NL Rookie of the Year

[NAHSTE]

Rob Neyer and Keith Law have made pretty good cases for Heyward in recent days.

I received a series of questions on Twitter on Sunday about the top rookies for 2010, mostly asking whether I'd take Jason Heyward or some other rookie for the next few years.

With that in mind, I've re-ranked the top prospects who have already lost their 2011 rookie of the year eligibility, looking specifically at how much value I think they'll provide over the next five to six seasons. All wOBA, FIP and WAR figures are for 2010 only and are courtesy of FanGraphs.

1. Jason Heyward, RF, Atlanta
wOBA: .382, WAR: 4.1
How can you argue with this season? Heyward, the No. 3 prospect in baseball going into 2009 and No. 1 coming into this year, has met or exceeded those expectations, and is on pace to post the third-best walk total ever for a player under 21, all while hitting for average and power with above-average defense in right. There are 35- to 40-homer seasons in his future and plenty of additional All-Star Game starts.

2. Buster Posey, C, San Francisco
wOBA: .371, WAR: 3.1
The best player on the Giants since his promotion has put the lie to every comment Brian Sabean made about Posey being less than ready for the majors, and it's possible that their refusal to bring him up sooner to replace Bengie Molina's corpse will cost them a playoff spot. I think he's already raised his long-term power projection, the one tool that was a little bit lacking in his set.

A month ago, this seemed like the most interesting argument of the awards season, because the National League's rookie crop looked like the best we've seen in a long time.

Well, the latter is still true. With players like Buster Posey, Starlin Castro, Neil Walker, Gaby Sanchez, Jaime Garcia, Ike Davis and Jonathon Niese all posting impressive numbers, you could almost throw all the names into a hat and pluck a worthy Rookie of the Year.

Except not this season. Not with Heyward in the league. He started crushing the ball in March, kept crushing in April and May, struggled with an injury in June … and since the All-Star break he's been one of the best players in the league (let alone rookies). At the moment, Heyward is bidding to finish the season with an on-base percentage higher than .400, and the list of rookies who have done that is exceptionally short and exceptionally impressive.

If there was an award for most promising rookie, Heyward would deserve to win, unanimously. There is an award for best rookie, and he will win that one.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

ah, wOBA, he latest flawed geek stat flavor of the month.

"pffft, you still look at UZR? Not the best metric, but at least you aren't using OPS+.... "

 

[NAHSTE]

ah, wOBA, he latest flawed geek stat flavor of the month.

"pffft, you still look at UZR? Not the best metric, but at least you aren't using OPS+.... "

WTF is wOBA, if I may ask?

I agree though, can we just talk about baseball like we used to? I appreciate that there are flaws in RBI, AVG and ERA, but come on with all these made up metrics...

SB, CS, OBP, SLG and OPS are the only stats you need other than the big 3. That gives you as clear a picture as you need on a guy, IMO, provided you actually watch some games.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

wOBA is weighted on base average.

In simple terms, it calculates singles, doubles, triples, homers, unintentional walks, reached on error and puts weighted values on each. The formula can be googled if you care, its the new trendy stat. If you believe in the formula, its awesome. If not, its useless.

Don't worry, some dude with a slide rule will come up with something else next week.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

To expand on why its the hot stat, its considered more useful than OBP because OBP doesn't reward you for extra base hits.

Its considered more useful than OPS because the SLG portion of OPS supposedly doesn't weight the extra base hits properly. For example, a 2B is weighted two times better than a single with SLG, but according to the geeks, it should only be 1.7 times greater or some shit.

Its all dependant on if you believe in those formulas or not. Personally, I think they out think themselves with these stats sometimes. Of course a double is at least twice as good as a single, especially since men will be on base a percentage of the time. Of couse, they will counter that men on is a product of surroundings and should not be used to reward a hitter.

It goes on and on.

 

[NAHSTE]

To expand on why its the hot stat, its considered more useful than OBP because OBP doesn't reward you for extra base hits.

Its considered more useful than OPS because the SLG portion of OPS supposedly doesn't weight the extra base hits properly. For example, a 2B is weighted two times better than a single with SLG, but according to the geeks, it should only be 1.7 times greater or some shit.

Its all dependant on if you believe in those formulas or not. Personally, I think they out think themselves with these stats sometimes. Of course a double is at least twice as good as a single, especially since men will be on base a percentage of the time. Of couse, they will counter that men on is a product of surroundings and should not be used to reward a hitter.

It goes on and on.

I'd think that if a double weren't supposed to be twice as good as a single, it wouldn't be called a double. This is hilarious though. It's like they realized after OPS that they couldn't improve upon it anymore so they had to keep making more up just to stay relevant.

 

[Goober]

I remember in the spring I predicted Alcides Escobar would win rookie of the year. Boy has his bat been disappointing. He's barely above replacement level. Hopefully he can improve things with another year in winter ball.

 

[NAHSTE]

I remember in the spring I predicted Alcides Escobar would win rookie of the year. Boy has his bat been disappointing. He's barely above replacement level. Hopefully he can improve things with another year in winter ball.

I remember in spring training I predicted Jason Heyward would win rookie of the year, and all of VSN lashed out at the prediction. Gonna go find that thread, be right back...

 

[Senser81]

I'd think that if a double weren't supposed to be twice as good as a single, it wouldn't be called a double.

It might be, because the term "double" is much more catchy than the term "One Point Seven".

 

[NAHSTE]

It might be, because the term "double" is much more catchy than the term "One Point Seven".

"Dude, totally got to 1.7th base last night with that chesty brunette from 3rd period"

"Holy crap dude! 1.7th base! Your VORP (value over replacement pervert) is off the charts!"

 

[FedEx227]

For what it's worth though, I don't really like wOBA anyway. Also, it's not really trendy or new, it's been around since I believe 2002-2003. I actually haven't really seen it used all that much in recent years.

Just face-palming to the "why can't we just talk about RBIs and AVG anymore" comment. And the inevitable "slide rule" comment.

Proven fact: people that enjoy baseball statistics hate baseball.

 

[Senser81]

For what it's worth though, I don't really like wOBA anyway. Also, it's not really trendy or new, it's been around since I believe 2002-2003. I actually haven't really seen it used all that much in recent years.

Just face-palming to the "why can't we just talk about RBIs and AVG anymore" comment. And the inevitable "slide rule" comment.

Proven fact: people that enjoy baseball statistics hate baseball.

Is that Lefty34 standing behind Fozzy Bear?

 

[FedEx227]

:yep:

 

[Senser81]

:yep:

How does he close his mouth with those teeth?

 

[FedEx227]

If only he came around again we would know...

 

[FirstTimer]

Buster Posey IMO.

Surpised to not see more Starlin Castro love in here.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Proven fact: people that enjoy baseball statistics hate baseball.

Heh.

I can tell you, however, that many of these people who "enjoy baseball statistics" don't watch the games. Go read some of the debates on Fangraphs, on Tulo vs Votto for MVP. I cant be convinced otherwise.

Earlier this year, Votto came up with two outs and two on in Dodger Stadium, 8th inning, Reds trailing. Reds had not won a game in LA since 2006. Broxton gets ahead 0-2, and Votto battles back, fouling off several pitches and working the count to 3-2. The 12 pitch AB ends with a Votto single, and the Reds go on to win. This was an epic AB, and a season defining moment for the team, and they have since left STL in the dust.

Votto shouldn't win MVP based on that one AB, but its little things like this that get lost in "metrics". Some would discount the clutch (dirty word!) hit by dismissing the clutch opportunity as a product of surroundings. Some would actually argue that his single is no different than a single with two outs in the 4th, bases empty.

I mean, I love baseball stats and even get into the newer ones. I own everything Bill James ever wrote. But how did we get here? Can't we just applaud a guy for driving in 140 runs, instead of ripping him for his low VORP? Opportunity is one thing, BUT YOU STILL MUST DELIVER.

I just think the statistical overanalysis of baseball has gone a bit too far, and sometimes people lose sight of the obvious.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Heh.

I can tell you, however, that many of these people who "enjoy baseball statistics" don't watch the games. Go read some of the debates on Fangraphs, on Tulo vs Votto for MVP. I cant be convinced otherwise.

Earlier this year, Votto came up with two outs and two on in Dodger Stadium, 8th inning, Reds trailing. Reds had not won a game in LA since 2006. Broxton gets ahead 0-2, and Votto battles back, fouling off several pitches and working the count to 3-2. The 12 pitch AB ends with a Votto single, and the Reds go on to win. This was an epic AB, and a season defining moment for the team, and they have since left STL in the dust.

Votto shouldn't win MVP based on that one AB, but its little things like this that get lost in "metrics". Some would discount the clutch (dirty word!) hit by dismissing the clutch opportunity as a product of surroundings. Some would actually argue that his single is no different than a single with two outs in the 4th, bases empty.

I mean, I love baseball stats and even get into the newer ones. I own everything Bill James ever wrote. But how did we get here? Can't we just applaud a guy for driving in 140 runs, instead of ripping him for his low VORP? Opportunity is one thing, BUT YOU STILL MUST DELIVER.

I just think the statistical overanalysis of baseball has gone a bit too far, and sometimes people lose sight of the obvious.

It is the only game that can truly be defined by statistics. That is why. You might lose out on a little objectivity, but baseball, above every sport, has a number that corresponds with everything you do. It is unlike any other sport in that regard.

 

[FedEx227]

Nobody said clutch is a dirty word. Statistical guys don't doubt that clutch exists. They just don't think it exists to the level that people think nor does it really carry over year to year.

Once Player A gets enough at-bats what he does in "clutch" situations is usually what he does in normal situations. Player B may have a clutch year, but chances are over the course of his career what he does in clutch situations will likely be very close to what he does in normal situations. That's just the way it grades out.

I'm assuming the reason many people are going towards the Tulo side of the MVP race is because he plays a harder position and probably does better in value based metrics like WAR and VORP. I don't necessarily agree with that this year though Votto is my MVP choice.

 

[NAHSTE]

I mean, I love baseball stats and even get into the newer ones. I own everything Bill James ever wrote. But how did we get here?

This. I'm a huge stat guy. I'm not a crusty old scout trying to hold tight to his way of life, I'm fully in favor of advanced statistical analysis.

WHIP, K/9, OPS, the increased value of OBP, these have all been embraced by even the staunchest of purists, and for good reason.