Free Agent Friday: Second Base 2010

by Justin Bopp on Nov 13, 2009 3:04 AM EST in Visuals Above Replacement

These charts tells me the Royals are now in the Luis Rodriguez sweepstakes.

Click to enlarge

Full data after the jump.

Second basemen	AGE	TYPE	CLUB OPTION	WAR	UZR/150	wOBA	ISO	PA
Felipe Lopez	30	B		4.6	7.6	0.356	0.118	680
Placido Polanco	34	A		3.1	11	0.321	0.112	676
Juan Uribe	31			2.9	16.4	0.351	0.206	432
Orlando Hudson	32	A		2.9	-3.7	0.342	0.134	631
Craig Counsell	39			2.8	18	0.336	0.124	459
Adam Kennedy	34			1.7	-11.4	0.337	0.121	587
Mark DeRosa	35	B		1.7	N/A	0.327	0.183	576
Jamey Carroll	36			1.5	7.4	0.317	0.063	358
Ronnie Belliard	35	B		1.3	6.6	0.339	0.174	287
Jerry Hairston Jr.	34			1	4.1	0.312	0.144	433
Nick Green	31			0.4	-29.7	0.290	0.130	309
Alex Cora	34			0	-9.3	0.288	0.059	308
Mark Loretta	38			-0.2	0.7	0.311	0.085	204
Luis Rodriguez	30			-0.5	-23.7	0.268	0.058	251

Click for Free Agent Fridays 2010:

1B | 2B | SS | 3B | LF | CF | RF | P

Data Source: FanGraphs.com

FA/Age Source: mlbtraderumors.com

RL & Lg. Avg wOBA Data: Jeff Zimmerman

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think the innings played in the TargetView graph is a good addition. Adds context. Well done Justin.

Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Come attend Intro to Sabermetrics 101!
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.

by SFiercex4 on Nov 13, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions

Thank you for noticing--and yep.

It shows which guys were full time starters (Hudson, Lopez, Polanco), which guys had significant backup roles (Kennedy, Belliard, Counsell), and which guys play multiple positions with below-replacement-level value and the Royals are currently targeting for acquisition (Rodriquez, Cora, etc).

It’s hard not to notice that Lopez has the most value. And he’s THIRTY.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 13, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

Yes, thanks for putting innings on the chart. Love that. Now it just needs projections (Sean Smith’s projections for hitters are out at Baseball Projection…..) rather than 2009 data and they’d be great!

Fire Jim Leyland

And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!

by Mike Rogers on Nov 15, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

Is there a reason you are using 2009 numbers vice projected values.

For Lopez, Bill James has him at .330, which is problem more the case. The .360 was a career high. Sense he was a regular, he had two 4.6 WAR seasons and none of the other 3 broke 1.6 WAR.

Hitting .330 puts him near 2.6 WAR if he get 700 PA His average UZR at 2B is 0.5. So he should be near 3.1 WAR.

A career year batting and in the field has him over valued.

Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.

by Jeff Zimmerman on Nov 13, 2009 10:53 AM EST reply actions

Good points, Jeff.

There is certainly some aspect of projection that these need to include. I think I should do something that resembles a career ‘arc’ for the ones that look like decent-to-good signings, but I think there is some value in using actual production rather than projected production. Probably just another chart that shows the past 3-4-5 years along with James’ number in front.

Also a factor is the observation that all of these FAs, and probably most of them, are all over 30. James has almost all of them* declinining next season and it was my impression that this decline would be somewhat assumed.

*feel free to check my data on that one.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 13, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions

In the past James's values are a little high.

I don’t think he regresses values very much, if at all.

Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.

by Jeff Zimmerman on Nov 13, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

Interesting on the declining -- James tends to be optimistic.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 13, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

What typeface do you use for the WAR/wOBA charts?

/typefacenerd’d

by Tommy Bennett on Nov 13, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

+1 typefacenerd approved

1. I love you.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylfaen_(typeface)
3. I like it because it gives charts a magazine look to them. If you go back and look at the Washington Nationals 100-loss/losses history chart, you can see a good example of the effect.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 13, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

They get so many bonus points for naming their typeface after a Welsh word

by Tommy Bennett on Nov 13, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

OK

Am I the only one who finds this “TargetView” thing wildly misleading and completely useless?

It’s not actually the case that 8 of the 10 free agents either routinely make plays on the shortstop side of second base, or can’t field a ball 5 feet to one side of them if their life depends on it. Craig Counsell’s range is not 100 times larger than Ronnie Belliard’s. If you want something that vaguely resembles reality, the inner circle should be like three times the current diameter and the outer rings maybe 1/6th as wide as they are right now.

If not, why not just post the UZR without the risible “graphic interpretation”?

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 13, 2009 3:30 PM EST reply actions

UZR != Range

However, I agree that the current form of this visual isn’t the best way to look at same-positioned players. It’s confusing and, as noted by your post, easy to mistake the larger circles to mean greater range. I would love to hear feedback on how we can visualize the aspects of UZR (range, errors, etc) if you have them.

I think the best application of the visual is probably from a team perspective to show ‘holes’ in said team’s defense.

I do take exception to the idea that it is “wildly misleading” and “completely useless,” though, unless you’re just being hyperbolic. Confusing and little-added value? Maybe. Pushing mistruths with zero benefit at all? A little far.

If you just want to look at tables, there are plenty of existing outlets that do that.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 13, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

He has a lot of interesting things to say

but the phrasing is frequently hyberbolic. I think it’s fair to say that “wildly misleading” and “completely useless” are more indicative of his emotions than they are objective descriptions of the visual presentation.
That said, I also didn’t find the graphic particularly intuitive, but I like your “team” idea. I’ll have to think about whether there are other ways it could be tweaked, but thanks for all of your effort in putting it together.

by el generico on Nov 16, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

I'm frequently hyperbolic as well, so there's really no hard feelings.

I didn’t really take exception to it. He’s right. I will be trying to come up with a better way to visually represent this data, but will be sticking with the team view for now.

See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 18, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions