What is "average"

[consigliere]

Saw this on the Indians Ink forums....

Some great info on what the average production at each position is. Here is the average production at every position in baseball in 2006:

http://www.brewcrewball.com/story/2007/1/29/174631/252

And this article talks about it in-depth rather nicely. A great read:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... rage-does/

[consigliere]

Interesting to see how the Indians stack up in 2007to what was average in 2006 at each position.

To help eliminate some of the volatility in year to year performance, I listed each position and who will play there with their 2004-2006 3-year AVG/OPS in ( ). In the case of Barfield, Garko and Marte, only 2006 numbers are used since that is their only year in the bigs:

Catcher:
ML starter averages- .285 avg, .777 OPS
Victor Martinez- .302 avg, .853 OPS

First Base:
ML starter averages- .285 avg, .851 OPS
Casey Blake (vs. righties)- .269 avg, 794 OPS
Ryan Garko (vs. lefties)- .333 avg, .938 OPS (.277 avg, .922 OPS in Buffalo)

Second Base:
ML starter average- .276 avg, .744 OPS
Josh Barfield- .280 avg, .741 OPS

Third Base:
ML starter average- .276 avg, .805 OPS
Andy Marte- .226 avg, .707 OPS

Shortstop:
ML starter average- .275 avg, .740 OPS
Jhonny Peralta- .272 avg, .787 OPS

Left-field:
ML starter average- .278 avg, .818 OPS
David Dellucci (vs. righties)- .264 avg, .875 OPS
Jason Michaels (vs. lefties)- .300 avg, .829 OPS

Center-field:
ML starter average- .269 avg, .761 OPS
Grady Sizemore- .285 avg, .858 OPS

Right-field:
ML starter average- .277 avg, .807 OPS
Trot Nixon (vs. righties)- .297 avg, .849 OPS
Casey Blake (vs. lefties)- .250 avg, .836 OPS

Designated Hitter:
ML starter average- .263 avg, .811 OPS
Travis Hafner- .308 avg, 1.030 OPS

When you compare the Indians starting lineup vs. what is considered average production at a position, it breaks down like this:

1. Superior production: DH, CF and C
Not a surprise here at all.....Hafner is a superior, superior player to other DHs, and Sizemore continues should only continue to broaden the gap between him and average OFers in the coming years. Vic is an elite offensive catcher.

2. Above average production: LF, RF, and SS
The platoons in LF and RF will use players to their strengths at those positions, which could help maintain a performance consistently above the average. Peralta had an elite 2005 season, and a below average 2006 season. Should be interesting to see how he bounces back.

3. Average production- 2B
For Barfield to put up average production as a rookie is very promising, especially in the hitter's graveyard known at Petco Park.

4. Below average production- 1B
Garko just does not have a big enough sample size at the ML level yet to truly evaluate him.....and Blake has been below average against righties when compared to the average 1B.

5. Poor production- 3B
Like Garko, not really enough of a sample size to truly evaluate him. Hopefully, his numbers increase to near or a tick or two below average this year.

The Indians have 5 positions (DH, C, CF, LF, RF) that over a 3-year span have been very productive. The volatility and unknown truly lies with SS, 2B, 3B and 1B.....all positions with young players with a yet to be established pattern of production (Marte, Garko and Barfield) or a young player yet to stabilize (Peralta).

[pup]

I would be interested to see the AL/NL split on the above chart. Might take the time to put it together....

[consigliere]

I'm not sure there is much difference between the AL and NL....AL might be slightly higher. But not much. The star shift may be greater in the AL, but so is the pitching.

[pup]

I jsut e-mailed the author to see if he has taken it that far. Hopefully he responds with an answer.

[consigliere]

I jsut e-mailed the author to see if he has taken it that far. Hopefully he responds with an answer.

Awesome Pup. Good job, and provide the findings as I am sure you will.

[pup]

The material should not be that hard to compile, so if I do not hear anything from him, I may have to take some time out this evening and out it together. It seems to be a way to "evaluate" expectations.

The downside is, it will only account for players having average years. It will not tell the story for the yearly fluctuations that every position will encounter when you limit the sample size down to half the league.

[British_Pharaoh]

Doug Mientkiewicz is the definition of average

[consigliere]

Doug Mientkiewicz is the definition of average

You misspelled "awful."

[British_Pharaoh]

Doug Mientkiewicz is the definition of average

You misspelled "awful."

ok Doug mientkiewicz during his twins days was the definition of average

[pup]

You misspelled "awful."

I needed that laugh today. Great work consig.

[pup]

I e-mailed Jeff Sackmann back and forth a couple of times today. Here is the discussion:

Jeff,
> Great read on the Average is average article. I was wondering, have
> you looked at this same type of breakdown within each league, or even
> further, within a division? I have actually been working on an angle along
> these lines to compare teams within a division, to show who has the leg up
> if each position was to play to their "par". For an example, I am from
> Cleveland and get a lot of Victor Martinez is valuable despite his defensive
> problems, because he is a top 5 hitting catcher. I claim it does not matter
> that he is top 5 overall, since he is quite possibly number 3 within his own
> division, which is where most games are played.

His response:

I didn't break down by league or division. I don't think those
numbers would be as valuable, because the smaller the sample, the more
a single player throws things off. For instance, the DH average in
the AL central would be much higher than avg because of Hafner and
Thome--it doesn't really mean that Mike Sweeney is less valuable than
if he played in a different division, even those the higher average
would suggest that it does.

my return:

I understand the sample size problem, but I believe there is more to it. Not to be argumentative, but what does it really matter if the Cleveland Indians have a better hitting catcher than the Colorado Rockies? Wouldn't it be more prudent, forgetting the sample size problem, to rate each position against its most common opponents. When you play half of your schedule against the same 4 teams, wouldn't those comparisons give you a more accurate depiction of what to expect from an individual team? I am sure your article was not meant to be used as a predictor of things to come, but I see some value in it for doing exactly that. Wouldn't Mike Sweeney provide the Royals more bang for the buck if he was the best at his position within a division, opposed to the third best in his division?

his reply:

Once a guy is on your team, his bang for the buck is measured in runs, regardless of whether he plays DH or catcher. Where this stuff matters is on the free agent market, where the rockies and the indians ARE competing against each other. I suppose you could use this method to compare offenses within a division, but it seems like more work than is necessary to simply look at the rosters, add up their production, and compare the total numbers.

I could see his point, until the free agency part. I am looking for this to give insight on what each team should expect from its players when compared to other players that they are competing against. I could be wrong, but I still say having the better players than the most common opponents, over the long haul, gives you the best chance at winning. Is that such a crazy idea?

[consigliere]

I still don't follow the whole division ranking and all that, but without even researching it, out of the 5 teams in the division, offensively the Indians probably rank like this out of the 5 teams:

DH: 1st
C: 2nd (so close to #1)
1B: 4th
2B: 4th
SS: 2nd
3B: 5th
LF: 1st
CF: 1st
RF: 3rd

[British_Pharaoh]

I still don't follow the whole division ranking and all that, but without even researching it, out of the 5 teams in the division, offensively the Indians probably rank like this out of the 5 teams:

DH: 1st
C: 2nd (so close to #1)
1B: 4th
2B: 4th
SS: 2nd
3B: 5th
LF: 1st
CF: 1st
RF: 3rd

how is barfield 4th??

Foxsports has him 5th overall in the AL and only Iguchi ahead of him in the central division

[consigliere]

how is barfield 4th??

Foxsports has him 5th overall in the AL and only Iguchi ahead of him in the central division

I said I was going off the top of my head.....I think Barfield is the future top 2B in the division, maybe as soon as this year, but basing it on 2006 and previous performance, I'd have to rank Polanco, Castillo and Iguchi ahead of him (again, I haven't looked at the numbers, so he may stack up well).

[consigliere]

Ok, I ranked the players in the AL Central offensively.....I only did it based on 2006 numbers as linking to each 3-year split is a nightmare. Also, I only did the Big Four and did not rank the KC players.

Catcher:
1st: Mauer (MIN) .347/.936
2nd: Martinez (CLE) .316/.856
3rd: Rodriguez (DET) .300/.769
4th: Pierzynski (CHW) .295/.769

1B:
1st: Morneau (MIN) .321/.934
2nd: Konerko (CHW) .313/.932
3rd: Blake/Garko (CLE) .305/.854*
4th: Casey (DET) .296/.785

2B:
1st: Iguchi (CHW) .281/.774
2nd: Barfield (CLE) .280/.741
3rd: Castillo (MIN) .296/.728
4th: Polanco (DET) .295/.693

SS:
1st: Guillen (DET).320/.920
2nd: Bartlett (MIN) .309/.760
3rd: Peralta (CLE) .257/.708
4th: Uribe (CHW) .235/.698

3B:
1st: Crede (CHW) .283/.828
2nd: Inge (DET) .253/.776
3rd: Punto (MIN) .290/.725
4th: Marte (CLE) .226/.708

LF:
1st: Dellucci/Michaels (CLE) .296/.862*
2nd: Craig Monroe (DET) .255/.783
3rd: Podsednik (CHW) .261/.684
4th: Ford/Kubel (MIN) .220/.626*

CF:
1st: Sizemore (CLE) .290/.907
2nd: Hunter (MIN) .278/.828
3rd: Granderson (DET) .260/.773
4th: Brian Anderson (CHW) .225/.649

RF:
1st: Dye (CHW) .315/1.006
2nd: Cuddyer (MIN) .284/.867
3rd: Nixon/Blake (CLE) .282/.854*
4th: Ordonez (DET) .298/.827

DH:
1st: Hafner (CLE).308/1.097
2nd: Thome (CHW) .288/1.014
3rd: Sheffield (DET) .298/.805
4th: White (MIN) .246/.641

*- Platoons figured by taking RH splits * 60% and LH splits * 40% since this is about what the distribution of RH/LH starters will be. Example: Dellucci vs RHs (.299*.60/.904*.60) + Michaels vs. LHs (.291*.40/.799*.40) = .296/.862