..............

=== Nov. 2011 Blog-O-Sphere System ===

Locally, there is a computer-oriented system that compares players by three criteria:  CT%, SW%, and ISO.  It uses one year -- say, Mike Carp's last year -- and finds players who posted Carp's CT%, SW% and ISO for one individual season.  These are published as comps in the "Carp Family."

......

THE GOOD:  The terrific advantage of such a list is that it is totally objective.  The lists are generated by machine.

When we find comps by memory -- Ichiro to Pete Rose -- we have a natural tendency to grab memorable (excellent) players.  At SSI we make an effort to remember the Casey Kotchmans and Jim Essians when analyzing John Jaso, but a machine will always "remember" a bunch of fringe players that you didn't.

.

Also, the list is using three core skills in baseball:  the HIT ability, patience, and power.  If you're going to pick only three, that's a pretty good set to pick.

.

Also, this list is liable to produce MACRO observations that are sound.  For example, a player who runs John Jaso's 2011 HIT ability, his 2011 patience, and his 2011 power, is going to run a 100'ish OPS+.  Further, you know that Jaso (presuming those 2011 CT%, SW%, ISO numbers) is not going to vary up or down much.  He's going to be between 85 and 115.  High floor, low ceiling.

......

THE BAD:   Identifying a player by his results doesn't tell us much about his gifts, talents, or approach.  It gives the outcome, but not the process.

When I say that a pitcher had 6.5 strikeouts, 3.3 walks, and 0.7 homers -- that's Derek Lowe, last year -- I'm telling you as much as I am when I say that a hitter had a certain CT%, SW% and ISO.  Here:

So you quickly see the problem with lumping pitchers, or hitters, by their K/BB/HR outcomes.  It's a bit like grouping pitchers by ERA, or at least by xERA.  You're talking mostly about how good they are, along with how aggressive they are (7k 3bb vs 5k 2bb).  What we want, is to know about what type of player they are.

.

.