Robinson Cano in OOTP 14

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

With Davis, you've got to realize that the guy had nearly played his way out of any chance at an MLB career due to his major, major issues with making contact.

His 2012 was decent, but not especially great, and his previous years were a disaster.

Even this year he struck out 199 times in 584 ab's. Last year 169 times in 515 ab's.

So there's really no way to argue his contact ratings should be very good at all, even for this year. And if you look at his entire career there's even less of a case for him to have particularly good contact ratings.

Reminds me of one Mark Reynolds.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Yeah, he looks incredible. I hope he does keep it up. I'm just not going to bet the farm on it.

On that note, the one player to me that has been impressive for a long time (been following him since 2010) is Stanton... I would put money that this guy is going to have a monster career. To me, he just needs a team where he can get better protection to have 40+ HR years, I would love the Yankees to sign him, but I'm afraid we don't have much in the farm system to get this guy.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

This year was a career year outlier for him. There's nothing in his track record to suggest he'll be able to sustain this production. Of course he could be able to do so, like Jose Bautista did after his breakout year, but looking at things historically there are 10 Brady Andersons for every Jose Bautista. It's hard to feel any degree of certainty that Davis is most similar to Bautista. The odds are he's more like Anderson.

The difference between Anderson and Davis is that Brady was a solid MLer who had a freak power display in 1996. Anderson reverted back to form for the remainder of his career, which was solid, but not spectacular.

Davis always had power, but he had not established himself as a solid MLer, outside of 2012.

I would be more bullish on Davis. He didn't magically find a new physical talent. I think he matured/developed a better understanding of what it takes to be a major league hitter and is now utilizing the physical talent he always had.

I wouldn't expect him to continue this 2013 output, but he certainly can. I think we are looking at his 2012 season as his floor for the next 5 or 6 years, should he maintain good health.

Anderson had defined himself as a ball player prior to 1996, and that is the ball player he was after 1996. Davis is defining himself, currently.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

My league is in 2014 so maybe my ratings are different then yours. But to see him in the minors for the entire year in my league does make me a little sad as I am a Chris Davis fan.

You still talking about Cano or now talking about Davis? My league was started in 1999. I edited Davis' 2014 season with his 2013 season a few weeks ago. Cano I have not touched and for some reason thought he had better #'s. The Reds have been good with cano for several seasons. They also had A-Roid and McCann.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by The Game

You still talking about Cano or now talking about Davis? My league was started in 1999. I edited Davis' 2014 season with his 2013 season a few weeks ago. Cano I have not touched and for some reason thought he had better #'s. The Reds have been good with cano for several seasons. They also had A-Roid and McCann.

Crush Davis. He's not doing too much crushing in this game though.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

...
Anderson had defined himself as a ball player prior to 1996, and that is the ball player he was after 1996. Davis is defining himself, currently.

You're right about the differences between Anderson and Davis of course. They aren't really similar in any way except for unexpectedly having 50 HR years.

I wasn't intending to comp the two as such, just used Anderson as the top of the mind example regarding unexpectedly big years.

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

I would be more bullish on Davis. He didn't magically find a new physical talent. I think he matured/developed a better understanding of what it takes to be a major league hitter and is now utilizing the physical talent he always had.

I wouldn't expect him to continue this 2013 output, but he certainly can. I think we are looking at his 2012 season as his floor for the next 5 or 6 years, should he maintain good health.

I wouldn't be so dogmatic as to say you're wrong on this, it's certainly a very possible outcome.

But there are a few concerns for me.

The biggest, as discussed, is Davis issues making contact. If Anderson isn't a good comp, Mark Reynolds certainly is. Which isn't to say the two have followed or will follow the same path, just that Reynolds shows the high amount of variance that can be expected from power hitters who consistently struggle to make contact. All it takes is their being a little off and missing a few balls they could crush, just by a fraction, and then 10-15 of their HR's turn into 10-15 more K's and suddenly they aren't having a good year at all.

So given that, it's actually very important to analyze whether your assessment that he "he matured/developed a better understanding of what it takes to be a major league hitter and is now utilizing the physical talent he always had." is true. If so it seems likely that he has established a new talent level and will be able to produce at a consistently high level.

While that absolutely could be the case, I had a hard time finding any data that actually backs that up.

Looking at his contact numbers, it appears that he's still missing balls at about the same rate. His K rate is steady and his O-contact and Z-contact numbers have actually decreased from the last couple years! Overall, his O-contact and Z-contact, O-swing and Z-swing numbers are all almost exactly in line with his career averages. They're actually a little higher than in his miserable early years, but lower than his two previous decent years.

So it doesn't appear that he's actually made any real adjustments in how much he swings and misses or takes. Most of his improvement simply seems to have come as result of the balls he does make contact with just going further.

That could be as a result of his being stronger, or having better leverage or something like that. But I also think it's entirely possible that what happened was simply one of those great years that come out of nowhere with the player being unable to sustain production at the same level in the future.

Either way, I don't see anything in the data to convince me that anything changed in his approach to hitting. That makes me cautious about feeling his true talent level has actually changed.

Another concern is the potential aging pattern for players like Davis. Looking at his BR ref comps yields some cautionary tales. Glenn Davis, who fell off a cliff after his age 28 year. Wally Post also fell off a cliff, admittedly remaining a productive hitter, but only putting up half the HR totals he had at one point. Lee May, who continued to play well into his mid 30s but whose power numbers inexorably declined each year after age 28 or so. Cecil Fielder also steadily declined from his age 26-27 ish peak.

Now some of Davis comps were able to sustain their production well into their 30s too. Frank Howard, Mo Vaughn, Richie Sexson, to an extent.

So while it's hard to say which group Davis will fall into, there's probably an equal possibility that he turns out to be Wally Post or Glenn Davis as there is that he's more like Frank Howard or Mo Vaughn.

Either way, it's likely he'll put up some more good years, the question is simply how good? It seems to me that rather than 2012 being his floor that it's actually his median.

Still that's just my conclusion, and yours is equally valid. We'll just have to wait and see.

I think it'll be absolutely fascinating to see what does happen with Davis in the future. I wouldn't be shocked with another 50+ homer year or two in the next five years and I wouldn't be shocked if he's out of the league in five years.

[VanillaGorilla]

I think the data does indicate that he has changed his approach and his results are benefiting from it.

The difference in his 2013 O-Swing to his career previously is about a 5% decline. His Swing% is also about a 5% reduction from his totals through 2012.

His O contact is up by about 2%. So he is swinging at fewer balls, and when he does expand the zone, he is hitting balls he wants to hit at a higher rate. I think in the case of Davis this is not the result of him protecting the plate any better than before, but in taking mistake pitches that are up and putting them in play instead of into the backstop.

The big number that jumps out is fStrike%, which is a career low (throw out 2010 for this, since he had less than 1/5 of the PA than he did in 2013).

His fStrike% is below the league average. That means pitchers are either giving him fewer first pitch strikes or he is not swing at as many first pitch balls. I think the answer is both.

Another big number is B/S ratio. In 2013 it was about 2:3. Aside from the small sample 2010, every other year was around 1:2, as was his career ratio, prior to 2013.

This guy is not the same hitter. He didn't luck himself to a HR title.

In 151 more PA in 2013 than 2012, he hit 10 fewer GB. With a K/PA rate virtually constant, that means he is doing what a home run hitter needs to do to hit HRs: elevate the ball.

Couple this with the O-S and O-C change, I think this indicates (as people who watched him all season would say "well, duh!" if you told them you had 'discovered' this in the data) that he is taking the balls up that he can handle and driving them, often Out Of The Park (how's that for working a plug?) and not swinging at those so far up out of the zone, which he can't handle, as often as he did in 2012.

That is a changed hitter. That is an improved hitter. And that makes me bullish on his prospects for the coming seasons.

OK, I was bullish on him before I looked at these numbers. Now that I have, I find the data not discouraging, at all. I find it to be the complete opposite.

If you were GM for the O's and I was GM for another club, we could probably work a deal. You would think you were selling high and I would think I was buying low.

That's what makes horse racing and, also, baseball trades.

[Lukas Berger]

Maybe a bit silly or egomaniacal on my part, but just happened be reviewing some old posts and figured I'd bump this one since, well, I was kinda dead on right on Davis

This year is making it even more clear than ever that his 2013 was an incredibly lucky, fluky sort of year.

[Lukas Berger]

This thread also reminds me how much turnover there is in posters from year to year. I definitely miss VanillaGorilla in particular and D-BacksJosh among others

[rj58]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Sure it is.

Even the biggest proponents of fielding metrics admit that they're unsure just how accurate they are at this point in time. Even among card carrying sabr guys, some view certain fielding metrics as gospel, some mix in a heavy dose of Tango's crowdsource fielding ratings and some still feel that there's a need to rely on their gut to supplement and modify what the metrics tell them given the clear issues with the metrics.

Maybe one day they'll get the metrics to the point where we can say they're perfectly accurate mathematically and scientifically, but we certainly aren't there yet.

You have this exactly right..

Statistics is just about discovering patterns in data.. but how the data is gathered, and what it means, is subject to confounds.. and wringing confounds out of data discovery is a whole subject unto itself.

I think most baseball teams are testing how much they can rely on sabremetrics to make certain types of decisions.. and the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. If the stats end up being good guides, more teams will do it and will beat the stuffing out of those who don't. But also like all things in competition.. the stats will never tell you the whole story, because in response to stats guided strategies, you'll get counter strategies which may or may not be stats based.

The stats are as good as they are.. but they aren't without confounds..

As a very simple example to make my point.. imagine two different baseball fields, one where the sun is behind the defenders during a game, one where its in front. That seemingly simple detail is going to affect their fielding rates for any fly balls.. yet I never see that called out ANYWHERE. This type stuff is buried in the data and affects it.. but we just see the end statistic.

Statistics are important.. but in no way are they godly nor do they give you the whole picture. Ask any scientist.. they'll tell you (I know.. its how I was trained).