Good morning.
Actually, I take that back. There's rarely anything good about mornings and then there's the fact that it may not be morning when you read this, so let me greet you with a more AN appropriate salutation:
Meh.
As many of you know, I enjoy keeping track of Oakland's farm system and have often taken the time to point out rising stars to the good (and some not so good, you know who you are) folks here at AN. That's something I plan on continuing this season in addition to my Staturday duties and I wouldn't bet against seeing a Minor League report show up on the Front Page before all is said and done. Now, as much as I like to be a primary provider of minor league info to AN the facts are my job tends to keep me busy over the summer and after trading Swisher and Haren for 9 not necessarily ready-for-primetime players there are going to be more then the usual numbers of folks keeping an eye on the farm.
So today I'm going to show you how to create a Major League Equivalency (MLE) for a minor league hitter.

So what is an MLE? Simply put, it's a way to take a prospect's minor league numbers and convert them into their potential major league production. It's important to remember that the MLE does not try to predict any kind of development or progression in the target prospect, it merely puts a big league spin on what the player has already done in the minors. We'll be weighing the player's raw data against the level of competition, league and park factors before seeing how he'd manage in the Show.
Today's volunteer is former D'Back wonder-stud Carlos Gonzalez. We are going to take his 2007 performance for the AA Mobile BayBears and convert it into a 2007 MLE. First we start with the raw data:
458 AB 131 H 33 D 16 HR 32 BB 103 K
The above is the core data, our formula is designed to manipulate that data into the MLE. Gonzalez also scored 63 runs and hit 3 Triples but we aren't worried about those numbers right now.
The next step is to modify CarGon's stats into park neutral numbers. Relax, it sounds more complicated then it is. I come bearing Mobile's 2007 Park Multipliers. http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_minor_league_park_multipliers/.
What's a park multiplier you ask? Well, every ballpark has it's quirks and the mulitplier is the number you need to multiply the raw data set by to come up with a non-park influenced (ie. neutral) number. Since I'm focusing on Gonzalez's 2007 numbers I've chosen to use Mobile's 1 Year data for this example. There are also 3 and 4 year averages available and I recommend using them when trying to use 2008 data to create an MLE. Back to Mobile's multipliers.
Let's focus on Hits for a moment. If you followed the link above you'd see that Mobile's 2007 Hits Column says 0.99. Ah-hah! So that's our multiplier, right? Not quite. What that 0.99 number is saying is that Mobile was 1% better than league average at preventing hits... it took away hits and that means we need a multiplier greater then 1 to use with our raw Hits number to come up with a neutral number. For right now, remember this formula: (X+.99)/2 = 1 with 1 = neutral. So, our multiplier (X) is 1.01.
Pretty simple, right? Well it stays simple until you hit 1.10 in the Column then your supposed to modify the equation some. The A's AAA and AA affiliates don't hit 1.10 so all I'm going to say is: Cut the part over 1.00 in half (1.10 becomes 1.05, etc). Back to our example.
So, having looked at the Mobile column our multipliers are (Hits=1.01) (Doubles=.99) (HR=.88) (BB=.93) (K=.98)
Adjusted Hits = Raw Hits(131) X Multiplier(1.01)
Adjusted Hits = 131(1.01) = 133
Adjusted Doubles = 33(.99) = 33
Adjusted Home Runs = 16(.88) = 15
Adjusted Walks = 32(.93) = 30
Adjusted Strike Outs = 103(.98) = 101
Just to head off any questions... yes, walks and strike outs can be influenced by the ballpark. Accept it, move on. Actually... lets look at the Adjusted HR total again. 16(.88) = 14.08 exactly but I rounded up to 15. Why did I do that? Personal preference. You cannot hit 14 and 1/10th HRs, you either hit 14 or 15 bombs. So if I've got any percentage beyond 14 I round up. If you choose to round up or down depending on the percentage that's your choice and it's perfectly fine, just be consistent about what you choose to do.
So our Adjusted (and now neutral) line looks like this:
458 AB 133 H 33 D 15 HR 30 BB 101 K
Next we need to handicap Gonzalez for being a AA player. We do that with two factors, "m" and "M". When a player jumps from AAA to the Show he ordinarily loses about 20% of his offensive ability relative to league. When the jump is from AA he takes a roughly 30% hit. We'll write this as:
m = .80 when jumping from AAA; m = .70 when jumping from AA. "M" is the square root of "m" therefore"
M(AAA) = .894
M(AA) = .837
Now we need to know the park multipliers for the Coliseum, we'll use 3 year averages for this and refer to these figures as PM. I'm sure you can figure out which PM to use as appropriate.
PM(H) = .95 PM(D) = .98 PM(HR) = .84 PM(BB) = .98 PM(K) = .88
Now we find the respective MLEs! Remember, Gonzalez was in AA last year so use the correct "m" and "M" multipliers.
MLE(H) = AdjH(.98)(M)(PM) Heads up! Don't confuse that (.98) with some other multiplier, it's a constant that's been included to the formula to make the numbers work right. So...
MLE(H) = 133(.98)(.837)(.95) = 104 Hits
MLE(D) = AdjD(M)(PM) MLE(D) = 33(.837)(.98) = 28 Doubles
MLE(HR) = AdjHR(m)(PM) MLE(HR) = 15(.70)(.84) = 9 HR
MLE(BB) = AdjBB(m)(PM) MLE(BB) = 30(.70)(.98) = 21 BB
MLE(K) = AdjK(1.05)(PM) MLE(K) = 101(1.05)(.88) = 94 K
Clear as mud? Don't worry, we're almost done.
MLE(AB) = RawAB-RawH+MLE(H). So...
MLE(AB) = 458-131+104 = 431 AB
We'll throw in his 3 Triples for flavor and viola!
Carlos Gonzalez's 2007 MLE:
431 AB 104 H 28 D 3 T 9 HR 21 BB 94 K 241/277/383 660 OPS.
Certainly not the most impressive line, especially when you consider that last year AL RFers averaged an .824 OPS. I hope this was clear enough for everyone, I know the formula got scattered a bit by my explanations so if anyone would like me to re-do the formula in it's entirity (minus my ramblings) in a comment I'd be happy to do so. If no one needs me to do that then I'm not going to do it voluntarily because I'm not out of my frakking mind! One last piece o' yummy goodness I will provide are the 3 year multipliers for Sac and Midland, just plug them into your formula and you'll be good to go. I'm not messing with A-ball numbers because the A's rarely run a guy up from A-ball to the Show in a year.
Sac: H=1.03 D=1.03 HR=1.04 BB=1.03 K=.91
Midland: H=.99 D=.99 HR=1.07 BB=1.03 K=1.01
Edit: It seems my intent behind all this wasn't as clear as I had hoped. MLE is not designed to predict future big league production, it merely tries to place minor league numbers into a major league context. My hope is that whoever is following the Sacramento River Cats in 2008 will be able to look at Gonzalez's 850 OPS and be able to evaluate how well his numbers could carry over into the Show. There's no point in calling these guys up before they're ready.
0 recs | 48 comments
it's morning (5:49 my time)
and it's very good.
as was this post. a perfect compliment to a dieting man's Yoplait Light Very Cherry Fat Free yogurt. Tme for my walk.
Thanks grover. Good stuff.
67MARQUEZ - March 22, 2008
Statistical overload
OOH! My head hurts!
bamaA'sfan - March 22, 2008
I hear ya...
Be glad I showed you the easy way to do this.
grover - March 22, 2008
That was the easy way?????
IM4Oakgal - March 22, 2008
hmm
I guess those are only the home numbers right?, because he did play on the road, and i think the park factors are different in every ballpark, aren't they?
jahs34 - March 22, 2008
There is a step that allows you to split home/road numbers
But it doesn't seem to have a drastic effect on the numbers, especially if we're focusing on 1 season of data. Originally I did split CarGon's 2007 season and apply modifiers to both his home/road numbers and the final outcome wasn't much different. Now part of that is probably because the ballpark in Mobile was relatively neutral accept in the home run department but even there we're atlking about 6 HR in 200+ AB... you're just not going to see much difference. Now if you were trying to do an MLE for someone who played in one of the extreme hitters/pitchers parks then maybe you'd want to reconsider doing the splits.
Basically I saw more work for not much more result. Throw in what we've learned from salb about regression and sample size and I'm for the simple is better approach. In 2007 Gonzalez's MLE OPS was 660, add an extra 20 points to that and it's still dreadful. Last year AL RFers averaged an 824 OPS... no one's home/road splits are going to turn an estimated 660 OPS into anything close to respectable.
grover - March 22, 2008
Dreadful might not be the right word
Only because I think it could send the wrong message to fans who don't quite get everything that's going on here.
Yeah, if CarGon were a major leaguer last year and put up a .660-.680 OPS for a full season he would've been one of the worst in the game for sure. But "dreadful" implies that he isn't good. I think a better word is "underdeveloped" or "not-yet-ready."
One thing I wonder about a guy like Gonzalez (fantastic hitter, not the greatest at drawing a walk) is if he actually could be better than his MLEs suggest because of opposing pitching. Major league pitchers are more accurate. More of their pitches are around the plate. If Gonzalez is the type of hitter who might not draw a walk, but will swing at that pitch 2 inches off the corner and hit safely, might he actually be more acclimated to a scenario in the majors where he'll be getting those pitches as opposed to the oftentimes crappy pitching in AA? Maybe not. I dont know. It's just something I wonder. If a guy can hit something in the strike zone, but isn't great at figuring out what is/isn't in the zone, wouldn't you rather him facing more pitchers who are more likely to be in the zone?
thejd44 - March 22, 2008
Fair enough
I was referring to a 680 OPS as dreadful, not the player. And I wouldn't want to confuse the player with the number because context matters. Bobby Crosby would see 680 as being an achievement, something to strive for.
As for the pitching question... yes big league pitchers are more accurate and can be around the plate more but that also means they're usually more able to pitch OUT of the strike zone at will and Gonzalez has a tendency to chase... well, predictable results there. If a big league pitcher knows he's facing a batter he doeasn't have to throw a strike to, he'll usually be able to keep from throwing a hittable pitch.
grover - March 22, 2008
Understood
Thank you very much, great article.
jahs34 - March 22, 2008
i think i'm confusing myself
when you have the park multiplier .99, what can't you just divide by .99 rather than have the equation x+.99/2=1...what am i missing
DyeLongJustice - March 22, 2008
Pretty sure that would work too
I think A) I was blindly sticking to multiplying the "multiplier" to my raw data and if the phrasing of dividing the multiplier doesn't cause you any confusion then be my guest and have at it. And B) I wanted to, at some point, make note that 1.00 = neutral.
This is my adaption of someone else's MLE formula. If at any time you see a way to modify what I've written into a form that is easier for you to use and doesn't (obviously) corrupt the data then have at it.
grover - March 22, 2008
I was following along until
triples were translated into a viola. a bass, I'd believe, or a cello.
skutch - March 22, 2008
Damn triples...
grover - March 22, 2008
Triples
Is there any kind of "triples skill" anyway? I know speed (and a lack of HR power) factors into it, but triples seem largey a product of defensive placement and park factors. In many cases, isn't a triple just a double that got lucky? (and thus, should we really even bother with them when evaluating a player?)
thejd44 - March 22, 2008
Good morning!
It's a bit after 11, so as you can see, I did the third best thing you can do with your morning.
#2 involves a breakfast burrito ...
#1 involves a breakfast, umm, taco ...
devo - March 22, 2008
If I'm reading you right, I can only be envious
My local taco shop is always ALWAYS closed in the mornings.
grover - March 22, 2008
Well, you could shop around...
but that becomes terribly expensive!
alox - March 22, 2008
They have taco shops where you live?
In most states, they're primarily sold through, um, street vendors.
PaulThomas - March 22, 2008
Chicago = Great for Mexican food
thejd44 - March 22, 2008
Amazingly ... I found a vendor that wants to serve it even more than I want to eat it ...
devo - March 22, 2008
So...
Do you have anything else to contribute besides fish taco commentary?
grover - March 22, 2008
Oh, now they're FISH tacos?
...actually, I have no idea how that extends the metaphor.
PaulThomas - March 22, 2008
Well, you see...
Nevermind.
I can't come up with something that won't get me BaNneD immediately.
grover - March 22, 2008
Smells like fish ...
but, curiously, tastes more like chicken ...
devo - March 24, 2008
'fraid not ... what's there to say ...
yes, correct. Good job.
devo - March 24, 2008
I thought it was the other way around
that is to say that a breakfast burrito involves #2.
oblique - March 22, 2008
How often does this system work?
Is there any way to compare guys who put up monstrous minor league seasons and how they translate into successful MLB seasons?
Tyler Bleszinski - March 22, 2008
That's not really what MLE tries to do
It will take into account park and league factors but MLE does not, at this time, take into account age in any way. If you have a 20 year old OFer in AAA hit 350/450/600 with 40 HR his MLE would be exactly the same as his 30 year old teammate who hit 350/450/600 with 40 bombs. But we know which is more likely to be the better player/prospect.
My goal with all this (and maybe I didn't state it clear in the piece... the perils of not having a proof reader) is for someone to keep their eye on Carlos Gonzalez or Aaron Cunningham and have a way of measuring their minor league success in the context of determining when they're ready for Oakland.
grover - March 22, 2008
I guess the question here is,
what constitutes "ready"? Has anyone done a statistical survey of major leaguers' success as compared to their MLEs? When's the best time to bring a guy up to the majors-- when his MLE passes replacement level? Average?
Obviously team needs are going to dictate personnel moves to some extent, but all else being equal, what's the threshold for optimum success?
(Note: I'm not suggesting anyone here actually do this study. It would be a staggering amount of work. Perhaps someone who was actually getting paid to write it, like the BP staff, might tackle it.)
PaulThomas - March 22, 2008
Yeah
that would be my follow up question as well. What would the stats have to read to prove that they're "ready"?
I've read that players who are exceptionally talented actually get "bored" by continually facing minor league pitching and sometimes their performance reflects that . I've read that about Carlos Gonzalez and Daric Barton. Their motivation goes down so their performance slips but then they get a chance in the bigs and suddenly they're excelling. Don't know how true it is or if that's just some baseball tale, but it was a theory being floated around when Barton came up and went berserk last year.
Tyler Bleszinski - March 22, 2008
MLE can only look at the numbers provided
Hanley Ramirez carried the same "bored" rap in the minors and I doubt there was a statistical system anywhere that could have predicted his break out rookie year.
When do you call up Gonzalez?
Well, we know there was some chatter about him maybe breaking ST this year with Oakland. It's not a question of talent, it's one of refinement. The scouting reports say that Gonzalez gets himself out at the plate, he gives away at bats. His 2007 MLE suggests that for all his talent, his actual production was woefully inadequate for a big league RFer. Could CarGon be one of those guys who breaks out when faced with the challenge of big league pitching? Maybe. But the scouts also say that while gifted, Gonzalez isn't so insanely talented that he can coast and be productive... he's going to have to put out the effort. The way I see it, until the scouts come back and say he's no longer wasting at bats he's not ready for the Show.
So let's say the scouts start talking about CarGon's improved discipline and work habits while he's in Sac but they say he could still improve a bit more. He's sporting a shiny 300/350/480 line over 300 AB. That's a clear improvement over his 2007 production at a lower level even before factoring in that Sac plays as a slight pitcher's park.
Hyp. 2008 Raw data: 300 AB 90 H 20 D 10 HR 2 T 23 BB (Not gonna mess with K's)
Stick the numbers in the formula and you get the following MLE:
288 AB 78 H 19 D 8 HR 2 T 19 BB 271/316/403 719 OPS
Now, if you're going to stick Gonzalez in CF then maybe the time is right to promote him. Heck, even if you're willing to stick him in a corner and let him struggle then maybe he's ready. But if he's still got work to do on his plate discipline and you want him to produce when he steps foot in Oakland... maybe now's not the time. If the coaching staff in Sac felt like they still had things to teach him then I'd be inclined to keep him in AAA.
The point behind all this is to not be fooled by some shiny minor league numbers. It's a huge jump from AAA to ML and let's face it, the A's can take their time developing their young talent the right way.
grover - March 22, 2008
I'll follow up with Blez
grover - March 22, 2008
I edited my article, hopefully that clears up my intent
grover - March 22, 2008
interesting stuff
and thank you for putting the time and effort into writing this, grover.
My own opinion would be that MLE is still a "work in progress", because of some of the ideas posed by Paul Thomas and Blez. But, every idea has its start. Which reminds me, "it's" means "it is". It's a contraction, not a possessive.
One won lost won - March 22, 2008
As I (hopefully) explained to Blez
MLE is merely one of the tools to judge the player in question. Gonzalez could tank in April but make adjustments and tear the cover off the ball in May and June making his overall line 300/350/480 but his actual performance level would be higher then that.
The point I've hopefully made is that 830 OPS in AAA looks pretty but when you put the numbers in a big league context they become marginal for promotion. And what are the variables in play, anyways? Is it September and the A's are 20 games back so Wins/Losses don't matter as much? In that case you could promote him and test the theory that he's a guy who needs to be challenged or to give him a wake up call or whatever.
What if the A's are two games back in September? Are you going to make it a point to give Gonzalez consistent at bats in Oakland in that scenario?
Is he coming up to play CF (where the offensive demands are lower) or RF? Is he expected to provide instant production? Are we saying all of 2008 is a trial run and it's perfectly OK to give CarGon a month's worth of at bats even if he's struggling to stay above the Mendoza line because the front office feels that letting him get his ass kicked at the big league level is the best thing for him? There are a lot of things to consider before you even look at his MLE.
I can think of a number of scenarios where it would make sense to promote CarGon if he was hitting in AAA at the level I hypothesized. I can also think of several scenarios when his AAA numbers would discourage me from calling him up. I just made up that 830 OPS but it looks like it's a pretty good dividing point when we're talking about a player who lines up at a position that demands offense like 1B or a Corner OF. You probably aren't going to want to call up anyone who's posting an OPS less then 830 in AAA if you're looking for offense.
grover - March 22, 2008
The concept of MLE's was developed by BJ
in his 1985 Abstract. The comparison has been done. MLE's have pretty much as much predictive value as major league numbers. Obviously an ageing curve needs to be applied.
"The average difference between the translation of the minor league data and the actual major league performance was 25 points -- exactly the same as the normal season-to-season fluctuation in a player's batting average between two major league seasons."
rfloh - March 23, 2008
I'm so freakin' immature...
You said "BJ".
heh
grover - March 23, 2008
Are these adjustment factors from PCL to AL or from
generic AAA to MLB? Shouldn't PCL have a greater adjustment factor than IL? Is AL considered to have a higher adjustment factor than NL? Is Sacramento a "slight pitchers park" in the context of PCL or AAA?
WaddellCanseco - March 22, 2008
Afraid I need to ask a question before I can answer your question
When you refer to "adjustment factors" are you talking about the park factors or are you referring to m = .80? Park factors adjust to the specific league, in other words Sac's park factors adjust for the rest of the PCL. Oakland's park factors adjust for the AL. As I understand it, all park factors are factored for their specific league so Sacramento plays as a slight pitcher's park relative to the rest of the PCL.
There is a way using Runs/Game to compare the PCL to the IL to the NL to the AL but I had a question in the math that I need answered before I use it. In general, the PCL is a more hitter friendly league then the IL.
m = .80 for all AAA leagues.
m = .70 for all AA leagues.
grover - March 22, 2008
I was referring to the .80 and .70 in the original post.
Sounds like we may need an additional adjustment specific to the PCL/AL situation, or maybe it's not big deal.
WaddellCanseco - March 22, 2008
I wouldn't worry about PCL/AL
Last year the PCL averaged more runs per game than the AL. (10.255 vs. 9.800)
That said, I've seen the AAA "m" modifier range from .78 - .82. There's no such thing as an "exact" MLE, it's meant to be an approximation. Like Sal talked about in his article on regression, the player's actual ability can only be loosely determined because of the sample size.
grover - March 22, 2008
g, Thanks!
Do you have Buck's 2006 MLE handy?
I realize it's not strictly a predictive tool, but was there anything in Buck's season numbers, perhaps in contrast to CarGo's that suggested he could make the jump pretty successfully?
The Dogfather - March 22, 2008
I haven't done Buck's 2006 MLE
You can go down to A-ball and produce an MLE but the numbers start to get murky. With only 212 AB in AA I didn't feel like it was worth the time, you'd have to doble your results just to get an idea of a mostly full season's worth of at bats.
Offhand I'd say Buck's superior control of the strike zone and his doubles power were key to his success. 06 Buck had 22 doubles in 212 AB in AA vs. 07 Gonzalez with 33 doubles in 458 AB. The Coliseum's PM for doubles and walks (.98 for both) don't do much to hinder a player that emphasizes those skills.
I don't know if any of that is right but it sounds good.
grover - March 22, 2008
Can we just simply say that
Buck has always hit, everywhere, and pretty darn well (if not with a ton of home run power)? I think the real reason Buck was a "surprise" is that he just wasn't in the minors for very long and he made the team because of a hot spring/injuries. But really, nothing in his performance last year was all that surprising based on his minor league numbers, and before that, college numbers.
thejd44 - March 22, 2008
His progression was surprising
but his statistical profile was not.
We might have expected him to post the same numbers in AAA that he did in the majors; clearly posting that line in the majors is a huge accomplishment (since it's 20% harder than doing it in AAA), but it doesn't reflect a change in his underlying strategy at the plate.
PaulThomas - March 22, 2008
In other words
It was surprising he did it last year (as opposed to this year), and not surprising that he was capable of it.
I suppose I buy that, though I still think his lack of significant minor league time makes it hard to really say what he was "supposed" to do.
thejd44 - March 23, 2008
Very very very nice work.
rfloh - March 23, 2008
Thanks
grover - March 23, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.