Archive for the ‘Eckstein’ Category

I have no title for this post about hustling and pretentiousness

July 8, 2009

This may come as a surprise to you, but I’m pretty unabashedly a stats guy. Stat geek. Stathead. Sabermetrician (though the “-trician” makes it sound like I know something; I prefer “sabermetrically-inclined,” which is clunky enough to permit me to sound like the dufus I am). Whatever. It might be a stretch to say I’m “proud” of it, but I certainly don’t try to hide it. I enjoy it, a lot.

But there’s one problem with stat geeks, and always has been. One annoying tendency that gives us a bad name, that sometimes makes it hard to take us seriously, that gets people angry with cause (as opposed to the kneejerk angry-because-I-don’t-want-to-bother-to-understand-what-you’re-saying reaction that we get so much more often). I’ve fallen victim to this tendency as often as just about anybody else, though I’ve been fighting it pretty hard of late.

That thing is this: someone establishes that some traditional concept or statistic is overrated or overvalued, and we go around beating people over the head with that fact, and eventually we treat the thing as though it has no value. That may be justified in some limited circumstances (I can’t actually think of any, not even “saves,” really), but usually all it does is distort our view of things and eventually come around to bite us in the rear.

The most obvious example of this, of course, is how about ten or fifteen years ago we started noticing that guys like Neifi Perez and Walt Weiss, while they might for all we knew be great defensive players, were killing their teams’ offenses. We noted that the “pitching and defense beats offense” idea was, all else being equal, utter crap. We noted that offense was rather easily measured, quantified and even projected, and defense was not. These are true things and worth noting. But all of that led to the decision, at some point, that defense just wasn’t important, at all. At some point I remember Rob Neyer writing that baseball was probably 55% offense, 40% pitching and 5% defense (or something very similar). I don’t mean to rip on Rob, then and now my favorite baseball writer, and we were all thinking that…I just happen to remember that he said it in so many words. You’d almost think–and I think some people really did think–that you’d be better with seven slugging 1B-types in the field and lineup than with a squad built to cover the traditional positions.

Well…whoops. Now we can measure defense (pretty well), and we know that it’s really important. That a guy can have enormous offensive value, but kill it all with his glove. That Franklin Gutierrez (aptly but unoriginally named “Death to Flying Things” by the guys over at USS Mariner) can be a below-average-hitting outfielder and still be one of the best outfielders in the league, all because of defense. Now we value defense even more than the rest of the world does. But the thing is, it was ridiculous to write off defense in the first place–just an absurdly overblown extension of the seed of a pretty sound idea.

There are lots of other examples, too. We knew that Jim Rice is a terrible choice for the Hall of Fame, and the argument after a while starts to sound like we think Rice was a terrible player; likewise, we knew Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall, and after a while we’re essentially arguing that Blyleven was Walter friggin’ Johnson. We knew that stolen bases were being overvalued and that the out given away by a caught stealing or sac bunt was undervalued, so we eventually decide that stealing or bunting is never a good idea.

We’re getting better at most of these things. A lot better. But the guys at the Inside the Book blog seem to have found another one that nobody’s really talking about: the value of “hustle”.

The problem here, I think, is this. We know that scores of players are wildly overrated because they “hustle” (are grinders or gritty or gutty or have heart or whatever), and others are wildly underrated because, in the eyes of most, they don’t. Eckstein, Erstad, Podsednik good (dated examples, but you know what I mean); Dunn, Manny and Barry Bonds bad. We know that the good things the latter group does and the bad things the former group does far outweigh whatever value you might reasonably put on hustle and grit. So we’ve ultimately decided that hustle just doesn’t matter.

Well, in the blog post linked above, MGL mentions a couple of plays in an inning where Adam Dunn was, like, militantly non-hustling, and it cost his team. The title of the post is “I’m not one to complain about players not hustling, but…,” and I can understand why he puts it that way: most fans or reporters who complain about players not hustling are rooting around for ways to find fault with their team’s best player. So and so may hit 50 homers a year, but he didn’t run out that one routine grounder to second base, so he sucks.

But when a guy really isn’t hustling, at all–I mean, not even trying–I don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting on him for that. Tom Tango (also of Inside The Book) put it best in a comment to MGL’s post:

Ken Dryden, in The Game . . . was talking about how important practice is. That you keep practicing over and over and over at a high tempo so that your body is simply conditioned to do things that way all the time. . . .
To then decide in an actual game to put the brakes on is inexcusable as far as I’m concerned. At the very least, what the heck is wrong with considering these “routine” plays in an actual game identical to the “routine” plays in practice where you must run all out?
And . . . [i]t’s not like in hockey where you are skating up and down and side-to-side in 45 second shifts and you are panting by the time you get back to the bench. It’s a four second anerobic exercise. Adam Dunn gets paid 10MM to come to swing (or consider swinging) the bat 3000 times, to run 500 times, and to field (or back up a play) 500 times. That’s $2500 for every “effort” he puts out on the field. If he thinks that one time he doesn’t want to put [in] the effort, then he should give back the 2500$.

Maybe it sounds like I’m letting TangoTiger make my point for me here, and maybe I sort of am, to the extent that the point is “hustle matters.” But the larger point here, I think, is that this is just one example of an endemic problem with sabermetric folk (one that was a lot worse 10 years ago, but still persists). Just like “Jim Rice does not belong in the Hall” ≠ “Jim Rice sucks,” “hustle doesn’t make David Eckstein a good player” ≠ “hustle doesn’t matter.”

I’m quite sure that we (and by that I totally mean “I”) would jump all over Bill Conlin or Mike Celizic if we caught them engaging in that kind of phony logic. But we seem to think it’s okay for us…and I think it all comes from pretentiousness. We start with some little thing we’re very sure is right (something that is, in fact, right), and it leads to this thinking like we’re perfectly right about everything on this topic, while the other side is perfectly wrong. I guess that’s sort of a fact of life — isn’t politics more or less the same thing? — but it’s been getting better among the sabermetric community lately, and it’ll be really nice if that trend continues.

Advertisements

Seriously, What’s the Deal with Ecks?

May 28, 2009

Within a really bizarre column about the Padres (Part 1: the Padres are rebuilding and should trade their best player; Part 2: the Padres are awesome!!!!1!), Jon Heyman gives us GM Kevin Towers’ take on the team’s recent ten-game winning streak:

The two things that Towers pointed to on behalf of the Padres, whose payroll is a puny $46 million…: 1) There is no quit in them; and 2) David Eckstein is on their roster.

“A lot of it has to do with David Eckstein,” Towers said.

“There’s no quit in this team” is one of those things that baseball people just have to say. I think it’s in the standard-form contract. But the second one caught me a little off-guard.

Now, people have been saying this kind of thing about Eckstein since at least 2002. He’s a gamer, he’s gritty, he’s got heart, he plays the game the right way, and all that. It was the brilliant FJM guys’ favorite topic to be hilariously mean about.

But, as ridiculous as it was, I think it became one of those situations where Eckstein was so overrated he was underrated. The guy could get on base at a pretty good rate, and could field a little (as long as he didn’t have to throw it too far), and there’s something that’s just fun about watching such a comically undersized player try so hard. So I could almost understand, it, even while I kind of hated it.

Now, though, at 34 years old? He’s hitting (through Tuesday) .226/.305/.303. He has no power at all and plays half his games in the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball, and yet he’s hitting fly balls a near-career-high 37% of the time (a very high 21% of those don’t even leave the infield). Where a few years ago he was playing an average to above-average shortstop, he’s now limited to second base, where he’s average at best. Over the last two seasons, he’s been essentially a replacement-level player.

As I said in my big ramble a few days ago, I do believe that “intangibles” such leadership exist and have an effect or some kind (I just don’t see the point of spending much time thinking about them). But I really don’t think they have the kind of effect that can make a replacement-level player the reason that your team has won ten games in a row. Especially when, during that winning streak, that player hit .133/.212/.167. Yeah, that’s right. They won ten in a row while getting a .379 OPS from their second baseman. And he’s the biggest reason they won those games.

So what is it that the Ecks has been contributing to these wins?

he is a guy who will do whatever it takes to win, including in the last few days taking a 97 mph Brian Wilson fastball in the gut (he took another one in the arm last night in the middle of their ninth-inning threat), faking out a baserunner and hanging in on a DP while getting rolled over. Eckstein is the best $850,000 anyone spent this winter.

Ugh. So two HBPs have contributed to that big .305 OBP? Awesome. And that last sentence there? Wow. I mean, really. So he does all those things, and that’s great, but don’t you think that managing even seven hits rather than four in those ten games (which would’ve raised his BA from .133 all the way to .233) could have had at an impact too?

Now, to be fair, this is all Heyman talking, not Towers. We can hope that Towers’ answer to the initial question was, “well, we’re getting pretty lucky, and Adrian Gonzalez is hitting the crap out of the ball, and Scott Hairston is playing out of his mind, and Jake Peavy, and…” (and then Heyman presses him to say something about Eckstein) “oh, yeah, um, sure, I guess, a lot of it has to do with David Eckstein.”

It’s not looking that good for Towers, though:

“When you have a player like that, it becomes contagious,” Towers said. “He sets the standard. He’s so fricking intense. And he has the best in-game instincts I’ve ever seen.”

Wouldn’t you think that the guy with the best in-game instincts ever would be able to hit a little, or find his way on base in some way, or field particularly well, or steal bases, or something? Shouldn’t those instincts turn into something that’s, you know, tangible?

Ugh again. So, really, what is it with this guy? It must be that adorable little impish grin.

Yeah, it’s the adorable little impish grin. Right?