Jack Wilson's Return: How Much will it Help?
A lot, obviously, but how much? I'm going to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. I'm no mathematician, and I'm making a fair number of assumptions here, so what follows shouldn't be taken to be a serious projection of what will happen for the rest of the year. It's just an attempt to put into perspective what Wilson's return actually means.
Wilson should return on Tuesday as the Pirates face the Reds. The Pirates will by then have played 50 games, a hair less than a third of the season. Before the season, PECOTA projected that Wilson would hit .267/.319/.397, well below his 2007 totals but better than his performance in the two years before that.
Let's assume he returns from his injury without ill effects that might prevent him from matching his projection. PECOTA projects a VORP (Value Over Replacement Player, a cumulative stat that compares players to the typical Class AAA replacement or bench player) of 9.9 runs, so we can guess he'll post a 6.6 for the rest of the season. BP has Brian Bixler at -6.5 runs for the season and Luis Rivas at -4.4 runs. Chris Gomez is at +3.2 runs. That's -7.9 runs total, with a number of combined plate appearances before today was exactly the same as Nate McLouth's. (UPDATE: I wrote this before Rivas' two homers today -- obviously, he's just trying to annoy me.)
Of course, Rivas and Gomez will still play some once Wilson comes back, but I think it's safe to assume that Gomez gets the lion's share of those leftover plate appearances, which probably means that the two of them combined will come out at around replacement level for the season. So with two thirds of the season left, let's assume we get +6.6 runs of VORP from the shortstop position. Compared to the -15.8 runs of offense we would've received if Bixler, Rivas and Gomez continued playing shortstop as they have, that's 22.4 runs worth of improvement.
Of course, that doesn't take defense into account. I have no idea how to quantify the defense, but the difference is going to be huge. Of course, you've seen our shortstops pile up errors this year, so you didn't need me to tell you that, but keep in mind that BP's fielding metrics pegged Bixler and Rivas as bad defensive shortstops in the minors last year. I don't know what they're going to say this year, but our shortstops are pretty clearly as responsible as anyone for the Pirates' Defensive Efficiency, which ranks third-to-last in the majors. Guessing that Wilson's glove would be ten runs of improvement over Rivas, Bixler and Gomez so far seems extremely conservative, but let's go with that.
Added to 22.4 runs of improvement on offense, that's 32 runs better over the rest of the year, which is three full wins. That's an enormous difference.
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
I'm bad with baseball numbers...
I’ll admit that from the get go. I can add basic numbers (2+1=3) and what not, but all of this baseball stuff confuses me to no end.
So I have to ask… how is 32 runs better equivalent to 3 wins?
The Utah Jazz.
The best NBA team in Utah... no doubts about it!
Playing For Pride
Because, in the end, only one team can "win it all".
by UtesFan89 on May 25, 2008 9:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also
It’s kinda unfortunate that Rivas waited until today to have a good game.
Imagine (it’s not hard to do that… we’re Pirates fans) him having hit like that a couple more times since Jack went down. We’d be over .500 right now.
The Utah Jazz.
The best NBA team in Utah... no doubts about it!
Playing For Pride
Because, in the end, only one team can "win it all".
by UtesFan89 on May 25, 2008 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conventional wisdom
Is that 10 runs = 1 win.
by azibuck on May 25, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, that makes sense.
The Utah Jazz.
The best NBA team in Utah... no doubts about it!
Playing For Pride
Because, in the end, only one team can "win it all".
by UtesFan89 on May 26, 2008 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Return Of Wilson
The return of Wilson will be a plus defensively, but I think that you will find that, overall, his return will not be significant in terms of W-L record..
The loss of Doumit’s bat, however, is significant. He makes good things happen in the middle of the lineup.
On the other hand, both Paulino and Chavez are better behind the plate.
by thegunner on May 26, 2008 1:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Paulino's defense
Paulino’s defense is overrated in my opinion. I agree that Doumit’s defense isn’t great, but Paulino’s looked embarrassing pretty often behind the plate the last couple of years.
Chavez I agree on. But then you’ve got Raul Chavez in your lineup. That’s quite a tradeoff.
by Dignan on May 26, 2008 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doumit has improved
game by game in handling pitches and the pitching staff. Remember last year when the team couldn’t even win a game with Doumit behind the plate? He has improved greatly. He is willing to learn the basics and his hitting speaks breakout. I think Chavez should stay. Paulino is GARBAGE. Send his fat lazy butt down to Indy and keep him there until he starts caring about the game and his livelihood.
by Bad Andy on May 26, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
New Math
The relation of wins to runs - projected - is one of the things I struggle most with comprehending. I understand that it’s a projection, and that it’s supportable, although to what degree will always be argued. Or outright dismissed by Joe Morgan. But still… 3 wins over the whole season? I bet you could dig back through play by play and see that it’s cost us 3 wins already. Again, at this point, that’s an unscientific guess, but I think staring the game with Rivas or Bixler puts us at an immediate but largely unquantifiable defense; if you just look at the plays Jack wouldn’t have blown, which is more quantifiable (and just as subjective) I’ll bet you find 3 wins over the past two months.
by KPatrick on May 26, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The three wins figure is JUST ON OFFENSE. Add in defense, and my guess is that it would probably be maybe two more, although I wasn’t really sure how to quantify that with any degree of accuracy.
by Charlie on May 26, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using BP's fielding RAR
Jack’s D should provide at least 2 wins above what we would get from Bixler, Rivas and Gomez if Jack fields at his peak season rate for the rest of this year. Currently, Bixler, Rivas and Gomez are 0 RAR in the field! Of course, Bixler generated a 2 RAR while Rivas and Gomez each generated -1.
4-6 wins over Bixler, Rivas and Gomez over 2/3rds of a season is a lot. It’s the difference between a .480 winning percentage, the Pirates current winning percentage, and one that exceeds the McClatchy line (.500) at the end of the year.
Steve Z
by steve_z on May 26, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very funny.
‘the McClatchy line (.500)’ – steve_z
Is that the coining of a fantastic new phrase, or has it been used before?
by RDV across the sea on May 26, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's been used before
It has never really caught on despite my best efforts.
Still, some messageboard posters and blog writers will use it. Perhaps, if the losing streak reaches 20+ seasons.
Steve Z
by steve_z on May 26, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you
I don’t want to dispute those things, but taking game context out of some stats makes them almost meaningless to me. Over the course of a season, his offense may be worth X wins and his defense worth Y wins, but how many games would he have made a difference in? It could be more (or less) than that sum.
Same thing with lineup analysis. It’s nearly meaningless when total numbers are crunched, but it takes away the Z number of games where you want - need - your best players to get that one extra at-bat. Where it might have made an actual difference.
by azibuck on May 26, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 














