PDA

View Full Version : Reds Win Share Leaders



CySeymour
07-07-2005, 04:50 PM
According to the Hardball Times, Dunn leads the Reds in Win Shares in games played through June. Dunn leads the team with 13 Win Shares. Lopez is tied with Griffey and Randa for second with 11. The Red with the fewest? Eric Milton of course. He ended June with -2 Win Shares.

1 NL A Dunn 13
2 NL F Lopez 11
3 NL K Griffey 11
4 NL J Randa 11
5 NL R Freel 8
6 NL J LaRue 7
7 NL S Casey 7
8 NL W Pena 4
9 NL R Aurilia 4
10 NL J Valentin 3
11 NL A Kearns 3
12 NL D Weathers 2
13 NL K Mercker 2
14 NL M Belisle 2
15 NL A Harang 2
16 NL J Romano 1
17 NL R Keisler 1
18 NL B Claussen 1
19 NL J Cruz 1
20 NL T Coffey 1
21 NL D Jimenez 1
22 NL B Shackelfor0
23 NL D Sardinha 0
24 NL K Kelly 0
25 NL L Lopez 0
26 NL R Olmedo 0
27 NL B Weber 0.0 -0.4 0.0 1 -0.297 -1 0
28 NL E Encarnacio 0
29 NL E Ramirez 0
30 NL J Valentine 0
31 NL L Hudson 0
32 NL R Stone 0
33 NL R Wagner 0
34 NL W Bergolla -1
35 NL D Graves -1
36 NL P Wilson -1
37 NL R Ortiz -1
38 NL E Milton -2

Mario-Rijo
07-07-2005, 07:55 PM
This is the stat that I had been trying to remember for awhile now. It shows just how much more important everyday players are than singular pitchers. I recalled a telecast on ESPN I believe once, where they cited this stat to show how much more important to the Sox Manny Ramirez was than Pedro. Of course your pitchers mean alot individually as a whole if that makes sense. So you certainly need pitching everyday however you need the same Hitters/Fielders everyday. It's quite an interesting stat to cite when discussing potential trades for pitching.

Simply put Adam Dunn is very important to this teams success, not as important as the entire staff but moreso than any individual pitcher! So when people offer pitching for him they better come w/ quality or not come at all.

buckeyenut
07-07-2005, 09:34 PM
This is the stat that I had been trying to remember for awhile now. It shows just how much more important everyday players are than singular pitchers. I recalled a telecast on ESPN I believe once, where they cited this stat to show how much more important to the Sox Manny Ramirez was than Pedro. Of course your pitchers mean alot individually as a whole if that makes sense. So you certainly need pitching everyday however you need the same Hitters/Fielders everyday. It's quite an interesting stat to cite when discussing potential trades for pitching.

Simply put Adam Dunn is very important to this teams success, not as important as the entire staff but moreso than any individual pitcher! So when people offer pitching for him they better come w/ quality or not come at all.

This is completely true, until the playoffs. In the playoffs, one pitcher can be far more important than any hitter. It is why STL is great in regular season and struggles in post season.

achilles
07-10-2005, 01:15 AM
What's a win share?

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 01:18 AM
What's a win share?

achilles, is there a reason you've completely avoided posting on the game thread but focused on posting on just about every other thread from the past two days?

Your behavior is making this board impossible to read. I might suggest that you focus on a thread or two you're actually interested in.

OSURedLeg
07-10-2005, 01:22 AM
Can somebody please explain the statistics that go into figuring this out? I'm perplexed that they now believe that a player's significance to his team can be summed up in one number - however, I'd love to know how they do it.

achilles
07-10-2005, 01:25 AM
achilles, is there a reason you've completely avoided posting on the game thread but focused on posting on just about every other thread from the past two days?

Your behavior is making this board impossible to read. I might suggest that you focus on a thread or two you're actually interested in.

I posted a few times on the game chat topic. I'm sorry if I made the board impossible to read. I just found this chat board. I don't want to make anyone mad, so I will stop posting for the rest of the night.

jhiller21
07-10-2005, 01:37 AM
achilles, your numerous posts aren't really contributing anything at all, other than cluttering up the boards. Might I add that most of your responses seem contrived?

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 01:57 AM
achilles, your numerous posts aren't really contributing anything at all, other than cluttering up the boards. Might I add that most of your responses seem contrived?

I don't see what the problem is with this guy.. If you don't like what he says don't read it, its that easy.

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 01:59 AM
Can somebody please explain the statistics that go into figuring this out? I'm perplexed that they now believe that a player's significance to his team can be summed up in one number - however, I'd love to know how they do it.


Its just another stat that means nothing.

I'm glad Dunn hit that Homer tonight, I really am. I'm happy anytime the Reds win. But, give me a break if you expect me to beleive a guy that has hit around .200 all year with RISP has contributed or won or whatever in the hell this stat proves to the Reds victories more so than anyone else. Give me a break.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 02:31 AM
Its just another stat that means nothing.

I'm glad Dunn hit that Homer tonight, I really am. I'm happy anytime the Reds win. But, give me a break if you expect me to beleive a guy that has hit around .200 all year with RISP has contributed or won or whatever in the hell this stat proves to the Reds victories more so than anyone else. Give me a break.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php

That'll give you a look at the statistic and player numbers for each team.

Keep in mind that it's not an inaccurate measure of contribution just because you don't want to believe that it's accurate. The very same metric will show you that Derrek Lee and Albert Pujols are 1st and 2nd respectively in all of baseball in team contribution.

In fact, you won't be able to find a meaningful performance measurement that doesn't demonstrate that Dunn's contributed more Runs to the Reds than any other player on the team.

Oh, and a couple quick questions:

1. If BA with RISP is actually what drives contribution, then why does Sean Casey have pretty much identical RISP RBI numbers while Casey has a nearly 20 more AB with RISP and a RISP BA advantage of over 80 points?

2. Why does Adam Dunn have more RBI with Runners On than Casey even though Casey has over 30 more AB in those situations and a Batting Average about 80 points higher than Dunn?

3. Does base hit type matter or are all base hits created equal?

All valid questions considering your position and all need to be carefully considered. I think you'll find that the right answers will give you a bit more direction in really understanding how players are able to contribute to their ballclubs without needing a .300 Batting Average.

MWM
07-10-2005, 02:36 AM
achilles, your numerous posts aren't really contributing anything at all, other than cluttering up the boards. Might I add that most of your responses seem contrived?

Tha's not necessary at all.

MWM
07-10-2005, 02:37 AM
Its just another stat that means nothing.

I'm glad Dunn hit that Homer tonight, I really am. I'm happy anytime the Reds win. But, give me a break if you expect me to beleive a guy that has hit around .200 all year with RISP has contributed or won or whatever in the hell this stat proves to the Reds victories more so than anyone else. Give me a break.

And I'm sure you did your homework and really researched it out before you came to this enlightened opinion.

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 02:40 AM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php

That'll give you a look at the statistic and player numbers for each team.

Keep in mind that it's not an inaccurate measure of contribution just because you don't want to believe that it's accurate. The very same metric will show you that Derrek Lee and Albert Pujols are 1st and 2nd respectively in all of baseball in team contribution.

In fact, you won't be able to find a meaningful performance measurement that doesn't demonstrate that Dunn's contributed more Runs to the Reds than any other player on the team.

Oh, and a couple quick questions:

1. If BA with RISP is actually what drives contribution, then why does Sean Casey have pretty much identical RISP RBI numbers while Casey has a nearly 20 more AB with RISP and a RISP BA advantage of over 80 points?

2. Why does Adam Dunn have more RBI with Runners On than Casey even though Casey has over 30 more AB in those situations and a Batting Average about 80 points higher than Dunn?

3. Does base hit type matter or are all base hits created equal?

All valid questions considering your position and all need to be carefully considered. I think you'll find that the right answers will give you a bit more direction in really understanding how players are able to contribute to their ballclubs without needing a .300 Batting Average.

I've not had time to study this.. And, I may or may not tomorrow. But the one glaring problem I see with just a quick glance at the list as that it takes pitchers and batters and sticks them in the same group. That's like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter what you pick to set your variables at, but comparing 2 things that aren't comparable would essentially void whatever it is you are comparing and how you are comparing.

jhiller21
07-10-2005, 03:06 AM
Tha's not necessary at all.

After reading more of them, his posts seem genuine, and I aplogize to achilles. But bringing up every topic from the last 2 days is a bit distracting ;)

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 03:09 AM
After reading more of them, his posts seem genuine, and I aplogize to achilles. But bringing up every topic from the last 2 days is a bit distracting ;)

Is the clique after him too or something?? I swear I've not seen what the poster has done wrong.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 04:36 AM
I've not had time to study this.. And, I may or may not tomorrow. But the one glaring problem I see with just a quick glance at the list as that it takes pitchers and batters and sticks them in the same group. That's like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter what you pick to set your variables at, but comparing 2 things that aren't comparable would essentially void whatever it is you are comparing and how you are comparing.

The metric does equalize for each group. In fact, the best thing about the Win Shares numbers is that they've developed a very good process to do that.

But if you don't trust Win Shares, then take a look at:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2005.php

Pay close attention to EQA (Equivalent Average), EQR (Equivalent Runs), RAP (Runs Above Position), and RARP (Runs Above Replacement Player).

Those are going to identify players who contribute the most Run Value to their clubs. You'll find that a lot of players you might think will be high on the list ARE high on the list.

If I may say so, here's what appears to be happening right now for you...

If a player's Batting Average is high, you're equating that with "productive"- particularly when looking at situational numbers. But Batting Average doesn't take into account things like opportunity (both Run Scoring and RBI opps), Out rate (see: OBP), and Hit quality (see: SLG). OBP tends to be the truest driver of Runs Scored. SLG tends to be the truest driver of Runs Batted In.

Now, that's not to say that Batting Average is completely worthless. It measures what it's supposed to measure- the number of hits per At-Bats. But it doesn't- even situationally- tell us what we want to know because it doesn't correlate as well with Runs Scored or Runs Batted In as well as either the OBP or SLG metrics.

Case in point (and I guy I love to bring up): Tony Batista

Batista finished 14th in Major League Baseball last season in RBI. He hit only .241 last season. You'd think that he must have had a much higher BA with Runners On and/or RISP. But his BA in both situations was only .247. So how did he finish tied for 14th in MLB in RBI?

Batista tied for 14th in MLB in AB with RISP. There's opportunity. Big-time opportunity. Among those 15 players, Batista was fifth in Isolated Power (.213 ISO). That means that Batista had a big-time ratio of extra-base Hits per Hits acquired and was tied for 4th in extra-base hits among those players. Of those 15 players, Batista had the 7th highest Slugging Percentage in those situations. Of the players with a higher SLG than Batista, every one had more RBI in those situations. Of the players with a lower RISP SLG than Batista, every one had fewer RBI. Slugging Percentage tends to be the RBI driver- not Batting Average even though BA is a SLG driver.

There's you opportunity factor and your distance factor. And we're not even factoring in actual baserunner volume. If you can get opportunity and multiple-runner opportunity, you're going to produce RBI if you can produce a high-frequency of multiple-base events. That's Adam Dunn in a nutshell.

But frankly, that's only half of the story. The other half is OBP and it's why Tony Batista is playing in Japan right now. OBP, even if it's less BA-driven and more BB-driven is an extreme asset. It provides more opportunity and actually makes following hitters better (OBP is the true "protection"). It slump-proofs a player and, consequently, a lineup (even lower SLG lineups). The better you are at avoiding Outs, the more valuable you're going to be- particularly when you're being compared to a player who can't acquire a high volume of bases.

In short, make less Outs. Acquire more bases. That's the way a player contributes to their team. Players that do both better than others are always going to contribute more to their team's success than those who don't.

forfreelin04
07-10-2005, 05:10 AM
Steel, quick question, what in your mind is the most important stat in baseball? I feel like I have experience from playing and watching many games to make a pretty accurate opinion but I am confused about all these different statistics, especially the ones that compile so many regular stats into one. Also, since you seem to know many of the statistics very well do you think it would be accurate to say a GM today could compile a winning ballclub without ever seeing them play?

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 05:36 AM
Steel, quick question, what in your mind is the most important stat in baseball? I feel like I have experience from playing and watching many games to make a pretty accurate opinion but I am confused about all these different statistics, especially the ones that compile so many regular stats into one. Also, since you seem to know many of the statistics very well do you think it would be accurate to say a GM today could compile a winning ballclub without ever seeing them play?

The most important statistic in baseball is that which gives you the most accurate guage of overall Run value. For fans, that's different than for some teams because a few teams have defensive value data that we're just not privy to.

That being said, Runs Created and it's brother RC per 27 Outs are pretty darn good in measuring offensive contribution.

And GM's compile teams right now without ever seeing players they're looking to acquire. Think about it.

NoColonBoy
07-10-2005, 11:05 AM
1. If BA with RISP is actually what drives contribution, then why does Sean Casey have pretty much identical RISP RBI numbers while Casey has a nearly 20 more AB with RISP and a RISP BA advantage of over 80 points?

2. Why does Adam Dunn have more RBI with Runners On than Casey even though Casey has over 30 more AB in those situations and a Batting Average about 80 points higher than Dunn?

3. Does base hit type matter or are all base hits created equal?

I think all that analysis is right-on, but I'd add one more question.

4. Are all hits of equal type equal?

Some guys thrive on meaningless RBIs--RBIs when a team is already down or up by several runs. Dave Parker, in his last Reds year, was a master at that.

I don't remember a lot of truly clutch hits and RBIs (other than last night, obviously) that Adam Dunn (or Sean Casey, for that matter) have had this year. Hits that knocked in runs to tie a game, break a tie or extend a one run lead.

I haven't seen a decent analysis of this anywhere--if anyone has (SD?), I'd love to hear about it.

BlfdVaFan
07-10-2005, 12:04 PM
The most important statistic in baseball is that which gives you the most accurate guage of overall Run value. For fans, that's different than for some teams because a few teams have defensive value data that we're just not privy to.

That being said, Runs Created and it's brother RC per 27 Outs are pretty darn good in measuring offensive contribution.

And GM's compile teams right now without ever seeing players they're looking to acquire. Think about it.

Does run value go up and down according to the teams that you play? Would those values go down if you played Atlanta and up if you played Cincinnati? What these meaningless stats tell me is that there is great disparity between the pitching on major league teams. I'll take Dunn's one big clutch hit every night over any other meaningless stat. Clutch hitting is the most meaningful thing on the offensive side of baseball. Speed, defense, clutch hitting, abd good pitching win games.

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 12:06 PM
It almost seems like all of this is counting everything as equal. These stats are nice, but it seems like they are more for fantasy baseball. IMO production down by a run in the 9th inning is worth more than production in the 8th inning when your team is down by 10 runs(which has happened a few times this year). By the same token striking out with someone on 3rd and less than 2 outs is much more crucial than striking out with no one on to end the 2nd inning. All stats are thinking everything is created equally and every situation is not.

RedlegJake
07-10-2005, 02:45 PM
In any single given game stats are much less valid. All these scenarios may be valid in a single game BUT over the course of 162 games RC becomes a very solid statistic to measure a player by. I just don't buy the "meaningless" rbi (as the poster alluded to in the D Parker example). Hitters can't control who's on base, when in a game they get "clutch" situations, or who is pitching. A player with a higher RC will almost certainly deliver higher percentage of those "clutch" runs over the course of an entire season than a player with a significantly lower RC. Show me proof that most of Parker's rbis were in meaningless situations. This is a viewpoint gained from watching the game and that is a very dangerous way to assess players. Why? Because baseball is extremely emotional - every time a player fails to produce with the game on the line it creates a tremendous letdown in the mind of the fan - one that may negatively his view of that player forever but is probably erroneous. All the other times that player delivers just don't have the same impact once that negative viewpoint is accepted as fact by a fan. Any time he delivers it is discounted and every time he fails (which the very best players in history do 2/3rds of the time) is accepted as more proof. While they are not perfect and measure bits and pieces, taken as a collective picture, RC, OPS and its constituents OBP and SP give a pretty good picture of the player.

I've learned to discount what I see with my eyes on the playing field. I love what I'm seeing when I'm watching baseball but I don't trust my judgement of a player's abilities without seeing their stats now and careerwise, and adding the 2 together. When I was a kid I loved Art Shamsky. I saw him hit 3 homers in 3 games I attended and he's now in my own "hall of fame". I know he's a very mediocre player but I'll always hear that name and link it with Bench and McCovey and Bonds etc. Ludicrous but emotional response. I've come completely over to the stat group when it comes to big league players. Scouts are still very necessary for High schoolers, low minors and college but at the higher levels in the minors and in the bigs I've come to the conclusion almost everything you need to know about a player is there in black and white.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 04:06 PM
I think all that analysis is right-on, but I'd add one more question.

4. Are all hits of equal type equal?

Some guys thrive on meaningless RBIs--RBIs when a team is already down or up by several runs. Dave Parker, in his last Reds year, was a master at that.

I don't remember a lot of truly clutch hits and RBIs (other than last night, obviously) that Adam Dunn (or Sean Casey, for that matter) have had this year. Hits that knocked in runs to tie a game, break a tie or extend a one run lead.

I haven't seen a decent analysis of this anywhere--if anyone has (SD?), I'd love to hear about it.

That's a loaded question because it tends to assume that a hitter can control things like baserunner volume, runner location, and game state. They can't.

A "meaningless" event can only be identified retrospectively.

On May 2nd, 2005 Sean Casey stepped to the plate with the bases loaded in the 8th Inning against the St. Louis Cardinals. The Reds were up 7-3. Casey walked, and the resulting RBI plated the 8th Run. Felipe Lopez followed with an Infield Single that put the Reds ahead 9-3. Next up was Adam Dunn. He struck out looking to end the Inning.

Now, if Dunn had hit a grand slam there, the Reds would have led 13-3 due to those "meaningless" RBI. But he didn't. But because of the score (9-3), either a Run Scoring event or an Out has to take on equal non-significance if you buy into the concept of "meaningless" events.

But none of those events were truly meaningless. The Cardinals won that game 10-9 by scoring 7 Runs in the 9th and a John Mabry HR was the final blow. Now, suddenly, all those "meaningless" Runs the Reds scored in the 8th retrospectively take on far more significance. Why? Because the Reds pitching made it so. The pitching failure causes us to assign a greater level of importance to offensive events that occured in the past and those that will happen in the future (i.e. the bottom of the ninth). Hitters can't control that.

Casey's 8th Inning walk was more important than it appeared to be the Inning before. Lopez' infield Single is more important now than then. And a Dunn HR with the bases loaded- with a 6-Run lead- would have been the margain of victory. Instead, Dunn made the final Out of the 8th Inning...after hitting a HR to lead off the 8th Inning. If the Reds had won 9-3, that leadoff HR would be forgotten as a "meaningless" event. Same with the K with the Bases Loaded. But instead, the HR contributed significantly to the Reds chances to win the game in the bottom of the ninth.

Until the final Out is recorded, nothing is truly meaningless. As long as the opposing team has Outs left, anything you can do to distance your team from the opposition's score is absolutely meaningful.

We tend to focus on "clutch" as being late-game events but a "clutch" event could happen at any time in a game regardless of the score.

2001MUgrad
07-10-2005, 04:15 PM
Another note. Clemmens win share is 16 if I remember correctly?? Yet, he has only won 6 games.

It goes to show you baseball is a team sport. While, HR, RBI's, Hits, AVG, OPS, OBP, etc. may be fun to look at and discuss it takes a team effort. Clemmens can't win a game without 8 other guys. So to say he is responsible for 16 games and he's only won 6, well I don't know, go figure?

NoColonBoy
07-10-2005, 04:40 PM
That's a loaded question because it tends to assume that a hitter can control things like baserunner volume, runner location, and game state. They can't.

A "meaningless" event can only be identified retrospectively.

I hear you, but I don't completely agree. Whether a "clutch" hit is truly clutch may require that it be reviewed in hindsight--like your Cardinal example.

But a hitter's frame of mind and how he performs knowing that a hit knocks in a "meaningful" run at the time is certainly quantifiable. Same as we keep stats for how players hit with RISP. The tough part would be gaining a consensus on what a meaningful run at the time is.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 04:51 PM
Does run value go up and down according to the teams that you play? Would those values go down if you played Atlanta and up if you played Cincinnati? What these meaningless stats tell me is that there is great disparity between the pitching on major league teams. I'll take Dunn's one big clutch hit every night over any other meaningless stat. Clutch hitting is the most meaningful thing on the offensive side of baseball. Speed, defense, clutch hitting, abd good pitching win games.

Problems with that reasoning:

1. You haven't defined "clutch".
2. You haven't defined "hitting".

Just for starters. There are a whole lot more questions we end up getting when we even begin to define something like "clutch". For example:

1. If "clutch" can be defined as higher performance in more significant situations, then why did Tony Perez stink so consistently in the playoffs while being remembered as one of the most "clutch" Reds of all time?

2. If a player does better in "clutch" situations than he does in "non-clutch" situations, does that mean he's actually a "choker" in "non-clutch" situations?

3. Why can't anyone find definitive evidence that "clutch" actually exists even though they've been looking for it for years?

4. If "clutch" exists for hitters, might it not also exist for pitchers?

5. If a "clutch" hitter makes a situational Out against a "clutch" pitcher, does that make the hitter a "choker"?

6. Why isn't a solo HR "clutch"?

7. Why is a non-RBI-producing base hit with RISP considered more "clutch" than a solo Home Run?

8. Why is Scott Rolen's Batting Average with RISP (.192) so much lower this season than it was last season (.358)?

9. Why do we see so many yearly RISP BA disparities like the Scott Rolen example if "clutch" is allegedly a repeatable skill?

10. If a Single with a Runner on 2nd is "worth" less than a Single with a Runner on 1st Base, is that truly a failing of the hitter; or is it a failure of the Runner who didn't acquire enough bases?

11. If hitters hit pitchers better when they pitch from the stretch, is an improvement in BA with Runners On at least party attributed to the Runner rather than the Batter?

11 questions. There are a million more.

In short, there's no one who's ever been able to demonstrate that "clutch" actually exists for Player A versus Player B versus Player C. Now, that might be due to the way "clutch" is defined- studies tend to focus on Batting Average as the sole metric of value. Bill James has recently noted that there might be too much data noise to be able to define clutch and warns us not to dismiss the "clutch" concept offhand.

James' saying that is akin to a Bigfoot enthusiast telling us that the forest is too dense to disprove the existence of Bigfoot. Well, that's fine but if you've been looking for Bigfoot for decades and haven't found him, I'm going to be inclined to assume that he doesn't exist- and that's a reasonable assumption.

So, until someone can provide valid quantifiable evidence of a repeatable skill set, I'm going to continue to ask questions that most proponents of "clutch" haven't even considered.

And I'm also going to identify players that have the most value by using metrics you quantify as "meaningless". I'll do that because those statistics actually do identify meaningful, quantifiable, repeatable skill sets.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 05:01 PM
Another note. Clemmens win share is 16 if I remember correctly?? Yet, he has only won 6 games.

It goes to show you baseball is a team sport. While, HR, RBI's, Hits, AVG, OPS, OBP, etc. may be fun to look at and discuss it takes a team effort. Clemmens can't win a game without 8 other guys. So to say he is responsible for 16 games and he's only won 6, well I don't know, go figure?

Assigned Wins don't accurately guage Pitcher performance. That's what you're seeing with that disparity. And you're right- it takes 8 (or more) other guys contributing to get a Win recorded for a Starting Pitcher.

In fact, attempting to guage performance using most of the metrics you cited (including recorded Wins) is pure folly. See: Milton, Eric.

Clemens Win Share numbers identify isolated contribution to the team and reward him for his performance while the "Wins" statistic actually pseudo-penalizes him for his teammates' failures. In the same way, you can get a good grasp on a player whose performance doesn't look to repeat itself (Again, see: Milton, Eric) if his recorded victory total is well above his actual Win Share or Run value contribution to his team.

In short, metrics like those allow you to identify undervalued and overvalued commodities. Smart teams get the former and stay away from the latter like the plague. Dan O'Brien doesn't care because he doesn't understand how read and/or understand the messages those metrics are transmitting. That's a big part of our problem right now.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 05:11 PM
I hear you, but I don't completely agree. Whether a "clutch" hit is truly clutch may require that it be reviewed in hindsight--like your Cardinal example.

But a hitter's frame of mind and how he performs knowing that a hit knocks in a "meaningful" run at the time is certainly quantifiable. Same as we keep stats for how players hit with RISP. The tough part would be gaining a consensus on what a meaningful run at the time is.

Here's the thing. I see "clutch" hits all the time. I just don't presume that they're connected to a hitter's ability to produce "clutch" Hit events because no one can demonstrate that it's a true repeatable skill set outside the realm of normal performance.

Over time, all situational BA metrics tend to migrate to the norm. That means that, given a large enough sample size, hitters tend to acquire base hits with RISP at about the same rate as in any or all other situations.

All-in-all, if you're putting together a team it's best to acquire the best Run Value hitters (and pitchers) that you can afford regardless of what the situational data is telling you. Because if you end up signing or trading for a guy because he "knows how to win" or "hits in the clutch", you're very likely to end up with a player who doesn't match up with his reputation.

But if you get players who put up good overall numbers you're going to find that, over time, they're going to hit just as well in every situation as they do any situation. That's why metrics like Win Shares, EQA, Runs Created, RARP, etc. are so darn important.

NoColonBoy
07-10-2005, 08:19 PM
Here's the thing. I see "clutch" hits all the time. I just don't presume that they're connected to a hitter's ability to produce "clutch" Hit events because no one can demonstrate that it's a true repeatable skill set outside the realm of normal performance.

Over time, all situational BA metrics tend to migrate to the norm. That means that, given a large enough sample size, hitters tend to acquire base hits with RISP at about the same rate as in any or all other situations.

All-in-all, if you're putting together a team it's best to acquire the best Run Value hitters (and pitchers) that you can afford regardless of what the situational data is telling you. Because if you end up signing or trading for a guy because he "knows how to win" or "hits in the clutch", you're very likely to end up with a player who doesn't match up with his reputation.

But if you get players who put up good overall numbers you're going to find that, over time, they're going to hit just as well in every situation as they do any situation. That's why metrics like Win Shares, EQA, Runs Created, RARP, etc. are so darn important.

You know what's funny--I've been thinking about this all afternoon, and I ended up exactly where you did.

I remember that somebody (Elias?) used to have some criteria and a stat for "clutch hitting"--this was years ago--late 80s or early 90s. I think that's exactly why the stat didn't stick--the sample sizes were often too small and inherently unreliable as a result.

From the analysis I've read, I do like Pete Palmer's BFW/PW system a little better than win shares. But whatever you use-you're right--at the end of the day, Albert Pujols is still Albert Pujols and Tony Batista is still Tony Batista--no matter what the data may tell you over a small sample size.

SteelSD
07-10-2005, 08:49 PM
You know what's funny--I've been thinking about this all afternoon, and I ended up exactly where you did.

I remember that somebody (Elias?) used to have some criteria and a stat for "clutch hitting"--this was years ago--late 80s or early 90s. I think that's exactly why the stat didn't stick--the sample sizes were often too small and inherently unreliable as a result.

From the analysis I've read, I do like Pete Palmer's BFW/PW system a little better than win shares. But whatever you use-you're right--at the end of the day, Albert Pujols is still Albert Pujols and Tony Batista is still Tony Batista--no matter what the data may tell you over a small sample size.

Yep. Good post. And it highlights current issues with the Reds.

Remember when Dan O'Brien signed John Vander Wal? Part of the reasoning positioned to the public was that he was an exceptional pinch hitter. Heck, here's Dave Miley's comment:

"I know in the late innings when I look down and see him, I'm going to be glad he's on our side," manager Dave Miley said.

Yep. And I have little doubt that they believed in Vander Wal's rep. Here's Vander Wal pinch hitting for 2002 and 2003:

2003: 29 AB, .207 BA/.207 OBP/.276 SLG
2002: 13 AB, .154 BA/.294 OBP/.231 SLG

Hmn. Well, that doesn't look like a good pinch hitter at all. Here's 2004:

2004: .037 BA/.125 OBP/.034 SLG

That's a .198 OPS as a Pinch Hitter for Vander Wal in 2004.

And see, that's the thing. John Vander Wal was not- over his career- a bad Pinch Hitter and if he was a good Pinch Hitter it's because he was a good HITTER period. But Vander Wal sure highlights the folly of signing a guy just because he's got a reputation of being good situationally. It just doesn't work like that.

The Reds continue to make those kind of mistakes. I don't think O'Brien has ever signed an offensive player who hasn't been- in his own words- a "professional hitter". I don't ever see him signing a pitcher who doesn't "know how to win".

Dan O'Brien on Vander Wal: "You look in the dictionary under 'professional hitter' and you see John Vander Wal's picture..."

Dan O'Brien on Joe Randa: "First, he's a professional hitter..."

Reputation valued. Performance ignored. Ironically, we see lineups using things like small sample size performance "matchup" data but no one seems to care that John Vander Wal can hardly buy a pinch hit the two seasons before he was signed. Logic of convenience.

That's the danger with small sample size situational data. It fools GM's and Managers into thinking they know something about how things will play out. It offers them a mirage of opportunity when what they need is a real oasis of performance.

BlfdVaFan
07-10-2005, 10:34 PM
Yep. Good post. And it highlights current issues with the Reds.

Remember when Dan O'Brien signed John Vander Wal? Part of the reasoning positioned to the public was that he was an exceptional pinch hitter. Heck, here's Dave Miley's comment:

"I know in the late innings when I look down and see him, I'm going to be glad he's on our side," manager Dave Miley said.

Yep. And I have little doubt that they believed in Vander Wal's rep. Here's Vander Wal pinch hitting for 2002 and 2003:

2003: 29 AB, .207 BA/.207 OBP/.276 SLG
2002: 13 AB, .154 BA/.294 OBP/.231 SLG

Hmn. Well, that doesn't look like a good pinch hitter at all. Here's 2004:

2004: .037 BA/.125 OBP/.034 SLG

That's a .198 OPS as a Pinch Hitter for Vander Wal in 2004.

And see, that's the thing. John Vander Wal was not- over his career- a bad Pinch Hitter and if he was a good Pinch Hitter it's because he was a good HITTER period. But Vander Wal sure highlights the folly of signing a guy just because he's got a reputation of being good situationally. It just doesn't work like that.

The Reds continue to make those kind of mistakes. I don't think O'Brien has ever signed an offensive player who hasn't been- in his own words- a "professional hitter". I don't ever see him signing a pitcher who doesn't "know how to win".

Dan O'Brien on Vander Wal: "You look in the dictionary under 'professional hitter' and you see John Vander Wal's picture..."

Dan O'Brien on Joe Randa: "First, he's a professional hitter..."

Reputation valued. Performance ignored. Ironically, we see lineups using things like small sample size performance "matchup" data but no one seems to care that John Vander Wal can hardly buy a pinch hit the two seasons before he was signed. Logic of convenience.

That's the danger with small sample size situational data. It fools GM's and Managers into thinking they know something about how things will play out. It offers them a mirage of opportunity when what they need is a real oasis of performance.

Nice logic Steel. I'll buy into this. What John Vander Wal did 5 years ago, 2 years ago, or 2 at bats ago does not mean squat in his next at bat. It does prove that people can make any set of numbers say anything that they want them to say. We can have the same set of numbers and come to different conclusions.

SteelSD
07-11-2005, 12:03 AM
Nice logic Steel. I'll buy into this. What John Vander Wal did 5 years ago, 2 years ago, or 2 at bats ago does not mean squat in his next at bat. It does prove that people can make any set of numbers say anything that they want them to say. We can have the same set of numbers and come to different conclusions.

When isolated to a single At-Bat, you're pretty darn close to being right. But when looking at larger sample size recent historical performance, we can get a pretty good picture of what a player is most likely to do in the future over time.

I tend to think of performance metrics as "code". If one is using the correct code key and properly interpreting the meaning of what they're seeing, those numbers sing. They key is really understanding the relevence and validity of a particular measurement and data sample. Far too often, folks use a sample size too small to be valid and use inappropriate measurements drawn from that sample to make decisions- sometimes BIG decisions.

That's not so good.

2001MUgrad
07-11-2005, 10:56 AM
When isolated to a single At-Bat, you're pretty darn close to being right. But when looking at larger sample size recent historical performance, we can get a pretty good picture of what a player is most likely to do in the future over time.



Maybe, but what is a large enough sample size to draw this conclusion?? 1500 AB's, 3000AB's?? Something else that needs to be realized is that nothing is constant and thats what is being concluded as that everything remains constant. A player gets older, a player gets stronger, a player gets weaker, etc. etc.

So to get a large enough sample size to conclude what you need to conclude it would be inaccurate at best because things change over time, particularly when dealing with the Human element.

SteelSD
07-11-2005, 11:15 AM
Maybe, but what is a large enough sample size to draw this conclusion?? 1500 AB's, 3000AB's?? Something else that needs to be realized is that nothing is constant and thats what is being concluded as that everything remains constant. A player gets older, a player gets stronger, a player gets weaker, etc. etc.

So to get a large enough sample size to conclude what you need to conclude it would be inaccurate at best because things change over time, particularly when dealing with the Human element.

Interesting, because statistical analysis has already been used to better understand the effects of aging on performance over time. In fact, we can best isolate projected "peak" season ages and identify ages at which performance is most likely to decline.

Your point about age volatility actually supports the use of performance metrics because statistical analysis allows us to view the effect of age on historical performance across the game.

NoColonBoy
07-11-2005, 11:17 AM
Maybe, but what is a large enough sample size to draw this conclusion?? 1500 AB's, 3000AB's?? Something else that needs to be realized is that nothing is constant and thats what is being concluded as that everything remains constant. A player gets older, a player gets stronger, a player gets weaker, etc. etc.

So to get a large enough sample size to conclude what you need to conclude it would be inaccurate at best because things change over time, particularly when dealing with the Human element.

That's exactly right. That's why you have to look at the statistics underlying a player's skill set (which will also change over time and could trend in either direction) (which Steel outlined earlier in this thread).

You'll see trends in player performance from one year to the next that will tell you if a player is likely to be on the upswing or the decline (you can never 100% predict, of course, because there might be an intervening event--a player gets eye surgery or dedicates himself to conditioning, he blows out his knee playing pick-up basketball or he is surrounded by a better supporting cast and the rising tide raises all boats--that skews your results).

The saber tools are the best out there. They're not perfect--you can't play baseball "on paper"--but you can certainly evaluate comparative performance using them. And you can also predict that an Eric Milton will probably have a difficult time pitching in GABP. I was one of the naysayers, but I hoped I was wrong. The stats told me otherwise.

2001MUgrad
07-11-2005, 05:30 PM
Again.

You are assuming everything is constant and works alike. Did these stats pick Barry Bonds to hit 70 HR at age 36?? Or did they pick Big Mac to hit 70 at 36?? I serriously doubt that.

As long as the human element is involved there is a large error to predicting anything at all. Especially when concerned with single events.

SteelSD
07-11-2005, 06:08 PM
Again.

You are assuming everything is constant and works alike. Did these stats pick Barry Bonds to hit 70 HR at age 36?? Or did they pick Big Mac to hit 70 at 36?? I serriously doubt that.

As long as the human element is involved there is a large error to predicting anything at all. Especially when concerned with single events.

Predictive analysis isn't about being perfect. It's about telling you what's most probable in order to swing probability in your favor. Predictive statistical analysis is about probability control- not perfection.

There will always be random occurrances of outlier-type seasons. The fact that they happen (substance-induced or not) doesn't invalidate statistical analysis as being a primary evaluation and predictive tool.

In short, identify what's most LIKELY to happen and you'll be far better off.

TeamBoone
07-11-2005, 06:15 PM
Its just another stat that means nothing.

I'm glad Dunn hit that Homer tonight, I really am. I'm happy anytime the Reds win. But, give me a break if you expect me to beleive a guy that has hit around .200 all year with RISP has contributed or won or whatever in the hell this stat proves to the Reds victories more so than anyone else. Give me a break.

Part of it is because he gets on base... A LOT... and others hit HIM in. The other part is that he also hits people in, or himself. His average w/RISP may be only .215 but he is hitting with people on base... .286 w/runners on first and .333 with runners on first and third.

2001MUgrad
07-11-2005, 07:29 PM
Predictive analysis isn't about being perfect.

That's TRUE!! I gess its safe to say we'll just disagree on this no matter how much we post differing opinions.

I'm just no much for stats like this, etc. I mean for crying out loud the NWS can't even tell you where a hurricane is going to hit until a few hours prior. Sure about 3 or 4 days ahead of time they can tell you well, its going to hit between here and here. Well, there is a big difference in 500 miles. But, you know why they cannot predict hurricanes or weather in general with much accuracy outside of a day or so?? Beacause its always changing. Just like with humans that atomosphere is always changing. Nothing is ever the same and each individual change affects something in a different way.

And, I'm sure I could show you some stats that the Dallas Cowboys are losing money. Does that make it so??

MWM
07-11-2005, 08:38 PM
The idea that stats can tell you anything you want them to is one of the most tired and overused cliches out there. Any person who knows the first thing about stats can usually tell you which ones are reliable and which ones are junk. Good statistical analysis is about using the right ones, and you have to know how to identify the right ones. And P&L's aren't statistics so that analogy isn't anywhere near relevant to this topic.

2001MUgrad
07-11-2005, 11:09 PM
The idea that stats can tell you anything you want them to is one of the most tired and overused cliches out there. Any person who knows the first thing about stats can usually tell you which ones are reliable and which ones are junk. Good statistical analysis is about using the right ones, and you have to know how to identify the right ones. And P&L's aren't statistics so that analogy isn't anywhere near relevant to this topic.

You can, cliche or not, beleive what you want. Until you can measure every single variable associated with a certain situation in hopes that the exact same situation comes about again, will not be very predicitive. Sure, I can say over the course of a year odds are Sean Cassey will hit .300. Like I can also say over the course of a year Adam Dunn will Strikeout 150 times. With that being said, that is also assuming each player stays healthy for most of the year. The more and more stats you through into a new statistical annalysis the less reliable it will be as to what you are trying to say. You can and do clutter it too much with too much varying data.

MWM
07-11-2005, 11:46 PM
Again, it seems like if it's not perfect you think it has no value. Probabilities imply lack of perfection, but those who understand where they apply wind up become rich while those waiting for the perfect answer wind up broke. As far as cluttering things with variation, that's the beauty of just about every RELEVANT baseball performance metric, there's very little variation.

Honestly, it seems like you haven't really taken the time to search out whether baseball performance metrics are accurate in their predictive value or not. From what I can tell, you don't like the idea of statistical evaluation of baseball, so you've just dismissed it without even considering it.

And no, good evaluators of stats know which metrics are useless (i.e. making it say what you want). The right metrics don't lie. Wrong ones do. The key is knowing which is which.

SteelSD
07-12-2005, 01:56 AM
That's TRUE!! I gess its safe to say we'll just disagree on this no matter how much we post differing opinions.

Just because something isn't perfect, that doesn't mean it's ungood.


I'm just no much for stats like this, etc.

And I think we just got to the crux of your position. You're arguing against the use of that which you don't really understand. Nothing wrong with not liking or not understanding statistical evaluation metrics or methodology. You don't have to like sabermetrics to like baseball.

However, you're arguing preference then- not relevence or validity.

You won't find me disagreeing with you about you not liking statistics. I clearly understand that. But you not liking them doesn't preclude them from being useful, relevent, and valid tools that can be used to give us a reasonable understanding of probability.

Just because you can't tell exactly what will happen with 100% certainty doesn't mean there's not true tangible value in understanding what's most likely to happen.

2001MUgrad
07-12-2005, 02:21 PM
Again, it seems like if it's not perfect you think it has no value. Probabilities imply lack of perfection, but those who understand where they apply wind up become rich while those waiting for the perfect answer wind up broke. As far as cluttering things with variation, that's the beauty of just about every RELEVANT baseball performance metric, there's very little variation.

Honestly, it seems like you haven't really taken the time to search out whether baseball performance metrics are accurate in their predictive value or not. From what I can tell, you don't like the idea of statistical evaluation of baseball, so you've just dismissed it without even considering it.

And no, good evaluators of stats know which metrics are useless (i.e. making it say what you want). The right metrics don't lie. Wrong ones do. The key is knowing which is which.

Maybe.

But consider this. Everyone that is for all these stats argues is every hit equal?? Well no of course not. Well, the basis for most of that I don't like about some of these things is that count some things more than once while not counting others at all. Some stats are counting a walk the same as a single. Is that the same?? Not even close. In some cases it may not seem like a difference, but in the grand scheme of competitve sports the pitcher just lost a battle to the hitter if he got a single, if he walked, its a draw. Saying a walk is like a single is like saying a double is the same as a triple etc. Just as striking out with a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 outs should count against a player more than just any other out. An out is an out, but I'm looking for my RBI man to be a clutch hitter.

Mostly what I don't like is just the over value that is applied to walks in 90% of these stats. You are right steel, I don't like them, and I'm not going to make any effort to understand them, that's accurate. To me the fundemental basis of them for over valuing a walk voids it to me. Most walks aren't earned, they are given.

pedro
07-12-2005, 02:26 PM
Its just another stat that means nothing.

I'm glad Dunn hit that Homer tonight, I really am. I'm happy anytime the Reds win. But, give me a break if you expect me to beleive a guy that has hit around .200 all year with RISP has contributed or won or whatever in the hell this stat proves to the Reds victories more so than anyone else. Give me a break.

Ok, forget about BA w/ RISP and Win Shares for a moment.

Dunn leads the Reds in OBP.
Dunn lead the Reds in Runs Scored
Dunn leads the Red in HR
Dunn is 2nd on Reds in RBI.

If not Dunn, then who has contributed more to Reds victories this year, and why?

pedro
07-12-2005, 02:49 PM
Maybe.

But consider this. Everyone that is for all these stats argues is every hit equal?? Well no of course not. Well, the basis for most of that I don't like about some of these things is that count some things more than once while not counting others at all. Some stats are counting a walk the same as a single. Is that the same?? Not even close. In some cases it may not seem like a difference, but in the grand scheme of competitve sports the pitcher just lost a battle to the hitter if he got a single, if he walked, its a draw. Saying a walk is like a single is like saying a double is the same as a triple etc. Just as striking out with a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 outs should count against a player more than just any other out. An out is an out, but I'm looking for my RBI man to be a clutch hitter.

Mostly what I don't like is just the over value that is applied to walks in 90% of these stats. You are right steel, I don't like them, and I'm not going to make any effort to understand them, that's accurate. To me the fundemental basis of them for over valuing a walk voids it to me. Most walks aren't earned, they are given.

A walk is not a draw. Granted a walk is not quite as valuable as a single in many cases, but the argument can also be made that in a situation with no one on base a walk that is a result of a 6 pitch AB is more valuable than a single on the first pitch because the walk made the pitcher work harder.

The batters first responsiblity is to not make an out. A walk accomplishes that. You can not score if you do not get on base.

M2
07-12-2005, 02:56 PM
Threads like this only serve to convince me we need an FAQ on the basics of statistics. Kudos to those of you taking the effort to walk through this stuff for zillionth time, but how often can we have the same thread where we've got to shoot down every cliche and misconception in the book?

SteelSD
07-12-2005, 03:01 PM
Maybe.

But consider this. Everyone that is for all these stats argues is every hit equal?? Well no of course not. Well, the basis for most of that I don't like about some of these things is that count some things more than once while not counting others at all. Some stats are counting a walk the same as a single. Is that the same?? Not even close. In some cases it may not seem like a difference, but in the grand scheme of competitve sports the pitcher just lost a battle to the hitter if he got a single, if he walked, its a draw. Saying a walk is like a single is like saying a double is the same as a triple etc. Just as striking out with a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 outs should count against a player more than just any other out. An out is an out, but I'm looking for my RBI man to be a clutch hitter.

Mostly what I don't like is just the over value that is applied to walks in 90% of these stats. You are right steel, I don't like them, and I'm not going to make any effort to understand them, that's accurate. To me the fundemental basis of them for over valuing a walk voids it to me. Most walks aren't earned, they are given.

Because you don't understand the statistics, you don't realize that Bases on Balls are not identified by the formulas as being identical in value to Singles.

If you had zero understanding of anatomy or medicine, you might as well walk into a surgeon's operating room and argue that a ligament and a muscle are the same thing and then tell him how he should operate on his patients.

This conversation would be a whole lot more productive if you were making an honest attempt to learn something. But, instead, you choose to enter into debate against something you don't know anything about- nor care to learn about. I really have no room for empathy when that happens.

If you want to make an honest effort, that's cool. I'll be happy to explain things to you. Done that a ton of times before. No problem. But if you continue to rail against statistical analysis while not taking step one to understand it, then you need to realize how consistently wrong you'll continue to be and you also need to realize that it's you who's CHOOSING to be wrong. Has nothing to do with me.

User Name
07-12-2005, 03:13 PM
Threads like this only serve to convince me we need an FAQ on the basics of statistics. Kudos to those of you taking the effort to walk through this stuff for zillionth time, but how often can we have the same thread where we've got to shoot down every cliche and misconception in the book?

That's a good point, but personally I am one who appreciates statistics, but do not understand all of them on the level of many of those here at RZ. So, even though I do not contribute to these statistical arguments, I do have much interest in educating myself on the variety of stats in greater depth. Therefore, while these arguments may seem tedious and repetitive to some, I personally enjoy the education.

One note though, to those who are highly knowledgable regarding statistics: be careful not to insult those who are not. Yes they make arguments based on almost nothing sometimes, but they are trying to learn, albeit not always in the best way or with the most open mind.

Just my 2 cents.

ochre
07-12-2005, 03:15 PM
Walks are nearly as valuable as singles because they are not outs. Outs are the enemy (for the offense). As pedro points out, there is peripheral value to walks that may or may not be present in hits, such as pitches per plate appearance.

MWM
07-12-2005, 03:21 PM
For those who don't find any particular enjoyment in statistical evaluation, it doesn't make you any less a fan. It's just not everyone's cup of tea. That's totally fine. But if you don't understand something, and don't care to understand something, you shouldn't go around criticizing the thing you don't understand.

bucksfan
07-12-2005, 03:24 PM
Steel - I think you've done a marvelous job explaining things in this thread and others. I learn more each time.

As for repeatedly explaining this stuff, well, that is gonna have to be par for the course as long as this site allows new members. And I am not saying that maliciously at all to any new people. People will have the same questions as new fans or fans not previously exposed to such stats find this site. That is to be expected. If I were to have joined today instead of 2000, I am 100% sure I would have made many of the same arguments or questions about some of the of some of the stats. I still find someone asking a question to you where I go "Yeah Steel, what about that?" and then to receive usually a well-conceived response with statistical backup - statistical back-up that follows reason.

I did not consider myself "baseball dumb" when I joined rz in 2000, but I have learned tons and, coupling some of these stats with a passing background in statistics ( I was an Industrial Engineer) I have come to fully appreciate the type of players that increase a team's odds of scoring runs - which is the ultimate goal offensively - and the tools that can be used to help identify these players.

I also subscribe to the adage "you can prove anything with #'s" also, but only if "prove" is really preceded by "claim to". With the statistics that you mention, identifying the players that can increase your probability of success is definitely achievable IMO. And that is what is important. If you do not "manage by fact" you are going to be in trouble in almost every business except fortune telling.

pedro
07-12-2005, 03:28 PM
I understand not liking watching teams that are walk and power centric. Honestly, it can make for some boring baseball. Take for example the Oakland A's. I think they are one of the most boring teams in the world to watch. I know many of you would prefer to watch a team that put the bat on the ball more consistently. I completely understand that. But don't confuse your preferences as a fan with objective proof that puting the bat on the ball more consistently would automatically translate into more wins for the Reds, or any team for that matter.

ochre
07-12-2005, 03:36 PM
... increase a team's odds of scoring runs - which is the ultimate goal offensively - and the tools that can be used to help identify these players.


nah, the goal is to not cause an out. If enough outs are avoided runs will be the natural result. :)

Adding power to that is effectively a run creation multiplier.

OldRightHander
07-12-2005, 03:47 PM
I understand not liking watching teams that are walk and power centric. Honestly, it can make for some boring baseball. Take for example the Oakland A's. I think they are one of the most boring teams in the world to watch. I know many of you would prefer to watch a team that put the bat on the ball more consistently. I completely understand that. But don't confuse your preferences as a fan with objective proof that puting the bat on the ball more consistently would automatically translate into more wins for the Reds, or any team for that matter.

You just hit the nail on the head there. Putting the bat on the ball in certain situations (runner on 3rd and no outs) will help the team produce more in those situations, but as far as looking at the season as a whole, the stat heads (meant most affectionately) have some very valid points. The bottom line is that there are different ways to play the game, but whichever one produces a championship is fine with me. Right now, I'd take wins however they come, no matter how "boring" they are. I don't understand a lot of things, but I have a lot of respect for those who do understand those things and I will continue to listen to what they have to say.

M2
07-12-2005, 03:59 PM
That's a good point, but personally I am one who appreciates statistics, but do not understand all of them on the level of many of those here at RZ. So, even though I do not contribute to these statistical arguments, I do have much interest in educating myself on the variety of stats in greater depth. Therefore, while these arguments may seem tedious and repetitive to some, I personally enjoy the education.

One note though, to those who are highly knowledgable regarding statistics: be careful not to insult those who are not. Yes they make arguments based on almost nothing sometimes, but they are trying to learn, albeit not always in the best way or with the most open mind.

Just my 2 cents.

The key, at least what I consider to be the key, is to keep in mind that these are baseball arguments, not statistical arguments.

Players play the game and generate statistics while they play it. All the stats do is give you a way to discuss baseball in a language that knocks out a lot of the BS.

Plus, baseball fans grow up fluent in stats. It's just that some cling to two of the worst ones out there, batting average and pitcher wins. Anyone who sits down and considers what BA measuress compared to OB and SLG can't possibly come away thinking BA is a preferable, equivalent or even all that relevant a stat. I suppose some can claim to have done that, but really they need to sit back down and think about it until the light goes on. If I want to know how often a player does something right, OB is superior. If I want to measure how effective a player's hits are (possibly in an effort to consider who might make a good RBI man), SLG is superior.

As for pitcher wins, there isn't a pitcher alive who knows how to win on a consistent if he isn't pitching well or getting a lot of run support. You can pretty much look at ERA to do a quick scan on who pitches well. If a guy has a bad ERA and a lot of wins, you'll invariably find a lot of run support from the offense. In that case you've got a good offense, not a good pitcher.

Yet, at the end of the day, what you're really talking about is baseball, how it's played, how runs are scored, how to stop the other team from scoring, how to build a better team. Once you give yourself over to that realization and stop running around the word "statistics" like it's electrified, the game starts to make a lot more sense.

MWM
07-12-2005, 04:08 PM
That's beautiful, M2.

User Name
07-12-2005, 04:22 PM
Agreed.

CySeymour
07-12-2005, 04:25 PM
You just hit the nail on the head there. Putting the bat on the ball in certain situations (runner on 3rd and no outs) will help the team produce more in those situations, but as far as looking at the season as a whole, the stat heads (meant most affectionately) have some very valid points. The bottom line is that there are different ways to play the game, but whichever one produces a championship is fine with me. Right now, I'd take wins however they come, no matter how "boring" they are. I don't understand a lot of things, but I have a lot of respect for those who do understand those things and I will continue to listen to what they have to say.

The way I like to look at it, is if you just put the ball in play, most likely the ball won't be hit very hard and will result in an out. Yes, the run may score, but you will only score that one run. If you work a walk, you are setting up the possibility of scoring multiple runs. The same if you wait for a good pitch and get an extra base hit.

As far as Dunn having a low BA with runners on, he has a low BA all the time. Say his overall BA is .246, but his average with runners in scoring position is .210 ( I honestly don't know the correct numbers. ) That's akin to having an overall average of .300, but an average with RISP at .260. It isn't that far off his overall performance. Plus you have to factor in that the pitcher is probably giving him less fat pitches to hit, trying like heck to avoid an HR.

As far as what a clutch hitter is, I really don't believe the skill exists that a hitter is bad most of the time, but good in clutch situations. I think the skill is being able to stay calm and focused in such situations, and not try to do too much or get over anxious.

Red Leader
07-12-2005, 04:27 PM
Does anyone know if you can find a stat that shows you who the leaders are in drawing a BB in close/late situations. Just curious to see a list of those names.

rdiersin
07-12-2005, 04:33 PM
Does anyone know if you can find a stat that shows you who the leaders are in drawing a BB in close/late situations. Just curious to see a list of those names.

Go to espn.com hitting stats page click on BB, then choose close and late in the splits.


RK PLAYER TEAM AB HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Brian Giles SD 40 0 19 0.225 0.475 0.300 0.775
2 J.D. Drew LAD 37 1 13 0.189 0.423 0.270 0.693
Nick Johnson Was 43 0 13 0.233 0.411 0.349 0.760
4 Luis Gonzalez Ari 43 2 12 0.302 0.456 0.512 0.968
Lyle Overbay Mil 46 2 12 0.239 0.407 0.435 0.842
6 Alex Rodriguez NYY 40 0 11 0.300 0.462 0.400 0.862
Torii Hunter Min 58 3 11 0.276 0.391 0.517 0.909
Travis Hafner Cle 42 2 11 0.262 0.436 0.476 0.913
Joe Mauer Min 45 1 11 0.200 0.351 0.267 0.618
10 Hideki Matsui NYY 35 3 10 0.400 0.533 0.743 1.276
Lew Ford Min 54 0 10 0.352 0.463 0.444 0.907
12 Moises Alou SF 35 0 9 0.286 0.432 0.371 0.803
Jeff Kent LAD 48 0 9 0.208 0.350 0.250 0.600
Gregg Zaun Tor 38 1 9 0.263 0.396 0.395 0.791
Mark Kotsay Oak 49 3 9 0.408 0.500 0.653 1.153
Richie Sexson Sea 45 3 9 0.244 0.370 0.489 0.859
Randy Winn Sea 46 0 9 0.239 0.364 0.283 0.646
Daryle Ward Pit 41 3 9 0.268 0.400 0.561 0.961
Brady Clark Mil 49 2 9 0.306 0.433 0.449 0.882
Morgan Ensberg Hou 49 2 9 0.265 0.373 0.469 0.842
Adam Dunn Cin 41 3 9 0.220 0.360 0.537 0.897
Chone Figgins LAA 48 1 9 0.229 0.339 0.333 0.672
Brad Hawpe Col 25 0 9 0.280 0.471 0.400 0.871

OldRightHander
07-12-2005, 04:38 PM
The way I like to look at it, is if you just put the ball in play, most likely the ball won't be hit very hard and will result in an out. Yes, the run may score, but you will only score that one run. If you work a walk, you are setting up the possibility of scoring multiple runs. The same if you wait for a good pitch and get an extra base hit.

That's not far off what I was wanting to say, but I just didn't quite get it out that way. Putting the ball in play always looks better for that particular at bat if all you're focusing on is the individual at bat, but if you step back and look at the inning as a whole or even more, how those probabilities play out over the course of the season, you will get a different picture. That's what I see a lot of on here-people who only focus on the individual at bats, people who always analyze the big picture, and some of us who enjoy reading the dialogue and jumping in every now and then.

I can see the value in what the small ball advocates say, and I can see the other side. Small ball has its place in certain situations where one run will end the game or get you even in the late innings, but the other approach is prefereble in the other situations. There is room for both strategies, depending on where you are in the game and what the score is.

Red Leader
07-12-2005, 04:50 PM
Go to espn.com hitting stats page click on BB, then choose close and late in the splits.


Thanks, rdiersin. I was curious as to who would show up on the list. To me this list signifies players that don't try to make something happen if nothing is given to them to hit. Does anyone else see it that way?

OldRightHander
07-12-2005, 04:52 PM
To me this list signifies players that don't try to make something happen if nothing is given to them to hit. Does anyone else see it that way?

Yep, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****.

pedro
07-12-2005, 04:54 PM
Yep, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****.

Yes, but you can make Chicken *** out of Chicken Salad. It just takes about 12 hours. :)

rdiersin
07-12-2005, 05:00 PM
Thanks, rdiersin. I was curious as to who would show up on the list. To me this list signifies players that don't try to make something happen if nothing is given to them to hit. Does anyone else see it that way?

Yeah, I agree with you there. The one that is interesting (or surprising) to me is Chone Figgins. He has 30BB on the season and 9 of those are in this category.

M2
07-12-2005, 05:04 PM
Yeah, I agree with you there. The one that is interesting (or surprising) to me is Chone Figgins. He has 30BB on the season and 9 of those are in this category.

Figgins is a fascinating player. I get the distinct impression he'd be drawing a good number of walks were he not employed by the Angels.

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 04:06 PM
For those who don't find any particular enjoyment in statistical evaluation, it doesn't make you any less a fan. It's just not everyone's cup of tea. That's totally fine. But if you don't understand something, and don't care to understand something, you shouldn't go around criticizing the thing you don't understand.

I sort of understand what you are saying there.

But, by the same token. And let me pull my Tracy Jones' pants out for this one. Those that never played past tee-ball(not saying you did or didn't MWM) don't have an appreciate for what goes on during the course of a ball game or during the course of a season. The game has many emotions. Stats cannot begin to measure any emotion involved with the game. The deep and deeper you go into these stats the less real the game is. Clutch hitting for one thing is very very difficult to measure. Joe Oliver's career stats I'm sure are nothing to write home about, but it seemed like everytime a hit was needed in a big situation he came through.

The game is played on the field. Not on a sheet of paper. A player like Ryan Freel will never be in the hall of fame or never have the stats to end up on any list except for SB's. I'd take a team full of Ryan Freels and beat your team of over price super star cry babies any day of the week.

That is the one thing the reds of lacked this year for the most part is emotion. Maybe that's why they are in last place right now. Stats can't measure that, so go figure.

SteelSD
07-13-2005, 04:23 PM
I sort of understand what you are saying there.

But, by the same token. And let me pull my Tracy Jones' pants out for this one. Those that never played past tee-ball(not saying you did or didn't MWM) don't have an appreciate for what goes on during the course of a ball game or during the course of a season. The game has many emotions. Stats cannot begin to measure any emotion involved with the game. The deep and deeper you go into these stats the less real the game is.

To you. The more statistics become involved, the less real the game is to you. No one else. You. You're speaking only about yourself. The game is no more, or less, real to anyone but you. Once you admit that and stop superimposing your preference as the way it "should" be, you might find you're more interested in learning about the game.

That's your preference and you're entitled to have it. But don't try to equate an understanding of performance metrics with not having an understanding of all other facets of the game of baseball.


Clutch hitting for one thing is very very difficult to measure. Joe Oliver's career stats I'm sure are nothing to write home about, but it seemed like everytime a hit was needed in a big situation he came through.

Did he or didn't he? Don't really care whether or not he "seemed to". I want to know whether he did or didn't. Can't or can. Fact or fiction. That's the difference. The fact that you don't seem to care whether or not something is true doesn't protect you from being wrong if you are, in fact, wrong.


The game is played on the field. Not on a sheet of paper.

Statistics are historical records of game events that allow us to better understand what actually happened instead of what "seemed" to happen. Those statistics allow us to better understand what actually DID happen and give us more insight into what's most likely to happen in the future.

You're right- baseball isn't played on a sheet of paper. But it's not played in your head either.


A player like Ryan Freel will never be in the hall of fame or never have the stats to end up on any list except for SB's. I'd take a team full of Ryan Freels and beat your team of over price super star cry babies any day of the week.

Ryan Freel has a .406 On Base Percentage. That's a fact and it's what makes him valuable. That's skill. Not emotion.

Juan Castro plays with emotion. That's also a fact. You gonna take a team of Juan Castros up against a team of much higher Run Value players? How about nine Juan Castros vs. a team of nine Ryan Freels?

If not, then you've just backed yourself into a decision based on performance- not emotion.


That is the one thing the reds of lacked this year for the most part is emotion. Maybe that's why they are in last place right now. Stats can't measure that, so go figure.

The one thing the Reds have lacked this season is pitching. Their performance tells me so. Historical record of game events. Statistics.

No amount of emotion is going to get bad pitchers to pitch like good pitchers. Emotion is not a substitute for skill. Never has been.

M2
07-13-2005, 04:48 PM
MUgrad, I don't know what you're doing with Tracy Jones' pants, but I suggest you burn them.

"Don't touch it. It's pure evil."

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 05:46 PM
To you. The more statistics become involved, the less real the game is to you. No one else. You. You're speaking only about yourself. The game is no more, or less, real to anyone but you. Once you admit that and stop superimposing your preference as the way it "should" be, you might find you're more interested in learning about the game.

That's your preference and you're entitled to have it. But don't try to equate an understanding of performance metrics with not having an understanding of all other facets of the game of baseball.



Did he or didn't he? Don't really care whether or not he "seemed to". I want to know whether he did or didn't. Can't or can. Fact or fiction. That's the difference. The fact that you don't seem to care whether or not something is true doesn't protect you from being wrong if you are, in fact, wrong.



Statistics are historical records of game events that allow us to better understand what actually happened instead of what "seemed" to happen. Those statistics allow us to better understand what actually DID happen and give us more insight into what's most likely to happen in the future.

You're right- baseball isn't played on a sheet of paper. But it's not played in your head either.



Ryan Freel has a .406 On Base Percentage. That's a fact and it's what makes him valuable. That's skill. Not emotion.

Juan Castro plays with emotion. That's also a fact. You gonna take a team of Juan Castros up against a team of much higher Run Value players? How about nine Juan Castros vs. a team of nine Ryan Freels?

If not, then you've just backed yourself into a decision based on performance- not emotion.



The one thing the Reds have lacked this season is pitching. Their performance tells me so. Historical record of game events. Statistics.

No amount of emotion is going to get bad pitchers to pitch like good pitchers. Emotion is not a substitute for skill. Never has been.

Man,

If everything were all about stats would the Yankees not win the World Series every single year?? Let's go on historical statistics, should the Yankees not be up to win 60 by now?? Guess what, they aren't.

The only stats the matter are Wins and Loses. For the indivdual player the only stat that matters is what Hall of Fame Voters look at such as HR, BA, W, ERA, etc.

And, I do study the game when I watch. I pay attention to the pitcher and what pitch he is throwing and at what velocity. Granted its hard to tell what a pitcher is throwing on TV or at the park if you are in the 400 level. But, watch a good pitcher and be amazed by the movement. While you are scratching down on your scorecard and typing data into your computer and receiving that data back, I'm being amazed by a particular pitcher or that diving catch or how dang far that batter hit the ball.

And to compare Juan Castro and Ryan Freel is not in the same league, come on now. And, I doubt there are many players that play with the heart and passion that Freel does. Cassey probably does and I'd take him on my team anyday despite his short commings.

And, yes, I agree you can't substitute skill for anything no matter what. A player like Ryan Freel doesn't have the skill as a good number of MLB players and I'd say he barely has the skill to even be an MLB player, but because he plays all out all the time, he accomplishes more. Just imagine if Dunn or Griffey played that hard. Although to Griffey's defense I don't blame him.

This team would be a lot better of with some pitchers I agree. Maybe with some better pitching the morale on this team would be a lot better as would the emotion involved.

The same players that you would take with your top 20 based on your stats may be very well be the same players that I take based on my 2 eyeballs. Its just a different means to an end.

MWM
07-13-2005, 05:51 PM
The Yankess don't put up the best stats. Usually the teams who generate the best portfolio of performance metrics wind up with the most Wins and Losses. As a matter of fact, the variation is very little when it comes to the stats a teams generates and their W-L record. Not sure where you came up with the Yankees argument, but it's not valid.

CySeymour
07-13-2005, 05:54 PM
Man,
The only stats the matter are Wins and Loses.

I think that sabrmetrics doesn't necessary argue against that. In one season, yes, that is what matters. However, sabrmetrics is more geared towards forcasting how a player or team will perform in the future. Case in point, take run differential. It has shown to be a very consistent tool to show how a team will perform in the future, not how it has performed. If a team significantly under-performs its run differential, then it has a tendancy to improve. However, if a team significantly over-performs its run differential, it tends to regress.

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 06:09 PM
The Yankess don't put up the best stats. Usually the teams who generate the best portfolio of performance metrics wind up with the most Wins and Losses. As a matter of fact, the variation is very little when it comes to the stats a teams generates and their W-L record. Not sure where you came up with the Yankees argument, but it's not valid.

I'm looking at the past with the Yankees. Look at their players. Yes, this year they aren't putting up numbers like say the BoSox, but you have what 4 MVP winners in the starting 8?? Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but never the less. How many future Hall of Famers?? Its safe to say more than any other current team. I'm going on past stats to form a conclusion that the Yankees should be far and away better than anyone else.

A 162 game season makes it hard to have enough data because teams change so much from year to year.

So on 1 hand you are wanting to use historical stats to form conclusions, but on the other hand you want to back up and only take into consideration this years stats. Well, which is it?? Do past stats count when making predicitions on how a team will do in the comming season?? Or are you wanting to play half the season and use this years stats to predict who will in the rest of the way??

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

pedro
07-13-2005, 06:19 PM
I'm looking at the past with the Yankees. Look at their players. Yes, this year they aren't putting up numbers like say the BoSox, but you have what 4 MVP winners in the starting 8?? Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but never the less. How many future Hall of Famers?? Its safe to say more than any other current team. I'm going on past stats to form a conclusion that the Yankees should be far and away better than anyone else.

A 162 game season makes it hard to have enough data because teams change so much from year to year.

So on 1 hand you are wanting to use historical stats to form conclusions, but on the other hand you want to back up and only take into consideration this years stats. Well, which is it?? Do past stats count when making predicitions on how a team will do in the comming season?? Or are you wanting to play half the season and use this years stats to predict who will in the rest of the way??

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

How would you even know if your assumption about the Yankees is true? You've said it yourself, you don't like and don't pay attention to stats.

All your doing with each successive post is making yourself look more and more foolish.

It's you that can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry.

Maybe you should just back away from the keyboard.

M2
07-13-2005, 06:22 PM
The Yankees have two former MVP winners in their starting eight (and that's only on the days when Jason Giambi starts). The Orioles also have two former MVPs in their starting eight. The Astros have one in the starting eight and one in the rotation.

And the Red Sox outscored and outpitched the Yankees in 2004, which is why most people in the stats community projected Boston to win the division this year.

SteelSD
07-13-2005, 07:22 PM
If everything were all about stats would the Yankees not win the World Series every single year?? Let's go on historical statistics, should the Yankees not be up to win 60 by now?? Guess what, they aren't.

That pretty much sums up your argument. For some reason you think the Yankees put up the best stats because your brain is telling you that they must because they spend the most money. After all, they ARE the Yankees.

But things don't work that way. Your brain has, again, allowed you to mis-perceive something that isn't at all rooted in fact.

Don't you think there's some validity to checking to see if that which you believe to be fact is actually correct before announcing it as fact?

Seems to me that's a reasonable way to do things because it minimizes your potential to be wrong.

Hey! That could be called statistical analysis. I'm a very bad man.


The only stats the matter are Wins and Loses.

You think that an understanding of what most aids the propensity to Win or Lose might help cause more Wins and less losses? Maybe?? Just a little bit?


For the indivdual player the only stat that matters is what Hall of Fame Voters look at such as HR, BA, W, ERA, etc.

Baseball isn't played on a piece of paper. Baseball isn't played on the back of a baseball card. And Baseball sure isn't played by sportswriters.


And, I do study the game when I watch. I pay attention to the pitcher and what pitch he is throwing and at what velocity. Granted its hard to tell what a pitcher is throwing on TV or at the park if you are in the 400 level. But, watch a good pitcher and be amazed by the movement. While you are scratching down on your scorecard and typing data into your computer and receiving that data back, I'm being amazed by a particular pitcher or that diving catch or how dang far that batter hit the ball.

Contrary to your belief system, people who like statistics actually watch baseball games and understand and appreciate the nuances and complexities involved in the process. I'm not sure why you can't wrap your brain around that.

In a nutshell, your position is now- and always has been- that "statheads" can't possibly know as much as you do about the non-statistical realm or appreciate the game as much as you do. To think the opposite would be heresy so you try to build two little sandboxes and tell those who play in both that they could only possibly play in the one you're not in because you're the king of that sandbox.

I think you don't like advanced statistics and don't want to understand them because you're afraid that the introduction of new facts will cause you to lose faith in your beliefs and contradict much of what you currently hold to be true.

That's called "learning". Baseball isn't all about statistics. But it sure ain't all about religion either.

The very same people you denigrade for having the audacity to use statistics in player evaluation are most likely to understand and appreciate the very same things you hold dear to your heart.

They just look to statistics as a way to understand the game BETTER and appreciate it MORE. I'm not sure why you find that so insulting.


And to compare Juan Castro and Ryan Freel is not in the same league, come on now. And, I doubt there are many players that play with the heart and passion that Freel does. Cassey probably does and I'd take him on my team anyday despite his short commings.

And, yes, I agree you can't substitute skill for anything no matter what. A player like Ryan Freel doesn't have the skill as a good number of MLB players and I'd say he barely has the skill to even be an MLB player, but because he plays all out all the time, he accomplishes more. Just imagine if Dunn or Griffey played that hard. Although to Griffey's defense I don't blame him.

Freel has enough skill to be a MLB baseball player. Emotion doesn't allow you to identify balls and strikes or hit a pitched baseball.

You still haven't told me WHY I can't compare Castro and Freel. And...psst...the answer isn't "emotion".


This team would be a lot better of with some pitchers I agree. Maybe with some better pitching the morale on this team would be a lot better as would the emotion involved.

There we agree. Pretty difficult when your own offense is truly competing against your own pitching staff rather than the opponent.


The same players that you would take with your top 20 based on your stats may be very well be the same players that I take based on my 2 eyeballs. Its just a different means to an end.

Problem is that you can't watch enough baseball to pick 20 players on-the-spot using your own eyes without using any statistics. Your brain (and mine) doesn't have the ability to do that with any degree of certainty.

For example, you can name a player- any player- you think is good. I can flat out guarantee that part of your selection process would be your knowledge of that players past statistical performance. Of course, it would be an incomplete picture that might just cause you to select Tony Batista for your team because he's an "RBI guy". Where's he playing again this season?

You wouldn't have even mentioned Casey if you didn't know that he was a .300 hitter. You use statistics. You know you do. You just don't like the ones you don't understand so you use the tried-and-true stats. Unfortunately, most of those are also the least likely to be accurate in guaging player value.

So, it all boils down to...

Why do you want folks to be less accurate instead of more accurate?

Raisor
07-13-2005, 07:31 PM
MUgrad, I don't know what you're doing with Tracy Jones' pants, but I suggest you burn them.

"Don't touch it. It's pure evil."


Today's TIME BANDITS reference award winner: M2!

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 07:50 PM
The Yankees have two former MVP winners in their starting eight (and that's only on the days when Jason Giambi starts). The Orioles also have two former MVPs in their starting eight. The Astros have one in the starting eight and one in the rotation.

And the Red Sox outscored and outpitched the Yankees in 2004, which is why most people in the stats community projected Boston to win the division this year.

If they did on a historical basis, then I am wrong.

Put up all these stats that the Yankees have compiled in their careers and tell me how much better the BoSox stats were coming into this year. Was Bernie supposed to so broke down that he can't even start anymore?? Was Randy Johnson's fastball supposed to top out at 94 MPH??

Here is your chance. Show me the historical stats that show me the Yankees are supposed to be horrible?? Compare their career stats to the ChiSox and explain to me why the Yankees are the superior team, but the Sox have won more games. Again, on 1 hand, you want to argue stats over time and on another you want to argue just this years stats. Which is it?? This years stats or historical stats??

Yanks or Chi Sox?? Show me the stats coming into this year that make the Reds the worst team in baseball, well if not THE worse, one of the 4 worst in baseball.

Did preseason stats predict the Reds to be as horrible as they are??(they may have on that one)
Did preason stats predict the Yankees to barely be .500??
Did preason stats predict that the ChiSox are suprior to the Yanks??
And lastly show me the stats that predicted the O's would even have a chance in hell of being in a race come July??

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 07:52 PM
Today's TIME BANDITS reference award winner: M2!

So funny that nothing will ever be funny again.

Ravenlord
07-13-2005, 08:07 PM
Put up all these stats that the Yankees have compiled in their careers and tell me how much better the BoSox stats were coming into this year. Was Bernie supposed to so broke down that he can't even start anymore?? Was Randy Johnson's fastball supposed to top out at 94 MPH?? that's called age. age plays an extremely important role in statistical evaluation. the Yanks sign vets who are typically over-the-hill, and expect them to produce like they always did.

if you notice, the Yankee teams of the late 90s had a farily high number of guys they developed themselves (note that's when Cashman was running it, not George as in these days). Jeter, Soriano, Williams (when he was young), Posada, Shance Spencer, Ricky Ledee, Pat Kelly, Homer Bush, Nick Johnson, Jim Leyritz, D'Angelo Jimenez, Andy Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Ramiro Mendoza, Mariano Rivera, Brian Boehringer, Randy Choate, Sterling Hitchcock, Jake Westbrook, and whomever they happened to trade during that time.

M2
07-13-2005, 08:29 PM
Fish in a barrel.

Bernie Williams' OPS since becoming a regular:

1993 - .734
1994 - .837
1995 - .878
1996 - .926
1997 - .952
1998 - .997
1999 - .971
2000 - .957
2001 - .917
2002 - .908
2003 - .778
2004 - .795
2005 - .724

His game came apart two seasons ago. I thought it was common knowledge, but for those who didn't know, the stats make it apparent.

The Yankees had a 4.99 team ERA last season. It's better this year at 4.55, but the Yankees didn't add nearly as much pitching help as some thought, and a simple grasp of stats would have told them that. Randy Johnson's in his 40s, that's always buyer beware. Yet the younger guys they acquired, Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright, are both 29-year-olds coming off their first good seasons ever (qualified for an ERA title, sub-4.00 ERA). Both looked to be pitchers coming off career seasons and due for a harsh adjustment.

As for the Reds, on this very board it was the statsier folks who projected the team to be in trouble, particularly in the pitching department. Baseball Prospectus, they're stats guys, projected the Reds to be a good offensive team and a horrible pitching team.

This thread's got the projections inside of it (called PECOTA).

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31356&page=1&pp=20&highlight=pecota

Anyway, this is all easy-to-find public knowledge stuff. A small amount of initiative and anyone can do it. Plus, anytime someone demands I do their homework for them I figure they're not going to like the answers when they hear them.

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 08:54 PM
Bernie Williams' OPS since becoming a regular:

This thread's got the projections inside of it (called PECOTA).

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31356&page=1&pp=20&highlight=pecota

Anyway, this is all easy-to-find public knowledge stuff. A small amount of initiative and anyone can do it. Plus, anytime someone demands I do their homework for them I figure they're not going to like the answers when they hear them.

First off all, I dismiss OPS anyway. I'll look at OBP if its a 1 or 2 hitter and I'll look at Slugging if its a 3,4,5 hitter, but I won't combine the 2. OBP for a power hitter is over rated. Just like slugging on a leadoff hitter is over rated. My leadoff guy needs to get on base. My slugger needs to get him in. Simple as that.

That was some interesting read on PECOTA. Completely irrelevant though for the most part. There are several pitchers in particular that haven't played for the Reds. And, I think any of us would give anything for those ERA's seeing how bad the ERA this year really is. I think we'd also give anything for Milton to only give up 29 HR this year.

But, while this is projections, I was looking more for predictions. In the end all I'm looking at is W's and L's. Is there a stat that computed the Reds would lose 100 games?? I still have hopes they get it going with a 10 game homestand starting Friday, but I'm also being realistic.

And again Mr. or Ms. M2, you said you found what I was looking for. But, you didn't. Go back and reread what I was looking for.

Again I may be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I don't think there is a stat that predicted the Reds to be as bad as they are, the Yanks to barely be .500, the ChiSox to be the best team in baseball. Also, there is no prediction for injuries, so I'm sure that SF was supposed to be good since Barry Bonds #s OPS hasn't really suffered that much that i can tell. And the Dodgers were they supposed to be that bad??

rdiersin
07-13-2005, 09:00 PM
First off all, I dismiss OPS anyway. I'll look at OBP if its a 1 or 2 hitter and I'll look at Slugging if its a 3,4,5 hitter, but I won't combine the 2. OPB for a power is over rated. Just like slugging on a leadoff hitter is over rated. My leadoff guy needs to get on base. My slugger needs to get him in. Simple as that.

That was some interesting read on PECOTA. Completely irrelevant though for the most part. There are several pitchers in particular that haven't played for the Reds. And, I think any of us would give anything for those ERA's seeing how bad the ERA this year really is. I think we'd also give anything for Milton to only give up 29 HR this year.

But, while this is projections, I was looking more for predictions. In the end all I'm looking at is W's and L's. Is there a stat that computed the Reds would lose 100 games?? I still have hopes they get it going with a 10 game homestand starting Friday, but I'm also being realistic.

And again Mr. M2, you said you found what I was looking for. But, you didn't. Go back and reread what I was looking for.

Again I may be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I don't think there is a stat that predicted the Reds to be as bad as they are, the Yanks to barely be .500, the ChiSox to be the best team in baseball. Also, there is no prediction for injuries, so I'm sure that SF was supposed to be good since Barry Bonds #s OPS hasn't really suffered that much that i can tell. And the Dodgers were they supposed to be that bad??

Yes there is a stat that will compute the reds to lose 100 games. Its the pythag. W=G*(RS^1.83/(RS^1.83 + RA^1.83)). You can predict what the number of runs scored and runs against would be from the PECOTA projection. All of this before the start of the year. And I think that's where M2 DID answer your question. Your question was whether or not there was anything out there that could have predicted this, and he showed you one instance.

M2
07-13-2005, 09:02 PM
First off all, I dismiss OPS anyway.?

Then what's the point in bothering with you?

You ask for evidence. You get it. You dismiss it.

Then you assume everyone's as confused as you are. We're not.

Like I said, people too lazy to do their homework tend not to like the answers provided by those who do.

2001MUgrad
07-13-2005, 09:21 PM
Then what's the point in bothering with you?

You ask for evidence. You get it. You dismiss it.

Then you assume everyone's as confused as you are. We're not.

Like I said, people too lazy to do their homework tend not to like the answers provided by those who do.

Of course you did. And then don't bother me. I would appreciate it if you didn't :)

pedro
07-13-2005, 09:26 PM
http://www.reelingreviews.com/bubbleboypic.jpg

MWM
07-13-2005, 09:33 PM
I'll look at OBP if its a 1 or 2 hitter and I'll look at Slugging if its a 3,4,5 hitter,

I thought you didn't use statistics?

pedro
07-13-2005, 09:35 PM
I thought you didn't use statistics?

How else is he going to count his fingers?

SteelSD
07-13-2005, 10:34 PM
Also, there is no prediction for injuries, so I'm sure that SF was supposed to be good since Barry Bonds #s OPS hasn't really suffered that much that i can tell. And the Dodgers were they supposed to be that bad??

So statistical performance evaluation is invalid because people can't predict exactly when a player is going to injure himself?

That's like saying water isn't wet because you can't tell if it's going to snow.



First off all, I dismiss OPS anyway.

Yeah, that whole "Don't make Outs, get a lot of Bases" thing stinks.

Kinda hard to take you seriously when you tell us that you refuse to play with a shovel that's sitting in a sandbox you can't even find.

You don't like that which you don't understand. It's really that simple. Just say it for gosh sakes.

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 12:19 AM
So statistical performance evaluation is invalid because people can't predict exactly when a player is going to injure himself?

That's like saying water isn't wet because you can't tell if it's going to snow.




Yeah, that whole "Don't make Outs, get a lot of Bases" thing stinks.

Kinda hard to take you seriously when you tell us that you refuse to play with a shovel that's sitting in a sandbox you can't even find.

You don't like that which you don't understand. It's really that simple. Just say it for gosh sakes.

I don't.. OPS #1 it counts walks the same is hits.. That's the #1 problem with it. #2 is that it counts 2 stats that are completely different. OBP and SLGP. OBP is not relevant for an RBI slugger, it just isn't sorry Adam Dunn homers, it just isn't. OBP is only relevant with #1, #2, and possibly #3 hitters. OPS is so irrelevant when counting numerous things its funny. But it still concerns me that people take this serriously when it counts a walk like a hit, it isn't.. Thats scarey that people think that.

M2
07-14-2005, 12:29 AM
OPS #1 it counts walks the same is hits.

Wrong.

It double counts every hit. Once on the OB side, once on the SLG side. Meanwhile it only counts walks on the OB side. If anything it overstates the relative value of a single compared to that of a walk.

When it comes to wildly inaccurate presumption, you're a force of nature.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 12:36 AM
I don't.. OPS #1 it counts walks the same is hits.. That's the #1 problem with it.

Nope. It doesn't. A Bases on Balls is tracked ONLY in the OBP portion of the OPS metric. It doesn't show up in the SLG at all. In fact, a Single will count as a non-Out event in OBP and as a Total Base in the SLG component.

Now that you know that OPS does NOT track BB the same as Singles, are you willing to rethink your opinion on the value of the metric?

If not, you just need to stop talking about metrics altogether.


#2 is that it counts 2 stats that are completely different. OBP and SLGP. OBP is not relevant for an RBI slugger, it just isn't sorry Adam Dunn homers, it just isn't.

Tony Batista- 14th most RBI in MLB in 2004.

Tony Batista- Playing in Japan in 2005.

Why? His ridiculously high rate of making Outs hurt his team and made him a non-option for everyone else.

OBP and SLG are important for all hitters. Every single one.


OBP is only relevant with #1, #2, and possibly #3 hitters. OPS is so irrelevant when counting numerous things its funny. But it still concerns me that people take this serriously when it counts a walk like a hit, it isn't.. Thats scarey that people think that.

OPS isn't a "counting" stat. It's a rate stat- the combination of non-Out rate and base acquisition rate. Those are the two most important things any hitter does. Any hitter. Not just a leadoff hitter. Not just a cleanup hitter. Any hitter.

Rickey Henderson was the greatest leadoff hitter in baseball because of his ability to avoid Outs and his ability to acquire bases on non-Out events. If Rickey Henderson didn't steal base one, he'd still be the greatest leadoff hitter we've ever seen.

Joe Morgan was the best #2 hitter the Reds ever had. EVER. Why? Because he was so darn good at avoiding Outs and acquring bases- the combination of both, not one or the other.

Until you realize that Outs matter and that batting orders don't just stop at the cleanup slot, you'll continue to completely undervalue really really good skill sets. It also doesn't help that you don't understand the subject matter.

BlfdVaFan
07-14-2005, 12:38 AM
A person can take any set of statistical numbers and make them say exactly what they want them to say. All of you guys who are picking on MUgrad are just self serving and refuse to see the historical greatness of numbers that eventually get people into the basball hall of fame. When you can't answer one of his questions you throw out a mathematical formula for computation which even my computer does not understand. My computer does underastand and compute numbers that get people into the sacred halls of Cooperstown.

wheels
07-14-2005, 12:38 AM
OBP is not relevant for an RBI slugger, it just isn't sorry Adam Dunn homers, it just isn't. OBP is only relevant with #1, #2, and possibly #3 hitters.

Okay so if it "just isn't" relevant in your mind, you might need to explain why it "just isn't" relevant.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 12:52 AM
A person can take any set of statistical numbers and make them say exactly what they want them to say.

Possibly the biggest fallacy currently out there.

Sean Casey's Batting Average is .313. Know what that means?

When Sean Casey records an At-Bat, he records a hit 31.3% of the time.

That's it. That's all Batting Average says. No way to make that stat "lie".



All of you guys who are picking on MUgrad are just self serving and refuse to see the historical greatness of numbers that eventually get people into the basball hall of fame.

I don't even understand what that means.

If you're attempting to say that HOF status equates awesome performance, you're a bit off base. HOF also considers things like...oh...fame.

But, if you're curious, here's a list of the top 20 career OPS hitters of all time (minimum 3000 PA):

Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Lou Gehrig
Barry Bonds
Todd Helton
Jimmie Foxx
Hank Greenberg
Rogers Hornsby
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Mark McGwire
Lance Berkman
Vladamir Guerrero
Jim Thome
Mickey Mantle
Joe DiMaggio
Stan Musial
Larry Walker
Brian Giles
Johnny Mize

Of the players currently eligible for Hall of Fame induction, you know how many from that list AREN'T in the Hall of Fame?

Zero.


When you can't answer one of his questions you throw out a mathematical formula for computation which even my computer does not understand. My computer does underastand and compute numbers that get people into the sacred halls of Cooperstown.

Again, completely dumbfounded as to whether or not there's a point there.

Sounds like you're saying that only "counting" stats like RBI, Runs Scored, pitcher recorded Wins, etc. are valuable in order to evaluate a player's performance.

But you don't understand the statistics you don't understand so to you, that's right?

Uh-uh. I don't understand nuclear physics, but that doesn't make nuclear physics irrelevent.

MWM
07-14-2005, 12:57 AM
MU, how do you explain the fact that OPS has a 94% correlation to runs scored? That's tough to explain away.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-14-2005, 01:06 AM
A person can take any set of statistical numbers and make them say exactly what they want them to say. All of you guys who are picking on MUgrad are just self serving and refuse to see the historical greatness of numbers that eventually get people into the basball hall of fame. When you can't answer one of his questions you throw out a mathematical formula for computation which even my computer does not understand. My computer does underastand and compute numbers that get people into the sacred halls of Cooperstown.

Is this sarcasm or are you serious?

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 01:35 AM
Again I ask.. All of the stat guys. Answer my questions about 10 posts ago.. I am asking you to prove me wrong.. I am begging.. Give it to me. "Show me the money" Prove to me I'm wrong.. So far I've seen a bunch of blah blah blah blah blah that hasn't argued what I'm asking for.

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 01:36 AM
Is this sarcasm or are you serious?

Is Ohio State on Probation??? Should they be???


Wait..





If the answer is yes to both questions I must be talking to myself.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 01:40 AM
Again I ask.. All of the stat guys. Answer my questions about 10 posts ago.. I am asking you to prove me wrong.. I am begging.. Give it to me. "Show me the money" Prove to me I'm wrong.. So far I've seen a bunch of blah blah blah blah blah that hasn't argued what I'm asking for.

1. What "question" are you talking about?
2. You don't need any help proving yourself wrong. You're doing just fine there.
3. Why would anyone do any more work when you don't care enough to even try to understand any of it?

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 01:53 AM
1. What "question" are you talking about?
2. You don't need any help proving yourself wrong. You're doing just fine there.
3. Why would anyone do any more work when you don't care enough to even try to understand any of it?

#2 is the predicting of the Yankees, the O's, the ChiSox, etc.

#3 then why do you keep arguing with me if I don't understand???

And, well

Doesn't #1 come before #2???

Maybe not, who knows anymore.


Knock Knock...............................



Any Steel there for a couple of days I actually thought you did have some class, but now I realize when you run out of stats you are just like the rest and resort to name calling/personal attacks.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 02:12 AM
#2 is the predicting of the Yankees, the O's, the ChiSox, etc.

See, here's what you don't get...

Every question your asking centers around the same thing- i.e. "Why aren't statistical measures perfect predictors of the future?"

You act as if something has to be a perfect predictor of future events to have value. It doesn't. But no one is claiming that better understanding probability and predicting every future event with 100% precision is the same thing.

There's no need to answer your question because it's not asked so you can understand it. It's asked as an attempt to prove that 100% predictability doesn't exist. But that's a pointless thing to prove because NO ONE IS ARGUING that everything can be predicted to a fault.


#3 then why do you keep arguing with me if I don't understand???

Because I tend to respond to wrongness. And you need to understand something- you're not IN an argument right now because to be involved in an argument you need to first have a point.


Any Steel there for a couple of days I actually thought you did have some class, but now I realize when you run out of stats you are just like the rest and resort to name calling/personal attacks.

Yeah, here we go again. When you can't attack the post, attack the poster. Not gonna work.

I, among others, have spent considerable time and effort explaining things to you.

You have spent no time whatsoever listening or learning from it.

I have presented many fact-based assessments. You skip over whatever doesn't jibe with your thought process. You never did address the concept that OPS doesn't record a BB equally as it does a Base Hit.

Can you at least concede that you were wrong there? I mean, I would like to think that you learned something- anything- from your time on this thread.

Ravenlord
07-14-2005, 06:55 AM
Team Runs Team HR Team AVG Team OPS Team SB Team SecA
StL 447 Cin 112 SF 272 Cin 779 Hou 71 Cin 290
Cin 434 Chi 109 Flo 272 Chi 772 NY 67 Atl 282
Atl 428 Arz 102 StL 271 StL 768 Phi 62 Mil 275
Phi 410 Atl 100 Chi 270 Atl 764 SD 58 Arz 272
SD 406 Mil 97 Col 268 Phi 751 Atl 54 Phi 271
Chi 394 StL 97 Phi 266 Flo 750 Mil 49 SD 268
Arz 394 LA 89 Atl 263 Arz 749 StL 46 StL 262
SF 393 NY 88 Cin 263 Col 748 Chi 43 Chi 258
Mil 392 Phi 86 SD 262 Mil 747 Flo 42 NY 257
Col 389 Col 82 LA 262 SD 746 Col 38 Hou 252
NY 387 Hou 81 Was 259 LA 740 Cin 37 LA 245
LA 384 SD 80 Arz 257 SF 740 SF 37 Col 243
Flo 383 Pit 77 Pit 256 Pit 730 LA 30 Pit 243
Hou 365 Flo 70 NY 256 NY 729 Arz 30 Flo 240
Pit 365 SF 69 Mil 255 Was 726 Pit 27 Was 230
Was 357 Was 65 Hou 253 Hou 723 Was 25 SF 226

BuckeyeRedleg
07-14-2005, 11:03 AM
Is Ohio State on Probation??? Should they be???


Wait..





If the answer is yes to both questions I must be talking to myself.


What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything? Was the question even directed to you?


Oh, wait. This must be more of the same nonsense I've been reading from you for the past few pages. I'll never get those minutes back.


I feel bad that you have Buckeye envy. It's a terrible disease. I hear trolling is a common side-effect.

TeamBoone
07-14-2005, 11:45 AM
Again I ask.. All of the stat guys. Answer my questions about 10 posts ago.. I am asking you to prove me wrong.. I am begging.. Give it to me. "Show me the money" Prove to me I'm wrong.. So far I've seen a bunch of blah blah blah blah blah that hasn't argued what I'm asking for.

I think they have already proven you wrong. And Steel (M2?) is correct... you have him slaving over your homework. Perhaps if you looked up the answers to your questions, it would stick and you'd develop a better understanding (at least that's what my parents always told me when I tried to get them to do my homework).

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 12:58 PM
I think they have already proven you wrong. And Steel (M2?) is correct... you have him slaving over your homework. Perhaps if you looked up the answers to your questions, it would stick and you'd develop a better understanding (at least that's what my parents always told me when I tried to get them to do my homework).

I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist. Show me predictions based on these stats that put the Yankees at .500, put the ChiSox as the best team in the game, put the Giants and Dodgers out of contention, put the Reds with 100 loses and put the Nationals in 1st place.

I don't want stats from 2005 to show this. I mean I can look at what has already happened and look at the stats and say duh! If the SABER crap of "knowing" baseball is the only way, the show me predictions that had what I mentioned above. Bring all your buddies out of the wood work and show this to me. I've been asking for it for a couple of days and have gotten some stats that haven't been what I asked for.

M2
07-14-2005, 01:11 PM
I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist.

Yes you are. You're asking for people to continue this pointless discussion when you've outed yourself as a colossal waste of time.

pedro
07-14-2005, 01:13 PM
I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist. Show me predictions based on these stats that put the Yankees at .500, put the ChiSox as the best team in the game, put the Giants and Dodgers out of contention, put the Reds with 100 loses and put the Nationals in 1st place.

I don't want stats from 2005 to show this. I mean I can look at what has already happened and look at the stats and say duh! If the SABER crap of "knowing" baseball is the only way, the show me predictions that had what I mentioned above. Bring all your buddies out of the wood work and show this to me. I've been asking for it for a couple of days and have gotten some stats that haven't been what I asked for.


You haven't answered anyone elses questions. Why should they try and answer yours?

A lot of people have gone out of their way to try and be patient with you in the hopes that maybe you might learn something. But you refuse to budge and you have thus failed to back up a single one of your assumptions with anything but your own opinion, which, sadly, is based on a series of misconceptions that you guard like a jealous pitbull. Frankly, SteelSD is a saint IMO for wasting as much time as he has trying to help you. Sadly it's pretty clear by now that you are beyond help.

Jpup
07-14-2005, 01:40 PM
Again I ask.. All of the stat guys. Answer my questions about 10 posts ago.. I am asking you to prove me wrong.. I am begging.. Give it to me. "Show me the money" Prove to me I'm wrong.. So far I've seen a bunch of blah blah blah blah blah that hasn't argued what I'm asking for.

The season is not over. :beerme:

You are not going to win this argument because they have the answers in black and white. I was in the same place that you are before I joined this site, but there is one difference, I am willing to open my mind and learn from what is being said. I thought that I could tell you how good a player was by simply watching the game, but that just is not the case.

As for your argument about the White Sox being better than the Yankess, I want to remind you that the season is not over. You can not honestly tell me that you would take the White Sox over the Yankees in a single series. No one is their right mind could. Could they beat the Yankees? Yes, of course, but something tells me that is not likely to happen. If the Yankees were in the same division as Chicago, which one would you pick? History tells me that the Yankees will win the AL East and will progress past the first round of the playoffs. I haven't looked at a single stat to back that up, but bump this thread back up in October and we shall see who is right. I put the Washington Nationals in the same category as the White Sox, they are both over performing or someone below them in the standings is underperforming.

I honestly believe that either the Atlanta Braves or the Florida Marlins will win the NL East, no matter their current records. I think that you will find that the standings will reflect that of the projections of "stat heads" at the end of the year. At seasons end, the cream will rise to the top, and the Braves, Yankees, Cardinals, Twins, Red Sox, and the Marlins will be left standing, barring some unforseen injury.

The Chicago White Sox are in first place mostly becasue of their pitching, they are 2nd in all of baseball in ERA (3.62), and 4th in OPSA(.705). Their small ball has nothing to do with why they are winning. It's the pitching. The White Sox are in first place, this goes back to the division argument, and have a 26-5 record in their own division. The central is a much weaker than the east. Look at it this way, the Sox are 31-24 against teams from other divisions, the Yankees are 32-20 against teams from outside the NL East. Which is the better team?

They will meet for 6 games in August. The Yankees are 2.5 games behind in the AL East.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 01:47 PM
I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist. Show me predictions based on these stats that put the Yankees at .500, put the ChiSox as the best team in the game, put the Giants and Dodgers out of contention, put the Reds with 100 loses and put the Nationals in 1st place.

I don't want stats from 2005 to show this. I mean I can look at what has already happened and look at the stats and say duh! If the SABER crap of "knowing" baseball is the only way, the show me predictions that had what I mentioned above. Bring all your buddies out of the wood work and show this to me. I've been asking for it for a couple of days and have gotten some stats that haven't been what I asked for.

Now that we've identified that your primary disagreement with OPS (i.e. your misconception that BB and Hits are recorded as equal), the last thread you are left clinging to is the position that unless something has perfect predictive ability at a failure rate of 0.00%, it must be discarded as being valueless.

Unfortunately for you, no one has ever positioned statistical analysis as having- or needing to have- a 100% predictive success rate to be extremely valuable in identifying trend and maximizing probability control.

You're stuck on the "If it ain't perfect it sucks." argument.

But that's not an argument. That's an opinion. And it's really truly very wrong.

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 07:10 PM
The season is not over. :beerme:

You are not going to win this argument because they have the answers in black and white. I was in the same place that you are before I joined this site, but there is one difference, I am willing to open my mind and learn from what is being said. I thought that I could tell you how good a player was by simply watching the game, but that just is not the case.

As for your argument about the White Sox being better than the Yankess, I want to remind you that the season is not over. You can not honestly tell me that you would take the White Sox over the Yankees in a single series. No one is their right mind could. Could they beat the Yankees? Yes, of course, but something tells me that is not likely to happen. If the Yankees were in the same division as Chicago, which one would you pick? History tells me that the Yankees will win the AL East and will progress past the first round of the playoffs. I haven't looked at a single stat to back that up, but bump this thread back up in October and we shall see who is right. I put the Washington Nationals in the same category as the White Sox, they are both over performing or someone below them in the standings is underperforming.

I honestly believe that either the Atlanta Braves or the Florida Marlins will win the NL East, no matter their current records. I think that you will find that the standings will reflect that of the projections of "stat heads" at the end of the year. At seasons end, the cream will rise to the top, and the Braves, Yankees, Cardinals, Twins, Red Sox, and the Marlins will be left standing, barring some unforseen injury.

The Chicago White Sox are in first place mostly becasue of their pitching, they are 2nd in all of baseball in ERA (3.62), and 4th in OPSA(.705). Their small ball has nothing to do with why they are winning. It's the pitching. The White Sox are in first place, this goes back to the division argument, and have a 26-5 record in their own division. The central is a much weaker than the east. Look at it this way, the Sox are 31-24 against teams from other divisions, the Yankees are 32-20 against teams from outside the NL East. Which is the better team?

They will meet for 6 games in August. The Yankees are 2.5 games behind in the AL East.

I'm not unwilling to open my mind, but if someone isn't going to see my side of it what so ever why would I let up on my position?? I've seen democrats get along better with republicans than how I have been treated.

Also, I do understand that yes, I can look at stats from this year and say well man, this team is doing good. DUH!!

And lastly, I guess as far as I'm concerned. I'm not necessarily talking about you Jpup, I just happened to quote you, but this statement isn't completely directed at you. But, if you cannot trust your own 2 eyes to see how well a player is doing or how good they are then that is a Y-O-U problem and it doesn't concern me.

And MWM, what is your problem with me?? You have negged me about once a week the last month. If you have a problem with me, talk to me in private I have tried to PM you to find out your issue. If you want me to troll you I could probably do that for a while.

paintmered
07-14-2005, 07:16 PM
And MWM, what is your problem with me?? You have negged me about once a week the last month. If you have a problem with me, talk to me in private I have tried to PM you to find out your issue. If you want me to troll you I could probably do that for a while.

Stick to PM and let this issue be between you and MWM only. The forum is no place for such comments.

This also goes out to everyone else that has made personal comments in this thread.

Attack the idea? It belongs here.

Attack the person? I don't want to see it.

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 07:19 PM
Stick to PM and let this issue be between you and MWM only. The forum is no place for such comments.

I can agree with that if the said person would respond instead of negging once a week. But, he won't so what else can you do??

paintmered
07-14-2005, 07:21 PM
I can agree with that if the said person would respond instead of negging once a week. But, he won't so what else can you do??

He's well within his right to neg you. He has earned that right and is using it in a way he sees fit.

My advice, don't make a stink out of it.

Ravenlord
07-14-2005, 08:03 PM
MUgrad, i'm fairly certain just about everyone on this board has/had your point of view at one time. i did. but then i actually tried to disprove the evidence presented to me, i couldn't, therefore i believe it correct.

in terms of baseball, if you can disprove the evidence, it's usually right.

2001MUgrad
07-14-2005, 08:10 PM
MUgrad, i'm fairly certain just about everyone on this board has/had your point of view at one time. i did. but then i actually tried to disprove the evidence presented to me, i couldn't, therefore i believe it correct.

in terms of baseball, if you can disprove the evidence, it's usually right.

Maybe so.

I don't see why there cannot be differing opinions to something, why one is right why one is wrong. I was giving someone the chance to prove to me their way is more right, they didn't prove it to me, so to me, my way is right. But, never the less, I can't keep arguing with the same 5 or 6 people. I've never seen so much hatred from a couple of posters though. I don't have all day to sit on here and study everything.

I'll never beleive every out is the same and I'll never beleive that a walk as is good as a hit.

Never the less I'm gone. And don't worry I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out :)

Ravenlord
07-14-2005, 08:18 PM
different opinions are fine. there a lot of them here, believe it or not. however, once overwhelming evidence disproves the opinion, it's time to switch gears.

example 1
opinion: "I think Eric Milton will be good for the Reds in 2005."
reality: Eric Milton is the worst starting pitcher in baseball not named Jose Lima.

example 2
opinion: "I know (macro) clutch hitting exists because I watch baseball."
reality: (macro) clutch hitting exists.
however, i'm of the opinion micro clutch hitting exists (read as in a season)

example 3
Dusty Baker: "I don't want my guys walking. Especially my big men cause they'll just clog the bases for my fast guys."
Dust Baker: "Oh yeah, walks kill. If a pitcher could cut his walk rate in half, he'd be dominanting.

SteelSD
07-14-2005, 10:22 PM
Maybe so.

I don't see why there cannot be differing opinions to something, why one is right why one is wrong. I was giving someone the chance to prove to me their way is more right, they didn't prove it to me, so to me, my way is right.

The "something" you wanted "proven" to you is that statistical analysis can predict the future with 100% accuracy.

No one can prove that because it's impossible. But then, no one ever claimed that statistical analysis was a 100% accurate predictor.

You've been using completely unrealistic expectations of "100% accurate or bunk" the entire time.


But, never the less, I can't keep arguing with the same 5 or 6 people. I've never seen so much hatred from a couple of posters though. I don't have all day to sit on here and study everything.

So now it's a "time" issue for you? I thought it was an effort issue for you. That is, in fact, what you said. You said you just didn't care and then asked a bunch of people to "prove" the impossible.


I'll never beleive every out is the same and I'll never beleive that a walk as is good as a hit.

Well, then how can anyone "prove" anything to you if they have the data to do it? You just said that you WON'T EVER BELIEVE it anyway. Waste of time.

BTW, no one ever claimed that a "walk is as good as a hit". In fact, you made that up. You were given the information on how BB and Hits are tracked using the OPS metric. You've completely ignored it.