I've updated the total value estimates for 2008 players. You can read about all the methods in this series of posts.
Features:
- Total value estimates for every MLB position player, based on hitting (RAR; Runs Above Replacement level based on linear weights), fielding (Fielding), and their position (PosAdj). Units are runs produced above a replacement player.
- Fielding measures are based on the average runs saved according to zone rating (ZR) and revised zone rating (RZR).
- Pitchers are listed according to RAR (base runs saved above replacement) and FIP-Runs (a defense-independent pitching stat estimating runs saved above replacement).
- League differences are taken into account. So are park differences.
- Closers get a leverage-based bonus in value (though it's pretty rough).
Note: I've heard a report that someone was getting server errors trying to access this spreadsheet. If you do, please let me know, because I haven't been able to replicate it and want to know how widespread the issue is.
A huge thanks to Joel Luckhaupt, who used his visual basic wizardly to automate the population of my makeshift spreadsheets. Thanks also to the Hardball Times, who supplied most of the data.
Current MVP Rankings
American League
Last | First | Lg | Team | Pos | PA | OPS | R/G | RAR | Fielding | PosAdj | TtlValue |
Sizemore | Grady | AL | CLE | CF | 639 | 0.908 | 7.7 | 62.5 | 10.9 | 3.2 | 76.6 |
Rodriguez | Alex | AL | NYA | 3B | 524 | 0.997 | 8.4 | 57.9 | 4.4 | 0.7 | 63.0 |
Pedroia | Dustin L | AL | BOS | 2B | 638 | 0.883 | 6.6 | 47.2 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 53.5 |
Granderson | Curtis | AL | DET | CF | 534 | 0.898 | 7.3 | 47.3 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 52.3 |
Roberts | Brian | AL | BAL | 2B | 626 | 0.838 | 6.6 | 46.3 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 50.2 |
Mauer | Joe | AL | MIN | C | 539 | 0.858 | 6.6 | 36.7 | 6.0 | 7.2 | 49.9 |
Hamilton | Josh H | AL | TEX | CF | 615 | 0.903 | 6.6 | 45.3 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 49.2 |
Beltre | Adrian | AL | SEA | 3B | 587 | 0.780 | 5.2 | 25.9 | 22.3 | 0.8 | 49.0 |
Youkilis | Kevin E | AL | BOS | 1B | 538 | 0.947 | 7.1 | 45.4 | 4.5 | -5.4 | 44.6 |
Markakis | Nick | AL | BAL | RF | 620 | 0.897 | 7.3 | 52.5 | -3.5 | -5.1 | 44.0 |
Sizemore still has a commanding lead, though A-Rod is holding his own despite 100 fewer PA's. If you value rate stats, you probably go with A-Rod. But if you count playing time, as replacement-level statistics do, Sizemore is the clear choice. Similar offensive contributions, and excellent defense at a premium position.
National League
Last | First | Lg | Team | Pos | PA | OPS | R/G | RAR | Fielding | PosAdj | TtlValue |
Pujols | Albert | NL | STL | 1B | 558 | 1.110 | 10.7 | 78.2 | 15.7 | -6.6 | 87.3 |
Berkman | Lance | NL | HOU | 1B | 584 | 1.027 | 9.1 | 68.0 | 14.6 | -7.1 | 75.5 |
Jones | Chipper | NL | ATL | 3B | 480 | 1.021 | 9.4 | 56.0 | 10.7 | 0.6 | 67.4 |
Utley | Chase | NL | PHI | 2B | 620 | 0.925 | 7.1 | 48.6 | 17.5 | 0.8 | 66.8 |
Ramirez | Hanley | NL | FLA | SS | 626 | 0.926 | 7.9 | 59.2 | 1.1 | 4.9 | 65.2 |
Beltran | Carlos | NL | NYN | CF | 614 | 0.851 | 6.5 | 40.3 | 13.1 | 3.4 | 56.8 |
Holliday | Matt T | NL | COL | LF | 562 | 0.974 | 7.9 | 51.9 | 9.2 | -4.6 | 56.6 |
Wright | David A | NL | NYN | 3B | 641 | 0.897 | 7.0 | 48.2 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 53.7 |
Giles | Brian | NL | SD | RF | 567 | 0.839 | 6.8 | 40.1 | 16.9 | -4.6 | 52.4 |
Braun | Ryan J | NL | MIL | LF | 570 | 0.934 | 7.0 | 45.2 | 7.9 | -4.7 | 48.4 |
Current Cy Young Rankings
American League
Last | First | Lg | Team | IP | ERA | FIP | OPSa | BsR/G | RAR | FIPRAR |
Lee | Cliff | AL | CLE | 194.3 | 2.32 | 2.60 | 0.601 | 2.82 | 68.7 | 65.9 |
Halladay | Roy | AL | TOR | 218.0 | 2.64 | 2.98 | 0.621 | 3.04 | 71.8 | 64.8 |
Santana | Ervin R | AL | LAA | 192.0 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 0.638 | 3.44 | 54.7 | 51.7 |
Burnett | A.J. | AL | TOR | 193.3 | 4.47 | 3.52 | 0.740 | 4.52 | 31.8 | 45.7 |
Vazquez | Javier | AL | CHA | 182.7 | 4.34 | 3.41 | 0.747 | 4.43 | 31.9 | 45.5 |
Mussina | Mike | AL | NYA | 172.3 | 3.39 | 3.34 | 0.729 | 4.12 | 36.0 | 44.3 |
Danks | John W | AL | CHA | 164.7 | 3.44 | 3.33 | 0.692 | 3.78 | 40.7 | 42.5 |
Pettitte | Andy | AL | NYA | 188.3 | 4.49 | 3.68 | 0.751 | 4.60 | 29.4 | 41.3 |
Beckett | Josh | AL | BOS | 154.3 | 4.20 | 3.32 | 0.706 | 3.88 | 36.3 | 40.0 |
Lester | Jon T | AL | BOS | 181.7 | 3.37 | 3.72 | 0.706 | 3.84 | 43.6 | 39.1 |
National League
Last | First | Lg | Team | IP | ERA | FIP | OPSa | BsR/G | RAR | FIPRAR |
Lincecum | Tim | NL | SF | 190.3 | 2.60 | 2.77 | 0.610 | 3.06 | 57.3 | 56.0 |
Haren | Dan | NL | ARI | 190.0 | 3.41 | 3.00 | 0.664 | 3.41 | 49.9 | 51.1 |
Webb | Brandon | NL | ARI | 192.0 | 3.19 | 3.13 | 0.628 | 3.10 | 56.9 | 49.0 |
Lowe | Derek | NL | LAN | 188.7 | 3.53 | 3.28 | 0.652 | 3.43 | 49.0 | 44.8 |
Sheets | Ben | NL | MIL | 179.0 | 2.97 | 3.17 | 0.660 | 3.45 | 46.2 | 44.7 |
Hamels | Cole | NL | PHI | 203.0 | 3.01 | 3.47 | 0.634 | 3.18 | 58.4 | 44.1 |
Billingsley | Chad R | NL | LAN | 175.7 | 3.13 | 3.22 | 0.672 | 3.89 | 36.8 | 43.0 |
Dempster | Ryan | NL | CHN | 183.7 | 2.99 | 3.38 | 0.630 | 3.24 | 51.6 | 41.7 |
Volquez | Edinson | NL | CIN | 170.0 | 3.12 | 3.33 | 0.669 | 3.77 | 37.8 | 39.5 |
Santana | Johan | NL | NYN | 196.0 | 2.71 | 3.77 | 0.660 | 3.69 | 45.3 | 35.9 |
Thanks for the update!
ReplyDeleteStubbs over Lincecum is looking pretty ugly indeed but Tim will have to sustain this for a few more years before it eclipses the 1992 draft where Cincy took Chad Mottola with the 5th overall pick and the Yankees took some guy named Jeter at the 6th pick. Just imagine him at 2B with Larkin at SS thru those mid to late 90s.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work Justin. I'm not convinced that ZR and RZR alone adequately address fielding but I realize that's all you have to work with at this time of year. Your general algorithm seems very sound.
ReplyDeleteLee
Lee, here are some things Justin doesn't include, to various degrees of importance:
ReplyDelete- turning double plays
- 1B scooping
- baserunning (non-SB/CS)
- OF throwing arm
#4 will be available after the season at THT. #3 is a similar process and i'm surprised John Walsh doesn't yet tackle it. #2 is available with 1986 through 2007 data and is probably tough to compute on a single season scale. i know i've seen #1 tackled before, but can't remember where and can't really think how you'd address it.