PDA

View Full Version : O'Brien: Payroll won't change much



Pages : 1 [2]

SteelSD
10-13-2005, 04:36 PM
And since I was trying to make an argument that stats are misleading, and you guys are not getting even CLOSE to making a case on that one, I decided it would be hypocritical of me to use stats in my arguments, and I tried to keep that aspect to a minimum.

Ah. I see...

So you being completely wrong about a number of things that would have been easy to verify and your complete lack of objective evidence during this thread has all just been a noble effort on your part to remain consistent with your methodology. The circular logic you've been using is just you being a stand-up guy.

The true irony of your statement is that, quite a few pages ago, you attempted to use statistics to snow folks into thinking that Jose Valentin had an awful season a few years back because, by doing so, you could claim some sort of salient insight as to why Valentin really didn't really have a bad season. A couple folks pointed out that Valentin actually DIDN'T have a bad season, you ignored them, and then- realizing your error- went off on yet another tangent, and haven't posted statistic one since. Fact is that you're the only person on this thread who's attempted to "mislead" anyone- both with and without using numbers.

But that's just you being a good guy, right?

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 04:50 PM
A couple folks pointed out that Valentin actually DIDN'T have a bad season, you ignored them,

But I backed up my opinion with an evil stat. Shame on me. :nono:

ochre
10-13-2005, 04:51 PM
"I really can't believe it," Clevinger exclaimed to Yossarian in a voice rising and falling in protest and wonder. "It's a complete reversion to primitive superstition. They're confusing cause and effect. It makes as much sense as knocking on wood or crossing your fingers. They really believe we wouldn't have to fly that mission tomorrow if someone would only tiptoe up to the map in the middle of night and move the bomb line over Bologna. Can you imagine? You and I must be the only rational ones left.".

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 04:58 PM
I think I need to go home. I'm accomplishing absolutely nothing in the office today, thanks to this place. I can blame it all on redszone. It's not my fault.

paintmered
10-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Moderator Note:

Everyone who quoted post #243 had their quote edited to reflect changes made to that post.

Thanks for your understanding. :)

savafan
10-14-2005, 12:48 AM
I was going to give this guy negative rep, but I'm guessing he's been banned, so I shouldn't waste my time, right?

Patrick Bateman
10-14-2005, 12:58 AM
I was going to give this guy negative rep, but I'm guessing he's been banned, so I shouldn't waste my time, right?

Since he's been banned I don't think you even have the option of giving him rep.

savafan
10-14-2005, 01:04 AM
Since he's been banned I don't think you even have the option of giving him rep.

You're correct.

Ravenlord
10-14-2005, 02:45 AM
he's banned?!:(

what am i supposed to do for online entertainment now?:(


;)

KronoRed
10-14-2005, 03:39 AM
he's banned?!:(

what am i supposed to do for online entertainment now?:(


;)


Don't worry, I'm sure the next one will roll into town soon enough ;)

Boss-Hog
10-14-2005, 07:10 AM
Temporary suspension

OldRightHander
10-14-2005, 08:25 AM
Since he's been banned I don't think you even have the option of giving him rep.

Don't worry. I managed to slip one in before the ban hit. I got him right when he called Steel a "donkey."

flyer85
10-14-2005, 09:33 AM
Is the ban rotational or linear?

Joseph
10-14-2005, 09:37 AM
Is the ban rotational or linear?

Doesn't matter what the stats classify it as, only what my eyes tell me it is.

RFS62
10-14-2005, 09:58 AM
Is the ban rotational or linear?


I think modern suspension technique has moved away from linear, although it was all the rage in the Richard Hand - Don Cameron era.

Rotational became more popular during the multiple-suspension, shorter time frame FCB - CBus period.

Just an observation though. I don't have any stats to back that up.

SteelSD
10-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Ok...we need a summary of what we've learned so far...

1. The Cincinnati Reds can't win the well-pitched games they win over 80% of the time.

2. The Cincinnati Reds can't hit situationally but led the NL in situational hitting in 2005.

3. Jose Valentin had an awful season once when he produced pretty well.

4. The goal of rotational hitting theory is the mass production of infield choppers.

5. Don Mattingly is one of the premier Home Run hitters in MLB history.

6. Observation tells us that Adam Dunn is lazy, doesn't beat out enough IF grounders, and is best suited for the 7th slot in the order. Of course, for all we know, the observer also thinks that Adam Dunn is Dominican and bats right handed.

7. Eric Milton is just too "emotional".

8. I am a sphincter and a donkey.

9. The primary message of the book "Moneyball"- written, of course, by Billy Beane and accurately translated by Joe Morgan- is that you need to fire all the scouts.

10. And finally...we now have proof that statistics are unnecessary because one can demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about without them.

Did I miss anything?

OldRightHander
10-14-2005, 01:44 PM
3. Jose Valentin had an awful season once when he produced pretty well.



Actually, I think his assertion was that a bunch of people who were looking at stats (BA and errors only) were saying that he was having a bad year but he knew otherwise because he had observed him doing all manner of "little things" that contributed to wins, but couldn't be measured with stats.

Oh well. This thread was one of the most entertaining and at the same time frustrating threads we've had on here in a while.

flyer85
10-14-2005, 02:01 PM
8. I am a sphincter and a donkey.
Isn't that redundant?

savafan
10-14-2005, 02:43 PM
Isn't that redundant?

Not to this guy

http://images.zap2it.com/ltvimages/images/240/eddiemurphy_shrek2_240_001.jpg

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 12:25 PM
You know, if I had learned Baseball through Triple Play 97 on my playstation (or was it 989 sports MLB? come on now, be honest) and formulated my overall insight from analyzing the WHIP of my fantasy baseball team I might feel the same way you guys do.

And I feel so thankful that I didn't and that I don't play fantasy baseball.

What an absolutely horrible way to watch the greatest game ever invented!!
Looking for the results instead of the play itself.

The more you guys try to discredit my opinion, the more you are proving my point.
And you are making yourselves look pretty bad too. Can't we all just get along? I mean we are Reds fans right?

You should read some of the e-mail responses I have been getting? Encouragments really.....don't worry, I wouldn't dare post them, and I really thank you guys that took the time to send them.

Especially when I was banned for calling Steel such a bad name......and hurting his feelings.

Apparently alot of Reds fans on this message board feel the same way I do.
And I think I am going to stick around awhile longer.

It's funny, I actually started a game by game analysis of the Reds "#1 offense" against the NL this past season so I could point out, specifically, where their numbers came from.

Game by game, to prove my point. And then I decided, no, it wouldn't be worth the time it would take to look up, analyse and break down all the different situations that came up.

I am at work.

Maybe I will start a game journal next season? Actual analysis, in detail, of just how dramatically different the reality of an MLB game can be in stark contrast to the 162 game formulated statistical average kept by the people, fantasy players, and fans, of Major League Baseball?

That could be very interesting. The anti-Bill James.....

It would be alot of work though, considering I won't get paid for it. I'll think about it.
Plus I would have to get satelite television, and of course the Reds full package, but, I would be interested in how it all comes out.

ochre
10-17-2005, 12:27 PM
When Red Herrings and Non Sequiturs strike out, appeal to the masses.

Nice work!

M2
10-17-2005, 12:52 PM
That could be very interesting. The anti-Bill James.....

Interesting to you perhaps. I'm more interested in seeing if you can address any of the umpteen instances where people have exposed the gross flaws in your arguments.

westofyou
10-17-2005, 01:07 PM
I got me some emails telling me that stats are good!!!

Does that cancel out the ones that say stats are bad?

gonelong
10-17-2005, 01:12 PM
You know, if I had learned Baseball through Triple Play 97 on my playstation (or was it 989 sports MLB? come on now, be honest) and formulated my overall insight from analyzing the WHIP of my fantasy baseball team I might feel the same way you guys do.


Most of us played baseball as kids. Some of us peaked in knothole, some of us starred in high school, some of us played in college, and others even higher. We have all, and I mean all, viewed the game with the same eyes you are. We are all fans, and have watched, listen to, or read about the game for countless hours. We all have that hammer in our toolbox.

Some have decided to use additional tools to study the game.

You've only got a hammer in your toolbox, or at least its the only tool you know how to use or want to use, so everything looks like a nail from your vantage point.

To my amusement you proceed to tell the Bob Villa types around here that they don't need their fancy routers, saws, drills, chisels, etc. because when you know woodworking, all you need is a hammer.

Its even more amusing to watch you bending nails and splintering boards with every swing of that hammer.

GL

Chip R
10-17-2005, 01:19 PM
Milezinni and others. If you would like to debate this topic further, please do so. If you want to talk about how many e-mails you got or how someone has hurt your feelings, take it private because the rest of us don't care. Final warning folks.

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 01:28 PM
Interesting to you perhaps. I'm more interested in seeing if you can address any of the umpteen instances where people have exposed the gross flaws in your arguments.

I didn't read anything like that, so why don't you just ask me directly, what "gross flaws in my argment"?

I read one post, one mind you, that pointed out some of the advantages to Adam Dunn's mechanics. But that really doesn't dispute my observation.

OldRightHander
10-17-2005, 01:30 PM
You know, if I had learned Baseball through Triple Play 97 on my playstation (or was it 989 sports MLB? come on now, be honest) and formulated my overall insight from analyzing the WHIP of my fantasy baseball team I might feel the same way you guys do.

I don't think I learned the game that way either, since those games were unheard of when I was growing up getting hooked on baseball.


And I feel so thankful that I didn't and that I don't play fantasy baseball.

Actually I don't have time for that either, but most people I know who do play it have a pretty good understanding of the game and watch a lot of games for *gasp* pure entertainment.


What an absolutely horrible way to watch the greatest game ever invented!!
Looking for the results instead of the play itself.

I watch the game for the sheer beauty of it, but I also want to see a certain result, mainly a win, and I will take a look at the numbers as a suplement to what I saw on the field. It helps me round out my understanding of the game.


Especially when I was banned for calling Steel such a bad name......and hurting his feelings.

There are rules here about the name calling and they are meant to facilitate a healthy non-offensive atmosphere around here. Whether or not Steel's feelings were hurt is secondary. I think he'll get over it.


It's funny, I actually started a game by game analysis of the Reds "#1 offense" against the NL this past season so I could point out, specifically, where their numbers came from.

Game by game, to prove my point. And then I decided, no, it wouldn't be worth the time it would take to look up, analyse and break down all the different situations that came up.

I am at work.

Maybe I will start a game journal next season? Actual analysis, in detail, of just how dramatically different the reality of an MLB game can be in stark contrast to the 162 game formulated statistical average kept by the people, fantasy players, and fans, of Major League Baseball?

But in the end, your observations and subsequent analysis would have to be quantified in some way to support your assertions. If you tell us that so and so is having a good year, how will you measure how good or bad his year is? Game after game you see that player driving in runs, making plays in the field, getting key hits here and there, generally playing really well. If you watch every game of the year you will come away with an impression that he had a good season, but how will you tell me how good his season was? You could go back through your analysis of each game and add up the times he made a key play, or the times he drove in a run in a key situation during the game, or the times he kept an inning going by drawing a tough walk. You could show me all of those things, but in so doing, you will have to revert to counting the number of times he did those things compared to the times he failed to do them in order to see how successful he was. If you tell me that Player A always come through when there is a runner at third with fewer than two outs and I look at the numbers and see that he drove the run in more than half the time, I will agree with your impression. OTOH, if you tell me that and I look at the numbers and that player actually failed in most of those situations, I will be less likely to agree with you.

I will give you one point. I think there are people who read too much into statistics, whatever the sport may be, and don't come across as being really good fans of the sport. I know some fantasy players who don't really follow any team, don't attend many games, and just get into crunching the numbers so they can win their league. Those people do exist, but I don't think that most people who use any statistical analysis fall into that camp. You can't throw out the whole bushel for one or two bad apples. You value first hand observation, and that is good, because that is why they build statiums with seats and put the games on tv. When I'm at a game, I can sit and enjoy the best game invented and forget about the rest of the world for three hours. I can be on the edge of my seat in anticipation of a key at bat and I can bite my nails with the best of them when the other team has a runner on third with one out and we're only up by a run. I can also observe a player's mechanics and come to my own conclusions about that player, whether or not I think he will ever pan out or not, or whether his numbers seem to reflect his real ability. I remember a few years ago I was at a game with a friend of mine and there was a pitcher who's name escapes me at the moment who was really mowing down the hitters. My friend commented on how good he was and I said, "But with that delivery he has he's going to blow out his arm in a couple more years." Sure enough, that pitcher was out of the game a couple years later with arm trouble.

Yes, there are observations you can make in person, but stats are nothing more than a method of quantifying what is being observed. If you don't like some of the more exotic stats that's fine. Heck, I don't even understand half of them. What I do understand is that if someone puts up numbers that go against what I thought I had observed, I'm going to take a closer look at what I think I'm seeing. I came to this board with a lot of the same ideas you have, but I also kept myself open to having my ideas challenged and I think I have grown as a result. I might not understand everything the stat guys say, but I respect them and I don't doubt their passion for the game. You have a good passion for the game as well, and that is good. You just need to be open to looking at things in different ways from time to time.

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 01:33 PM
I got me some emails telling me that stats are good!!!

Does that cancel out the ones that say stats are bad?

Nope, and I never said stats are bad, what I said, and my whole point, was that because of the formulaic concept to which MLB stats are compiled,as an average over 162 games, they can be very misleading.

For example, in the book "Men at Work" the section interviewing Tony Gwynn talks about a particular game where he was really disapointed with himself in one at bat where he had hit a homerun to right.

But, was very pleased and excited with a different at bat where he had flied out to the left fielder.

You guys don't find that interesting? Or why?

I know, you just look at the final result and dismiss everything else?

M2
10-17-2005, 01:39 PM
I didn't read anything like that, so why don't you just ask me directly, what "gross flaws in my argment"?

I read one post, one mind you, that pointed out some of the advantages to Adam Dunn's mechanics. But that really doesn't dispute my observation.

Have you been reading anyone else's posts in this thread?

You might want to address how the Reds won so often in well-pitched ballgames despite your insistence that such a thing could not happen.

And the Mike Epstein link you posted agreed with Steel, not you.

Though I'd just as soon you addressed the eyeball scouting disaster that was your assessment of Adam Dunn, a compilation of truisms and contradictions devoid of insight. I've already posted a good ten potholes in there. Go back and read them if you care to address them.

You've had dozens of direct broadsides fired into your empty assertions throughout this thread and if you haven't noticed them there's no excuse for it beyond you being oblivious.

flyer85
10-17-2005, 01:56 PM
As I have often heard

Question: What is something worth?
Answer: What someone else is willing to pay for it.

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 02:43 PM
Have you been reading anyone else's posts in this thread?

You might want to address how the Reds won so often in well-pitched ballgames despite your insistence that such a thing could not happen.

And the Mike Epstein link you posted agreed with Steel, not you.

Though I'd just as soon you addressed the eyeball scouting disaster that was your assessment of Adam Dunn, a compilation of truisms and contradictions devoid of insight. I've already posted a good ten potholes in there. Go back and read them if you care to address them.

You've had dozens of direct broadsides fired into your empty assertions throughout this thread and if you haven't noticed them there's no excuse for it beyond you being oblivious.

So your saying that my evaluation of Adam Dunn is way off? That Dunn is NOT a dead-pull, full rotational uppercut swinger that doesn't hit the pitch where it is pitched?

That he is a very GOOD situational hitter? Really? So the official scorer just forgot to add up all his sac flies, huh?

Your saying your expert analysis states that he is a GOOD baserunner?

And a SOLID outfielder? Is that your evaluation of him as a player?

And you say that Mike Epstein's article I referenced, just one of many I could post, actually discredits me?

That the idea of the rotational swing is to generate power using the lower half, or cork screw, however swinging the bat on the same plane as the pitch, goes against what I was saying about having a level swing?

Are you saying that the whole point of rotational hitting is to swing uppercut too?

Really, well, if, according to that article I posted, using rotational theory involves keeping the bat swing on the same plane with the pitch how do YOU recommend a rotational hitter swinging at a fastball or a change up?

If not a level swing? How?

And my impression that Adam Dunn has a better than average arm? I must be out of my mind huh?
Or could it be that since playing LF, and rather laid back, he is going with the cut off man instead of attempting to make a play at the plate, overtime, would cause that particular skill to erode? If not remain unseen?

Maybe that's why they don't play him in RF?

Or is it possible that moving him to Right would show off his arm, since a strong arm is a necessary skill for that position?

I don't know, I must have seen him throw somewhere?

And for some reason, I don't feel that I am losing this argument either....despite my 2 reputation.

Does it go into negatives?

OldRightHander
10-17-2005, 02:51 PM
That he is a very GOOD situational hitter? Really? So the official scorer just forgot to add up all his sac flies, huh?

There was a really nice post some time back, maybe a couple months or so, about the number of plate appearances Dunn had in a situation where a sac fly was possible and how he actually wasn't performing too poorly in those situations. (Anyone remember that one, or care to dig up the numbers?) I guess base hits and walks don't count though, only sac flies. By the way, how can anyone tell how he did in those situations without using some numbers to quantify the results?

Blimpie
10-17-2005, 03:16 PM
And for some reason, I don't feel that I am losing this argument either....despite my 2 reputation.
http://www.rotten.com/library/death/kamikaze/kamikaze.jpg

M2
10-17-2005, 03:41 PM
So your saying that my evaluation of Adam Dunn is way off? That Dunn is NOT a dead-pull, full rotational uppercut swinger that doesn't hit the pitch where it is pitched?

No, what I said is what I said and you apparently can't be bothered to read it.


And you say that Mike Epstein's article I referenced, just one of many I could post, actually discredits me?

Yes, specifically where you said that some rotation hitters try to drive down on the ball and later tried to use Don Mattingly (not a teacher of rotational technique) as an example of rotational technique. The link you posted to even starts out lambasting "conventional wisdom" that you need to swing level to the ground or even down ont he ball. Epstein goes on to lambaste swinging down on the ball as an example of giving the pitcher exactly what he wants.

The core of the philosophy is that the ball is coming in on a downward tilt and you need to meet that ball directly with an upward tilt "maximize ball-bat contact area."

As Epstein says - "My mentor, Ted Williams, said it over 60 years ago: 'Swing level to the ball -- not level to the ground.' "

Steel had it cold. You've confused it with level-to-the-ground approaches.


And for some reason, I don't feel that I am losing this argument either

Hardly surprising, you'd have to pay attention to others instead of barreling off into new blind alleys in order to reach that conclusion.

SteelSD
10-17-2005, 04:03 PM
And you say that Mike Epstein's article I referenced, just one of many I could post, actually discredits me?

That the idea of the rotational swing is to generate power using the lower half, or cork screw, however swinging the bat on the same plane as the pitch, goes against what I was saying about having a level swing?

Are you saying that the whole point of rotational hitting is to swing uppercut too?

Really, well, if, according to that article I posted, using rotational theory involves keeping the bat swing on the same plane with the pitch how do YOU recommend a rotational hitter swinging at a fastball or a change up?

If not a level swing? How?

A baseball travels downward from the pitcher's hand to the hitting zone- not parallel to the ground. Therefore, it is physically impossible for a "level" swing to produce "same-plane" contact with a pitched ball. There's no super-special neato physics stat needed to know that. It's baseball 101. The commonest of common knowledge.

It appears you not only don't understand hitting theory, but that you also don't really understand how baseball actually works on a real life ball diamond.

And let's be crystal clear. You lost this debate the moment you decided to engage in it. You started off making wild assertions you couldn't support and degenerated into red herring generation; tangenting onto topics you quite obviously didn't understand.

Considering that your entire position boils down to the idea that your observations are accurate (and more accurate than recorded event data), why have you been so entirely inaccurate this entire thread?

Now, for the 83rd time, please explain how the Reds won all those well pitched games you said they couldn't win.

westofyou
10-17-2005, 04:05 PM
I know, you just look at the final result and dismiss everything else?

Actually the above is just one of the many things you don't know about me or me and the game.

But nice try.

OldRightHander
10-17-2005, 04:13 PM
You know what? I don't think I've ever seen a baseball game in my life, but I sure do enjoy taking all the data from the box scores every morning and entering it into 28 different spreadsheets so I can crunch all the numbers. That's so much fun. That's what I enjoy most about baseball.

flyer85
10-17-2005, 04:22 PM
You know what? I don't think I've ever seen a baseball game in my life, but I sure do enjoy taking all the data from the box scores every morning and entering it into 28 different spreadsheets so I can crunch all the numbers. That's so much fun. That's what I enjoy most about baseball.It is fun but it does come after my morning task of sorting my sock drawer by color and size.

M2
10-17-2005, 04:28 PM
You know what? I don't think I've ever seen a baseball game in my life, but I sure do enjoy taking all the data from the box scores every morning and entering it into 28 different spreadsheets so I can crunch all the numbers. That's so much fun. That's what I enjoy most about baseball.

I saw a baseball game once. Can't say I'd recommend it. Needed more binary.

OldRightHander
10-17-2005, 04:29 PM
It is fun but it does come after my morning task of sorting my sock drawer by color and size.

I do that in the evenings when they're playing the games. The stats aren't available then, so I need something to occupy myself until the games are over and I can get the box scores.

flyer85
10-17-2005, 04:32 PM
I do that in the evenings when they're playing the games. The stats aren't available then, so I need something to occupy myself until the games are over and I can get the box scores.I am usually messing around with my Star Wars collectibles in the evening.

Blimpie
10-17-2005, 04:53 PM
I am usually messing around with my Star Wars collectibles in the evening.Yep. Just last night, I realized that my Imperial Storm Trooper (Hoth version who has gun without safety) actually GLOWS IN THE DARK!!!! Well, you could just imagine how red my face was...(snort, snort)

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 04:59 PM
First off Steel, I want to calrify something that got way out of hand.

I never, NEVER said you swing down on the ball in rotational hitting. What I said was Adam Dunn is a full rotational hitter. Then I put a period, and added that he also never puts a level swing on a pitch, or drive down on the ball.
Refering to his inability, in my opinion, to NOT go with the pitch, or to play good, solid situational baseball.

A hitter would want to drive down on a ball in a ground out situation. In situational baseball there are times, runner on second no outs, runner on third with less than two outs, when the hitter should just try to make contact, put the ball in play preferably to the right side, and these are the situations where a hitter would want to drive down on the ball.

I posted the Don Mattingly link because, it was my impression, that some people here, you included, were saying a hitter NEVER drives down on the ball.

And that would give no credence to the "baltimore chop" which is still used in todays game. Ichiro set a major league record for hits with that very concept.

Also I said Adam Dunn doesn't use a level swing, I don't recall typing or even thinking that level means level with the ground. There is a world of difference between a level swing, which still looks like an upward swing, because the hitter drops his back leg, and an uppercut, which is definitely the hitter swinging up in his follow through.
Thus, I posted the Mike Epstein link.

But let me just throw out there, you still see some pretty good swings in baseball, and indeed the bat is level with the ground. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Again, I come here while at work, and I just don't have the time to dig deep enough to find exact examples of a point I am trying to make.

As for the pitching stats, and my original statement which started this whole post.

First off, I am trying, desperately, to forget the 2005 campaign, and unlike you, I really don't see alot of positives.

My impressions where based on quality starts, which I did research some time ago.

First, I looked into quality starts for and against the Reds and found that, including one stretch in June I think it was, where the Reds got 7 quality starts in a row and won only two of those games. And if I am not mistaken we werent' even going against an "ace" quality pitcher, and still lost.
And not just lost, but looked real bad in the process.

I also looked at Aaron Harang's starts, since he was tabbed the ace of the staff, he also had the job of taking on our opponents aces, and, the number's did NOT bode well for our offense.
Harang had quite a few quality starts but couldn't get a win. And alot of no decisions where he had a quality start plus.

When I looked into Claussen and even Milton, I began to see some similar patterns.

I have also watched several Reds games where we took on bonafide aces. Mark Prior, Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt, Chris Carpenter, Ben Sheets, just to name a few and in my opinion, and I don't care what the stats say, they made us look pathetic.

Completely lost at the plate and just overall looked like bushleaguers.

And last but not least, there are the strikeouts. I don't know if it's a fact, but I am willing to guess we ranked among the top 5 Reds teams of all time in strikeouts.
And strikeouts accomplish nothing, they don't move runners up, score runners or put pressure on the defense. Which are all basic fundamentals in baseball.

Again, I don't necessarily put alot of stock in what the numbers may be, I pretty much go by my impressions.

That Mark Prior start particulary looked real, real bad.

And my point, and still is, that going out and getting great pitching will not necessarily correspond into a winning record.

I agree our pitchers are pretty bad, my biggest concern is their control issues, I don't put the blame squarely on their shoulders.

I would like to see a bit of an overhaul on this team for next season, and am hoping that given it's O'Briens last year on his contract, and Narron only got a one year deal, and that there are supposedly all these "major leaguers" coming up over the next couple of seasons (and that has yet to be seen) that most of the current squad is expendable.

I edited this for some spelling errors I didn't catch.

SteelSD
10-17-2005, 05:03 PM
There was a really nice post some time back, maybe a couple months or so, about the number of plate appearances Dunn had in a situation where a sac fly was possible and how he actually wasn't performing too poorly in those situations. (Anyone remember that one, or care to dig up the numbers?) I guess base hits and walks don't count though, only sac flies. By the way, how can anyone tell how he did in those situations without using some numbers to quantify the results?

Here's the irony...

Adam Dunn notched a grand total of 35 PA with Runners on 3rd and less than Two Out in 2005. That's about one PA every five games. Considering that Milezinni claims to have seen only 16 games, he could have- at most- have seen Dunn up there 3 or 4 times in that situation (maybe only once or twice).

Even if Sac Flies weren't completely random events, that's not enough observation to come to any relevant conclusion as to a hitter's ability to perform regardless of situation. And you're right- Sac Flies are only one of the potential PA outcomes in that situation (and a very low percentage outcome for all hitters versus other outcomes).

In 2005, the National League produced Sac Flies at a rate of 0.7% of all Plate Appearances. At most, Milezinni could have seen 80 PA's from any Reds hitter in 2005. At the MLB average, that projects to HALF a Sac Fly over those 80 PA. For Milezinni to have a good chance to even see a sac fly from any hitter during the games he watched, they'd need to produce at least double the rate of Sac Flies versus the league average over those 80 PA.

There's simply little chance of seeing a Sac Fly event from any player over the 16 games Milezinni claims to have watched and to assume that one should be seen would require the placement of an unreasonable expectation AND the assumption that hitting a Sac Fly is a skill-based event outcome. And, even if he saw one, there'd be an infinitely small chance he'd see a second one from the same player over that sample. And you'd need to see that 2nd one before your brain could even attempt to form the word "repeatable" even if we could attach it to the word "skill". Furthermore, we don't even consider that the result of those 3 or 4 PA's might not be more preferable than a fly-ball out.

Crap. The hitter walked twice, hit a Home Run, and produced a Run-Scoring ground out in those four PA's I saw. He sucks at hitting Sac Flies then and, because I've now observed that he sucks at hitting Sac Flies, I'm now certain that he can't hit situationally. That's the kind of warped logic Milezinni's using.

Basically, what we'd be doing over a 16-game sample using observation is to jump to a HUGE illogical conclusion based, most likely, on single-event outcome. And to assume the negative (that a hitter can't hit Sac Flies), we'd need to first assume that he SHOULD be able to hit them at double the rate of his peers and then just ignore everything else that not only may happen, including events that are equal to, or greater, in value to a Sac Fly.

That's a bunch of really silly stuff. A pointless exercise that does nothing but inject personal bias as to how the game SHOULD work while ignoring how the game actually does work. In fact, that kind of reasoning begins with personal bias and simply degrades from there.

Furthermore, Milezinni attempts to chide folks for only being interested in event "outcomes" yet then degrades Dunn due to what he perceives to be a lacking outcome. There's simply no way one can do that and be able to maintain any kind of intellectual honesty.

Milezinni
10-17-2005, 05:10 PM
No actually I just threw Dunn's sac fly situation because I knew it was a stat that everyone is familiar with. After all quite a bit was made of it. And that is one of the many situations that would come up that you would want an uppercut powerhitter at the plate, and yes, I am fully aware that he hit's homeruns in those situations.
As for this past season, Adam Dunn came to the plate with a man on third and less than two outs 23 times. He ended up with 5 hits (2 HR's), 9 walks and 11 strikeouts.

And in the Reds games I saw, I didn't see any sac flies, none, zero, in fact, a hit is better than a sac fly.
Unfortunatley all the times I saw the Reds get a runner on third, with less than two outs they just struck out! And I saw quite a few of them, including games where that runner could have tied the game late, or even won the game. Thinking specifically of the Reds vs Cubs on September 13th I think it was.

No sac's, no ground outs, just a good old fashioned K (and some of those K's would be backwards).

And of all the Reds I saw LaRue in that situation more than Dunn.
Sorry to disappoint you.

M2
10-17-2005, 05:27 PM
Again, I don't necessarily put alot of stock in what the numbers may be, I pretty much go by my impressions.

The problem with that is it turned out that your impressions were wrong and what reserach you did was incomplete. The Reds won like crazy when they got a well-pitched game. That's not a statistic per se. It's a matter of record.

Yep, the Reds whiffed a ton, but they scored a ton too. I'm not going to get into an extended discussion about strikeouts because that war has been fought (and won) on this board. Suffice it to say that despite your theories to the contrary, how you make an out means very little. That may not jibe with your worldview, but the reality of the situation wasn't constructed to reaffirm such things. All of us have been taught that strikeouts are the supreme evil at the plate and it's just a matter of whether you're willing to shake off the bad information they programmed into you.

In fact, generally-speaking a team that whiffs a lot is going to outscore a team that hits a lot of groundballs. Nonsense you say? Well it's the difference between Mike Schmidt and Ken Oberkfell.

As for driving down on the ball, that's fine for Ichiro and lousy for Dunn. It's not Dunn's swing. He's not a chameleon and he shouldn't try to be one.

Bonafide aces make everyone look pathetic. That's why they're bonafide aces.

westofyou
10-17-2005, 05:35 PM
In fact, generally-speaking a team that whiffs a lot is going to outscore a team that hits a lot of groundballs. Nonsense you say? Well it's the difference between Mike Schmidt and Ken Oberkfell.

Or the BRM and the Cardinals in the 70's


1970-1979
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

STRIKEOUTS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE R
1 Reds 1400 9222 7822 566
2 Padres 1177 9117 7940 -1315
3 Phillies 1140 9017 7877 -290
4 Giants 1058 8927 7869 -218
5 Expos/Nationals 728 8632 7904 -751
6 Mets 717 8685 7968 -1053
7 Pirates 694 8577 7883 261
8 Astros 446 8340 7894 -497
9 Dodgers 232 8114 7882 -55
10 Cubs 204 8083 7879 -217
11 Braves 153 8033 7880 -396
12 Cardinals 28 7942 7914 -313

SteelSD
10-17-2005, 05:48 PM
First off Steel, I want to calrify something that got way out of hand.

I never, NEVER said you swing down on the ball in rotational hitting. What I said was Adam Dunn is a full rotational hitter. Then I put a period, and added that he also never puts a level swing on a pitch, or drive down on the ball.
Refering to his inability, in my opinion, to NOT go with the pitch, or to play good, solid situational baseball.

A hitter would want to drive down on a ball in a ground out situation.

Y'know, if you just said "Sorry, I was wrong. I got confused." you'd do a much better job of wriggling out of this one.

Rotational technique does not allow you to do this because hitting "down" on the ball runs contrary to the mechanics taught in rotational theory. The primary weight shift so intregal to rotational hitting will not allow a hitter to do so without flying entirely off-balance mid-swing. It's simple bio-mechanics.


In situational baseball there are times, runner on second no outs, runner on third with less than two outs, when the hitter should just try to make contact, put the ball in play preferably to the right side, and these are the situations where a hitter would want to drive down on the ball.

Has nothing to do with rotational hitting theory.


I posted the Don Mattingly link because, it was my impression, that some people here, you included, were saying a hitter NEVER drives down on the ball.

You've quite consistently attempted to create strawmen that have nothing to do with anything anyone here has posted. The above is an example of how you created a position based on nothing and then, apparantly, got yourself confused into thinking someone said it.


And that would give no credence to the "baltimore chop" which is still used in todays game. Ichiro set a major league record for hits with that very concept.

Ichiro Suzuki is not an example of applied rotational theory. He has nothing to do with this conversation. Neither did Mattingly.


Also I said Adam Dunn doesn't use a level swing, I don't recall typing or even thinking that level means level with the ground. There is a world of difference between a level swing, which still looks like an upward swing, because the hitter drops his back leg, and an uppercut, which is definitely the hitter swinging up in his follow through. Thus, I posted the Mike Epstein link.

And the Mike Epstein link completely obliterated your position. That had to suck. And I really don't care to hear about your new defininition of the word "level". When that word comes up in reference to hitting theory, it means one thing and it's not "same-plane" contact.


But let me just throw out there, you still see some pretty good swings in baseball, and indeed the bat is level with the ground. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

The only point you actually did make is that you need to stop trying to talk about things you don't understand.


Again, I come here while at work, and I just don't have the time to dig deep enough to find exact examples of a point I am trying to make.

Your inability to provide any evidence to support your position is not my concern. You've explained nothing other than why you've been sloppy. That isn't an excuse for being sloppy.


As for the pitching stats, and my original statement which started this whole post.

First off, I am trying, desperately, to forget the 2005 campaign, and unlike you, I really don't see alot of positives.

My impressions where based on quality starts, which I did research some time ago.

First, I looked into quality starts for and against the Reds and found that, including one stretch in June I think it was, where the Reds got 7 quality starts in a row and won only two of those games. And if I am not mistaken we werent' even going against an "ace" quality pitcher, and still lost.
And not just lost, but looked real bad in the process.

I also looked at Aaron Harang's starts, since he was tabbed the ace of the staff, he also had the job of taking on our opponents aces, and, the number's did NOT bode well for our offense. Harang had quite a few quality starts but couldn't get a win. And alot of no decisions where he had a quality start plus.

When I looked into Claussen and even Milton, I began to see some similar patterns.

I have also watched several Reds games where we took on bonafide aces. Mark Prior, Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt, Chris Carpenter, Ben Sheets, just to name a few and in my opinion, and I don't care what the stats say, they made us look pathetic.

Completely lost at the plate and just overall looked like bushleaguers.

And last but not least, there are the strikeouts. I don't know if it's a fact, but I am willing to guess we ranked among the top 5 Reds teams of all time in strikeouts. And strikeouts accomplish nothing, they don't move runners up, score runners or put pressure on the defense. Which are all basic fundamentals in baseball.

Again, I don't necessarily put alot of stock in what the numbers may be, I pretty much go by my impressions.

That Mark Prior start particulary looked real, real bad.

And my point, and still is, that going out and getting great pitching will not necessarily correspond into a winning record.

Your conclusion was absolutely incorrect as demonstrated by the 84% Win Percentage the Reds acquired in well-pitched ballgames. The point is beyond contestation. When the Reds got good pitching in ballgames in 2005, they won a huge percentage of those ballgames. When giving up 6 Runs or less, they posted a Win percentage better than that of the best overall team in baseball in 2005.

Some statistics infer that something may be so. Some statistics indicate that something is most probably so. And some statistics drop atomic bombs on positions that can't possibly survive the detonation and fallout. That 84% WP spells nuclear winter for your contention that the Reds can't win with great pitching.

I'm going to make this very very clear...You could not be MORE wrong about the effect of good pitching for the 2005 Cincinnati Reds. The fact that you continue to cling to a position so horribly contrary to fact, truth, and reality is simply exacerbating the situation.

Instead of continuing to position your obviously erroneous conclusion as fact, you'd be better off finding out where you went wrong. First, you were looking at the wrong things (i.e. Quality Starts, offensive K's, etc.). Second, you were using small sample size observational data and allowing your conclusions to be skewed by personal bias and micro level observational data that simply doesn't apply to a macro setting (i.e. a 162-game season) even if your observations were accurate (they weren't, which is another issue).

In short, your bias and lack of real research allowed your brain to think that pitching didn't matter. There was an easier and far more reliable way to check to see if pitching actually WOULD matter. You either didn't know how to check that data or didn't think you needed to because your brain told you that your conclusion couldn't possibly be wrong. Unfortunately, your brain lied to you (as brains often do).

But instead of trying to cover for the lie, you should be spending your time determining whether or not your brain is lying to you BEFORE posting myths, fallacies, and general untruth. And for God's sake, when your conclusion gets atomized, don't keep clinging to it. Learn from it, understand where you went wrong, and don't do it again.


I agree our pitchers are pretty bad, my biggest concern is their control issues, I don't put the blame squarely on their shoulders.

The problem with bad pitchers is that they're bad pitchers. It's not "emotional". It's not "mental". It's not something out there in the fog. It's historically bad pitchers continuing to be bad pitchers.

There's nothing wrong with Eric Milton's peformance that he couldn't fix if he were a better pitcher.


I would like to see a bit of an overhaul on this team for next season, and am hoping that given it's O'Briens last year on his contract, and Narron only got a one year deal, and that there are supposedly all these "major leaguers" coming up over the next couple of seasons (and that has yet to be seen) that most of the current squad is expendable.

They need pitching. Real pitching. And I'm not sure where you heard that the Reds have a bunch of "Major Leaguers" on the horizon. There's nothing there.

flyer85
10-17-2005, 08:16 PM
Has anyone seen my Star Trek episode #63 DVD?

pedro
10-17-2005, 10:03 PM
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
This episode is an absolute must for fans of Reds Zone's recurring shirtless-Steel-being-tortured motif. Steel, Raisor, and M2 are taken to a strange laboratory and tortured by powerful aliens while a mute woman is forced to watch--a woman whose empathic abilities are being put to the test. There is, of course, a broader scheme to it all--this is one of the early manifestations of Reds Zone's eternal conflict between the needs of the many and the needs of the few, or the one. Keep an ear out for one of the all-time great Steelisms ("I'm a doctor, not a coal miner!") and hang on to those fragile but oh-so-important human emotions. --Ali Davis

KronoRed
10-17-2005, 11:25 PM
Has anyone seen my Star Trek episode #63 DVD?
You wanted that back? :D

jnwohio
10-17-2005, 11:51 PM
Or the BRM and the Cardinals in the 70's


1970-1979
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

STRIKEOUTS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE R
1 Reds 1400 9222 7822 566
2 Padres 1177 9117 7940 -1315
3 Phillies 1140 9017 7877 -290
4 Giants 1058 8927 7869 -218
5 Expos/Nationals 728 8632 7904 -751
6 Mets 717 8685 7968 -1053
7 Pirates 694 8577 7883 261
8 Astros 446 8340 7894 -497
9 Dodgers 232 8114 7882 -55
10 Cubs 204 8083 7879 -217
11 Braves 153 8033 7880 -396
12 Cardinals 28 7942 7914 -313


Let me say up front that I am no stats guru; but I have a question about the runs column in this table. If it depicts runs over and under the league average by team and includes all teams, shouldn't the overs and unders be equal, i.e. if this is a mean shouldn't the sum of the runs greater than the mean and runs less than the mean equal 0?

westofyou
10-18-2005, 12:22 AM
Let me say up front that I am no stats guru; but I have a question about the runs column in this table. If it depicts runs over and under the league average by team and includes all teams, shouldn't the overs and unders be equal, i.e. if this is a mean shouldn't the sum of the runs greater than the mean and runs less than the mean equal 0?

Well, it's not my software creation so I'm not sure how the exact setup is, but from what I surmise is the following:

The league average is based on outs (it can also be based on AB's and PA's) so each team in a 10 year span will have different amounts of games played and those 27 outs skew the league average from being a strict debit and credit setup. If I was to compare the 1970's Reds in Runs vs the league I would get them at the top in the following categories that base the average on

+595 AB's
+566 Outs
+507 PA's

BTW I use the default setting "Outs"

Milezinni
10-18-2005, 01:01 PM
First you call me ignorant, and now your calling me a liar....wow, the moderator sure let's you get away with alot.

Lets take a look at it.....at the risk of getting fired.

Aaron Harang.

April 17th vs Hou 6 in 3 ER No decision.
April 22nd vs FL 6 innings 2 ER No decision
May 3rd vs STL 7 IN 2 ER LOST
May 9th vs San Diego 8 IN 1 ER No decision
Jun 10th vs Bal 7 IN 3 ER LOST
Jun 26th vs Cle 6 IN 3 ER No decision
Jul 7 vs SF 6 IN 2 ER LOST
Aug 20 th vs Ari 7 IN 1 ER No decision
Sept 1 vs Hou 7 IN 3 ER LOST
Sept 6th vs Mil 6 2/3 IN 1 ER No decision

Of his quality starts they won......9. Not bad. Not great either.

Brandon Claussen

May 24th vs Wash6 IN 2 ER No decision
June 28th vs STL 6 IN 2 ER LOST
Jul 3 vs Hou 6 IN 0 ER Lost
Aug vs Mil 6 IN 3 ER No decision
Sept 5 vs Mil 7 IN 1 ER No decision
Sep 11 vs Pit 6 IN 1 ER No decision
Sep 22 vs StL 7 IN 2 ER No decision

Of the quality starts the Reds won.....7. Looks a little better, but I would have to look into how many of those ND's they won. But, on the surface.

Eric Milton

May 2 vs StL 6 IN 1 ER No decision
Jun 30 vs Hou 6 IN 2 ER No decision
Jul 10 vs Ari 6 2/3 IN 2 ER LOST
Aug 27th vs Pit 8 IN 1 ER No decision
Sep 13 vs Cubs 6 IN 3 ER No decision
Sep 29 vs Mil 7 IN 2 ER LOST

Quality starts by Milton the Reds won......4. Didn't have a very good season.

Ramon Ortiz

May 17 vs NYM 7 IN 2 ER LOST
May 27 vs Pit 6 1/3 IN 3 ER No decision
Jul 8th vs Ari 7 IN 3 ER No decision
Jul 27th vs LAD 6 IN 1 ER No decision
Aug 7th vs FL 7 IN 0 ER LOST
Aug 24th vs Was 6 IN 2 ER LOST
Sep 4 vs Atl 7 2/3 IN 2 ER No decision
Sep 16 vs Pit 6 IN 2 ER No decision

Of his quality starts the Reds won......5

These numbers are the actual starts and the final line score for innings and earned runs. They are NOT a statistical average, or a compilation formula but the actual line scores.

The only pitcher they did a pretty good job of picking up was Luke Hudson. Of his 5 quality starts they actually won 4.
But he had alot of bad outings too.

This just covers what is classically defined as a quality start. Yes there were some flat out bad outings, but there were alot of outings where the Reds pitching staff definitely kept them in the game.

Of that I would classify anything like 5-8 IN 4 ER or less. And there werent' alot of victories there either.I mean if you have the "#1 offense" in the league, certainly they could have overcome a 4 run deficit?!?

Where in the world did you get 84%?!? Is that like Adam Dunn's 39 sac fly situations in 05. I haven't found any website that credits him with more than 23.

And I would have to go in a bit deeper to find out how many of those No decisions were actually team wins. I would imagine by the overall Won Loss record that it would probably break down to 50/50.

------------

I also tried to look up that stretch where the Reds pitching had 7 quality starts in a row, sandwiched by a couple of decent starts where the team only won like 2 of the games.

But I am at work, and it's getting busy. I am sorry if you think that is some kind of excuse, but, I am a professional and have alot of responsibilities here. Sorry. But they pay, and you don't....

----------------

And your whole logic (A) Milezinni said Adam Dunn was rotational (B) he said he doesn't drive down on the ball = (C) Milezinni says rotational hitters drive down on the ball is a little bit flawed.

There are hybrid hitters such as Mike Schmidt (he actually used rotational and weight shift), Willie Mays, Rod Carew, Harold Baines and in the modern era David Eckstein and Frank Thomas.
Alot of players use BOTH the rotational and weight shift depending on the pitch.
(just thought I would give you some more statements to misinterpret completely)

My point about Dunn was, and still is correct. He is a FULL ROTATIONAL player who is ONE DIMENSIONAL!! He always UPPERCUTS and doesn't go with the pitch where it's pitched.

-----------

And the Mike Epstein link, which at this point I am convinced none of you bothered to read, says, in effect, that the school of rotational theory (other theories and approaches not withstanding) dictates that you keep the plane of the swing on the same plane as the pitched ball.

The level swing would appear to be going up, when in fact it is not, because the hitter drops the angle of the back leg to angle the body.

An uppercut swing is one where the hitter goes down to the plane of the pitch and then comes back up again in an attempt to hit a fly ball. Very limiting.

So, a constant, unrelentless not to mention HUGE uppercut swing that Dunn always uses would help to explain the one dimensional aspect I pointed out and explain why I believe he will never be a complete hitter.

Oh and one last thing I wanted to point out. The "Charlie Lau modernized weight shift system" employed by some players (although they don't all agree on the follow through technique) teaches that a level swing is the ideal because it keeps the bat on the plane longer.

But I guess thats a matter of opinion.

-------

Oh, and one last thing thats been bothering me about your "Reds are the #1 offense in the league". If that were true, (and I saw the categories they did lead) why didn't the #1 offense in the NL lead that league in hits?

Or is it just that when they do get a hit, it being a double or a homerun counts more in your statistical analysis?

And why would the "#1 situational hitting team " lead ALL OF MLB in strikeouts?!?
139 more than the next worse team and over 400 more than the league leaders????

The way I was taught, strikeouts were the LAST thing a good situational hitting team did?!?

Oh, I get it, I get it......because the Reds struck out so much they DIDN'T hit into double plays?
Is that it???

You can't assume the double play......

savafan
10-18-2005, 01:07 PM
did I just see Milezinni use stats in a post? :eek: :confused: ;)

westofyou
10-18-2005, 01:07 PM
Oh, and one last thing thats been bothering me about your "Reds are the #1 offense in the league". If that were true, (and I saw the categories they did lead) why didn't the #1 offense in the NL lead that league in hits?

Because they exceeded in other aspects of the game?


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2005

EXTRA BASE HITS EBH
1 Reds 572
2 Cubs 540
3 Braves 529
4 Brewers 521
5 Diamondbacks 509
6 Mets 486
7 Phillies 484
8 Cardinals 483
9 Astros 474
10 Pirates 469

SECONDARY AVERAGE SEC
1 Reds .308
2 Phillies .290
3 Diamondbacks .287
4 Braves .284
5 Brewers .275
6 Mets .274
7 Cardinals .265
8 Padres .261
9 Astros .261
10 Cubs .257

SLG SLG
1 Reds .446
2 Cubs .440
3 Braves .435
4 Phillies .423
5 Cardinals .423
6 Brewers .423
7 Diamondbacks .421
8 Mets .416
9 Rockies .411
10 Marlins .409

WALKS BB
1 Phillies 639
2 Reds 611
3 Diamondbacks 606
4 Padres 600
5 Dodgers 541
T6 Cardinals 534
T6 Braves 534
8 Brewers 531
9 Marlins 512
10 Rockies 509

paintmered
10-18-2005, 01:09 PM
The way I was taught, strikeouts were the LAST thing a good situational hitting team did?!?

The person who told you this is also wrong.

flyer85
10-18-2005, 01:10 PM
Wow ... you know stats can be misleading.

Especially with quality starts being combined with 6 inning pitchers and backed up by a bad bullpen.

flyer85
10-18-2005, 01:11 PM
BTW, I myself prefer the DP to the K. Makes the game go faster.

Blimpie
10-18-2005, 01:31 PM
First you call me ignorant, and now your calling me a liar....wow, the moderator sure let's you get away with alot.
Not for nothing, but it just so happens that neither of those two words meet the criteria for "obscenity"

BoydsOfSummer
10-18-2005, 01:38 PM
Although I'd do backflips if this staff put up an earnie of 4.50, it still sucks. Thats basically what a QS equates to,no? Hell, I expect 6 innings and 3 runs or less from any starter the Reds run out there. Everytime. Anywhere.

Imagine if this staff had given up 4.5 runs per game during the year. They'd have been roughly 90-72.

westofyou
10-18-2005, 01:51 PM
Imagine if this staff had given up 4.5 runs per game during the year. They'd have been roughly 90-72.

Hmm.... I think one of those stat guys might have mentioned that few times this season.

M2
10-18-2005, 01:52 PM
The way I was taught, strikeouts were the LAST thing a good situational hitting team did?!?

And you were taught wrong. Join the club. We all got the same bad information.

As for quality starts, that only means something when you've got a stellar bullpen that can lock down said quality starts. The JimBo Reds had some great pens and we all got in the habit of thinking a QS was the end-all, be-all as a result. It's not.

Who cares if a starter got a QS if the pen vomited up a few runs afterward? If you're talking about the overall performance of the offense, then you need to look at the overall performance of the pitching/defense. And we know for a fact that when the Reds kept the other team from scoring a lot, it won like the 1927 Yankees on a hot streak.

M2
10-18-2005, 01:55 PM
Although I'd do backflips if this staff put up an earnie of 4.50, it still sucks. Thats basically what a QS equates to,no? Hell, I expect 6 innings and 3 runs or less from any starter the Reds run out there. Everytime. Anywhere.

Imagine if this staff had given up 4.5 runs per game during the year. They'd have been roughly 90-72.

Though it's important to remember that a team that allows 4.5 runs a game would need to have an ERA down around 4.20-4.25. Got to account for the unearned runs.

TheGARB
10-18-2005, 01:57 PM
Aaron Harang.

April 17th vs Hou 6 in 3 ER No decision. W (6-5)
April 22nd vs FL 6 innings 2 ER No decision. L (2-4)
May 3rd vs STL 7 IN 2 ER LOST. L (2-4)
May 9th vs San Diego 8 IN 1 ER No decision. L (5-6)
Jun 10th vs Bal 7 IN 3 ER LOST L (3-4)
Jun 26th vs Cle 6 IN 3 ER No decision L (3-4)
Jul 7 vs SF 6 IN 2 ER LOST L (1-5)
Aug 20 th vs Ari 7 IN 1 ER No decision L (2-6)
Sept 1 vs Hou 7 IN 3 ER LOST L (1-3)
Sept 6th vs Mil 6 2/3 IN 1 ER No decision W (2-1)

Of his quality starts they won......9. Not bad. Not great either.

Brandon Claussen

May 24th vs Wash6 IN 2 ER No decision W (4-3)
June 28th vs STL 6 IN 2 ER LOST L (1-2)
Jul 3 vs Hou 6 IN 0 ER Lost L (0-9)
Aug vs Mil 6 IN 3 ER No decision L (3-8)
Sept 5 vs Mil 7 IN 1 ER No decision L (1-6)
Sep 11 vs Pit 6 IN 1 ER No decision W (5-3)
Sep 22 vs StL 7 IN 2 ER No decision W (6-2)

Of the quality starts the Reds won.....7. Looks a little better, but I would have to look into how many of those ND's they won. But, on the surface.

Eric Milton

May 2 vs StL 6 IN 1 ER No decision L (9-10) - The Danny Graves blowup game. Yeck.
Jun 30 vs Hou 6 IN 2 ER No decision Tied (2-2)
Jul 10 vs Ari 6 2/3 IN 2 ER LOST L (0-2)
Aug 27th vs Pit 8 IN 1 ER No decision W (4-2)
Sep 13 vs Cubs 6 IN 3 ER No decision L (3-4)
Sep 29 vs Mil 7 IN 2 ER LOST L (0-2)

Quality starts by Milton the Reds won......4. Didn't have a very good season.

Ramon Ortiz

May 17 vs NYM 7 IN 2 ER LOST L (1-2)
May 27 vs Pit 6 1/3 IN 3 ER No decision W (6-5)
Jul 8th vs Ari 7 IN 3 ER No decision W (4-3)
Jul 27th vs LAD 6 IN 1 ER No decision W (7-6)
Aug 7th vs FL 7 IN 0 ER LOST L (0-2)
Aug 24th vs Was 6 IN 2 ER LOST L (3-5)
Sep 4 vs Atl 7 2/3 IN 2 ER No decision W (8-3)
Sep 16 vs Pit 6 IN 2 ER No decision L (4-5)

Of his quality starts the Reds won......5


I've added the team wins and losses to your list. Final record in the "Quality Starts" for these pitchers: 35-20-1 for a .636 Winning percentage. I'll take that over an entire season.


Where in the world did you get 84%?!?

The Reds were 41-8 in games in which the ENTIRE pitching staff gave up less than 4 runs. Part of the problem with the starters on this staff is that even when they pitch well, they still have to turn it over to a crappy bullpen. For instance, on May 2nd.

savafan
10-18-2005, 02:05 PM
I too used to be a stat hater and made rants similar to this Milezinni. I don't know if those threads are still around, but Steel taught me a thing or two that I didn't know before. If you allow yourself to have an open mind about things, you can enjoy the game even more once you have a firmer understanding of it.

Cedric
10-18-2005, 02:10 PM
What is stat hating? I don't see how you can hate factual numbers. That doesn't mean everyone sees the same stat the same way, but to completely avoid them is just impossible.

SteelSD
10-18-2005, 02:12 PM
So many fallacies...so little time...


Of that I would classify anything like 5-8 IN 4 ER or less. And there werent' alot of victories there either.I mean if you have the "#1 offense" in the league, certainly they could have overcome a 4 run deficit?!?

Where in the world did you get 84%?!?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/team_game_results2005.php

When the Reds gave up 4 Runs or less in 2005, they were 50-23. When giving up 3 Runs or fewer, they posted a 41-8 Record. 41 Wins in 49 games is a 84% Win rate.


Is that like Adam Dunn's 39 sac fly situations in 05. I haven't found any website that credits him with more than 23.

23 At-Bats. Dunn also posted 9 BB, 1 HBP, and 2 Sac Flies in Runner on 3rd < 2 Out situations. Add all those up and what do you get? Thirty-Five Plate Appearances (which is what I originally posted- not "39"). If you had any understanding of statistics at all, you'd have at least figured out that a Sac Fly doesn't count as an At-Bat and is recorded in a player's Plate Appearances instead.


And I would have to go in a bit deeper to find out how many of those No decisions were actually team wins. I would imagine by the overall Won Loss record that it would probably break down to 50/50.

Not sure why you'd want to piggyback more pointless sloppy research on your original pointless sloppy research.


And your whole logic (A) Milezinni said Adam Dunn was rotational (B) he said he doesn't drive down on the ball = (C) Milezinni says rotational hitters drive down on the ball is a little bit flawed.

You don't get to talk about hitting theory any more. You had your chance and completely botched it. From here on out, you need to consider it a non-topic.


Oh, and one last thing thats been bothering me about your "Reds are the #1 offense in the league". If that were true, (and I saw the categories they did lead) why didn't the #1 offense in the NL lead that league in hits?

Because simple hit volume or hit rate doesn't mean anything. I'm sure you were taught that it did in Little League. Unfortunately, most of us are taught a number of things that are just plain wrong when we're wee lads. Those who told you that should be punished.


Or is it just that when they do get a hit, it being a double or a homerun counts more in your statistical analysis?

Last time I checked, a Double was more valuable than a Single. So was a Home Run.


And why would the "#1 situational hitting team " lead ALL OF MLB in strikeouts?!? 139 more than the next worse team and over 400 more than the league leaders????

The way I was taught, strikeouts were the LAST thing a good situational hitting team did?!?

More Little League-ese. You were taught wrong and need to discontinue allowing your personal bias to define "good" and "bad". We're not going to argue about this one either. There's no correlation between K's and Runs Scored. If K's mattered, it would be impossible for the Reds to lead the NL in Runs Scored. But they did. Best situational hitting team in the NL as well.


Oh, I get it, I get it......because the Reds struck out so much they DIDN'T hit into double plays? Is that it???

Nope. They scored more Runs than any other National League club in 2005.


You can't assume the double play......

I assume nothing. I check the information I have at my disposal before positioning anything as fact. Facts show that worrying about HOW an Out is recorded doesn't really matter. What happens when Outs are NOT recorded is. Reds were the best team in the NL at the combination of avoiding Outs and acquring bases in 2005 and, thus, led the NL in Runs Scored.

This is the last time we talk about offensive Strikeouts. This board has already discussed the topic ad nauseam. If you want to find previous discussions, use the search function (as has been suggested to you multiple times).

On all other previous topics, you're done. Ironically, it appears the only person being "mislead" by statistics is you because, when you use them, you use the wrong statistics and allow your conclusions to be driven by a complete misunderstanding of what they're telling you.

I'd suggest you find something new or move along.

savafan
10-18-2005, 02:13 PM
What is stat hating? I don't see how you can hate factual numbers. That doesn't mean everyone sees the same stat the same way, but to completely avoid them is just impossible.


I used the term stat hater rather loosely. What I meant was that I didn't buy into all of the sabermetrics and thought that a strikeout was the worst thing possible and loved stolen bases and batting average.

Cedric
10-18-2005, 02:15 PM
You mean you don't judge a players worth on ba anymore, that's good. But BA is an important stat and SB's are still very valuable in the right situation.

savafan
10-18-2005, 02:19 PM
You mean you don't judge a players worth on ba anymore, that's good. But BA is an important stat and SB's are still very valuable in the right situation.

I still like batting average, but just because a guy hits under .250 doesn't make him worthless to me anymore.

As for stolen bases, it's still exciting to see, but depending on the player involved and the situation, not always a smart decision, even if he does make it.

Milezinni
10-18-2005, 02:29 PM
You guys keep jumping to that same conclusion?!? Open mind?!?!

I am NOT a stats hater. I used to be just like you. What I am saying is.....alright how should I do this.

Look at the internal combustion engine. Thought of as an absolute marvel, adopted as the end all be all (when they had some nice experiments going with electric and steam that needed more development) and modified over the years to increase performance.
To maximize efficiency.

Now, in today's world, we realize that oil is a natural resource. That we might have passed peak oil production and that ultimately in order to save the world we have to come up with an alternative to the internal combustion engine or their could be some major problems. And that in just a short time.

What the industrialists and engineers are looking for is an NON internal combustion engine that operates exactly like an internal combustion engine. People are utterly dependent to their auto's.

And so far the hybrid engine is a temporary fix that doesnt really fix anything and there is no alternatives to date.

In basic,
Man invents an engine.
Everyone loves the engine.
Engine and corresponding evolutions revolutionize the world.
Turns out engine is bad for the world. Literally destroying it.
Everyone is stuck, we have no alternatives.

Now lets look at how that example, albeit off topic, relates to baseball.

This english guy Chadwick (was it?) watches baseball and decides to adopt some of the cricket scoring systems to in essence box score a game in the 1800's. Strictly his opinion.

System's not perfect but nobody really challenges it and it is adopted throughtout.

Then other people come along (most notably Bill James) and decide it's not accurate that the stats are misleading, it's not a very good system and they go into this advanced form of record keeping (sabermetrics) and everyone adopts it.

The problem is, and they haven't gotten to the part where it's just bad, is that it is based on the same fundamental concept. It is Chadwicks fundamental concept that is flawed.
Compounding and expanding the formula doesn't fix anything.

Sabermetrics is the equivalent to the hybrid engine! You have squeezed a bit more efficiency out of the thing, but you haven't really solved anything.

And the basic concept, now over 130 years old, is still horribly flawed.

And in time, I am willing to bet, a whole NEW system will be in place.

And I know I am not the only one who thinks so.

westofyou
10-18-2005, 02:33 PM
Chewbaca sighting!!

SteelSD
10-18-2005, 02:41 PM
Chewbaca sighting!!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

harangatang
10-18-2005, 07:50 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_en_mo/people_citizen_wookiee


WASHINGTON - A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a Wookiee named Chewbacca growled and howled his way through "Star Wars" movies. On Monday, the actor who played him will take the oath to become an American citizen.

British-born Peter Mayhew will be among 441 people from 77 countries who will become naturalized Americans in a ceremony in Arlington, Texas.

Mayhew, 60, played the fur-covered warrior Chewbacca in the original "Star Wars" trilogy of the 1970s and 1980s, and the latest movie, "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith."

"I got married to a Texan lady. That more or less decided it," said Mayhew, who has been married to his wife, Angelique, for six years.

In most cases, an immigrant must be a legal permanent resident for five years before becoming a citizen. The wait is three years if the person marries a U.S. citizen. He also must pass history, English and civics exams.

"I've always been interested in the cowboys and the history of the West and the history of America, so it wasn't so bad," Mayhew said in a telephone interview Wednesday. He was being driven by his wife to buy a suit for the occasion. It will be the conventional type not the brown, furry sort.

"I am feeling very happy about it," Mayhew said. "Whatever people say about America, it is still one of the most wonderful countries in the world, despite the politics, religion and everything else that goes on."

"I know that I have the best of both worlds with the dual nationality," he said.

When he takes his oath to become an American, Mayhew said he'll recite what he can remember and "it will be a Chewie growl for the other parts."

ghettochild
10-18-2005, 08:09 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_en_mo/people_citizen_wookiee


WASHINGTON - A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a Wookiee named Chewbacca growled and howled his way through "Star Wars" movies. On Monday, the actor who played him will take the oath to become an American citizen.

British-born Peter Mayhew will be among 441 people from 77 countries who will become naturalized Americans in a ceremony in Arlington, Texas.

Mayhew, 60, played the fur-covered warrior Chewbacca in the original "Star Wars" trilogy of the 1970s and 1980s, and the latest movie, "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith."

"I got married to a Texan lady. That more or less decided it," said Mayhew, who has been married to his wife, Angelique, for six years.

In most cases, an immigrant must be a legal permanent resident for five years before becoming a citizen. The wait is three years if the person marries a U.S. citizen. He also must pass history, English and civics exams.

"I've always been interested in the cowboys and the history of the West and the history of America, so it wasn't so bad," Mayhew said in a telephone interview Wednesday. He was being driven by his wife to buy a suit for the occasion. It will be the conventional type not the brown, furry sort.

"I am feeling very happy about it," Mayhew said. "Whatever people say about America, it is still one of the most wonderful countries in the world, despite the politics, religion and everything else that goes on."

"I know that I have the best of both worlds with the dual nationality," he said.

When he takes his oath to become an American, Mayhew said he'll recite what he can remember and "it will be a Chewie growl for the other parts."

this was on the news this morning here in town, he lives in granbury which is a little south of Ft. Worth.

RFS62
10-18-2005, 08:19 PM
Thats... some story.



http://tigger.uic.edu/~plotnick/little.jpg

Redsland
10-18-2005, 09:25 PM
What an inspirational story of...marrying some chick...and...mumbling through the oath to become a citizen of a country whose..."politics, religion, and everything else" you oppose.


Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense) jury, that does not make sense.

savafan
10-18-2005, 10:20 PM
I forget what we're talking about again, DanO talking about the payroll, stats are meaningless, Adam Dunn rotates something or Chewbacca wants to be an American?

KronoRed
10-18-2005, 11:37 PM
Chewbacca IS an american, keep up

Ron Madden
10-19-2005, 03:53 AM
What we have here is failure to communicate. ;)

Milezinni
10-19-2005, 09:51 AM
Is your mind right, Luke?

Milezinni
10-19-2005, 01:19 PM
Ah Steel,

The Baseball Prospectus, an absolute necessity of every fantasy baseball player.

I can just see Narron now "Hey Chambliss, if Dunn gets a double right here he will have increased his ISP by .030% and his OB% by .025, and I will win."

Chambliss "Yeah, not to mention the Mets pitching will take a huge hit in their WHIP for the week, and decrease their k/9, I am facing that guy online as we speak"

Narron "Not to mention, one more ball and Dunners P/PA# will put me right over the top....hahahahahahha"

Dunn (at the plate) "2-2 count? Got to increase my OPS, Got to increase my OPS, Got to increase my OPS"

Reyes (at SS) "man, my range factor is dropping well below my career statistical average, I hope Dunn hits a grounder to my left so I can get my RF and Fielding % up"

I will admit to one wrong doing though, you were right about Dunn's sac fly plate appearances, and I was wrong. I didn't look close enough and though it said PA but looked again and it is in fact AB.

But my desire to shove something back in your patronizing face got the better of me. That was wrong, and I should know better.

One thing I don't get, as you have no doubt convinced yourself that I am just an idiot, why do you keep arguing with me?

I mean, you have me labeled as a "stats suck" kind of guy, so you took the traditional tactic that there is no way that I can make my case without using some stat somewhere than why the long responses?

Not to mention, and my case in point, was that being a group of fantasy baseball players you guys couldn't respond to any of my questions. And you haven't. (Not to mention, in one of my original posts on this topic, that there was no way you could ever convince fantasy baseball players that stats are misleading)
The stats no matter how elaborate they are just don't catch the details of the event, only the results.

Therefore proving my point. Unless you look at baseball strictly from the fantasy baseball perspective.

Well, one guy did respond with a nice cut and paste of an article describing Miltons degenerative knee. Which I suspect, and could be, the reason I saw him dropping his elbow. I had read that his surgery was successful and that the knee wasn't a problem.

But instead of answering any of my questions, and I feel they are ligitimate, (at least they are the kind of things I look for in a team) and now total somewhere around 87 of them, you just constantly come back with statistical arguments designed to try to make me look bad.

And Steel starts off saying that rotational theory would NEVER teach a level swing, and then comes back with NEVER teach a level with the ground approach, which I never claimed in the first place. I never said, nor did I imply that a level swing meant level to the ground.

My whole point, and I guess I should have explained it better, was that when a hitter is in a certain situation he has to sacrifice his own personal goals to do what is required of the team. If there is a hit and run play on, and the pitch is a slider way off the plate, the hitter absolutetly MUST make contact. And he won't be able to do that with a rotational swing, he will have to abandon the mechanics, lunge forward off balance, and just make contact somehow, someway.

Not to mention that the weight shift method does in fact teach a more level to the ground swing and that is primarily why the two approaches are two different ends of the spectrum. And both approaches have success stories and holes. Just depends on what you want to believe.

The rotational swing is in fact level even though the player makes an adjustment with the body. It doesn't look level (with the ground) but it is a level swing. And that's a fact.

Not to mention they are extremes and Baseball history is just full of players who used both approaches based on the pitch. (Mike Schmidt was a master at using both rotational and weight shift. So was Willie Mays.
And Rod Carew used just about every and any theory out there, with constant tweaks and adjustments, and is in my opinion one of the greatest hitters of all time.)

The argument that all pitchers throw fastballs and changeups over the top, therefore the ball is always moving on a downward plane therefore NO swing is level is ridiculous. Just plain ridiculous.

It it no way takes into consideraton that the mound is actually only 10 inches off the ground, and that a high fastball from a shorter pitcher with a 3/4 (and even some over the top) delivery will come in to a tall batter almost completely level.

Not to mention sidearm and submarine pitchers of various heights.
But I guess none of those guys actually count.

My argument was and is, that the ML hitter uses lots of different swings and mechanics in order to adjust to the varous pitches/locations and strategies employed by defenses. To the naked eye, they all look a guy swinging at a pitch, but they are vastly different, and far more complicated than that.

Dunn's whole approach is one dimensional. Almost strict uppercut, regardless of the pitch.

But the more I think about it, there are so many variables in baseball that no one description could really classify anything.

Maybe that's why the sabermetricians keep coming up with more expanded and more complex theories and categories because they can't seem to find the definite answer to Bill's orginal quesiton.

I mean Bill James is quoted, he gave up the almanac because it proved to be too much work.
Huh, that doesn't make any sense, disregarding the fact that he gave up on it during the pioneering of the personal computer, why is it so much work.?

A game is only, what, 2 1/2-3 1/2 hours on average, and no-one outside of the actual players and managers keep records of the actual pitch type and locations, why is it some much work?

Could it be that the more scientific and formulaic an expanded theory becomes the more it doesn't seem to quantify what the researcher saw, and therefore requires more expanded, or new theories altogether?

Just who is Voros McCraken, and why does he have a job in MLB?

paintmered
10-19-2005, 01:25 PM
Not to mention, and my case in point, was that being a group of fantasy baseball players you guys couldn't respond to any of my questions. And you haven't. (Not to mention, in one of my original posts on this topic, that there was no way you could ever convince fantasy baseball players that stats are misleading)
The stats no matter how elaborate they are just don't catch the details of the event, only the results.


I'm not a fantasy baseball player.

Just sayin'

pedro
10-19-2005, 01:27 PM
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

OldRightHander
10-19-2005, 01:39 PM
For me, it's all about learning as much as I can in order to try to understand the game better. Stats don't show everything and I don't think anyone here is trying to say that they do. What they do show you is a good idea of the statistical probability of certain outcomes. That can help you as a fan. It's more fun watching a game if you understand what is happening on the field and if you understand what the most likely outcomes are in a given situation. I'm not a stat geek by any stretch, but I want to be a more informed fan and trying to better understand the numbers will only help me.

And since we're on the topic of everyone's favorite left fielder, how about this situation? The Reds are down by 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs and nobody is on base. You need a baserunner so the tying run will come to the plate. Who do you want batting in that situation, the guy with the best on base percentage, or the guy who doesn't strike out as much?

flyer85
10-19-2005, 01:47 PM
Could it be that the more scientific and formulaic an expanded theory becomes the more it doesn't seem to quantify what the researcher saw, and therefore requires more expanded, or new theories altogether?The purpose of the data analysis(in any field) is to sort through the noise and find the abstractions within the data itself that is not readily apparent based on perfunctory observation.

BTW, that is what McCracken is all about and why he has a job in baseball. We know very little about the proprietary research teams are doing.

Raisor
10-19-2005, 02:15 PM
Last time I checked, a Double was more valuable than a Single. So was a Home Run.



.


I'm on my honeymoon and everything, but I couldn't let this pass.


You're stealing my koolaid, Steel.

Just sayin.

KronoRed
10-19-2005, 02:37 PM
You came here on your honeymoon?

What's WRONG WITH YOU? :runaway:

flyer85
10-19-2005, 02:43 PM
You came here on your honeymoon?

What's WRONG WITH YOU? :runaway: ... this is better than sex.:help:

gonelong
10-19-2005, 02:52 PM
A game is only, what, 2 1/2-3 1/2 hours on average, and no-one outside of the actual players and managers keep records of the actual pitch type and locations, why is it some much work?


Many teams ARE keeping track of this info. The As keep track of where a ball is hit, how hard, etc. and asign a value to the batted ball regardless of the outcome on the field.

You could line out to the 3rd baseman and have a higher assigned value than a 33 hopper that goes for a single through the IF. They are attempting to find players that will succeed over time. A guy that hits the ball hard will eventually have a good percentage fall for hits, while a guy that hits 33 hoppers will have a good percentage of those balls fielded.

Unfortunately, for the average fan, the teams are not sharing this information with joe fan. They are, understandably, working on this information to gain a competitive advantage.

I am sure their are many, many other measures they are working on that we will not know about for quite some time. I know that almost all of the teams are working on ways to measure defense in a much better fashion.

If you can see it, somebody is trying to measure it and assign a value to it. Sure, there are cases where they cannot (yet) assign a meaningful value to things. However, there are many things that can be quanitfied quite well and are freely available to the public. Its up to you as a fan to determine which are which, and thats why most of us are here dicussing such things.

As a fan that only gets to see 16 games, you are the type of person that ought to be relishing the existance of these numbers, IMO.

Since you keep bringing up fantasy numbers, I am assuming thats mosty what you have been exposed to. BA, HR, RBI, SB, K, ERA, WHIP, Wins, and Saves? These are not the kinds of numbers that many, if any of us are looking at much, if at all. Are stats misleading? Those sure can be, but again, those aren't the type of numbers most of us are looking at.

GL

pedro
10-19-2005, 03:00 PM
... this is better than sex.:help:


then why isn't Amanda posting here? ;)

SteelSD
10-19-2005, 03:15 PM
One thing I don't get, as you have no doubt convinced yourself that I am just an idiot, why do you keep arguing with me?

You'd need a relevant point for me to actually be arguing with you. All I'm doing at this point is debunking your fallacy-laden logic-devoid posts. There's some value to that to readers- particularly those who can identify, understand, and thus avoid making the same mistakes you do.

And I did enjoy burning ants with a magnifying glass when I was a kid. Call me sadistic.


I mean, you have me labeled as a "stats suck" kind of guy, so you took the traditional tactic that there is no way that I can make my case without using some stat somewhere than why the long responses?

You've done a much more impressive job of labelling yourself than I ever could. And I'm the guy who's been suggesting that you use objective data when you attempt to make a point. But, when you try, all you end up doing is demonstrating that you don't understand statistics. If you did, you wouldn't be using bad data, misinterpreting it, and drawing erroneous conclusions from it.

In short, if I were as bad at statistical analysis as you I might hate stats too.


Not to mention, and my case in point, was that being a group of fantasy baseball players you guys couldn't respond to any of my questions. And you haven't. (Not to mention, in one of my original posts on this topic, that there was no way you could ever convince fantasy baseball players that stats are misleading)

Another example of completely fractured logic. This whole thing began when you said dumb things, couldn't back them up, wouldn't own up to them, and then began flopping red herrings and strawmen in an effort to deflect exactly how little you know.

I may as well say that playing video games means that someone doesn't know anything about baseball. You play video games. Therefore, you know nothing about baseball. See how convenient that is.

But it would be stupid of me to project an all-encompassing quality upon all video game players just as it's ridiculous of you to assume a lacking knowledge among anyone who plays fantasy baseball.

It's just another sophomoric attempt by you to prop yourself up above people who understand things you obviously don't.


The stats no matter how elaborate they are just don't catch the details of the event, only the results.

By your own admission, you watch 16 Reds games a year. That means you have no room to have a single opinion on anything Reds (much less the rest of MLB) unless you're using statistics yourself. Unfortunately, you use bad numbers and misinterpret them which leads to you being wrong constantly.


Therefore proving my point. Unless you look at baseball strictly from the fantasy baseball perspective.

Your original point was that, because statistics aren't perfect, they're valueless. That's a bunch of hooey, particularly considering that your observations haven't allowed you to draw a relevant accurate conclusion yet. 17 pages of you being wrong is a rough way to go about things.


Well, one guy did respond with a nice cut and paste of an article describing Miltons degenerative knee. Which I suspect, and could be, the reason I saw him dropping his elbow. I had read that his surgery was successful and that the knee wasn't a problem.

Everyone on this board knew about Milton's knee the day he was acquired. It appears that statistical analysis isn't the only thing on which you lag behind.

Considering your focus on non-statistical information, one would think that you'd make some kind of effort to know more than the next guy. But then, considering that your M.O. actually precludes the acquisition of knowledge, I'm not surprised you're playing a game of constant catch-up.


But instead of answering any of my questions, and I feel they are ligitimate, (at least they are the kind of things I look for in a team) and now total somewhere around 87 of them, you just constantly come back with statistical arguments designed to try to make me look bad.

Your "questions" had nothing to do with anything. And there's only one person on this board making you look bad- YOU.


And Steel starts off saying that rotational theory...

Uh-uh. We already covered this. You don't get to talk about hitting theory any more. You've already destroyed your credibility in this area. It's time for you to move on.

I've deleted the remainder of your rambling to save space. If you have a relevant point to make, I suggest you finally make it.

And good to see ya', Raisor. I figured that would bring ya' out of the woodwork.

OldRightHander
10-19-2005, 03:16 PM
... this is better than sex.:help:

Well, after you've spent an hour or two on here you're not wiped out and wanting a nap, but I still wouldn't say it's better. :devil:

SteelSD
10-19-2005, 03:21 PM
Many teams ARE keeping track of this info. The As keep track of where a ball is hit, how hard, etc. and asign a value to the batted ball regardless of the outcome on the field.

If he'd actually read Moneyball (much less three times), he'd know that.

TheGARB
10-19-2005, 03:25 PM
... this is better than sex.:help:

Are you basing that off of personal observation or statistical evidence? Come to think of it, I don't really want to know.

Milezinni
10-19-2005, 05:16 PM
These were the questions I asked anyone on here to answer....

“What's Adam Dunns batting average when he swings at a slider?
What's his average when he swings at a curve?

How many of Casey's double plays where pulled to the right side vs up the middle vs the left side? At what percentage does he pull?

How many of Aurillias homeruns in 2005 where fastballs? breaking balls?
And at what percentage does he hit homeruns off balls low in the zone or high?
What about mistake pitches?
How many HR's did Aurillia hit off a pitchers pitch?

How many HR's did Aurillia hit with an uppercut swing? How many where a level swing? Any driving down on the ball?

Based on LaRue's batting average, how many of those balls where hit well?

What percentage of his hits where solid hits off a pitcher with accuracy and control? How many of his hits where weak, bloop variety, or bloop base hits off a pitcher having an off nite?

What percentage of Lopez' average where balls hit inside-out on an inside pitch to opposite field?
What was his average when pulling an outside pitch?

Who led the team pulling outside pitches? Who led the team with base hits off of a shifting defense?

Who on the Reds team goes inside-out the most? Who goes opposite field the most?

Most hitters are fastball hitters, but who on the Reds had the most hits off of breaking balls?
Curves?
Change-ups?

How many of Adam Dunn's strikeouts did he foul off a pitch? Two pitches? More than two?
What about Pena?

How many of Javier Valentins hits were good swings? What percentage of his hits where bad swings but he was scored a hit anyway?
What about Kearns?

Does Freel weight shift on pitches up and away? How much of his average were weight shift? How much rotational?

How many stolen bases did Freel get off of a left handed pitcher? What about Right handed?

How many stolen bases did the Reds get off the pitcher? How many off the catcher/defense?

Who led the team in going from first to third on a single? Who was the worst at it?

Who got on base the most while the defense was charged with an error? How many times did the Reds score off of an opponents defensive lapses?

Who led the team in scoring from second base on a single?

Oh lord, so many questions....

How about some pitching stats? And any kind of average or percentage is fine, I don't need an actuall number.

What are you guys using?

What percentage of Eric Miltons starts did he get a lose while having good control?
Got a lose while having terrible location and control?
Got a win while having excellent control?
Got a win while having terrible control?

How many of Miltons losses were his fault? How many where a team lose?

Same questions for Harang?

How many of Miltons loses could be credited to bad defense? Errors, alignments, etc?
How many of his wins could be credited to excellent defense?

How many homeruns did Eric Milton give up high in the zone? How many HR's did he give up low in the zone?
How many HR's did he give up when he hit his spot? How many when he missed?

How many base hits did Claussen give up while hitting his spot? How many did he give up when he missed?

Which pitcher was hit the hardest?, and which one was hit the softest?

Which pitcher gave up the most stolen bases? Who gave up the least?

How many stolen bases did Harang give up while holding the runner on?

What was their winning percentage vs stolen bases allowed.

Which relief pitcher was the most clutch? Who had the best accuracy and control?

Oh boy, I better wait until you get me that website before I dive into the bullpen?

How many of Felipe Lopez' errors where made during favorable conditions? Was it raining? Had it rained before the game? Was it a perfect afternoon for baseball?
How many error's did he give up in the cold?
How many of his error's where on the throw? Transition? How many where the intial move?

What about Pena's errors?

How many ball's where misplayed by Wily Mo Pena because he wasn't in position to make the play, but, he was in the position the manager and coach wanted him in?
What about Dunn?

How many errors was Pena given on plays where the pitcher missed his spot?
How about Lopez?

How many of Lopez and Pena's errors were a questionable call by the official scorer?

How about some stats on the new Head Coach?

How many times did Narron call for a hit and run? At what percentage was he successful?
What about suicide squeeze? What percentage was he successful?
On what count did he prefer to call them? 2-0? 2-1?

What percentage did he call them on Right handed pitchers? Left handed?

Which hitter did he prefer to use on hit and runs? Who did he prefer for a squeeze?
Which baserunners did he prefer?

How about sacrifice bunts?

How many times did a pitcher give up a run after Ruhle or Narron went on to talk to them.
At what percentage did they get the hitter out?

At what percentage did a pitching change result in a run given up? Which pitcher?

How many times did Narron's strategies backfire? What is Narron's overall offensive/defensive philosophy?


Your "questions" had nothing to do with anything. And there's only one person on this board making you look bad- YOU.
---Steel

-----------

Really?

Everybody who acutally PLAYS Major League Baseball is asking these questions. Pertinent information that they have to have to succeed.

Why?

They are the types of things a team has to know in order to win, or even compete.

They aren't necessary to playing a game of Triple Play though?

You have a point there....

----------

I love your thought process too......

Milezinni said something.
I misunderstood and jumped to a ton of conclusions.
Then responded to my own conclusions.
Milezinni has nothing to add.

wheels
10-19-2005, 05:23 PM
Here's something that might interest you Neil.

www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

BoydsOfSummer
10-19-2005, 06:12 PM
That was fun for a while.

savafan
10-19-2005, 06:14 PM
http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejldraven/images/towelie.jpg

SteelSD
10-19-2005, 06:54 PM
I misunderstood and jumped to a ton of conclusions.
Then responded to my own conclusions.

Yep, that's your M.O. in a nutshell.



Milezinni has nothing to add.

Those words represent the only logical conclusion you've typed in a post yet.

KronoRed
10-19-2005, 09:35 PM
http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejldraven/images/towelie.jpg
A stoned towel?

Worlds going to hell :help:

Milezinni
10-20-2005, 12:05 PM
You are amazing.

A typing contradiction. Let me point just a few examples.


“On the flipside, you can't answer them to any degree of certainty using your own brain for every PA for every team through a season nor are the vast majority of your questions at all relevant. You think they are, but I can tell you- how hard a ball was hit is entirely irrelevant when evaluating a pitcher's performance because of the innate randomness that drives the result of a batted ball in play. Whether a hitter is a "good" hitter or a "bad" hitter when hitting a double is irrelevant. “
------------Steel 10-4 2:31 pm


But let me get to the really good stuff. And I will try to narrow it down to the points made.

“See...around here, you can't just say you know something. You have to actually provide evidence that you know it.”
-----------Steel 10-5 2:00 pm

“First off, I never said stats are bad, or useless. I point is that stats are MISLEADING....”
------------Milezinni 10-11 2:48 pm.

“It's just real hard for me to understand why folks would try so hard to create false impressions in an effort to debase a group of people who are doing nothing other than trying to figure out what is rather than what seems to be.”
-----------Steel 10-11 2:53 pm

“And yes, the real friction happens when someone jumps up and says, "Stats suck and because you use stats YOU suck!"”
-----------Steel 10-11 2:53 pm


Actually there are so many, I need to stick to one subject. I wanted to make a point, about jumping to unstated conclusion then rambling on and on about them.

This is just one bit I originally posted. Now, watch the evolution of this point.

“He keeps the wrist's locked up until contact and then uses them to drive the ball towards the wall in an uppercut fashion. He has no level swing, and I have yet to see him drive down on the ball.”--------Milezinni 10-11 4:22 pm


“Hmn...you properly identify that Dunn utilizes rotational swing mechanics but then note that Dunn has no level swing and that you haven't seen him drive down on the ball.

Neither a level swing nor driving down on a baseball are part of rotational hitting theory. In fact, rotational theory dissuades hitters from attempting a level swing or trying to hit the top half of the ball in an effort to put it into play because rotational theory attempts to maximize a hitter's ability to match pitch arc with bat arc in an effort to achieve the most positive productive contact possible from a swing when contact is made.

Why in the world would you even bring up a level swing and/or not driving down on the baseball when speaking about someone you know is using rotational technique? Why?

Because you have no idea what you're talking about.”
---------Steel 10-11 6:23 pm

I never said that driving down on the ball was part of rotational theory, I said its part of situational theory, however, they’re quite a bit of “rotational hitters” who use it, but more on that in a second. By the way, that bold part is extremely important.

“Ted Williams frowned on taking a level swing, because an uppercut played into his home run role. You hit the ball farther and higher with an upper cut, and that is the primary objective of a homerun. And a part of it is the arc.

But that's Ted Williams, where in the world did you get the idea that rotational mechanics philosophy frowns on level or "drive down on the ball" swinging?
Especially in today's game.”
----------Milezinni 10-12 10:00 am

“The majority of hitters today ARE rotational hitters, and you are trying to tell me that NONE of them are trying a level swing, or drive down on the ball? ‘
---------Milezinni 10-12 10:00 am

“One of the primary tenants of modern rotational theory (yes, dating back to Ted Williams) as taught by current hitting instructors is that hitters should echew a "level" swing and not attempt to hit down on the ball. That's a fundamental of rotational hitting and pefectly logical considering that rotational technique attempts to max out bat speed AND match the bat plane to the pitched ball plane as it moves through the hitting zone.

“In fact, no one is going to teach rotational hitting technique while also telling a hitter to swing "level" or down on the ball because the those concepts run contradictory to the power-max rotational technique. Only a really dumb hitting coach would try to get a player to max their bat speed and then mess up the result by including concepts that jeopardized the hitter's ability to make the most productive contact possible.”
----------Steel 10-12 11:29 am


” Anyone who had the slightest clue about how hitters are being taught today would know everything I typed above. You, however, don't. That's a credibility problem.”
-----------Steel 10-12 11:29 am

Hmmm. Something is starting to sound funny. I’ll get to that in a minute.
By the way eschew basically means avoid at all costs.

It was here, on 10-12 that I posted a link where Don Mattingly demonstrates driving down on the ball.
Mattingly used a number of different batting mechanics, and was considered something of a hybrid. That’s a hitter who uses both rotational and weight-shift mechanics. But anyone would agree Mattingly used rotational hitting technique the majority of the time.

In this particular video he is demonstrating driving down on the ball to hit a homerun.

By the way, Mattingly is the hitting coach for the Yankees in the video.

“Don Mattingly isn't teaching kids rotational hitting in that video. He's showing them how to hit down on the ball, which isn't a part of current rotational instruction theory. If someone went in with zero knowledge about current rotational hitting theory, they could spend three minutes at a Mike Epstein web site and understand more than you do.”
--------Steel 10-12 6:50

“What you actually said is, "I think rotational hitting theory teaches hitting down through the zone and Don Mattingly advocates hitting down through the zone so I must be correct that hitting down through the zone is part of rotational hitting theory."

I can barely even begin to point out the amount of fractured logic it takes someone to come up that. You started off with a false premise, inappropriately tied something to it, and then circled back to a conclusion not based on anything but your initial faulty premise.”
---------Steel 10-12 6:50

Hmmm. This is interesting. First off, nowhere in the little video demonstration does he even show his stance, or mechanics other than the angle of the arms during the swing. So there is no way to determine if he is or isn’t claiming it’s rotational theory. We just know he used rotational mechanics during his career.

And now, some of the good stuff. Steel at this point quotes spending a few minutes on a Mike Epstein website on mechanics.

So I posted it. And here is the crux of Mike Epstein’s approach



“The goal of all pitchers is to get “tilt” (downward movement) on their pitches. Tilt is defined as a pitch that breaks beneath the horizontal plane (sinks). Since ALL pitches are going down when passing the hitter (except the high pitch) the hitter must counteract the tilt of the pitch by tilting his body rearward so he can be “level to the ball.” I explain it by simply saying HITTERS MUST “TILT” TO AVOIT THE “TILT”.”

“As many of you already know, my definition of the “perfect swing” is THE ADJUSTMENT THE HITTER MAKES TO THE PITCH HE GETS. And the proper way a hitter executes this adjustment is by sitting on his rear leg. What allows the hitter to make this dynamic adjustment to the pitch is the hinging of the rear knee. The more the knee hinges the easier it is to match the swing plane to the plane of the LOWER pitch. In contrast, the less hinging, the more upright he will be on the HIGHER pitch, and the flatter his swing will be. Which is exactly where he should be!”

“After all, we all know pitches don’t come to the same area on the same plane and hitters must have an infinite amount of different swings to cope with these different planes.”

“Furthermore, if a hitter matches the plane of the swing to the plane of the pitch, and he’ a little late, he’ll hit the bottom-half of the ball, producing BACKSPIN, which is very desirable on balls hit in the air. If he’s a little early, it will produce TOPSPIN, exactly what you’d want on balls hit on the ground. Ground balls with topspin pick up momentum as the travel, producing “bad hops” and getting by infielders too quickly to make a play. The hitter gets the best of all worlds.”
--------Mike Epstein
Ex-Major Leaguer, and rotational mechanics coach.

Actually I had never seen that website, I just know a lot about hitting mechanics. Thanks for the link Steel.

“Now, for about the 32nd time in this thread, I'll ask you to explain how you could be so horribly wrong about your observations.”
------Steel 10-13 2:17

“A baseball travels downward from the pitcher's hand to the hitting zone- not parallel to the ground. Therefore, it is physically impossible for a "level" swing to produce "same-plane" contact with a pitched ball. There's no super-special neato physics stat needed to know that. It's baseball 101. The commonest of common knowledge.

It appears you not only don't understand hitting theory, but that you also don't really understand how baseball actually works on a real life ball diamond.

“And let's be crystal clear. You lost this debate the moment you decided to engage in it. You started off making wild assertions you couldn't support and degenerated into red herring generation; tangenting onto topics you quite obviously didn't understand.”
--------Steel 10-17 3:03


Notice he posted this AFTER he makes reference to the very website he is claiming debunks what I said in the first place.

So basically he tries to get into a conversation, and very patronizing at that, that he obviously knows nothing about, then when he realizes I am neither intimidated or swayed by his arguments, quite the contrary, he decides to dig a little deeper than his Ted Williams 1970 approach to rotational theory.

Then studies up a website that debunks everything he claimed in the first place, then, if that weren’t enough tries to claim the link I posted, that he originally quoted, proves me wrong?
When it actually supports everything I said in the first place.

Then, the funny thing is he misunderstood the whole scientific approach Mike Epstein is explaining.

And what’s even just as funny is how most of you, obviously convinced this cat knows what he is talking about are all chiming in with your little jabs and punches, and are basically spewing out what Steel said incorrectly in the first place.

And even more hilarious, is that you got the board moderator convinced too.

I didn’t make this up, you guys can re-read this thread for yourselves. But I would suggest you read it for yourself. And not let Steel’s ever in-consistent super-hypo cranium ramblings dictate what you think.

And this is just the correspondence on rotational hitting. He actually has been doing the exact same thing on just about every topic I brought up.



Here’s another one…..



“One positive on Dunn's fielding is his arm. He has a strong, powerful, and accurate arm (probably form the years he practiced as a QB) but he tends to use it conservatively. Throwing to second or the cut off man, most of the time, instead of trying to cut off the run from scoring even when it is timed out to a high percentage of success.”
-------Milezinni 10-11 4:22 pm


“Dunn has a cannon. You don't get recruited to a Division I football program as as a QB if you don't. As noted by others, his main problem is getting set after a fielding attempt in LF. But if we're looking at Assists (an imperfect measurement of course) as an indicator, the average MLB LF produced one Assist every 184.5 Innings in 2004 and Dunn finished tied for 2nd among all MLB qualifers in LF Outfield Assists with 10. Dunn managed one Assist every 132.7 Innings in 2004. His numbers were down in 2005, but I've always felt that a really tall guy in LF has a disadvantage because a large percentage of his throws are going to be off-balance on grounders hit through the hole while charging. “
------------Steel 10-12 10:10

“Now, for about the 32nd time in this thread, I'll ask you to explain how you could be so horribly wrong about your observations.”
------Steel 10-13 2:17


“Considering that your entire position boils down to the idea that your observations are accurate (and more accurate than recorded event data), why have you been so entirely inaccurate this entire thread?”
------------Steel 10-17 3:03

And I could go on, and on, and on, and on……….

And to help you with all those ridiculously long, rambling diatribes, and to help you get to the point a little bit more efficiently I would like to recommend a website....

www.ohhowthemightywinddothblowhard.com

Note : I went into edit, I wanted to bold those points I was really trying to center on.

OldRightHander
10-20-2005, 12:13 PM
This thread:

http://www.energizer.com/ images/bunny/bio/bunny.jpg

Chip R
10-20-2005, 12:19 PM
Well, I think it's gone on long enough.