Are Matt Kemp's HRs less valuable?

According to David Appleman,

“Unlike standard linear weights, WPA/LI does take into account the situation. So at times when a walk would be just as valuable as a home run, WPA/LI accurately weights the walk and the home run, where linear weights would still give .13 wins to the home run and the walk .03 wins.”

So as I understand it, he is doing very well in a statistic that doesn’t give extra credit for homers in blowouts.

Nice and interesting post.

If you go to Kemp’s HR log at Baseball Reference you can see more details as to the situation and score when he hit his HRs.

HRs hit when ahead by 3 runs or less: 5
HRs hit when tied: 8
HRs hit when down by 3 runs or less: 3

So out of 24 home runs hit this year (and counting), 16 of them have been in situations where the Dodgers have been either leading by 3 runs or less, tied, or trailing by three runs or less. So 66% of his HRs have been in situations that I would consider meaningful.

In comparison, here are Ethier’s numbers:

HRs hit when ahead by 3 runs or less: 7
HRs hit when tied: 13
HRs hit when down by 3 runs or less: 7

Out of 30 HRs hit, 27 of them were hit with the Dodgers either ahead by 3 runs or less, tied, or down by 3 runs or less, which means that 90% of his HRs have been hit in meaningful situations. That’s amazing.

Just for fun, here’s a look at Pujols’ numbers for the year:

HRs hit when ahead by 3 runs or less: 10
HRs hit when tied: 16
HRs hit when down by 3 runs or less: 13

Out of 47 HRs on the season, 39 of his HRs have been hit with his team either ahead by 3 runs or less, tied, or behind by 3 runs or less. That means 83% of his HRs have been hit in meaningful situations.

Granted the method I used to determine if the HRs were hit in meaningful situations is pretty rudimentary, but I think it sheds light on the situation. I guess what we can conclude from this is that Kemp has room to improve, just like Pujols does, and Ethier is near perfect. :)

sometimes i get so frustrated with baseball stats.

the fact is that every time kemp hits a homerun, it gives opposing pitchers that much more to worry about when facing him, and the guys before him and after him. he’s fast enough that you don’t want him on base and he’s got enough power that you don’t want to face him with men-on.

i know that sounds simplistic, but i really believe it. as a team the Dodgers are pretty low on the totem pole as far as homeruns, but as a core part of the lineup, it helps to have a pitcher thinking about kemp when they’re facing ethier and manny, or to have used up better pitches on kemp when facing the guys after him.

1. because i can’t keep up with it

2. because i hate the reliance on it – especially from play callers or color commenters.

3. because they are so absurd sometimes

(Did you know that Furcal’s BA jumps 17 points when facing left handed relievers between the age of 27 and 30 during day games on monday through thursday in parks that face towards the north-west?)

4. and finally because they are used to explain things that they don’t necessarily explain. the fact that guy X hits for a better average with RISP doesn’t mean that he’s trying to do better there than in another situation. it just means that things have worked out better – its my assumption (maybe this is naive) that any professional baseball player is going to do whatever they can to get a base hit in every single at bat, regardless of the situation.

No. I never said not to use stats, or that they aren’t useful. What I am saying is that they are often used to explain the reasoning behind something, or used as an excuse. As a fan who enjoys watching and living the game, I could give a shit what the dodger’s pythagorean win-loss record is, I only care what the real thing is.

Same thing goes with FIP – its essentially used to show what the pitchers ERA would be without the fielding behind them, but guess what – the same guys that have been out there all year are still there. Its a team sport. If you want to use it for Cy Young voting, be my guest, but why would you use an adjusted stat to explain something? You would only use it as an excuse.

My whole point, if you had read above, is that Matt Kemp’s homeruns are important to the team regardless of how clutch they are or when he hits them. Even at relatively tame numbers for Manny (specifically tame for him, not that they are bad) he’s still incredibly valuable to that lineup.

Roto players love those meaningless home runs and steals.

I’d say the home run he hit on Wednesday was very very meaningful.

Nobody should criticize anyone’s home runs. Those players are up there for 9 innings to do their job, which is to win the game. Are you going to criticize a guy doing his job by putting up more runs for his team so they have a better chance of winning? Why is it meaningless for Matt to hit one when we’re winning by like 8 runs in the eighth inning? Is it meaningless to Matt? To the Dodgers? To us? We love these moments. When it does happen, we rave about it, it is meaningful. BISON POWER, BISON BOMB, what have you.

is that I like stats and how they can predict things to a certain extent. They make the game interesting in a different way then just enjoying it for being a ball game. I enjoy both and see the value in both. My problem with stat people and traditional baseball people is this; Most refuse to see the merit in both sides arguments. It is like politics at its worst.
Stats are useful and can predict things to a certain extent and should be used when evaluating players and signings. But, I also think there is a reason certain players are considered “gamers.” In a high leverage situation, I would hope that Broxton or BIlls can reach back and get that strikeout against the opponents big hitters. Some people do have personalities that react better in big game situations. Same things goes in all aspects of life.

Is that it only measures value in the moment, but is not necessarily indicative of a skill.

Is it really a player’s fault if he can only hit solo home runs if nobody is on base? Is it necessarily a skill to be able to pop 3 run homers in close games as opposed to solo homers with a 5 run lead?

To me, it just reflects on a player’s overall skill set. They have a certain talent level and they will repeat this over the long run, whether or not they do it in “meaningful” situations is generally randomized.

Ironically, the people railing against statistics because of studies like this agree with what most sabermetricans believe. Yes, it’s all valuable.

Maybe if you bothered to understand that, you wouldn’t be so bigoted about it.

To say the people who enjoy statistics were thinking “well shit, the probability of this happening against isn’t likely and WPA indicates this isn’t a skill” during the 4+1 game is really dumb.

As if you can’t enjoy the game and think big picture at the same time or something. Really? Why not? I can’t enjoy watching somebody pitch and realize “hey, this guy is probably going to be shit next year so don’t get excited, broseph”.

Bah.

because I am in a high leverage situation at work right now. I would rather be talking baseball and this discussion but I have to deal with this fucking place.

It’s a book. Christ.

Dave, I was mostly away today, but just got to see this article. Very, very well done. Good work.

Anyone who dares besmirch the good name of one Matthew Ryan Kemp deserves to get tarred, feathered, and run out of town in quarters.