I don't understand how a light beer could be considered replacement level. Surely the primary function of beer is to have the proper amount of alcohol in it.
Replacement Level
- Thread starter civvver
- Start date
I don't understand how a light beer could be considered replacement level. Surely the primary function of beer is to have the proper amount of alcohol in it.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Fair enough. I'll take issue with Fangraphs logic.
Take the worst runs allowed (894) and the worst runs scored (604) from MLB in 2017. By the pythagorean win formula, see wiki, this projects to an expected win total of 53 wins. That's too close. Using 1000 runs allowed and 500 scored, the number is 35-36 wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation
Frankly, 1000 runs allowed with both marginal pitching and marginal defense is optimistic. Also, the formula errs to the center, so bad teams under perform. Still, my off the cuff 15 wins is definitely too low. I think 30-32 is more realistic.
J
Last edited:
sophie
Break My Heart
I'll defer to Tango, Cameron, Forman et al., but you do you...I guess?
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/unifying-replacement-level/
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
In this case, I look at the 6000 PA and say, these are better than replacement level. Bill James said that longevity is one of surest signs of talent. You will note that Cameron is saying that they are raising the baseline.Take Alfredo Griffin. If you want to make a case, which they are, that Griffin is a replacement starter, I think you have it nailed. In context, this makes perfect sense. Fangraphs is more interested in players that play than players that sit
Griffin is an old SABR argument as to whether he deserved to be a regular SS. It is very clear he was more valuable in his manager's eyes than his stat line. It's not hard to see why. He was intelligent, hard working, respectful, diligent. As a player he was prone doing small things that undercut the big things. As a hitter he had a hollow BA, no power, no speed, rarely walked. OK, but he's a glove first SS. What about that? Defensively he could may the impossible play, then flub a routine DP ball. Somewhere on the bench is a nonstarter, doing spot duty, often in only one area, eg defensive substitute, pinch runner, long relief, emergency catcher, whatever. Those guys are the true replacement types.
By the nature of the fringe, they are not long for the league. If they are young and have some talent, they may get playing time in spite of substandard production. This is because young players often start as fringe performers but eventually become better. It's the guys that are 26 years old and have been up and down four times that are the real fringe. That said, Griffin has his use. His offense was barely tolerable, but his defense was good enough to get him playing time. You can reasonably say that players with Griffin's offense and fair to average defense is are replacement level players.
Crunch a few numbers and you will find that a team of Alfredo Griffin hitters will score about 556 runs. That's a bit better than I was using. Pitching is much more difficult, so I will go with my gut and say the replacement team allows 1050 runs. You get a winning percentage of 23.8%, or 39. Bill James did some writing about this in 1987. He assembled a team he called the Ken Phelps All Stars. Ken Phelps was a player that would be more welcome today than 30 years ago. He had great power, and excellent batting eye and struck out a great deal. Defensively, he was an adequate 1B. James' point was that Phelps was viewed as replacement level, but was actually much better. Even then he thought a team of overlooked players would win about 50 games.
Here is a BP article in the same vein.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/1185/2001-ken-phelps-all-star-team-part-one-infield/
J
Griffin is an old SABR argument as to whether he deserved to be a regular SS. It is very clear he was more valuable in his manager's eyes than his stat line. It's not hard to see why. He was intelligent, hard working, respectful, diligent. As a player he was prone doing small things that undercut the big things. As a hitter he had a hollow BA, no power, no speed, rarely walked. OK, but he's a glove first SS. What about that? Defensively he could may the impossible play, then flub a routine DP ball. Somewhere on the bench is a nonstarter, doing spot duty, often in only one area, eg defensive substitute, pinch runner, long relief, emergency catcher, whatever. Those guys are the true replacement types.
By the nature of the fringe, they are not long for the league. If they are young and have some talent, they may get playing time in spite of substandard production. This is because young players often start as fringe performers but eventually become better. It's the guys that are 26 years old and have been up and down four times that are the real fringe. That said, Griffin has his use. His offense was barely tolerable, but his defense was good enough to get him playing time. You can reasonably say that players with Griffin's offense and fair to average defense is are replacement level players.
Crunch a few numbers and you will find that a team of Alfredo Griffin hitters will score about 556 runs. That's a bit better than I was using. Pitching is much more difficult, so I will go with my gut and say the replacement team allows 1050 runs. You get a winning percentage of 23.8%, or 39. Bill James did some writing about this in 1987. He assembled a team he called the Ken Phelps All Stars. Ken Phelps was a player that would be more welcome today than 30 years ago. He had great power, and excellent batting eye and struck out a great deal. Defensively, he was an adequate 1B. James' point was that Phelps was viewed as replacement level, but was actually much better. Even then he thought a team of overlooked players would win about 50 games.
Here is a BP article in the same vein.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/1185/2001-ken-phelps-all-star-team-part-one-infield/
J
