of the stat you seem to favor acknowledge this.

By JC on Sep 3, 2011

@Matt H.

I agree that no one is saying RBI rule. But a lot of people seem to be saying that RBI are indicative of a good hitter. RBI are not indicative of a good hitter. If you want to say that a good hitter gets RBI then fine. But that is a different argument.

It is interesting that you say that
“there is no single comprehensive stat that precludes value of other advanced or traditional stats.” I would argue that RBI falls into the same trap then. And being that people want to elevate what his RBI mean then…

Apologies if I am misinterpreting what you are saying…..

By Matt H on Sep 3, 2011

JC – I don’t think you are misinterpreting anything that I am saying. But just to make sure, here is what I’m saying: RBIs are a stat with additional information above and beyond what the hitting component of WAR (wOBA) offers, and you should look at both. wOBA is a very cool statistic but has shortcomings that have been described here by quite a few posters. To put it bluntly, if you were trying to explain WPA with both wOBA and %OBI, the latter would not be a redundant statistic.

So that’s my long winded way of saying I think we are in agreement, unless I am misreading you.

By Matt H on Sep 3, 2011

BTW, I realize an ambiguous word choice has the potential to be a source of confusion. When I say “above and beyond”, I just mean that obviously wOBA is the stat with the most explanatory power, so it has the primary role here. Other statistics have power “above and beyond” wOBA when they are not rendered completely obsolete, which many are not.

By Phlipper on Sep 3, 2011

“But a lot of people seem to be saying that RBI are indicative of a good hitter. RBI are not indicative of a good hitter”

FWIW – that would not be my argument.

RBI, in an of themselves, are not indicative of a good hitter. The rate at which a batter knocks in runners, controlled for the number of opportunities he has, is ABSOLUTELY a measure of a hitter.

It is not the only measure of a hitter. The rate that the hitter gets on base is also a measure. How the hitter performs when there is no one on base is also a measure. The rate at which a hitter knocks himself in (HRs) is a measure. the # of pitches a hitter sees is a measure.

But all those other measures are similarly meaningless if they are not evaluated relative to how other hitters perform along the same metric.

Controlled for the rate of opportunity, the comparative rate at which Ryan Howards knocks in runners (and drives himself in) is a perfectly valid measure of his value to the team.

By Jim on Sep 3, 2011

You know, I hear that in soccer, strikers are usually pretty lousy defenders. In fact, some are considered to only have a single skill – putting the ball into the back of the net. Funny how no one ever calls them on that. Better get sabermetrics (safermetrics?) on the job right away!

By curtwill on Sep 3, 2011

This was a good discussion, and very respectful too. A lot of times, in a contentious discussion, people lose their cool.

It’s good to see that there were great arguments being expressed without the rancor that tends to happen in discussions like these.

I have nothing to add because it is true that Ryan has decline in some areas, he has maintained in other areas and it would be redundant to speak what I have already posted. So I will post what Hank Aaron said of Ryan Howard around 2008, because I think it is appropriate to the debate is about:

Ryan is a great ball player and people have to realize that he may not ever hit .270, .280 or .290, but he’s going to make a vital contribution to his ball club,” said Aaron, who hit 755 home runs and is second on the all-time list. “He may strike out twice tonight and then go out the next night and hit two home runs. That’s the kind of ball player he is. He’s a great ball player.”

http://thechrismurrayreport.org/2011/08/21/sabermetrics-my-a-ryans-howards-true-value-to-the-phillies/

By Maestrobe on Sep 3, 2011

I never meant to focus on RBIs. My focus was always on scoring opportunitiesbfor the team. If Howard walks or singles in those situations, it still helps the team.

By Jartrek on Sep 3, 2011

I hate to say it, but Phillies fans always seem to focus on negatives. Man, sit back and enjoy this time. As a person who lived through ’64, there is no better time in Phillies history then now. Don’t get caught up in paralysis by analysis. To much focus on statistics tend to take away from your enjoyment as to how the team is doing right now. Times are great; enjoy them as they will not last forver.
Phillies old timer

By LTG on Sep 3, 2011

Where’re the Howard-adjusted linear weights? I want to see, I want to see, I want to see.

By LTG on Sep 3, 2011

Jartrek,

Some of us enjoy things more through the process of making our understanding of them explicit. Critics need not be misanthropes and malcontents.

By LTG on Sep 3, 2011

I have to correct something I posted earlier. The difference between Howard’s ShH/FIB (136) and his actual wRC+ (117) is mostly the result of regressing his PA/HR rate to his career rate (~15) from his current rate (~19).

By Matt H on Sep 4, 2011

Ok, LTG. Howard’s wOBA increases by between 10 and 23 points by accounting for his MOB differential, depending on what adjustments you think are appropriate. Not that big! But I think that adds up to $3-7 million in salary over the course of a year for the penny pinchers in this thread (joking).

By LTG on Sep 4, 2011

Thanks, Matt H. Certainly interesting to see the result. I’m not at all surprised that the adjustment was not large. If only this would settle the debate.

By Cutter on Sep 4, 2011

@Bill:

Couldn’t the same be said about any individual statistic?

We’re ultimately trying to determine an individual’s value in a team sport, and we’re never going to get a 100% accurate measure of that because the impact of just about anything a player does depends on his teammates.

By Maestrobe on Sep 4, 2011

Although I have only the vaguest idea re: what calculations Matt H actually applied (and although those calculations came nowhere close to justifying Howard’s salary), I feel somehow validated.

By Matt H on Sep 4, 2011

Maestrobe and LTG – I downloaded Howard’s split stats, then did some imputation to find the linear weights for various MOB scenarios. (I didn’t do anything related to how many outs there are.) So he’s still using league average linear weights rather than team specific or individual specific ones.

After calculating this “raw” wOBA I adjusted back to league average PAs because Howard gets more PAs than the league with MOB. This lowers his wOBA from 28 points higher to about 20 points higher than his current wOBA.

There is no “clutch factor” in this because the linear weights are time independent and scenario independent (other than the number of people on base).

I’m gonna do it for other years as well. Now that I put it together it’s pretty easy to do for any player in any year.

By JB Allen on Sep 4, 2011

For everyone saying that Howard hits better with RISP because RISP prevent defenders from exploiting his weaknesses, you could also just say that RISP allow Howard to exploit his hitting strength more than it allows others.

Bigger picture, if statistical analysis shows that Howard hits marginally better with RISP, and sample size is significant enough, then it’s safe to say that he may very well hit marginally better with RISP. Several of those who’ve made this point here have NOT been arguing about “heart and soul” or “clutch” or any of that other stuff. So enough with the straw men (as legit as that criticism may be in other forums), trying to change the value of an objective fact, or any of that other stuff that this website and others typically try to debunk. It’s a molehill compared to the mountain of silliness presented by Joe Morgan and his ilk, but it’s still silliness.

[For the record, I'm assuming that the numbers back up a marginal improvement for Howard with RISP. If the numbers don't back this up, then the numbers indicate no marginal improvement. That's fine. Howard's extension blows, regardless of the RISP advantage. Greg Luzinski. Cecil Fielder. Mo Vaughn. Richie Sexton. Adam Dunn. Big, beefy, and done by 33.]

By Cutter on Sep 5, 2011

Just wanted to point out that in yesterday’s game, with a runner on second and Utley, Howard, and Pence due up, it was Howard who received the intentional walk.