The Good Phight: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

CRAP

In keeping with the sabermetrician's goal to quantify everything, I have spent this past weekend coming up with a new metric to measure the immeasurable.  It will tell us the intangible difference between Bobby Abreu and Aaron Rowand; it will discern the true guts of a Chase Utley while show us the plasticity of a Pat Burrell; it will villify Mike Lieberthal and raise Jimmy Rollins to god-like status.

I give you:  Chemistry Runs Above rePlacement or, in its shortened form, CRAP.

The metric is quite simple.  In line with the best of Baseball Prospectus's "above replacement" statistics, CRAP starts with the number of runs a player's chemistry produces and then subtracts from that number a replacement level of chemistry runs.

Let's parse the stat a bit more closely.

Star-divide

First, we have to come up with the number of runs attributed to a player's chemistry.  We exclude from this value the number of runs as a result of a player's hitting, fielding, or pitching. In other words, we exclude runs that any nerd on his computer can discern while watching ESPN Gamecast in his mother's basement.

For CRAP, we're talking pure chemistry, leadership, and what we previously believed were intangibles. These are the things that people who have played team sports and watched the game know truly matter.

I can't give away my entire proprietary formula, but the following events contribute to a positive chemistry runs value:

BS:  Butt-Slaps (of teammates)
SHIT:  Showing Heart In front of Teammates
DUH:  Dirty Uniforms from Headslides
RUSES:  Rowsing Uplifting Speeches for Every Situation
WHITE: This is actually not an abbreviation, but simply gives chemistry points for having white skin

On the flipside, the following stats contribute to a negative chemistry runs value:

WIMP:  Walking Instead of Motoring on the basePaths
FAKE: Failure to Agonize over Key Errors
SLOW: Slowly Loping toward Outfield Walls

With a mix of advanced math and gutty willpower, these and other measures are converted into the countable stat of chemistry runs. As with other run-based measures, roughly 10 chemistry runs are the equivalent of one win.

The second part of CRAP is subtracting the chemistry runs of a replacement level player. With most of Baseball Prospectus's stats, replacement level is a tricky concept to explain by virtue of a particular player (who exactly is a replacement level player?) but easy to understand conceptually: a player of the level that is freely available.

With CRAP, we don't have this problem. The baseline replacement level for CRAP is, as any fan knows, Bobby Abreu. At any given time, any team can acquire a player who has as little chemistry-based production as Bobby Abreu.

Let's look at the top-3 CRAP producers for the past several years:

Aaron Rowand 2007: 47.3 CRAP
David Eckstein 2006: 43.1 CRAP
Adam Kennedy 2005: 32.9 CRAP

On the flipside, the bottom-3 CRAP producers for the past few years:

Manny Ramirez 2007: -5.6 CRAP
Pat Burrell 2006: -7.2 CRAP
Bobby Abreu 2006: -8.5 CRAP

Abreu's 2006 was particularly shocking because he managed to have a lower CR than the statistically-determined theoretical Bobby Abreu replacement level. Pat Gillick was a very smart man to trade away Abreu's deceptive on-field production for four worthless minor leaguers.

For the Phillies, Rowand's 2007 CRAP production is very problematic as it will certainly factor into his contract negotiations. Now that his MLB-leading CRAP can be quantified, there's no way he won't get an A-Rod-esque contract. With Gillick's stated aversion to long-term contracts, Phillies fans will have to get used to not seeing Aaron Rowand and his CRAP on the field next year.

0 recs  |  Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: CRAP
Somebody made the point in an earlier thread that a clubhouse malcontent really can have a negative impact on the performance of his teammates, just like having a jerk in the office can impact the performance of you and your co-workers in ways that are difficult to quantify.  I think that's a fair point.

Where the pro-Rowand crowd and their ilk go wrong is that:

  1. There's no reason to believe that the converse is true: that having a really likeable guy on the roster can have a positive impact on his teammates' performance.
  2. The players who are alleged to be malcontents oftentimes are not malcontents at all. They're just guys whom the fans have decided to dislike for essentially irrational, arbitrary reasons. For example, everyone in the Phillies' clubhouse respected Bobby Abreu; they were all very open about that fact. Abreu's supposed personality problems were all basically fictional.

by taco pal on Oct 15, 2007 3:50 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
and also

1a. seriously overvaluing the contributions of any one player, such that it is assumed his positive intangible contribution is irreplacable, rather than, at best, a very modest contribution which would easily be filled by Utley, Rollins, and other players on the roster who aren't going anywhere.

Also, hilarious piece.  What dajafi said below.

by The Navigator on Oct 16, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
This is the hardest I've ever laughed at anything on our site.

I hereby grant the Rex Hudler Award, a distinguished honor I just made up, for great intangible performance in a TGP story. Mazel Tov!

by dajafi on Oct 15, 2007 4:17 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
That's really funny.

My biggest problem with arguments that give players credit for intangibles isn't that the proposition is on its face stupid but that the proposition that intangibles matter isn't very specific and that the mechanisms that turn intangibles into wins are never laid out.

That said, I don't think we can say they don't matter at all. Just that so far, there hasn't been a very good argument for them--at least that I've seen--and that therefore you probably don't want to give them more than nominal consideration when you're putting together a team. Still, the claim seems perfectly plausible to me, it just hasn't been looked at in any type of rigorous way. It seems like a topic ripe for sabermetric analysis. As I've always understood it, sabermetrics has been about introducing rigor into analysis where previous methods were sloppy and where previous arguments were unclear. Sure, numbers are part of it but I think that's primarily because they offer a degree of precision that observations don't.  

by enterpsmith on Oct 15, 2007 9:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Nobody is saying that they don't matter.  They are just interpretted wrong.  Rowand may have more grit and desire than Burrell.  But that grit and desire is why he is a major league baseball player and not a minor league one.  It has made him into the best player that HE can be.  It is silly to assume that if Burrell played that way, it would improve his game.  

by jonk on Oct 15, 2007 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
"the proposition that intangibles matter isn't very specific and that the mechanisms that turn intangibles into wins are never laid out."

I'll agree that there are those problems, but recently I've been thinking one step back from there even.  What exactly are they?  I want someone to describe what someone does that isn't measured, and not just to assert that the player does these things and then we have to take that on faith.

If I know that, then I can start to make a determination on how/if that translates to wins.  I have my doubts, but I'd be open to thinking about it if someone were to actually explain what it is that a player should get credit for.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 15, 2007 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
I agree completely. When people derided Abreu, I never understood where they got their evidence from. By all accounts, everyone on the team thought he was a consummate professional. Ultimately, I think it comes down to laziness. People take all sorts of cognitive shortcuts in daily life and they work so they end up being applied to other things, as well. More generally, this is what frustrates me about sportswriting: it's not that sportswriters fail to meet a certain evidentiary standard, it's that they fail to recognize there is an evidentiary standard they need to meet. Those are totally different conversations. You can deal with someone who recognizes what they need to prove but doesn't make it, but what can you do with someone who just says stuff and expects you to accept them? I think that's where a lot of the "you never played the game" or "everyone knows it works like this" comes from.

by enterpsmith on Oct 15, 2007 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
[T]his is what frustrates me about sportswriting: it's not that sportswriters fail to meet a certain evidentiary standard, it's that they fail to recognize there is an evidentiary standard they need to meet.

This might be the most concise summary I've seen of the whole reason this site exists. Nicely done.

by dajafi on Oct 15, 2007 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
I think this is part of it, but I think there's something more, at least for some of the more intelligent writers.  There's been a huge democratization of knowledge about baseball.  With that, the old school types and the writers who make their living from reporting on the game have to protect their turf somehow.  They do it by knowingly shrouding their analysis in mystery and generalities that only those close to the game can possibly know.  That way, they appear smarter and more knowledgeable to those who decide to keep them employed.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 16, 2007 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
This is the finest Post I have seen this year.

Keep up the good work.

by SirAlden on Oct 16, 2007 3:31 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Damn it, why are you giving them firepower to rebut the Sabermetric arguments? And you had to do it while I was in the midst of a six-Internet-argument win streak.

I'll show you to actually watch the games, you jock, you. Right after I tape my glasses and put away my Star Trek action figure collection.

by Baerwcb on Oct 16, 2007 5:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
I'm sorry but your BS stat is no good.  That should fall under negative chemistry.  BSGG (But Slap Good Game) makes that maneuver legal and positive chemistry.  Apparently you never "played the game"  ;)

by Homer on Oct 16, 2007 6:08 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Well done.  Surely Joe Morgan will purchase your proprietary formula to prove those pesky statheads wrong.

by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 16, 2007 9:26 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Exactly why I had to keep it secret.  It'll be very lucrative.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 16, 2007 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
How ever did A-Rod avoid the lowest ever scrappy-clutchness score?

by MrIncognito on Oct 16, 2007 4:49 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
I would like to offer a another category - the "Claude Lemeuix" factor or CLF.  It takes into account the number of different teams one has "taken" to playoffs and their results in those playoffs.  My CLF leader - Kenny Lofton.

Kenny Lofton has played for 12 playoff teams in the past ten years.  I think he actually caught in his own pop fly in game three of the '98 NLDS.  I give his CLF a 34.6.  

by jl323 on Oct 16, 2007 9:29 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
What we failed to have seen is the biggest CRAP turnaround in history.  

Pat Burrell had a CRAP rating of -17.98 on July 1st, despite his average WHITE score being sky high.  At that point on, here were his totals:

BS:  47
SHIT:  92 (40 in August alone, a record!)
DUH:  3
RUSES:  4
WHITE: 78 (double his first half score cause he yelled GIT R DUN during a game)

Of course, his WIMP, FAKE and SLOW scores stayed fairly constant which people STILL like to point out, but his ending value of 29.8 was remarkable after how he started.  

KUDOS PAT BURRELL!!!

by jonk on Oct 16, 2007 9:54 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Brilliant, David! Now we can put to use a brilliant general managerial strategem that I thought of during one of the Rowand discussions. Gillick (or any interested rival GM) should make Aaron an offer consisting of:

1.) The value to the team of whatever tangible, measurable, on-the-field contributions the team figures him to make over the length of said contract. This, of course, will be paid to the player in real dollars.

2.) The value of the player's projected chemistry and other intangibles for the length of the contract, which we can now figure thanks to the development of CRAP valuation. This, of course, will be paid with intangible money. It would be insulting to the player to compensate him for his intangibles with real money.

Oh well, it sounded better the first time I thought of it.
*****************

BTW, Rowand gets chemical credit for holding team cookouts. OK, that sounds good, I guess. But do we want, say, Ryan Howard, holding team cookouts? Don't we want him watching his weight? That would make cookouts good from Rowand; bad from Howard or the team's next portly pitcher pickup. 'Tis a puzzlement.

I know, let's ask Marcus Hayes!

by Dalton Bouchee on Oct 17, 2007 12:48 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
I'm working on my own top secret formula for HEART: Hustle Exhibited And Runs ManufacTured.

by WholeCamels on Oct 17, 2007 8:11 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Good thing Manny said his comments yesterday about a loss not being the end of the world in the post-season.  They would have dragged his CRAP down below Abreu's 2006.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 18, 2007 9:32 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Really, David? I would have thought that the post-season would have a multiplier effect on a player's CRAP. After all, the post-season is where a player's CRAP truly makes a difference, isn't it?

by Dalton Bouchee on Oct 18, 2007 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
True, but it's simple:  each player has separate post-season CRAP.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 18, 2007 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: CRAP
Oh, so the born winner like David Bell who "always gets to the post season" has a separate stat line for playoffs?  This sabermetric stuff confuses me ;)

by Homer on Oct 18, 2007 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.
Start posting about the Phillies »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

3493405934_78d595f1a1_small
Not Philly Enough

Recent FanPosts

Small
I'm tired of the money argument.
Small
trade
Small
Predictions of minors call ups' for next year
Greg_luzinski_small
Phillies Breakfast Links, November 5, 2009: Too Depressed to Eat Breakfast, Ma Edition
Boys_small
Next Year!
Small
Crazy Phillies Fan Who Offered Sex for World Series Tickets Tells All!
Angels-stadium-angels-helmet_small
Larry Bowa comes close to call the Phillies cheaters
Boys_small
STFU You
Sunflower_small
World Series Simulation, Game #6

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz

Phillyfriar_small PhillyFriar