Not surprisingly, ESPN's Steve Phillips made a shockingly bad "defense" of David Ortiz and his legacy in the aftermath of the revelation that Ortiz was a positive test in 2003. Phillips made the case that he "observed" Ortiz' development from his days with the Twins into a player who "learned" how to take walks and become a more patient hitter and that this, more than anything else, was responsible for the staggering numbers he produced with the Red Sox.
From ESPN's You Tube Site: Phillips comments are at about the 1:45 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqfPkw4uzLU
I could just imagine Joe Morgan throwing something at his TV screen as well, because this is one of the themes that emanated from the "Moneyball" revolution that is wholly erroneous on a macro basis and certainly weak/non-existent in the individual example of David Ortiz.
Many who read "Moneyball" came away with the impression that the A's used statistical analysis to identify high-OPS, high-walk ratio hitters in the college ranks, who had a greater probability for success at the major league level. This was an extension of the strategy employed at the major league level, which was to identify these type of players and acquire those who were not valued as highly as their peers--who were using other metrics to acquire/reward hitters.
The A's were able to acquire productive players economically and compete for a time at the major league level. I still maintain that this ability to compete only lasted as long as the starting staff included Zito, Hudson and Mulder but that's another story.
Anyway, the A's model at the player developmental level was highlighted by their drafting of a catcher by the name of Jeremy Brown, who they identified as being one of these high-OPS, high walk ratio guys. He was drafted by the A's higher than virtually anyone would have projected--meaning they overpaid for him--which seemingly defeated the purpose of acquiring talent economically, but I digress.
Many of the other guys they identified while the author followed the process--guys like Nick Swisher and Khalil Greene--subsequently developed into good major league hitters. But most if not all of these players did not follow the model that the A's suggested they would to succeed.
In the same way, David Ortiz did not follow the "model" as Steve Phillips believes he did.
The model suggest that there is some inherent ability to work the count, exhibit patience as a hitter and draw walks, thus becoming a high-OPS, productive hitter that contributes to more team wins. The productivity flows from this perceived ability that can be somehow identified statistically.
What the model ignores is the human elements that cannot be quantified until after the fact, if at all.
The high-OPS, high walk rate flows from the hitter earning RESPECT from the pitcher. Once the pitcher believes that he can be hurt by throwing pitches in certain zones-- which tightens the window that pitchers can throw to--thereby increasing the hitters walk rate. That does not happen until the hitter "hurts" the pitcher and earns respect.
To extrapolate to the extreme, if you had a hitter with fighter pilots 20/10 vision, who could identify balls/strikes with a 99% success ratio compared to Questec--but couldn't hit a lick--how many walks would that hitter draw at any level above Little League? Probably not many.
As hitters advance from one level to the next, whether it's from HS to college, college to low minors, minors to majors--that RESPECT must be earned again.
That is why you will see virtually all of the A's players identified in college as the prototype, model high-OPS, high walk-rate player not statistically demonstrate that "ability" as they enter the minor league system. Why? They have to earn RESPECT of the pitchers all over again. Pitchers who didn't read the hitters stat sheets or press clippings and are trying to earn their own measure of RESPECT.
Respect is earned, and as the Dominicans say, "You can't walk off the island". Respect is earned with the bat. Ted Williams earned his reputation with the bat first and then the high walk rate followed. Respect was earned from pitchers and umpires and the walks followed.
Look at Ortiz ' career stats from Baseball Reference:
DAVID ORTIZ CAREER STATS FROM BASEBALL REFERENCE.COM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml
You can clearly see he debuts with the Twins in 1997 as an above average hitter as measured by an OPS of .802 and an OPS+ of 107 (OPS+ of 100 is major league average, it is OPS--On Base Average + Slugging--compared to the league average). His Walk Rate (Walks divided by Plate Appearances) of 4%. FOUR PERCENT!! OK only 51 AB's, but it demonstrates what players do when they advance levels. They try to show their talent.
In 1998, his Walk Rate stabilizes at 12%, which becomes his baseline for the next couple of years. His OPS is .817 and OPS+ is 111.
1999 is a lost year, only 25 Plate Appearances, statistically meaningless.
2000, Walk Rate - 12%. OPS - .810, OPS+ - 101
2001, Walk Rate - 12%, OPS - .799, OPS+ - 106
2002, Walk Rate - 9%, OPS - .839, OPS+ 120
A Bit of a breakout as a hitter, higher OPS with a LOWER walk rate. Hardly the skill or ability that Phillips is articulating. Then the trade to the Red Sox.
2003 OPS rises to .961, OPS+ rises to 144 and yet walk rate only comes back to the original baseline of 12%. Again, hardly what Phillips was articulating. More like Ortiz is finding his wheels as a power hitter, a force--but pitchers still are not convinced.
In 2004 again OPS rises to .983, OPS+ rises to 145 and yet WALK RATE declines to 11%. The OPPOSITE of what Phillips says he observed.
Finally in 2005, OPS cracks 1.001, OPS + rises again to 158 and now pitchers appear to be convinced, elevating Ortiz' walk rate to 14.5%.
Ortiz punished pitchers for 2-3 years before THEY ADJUSTED, by giving Ortiz the RESPECT as a hitter that he EARNED. We're not seeing some inherent ability to draw walks that flows into increased production. We're seeing quite the opposite.
More interesting is the recent history.
In 2006 OPS - 1.049, OPS+ - 161, Walk Rate - 16%
In 2007 OPS - 1.066, OPS+ - 171, Walk Rate - 16%
In 2008 OPS falls to .877, OPS+ to 123 and walk rate follows to 14%.
In 2009 OPS plummets to .720, OPS+ to 82 and walk rate drops to 11%.
What happened? The "ability" to draw walks should be getting better with age, but we see that RESPECT is lost. Scouts whisper, "Ortiz lost bat speed, can't turn on the good FB anymore" and more than whisper, they write this in their advance reports which are read by pitchers and catchers. And the rest is history.
It doesn't even matter WHY Ortiz lost bat speed. Take the PED speculation out of your mind for a moment and it's crystal clear what happens at the cellular level in MLB. And it's been happening like this for generations and will continue to do so. The other issues just muddy the waters a little bit.
We see the same thing with uber-prospects like Colby Rasmus. When they debut in the majors, they have all this advance billing baggage and mega-bonus money to validate.
And that is what they try to do. And pitchers initially exploit that, yes. But the bottom line is this: If this is even a chicken/egg debate, it seems pretty clear which comes first.
The debate remains if plate discipline is a teachable, identifiable skill or an inherent, God-given skill. The old nature vs. nurture argument. Good luck winning one of those.
Are some hitters so "hard-wired" in their approach since their youth days to be either a "hacker" or a "selective" hitter that they cannot be changed after HS-collegiate level?
Does the pressure to perform either to justify money/publicity received or potentially obtained in the future create such "internal noise" that players cannot be changed significantly?
Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes and includes some measure of all the extrinsic variables. Maybe there are just too many human variables to quantify as efficiently as we would like. Put that in your spreadsheet and smoke it.
No comments:
Post a Comment