Article: What's Holding Up The Dozier Trade?

[Dozier's Glorious Hair]

 

And hair. HOF hair.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

The original statement was, "Dozier leads others at his by position by double digits at HR." My response was, "But that double digit lead is only due to one year of unusual production." After that we went a circular route back to my original statement due to someone misinterpreting my point. So why are we arguing? I have no idea.

 

The point is, his HR lead is not head and shoulders above his comps due to being a future HOFer. The big lead is due to his career year. This is worth pointing out. The distinction here is huge.

 

I understand your point... and I wouldn't call it an argument because that sounds so... I like to call it a discussion...

 

If you are going to take out Brian Dozier's best year... You have to take out the other second baseman's best year as well to be fair. 

 

Cano shouldn't get to use his 39 last year. 

Gyorko shouldn't get to use his 30 last year 

Kinsler shouldn't get his 28 last year 

Tulowitski should lose his 25 in 2014

and Hanley should lose his 30 last year

 

After you inflict the same damage on everybody else that you want to inflict on Dozier... We are back to Double Digits again. 

[Doomtints]

 

With all due respect...you don't have a point.

If you are taking out Dozier's best year, then take out his competition's best year as well.

 

That's not how you would do it.  If you were removing peak performances, you would then need to project the average over the remaining years in the data for that year you just removed.  You would not simply just remove the data, you would replace the data with normalized data.

 

So yes, I have a point....

[Doomtints]

 

I understand your point... and I wouldn't call it an argument because that sounds so... I like to call it a discussion...

 

If you are going to take out Brian Dozier's best year... You have to take out the other second baseman's best year as well to be fair. 

 

Cano shouldn't get to use his 39 last year. 

Gyorko shouldn't get to use his 30 last year 

Kinsler shouldn't get his 28 last year 

Tulowitski should lose his 25 in 2014

and Hanley should lose his 30 last year

 

After you inflict the same damage on everybody else that you want to inflict on Dozier... We are back to Double Digits again. 

 

Except that's not how you would do it.

 

If you wanted to do this sort of analysis, this would be the process:

 

1) Remove the peak year's data for each player.

2) Determine the yearly average for each player using the data left in the data set.

3) Project that average onto the year you just removed.

 

This would be a very circular process which would yield the same point I already raised.

You don't account for "outliers" in data by removing them. You account for outliers by assuming the data would have been "normal" instead. In other words, you replace the outlier with the average. If you simply remove the data altogether, you create another outlier! Zero is an outlier too.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[Craig Arko]

http://www.statisticshowto.com/trimmed-mean/

[Doomtints]

 

http://www.statisticshowto.com/trimmed-mean/

 

Yep, that exists. It's still not the right way to do it.

 

The way I outlined is one of the many better ways to deal with outliers, but it takes more work than the elementary grade school level link that this is.

Another way to deal with outliers is to take the mean average, take the median average, and then make a new average based on those results. This method smooths things out nicely without actually removing or changing any data (it simply reduces the weight of outliers) but works best with larger data sets.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[Craig Arko]

Sigh.

 

http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_HypothesisTesting-ANOVA/BS704_HypothesisTesting-Anova_print.html

[Craig Arko]

What's actually holding up the Dozier trade?

 

 

And the testosterone level contained therein.

[Riverbrian]

Except that's not how you would do it.

 

If you wanted to do this sort of analysis, this would be the process:

 

1) Remove the peak year's data for each player.

2) Determine the yearly average for each player using the data left in the data set.

3) Project that average onto the year you just removed.

 

This would be a very circular process which would yield the same point I already raised.

 

You don't account for "outliers" in data by removing them. You account for outliers by assuming the data would have been "normal" instead. In other words, you replace the outlier with the average. If you simply remove the data altogether, you create another outlier! Zero is an outlier too.

Do you normalize the low?

[gunnarthor]

 

That's not how you would do it.  If you were removing peak performances, you would then need to project the average over the remaining years in the data for that year you just removed.  You would not simply just remove the data, you would replace the data with normalized data.

 

So yes, I have a point....

You really don't because you're only taking it out on one person while making him compete against everyone else.

 

That said, if we changed Dozier's 42 HR to 25 HR, he's second only to Cano and still has a double digit lead over everyone else. 

[Riverbrian]

You really don't because you're only taking it out on one person while making him compete against everyone else.

 

That said, if we changed Dozier's 42 HR to 25 HR, he's second only to Cano and still has a double digit lead over everyone else.

Normalize Cano's 39 like he suggests and Dozier is back on top

[drjim]

The other question is are we sure this last season was a significant outlier for Dozier? Very possible he's steadily built to this and could remain high for the next 2-3 years.

[Doomtints]

 

Do you normalize the low?

 

Entry level statistics teaches that you get rid of the highest and lowest numbers. But what if either of the highest or lowest numbers are within a standard deviation of the norm? You've started to remove valid data just to deal with some other number that is skewing things. And you're not *really* dealing with that outlier data by this process, you're just finding a way to feel more equitable about removing it. But getting the right story from data isn't about feeling fair about it. (And it's also not about removing data you don't like, it's about finding some other way to deal with it).

Not looking at Dozier's competition, here are the various methods discussed for dealing with Dozier over the past four years:

 

- Straight up HR/yr average: 27.75 (111 total)

- Mean + Median HR/yr average: 26.63 (106 total)

- Replacing highest and lowest with the average: 24.25 (97 total)

- Replacing the outlier with the average: 23 (92 total)

- Removing the outlier altogether: 23 (69 total)

- Removing highest and lowest: 25.5 (51 total)

If I were making a recommendation, I would use the 26/yr projection as it's the system that does not ignore his great year, it simply weighs it less. If 2016 becomes his norm, then that will work itself out over time in the calculation.

 

With Dozier's small sample size the story is about the same regardless of the method you use -- 42 home runs is a hell of a lot more than anyone would have expected in 2016. It would thus be a gamble to expect it in 2017, but you can take ~25 home runs to the bank until he shows that 2016 is repeatable.

You could also use regression analysis to deal with outliers, but I'll only get into what that indicates for Dozier if anyone is interested. (It's 23.39/yr.)

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[Nick Nelson]

 

The other question is are we sure this last season was a significant outlier for Dozier? Very possible he's steadily built to this and could remain high for the next 2-3 years.

Right. Being that Dozier's career year is also his most recent year, it's more relevant than others to assessing his current value. 

 

There's no reason to be contorting and doing logical somersaults to suggest Dozier's power is not elite for his position. You can quibble with the sentence construction (my bad) but it's not a disputable conclusion. Dozier is THE power hitting middle infielder in the majors right now. He just came like 2 HR short of setting the all-time record for HR by a second baseman, geez.

[Doomtints]

 

You really don't because you're only taking it out on one person while making him compete against everyone else.

 

That said, if we changed Dozier's 42 HR to 25 HR, he's second only to Cano and still has a double digit lead over everyone else. 

No one is arguing that if you take away Dozier's 42 that he isn't worth anything. The point is he isn't as far ahead as everyone else as is being suggested (at least until Dozier proves he can do it again). He isn't in that "super human" territory as is being suggested (at least not yet). 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[Kwak]

 

What's actually holding up the Dozier trade?

image.jpeg

And the testosterone level contained therein.

No. Falvey and Levine are "rowing the boat". Unfortunately they see all too well where the Twins were (and don't want to be there), but they have no clue where they are going.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I really don't understand what the hell is going on in this thread.

 

Whether you keep or remove Dozier's 2016 home runs, he still leads all middle infielders in homers over the past 3-4 seasons.

 

By that standard - hitting more home runs than anyone else who plays middle infield - he's an elite power-hitting middle infielder.

 

It doesn't matter if he leads by one home run or 20. He's the best at that particular skill and, therefore, elite.

 

I hate to go all pedantic-semantic on the board but jaysus, the definition of elite is "the best in a class".

[Doomtints]

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if he leads by one home run or 20. He's the best at that particular skill and, therefore, elite.

 

It matters a lot in this discussion.  One of those would be a future HOFer and would greatly affect what the Twins should get in a trade. 

 

If the "top HR hitter" is 2 home runs above the competition, could you save your prospects and trade instead trade for the #5 HR hitter, only sacrificing half a dozen HR in the process?  Yes, that would be a smart move to keep your top prospects and keep your money.

If the "top HR hitter" is 30 home runs above the competition, passing on him for the #5 HR hitter is suddenly becomes a real, actual drop in value. 

 

Thus, the fact that Dozier's HR lead is due to hitting 2x his career norm in one year is worth looking at for any team. Teams would be dumb not to do that.

Also, if the Dodgers are looking for power, wouldn't they be chasing SLG instead of HR? Some players with half the HR as Dozier have similar or better SLGs. How much does HR even matter here? We could be getting deep into a discussion that is simply a red herring.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It matters a lot in this discussion.  One of those would be a future HOFer and would greatly affect what the Twins should get in a trade. 

 

If the "top HR hitter" is 2 home runs above the competition, could you save your prospects and trade instead trade for the #5 HR hitter, only sacrificing half a dozen HR in the process?  Yes, that would be a smart move to keep your top prospects and keep your money.

If the "top HR hitter" is 30 home runs above the competition, passing on him for the #5 HR hitter is suddenly becomes a real, actual drop in value. 

 

Thus, the fact that Dozier's HR lead is due to hitting 2x his career norm in one year is worth looking at for any team.

But Nick wasn't attaching value to his statement. He was referring to Dozier's skill set, which includes elite power for his position.

 

And Dozier didn't double his home run total last season.  He topped the previous season by 14 home runs, or an additional 50%.

 

Nick's actual statement, for the record:

"And here we're talking about Dozier, an elite power hitting middle infielder in his prime with two full years of control remaining."

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence. All three statements are true. Dozier is an elite power-hitting middle infielder. He's still in his prime. He has two years of control.

[Doomtints]

 

But Nick wasn't attaching value to his statement. He was referring to Dozier's skill set, which includes elite power for his position.

 

"Elite power for his position" isn't a value statement? What is it then?

 

Also, the line you quoted was not what I was responding to.

 

As for power, Dozier's SLG last year was .546. Very good, but not elite. There have been recent years where second basemen have had higher SLG percentages than that with a mere seven home runs. Last year he was outslugged by someone who hit 25. Knowing that, if you are the Dodgers do you still focus only on Dozier? If you are the Twins, how high to you set the bar for a trade?

Edited January 8, 2017 by Doomtints

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Entry level statistics teaches that you get rid of the highest and lowest numbers. But what if either of the highest or lowest numbers are within a standard deviation of the norm? You've started to remove valid data just to deal with some other number that is skewing things. And you're not *really* dealing with that outlier data by this process, you're just finding a way to feel more equitable about removing it. But getting the right story from data isn't about feeling fair about it. (And it's also not about removing data you don't like, it's about finding some other way to deal with it).

Not looking at Dozier's competition, here are the various methods discussed for dealing with Dozier over the past four years:

 

- Straight up HR/yr average: 27.75 (111 total)

- Mean + Median HR/yr average: 26.63 (106 total)

- Replacing highest and lowest with the average: 24.25 (97 total)

- Replacing the outlier with the average: 23 (92 total)

- Removing the outlier altogether: 23 (69 total)

- Removing highest and lowest: 25.5 (51 total)

If I were making a recommendation, I would use the 26/yr projection as it's the system that does not ignore his great year, it simply weighs it less. If 2016 becomes his norm, then that will work itself out over time in the calculation.

 

With Dozier's small sample size the story is about the same regardless of the method you use -- 42 home runs is a hell of a lot more than anyone would have expected in 2016. It would thus be a gamble to expect it in 2017, but you can take ~25 home runs to the bank until he shows that 2016 is repeatable.

You could also use regression analysis to deal with outliers, but I'll only get into what that indicates for Dozier if anyone is interested. (It's 23.39/yr.)

 

Well... the problem with entry level statistics in the context of baseball players is a little problem called small sample size and career arc, especially when sample sizes are in years and Dozier's professional career has spanned only 8 years and only 4.5 of said years have been at the professional level. It's one thing to remove an outlier when you have a bazillion data points, but you're literally removing 20-25% of his major league career in calling it normalization.  Basic statistics assumes a lot more data points than what you're working with here.  That's the flaw in the reasoning.

 

I think it's very reasonable to assume that BD can put in 30+ HR seasons over the next two years. Home runs aren't luck driven, even the saber crowd will acknowledge that.  Dozier has shown he can adjust to ML pitching, and short of health issues or suddenly being caught using PEDs, he's a pretty good bet to continue at that pace for a few more years. 

[Rosterman]

Well, what might've been holding up the deal is that the Dodgers just signed Cuban Jose Fernandez. He's been out of baseball for awhile and might need some minor league time. But only 28. Do they really need Dozier now?

 

[Secondary User]

 

Entry level statistics teaches that you get rid of the highest and lowest numbers. But what if either of the highest or lowest numbers are within a standard deviation of the norm? You've started to remove valid data just to deal with some other number that is skewing things. And you're not *really* dealing with that outlier data by this process, you're just finding a way to feel more equitable about removing it. But getting the right story from data isn't about feeling fair about it. (And it's also not about removing data you don't like, it's about finding some other way to deal with it).

 

Do not throw away data.  Ever.  Understand why outliers might be outliers

[Doomtints]

 

Well... the problem with entry level statistics in the context of baseball players is a little problem called small sample size and career arc, especially when sample sizes are in years and Dozier's professional career has spanned only 8 years and only 4.5 of said years have been at the professional level. It's one thing to remove an outlier when you have a bazillion data points, but you're literally removing 20-25% of his major league career in calling it normalization.

 

 

More than that.  If you remove Dozier's top and bottom HR totals over the past 4 years, you remove 60 of his home runs and are left with 51.  There would be no quicker way to get a wrong answer in reality, even if your teacher might mark it as right. 

 

I agree that Dozier is probably good for a hair above 30 HR each year for the next couple of years. 

[gunnarthor]

 

As for power, Dozier's SLG last year was .546. Very good, but not elite.

Ah, hell, I'll bite -  what is an elite slugging percentage for a middle infielder?  And where does 'very good' start and end?

[Tom Froemming]

 

Well, what might've been holding up the deal is that the Dodgers just signed Cuban Jose Fernandez. He's been out of baseball for awhile and might need some minor league time. But only 28. Do they really need Dozier now?

I don't feel like this has any impact on their interest in Dozier. I believe Fernandez is a lefty hitter, so he wouldn't be a solution to their biggest weakness. They're not just out to win a division title this year, they want to win it all.

[Physics Guy]

Elite:

 

noun
1.  (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

[drjim]

Elite:

 

noun

1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

2. Anything described by PJ Fleck

[TheLeviathan]

 

2. Anything described by PJ Fleck

 

So everything then?

[DJSim22]

 

Well, what might've been holding up the deal is that the Dodgers just signed Cuban Jose Fernandez. He's been out of baseball for awhile and might need some minor league time. But only 28. Do they really need Dozier now?

 

They need him as much as they did before.  Fernandez is not at a level near Dozier.