Projecting Kosuke Fukudome's Stats to MLB
by Ayralin on Dec 10, 2007 7:29 PM CST
98 comments
The great debate of Japanese stars making the journey from Nippon Professional Baseball to MLB is just how well their skills and abilities will translate in a new league. As with any argument, each side has their successes (Ichiro) and failures (Kazuo Matsui) to point to. For the rest of us, there are statistics. (Warning: Numbers are to follow. Save yourself while you can.)
As with any translation, nothing is exact. And no matter how many players make the move and no matter how many at-bats they accumulate, you'll never be able to forecast what someone else will do from their numbers. Much as I admire Rob Neyer, I don't have his flair for finding the right way to explain how the numbers work, and you're probably tired of "Yet Another Kosuke Fukudome Diary" as it is. So, without further ado, I give you this Excel spreadsheet.
First off, no pitchers were included. This is strictly relating to Fukudome, meaning hitters. Second, I didn't include every Japanese hitter to see time in the Majors, nor did I limit it to only those with significant time in both leagues. I simply chose the names most likely to be recognized with at least one full season of recent playing time (apologies to Tsuyoshi Shinjo.) Statistics were accumulated from ESPN as well as Japanese Baseball and The Baseball Cube.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
98 comments
Email
Print
Comments
First of all...
That said...
- When projecting future performance, it's best to use three years of data, generally as a weighted average (5/4/3 is a pretty common weighting for such things).
- No adjustments are made for league or home park; all of these numbers should have been "normalized" to a more specific offensive context before deriving translations.
- Seven players is a very small sample size to work with; you can derive a larger sample size by looking at major and minor league U.S. players who went to Japan as well.
If I can find some more detailed MLEs (Major League Equivelencies) for the NPB before the entire midwest is covered in ice, I'll post them here.
by cwyers on Dec 10, 2007 7:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Cool!
by zambranofan on Dec 10, 2007 7:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think you've got it.
Given the numbers, in particular, that have been put up by Ichiro and Hideki Matsui, who have probably the most AB in the USA by any Japanese position players, I think your projection for Fukudome is probably pretty close to what we can expect.
by Al on Dec 10, 2007 7:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree...
What this analysis has done is taken advantage of the fact that some of the lesser-known transfers seem to not have had the same dropoff as the "big three." I tend to agree with the Ichiro/Matsui comparison (which isn't favorable for Fukudome) and not this analysis, but honestly either approach is justifiable.
I'd guess he'll be somewhere between .790 and .850 in OPS. Which end of that OPS spectrum he falls (and whether his OBP is .360 or .380) will make a big difference in his value, obviously.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 6:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you taken into account
by TheEman on Dec 10, 2007 7:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No special considerations...
As cwyers mentioned, there are a lot of secondary effects I could have taken into account (park factors, considerations for National/American league splits for the players' MLB stats, weighting applied to particular years of performance), but I was only aiming for a basic translation.
The number of players I used is small, and about 80% of the MLB statistics were accumulated in the American League, but I don't think the additional factors would skew the result much more than 10-15% except when the most exteme factors were applied.
by Ayralin on Dec 10, 2007 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome work!
Dan
by dtpollitt on Dec 10, 2007 8:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Was I The Only One Who Was Unable ...
by initram on Dec 10, 2007 10:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You need MS Excel
by Ayralin on Dec 10, 2007 11:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don't have Excel...
by Al on Dec 11, 2007 3:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Powre never seems to make the transition
by Nibbles on Dec 10, 2007 10:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Check this out...
I'm having a very hard time how you're projection system is projecting such a small decline in his AVG and OBP.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2007 10:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ours projections put weight on different factors
Their projection is a lot less clinical (and in all honesty, probably more accurate for it). The blog posits Fukudome and Matsui as similar players (which they are), while my spreadsheet calculates every at-bat - whether it's from Matsui, Ichiro, or Taguchi - equally. They're not, of course, except as a direct interpretation of how stats translate from one league to the other, which is all my spreadsheet takes into account.
by Ayralin on Dec 10, 2007 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In this case...
The question is, how accurate are either of these projections? And which of them is better modeling the underlying reality?
I'm going to go ahead and use a data set that's much less recent than the data set here, but has the benefit of being mcuh more detailed. [Seamheads is supposed to be coming out with a much more detailed set of analysis on recent seasons soon, and has a little bit of background on how these things work.]
Let's go ahead and ignore park effects here (even though the Chunici Dragons seem to play in a pitchers' park, which could further distort the data; this is all back-of-the-envelope stuff.]
Instead of simply weighting AVG, OBP, and SLG, Albright weights every main hitting event:
Hits .932
Doubles .980
Triples 1.577
Homers .604
Walks .805
What we see here is that batting average and (to a lesser extent) walk rate should hold up pretty well. If we weight those events like that, his MLE line from last year was .274/.371/.441. Which looks pretty close to what you're predicting, actually.
But two caveats here. One, looking at OPS is supposed to be a quick-and-dirty way of modeling offense; if we're going to go to all the trouble of building MLEs in the first place, we can go to at least a slightly more sophisticated tool, and weight OBP accordingly (weight every point of OBP at 1.8 per point of SLG, or 1.8*OBP+SLG). Fukudome gives you 1.102 GPA, versus (say) Murton's 2007 1.069 GPA. That very healthy difference in OBP is something to consider.
Second, predictions using only one year of playing time are not as good as predictions factoring in three years of playing time. So let's take a weighted average of his last three seasons, 5/4/3. Once again, we work with the counting stats (hits, 2b, 3b, HR and BB) and then figure out AVG, OBP and SLG; it's a bit more work than just averaging the AVG, OBP and SLG but more sound mathematically.
What do we get? A (very rough) projection of .306/.380/.515 for Fukudome next season. That's an .895 OPS, or 1.199 WPA. Very nice numbers. We probaly should whack off a bit for an aging curve, but we should also probably credit him a bit for going to the NL, a better offensive environment than MLB as a whole.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Before I get pilloried here...
But I will point out that I'm only projecting 13 or 14 home runs, which is not too far out of line with what you'd expect -- it passes the smell test. What's powering that slugging projection is his high batting average and his high doubles rate.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 1:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Weighting recent seasons
I tried to emphasize counting stats as opposed to averages, just as you do, and the projections come out expectedly similar. I think the discrepancy in SLG can be attributed to Fukudome's career year in 2006, in which his HR rate was very good (16 AB/HR, just shy of his career-best 15.2 in 2004) and his doubles rate spiked to a career-high 10.6 AB/2B.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 7:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On a second reading of your post...
Would've saved me a lot of math if I'd picked up on the importance of that to your arguement.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 1:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But it's true.
I like projections systems. I think they do a good job, if used properly, of saving teams from making stupid mistakes, but the one thing they lack is common sense. And it's frustrating too.
What this spreadsheet has done, by weighting by at-bats, is essentially weight the career of Ichiro more than anyone else, who hits for an unbelievable average and gets on base at a high rate as a result of that high average. Even Ichiro was a significantly better ballplayer in Japan at a younger age than Fukudome. Not to mention, the skill sets of the two couldn't be more different. So we've weighted Ichiro more than anyone else (who happens to be the most successful Japanese player in MLB history) and he has very few points of similarities with Fukudome.
Furthermore, it projects Fukudome to be just as productive offensively as Hideki Matsui who just murdered baseballs in Japan starting at a young age while Fukudome failed to even have one season as good as multiple years that Matsui had. It takes a player who had a career OPS some 60 points lower and projects him to be the same player as him at the MLB level.
There aren't enough Japanese offensive players in baseball to do a thorough analysis that creates a quality projection system. The only way to do so is to calculate the average decline in various rate stats of all the players who have played here and even in doing that, we end up with a line that Fukudome is simply not likely going to reach. Doing so shows him to be about as equal as Matsui, which is just not going to happen. Matsui was a better player at 22 than Fukudome was at any point in his career so far.
You can't weight the system by at-bats, which automatically weights Ichiro (the best Japanese player of all-time) the highest with Matsui right after him (the 2nd best Japanese player of all-time).
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Does it make any more sense...
In his first MLB season, Matsui posted averages that he has since surpassed in every category in every season since (with the sole exception of BA, which was .285 in 2007, .002 lower than 2003). It is a line similar to Matsui's 2003 that Fukudome is expected to most closely produce, in my opinion.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing you're forgetting...
If you think a baseball player's general decline begins around 28-30, then it doesn't make sense to project Fukudome like he was coming over as a 28-year-old.
I really think this is the biggest mistake when thinking Fukudome using Ichiro and Matsui et. al as comparisons. I think you need to take any under-31 projections off of Matsui, Ichiro, etc.
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Peak years and decline
That said, I don't expect Fukudome to get much better than he is now. The questions are how well his current performance will translate, how long he'll be able to stay at that level, and how fast the decline will be afterwards. It's hard enough agreeing on the first question without throwing the other two in the mix.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
You really should do a projection just based on age-31 seasons and over. It might vary wildly, but it would at least be interesting instead of using a 27-year-old Ichiro to project a 31-year-old Fukukdome.
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2007 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Decline
I can tell you right now, using the post-31 seasons of Japanese players would certainly skew Fukudome's projection downwards. After all, Ichiro suffered a 69-point drop in BA in his age-31 season, and Hideki Matsui posted a 50-point drop in OPS (or was injured, depending on where you place the age cutoff date). However, I've already said that I don't expect Fukudome to get any better than he is now. I also admit there are many factors that most definitely will affect his stats that I have not included, and the projection you see in my spreadsheet is more of a projected peak than an indication of how I think he will perform over the life of whatever contract he signs.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't use Ichiro or Matsui...
Maddog is right when he says that there's not enough Japanese players coming to America to create a sizeable enough data set. The answer to that, though, is that we don't NEED more of them. The study I linked to used American players who went to Japan, and saw how their stats increased, as well as Japanese players taht went to the US.
And I didn't forget the aging affect, because I mentioned it. A generic aging curve for those projections would be something like .006 less. He's old, but not THAT old.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it does.
By taking the average decline of the players who have already made the jump, you're not making that assumption. The only assumption you're making is that the game is more difficult here than it is in Japan, which is undoubtedly true.
He just might beat the odds and be one of the better ones to move here, but you can't assume that. All the players who played here from japan were good. None were as good as Ichiro or Hideki Matsui. It's no coincidence that they have turned out to be the 2 best players from Japan among the hitters. They were the best 2 in Japan of the bunch who came here. They each, however, had huge declines in their numbers because MLB is tougher than Japan.
The only accurate assumption at this point is that MLB is tougher than playing in Japan. There simply is not enough data to make any other assumptions.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where in my data...
You said yourself, both our ways of weighting have their advantages and disadvantages. Mine skews it towards players with more playing time (ergo, more talent), while yours skews in in the opposite direction.
I prefer my method, because while it does give more weight to Ichiro and Hideki Matsui and their good statistics, that road travels both ways. If you compare the career stat lines, the players with the best NPB stats also suffer the largest disparity between their NPB and MLB stats (with the exception of Iwamura, who has only played one MLB season so far). Does that mean that MLB is harder for players the better they are? In some ways it is, I suppose (no pitching coach is going to make a game plan centered on stopping So Taguchi), but it's more an indication that, like any player facing inferior competition, their numbers have farther to fall when the playing field evens out. And despite the fact that they suffer sharper declines in their statistics, they will always be better than the players they outperformed in Japan.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm interested to see on what grounds...
And if you use the last 3 years in Japan as the more relevant reference point, the argument swings even further in favor of Matsui. Matsui had a better average, OBP, and power in his last 3 Japanese seasons than Fukudome did.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that he would...
All I did was apply MLEs to the data set we had of Fukudome and did a weighted average of the last three seasons. That's about as bare-bones as you can get with a projection system for NPB players, really.
But if you don't like the result you get when modeling a problem, what you should be doing is looking for ways to improve the model. There's absolutely no point to the sort of Kentucky windage Maddog was applying.
(The other point -- we're all very good about understanding park and league differences around here, so I'm suprised that more people don't grok this; even if Fukudome puts up better-than-Matsui numbers next year, it won't necessarily mean he's better than Matsui. You have to account for things like the fact that Matsui plays in a tougher league, probably in a tougher park, and then you have to baseline everything out at league average if you want to compare players from across years that well.)
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What would those numbers have projected...
I'm just wary of projections that suggest he'll put up better numbers than Matsui. Especially when you consider that Matsui plays in a LH hitter's haven in NY, and actually has better numbers at home than on the road.
I hope I'm wrong and that Fukudome comes in and tops .850 OPS. I just don't see it, based on those previous players' stats.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Three-year weighted projection...
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And then never again in any other season...
I'd say that Matsui's 2004 is the high-end outlier, and his 2003 was the low-end outlier. His 2005 and 2007 are remarkably similar to each other, and to his MLB career average.
So based on that, I'd say your estimates for Fukudome are too high.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There's every reason to do so.
You may as well try to tell me that David Eckstein is going to be better than Derek Jeter. It's as wrong as saying Fukudome is going to post the same numbers as Matsui.
I love stats and think they are far more valuable than most people who visit this site, but you're applying a significantly flawed model to a player from Japan and the result is he ends up being as good as someone he's never been as good as. I understand the need to defend what you've done, but to defend it while attacking someone else who made these common sense adjustments is just plain silly.
Your system is wrong. The projection is wrong. The answer is to fix it...not regurgitate it as if it's right when you know it isn't.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't adjust your model!
And your "absolute fact" could well be wrong. You've yet to demonstrate that it's a 100% certainty that Matsui is better than Fukudome. Nobody's going to argue that conclusion is unlikely, but you have a LOT of work to prove it's a certainty.
Oh, and then you ignore all the stuff I wrote about league and park effects. Yay!
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's saying...
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but that's not what HE did.
To the larger point -- to improve the model I need more data, really. Park effects, more recent MLEs... all of which is difficult to come by. But it's very dangerous to look at eight players and start making generalizations about their performance; the sample size just isn't what it should be.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, more data is always helpful...
I'm a numbers guy, and I spend way too much of my life in excel. I'm all for quantitative analysis as a means of projecting future success. But face validity test is the ultimate challenge of any mathematical model, and I don't think the model (as is) passes that test. Thus, I don't buy those projections for Fukudome.
Also, it doesn't seem to just fail the common sense test. Given the small sample, the model should at least fit the data that ARE available somewhat well. I have trouble believing the model fits any of the Japanese players very well. Perhaps if it did, you could just argue that Matsui is an outlier on the low end. But if it doesn't, then there's clearly something wrong with the model.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again...
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then the larger question is...
The goal of any model is to predict (as closely as possible) what actually is going to happen. The most reasonable way to develop a model is based on what we already know to be true (i.e., current data). If the model doesn't fit the current data as well as possible, then it's value is greatly compromised to say the least.
In other words, why would anyone assume your model fits reality better than the 8 players who really have played?
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, let's try this again.
.297/.378/.412
Doesn't significantly alter the AVG/OBP, but it does bring the slugging back into the range of expectations.
(Revised "projection" for Matsui: .307/.395/.425)
So, lessons learned:
- I was wrong.
- Fukudome's OBP still looks very healthy, and addresses a major team need.
- No Kentucky windage used.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kentucky windage?
I did an analysis, presented the data, and challenged that data using one similar player who played in both Japan and the US. No windage. I compared the stats and presented a more realistic projection as a result.
If you'd like to continue to believe that because you did something different, that it's better...be my guest. You presented something that anybody with 2 eyes could see was clearly out of whack.
No, 8 players is not a large sample size, but if your system is of any value at all, it should at least be more accurate than what you've come up with. The most common error in projecting a player is playing time. The players who do reach their projected level of playing time fall equally above and below (and equal to) their projections. Not one player you did was remotely close.
Again, 8 is a small sample, but you'd expect different results nonetheless. I can live with it not having different results if the results you presented weren't so far from reality. Your system projects these Japanese players to be superstars here in the US when the only one who has achieved that status is Ichiro (and that status is questionable in my opinion as it's more on hype than anything else).
Most of the numbers you've presented here are like video game numbers. Yet you attack a prediction from someone else? Really?
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I substituted common sense for something
Hideki Matsui was better at age 22 than Kosuke Fukudome was at age 30. He's by far the better player. Is it possible that Fukudome could suddenly become the better player here in the US? Sure. It's also possible that I win the lottery. It's also possible that David Eckstein has a better 2008 than Derek Jeter. But any projection system that spits those scenarios out is wrong. Just plain wrong. Under no rational circumstances can a quality mathematical model tell us that Fukudome will be as good as Matsui or Eckstein as good as Jeter. You may as well just throw the work out because it's just plain wrong.
I don't even know how this is hard to understand. Look at their stats. Only under the most unlikely circumstances is Fukudome going to come to the United States and suddenly be as good as Matsui despite not ever being as good as him at any point in his career. This is as much a fact as 2+2=4 is.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But you're assuming that an .880 OPS...
I keep repeating this; maybe at some point somebody will start at least responding to it.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NY is a hitters' park for LH hitters...
Thus, I don't think I'd argue that Matsui's MLB numbers have been deflated due to park/league effects. Given that he actually has better home splits than road splits (and his numbers within the AL East work out to about the same as his overall numbers), I'd definitely say he hasn't been hurt by MLB park/league effects.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would I?
If anything, there were more runs scored in 2003 than in 2007 or likely 2008 so this .880 OPS you project for Fukudome would likely be equal to an .890 one in 2003 making it even more silly.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree with Maddog...
I'd be very interested to see what the MLEs would say Matsui should have done upon coming over. I suspect that the projections are much higher than what he actually did. That's the sort of "face-validity check" that Maddog is saying this analysis is lacking.
I've done a similarly-crude calculation of my own based on the numbers of Matsui, Ichiro, and Kaz Matsui. Each of them had remarkably similar transitions to the major league, in terms of their dropoffs in OBP and OPS. Applying those trends to Fukudome's stats come up with a number around .800 OPS. Given that Fukudome wasn't as productive in Japan as Hideki Matsui, it seems like a reasonable output.
Of course, it doesn't consider park effects, either in Japan or MLB. I'm not sure I'd expect the numbers to jump wildly in either direction though, unless the players played in fairly extreme hitters'/pitchers' parks.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My apologies for the poor tone.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize the age difference, right?
Ichiro - 27
Hideki Matsui - 29 (turned 29 in mid-June)
Kazuo Matsui - 28
Akinori Iwamura - 28
Kosuke Fukudome - 31 (turns 31 in late-April)
So, even the closest guy came over a full two years younger than Fukudome. Knowing what you know about baseball players' decline "due to" age, do you still comfortable making that projection? If you're going to use the age 27, 28, 29 and 30 seasons as data, shouldn't you really make an "off-the-wall" adjustment like Maddog did? Either that, or just straight-up drop any data before the age-31 season, but then that wouldn't give you a lot to work with.
I think you guys are vastly overrating Fukudome. As usual, the Cubs are late to the game and doing it wrong. --sigh
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2007 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows?
Don't forget to do predictions for Fukudome based on Wrigley and Petco, because we still have to wait and see about that too.......
by pageian on Dec 11, 2007 7:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Park factor
My projection for Fukudome (498 AB), with Wrigley Field's park factors applied to half:
158 hits, 33 2B, 6 3B, 14 HR, 65 BB
.317/.396/.492 (.888 OPS)
My projection, with Petco Park's factors applied to half:
141 hits, 27 2B, 7 3B, 11 HR, 56 BB
.283/.356/.431 (.787 OPS)
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All due respect,
Furthermore, he'll be 31, which is the point where a player's decline begins more rapidly.
This guy is going to get a shitload of money and not be very good. I wonder how a Japanese person will do when they get treated the same way Jack Jones did, because it will happen...probably sooner than any of you think.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As I said in my disclaimer...
Placing factors on top of projections derived from other factors creates some whacky numbers. The "park factor" projections I posted essentially place half a season of MLB park factors on top of stats derived from a full season of MLB equivalent statistics with the original Japanese park factors not eliminated.
Not in my wildest dreams do I expect Fukudome to put up a .900 OPS in the Major Leagues. Considering his skills and age, the .850 OPS I have in my spreadsheet is pretty much a projected peak.
by Ayralin on Dec 11, 2007 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK...that I agree with.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Japanese players are different.
Look at Ichiro, who is now 34. You see any decline there? It's been said somewhere here that Hideki Matsui is "declining", but I don't see that in his numbers.
Maybe they'll "overpay" by American standards, but they are getting something intangible as well. Yes, this is a "feeling" more than something you can measure.
Incidentally, if he fails in the USA, there's no doubt in my mind the Cubs could sell at least part of his contract back to Japan, where he'd be welcomed back as a hero.
by Al on Dec 11, 2007 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
japanese players declining?
we'll judge from 2004 on since this is the year both players hit 30 (Ichiro and Hideki)
Year Ichiro Hideki
2004 130 137
2005 113 130
2006 106 128
2007 122 123
Ichiro's 2007 was buoyed by a .389 BABIP, if that regresses to the normal levels for him you're looking at an OPS+ in the 108-114 range
From a purely offensive standpoint both players have been in a pretty slight decline phase. It's a slight decline, but there is evidence of some decline being there based on their numbers
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2007 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Loud, sustained applause!
I'm sure we could all go find a few 36-year-old players that had a year similar to their primes and say, "See, there is absolutely no decline." That doesn't make it true.
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2007 10:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Define "normal levels" for...
Ichiro's career BABIP is .359, so you're talking he only exceeded his career norms by 30 points there. He pretty much has to be considered a "freak of nature" when it comes to BABIP in general, because he has a consistant, measurable talent for exceeding his expected BABIP based on his line drive percentage.
I think 2004 is simply an outlier (a "career year"), and that Ichiro isn't regressing much at all.
What does this mean? Absolutely nothing; Ichiro is Ichiro, and there really is nobody else remotely like him.
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
right
and the 30 "extra points" in batting average would impact his OPS+ by somewhere between 5 and 10 points
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2007 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then you need to be taught how to look.
For one, a player doesn't have to be getting absolutely worse in every category every year successively to be considered in decline. The athlete also doesn't need to all of a sudden start sucking to be in a decline.
For instance, if a player hit 40, 38, 35, 40, 34 HR's in successive seasons, I think it's fair to say he's declining. That doesn't mean it's absolute, but you don't need to just throw it out either. The player still isn't well-above-average, or even great, just that he's not as good in his most recent year as he was in first year.
What I'd suggest is look at the numbers after age-31 and before age-31 for all Japanese players (or even just two, three or whatever), and see if there's a difference.
On whether they could sell his contract back or not, that's a different issue. I'm fully on board with any deal less than four years long, even one as high as 15 per. I think it will be overpaying, but it won't hurt the club as long.
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2007 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your suggestion..
My suspicion is that the Cubs are offering a four-year deal. I'm fine with that, even if the dollars are large -- and it's likely to be backloaded, similar to the Soriano deal.
by Al on Dec 11, 2007 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious, Al?
Do Candians decline at a different rate as well? Those damn Arabs decline faster than American do. Stay away from them!
Are you serious?
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I should add...
Or is Dusty right? Blacks play better in the hot sun because they used to be slaves and therefore Arabs and Jews would be unable to handle conflict within the game of baseball because of their own nation's conflicts?
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're misunderstanding me...
What I believe -- and I think Ichiro is a perfect example of this -- is that culturally, the Japanese player is trained and ingrained to work harder at his craft than the American player. Therefore, it is possible, is it not, that the Japanese player, knowing that physical decline might begin at age 31, would work harder than the American player to stave off the effects of said decline?
I'm speculating. I know that. I also know we are dealing with a VERY small sample size of players. This is why I asked above to see if anyone could do a study of whether players in NPB, as players in MLB do, show a pattern of decline beginning at age 31.
I'd be interested in seeing the results of such a study.
by Al on Dec 11, 2007 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely you are correct
by MPH73 on Dec 11, 2007 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ichiro is in a slow decline.
The body has a natural regression and it's not noticeably different regardless of one's nationality. The average life expectancy is relatively similar across the land and the differences are often easily explained and have nothing to do with race or nationality.
You can't work harder to stave off decline. It just happens. You can incorporate new things into your game that you didn't normally do (pitchers do this all the time and it's how someone like Curt Schilling is still pitching). Hitters do this as well. It doesn't stop their decline, but it enables them to still add to the team they are playing for.
Decline has nothing to do with how hard you work. It has everything to do with a person's skill set diminishing because of age-related issues. That's not any different for the Japanese than it is for Cubans, Russians, Chinese, English or Americans.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe.
I'd still like to see a study of NPB players to see if the decline rates match MLB rates. If we knew this, maybe I could back up my belief with numbers.
(And I expect Ichiro might be a freak who could put up a 200+ hit season and hit .340 at age 40.)
by Al on Dec 11, 2007 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's just not different, Al.
The greatest Japanese baseball player of all-time, Sadaharu Oh, played until he was 40 and he sucked at that age.
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al...
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That video...
If that's the worst you've seen... you need to get out more.
(How did I know Googling Milton Bradley would come up with something? I just knew. I just knew.)
by cwyers on Dec 11, 2007 7:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I've seen that.
I think he's smart enough to not do that in the USA.
by Al on Dec 12, 2007 4:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
whaaa what?
this is just plain ridiculous.
by kylejo on Dec 11, 2007 9:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fukudome projections
Ayralin at .305/.379/.471 for a .850 OPS
and then we have this guy with orange hair that has a career line of .296/.355/.465
i've advocated signing Fukudome in the past for a 3 year deal somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-13 million annually
but is the extra 9-12 million annually worth a marginally better hitter just because he's LH???even if assume his defense is SUPERIOR???
i'm beginning to have my questions around this as well
and am extremely concerned if we go out towards 4 and 5 years
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2007 11:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
the voice of reason
again i hope we get him, but i think lou's old age is making him too stubborn to realize the common sense of just playing murton in right and using this money towards something the team doesnt already have.
by kylejo on Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, its not
There have to be projections on how much is the ROI with respect to the enormous marketing opportunities within Japan, making all things Cub & Fuku!
I have seen marketing figures on Yankees licensed apparel when Matsui was signed, and let me tell ya - its very impressive...
by TheEman on Dec 11, 2007 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
Whether or not he greatly improves the on-field product remains to be seen. The good news is that he isn't likely to HURT the on-field product, and he may very well improve it. And given that the on-field product is going to change (the Cubs aren't going to go with Murton), he's probably the best bet among the available RF options.
In that sense, I'm completely okay with the signing. I'm just preaching tempered expectations of what we'll actually get in production. That said, I hope I'm wrong on his production. :)
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
assuming Murton is locked in a dungeon
i'm just concerned when the numbers like 4/50 get thrown around
since we have no idea how the payroll is going to be treated in the next few years, we can't assume we're going to be able to continue to spend wildly in the FA market with long term (and rising) contracts tied to Z, Lilly, Sori, Aramis, DLee, and then Fuku
that would be tying up quite a bit of payroll flexibility in players over the age of 30
of course if we have a never-ending budget like the Yankees then who cares...
i just dont know where we'll be, and i'd prefer if we can get 90% of the production at a fraction of the cost that we at least consider it
but maybe i need to wrap my head around the idea of Murton being locked in a dungeon somewhere
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2007 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm taking it as a given regarding Murton...
That said, it appears the Cubs REALLY want to have a LH hitting RF. That rules out Murton as a possibility. And given that the other options either aren't good or will be too costly, I've accepted Fukudome as the best alternative.
And the access to the Japanese market (previously untapped by the Cubs) may help offset the cost of the acquisition.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Licensed Apparel
all the money is pooled together and teams get an even cut of it
now the revenue in terms of marketing that he'll bring in by the japanese signs, etc we could post will certainly cut some of that cost.
but dont get tricked into thinking a lot of Kosuke Cubs jerseys would bring the Cubs individually more money
that's not the way it works
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 11, 2007 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice piece of work
BA: .300
OBP: .370
HR: 22
RBI: 82
This is assuming he hits 2nd, which I believe he will. If he hits 5th, you can increase the RBI's a bit. He should also steal 20+ bases and score 100+ runs if he is hitting towards the top of the order.
by MPH73 on Dec 11, 2007 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
bill james, ron shandler
by kylejo on Dec 11, 2007 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
minus the SB...
It's actually not too far off of what he's already done in his career over 550 AB.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
Doesn't seem like a huge difference, but Fukudome will be a much better fielder and baserunner as well.
by MPH73 on Dec 11, 2007 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where'd you get the SB guess?
My gut (well, more accurately my guess based on trending past players): .290/.365./.440, 15 HR, 10 SB.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he hits second
by MPH73 on Dec 11, 2007 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I see him batting 5th...
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One other thing
by MPH73 on Dec 11, 2007 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yet he's never done it!
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 7:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fukudome has never stolen more than 11 or 12
by Maddog on Dec 11, 2007 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Some factors to consider when looking at the stats
KF Age 29: .351/.438/.653
HM Age 27 & 28 averaged: .334/.463/.655
Of course, generally speaking it is preferrable to have 3 years of data in making projections, but Fukudome was out of baseball his age 28 season and playing hurt his age 30 season. Then, his Age 27 season was a half-season. Does anyone know why he missed time there? It could be that the best data for a healthy Fukudome would be his age 26 and age 29 seasons.
One other very interesting factor when looking at Fukudome's 2007 stats was how his OBP went up .005 pts despite his AVG plummeting nearly .060 pts. Is there a story behind that data that is connected to the injury?
Another consideration when looking at the Japan-to-US stats. H. Matsui has one of the biggest OPS drops of all the players coming over if you only compare his first season in the US to his three previous Japan seasons. Matsui then proceeded to get his OPS up to the .875 level for three seasons. I think it is very probable that it took Matsui a year to get adjusted because of the immense pressures put on him as a Japanese star on the Yankees. This is just a guess as I try to make sense of his numbers.
by DGU on Dec 11, 2007 6:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think you're missing data...
2003 (age 26): 140 G, .312/.401/.604
2004 (age 27): 92 G, .277/.367/.569
2005 (age 28): 142 G, .328/.430/.590
2006 (age 29): 138 G, .351/.438/.653
2007 (age 30): 81 G, .294/.443/.520
So he missed about 60 games in 2007 and 50 games in 2004. Otherwise, he's been completely healthy.
It would appear to be that his 2006 season was actually an upper bound, and his 2003 and 2005 closer to the norms. Something along the lines of .320/.420/.600. Those numbers are substantially lower than the .334/.463/.655 by Matsui.
The 2006 season seems heavily buoyed by an abnormally high batting average compared to his other seasons.
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
by DGU on Dec 11, 2007 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No problem...
http://japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=1064
I'm glad that we got the guy if for no other reason than otherwise all this effort everyone has gone to in attempts to project his performance would have been a waste!
by SouthernCub on Dec 11, 2007 11:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
PECOTA is up at BP Unfiltered
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=699
This should make you smile:
Fukudome 2008 .289/.401/.504
by DGU on Dec 12, 2007 7:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Take it with a grain of salt...
by SouthernCub on Dec 12, 2007 8:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What WOULD make me smile...
by SouthernCub on Dec 12, 2007 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
