BABS says: No need to spend big for Manny

16 Comments

1. Adam Caveney on February 25, 2019 at 11:33 pm

   I appreciate the explanation of the expected power index in this article. But it raises questions—per a previous explanation, park factors for players who have not changed teams should be baked into power rankings, but nothing in that explanation says that—which could explain why Matt Carpenter incorrectly has a higher power ranking than Nolan Arenado. Furthermore, I don’t understand how Winkler shows up as being as good at power when he is coming off a shoulder injury, which almost always lowers power the next year—and an F for playing time, which is not related to anything I have seen. Being a relative newbie, it seems to me that BABS is just a “remember that veterans can have good seasons, too” system. Please tell me why I am wrong. I would love for this all to be right.

   
   
   
2. James Moran on February 26, 2019 at 6:56 am

   I recommend reading or rereading the original BABS report. As I understand it, it merely gives relatively objective ratings, assets and liabilities, based solely off of underlying skills, and then we look for value by examining groups of players with the asset/liability ratings.

   I cannot tell the basis of your claim that the Carpenter and/or Arenado power rankings are “incorrect.” Are you saying that the underlying metrics that were used to gin up their rankings were incorrect, or that you have rubbed your chin and do not think Carpenter will hit as many home runs as Arenado. If the latter, again, I do not think you are understanding BABS, either in how ratings are computed, nor what it purports to show.

   As I understand it, BABS absolutely does NOT factor in variables like “coming off shoulder injury” or “park factors,” or, for instance, things like spot in the batting order, whether a player showed up in shape, or any of 1000 other factors that while perhaps important (but, often not too), are simply not the goal of BABS. In fact, BABS is deliberately leaving those ingredients out of its recipe.

   I think of it as one very, very cool tool, but still the start of my analysis, not the end.

   
   
   
3. Douglas on February 26, 2019 at 8:39 am

   Adam, thanks for the comments. James provided some great insights, let me add the following.

   As you have learned from BABS, P+ means the player has extreme power skills, in the top 10% of all MLB players. PW says power skills are in the top 25%.

   Carpenter by virtually all skill metrics belongs in P+ in my opinion. Per FanGraphs, he led all of MLB in hard hit % last year at 49% (imagine 49% of 564 ABs were hard hit balls!). He also has very high FB% (47% last year) and his expected power index numbers rank near the top.
   Arenado obviously is a very good power hitter also. BABS had him as P+ last year, and now at PW for this year. Hard hit balls were at 43% (still very good), but fly ball % is trending down, and was under 40% last year. And this is not adjusted, it obviously has his Coors Field stats included.
   Does BABS have this wrong? Metrics seems to give a slight edge to Carp over Arenado for power.
   But more important to me is how we use this information to build our rosters. We know we will have to spend a 1st round pick on Arenado, and he could likely deliver great numbers again for 2019. But we are paying upfront for that expected performance. We can obtain Carpenter several rounds later, who has the skills to deliver power numbers that could exceed his 5-6 round price tag.

   Regarding Winker, BABS has noted the liabilities…INJ, e. So we know that his demonstrated skills come with injury risk, and without a long track record. But when we reach rounds 15 or later, it is still good to know that he may be a player worth taking a shot on, if we haven’t already filled our team with other risky players.

   I hope this helps a little…

   
   
   
4. Thomas Podkol on February 27, 2019 at 9:48 am

   new to site….Is there a “cheat sheet” to use for fantasy drafts based off of BABS?

   
   
   
5. shandler on February 27, 2019 at 10:50 am

   Click on Database reports, or Spreadsheets in the right column in the MEMBERS ONLY area. Your choice of what works best for you. But PLEASE do not attempt to use those cheat sheets right out of the box until you understand how the system works.

   
   
   
6. Adam Caveney on February 27, 2019 at 6:46 pm

   I understand and appreciate the response. My thing with Arenado and Carpenter came from the 3B post and comments. I asked whether players in the same park as last year can get a positive park factor and was told no, that this would be baked into the ranking already. But then reading the handbook again, it mentioned the source of the power ranking which seemed to be park neutral—i.e. a guy with more actual power, even playing in a cavern where he will hit fewer HR’s will have a higher power rating than a guy in Coors who might have slightly less actually power but will hit more HR’s because he plays in Coors (or GABP, etc.). This seemed to be the obvious example. I guess my issue is less with Carpenter (who has serious power, but doesn’t play in a HR friendly park) than with Arenado who consistently hits 35-40 HR per year but doesn’t get the highest power rating or a positive park rating (because he hasn’t (and now won’t) change parks). That’s my disconnect. It would make perfect sense to me if either: (A) the power rating was not park neutral (i.e. all players in Coors will tend to get higher ranking because of the results) or (B) those players got a positive park factor (i.e. the power ranking is park neutral, so the positive park is an adjustment).

   
   
   
7. Douglas on February 28, 2019 at 12:11 pm

   Adam, I am happy to reply and try to help increase the understanding of BABS. I thought Ron had addressed this one previous. Park factors are included in the player’s metrics since they are part of his actual demonstrated outcomes and skills. Those who change parks get noted for the upcoming year as a potential asset or liability, since there is no history. (Ron also said…BABS ratings are a computed based on a combination of observed outcomes and underlying skills. Carpenter’s power metrics have been consistently higher than Arenado’s and BABS thought it was only a matter of time before the results reflected that. Injuries have delayed Carpenter’s breakout and his age may eventually shorten its lifespan, but just because one player hits more HRs doesn’t necessarily mean he has more inherent power.)

   Keep in mind that extreme skills mean the top 10% of skills in a category. Arenado is a great hitter, his BABS ratings in power have either been P+ or PW last few years, which tells me he must be pretty close to that top 10% cutoff for Extreme. Whether you look at xPX, actual hard hit fly balls, actual hard hit line drives, actual FB/GB%, all show Nolan is really good, but was not among the top of the top for power skills during 2018.
   Other guys who hit 37-39 HRs last year are even lower on the power skill ratings…guys like Lindor, Ramirez, Machado are all only rated p for example. It think it’s great that BABS looks well beyond the actual stats.

   If we put a piece of tape over the name, and we said to ourselves which guy would we select solely based on power skills, would you take
   a) PX 170, xPX 189, HHFB% 49, FB% 47
   Or
   B) PX 150, xPX 138, HHFB% 43, FB% 38
   ?

   I could list the other P+ guys also…Trout, JD, Story, Judge, Hoskins, Stanton, Gallo, Davis…and there would be a similar difference in their power skill metrics vs B) above (Arenado).

   
   
   
8. Adam Caveney on February 28, 2019 at 8:24 pm

   I appreciate the response. My problem is that xPX, PX, HHFB%, etc., do not take into account park factors. In Coors (and probably GABP), a greater percentage of HHFB become home runs. And that’s the fantasy category. I appreciate BABS looking beyond the actual stats—but I don’t think park factors are fully baked into these stats and can be very important.

   Ron did answer my question, and I appreciate it. However, both of the answers don’t answer my real question—if for example, HHFB% is one of the power factors (and an important one, no doubt), that does not have the park factors baked in. That leaves someone like Arenado, who will likely have more home runs than Carpenter this year—because of the park—somewhat underrated by BABS.

   I also have a separate question—my focus on Arenado, as opposed to the other examples you cited (Lindor, Ramirez, etc.) has consistently hit the large number of home runs. It seems that BABS is very much affected by last year’s numbers compared to previous years, even for veterans. For someone like Arenado, who will be in more or less the same situation he has been for the past five years, it seems like it has a big “what have you done for me lately” factor that worries me. Am I wrong here?

   
   
   
9. Douglas on March 1, 2019 at 11:50 am

   Adam, I love the dialogue, thanks for continuing the discussion.
   I wanted to explore further your comment on “does not have the park factors baked in.”
   Admittedly, I am a fantasy player like you, who uses the data, but I don’t generate that data. However, it seems to me that “park factors” are part of a player’s PX (power index)? My understanding of power index is that it uses actual doubles, triples, and home runs (weighted more to home runs) divided by total batted balls. And then it indexes that versus a league average set each year at 100. Assuming I am correct, then Nolan’s “park effect” extra base hits goes into his PX? For Expected PX, I do believe it uses hard hit fly balls and hard hit line drives, regardless of where they are hit, and also indexed to league average. Interesting to me is that Nolan’s PX and XPX have rarely had much difference over the years, nothing that is statistically significant. So it seems to me that “park factors” are included in prior year skill metrics?

   Btw, Carpenter hit 33 HRs over his final 450 ABs in his non-Coors parks, as he finally returned to full health. The bet I am making this year is that he returns better power value as a 5-6 round/$17 player, versus Arenado as a mid 1st round/$33 player. And I wouldn’t mind having them both also as double asset CIs.

   To your point on “done for me lately” personally it is important to me to know if there are changes to skill sets over most recent full season or 2, versus historical skills and perceptions, especially as players age. Joey Votto for example, who went from 36/100/.320 to 12/67/.284 (in a great hitters park!), with no obvious injuries or other factors to point to.

   
   
   
10. Adam Caveney on March 1, 2019 at 8:19 pm

    Thanks again for the reply. I really love this conversation; it helps me figure out what I like and don’t like about BABS and how I want to use it best. And, wow, I think I was wrong about the reason that Arenado had a lower power ranking that Carpenter, assuming it is based on PX. (If it was based on HHFB%, etc., those are obviously not park adjusted.) I found the formula for PX and looked at the stats for both Carpenter and Arenado, and it seems the seemingly big difference is because for PX, and FB% is the fact that Carpenter strikes out more than Arenado. They both had 78 extra base hits last year (Arenado has two more triples and two more home runs; Carpenter had four more doubles) in almost the same number of plate appearances. However, Carpenter struck out 36 more times than Arenado, and more strike-outs actually help FB% and PX because they only consider batted ball events. For example, despite the significantly higher FB% Carpenter had last year, Carpenter (with four more PA’s) hit 188 fly balls; Arenado hit 184. That makes me wonder if instead of a bias towards bad park players, BABS has a bias towards high strike out players. No idea if this is a limited example, but looking at the components of PX, it could be something.

    As for the recency bias issue, I think this is probably just an issue where BABS thinks the importance of simplicity outweighs other issues. As you note, with aging players, yes, it is very important to see what skills are declining and recent seasons are far more important. With someone like Arenado, probably far less so. For a different example, I imagine that BABS just drooled over Stanton last year—going to a vastly better park with what looked like improved skills in 2017 (huge K% drop, etc.), and now it just looks like 2017 was a career year given that Stanton went back to his standard levels of pre-2017 production in 2018. Not sure there is any way to deal without this issue without making BABS so complicated as to become unwieldy. Maybe just easier to note the age and career years, etc., manually and adjust.

    
    
    
11. Douglas on March 2, 2019 at 7:49 am

    Adam, just wanted to clarify a couple of points I tried to make. First, I don’t want to give the impression that BABS power ratings are based on the PX formula. The BABS Project clearly says it is mostly based on Expected PX, which is a different formula as you know.

    But that leads me back to this notion of whether park effects are included. I continue to say YES they are.

    What makes Coors a hitters park? It isn’t that players hit a number of weak FBs and they somehow travel 500 feet. Rather, I believe it is mostly because pitchers cannot grip, cannot spin the ball they way they might do elsewhere. So the pitches are as effective, and the hitter take advantage. And they hit those pitches HARD. HARD fly balls, HARD line drives. Which result in more home runs, more hits in general.

    So it I use HHFB% and HHLD% as the basis for calculating xPX for a Rockies player, his skills reflect that he probably had more of those because of the park he plays half his games in. As such, it is logical for me that a player like Arenado has his “park effect” baked into his skills ratings.

    If we were talking about Daniel Murphy, then NO Coors park effect isnt in his skills ratings, because his prior seasons weren’t played at Coors.

    As far as more strikeouts helping a player’s power rating…I actually think BABS has a different category (batting effectiveness) which captures overall hitting skills, and contact rates. I am pretty certain this is why Arenado is rated higher than Carpenter in Batting effectiveness (AV versus a).

    
    
    
12. Adam Caveney on March 3, 2019 at 2:08 pm

    Interesting thoughts. Understood on expected PX. I am not sure that I completely agree with your thoughts on Coors, however. Part of it is that pitchers can’t grip right and breaking balls do not move as much. Another part, however, is that in the thin air, weaker hit fly balls (medium contact, I am sure, not weak contact) also fly out of the park. A similar phenomenon would apply to Great American Ball Park. That one has nothing to do with altitude of pitchers being able to grip or spin a baseball. It is purely because weaker hit balls become home runs because of small dimensions and that the ball carries well there.

    And BABS does have a different category for hitting effectiveness. However, I find it strange that BABS (and to be fair, a whole lot of other power metrics) tend to give an advantage to those who whiff a lot as opposed to say, hitting ground balls. Lots of places love to highlight FB% for power hitters. I am not sure that makes sense to me as FB% is calculated. If it was fly balls per plate appearance as opposed to fly balls per batted ball event, it would be more useful in my opinion.

    
    
    
13. SUNIT MUNJAL on March 3, 2019 at 10:16 pm

    Can BABS be used for auction leagues? If so, how does one go about using it?

    
    
    
14. shandler on March 4, 2019 at 11:06 am

    Chapter 9 in the eBook is called “BABS in Auctions.”

    
    
    
15. Jeffrey Johnson on March 7, 2019 at 11:41 am

    I understand there may be cheaper options later on who compare favorably, but it looks like Machado will slide to me in round 2 at #15 and I may have to pull the trigger.

    His 2018 stats compared to others available at that point (Freeman, Stanton, Blackmon) make it tough to pass on. Obviously, health is a factor, but he is young and has been very healthy his entire career.

    
    
    
16. shandler on March 7, 2019 at 12:28 pm

    Obviously, if you can get a prime commodity at a discount, you don’t pass that up. Profit is profit no matter where you find it.