PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

savafan
10-01-2005, 01:01 PM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/1001redsside.html

By Hal McCoy

Dayton Daily News

ST. LOUIS | For those expecting the Cincinnati Reds to pry open CEO Carl Lindner's vault or to dig low into his deep pockets for 2006, expect elsewhere.

General manager Dan O'Brien said next year's payroll will be, "in the neighborhood of last year's, which hovered around $60 million and is in baseball's lower middle class."

Is it enough to cover escalating salaries for arbitration-eligible players Adam Dunn, Aaron Harang, Austin Kearns, Jason LaRue, Javier Valentin, Felipe Lopez, Ramon Ortiz Wily, Mo Pena and possibly Ryan Freel?

O'Brien said relief will come with the removal of the $6 million paid to Danny Graves and the $2.72 million paid D'Angelo Jimenez, plus there could be trades.

When O'Brien spoke of next year's outfield, he spoke of Dunn and Ken Griffey Jr., but pointedly omitted Kearns and Pena. At this point last season, O'Brien said the team was content to go to spring training with those four outfielders because of the uncertainty of Griffey coming off serious surgery.

"Griffey has shown when he is healthy he remains an elite player," he said. "Dunn has put up consistent numbers in run production for two years now."

Does that put Pena and Kearns on the available list?

"We're more likely to be open-minded," said O'Brien. "It isn't something we have to do, but there has been significant interest in our outfielders."

Pitching, though, remains Priority A.

"This will not come as any surprise, but our No. 1 priority is to try to improve the pitching," he said, but he talked as if mostly it would come from within, "Because there is a less than overwhelming free-agent list."

He said Harang and Brandon Claussen have proved themselves as major-league pitchers and acknowledged that Eric Milton and Paul Wilson, if healthy, are part of it, too.

Ramon Ortiz, could be the fifth starter, if the club picks up his option, but there are other avenues Matt Belisle, Luke Hudson, Josh Hancock.

"Hancock is going to winter ball in Venezuela and will start and Hudson is going to the Arizona Fall League and will start," said O'Brien. "Going into camp, Jerry has an open mind in considering Belisle as a starter, but no commitment one way or another. And we're getting a sense of Randy Keisler in a starting role right now."

Although Wilson is ahead of schedule after mid-season shoulder surgery and plans to be ready by spring training, Narron is advancing cautiously.

"We all want him to be ready Opening Day and we're all hoping he will be, but we won't put pressure on him and rush to get him back," said Narron.

Both catchers, LaRue and Valentin, are arbitration-eligible and O'Brien said of them, "The overall productivity of the catching (a combined .271 with 28 homers and 108 RBIs) has surpassed our expectations."

Can the Reds afford both?

"I can't answer that right now," said O'Brien. "We need to prioritize. Our needs entering the off-season remain to be answered at this point."

Signing LaRue probably will cost the club $4 million, but there is no help in the system and bringing in a good catcher would cost just as much. But there is Dunn to think about, at a cost of close to $9 million, and Ortiz at $4.5 million and Rich Aurilia at $2 million.

If both parties exercise the mutual option in Aurilia's contract, he could be the club's second baseman because Narron values Ryan Freel's versatility and doesn't want to anchor him at second base.

"Freel will get time at second base, but the staff feels that his greatest value to the team is his ability to play multiple positions and it gives Jerry great flexibility," O'Brien said. "The left side of the infield is fairly secure, with Felipe Lopez (shortstop) and Edwin Encarnacion (third base)."

More questions need to be answered and they'll be discussed inside and out next week in Sarasota during the team's organizational meetings Wednesday through Sunday.

"We've identified the key guys who are arbitration eligible," O'Brien said. "We're fully prepared to go forward with that group, but we haven't made all the decisions in that regard, but we're off-setting that with some contracts (Graves, Jimenez) rolling off the payroll."

Before the meetings, Narron plans to talk this weekend with the coaches and determine who is coming back and who isn't.

"I'll do my best talking to them to see what they want to do," said Narron.

Does that mean if they all want to come back they'll be back?

"They've all done a good job and worked very hard," said Narron. Told that didn't answer the question, he laughed and said, "I'm learning from Dan."

cincinnati chili
10-01-2005, 01:13 PM
Payroll isn't the problem. Entitlements are. Listen to me, I sound like a Republican.

westofyou
10-01-2005, 01:19 PM
Listen to me, I sound like a Republican.

Quick... listen to The Clash

KronoRed
10-01-2005, 02:31 PM
Use the saved cash to cut Milton now

:D

Falls City Beer
10-01-2005, 02:32 PM
Quick... listen to The Clash

Isn't that code for "shoot up heroin?"

westofyou
10-01-2005, 02:45 PM
Isn't that code for "shoot up heroin?"

No, that's... "Quick listen to some Dead Boys."

jmcclain19
10-01-2005, 04:08 PM
"We're more likely to be open-minded," said O'Brien. "It isn't something we have to do, but there has been significant interest in our outfielders."

:wave:

It's been nice having you on the team Adam

Matt700wlw
10-01-2005, 04:15 PM
Sounds like they're pretty much going to stand pat.

Expect a similar result.


Oh...and I hope they prove me very, very wrong

wheels
10-01-2005, 04:29 PM
No, that's... "Quick listen to some Dead Boys."

Watch your mouth, mister.

wheels
10-01-2005, 04:30 PM
DanO loves him some Josh Hancock.

fs43340
10-01-2005, 05:43 PM
THAT'S IT! The Reds just have become my secondary team behind the Yankees. I am truly sorry grandpa and grandma that it came to this. But I can't take it anymore, at least show me that you care about winning. The Reds aren't showing me that!

Matt700wlw
10-01-2005, 05:49 PM
THAT'S IT! The Reds just have become my secondary team behind the Yankees. I am truly sorry grandpa and grandma that it came to this. But I can't take it anymore, at least show me that you care about winning. The Reds aren't showing me that!

Now there is something I could never do. Cheer for the Yankees.

fs43340
10-01-2005, 06:00 PM
Now there is something I could never do. Cheer for the Yankees. Forget about their payroll. They actually give a darn about winning, they feel it's their responsbilty to win! Can you say that about that about the Reds. Sure you could in the 70's but ain't no way you can say it now!

Matt700wlw
10-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Forget about their payroll. They actually give a darn about winning, they feel it's their responsbilty to win! Can you say that about that about the Reds. Sure you could in the 70's but ain't no way you can say it now!

No you can't. Still, I can't leave....it's a sickness I think

fs43340
10-01-2005, 06:06 PM
No you can't. Still, I can't leave....it's a sickness I think Did Wang,Small,and Cano cost them millions? Heck No! In a way the Yankees owe the division championship to them!

savafan
10-01-2005, 06:24 PM
How can you not root for a team that has a rotation including these guys:

Small Wang Johnson?

TeamBoone
10-01-2005, 11:08 PM
:wave:

It's been nice having you on the team Adam

Today during the game, DOB said pretty much the same about payroll... they have to move forward assuming it will be about the same as last year. He also said with the loss of some salaries, he doesn't intend to break up the "core of young players" (Adam Dunn?) and that the #1 priority is starting pitching.

He didn't talk in circles, which was refreshing.

KronoRed
10-01-2005, 11:30 PM
Forget about their payroll. They actually give a darn about winning, they feel it's their responsbilty to win! Can you say that about that about the Reds. Sure you could in the 70's but ain't no way you can say it now!

Easy to give a darn about winning when you bring in more revenue then most of the other teams combined.

Tony Cloninger
10-02-2005, 05:37 PM
NO....this is who the Yankees can thank........ the Angels for blowing 2 ...3 run leads in the ninth on back to back games.
In 1 of the games......1 out from victory....Cabrera misses a ball hit right to him...right at his glove....the Yankees tie it and then win it in the 10th.

They can thank a Don Denkinger type call against the Pirates, at home, at 1B with 2 outs and Giambi running. He was more out than Jorge Orta was. BUT since he was called safe......the next guy drives in the tying run and the Yankees win in extra innings.

They can thank the Royals for blowing a 5 run lead....with 1 out....and a DP ball hit right back to the pitcher.

They can thank the Blue Jays closer for twice blowing leads in the bottom of the 9th........

I mean.....that team and the braves are great at coming back in the 8th and 9th innings. They seem to get more confident while the opposing pitchers become stupid and unable to deal with it.

The Yankees....even with all their payroll....where still lucky to be in the race by the last 2 weeks of the month.

I have EI package....i watched those games on YES. You could count on 2 hands how many games they won coming back, that they had no business coming back.


As far as you rooting for the Yankees and using the "they care about winning" line........... IT'S NOT GS MONEY!!!!! They get their money from some Fort Knox type deal with a cable company............ GS does not use his personal business money......does not have to dig deep into the gate receipts to get his money.

Before they started signing Giambi and then Mussina.....they were not the late 70's build them as they become FA type team. They were made through the draft and great trades. It's only been since 2001 that they have turned back into the buy everyone mentality. AND just like the previous post said....it is easy to say have a commitment to winning when you have twice the money to do it with.

TeamBoone
10-02-2005, 07:37 PM
During today's game, Hal and Marty were talking about the payroll for next year and Hal mentioned something about each team getting $40 million dollas due to something; I was sidetracked and didn't catch it all, but it wasn't the usual "profite sharing"... it was something different for this year only, I believe. He wondered where that was going instead of into the payroll total.

Ooops! Sorry. There appears to be a thread about this that I didn't see previously. I'm sure it gives more details than I did (seeing as how I gave absolutely nada).

Milezinni
10-03-2005, 12:31 PM
If the book Moneyball, and it's new, Bill James inspired, Billy Beane/Paul DePodesta philosophy/strategy proves anything, (whether you buy into it or not), that it's not HOW much you spend, it's HOW you spend it!!!!

The current front office, and I am very disappointed in O'Brien already, is the Old Guard.
These guys are fossils that don't understand today's game, and they don't have a clue because they aren't looking at the right things. And concentrating on all the wrong things. Like stats. And the wrong ones to boot.....

Pitching isn't going to help as much as people believe.

Harang had plenty of quality starts, did the Reds win very many of them?

I am telling you, the Reds could bring in Pedro Martinez, Johan Santanna, Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson or any other over dominating, quality Major League pitcher, in any era, stacked 1 through 5, and this team will still loose.......

My only hope is that there is some major changes at the top (new owners?) and a landslide, avalanche of a trickle down effect this off season.

Isn't going to happen? No.....

Can Narron really instill fundamentals into one of the worst fundamental teams in all of MLB? Is it possible? yes. Will it happen? I hope so, but most likely not.

After all his final season record, and wins and losses are the only stat that matters, is 46-46.

Not very impressive, is it?

westofyou
10-03-2005, 12:36 PM
Pitching isn't going to help as much as people believe.

Harang had plenty of quality starts, did the Reds win very many of them?

I am telling you, the Reds could bring in Pedro Martinez, Johan Santanna, Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson or any other over dominating, quality Major League pitcher, in any era, stacked 1 through 5, and this team will still loose.......



League average ERA gives this team 90 wins.

How's that for fundamentals?

pahster
10-03-2005, 01:01 PM
Pitching isn't going to help as much as people believe.

Harang had plenty of quality starts, did the Reds win very many of them?

I am telling you, the Reds could bring in Pedro Martinez, Johan Santanna, Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson or any other over dominating, quality Major League pitcher, in any era, stacked 1 through 5, and this team will still loose.......

My only hope is that there is some major changes at the top (new owners?) and a landslide, avalanche of a trickle down effect this off season.

Isn't going to happen? No.....

Can Narron really instill fundamentals into one of the worst fundamental teams in all of MLB? Is it possible? yes. Will it happen? I hope so, but most likely not.

After all his final season record, and wins and losses are the only stat that matters, is 46-46.

Not very impressive, is it?

What?

This team lost a lot because of poor fundamentals?

You do realize this team led the league in runs scored, right? So wouldn't it stand to reason that, were the Reds to magically conjure 5 aces onto the roster, that they would win quite a few more games?

savafan
10-03-2005, 01:58 PM
Walter Johnson

This guy here is dead. ;)

Milezinni
10-03-2005, 05:41 PM
What?

This team lost a lot because of poor fundamentals?

You do realize this team led the league in runs scored, right? So wouldn't it stand to reason that, were the Reds to magically conjure 5 aces onto the roster, that they would win quite a few more games?

If you look at the game through all the stats, you might use logic to come that conclusion, but, I don't....I watch the games, and I know what I am looking at and looking for.

I don't care if they lead the NL in offense, I know I saw a TON of games where they would beat up on some #4, #5 or a Spot starter, and score runs in bunches (9-3, or 11-4) and win some ballgames all season long (9-4, or 8-2) and pad, pad, pad those stats.

They only stat that matters is wins and losses, in which case EVERYONE is held accountable.
And I know for a fact, that I saw ALOT more games where they went up against a half way decent pitcher, not even an ace, and couldn't get a runner past second base. Or score any runs at all, NO MATTER WHAT THE REDS PITCHING DID!!

This great offense everybody want's to believe in, (and spew stats they believe back up their arguments) has very little situational ability. If any at all.

So, by my argument, and I know it's the truth, even if the pitchers 1-5 went out and gave up quality starts, or no hitters for that matter, the offense would score ONE LESS run then they give up.

That's why they lose, not because of pitching, but because these guys have horrible fundamentals. On both sides of the ball.

Afterall this offense plays defense too....and no matter how many runs they do manage to score, they give up just as many because they are not a very good team at all....

ochre
10-03-2005, 05:49 PM
You can choose not to believe all you want, but the pythag relationship between Runs Scored, Runs Allowed, and wins is statistically significant. Every team has situations like you've presented every year. What holds true, within an acceptable tolerance level is that the the teams that score more runs, over a sufficient sample size of games, than they allow, have winning records.

You can grouse all you want about fundamentals and many of us have complained about the poor defense of this team, but the fact remains, league average pitching would have made this team a playoff contender.

SteelSD
10-03-2005, 11:27 PM
Edit...the "Edit" feature doesn't appear to work and the "Advanced" system just mashed the post. Ugh.

SteelSD
10-03-2005, 11:34 PM
If you look at the game through all the stats, you might use logic to come that conclusion, but, I don't....

Not use logic, eh? Do tell.


I watch the games, and I know what I am looking at and looking for.

Oh, yeah. The "stat" guys don't watch the game. They couldn't possibly tell you what happened in Inning Two of game 63 of the 2005 Reds season then. Oh wait...that's you who can't tell us what happened. I know, because it's all recorded. Nasty record keeping!


I don't care if they lead the NL in offense, I know I saw a TON of games where they would beat up on some #4, #5 or a Spot starter, and score runs in bunches (9-3, or 11-4) and win some ballgames all season long (9-4, or 8-2) and pad, pad, pad those stats.

Wrong, wrong, wrong you are. In fact, the Reds pythag record tells us this...

Actual Record: 73-89
Pythag Record: 74-88

Now, if you take the time to understand that the pythag is calculated using only raw Runs Scored and Runs Allowed data, you'll understand that if all those "stat-padding" blowouts were actually a realistic issue, then the Reds wouldn't have been anywhere near their pythag record. In fact, you're positioning the same argument that was debunked last season- when the Reds finished well above their pythag record.

See, explosive scoring is a trai201)
with RISP: .256 BA/.362 OBP/.447 SLG- .809 OPS (NL Rank- 3)
w/RISP, 2 Out: .257 BA/.380 OBP/.446 SLG- .825 OPS (NL Rank- 1)
Close and Late: .259 BA/.351 OBP/.438 SLG- .788 OPS (NL Rank- 3)

Well, golly. Looks like you'd be incorrect on that assumption. The Reds not only performed better with Runners On than they did with None On, but they also performed better with Runners In Scoring Position, RISP with 2 Outs, and in Close and Late situations- ranking FIRST in the National League with Runners On and 2-Out RISP situations and finishing no lower than third in the other two "situational" categories.

That data doesn't lie. The Cincinnati Reds were one of the BEST "situational" offensive teams in the National League. Wait. Scratch that. THE BEST. In fact, the Reds' OPS of .831 with Runners On exceeds the overall seasonal OPS of all but two teams over the past four years (2003 and 2004 Boston Red Sox). That's right. Only 1.7% of the total MLB team seasons over the past four years produced an overall OPS above the Runners On OPS of the 2005 Cincinnati Reds. Another fact? In all of MLB this season, only the Boston Red Sox produced a higher Runners On OPS than did the 2005 Reds.

Oh, a final fact...The 2005 Cincinnati Reds produced the fifth best Runners On OPS for any team over the past four seasons- and only one NL team (2002 Atlanta Braves) has produced an OPS above .831 during that span. Ducks%2 debunked times infinity.


Afterall this offense plays defense too....and no matter how many runs they do manage to score, they give up just as many because they are not a very good team at all....

And the Reds need to get better defensively. Absolutely. But you appear to think that the Reds' defensive inefficiency (2% lower than MLB average on BIP) extends to offensive deficiency and excuses the pitching staff from being drubbed as is certain to happen to bad pitchers.

That's not what happened.

SteelSD
10-03-2005, 11:41 PM
Still mashing post. Grrrrrr...

Milezinni
10-04-2005, 12:29 PM
You can choose not to believe all you want, but the pythag relationship between Runs Scored, Runs Allowed, and wins is statistically significant.

That's brilliant, you really need sabermatrics to explain that runs scored vs. runs given up is significant in relation to wins?

The more I studied it, the more I realized that stats, even the expanded and sabermetric are meaningless. And you guys don't want to admit it, you probably will never see it, but they just ask more questions (for a realistic perspective) than they answer, and the stats don't really explain anything.

For example, just a light example and then I am going to pose a question to all the statheads that believe pitching will help this team, and it's #1 offense, win the WS. Or even make the playoffs....for that matter....

Okay here goes, a pitcher throws a pitch, and the batter hits a double. It goes into your stats as a hit, right? A double?
Thats all you see....but,

Look through your stats, any of them, and answer this. What kind of a double was it?

Was it hit hard? Solid?
Or a bloop, flukey, kind of luck hit?
Did the batter get a good swing on it?
Who was the pitcher?
What was the count? The situation?
Was it a mistake pitch? Or a good pitch?
Who was the catcher?
Who called the pitch?
Should it be credited to the hitter?
Is the hitter any good? Or did the defense give that up?
Or was it more bad defensive alignment? And if it was the fielder, out of position or not very good, is it the fielders fault?
Where they covering for a hit and run?
Where the fielders moving?
Where did the manager have the fielder playing? And why?
If the SS, or second baseman was set up differently, would the batter have gotten the double?
Where did they play him in his last at bats against that pitcher?
The last time they faced each other?
Or earlier in that inning to a different batter?
And on, and on, and on...

Find the answer to those pertinent questions in your stats?

All of these things are ten TIMES more valuble than the stats, ask any major league manager, who by the way only pay attention to the stats to sway a decision they cant make and usually involves the lineup for that day. And even then, they don't hold much weight.

Because they are not looking at results they look at the approach. You don't need any numbers what so ever to evaluate whether a player is any good or not. All you got to do is watch the games, watch them play.....

Thats why you see the manager bring in John Doe the relief pitcher to face James Doe the batter in a game-on-the-line situation, even though ALL the stats tell you that James Doe has a history of destroying John Doe.

Because stats are meaningless.....they are a summary of what happened but they don't tell you the important part the who, what, why, and where....

Which is why we, the fans, the spectators, the reporters and announcers could NEVER second guess a manager, even though everyone loves to do it. I guess it makes for good conversation.
We don't have access to the type of information they have. And we don't look at the game the same way the people out there playing it do.

That's a fact.

Now, back to the Reds and this super awesome offense you guys think you see.

Aaron Harang, just as an example, and I am not using stats here, I am using the final line scores for his starts this season, and yes, they bring up just as many questions and therefore require some explanations to put the numbers into a realistic perspective.

But someone, anyone, EXPLAIN this to me, Harang had, by my rough count, 19 quality starts this season. That's 19 starts that he went a minimum 6 innings and gave up 3 earned runs or less.

Nineteen, in which, the Reds won 9. NINE!!
The Reds won 9 of them, and lost 4 and forced a no decision in 6 of them....

In some of those the linescores are ridiculous, 8 innings, 1 ER!! 7 and two-thirds, 1 ER and LOST!!!!!

What happened there?

And I am just talking about Harang here....

Look up in your stats and explain to me how the Reds could get such an awesome start from their starting pitcher and STILL couldn't win those games?

I don't want you to spew out slugging percentages for the 6-7-8 hitters, or Casey's numbers with RISP.....
Tell me what happened....

Because the same kind of numbers stacked up against them LAST season, those games involving a quality start, and unless I am mistaken the season before that...

In fact, the Reds wins-losses in quality starts in general has been atrocious and that is my point, even great starting pitching won't help these guys win, and you guys are fooling yourselves with the numbers....

SteelSD
10-04-2005, 03:31 PM
That's brilliant, you really need sabermatrics to explain that runs scored vs. runs given up is significant in relation to wins?

It appears that you do considering that you completely whiffed with your attempt to project the Reds as a team that doesn't hit "situationally".

The were the best "situational" hitting club in the National League in 2005.

Whoopsie.


The more I studied it, the more I realized that stats, even the expanded and sabermetric are meaningless. And you guys don't want to admit it, you probably will never see it, but they just ask more questions (for a realistic perspective) than they answer, and the stats don't really explain anything.

Patently false.


For example, just a light example and then I am going to pose a question to all the statheads that believe pitching will help this team, and it's #1 offense, win the WS. Or even make the playoffs....for that matter...

I'm going to eliminate the "question" and it's accompanying parts to save space. First, defensive efficiency can be tracked. It's more difficult to track than anything else and, alas, we don't have access to the truly great data but your questions can be answered simply by looking at the data. 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.


All of these things are ten TIMES more valuble than the stats, ask any major league manager, who by the way only pay attention to the stats to sway a decision they cant make and usually involves the lineup for that day. And even then, they don't hold much weight.

Red herring. You don't have access to MLB managers and, even if you did, you'd simply be assuming that MLB managers are the end-all be-all opinion on the subject. Faulty logic.


Because they are not looking at results they look at the approach. You don't need any numbers what so ever to evaluate whether a player is any good or not. All you got to do is watch the games, watch them play.....

Ok. Quick quiz...

Who are the top 10 MLB hitters of all time?

Please note that you will be unable to use the names of any player you haven't been able to witness during the entirety of their career, including every ballgame they've ever played.

I'll await your list.


Thats why you see the manager bring in John Doe the relief pitcher to face James Doe the batter in a game-on-the-line situation, even though ALL the stats tell you that James Doe has a history of destroying John Doe.

Actually, no. Many times you'll hear a manager defend a certain move because so-and-so was good against "that guy". Pops up all the time late-game. Tony Larussa does this constantly and it makes for four-hour games even in-season.


Because stats are meaningless.....they are a summary of what happened but they don't tell you the important part the who, what, why, and where....

Sure they do. If you know how to read them. See, statistics are a language. If you can't speak or read that language, it only tends to reason that you'd consider that language worthless. But while you're sitting there condemning what you don't otherstand, a bunch of other folks are...shhh...LEARNING about how this whole game of baseball really works.

Got that list of hitters together yet? Make sure you don't include any hitters from before you were born. Thanks.


Now, back to the Reds and this super awesome offense you guys think you see.

Best offense in the NL and the best situational offense in the NL.

Dispute that if you can.


Aaron Harang, just as an example, and I am not using stats here, I am using the final line scores for his starts this season, and yes, they bring up just as many questions and therefore require some explanations to put the numbers into a realistic perspective.

But someone, anyone, EXPLAIN this to me, Harang had, by my rough count, 19 quality starts this season. That's 19 starts that he went a minimum 6 innings and gave up 3 earned runs or less.

Nineteen, in which, the Reds won 9. NINE!!
The Reds won 9 of them, and lost 4 and forced a no decision in 6 of them....

In some of those the linescores are ridiculous, 8 innings, 1 ER!! 7 and two-thirds, 1 ER and LOST!!!!!

What happened there?

And I am just talking about Harang here....

Look up in your stats and explain to me how the Reds could get such an awesome start from their starting pitcher and STILL couldn't win those games?

I don't want you to spew out slugging percentages for the 6-7-8 hitters, or Casey's numbers with RISP.....Tell me what happened....

Why would you need anyone else to tell you what happened? You watched all those games and every PA involved with those games. You should be able to rattle off exact events off the top of your head.


Because the same kind of numbers stacked up against them LAST season, those games involving a quality start, and unless I am mistaken the season before that...

In fact, the Reds wins-losses in quality starts in general has been atrocious and that is my point, even great starting pitching won't help these guys win, and you guys are fooling yourselves with the numbers....

Your point has been debunked and it's about to happen again...

2005 Reds Record by Runs Allowed:

0 Runs: 1-0 W/L
1 Runs: 11-0 W/L
2 Runs: 14-5 W/L
3 Runs: 15-3 W/L

That's a record of 41-8 and a Winning Percentage of .836 when allowing three or fewer Runs.

Well, it appears that you are- again- incorrect. Furthermore, it's quite obvious that you're trying to debate points you simply neither understand nor care to learn about. It's absolutely clear- when the Reds pitched really well this season, they won 84% of the time. When they pitched less really well, they didn't. The above numbers are actual results. It's what actually happened when the Reds pitched very well. It's irrefutable evidence that your claim of "pitching doesn't matter" (paraphrased) is complete and total bunk.

BTW, when allowing 6 or fewer Runs, the Reds' record in 2005 was 68-42. They were one of only two teams in MLB to post an above-.500 record while allowing 6 Runs. That's a credit to a very very good offense. A 68-42 record equates a Winning percentage of .618. The Cardinals won the NL Central with a MLB-best WP% of .617. Goes to show ya' what a little pitching can do.

You may have watched as many games as I did, but it doesn't appear you really saw what was going on.

seligstinks
10-04-2005, 04:26 PM
It's odd (and very telling) that one post said, "Reds have $40 million in extra revenue coming..." and the one next to it said. "(O'Brien says) Payroll won't change much." It looks like the greedy owners are just stuffing it into their pockets as usual; they seem only interested in short-term profits. Lindner has a billion dollars, but runs the team as if his only source of income was baseball. And Lindner claims he wants a bigger payroll and the minority owners are the reason why the payroll isn't bigger, but I read elsewhere that Lindner has full operating control of the team. Perhaps a prevarication here?

TheGARB
10-04-2005, 05:33 PM
2005 Reds Record by Runs Allowed:

0 Runs: 1-0 W/L
1 Runs: 11-0 W/L
2 Runs: 14-5 W/L
3 Runs: 15-3 W/L

That's a record of 41-8 and a Winning Percentage of .836 when allowing three or fewer Runs.


Steel stole my post, but I wanted to add that the Reds were also 23-66 in games in which the pitching staff allowed 5 or more runs. Believe it or not, but that's the most wins in the NL for those types of games. Of course, the 89 games is at least 10 more than any team not named the Rockies. That's made even worse by the fact the the pitching staff gave up 9+ runs 33 times this year, 20 more than St. Louis and San Diego and 19 more times than the Braves.

When you look at the offense, they did their job more often than any team in the NL besides St. Louis this season by scoring 5 or more runs 81 times this season (St. Louis did it 86 times). In those games the Reds were 60-21 for a .741 winning percentage, ranking them 4th from the BOTTOM in the NL. Had the pitching staff been average, the team could have gotten another 3 wins in this group of games.

They scored under 4 runs 67 times, fewer than everybody but St. Louis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. However, they were just 6-61 in those games for a .090 winning percentage. The rest of the league had a .216 winning percentage which would have given the Reds another 8 wins on the season. And what did the pitching staff do in those games? They allowed 5.5 runs per game. So it's not like the Reds would have been in many of those games had they just bunted the guy over.

I know it's easy to think that if the Reds had just scored a run here or a run there they could have had a much better season. I know I can think of a couple of games where they missed opportunities myself. But here's the thing, over the long haul, this pitching staff is KILLING this team. As Steel showed, when the staff does it's job, the Reds win a lot - as much as any of the elite teams in the league. But, unless this offense is going to score 6+ runs on a nightly basis, it is going to lose more games than it is going to win and it's unrealistic to think that is going to happen.

Milezinni
10-04-2005, 05:35 PM
SteelSd,

You are entitled to your opinion, but, I quite frankly, don't agree with you one bit.
Not at all.

In fact, personally, I think the worst thing that ever happened to baseball is fantasy baseball.

Completely askewed the way people look at the game, and I can tell, that you are one of the statheads that believe in the numbers so much, and could never be convinced otherwise, (the fantasy guys never are) so I will leave it at....you are entitled to your opinion.

You didn't debunk anybody, although I know you think you did.

So the stats tell you that all the Reds need is some ace, top of the rotation pitching and they are going to compete day in and day out, with the #1 offense in the NL?
So,why don't you answer my question about those Aaron Harang quality starts? What happened?

Do the numbers and stats back up my point?

As far as the Reds go, I live in Chicago, and no, I don't get to see the team as much as I would like. I follow them daily, and reconstruct the games through reports and highlights.

Baseball is definitely not conducive to highlights.

But the 16-18 games I actually got to watch this season, this team was and is, a mess. Even though they won a few of those games, well, the opponent lost the game to them, gave it to them, which is the only way they can win.

And I dont' care one bit what your precious numbers tell you, I know better.
I know what I am watching.

If they ever get their act together, and that is doubtful, I will get a satelite, and of course the Reds full package.

But that's not going to happen, not for a long time, because the FO doesn't have a clue.

Cyclone792
10-04-2005, 05:46 PM
And I dont' care one bit what your precious numbers tell you, I know better. I know what I am watching.

If they ever get their act together, and that is doubtful, I will get a satelite, and of course the Reds full package.

But that's not going to happen, not for a long time, because the FO doesn't have a clue.

Well yes, the front office is about as clueless as a front office can be. However, you're also going against facts that have been proven in study after study after study by saying that statistics are rather meaningless.

That just begs the question, what would you do to fix the team, and why?

westofyou
10-04-2005, 05:47 PM
That just begs the question, what would you do to fix the team, and why?

First, I'd get Extra Innings.

SteelSD
10-04-2005, 05:56 PM
SteelSd,

You are entitled to your opinion, but, I quite frankly, don't agree with you one bit. Not at all.

Oh, I know. And that's ok. You don't have to agree that the truth is the truth for it to be the truth.


In fact, personally, I think the worst thing that ever happened to baseball is fantasy baseball.

Completely askewed the way people look at the game, and I can tell, that you are one of the statheads that believe in the numbers so much, and could never be convinced otherwise, (the fantasy guys never are) so I will leave it at....you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm talking about real baseball. Still waiting for that top 10 list of hitters from you, BTW.


You didn't debunk anybody, although I know you think you did.

Water isn't wet. Grass isn't green. Black is white. Earth is flat. Moon tastes of green cheese. Because you say so. Nice debate strategy there.


So the stats tell you that all the Reds need is some ace, top of the rotation pitching and they are going to compete day in and day out, with the #1 offense in the NL?

No. It appears that you misinterpreted the data. Happens when you don't take the time to learn the language.


So,why don't you answer my question about those Aaron Harang quality starts? What happened?

Do the numbers and stats back up my point?

Um...no. And you were attempting to use Harang as an example of the quality of pitching not mattering as to the outcome of well-pitched games. Unfortunately, the Reds shot that idea to Hades by playing .863 baseball in well pitched games. In fact, even include games in which the team gave up merely an average to above-average number of Runs and the Reds posted an winning percentage higher than that of a 100-Win club.

The Reds lose a lot because they pitch really poorly a LOT.


As far as the Reds go, I live in Chicago, and no, I don't get to see the team as much as I would like. I follow them daily, and reconstruct the games through reports and highlights.

You mean that you use recorded historical data to identify what happened in ballgames? Why...so do I. Look at that! We have a lot in common.

Well, except I actually watch the majority of games too...


But the 16-18 games I actually got to watch this season, this team was and is, a mess. Even though they won a few of those games, well, the opponent lost the game to them, gave it to them, which is the only way they can win.

Yeah, already debunked that one too. And I'm very impressed that you're allowed to draw absolute truth from 10% of the Reds games this season.


And I dont' care one bit what your precious numbers tell you, I know better. I know what I am watching.

Seems not. You've attempted to position that the Reds stink situationally but we've been able to determine they're the best situational team in the NL offensively. You tried to tell everyone that no matter how well the Reds pitch, they'll lose but they play MONSTER good ball when pitching well.

In short, I don't- for a moment- believe you've drawn any real solid conclusions from what you've been watching.

Oh, and they're not "my" numbers. The data flows from the game. It's representational of what actually happened. Those numbers belong to baseball and I'm just one of the lucky folks who's decided to borrow them and figure out how to read them.


If they ever get their act together, and that is doubtful, I will get a satelite, and of course the Reds full package.

But that's not going to happen, not for a long time, because the FO doesn't have a clue.

Well, see...you're right but not for the reason you think. The FO doesn't have a clue about how to acquire the kind of pitching the Reds need to truly contend for anything. Y'know, the kind of pitching that produced Wins in 84% of the Reds games when they got it in 2005? Yeah, THAT kind.

Really, you'd be much better off asking some folks around here how to read the statistics you're railing against. You'll find that everyone would be happy to help you out. And you might (shhhh...don't tell) find your experience with baseball a lot more enjoyable. If nothing else, you'd find that being able to properly interpret those nasty stats makes you wrong less often. Isn't that a positive thing?

Raisor
10-04-2005, 07:51 PM
And I dont' care one bit what your precious numbers tell you, I know better.
I know what I am watching.

.


Where's Sgt Schultz when you need him?

wheels
10-04-2005, 08:17 PM
This is a classic Redszone thread.

Cyclone792
10-04-2005, 08:26 PM
This is a classic Redszone thread.

It certainly has some serious potential!

Betterread
10-04-2005, 09:54 PM
SteelSd,

You are entitled to your opinion, but, I quite frankly, don't agree with you one bit.
Not at all.

In fact, personally, I think the worst thing that ever happened to baseball is fantasy baseball.

Completely askewed the way people look at the game, and I can tell, that you are one of the statheads that believe in the numbers so much, and could never be convinced otherwise, (the fantasy guys never are) so I will leave it at....you are entitled to your opinion.

You didn't debunk anybody, although I know you think you did.

So the stats tell you that all the Reds need is some ace, top of the rotation pitching and they are going to compete day in and day out, with the #1 offense in the NL?
So,why don't you answer my question about those Aaron Harang quality starts? What happened?

Do the numbers and stats back up my point?

As far as the Reds go, I live in Chicago, and no, I don't get to see the team as much as I would like. I follow them daily, and reconstruct the games through reports and highlights.

Baseball is definitely not conducive to highlights.

But the 16-18 games I actually got to watch this season, this team was and is, a mess. Even though they won a few of those games, well, the opponent lost the game to them, gave it to them, which is the only way they can win.

And I dont' care one bit what your precious numbers tell you, I know better.
I know what I am watching.

If they ever get their act together, and that is doubtful, I will get a satelite, and of course the Reds full package.

But that's not going to happen, not for a long time, because the FO doesn't have a clue.

You make many salient points here. A lot of the discussion about the current version of the Cincinnati Reds really boils down to the poor leadership from top to bottom of this organization. There is talent in this organization, but it is not combined well. That is fatal in a team sport. We lack adequate scouting, adequate player development, adequate teaching of necessary baseball skills, adequate pitching coaches and adequate fitness trainers. All of these areas must be supplemented. That can be done with the additional revenue stream.

seligstinks
10-04-2005, 11:14 PM
One big problem is, in the last five years when good pitchers were available to the Reds, the front office refused to raise the payroll to get them. Then in 2005, they FINALLY decided to raise the payroll $20 million- but they didn't raise it enough and they didn't raise it soon enough, and the Reds wound up with Ortiz, Wilson, and Milton instead of the good pitchers who probably would have put the Reds in the playoffs this year. This is what happens when you have accountants and business people running a team instead of baseball men, and when a filthy rich owner only cares about making even more money and doesn't care one bit about winning games. It would have been better to not spend any more money at all, rather than spend it on average and below-average players who are past their prime.

wheels
10-05-2005, 01:56 AM
I agree that they would have been better off not spending anything as opposed to what they brought in.

Thing is, there were better options behind other doors, and DanO chose the wrong door.

jhiller21
10-05-2005, 02:22 AM
Told that [Narron] didn't answer the question, he laughed and said, "I'm learning from Dan."

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6260/dob1jg.jpg

Milezinni
10-05-2005, 02:41 PM
Steel Sd,

Your making a critical judgement error, just because I don't put alot of weight in the stats (and by the way, neither do many managers and coaches who have to win on the field) doesnt mean I don't know how to read them, or what they mean.

I am very well versed in sabermatrics. But, the more I read, the more I realize they don't tell me what I (and again, alot of major league coaches) need to know.
Or more importantly what I want to know.

You will always believe in your stats, and I will always believe what I am seeing.

SteelSD
10-05-2005, 03:01 PM
Steel Sd,

Your making a critical judgement error, just because I don't put alot of weight in the stats (and by the way, neither do many managers and coaches who have to win on the field) doesnt mean I don't know how to read them, or what they mean.

You haven't given us example one that you have an iota of statistical analytics comprehension. In fact, you've jumped to at least two conclusions on this very thread that could have been avoided had you done even the simplest groundwork to verify the validity of your opinions and you've also demonstrated your inability to appropriately translate data presented to you.


I am very well versed in sabermatrics.

Sure you are. That's why you've misspelled sabremetrics for at least the second time in this thread.

See...around here, you can't just say you know something. You have to actually provide evidence that you know it. Instead, you've avoided every single factually-based challege during this thread and, instead, prefer to type "Stats suck!" using various word combinations.

So far, you've done nothing but produce evidence that you don't have the first bit of actual working knowledge. The very idea that you'd position the idea that the Reds couldn't win with good pitching when they DESTROY other teams when the get good pitching is enough evidence for me.

Anyone who cares to figure out actual truth checks their facts before saying something like that.


But, the more I read, the more I realize they don't tell me what I (and again, alot of major league coaches) need to know. Or more importantly what I want to know.

I don't have a mastery of Latin. Therefore, if I picked up a book written entirely in Latin, I most likely couldn't get anything out of it- just as you can't derive anything useful from data you don't know how to read.


You will always believe in your stats, and I will always believe what I am seeing.

Gee, you mean ALL 16 games of it?

Where's Tom Lawless Fan when you need him?

Waitaminit...hmn...

Tom Lawless Fan
10-05-2005, 03:19 PM
Just becawse musillini only watched a few games this doesn't mean he doesn't know what he sees because he showed me how pitching don't matter all if you dont hit with baserunners on. I keep saying how reds hitters like Dunn and Encarhone get to scared when there's runners on base but now someone else backs me up.

Glad you remember my name!

Milezinni
10-05-2005, 04:47 PM
So if I broke down the Reds pitching staff into McCraken's Defensive independent stats (DIPS) for game ones of a three game set the Reds actually won, and starting spewing off P/PA#'s, and the overall on base percentage for the 6-7-8 Reds hitters when taking the first pitch I all of a sudden in your eyes have some kind of validity?

I don't need the stats to know that Adam Dunn, vs. some opponent, was 0-4 because the defensive alignment was in a Boudreau shift, and then got Dunner to K twice, ground into the shift once, and pop out once on the same changeup low and inside (once on 0-1, twice they got him on 2-1 and once on 2-2) because he doesn't have the ability to inside out, with his full rotational swing (which is all or nothing) an inside pitch because he is a dead pull hitter that cant adjust his swing to the required situation. Let alone hit it where it's pitched.

I also don't need stats, any of them, to recognize a good hitter, or pitcher, or fielder because, in my opinion, (and alot of people whose job it is to know) the stats don't tell the big picture. They're an afterthought at best.

One guy can be 0-4 and get sent down to AAA, and a second hitter can be 0-4 and look like a future hall of famer.

That's what I am talking about, you only see this game through the numbers. And I don't need them.

Sure, I glance at em, sometimes, mostly when scouting the opponent, and only over the previous ten games of each player. But they don't really give much indication of the skill of the player. Or what the team is using as their strategy.

And there is NO way they are going to predict who is going to win all the little battles that go on all game long.

I have scouted an opposing hitter, watched him go into a series batting .160 and then watch him go 4 for 4 in game on against a potential Cy Young candidate!

That's the beauty of baseball.

Milezinni
10-05-2005, 05:04 PM
"Sure you are. That's why you've misspelled sabremetrics for at least the second time in this thread."

Isn't that funny, so did you.....

SteelSD
10-05-2005, 05:07 PM
"Sure you are. That's why you've misspelled sabremetrics for at least the second time in this thread."

Isn't that funny, so did you.....

Jeez. You didn't even get it, did you?

:laugh:


That's what I am talking about, you only see this game through the numbers. And I don't need them.

No...I don't. And yes, you do.


And I'm now firmly convinced that Dusty Baker is now posting on Redszone.

Hoosier Red
10-05-2005, 05:32 PM
So if I broke down the Reds pitching staff into McCraken's Defensive independent stats (DIPS) for game ones of a three game set the Reds actually won, and starting spewing off P/PA#'s, and the overall on base percentage for the 6-7-8 Reds hitters when taking the first pitch I all of a sudden in your eyes have some kind of validity?

I don't need the stats to know that Adam Dunn, vs. some opponent, was 0-4 because the defensive alignment was in a Boudreau shift, and then got Dunner to K twice, ground into the shift once, and pop out once on the same changeup low and inside (once on 0-1, twice they got him on 2-1 and once on 2-2) because he doesn't have the ability to inside out, with his full rotational swing (which is all or nothing) an inside pitch because he is a dead pull hitter that cant adjust his swing to the required situation. Let alone hit it where it's pitched.

I also don't need stats, any of them, to recognize a good hitter, or pitcher, or fielder because, in my opinion, (and alot of people whose job it is to know) the stats don't tell the big picture. They're an afterthought at best.

One guy can be 0-4 and get sent down to AAA, and a second hitter can be 0-4 and look like a future hall of famer.

That's what I am talking about, you only see this game through the numbers. And I don't need them.

Sure, I glance at em, sometimes, mostly when scouting the opponent, and only over the previous ten games of each player. But they don't really give much indication of the skill of the player. Or what the team is using as their strategy.

And there is NO way they are going to predict who is going to win all the little battles that go on all game long.

I have scouted an opposing hitter, watched him go into a series batting .160 and then watch him go 4 for 4 in game on against a potential Cy Young candidate!

That's the beauty of baseball.

I won't tell you anything others won't tell you more efficiently but the problem you are talking about in the above examples is "sample size."

It's very important to keep in mind Steel and other brilliant statisticians around here never say that "such and such can't happen, or with 100% certainty, it won't happen, but what they're saying can be backed up to a great deal of probability.

Adam Dunn may go 0-4 in a game, he may strike out all 4 times, he may leave 12 runners on base during that time, but the odds say that over the course of a week, a month, a year, he's going to prove his worth by creating runs and lots of them.

Eric Milton may go 8 innings striking out 7, and not allow any runs in any game, but over the course of a month and of a season, he's going to give up runs and lots of them.

So to say that Adam Dunn proves his worth over the course of a game can change from day to day, but to say he proves his worth over the season goes beyond doubt.

wheels
10-05-2005, 05:52 PM
So if I broke down the Reds pitching staff into McCraken's Defensive independent stats (DIPS) for game ones of a three game set the Reds actually won, and starting spewing off P/PA#'s, and the overall on base percentage for the 6-7-8 Reds hitters when taking the first pitch I all of a sudden in your eyes have some kind of validity?

I don't need the stats to know that Adam Dunn, vs. some opponent, was 0-4 because the defensive alignment was in a Boudreau shift, and then got Dunner to K twice, ground into the shift once, and pop out once on the same changeup low and inside (once on 0-1, twice they got him on 2-1 and once on 2-2) because he doesn't have the ability to inside out, with his full rotational swing (which is all or nothing) an inside pitch because he is a dead pull hitter that cant adjust his swing to the required situation. Let alone hit it where it's pitched.

I also don't need stats, any of them, to recognize a good hitter, or pitcher, or fielder because, in my opinion, (and alot of people whose job it is to know) the stats don't tell the big picture. They're an afterthought at best.

One guy can be 0-4 and get sent down to AAA, and a second hitter can be 0-4 and look like a future hall of famer.

That's what I am talking about, you only see this game through the numbers. And I don't need them.

Sure, I glance at em, sometimes, mostly when scouting the opponent, and only over the previous ten games of each player. But they don't really give much indication of the skill of the player. Or what the team is using as their strategy.

And there is NO way they are going to predict who is going to win all the little battles that go on all game long.

I have scouted an opposing hitter, watched him go into a series batting .160 and then watch him go 4 for 4 in game on against a potential Cy Young candidate!

That's the beauty of baseball.

You sure know alot about Dunn from watching a whole sixteen games a year.

I get it, you don't need stats because you watch the games, but then you don't really watch the games.

I wish I was that psychic.

westofyou
10-05-2005, 05:59 PM
One things for sure... the horse (Stats don't tell the whole story) always tows a wagon with Adam Dunn sitting in the drivers seat.

Adam Dunn, the Elephant Man of major league ball.

Cyclone792
10-05-2005, 06:00 PM
What's interesting about this discussion is even some of the key points Milezinni is relying on with his claim of watching the team cannot even be seen on television.

Sure, you'll get a few replays that may give you a full picture, but on the vast majority of plays in any given game you won't see a fielder make his jump on a ball until well after he's already started. I can perch myself in any one of the ~50,000 locations within GABP - seating and standing - and notice those tiny aspects, but only if I'm there and watching the full action intently.

Milezinni
10-06-2005, 11:38 AM
What's interesting about this discussion is even some of the key points Milezinni is relying on with his claim of watching the team cannot even be seen on television.

Sure, you'll get a few replays that may give you a full picture, but on the vast majority of plays in any given game you won't see a fielder make his jump on a ball until well after he's already started. I can perch myself in any one of the ~50,000 locations within GABP - seating and standing - and notice those tiny aspects, but only if I'm there and watching the full action intently.

That's why I go on the various Reds message boards. I like to discuss the team with people who go to games and supposedly have more knowledge of what's going on than I do. I have my impressions I just wonder if it is a slump, or is it lack of skill, etc...

I get to see the White Sox (and their opponent) and the Cubs (and their opponent) pretty much everyday.
I get other games during the week but only get about 16-18 Reds games in a year.

I go to see them when they are in town, and I follow every pitch through the game summaries and the highlight clips that are posted on MLB.com. I actually break down and analyze the different hitters swings, and the mechanics of the pitchers for the various pitches, stuff like that.

What frustates me, is the modern fantasy baseball playing fan and their focus on the numbers.
Alot of people believe in them so much, they can't even talk about a player or his different abilities and skills or a game without constantly using them?

It's not "Ryan Freel looked brilliant when he smacked that 1-2 slider on the outside of the plate, going opposite field, right down the line! LaRue was absolutely hustling his @#@ off from second base, being waved home frantically, and sliding in under the tag to tie the game up."
"And with so and so Right Fielder's brain freeze, not being known for his throwing arm, tried to gun out LaRue instead of throwing to second, or at least hit the cut off man, it was pure baserunning that Freel took second on the play"

You guys see a game like "Freel went 2 for 4, with an OB% of .444, 2 RBI's in the two hole, and the 6-7-8 hitters combined a .421 avg with a .588 slg %."

I guess I just watch the games the way a manager or ex-manager and coaches do.

Go ahead, see for yourself, chime into any message board anywhere there are fans "talking" about the games yesterday and you will see stats flying around like crazy.
And then go to all the post game interviews with the managers, coaches and players and count how many times they describe what they where thinking or doing by quoting the statistical average of the event?

This is baseball, NOT accounting.....

savafan
10-06-2005, 11:46 AM
This is baseball, NOT accounting.....

Wrong, this was baseball. Now, around here anyway, this is most definately accounting.

westofyou
10-06-2005, 11:59 AM
I guess I just watch the games the way a manager or ex-manager and coaches do
"Just because a guy is hitting .330 doesn't mean everything, he might be a .110 hitter against the guy pitching out there, you'd be surprised how bad a .330 hitter can look if he's up against somebody he can't hit....The stats tell you which ones."

Earl Weaver

SteelSD
10-06-2005, 12:41 PM
That's why I go on the various Reds message boards. I like to discuss the team with people who go to games and supposedly have more knowledge of what's going on than I do. I have my impressions I just wonder if it is a slump, or is it lack of skill, etc...

Which means that you're almost completely reliant on second-hand subjective information from people who may or may not really know what truly happened.

That's not at all surprising considering that you don't think good pitching will help the Reds win ballgames they win with good pitching.

So instead of actually watching the ballgames you said you watched, you're actually getting trickle-down second-hand knowlege from folks who are, by definition more informed than you. Then you turn around and tell others who understand the game better that you're more informed than they are?

Food chains don't work that way.


Alot of people believe in them so much, they can't even talk about a player or his different abilities and skills or a game without constantly using them?

It's not "Ryan Freel looked brilliant when he smacked that 1-2 slider on the outside of the plate, going opposite field, right down the line! LaRue was absolutely hustling his @#@ off from second base, being waved home frantically, and sliding in under the tag to tie the game up."

"And with so and so Right Fielder's brain freeze, not being known for his throwing arm, tried to gun out LaRue instead of throwing to second, or at least hit the cut off man, it was pure baserunning that Freel took second on the play"

You guys see a game like "Freel went 2 for 4, with an OB% of .444, 2 RBI's in the two hole, and the 6-7-8 hitters combined a .421 avg with a .588 slg %."

That's a complete crock. There isn't a statistically-inclined fan on this board who doesn't break down the non-statistical parts of the game while actually WATCHING them. They're called "game threads".

I'm always amused when I see someone who obviously won't hang in a statistical conversation start assuming that other folks don't understand what's happening on the field as well- or better- than they. Truly silly stuff and completely inappropriate considering the quality of fans on this board.


This is baseball, NOT accounting.....

"Stats suck" using different words again. I'm just curious, how many different ways can you say that without actually saying "Stats suck"? Is there some kind of conversion software you can use to keep coming up with them?

Cyclone792
10-06-2005, 12:43 PM
That's why I go on the various Reds message boards. I like to discuss the team with people who go to games and supposedly have more knowledge of what's going on than I do. I have my impressions I just wonder if it is a slump, or is it lack of skill, etc...

I get to see the White Sox (and their opponent) and the Cubs (and their opponent) pretty much everyday.
I get other games during the week but only get about 16-18 Reds games in a year.

I go to see them when they are in town, and I follow every pitch through the game summaries and the highlight clips that are posted on MLB.com. I actually break down and analyze the different hitters swings, and the mechanics of the pitchers for the various pitches, stuff like that.

What frustates me, is the modern fantasy baseball playing fan and their focus on the numbers.
Alot of people believe in them so much, they can't even talk about a player or his different abilities and skills or a game without constantly using them?

It's not "Ryan Freel looked brilliant when he smacked that 1-2 slider on the outside of the plate, going opposite field, right down the line! LaRue was absolutely hustling his @#@ off from second base, being waved home frantically, and sliding in under the tag to tie the game up."
"And with so and so Right Fielder's brain freeze, not being known for his throwing arm, tried to gun out LaRue instead of throwing to second, or at least hit the cut off man, it was pure baserunning that Freel took second on the play"

You guys see a game like "Freel went 2 for 4, with an OB% of .444, 2 RBI's in the two hole, and the 6-7-8 hitters combined a .421 avg with a .588 slg %."

I guess I just watch the games the way a manager or ex-manager and coaches do.

Go ahead, see for yourself, chime into any message board anywhere there are fans "talking" about the games yesterday and you will see stats flying around like crazy.
And then go to all the post game interviews with the managers, coaches and players and count how many times they describe what they where thinking or doing by quoting the statistical average of the event?

This is baseball, NOT accounting.....

I know you'll disagree with me here, but the main problem with allowing your eyes to subjectively determine who has value and who doesn't is it creates a plethora of misperceptions about what you're actually seeing vs. what is actually happening.

Based off your example above with LaRue/Freel, sure those are great plays, but if neither one of them gets on base in the first place, those plays do not happen. So what does somebody who peers at stats say? Well, if LaRue and Freel each have 75 points more in OBP than two other players, then the probability of that play you outlined greatly increases. Your eyes perceive that play as a great play because a series of events allowed it to happen in the first place, but the stats show that in the future that play will happen with greater frequency if each player has an OBP 75 points higher. In the end, that means you score more runs, and thus win more games.

When you see a play happen with your own eyes, you create a bias in your mind about what you thought you just saw, but your perception of what you saw most likely differs from the complete reality of what actually happened. Quite simply, your eyes will not tell you that LaRue/Freel have an innate ability to make great plays; they'll instead play a trick on you that because you just saw LaRue/Freel make an outstanding play that you'll think it is some event that occurs with regularity. Only the statistics can verify what you're trying to believe with your own eyes.

Bill James has discussed this at length in one of his several essays, and here's a small excerpt that I could find ...


While we might not all be able to agree who the greatest-hitting first baseman ever was, the record books will provide us with a reasonably brief list to choose from: Gehrig, Anson, Foxx, Sisler. That's about it. Nobody's going to argue that it was Joe Judge or Moose Skowron, because the record books simply will not permit it . . .

Fielding statistics provide no such limited clarity. Talk about the greatest fielding shortstops ever . . . and the basic argument for everybody is 'One time he made a play where . . .

Suppose we turn that same argument back to hitting. Now Moose Skowron hit some baseballs a long way, but nobody is going to say that he was the greatest hitting first baseman ever because 'One time I saw him hit a baseball so far that..." It is understood, about hitters, that the important question is not how spectacularly but how often. Brooks Robinson is known as a great fielding third baseman not because of the number of plays that he makes, but because he looks so good making them. Nobody talks anymore about what a great hitter Jim Northrup was, although to tell you the truth I never saw anybody who looked better at the plate. It is understood that, notwithstanding appearances, he wasn't an especially good hitter. Hitters are judged on results; fielders, on form.

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

One absolutely cannot tell, by watching, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter. The difference is one hit every two weeks. It might be that a reporter, seeing every game the team plays, could sense the difference over the course of the year if no records were kept, but I doubt it. Certainly, the average fan, seeing perhaps a tenth of the team's games, could never gauge two performances that accurately -- in fact if you see both 15 games a year, there is a 40% chance that the .275 hitter will have more hits than the .300 hitter in the games that you see. The difference between a good hitter and an average hitter is simply not visible -- it is a matter of record.

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

A fielder's visible fielding range, which is his ability to move to the ball after it is hit, is vastly less important than his invisible fielding range, which is a matter of adjusting his position a step or two before the ball is hit.

I bolded the paragraph that is key to this discussion. If, and I stress if, people were able to rely on their eyes to effectively make outstanding decisions on which players are better than which players on the diamond, then baseball scouts would be much more successful than they currently are. How many times do you read scouting reports on players scouts love, only to find six years later that kid's out of baseball simply because his performance wasn't good enough? There is an absurdly acceptable level of failure within the scouting industry that analysis of baseball statistics can help fix, and they do help fix it. Ballclubs that are able to mesh those two key concepts together into a working formula are the teams that have the greatest chance of success on the diamond (i.e. Oakland).

Think of it like this, if your eyes told the truth of what is happening on the field, if scouts' eyes told the truth, then there would be no need to resort to statistics to actually find and verify the truth, because you would already have it in front of you.

Milezinni
10-06-2005, 01:52 PM
First off, I am not the average fan.

Secondly, if you watch, say, 95 of a teams 162 games, and you know what you are watching (and most fans dont) you will definitely get an impression about the different players individual ability.

And those impressions can be anything from "it seems like every time he comes up he comes through" or "every time he comes up he is an easy out, and doesn't even move the runners" or "that guy is not clutch, I've watched him over and over again strike out when they needed him the most".-

For example, if you see ten games, where a pitcher comes out of the bullpen in a game changing moment (bases loaded, one out, up by one in the 8th) and 9 out of 10 times you watch the pitcher get out of it without allowing a run, you don't need the numbers to tell you he is a good pitcher.

And the reverse hold true, if a pitcher is constantly blowing the "big pitch" scenario, the clutch matchups that come up from time to time, game to game, you get the impression that he is not very good.

But the stats may or may not reflect it. For example a big game pitcher might have a high walk ratio, low strikeout ratio, or even a high ERA. But always get's the big out when he needs it.
The numbers tell you one thing, but watching the games will tell you something else. Sometimes, and in my experience alot of times, they don't mesh.

"I know his ERA is high, but that's because he tends to give up runs when we have a big lead. But, whenever the game is on the line, it seems like he hammers down and gets out of the jams better than anyone else we've got".

And my personal enjoyment is not the what but the why...

And that, to me, is the good stuff, what makes baseball the greatest game ever invented (and here is where I think we all agree).

You can tell me that Aurillia has a .343 avg with RISP, where Dunn is batting .248. And your fine with the numbers, my first thought is a hundred different questions but most importantly, is why?

For example, I remember a Reds game with a runner on second, and one out. Aurillia comes up and sitting dead red on a fastball (you can tell by the stance) he can drive up the middle (as the book of common plays dictates).

The pitcher/defense knows this too, so the first pitch is a changeup over the outside that is borderline at best, but the ump calls it a ball.
Now, Rich is 1-0 but still sits on the fastball, the second pitch is a fastball but the pitcher is trying to establish that outside corner (he had gotten it in Richs first at bat) so he goes to the same location. Excellent pitch, hit his spot perfectly, and now Rich is 1-1.
The third pitch in the at bat is crucial in this sequence. Aurllia absolutely doesn't want to go to two strikes so he decides to drop his plan and see if he can drive the next pitch up the middle.

Now the pitcher (and if I am not mistaken, it was Brad Henessey of the SF Giants, but I could be wrong) throws a sinking two-seam fastball that misses his spot completely.
Catcher was set up to the outside again, and the pitch misses so bad it comes in right over the heart down the middle and sure enough Rich drives it right over the second base bag and the run scores.

Now, the numbers say one thing, and yes, Rich is a good hitter for capitalizing on the pitchers mistake, but, there are factors that have to be considered.
Like, if the pitcher hits his spot, maybe Rich just grounds out weakly to the second baseman, just like he did in that at-bat three weeks earlier in the same situation.
Or maybe he swings and misses and goes to two strikes, has to abandon his gameplan alltogether, and just go with the pitch, try to do something with it where it is pitched. (location, type, velocity, etc) and isn't able to do it.

Hitting, or trying to hit with two strikes is a whole other world than having a successful gameplan/strategy.

The difference is, in another at bat in a different game, I saw Rich in a similar situation and he absolutely crushed a pitchers pitch. Almost the same only it was a slider, the difference being that the catcher was set up inside, the pitch was thrown perfectly towards it's target (about 89 mph) and although you can't predict the break of a breaking ball perfectly, it was an excellent pitch from the pitcher. Aimed right at the catchers mit. Very difficult to hit.

Rich however turned on it, read the break perfectly, kept his hands in and drilled it, right on the money...and if I am not mistaken (I watch a ton of baseball) that was on two strikes.

Now, the stats have both at bats as an RBI single. But the second description was by far a much, much better piece of hitting and very impressive. And two comptetely different skill's although the stats just say, RBI single.

And as a result, and this is going to blow your mind, I formed an opinion. A definite impression of Mr. Aurillia's skills and mental approach that goes up or down over the course of the games I watch or review, in detail, over the course of 8-10 games (pretty acurate) or a season (a little bit more generic).

And alot of Reds fans where down on him early, when he got off to a slow start, spewing out the stats, using numbers to convince anyone that would listen that the Reds should dump him, trade him, or send him to AAA.

But, I had my impressions, formed over many, many games, many many at bats because I used to live in California and I had seen Rich with the Giants for a couple of years. Met him once too.

And I knew what kind of player he was, and there are alot of variables and question marks, but I definitely knew he was better than the numbers.

And sure enough over the course of a season, he started to hit like he is capable, and wouldn't you know it, Big Jerry (Narron) called him the MVP of the team.

Hmmmmmmmmm

Stat are misleading and I don't care how many times you try to convince me other wise, I know what I am watching, I know I have ten times more knowledge than the average fan, and I know I enjoy the game a hundred times better watching the game this way, and not paying very much attention to a statistical average formulated generically by specified criteria through the course of a season.

By the way, I only used Rich as an example, I like him in general, but am not a huge fan.

And it was the exact opposite in the case of Kearns. Everyone was screaming, look at the numbers, look at the numbers, spewing out stats, why, WHY are they sending him to AAA?!?!?!

But all you had to do was watch him play, and you could definitley tell that something wasn't right.
He swing look slow, and long, he turned over his wrists way too early in a couple of the games I watched, he looked lost at the plate, and was flat out swing at bad pitches.
And some of the hits I did see, where definitely of the fluke variety.

He definitley needed some time to work out his mechanics, and at the MLB level may not have been the best place to do it.

The stats are very misleading and they don't give you the big picture. And honestly, I think the sooner you learn how to use them, and keep them in their context and perspective, the sooner you will start asking yourself different questions and seeking different answers, the sooner you will look at the game differently, the sooner you will truely begin to enjoy the greatest game ever invented.

And that's my two cents worth.

flyer85
10-06-2005, 02:02 PM
Here are some quotes that come to mind.

"In God we trust, all others must have data".

"Don't trust your eyes, they will deceive you".

flyer85
10-06-2005, 02:09 PM
I'm always amused when I see someone who obviously won't hang in a statistical conversation start assuming that other folks don't understand what's happening on the field as well- or better- than they. The underlying assumption of the above person, ie. the people who rely on solely on subjective opinion, believe that they are smarter than everyone else because they can see and understand things that others cannot.

Milezinni
10-06-2005, 02:37 PM
Alright, let me ask you guys a question. Real easy.

Over the 150 years of Major League baseball, leading up to the modern game, their are two "schools", or philosophies, on the mechanics of the major league swing.

The "science of hitting" as it were.

Every single hitter out there uses some form of just two types.

They are two different extremes at opposite ends of the "science".

What are they?

gonelong
10-06-2005, 02:58 PM
Alright, let me ask you guys a question. Real easy.

Over the 150 years of Major League baseball, leading up to the modern game, their are two "schools", or philosophies, on the mechanics of the major league swing.

The "science of hitting" as it were.

Every single hitter out there uses some form of just two types.

They are two different extremes at opposite ends of the "science".

What are they?

Rotational & Linear, but I don't see how that matters one iota.

GL

flyer85
10-06-2005, 03:02 PM
Rotational & Linear, but I don't see how that matters one iota.which do you prefer, strawman or red herring?

SteelSD
10-06-2005, 03:27 PM
First off, I am not the average fan.

And a "D" isn't an average test grade unless there's a "curve" involved.

Problem is that the fans on this board are WAY above that curve.


Secondly, if you watch, say, 95 of a teams 162 games, and you know what you are watching (and most fans dont) you will definitely get an impression about the different players individual ability.

Which would mean that, by your own admission, watching 16 games you get bupkus as far as knowledge. Good one.


And those impressions can be anything from "it seems like every time he comes up he comes through" or "every time he comes up he is an easy out, and doesn't even move the runners" or "that guy is not clutch, I've watched him over and over again strike out when they needed him the most".-

And which definition of "impression" that would apply here? Hmn...

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=impression&x=0&y=0

---
Main Entry: im·pres·sion

5 : an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance
---

Ok. So now we know that 95 games will allow you to receive an "impression" of what's going on. However, an impression is obviously often an "imprecise notion or remembrance". In short, you still don't know what really happened. You have to verify that it actually happened. You have to put your "impression" to the litmus test of verification and validation.

But what you do (again, admittedly) is check in on a baseball message board, and search out folks who may have the same potentially erroneous notion, find someone who agrees with your- again- potentially erroneous notion, and then conclude that your notion must be correct; thus confirming that you have no need to actually cross-check your notion against available recorded factual data.

Thing is, that methodology doesn't care whether you're right or wrong as long as you can find someone to agree with you. But, alas, two people being completely wrong about something is no better than one person being completely wrong about something. In fact, you've demonstrated that you don't care to validate your notions by posting an ENTIRELY inaccurate conclusion that was created by your own methodology- i.e. the Reds cannot win well-pitched games. That was your premise on this thread but when we actually attempt to confirm it, we find that you're completely and utterly wrong and that the Reds do, in fact, win an exceptionally high percentage of well-pitched baseball games.

To review, here's your methodology:

1. Construct premise or "impression" based on observation (maybe)
2. Search out subjective confirmation and disregard objective data that runs contrary to your opinion
3. Skip objective validation attempts because "stats suck"
4. Position potentially erroneous observation as fact

Now, here's the problem...

You're not looking to find out if your premise is actually accurate or not. You're looking for someone to tell you that it is regardless. Furthermore, it appears that the vast majority of the potentially erroneous impressions you create are not based on actual observation but, instead, simply an impression of observation or a biased imprint of a former impression.

Example: Player A makes an Error. You didn't see the Error but you feel that the player has been lazy in the past and therefore your "impression" is that the Error was most likely a result of laziness in the field. And you'll position that as a FACT the moment you come across someone who actually saw the play who feels exactly the same way you do even if the player's effort is actually a point of contention <i.e. other are claiming the Error was not a result of weak effort>.

And that example is just a subjective example. Cripes, you're willing to position your invalidated "impressions" as facts even when there's a very easy way to cross-check against recorded objective data. Then, when you're found to be wrong, you avoid the topic and begin tangenting off to the world of "stats suck". That's a convenient way to avoid having to admit that you were wrong and is sure a great bias to have because it means that you can give yourself an excuse to avoid doing any groundwork whatsoever to validate your premise but, in the end, you're still just as wrong.


For example, if you see ten games, where a pitcher comes out of the bullpen in a game changing moment (bases loaded, one out, up by one in the 8th) and 9 out of 10 times you watch the pitcher get out of it without allowing a run, you don't need the numbers to tell you he is a good pitcher.

Here's your methodology on that:

1. I flipped a coin 10 times
2. Coin came up heads nine times
3. Coin flipping will produce a result of "Heads" 90% of the time

Another example of how you do things:

1. I poked tiger a stick 10 times
2. The tiger did not move
3. Logs do not move
4. The tiger is, in fact, a log

Good work. I'm deleting the rest of your post from my memory because it's so full of inaccurate premises and erroneous conclusions that I couldn't even begin to respond to it. Even if I did, it's quite obvious that so entrenched in fingers-in-ear "la-la-la-la-la" mode, that I'd just be wasting my time.

SteelSD
10-06-2005, 03:28 PM
which do you prefer, strawman or red herring?

Red herring. Less dry, but I dislike the taste of either.

But the real question is "BF or NEILYNG"?

flyer85
10-06-2005, 03:38 PM
From batspeed.com

"Truism or Fallacy - Rethinking Old Baseball Hitting Theories"

Introduction

A "truism" is a statement or principle that over time comes to be accepted as fact. If, at some point, proven data should arise that contradicts that accepted truth, then we are left with a "fallacy." But old truisms die-hard and many times those who challenge them are ridiculed.

OldRightHander
10-06-2005, 04:14 PM
Sure you are. That's why you've misspelled sabremetrics for at least the second time in this thread.

There are two different words that perhaps got confused.

1. Sabremetrics: a pretty good method of looking at baseball stats

2. Sabermetrics: measuring the length of swords in centimeters

See, just swapping a couple letters completely changes the meaning.

Blimpie
10-06-2005, 04:18 PM
There are two different words that perhaps got confused.

1. Sabremetrics: a pretty good method of looking at baseball stats

2. Sabermetrics: measuring the length of swords in centimeters

See, just swapping a couple letters completely changes the meaning.I find it's always better to measure mine in centimeters--rather than in inches. It just sounds more "impressive" when you say it out loud...:D

wheels
10-06-2005, 04:57 PM
Red herring. Less dry, but I dislike the taste of either.

But the real question is "BF or NEILYNG"?

Looks like 'ol Neil's built the bridge that took him back to redszone.

SteelSD
10-06-2005, 05:15 PM
Looks like 'ol Neil's built the bridge that took him back to redszone.

Eh, I dunno but I'm about to start cutting and pasting certain sentences into Google just to check.;)

Milezinni
10-06-2005, 05:21 PM
REPORTER : Could you assess the season that Randy Johnson has had, and maybe in particular how he's pitched recently?

TORRE: Randy has pitched very well. You know, first off, he's the only starter on our rotation I think that didn't go on the disabled list. So he was around to take the criticism or whatever that other guys weren't around.

And I thought the first part of his year, you know, he won Opening Day against the Red Sox, pitched well. And, you know, when you're Randy Johnson and you've already set the bar where you've set it, it's really tough to live up to yourself. Then you come to New York where every little detail is paid attention to, and I think it was distracting for him for a while. You know, I'm not sure he'll admit to it, but I think he had a lot more to deal with than maybe he thought he would when he came here.

Over the last, what, ten starts maybe, or maybe more than that, he has really gotten his focus and probably on the mound now where he is, he doesn't know what city he's in because he's right where he needs to be as far as his pitching ability.

But he's been dominant. He's become, whether it be with his slider or his fastball, his presence now is the way we looked at him from across the field.

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

Wow, Joe Torre just described Randy Johnson's entire 2005 season without using a single stat.

But I guess your going to argue that it is just an impression, and that impression's aren't accurat?

Hey Steel SD, or anyone for that matter, why don't you give me your evaluation of any Reds player without using a single stat?

I know I can, I can give you a pretty solid scouting evaluation/impression of the entire team (including the various pitching grips they are using) without using a single stat, and base solely on the 16 games I watched and of course the little highlight clips.

SteelSD
10-06-2005, 06:20 PM
REPORTER : Could you assess the season that Randy Johnson has had, and maybe in particular how he's pitched recently?

TORRE: Randy has pitched very well. You know, first off, he's the only starter on our rotation I think that didn't go on the disabled list. So he was around to take the criticism or whatever that other guys weren't around.

And I thought the first part of his year, you know, he won Opening Day against the Red Sox, pitched well. And, you know, when you're Randy Johnson and you've already set the bar where you've set it, it's really tough to live up to yourself. Then you come to New York where every little detail is paid attention to, and I think it was distracting for him for a while. You know, I'm not sure he'll admit to it, but I think he had a lot more to deal with than maybe he thought he would when he came here.

Over the last, what, ten starts maybe, or maybe more than that, he has really gotten his focus and probably on the mound now where he is, he doesn't know what city he's in because he's right where he needs to be as far as his pitching ability.

But he's been dominant. He's become, whether it be with his slider or his fastball, his presence now is the way we looked at him from across the field.

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

Wow, Joe Torre just described Randy Johnson's entire 2005 season without using a single stat.

But I guess your going to argue that it is just an impression, and that impression's aren't accurat?

Hey Steel SD, or anyone for that matter, why don't you give me your evaluation of any Reds player without using a single stat?

I know I can, I can give you a pretty solid scouting evaluation/impression of the entire team (including the various pitching grips they are using) without using a single stat, and base solely on the 16 games I watched and of course the little highlight clips.


Much ado about nothing. Your whole post. Let's get this one back on track...

You said the Reds can't win when they get really good pitching.

Yet, when getting really good pitching, the Reds won 84% of their games this year.

So, was your impression right or was it wrong?

Simple question. Go ahead.
.
Oh, and BTW- you've AGAIN attempted to misrepresent one of my positions. My position is not that EVERY impression is inaccurate. My position is that one should always attempt to validate what they think is before they attempt to represent it as fact.

Now, please answer the question above. Was your impression about not being able to win with really good pitching right or was it wrong? That's the initial point and it's time you stop avoiding it.

paintmered
10-06-2005, 06:50 PM
We're also waiting on your list of the 10 best players in baseball history.

wheels
10-06-2005, 06:56 PM
I was wondering if I'd somehow skipped over the list.

C'mon...Make with the list.

Ron Madden
10-07-2005, 03:57 AM
If you look at the game through all the stats, you might use logic to come that conclusion, but, I don't....I watch the games, and I know what I am looking at and looking for.

I don't care if they lead the NL in offense, I know I saw a TON of games where they would beat up on some #4, #5 or a Spot starter, and score runs in bunches (9-3, or 11-4) and win some ballgames all season long (9-4, or 8-2) and pad, pad, pad those stats.

They only stat that matters is wins and losses, in which case EVERYONE is held accountable.
And I know for a fact, that I saw ALOT more games where they went up against a half way decent pitcher, not even an ace, and couldn't get a runner past second base. Or score any runs at all, NO MATTER WHAT THE REDS PITCHING DID!!

This great offense everybody want's to believe in, (and spew stats they believe back up their arguments) has very little situational ability. If any at all.

So, by my argument, and I know it's the truth, even if the pitchers 1-5 went out and gave up quality starts, or no hitters for that matter, the offense would score ONE LESS run then they give up.

That's why they lose, not because of pitching, but because these guys have horrible fundamentals. On both sides of the ball.

Afterall this offense plays defense too....and no matter how many runs they do manage to score, they give up just as many because they are not a very good team at all....

Hi Ya Marty, How we lookin'???

Ron Madden
10-07-2005, 04:08 AM
Not use logic, eh? Do tell.



Oh, yeah. The "stat" guys don't watch the game. They couldn't possibly tell you what happened in Inning Two of game 63 of the 2005 Reds season then. Oh wait...that's you who can't tell us what happened. I know, because it's all recorded. Nasty record keeping!



Wrong, wrong, wrong you are. In fact, the Reds pythag record tells us this...

Actual Record: 73-89
Pythag Record: 74-88

Now, if you take the time to understand that the pythag is calculated using only raw Runs Scored and Runs Allowed data, you'll understand that if all those "stat-padding" blowouts were actually a realistic issue, then the Reds wouldn't have been anywhere near their pythag record. In fact, you're positioning the same argument that was debunked last season- when the Reds finished well above their pythag record.

See, explosive scoring is a trai201)
with RISP: .256 BA/.362 OBP/.447 SLG- .809 OPS (NL Rank- 3)
w/RISP, 2 Out: .257 BA/.380 OBP/.446 SLG- .825 OPS (NL Rank- 1)
Close and Late: .259 BA/.351 OBP/.438 SLG- .788 OPS (NL Rank- 3)

Well, golly. Looks like you'd be incorrect on that assumption. The Reds not only performed better with Runners On than they did with None On, but they also performed better with Runners In Scoring Position, RISP with 2 Outs, and in Close and Late situations- ranking FIRST in the National League with Runners On and 2-Out RISP situations and finishing no lower than third in the other two "situational" categories.

That data doesn't lie. The Cincinnati Reds were one of the BEST "situational" offensive teams in the National League. Wait. Scratch that. THE BEST. In fact, the Reds' OPS of .831 with Runners On exceeds the overall seasonal OPS of all but two teams over the past four years (2003 and 2004 Boston Red Sox). That's right. Only 1.7% of the total MLB team seasons over the past four years produced an overall OPS above the Runners On OPS of the 2005 Cincinnati Reds. Another fact? In all of MLB this season, only the Boston Red Sox produced a higher Runners On OPS than did the 2005 Reds.

Oh, a final fact...The 2005 Cincinnati Reds produced the fifth best Runners On OPS for any team over the past four seasons- and only one NL team (2002 Atlanta Braves) has produced an OPS above .831 during that span. Ducks%2 debunked times infinity.



And the Reds need to get better defensively. Absolutely. But you appear to think that the Reds' defensive inefficiency (2% lower than MLB average on BIP) extends to offensive deficiency and excuses the pitching staff from being drubbed as is certain to happen to bad pitchers.

That's not what happened.

I don't know how to do it.but I wish someone could cut and paste this post by Steel and send it to Marty.:beerme:

Chip R
10-07-2005, 10:21 AM
REPORTER : Could you assess the season that Randy Johnson has had, and maybe in particular how he's pitched recently?

TORRE: Randy has pitched very well. You know, first off, he's the only starter on our rotation I think that didn't go on the disabled list. So he was around to take the criticism or whatever that other guys weren't around.

And I thought the first part of his year, you know, he won Opening Day against the Red Sox, pitched well. And, you know, when you're Randy Johnson and you've already set the bar where you've set it, it's really tough to live up to yourself. Then you come to New York where every little detail is paid attention to, and I think it was distracting for him for a while. You know, I'm not sure he'll admit to it, but I think he had a lot more to deal with than maybe he thought he would when he came here.

Over the last, what, ten starts maybe, or maybe more than that, he has really gotten his focus and probably on the mound now where he is, he doesn't know what city he's in because he's right where he needs to be as far as his pitching ability.

But he's been dominant. He's become, whether it be with his slider or his fastball, his presence now is the way we looked at him from across the field.

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

Wow, Joe Torre just described Randy Johnson's entire 2005 season without using a single stat.


Torre said that he's been dominant with his slider and fastball and he's right where he needs to be as far as his pitching ability.

I'm wondering how Joe came to that conclusion.

westofyou
10-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Torre said that he's been dominant with his slider and fastball and he's right where he needs to be as far as his pitching ability.

I'm wondering how Joe came to that conclusion.

And, you know, when you're Randy Johnson and you've already set the bar where you've set it,

This "setting" of the bar implies that once the bar has been set, it is measured with something to record the position that it has attained.

Chip R
10-07-2005, 10:39 AM
This "setting" of the bar implies that once the bar has been set, it is measured with something to record the position that it has attained.
But wouldn't you have to use, you know, statistics to measure that? :confused:

westofyou
10-07-2005, 12:19 PM
But wouldn't you have to use, you know, statistics to measure that? :confused:

Nah....Stats are misleading!

Chip R
10-07-2005, 12:21 PM
Nah....Stats are misleading!

I thought they were evil.

flyer85
10-07-2005, 12:26 PM
I thought they were evil.It's the people that trust them that are evil. :devil:

PuffyPig
10-07-2005, 01:34 PM
I don't care if they lead the NL in offense, I know I saw a TON of games where they would beat up on some #4, #5 or a Spot starter, and score runs in bunches (9-3, or 11-4) and win some ballgames all season long (9-4, or 8-2) and pad, pad, pad those stats.

They only stat that matters is wins and losses, in which case EVERYONE is held accountable.
And I know for a fact, that I saw ALOT more games where they went up against a half way decent pitcher, not even an ace, and couldn't get a runner past second base. Or score any runs at all, NO MATTER WHAT THE REDS PITCHING DID!!

This great offense everybody want's to believe in, (and spew stats they believe back up their arguments) has very little situational ability. If any at all.

So, by my argument, and I know it's the truth, even if the pitchers 1-5 went out and gave up quality starts, or no hitters for that matter, the offense would score ONE LESS run then they give up.

That's why they lose, not because of pitching, but because these guys have horrible fundamentals. On both sides of the ball.

Afterall this offense plays defense too....and no matter how many runs they do manage to score, they give up just as many because they are not a very good team at all....

The only thing you need to know about the Reds offense is that we managed to win about 50% of the games started by Milton and Ortiz.

You may think that the Reds fatten up their runs scored in certain games, and you are correct. But here's the rub. Every team does that. Do you think the Cards score 5 runs every night? No, they'll score 8 one night and 2 the next. It's just that the 2 runs isn't so magnafied when you only let in 1.

The Reds were about 9 games below .500, so they are still winning almost half their games. If you don't think that 5 starters like Koufax, Martinez etc. would make a difference, then, well that's your problem. Because that team would win 120+ games with our offense.

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 12:47 PM
I see the light!!! Hallelujah!! I see the light.

I don't need to look at a team to evaluate them, I can just look up their numbers. I was a fool to think I could actual see how a team or a player plays.
That I could evaluate them.....what was I thinking......

So, I was going over my usuall websites, and couldn't find the info you guys are using. Maybe you guys could recommend one?

I wanted to look up the stats for :

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?

Oh boy, I better just stop now, I am getting to excited......

You know you can just give me a general number, the stuff that really matters is not that easy to formulate. Besides, to me, there isn't that much difference between .601 and .623 and .645. It's all roughly 60%!

Just let me know a web address where you guys get your info, like I was saying, I don't get to see the Reds that much, and have to formulate my impressions on the few games I get, and highlights (those little video clips on MLB.com) and game summaries.

I tell you what Steel, or anyone for that matter, you give me the address of a web site that can answer those questions, the questions and impressions that really matter when evaluating a team, and I will send you a check for 25 dollars........

ochre
10-11-2005, 12:49 PM
I see the light!!! Hallelujah!! I see the light.

I don't need to look at a team to evaluate them, I can just look up their numbers. I was a fool to think I could actual see how a team or a player plays.
That I could evaluate them.....what was I thinking......

So, I was going over my usuall websites, and couldn't find the info you guys are using. Maybe you guys could recommend one?

I wanted to look up the stats for :

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?

Oh boy, I better just stop now, I am getting to excited......

You know you can just give me a general number, the stuff that really matters is not that easy to formulate. Besides, to me, there isn't that much difference between .601 and .623 and .645. It's all roughly 60%!

Just let me know a web address where you guys get your info, like I was saying, I don't get to see the Reds that much, and have to formulate my impressions on the few games I get, and highlights (those little video clips on MLB.com) and game summaries.

I tell you what Steel, or anyone for that matter, you give me the address of a web site that can answer those questions, the questions and impressions that really matter when evaluating a team, and I will send you a check for 25 dollars........
I'll wait on you to get back with me on your answers to those questions from your observational prowess before I start linking to split stats.

westofyou
10-11-2005, 12:51 PM
What's Adam Dunns batting average when he swings at a slider?
What's his average when he swings at a curve?

Don't know about OPS vs sliders or curves since I only have the top 10. But last year against Fastballs it was 1.113, and Chageups 1.035.

BTW Kearns OPS vs Sliders last year was 1.012.

www.baseballinfosolutions.

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Split stats won't answer those questions.....you obviously didn't read my post.


Read it again, and go ahead to ESPN.com split's, try MLB's, or CBS sportsline, or hey, I got an idea, why don't you go to CBS Sportsline, stats on a player and click on scouting report.

You'll get everything you need right there.......

savafan
10-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Somebody has an agenda.

Others have tried this too, in the past. Not a single one of them survived.

paintmered
10-11-2005, 01:02 PM
What he fails to realize is, all these micro situations he's in love with combine with each other and each contribute to the stats.

Stats simply allow us to quantify abilities, successes and failures and determine probability for future events. If you try to make them out to be more than that, you'll be disappointed. But if you see them for what they are, you'll enlighten yourself and appreciate the game so much more.

westofyou
10-11-2005, 01:06 PM
Split stats won't answer those questions.....you obviously didn't read my post.
I didn't mention "split stats" I mentioned OPS vs BA... now who's not reading?

One of your questions was....

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

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 01:26 PM
I have tried to stay out of this one, because there are those more capable than me at discussing all things related to statistical analysis. I'm just a fan trying to learn as much as I can about my favorite game, so here's my two cents, for what it's worth.

I don't see where this needs to be such an either or argument. There are things that you can only see in person, and there are things that good statistical analysis will show you that you might miss in person. I think you can't really understand the game fully unless you use both. You can look at the numbers of a pitcher who is having a heck of a season and think he's the greatest thing and when you see him pitch in person you may notice a flaw in his mechanics that could lead to arm trouble down the road. The stats might not show you that now, but they will reflect it when that arm trouble starts to set in.

My grandmother doesn't understand anything about stats. Grandma watched a few games with me on tv last year (2004), but most of the time she would doze off while watching the game. It just turns out that she saw at least 4 or 5 of Juan Castro's homers and after that every time he came up to bat in a game she was watching she would get excited because according to her observations, Juan Castro is a power hitter. I never bothered to try to set her straight; I just let her enjoy the games in her own way. Sure, first hand observations can be great, but not if your sample size is small.

So let's assume that I had managed to get Grandma to stay awake and watch all 162 games last year. She might for a while still think that Juan Castro is a good power hitter, but sometime around mid September she might notice that Adam Dunn has hit quite a few more homers that Castro, even though in those games she saw early in the season Dunn was striking out and Castro was hitting homers. Now if she observes a good sample size like an entire season, she might come to the correct conclusion that Dunn is a better power hitter than Castro and that conclusion will be backed up by the numbers. Someone looking at the numbers at the end of the year will see the totals and come up with the same conclusion that Grandma would just by watching games.

But let's say that I attend my usual 15-20 games in a season, and by dumb luck, I happen to be there for about 4 or 5 Casey home runs and I only see Dunn hit 1. In the meantime, Dunn is striking out a lot more than Casey. I also observe that Casey hits into a lot of double plays, but he also gets more hits and seems to be the guy I would want up there with a RISP and the game on the line. Using the sample size that I actually observed, and that is incorrectly assuming that I never watch any games on tv when I'm not at the park, I might peg Casey as a better hitter than Dunn. He hit more homers when I was there and he struck out fewer times. If I bother to take a look at the numbers, I will see that my impression wasn't completely accurate. Some of what I observed was truthful, but not all of it.

Ok, I know there are a few holes in my analogy there, but I think it's at least good enough to get my point across. If on the other hand, I attend so many games during the year, watch a good number more on tv, listen to plenty on the radio, and keep track of the numbers a little, I can form a good well rounded opinion of the team based on what I observed and the numbers that were put up. In most cases, the numbers will back up my observations. Sure there are some little things that you will only notice by direct observation, and I don't think anyone here would say there are not, but it seems rather absurd to think that direct observation is the only way to form an accurate opinion of a ball club. Stats are nothing more than a way to quantify what is being observed on the field, and if we use them in that way, we can better understand what we are seeing on the field. So you can tell me that you have seen a lot of games and that so and so is a better power hitter than another fellow because you have seen so and so hit some tape measure shots. I will look at the numbers and see that indeed so and so hit 35 homers last season while the other fellow only hit 20. Which one of us is correct? Which one of us used the better method? The truth is that if we don't keep track of the numbers, there would be no way to accurately measure exactly what is happening on the field. The two approaches aren't so darn mutually exclusive as many have made them out to be. If you watch the games and note your observations, then check the numbers to see how accurate your observations are, your understanding of the game can only get better than if you completely ignore the observation or the stats. I want to have a better understanding of the game, so I will continue to utilize everything I can instead of limiting my knowledge to what I can observe with my own two eyes.

savafan
10-11-2005, 01:35 PM
I'll say this, I knew nothing about stats as a kid, and Manny Trillo was my favorite player growing up.

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 01:36 PM
I tell you what Steel, or anyone for that matter, you give me the address of a web site that can answer those questions, the questions and impressions that really matter when evaluating a team, and I will send you a check for 25 dollars........

Here you go:

www.iwatchsixteengamesayearbutknoweverything.com

Alternately:

www.whenyoudonotunderstandbaseballstatistics.org

If those don't work for you, try...

www.pointlessdrivel.com and www.strawmenandredherrings.gov

I'm sure you have the last web addy in your browser favorites list because most of your stuff is just textbook from that site. Oh, wait. Forgot one. You should really do a lot of research at the following web site:

www.howtoaddressapoint.com

And I'll only accept a postal money order from you because you've been writing uncashable checks this entire thread. And I best receive that 25 bucks as well or I will track you down at your homepage (www.statssuckbecauseisayso.com).

traderumor
10-11-2005, 01:45 PM
Here you go:

www.iwatchsixteengamesayearbutknoweverything.com

Alternately:

www.whenyoudonotunderstandbaseballstatistics.org

If those don't work for you, try...

www.pointlessdrivel.com and www.strawmenandredherrings.gov

I'm sure you have the last web addy in your browser favorites list because most of your stuff is just textbook from that site. Oh, wait. Forgot one. You should really do a lot of research at the following web site:

www.howtoaddressapoint.com

And I'll only accept a postal money order from you because you've been writing uncashable checks this entire thread. And I best receive that 25 bucks as well or I will track you down at your homepage (www.statssuckbecauseisayso.com).
Hey, none of those links work :bash:

savafan
10-11-2005, 01:59 PM
Hey, none of those links work :bash:

well, www.pointlessdrivel.com almost worked, but the hostname was invalid.

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 02:09 PM
Hey, none of those links work :bash:

Yeah, I'm disappointed. I really wanted to check out the straw man site.
:(

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 02:17 PM
Read them again, this guy is just being an A-Hole, because actually observing a baseball game goes against everything his fantasy-baseball-playing-I-only-excelled-at-math-stats-tell-me-everything-ive-got-fingers-in-my-ears-and-cant-hear-you believes in.

Hahahahaha what a jackass.......

Alright Steel, now I know what I am dealing with, and will deal with it.

Boss-Hog
10-11-2005, 02:19 PM
I'd suggest that everyone keep this thread civil (such as by not personally attacking each other) or it won't be open much longer.

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 02:23 PM
I'd suggest that everyone keep this thread civil (such as by not personally attacking each other) or it won't be open much longer.

Amen! (Am I allowed to say that? ;))

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 02:24 PM
I don't see where this needs to be such an either or argument.

And that's really the thing...there's no "either/or" position that's ever been taken by someone who's proficient at statistical analysis. The "either/or" strawman invariably pops up only from the "I hate stats" crowd because they really have nothing to argue unless they can somehow position that the "stat geeks" dabble only in the realm of statistical analysis and, therefore, couldn't possibly possess additional knowledge.

Basically, whenever we see that strawman, it's an attempt by the post author to eliminate the possibility that the "stat geeks" have as much (or more) relevant non-statistical baseball knowledge as they. In short, Milezinni is attempting to say that folks don't know as much about the game as he does because they understand and use statistics. The fact that he doesn't actually see what he says he does or see enough to come to any relevent conclusion (or even an accurate one by chance) doesn't matter.

It's nothing more than the lazy creation of a false causality link. Silly stuff and it has nothing to do with anything other than the author not being at all comfortable with interacting on a level playing field because he (or she) lacks the knowledge to do so. In fact, knowledge expansion isn't even on the agenda for those folks. But it's pretty common practice that, when faced with something one doesn't understand, a person will dismiss it offhand if it doesn't jibe with a long-held belief system.

The result is always "Stats suck and you don't know as much as me because you use them".

Unfortunately, that's a pretty easy message to identify, isolate, and exterminate- particularly when the author of said message draws lazy conclusions from his observational data store that are just plain crazy wrong.

And frankly, I haven't met a single "stat geek" who gives one rat's behind whether or not someone else likes or dislikes statistical analysis. Really, I couldn't care less whether or not Milezinni likes or dislikes statistics. It doesn't matter one iota if he bases his conclusions entirely on subjective observational data. But, ironically, by being completely wrong about pretty much everything he's posted, he's now demonstrated an inability to accurately process observational data. And when observation is the only thing on which to hang one's hat, that's a Bad Thing.

Cyclone792
10-11-2005, 02:32 PM
After reading Post #99 (I won't quote it), I'm guessing someone's getting a vacation and this thread closes in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 02:40 PM
And that's really the thing...there's no "either/or" position that's ever been taken by someone who's proficient at statistical analysis. The "either/or" strawman invariably pops up only from the "I hate stats" crowd because they really have nothing to argue unless they can somehow position that the "stat geeks" dabble only in the realm of statistical analysis and, therefore, couldn't possibly possess additional knowledge.

That pretty much sums up what I was saying, only in fewer words. I don't know any so called "stat geeks" who don't at least watch the game from time to time. The statheads are more rounded fans because they want to back up their observations with data.

flyer85
10-11-2005, 02:47 PM
The statheads are more rounded fans because they want to back up their observations with data.the real question is what happens when perceived observation and statistical analysis collide.

Obviously someone who relies solely on subjective opinion never has to worry about dealing with evidence that seems to invalidate their supposition.

Ravenlord
10-11-2005, 02:53 PM
the real question is what happens when perceived observation and statistical analysis collide.

Obviously someone who relies solely on subjective opinion never has to worry about dealing with evidence that seems to invalidate their supposition.

"If you look at it folks, the Reds are first in the NL in homer runs and second in runs scored, but that's misleading as to how bad this offense really is."
-Marty B. during the Red Sox series

remind anyone of anybody?

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 02:59 PM
the real question is what happens when perceived observation and statistical analysis collide.

You end up broadcasting playoff games for Fox.

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 03:48 PM
First off, I never said stats are bad, or useless. I point is that stats are MISLEADING....

I said that I prefer to go by observational analysis of a player or a team, because the boxscore gives so and so a base hit when I know from watching the game that it wasn't hit very well, off a pitcher who had been missing his spots and into a defense that was below average and out of position.

Where the hitter behind him puts on a perfect swing on a pitchers pitch and it just happened to be caught for an out.

This is just an example, but, my point is, was and always will be that the last 2 generations of fantasy baseball players have come to look at the game with all the mental acuity of an accountant.

They can't differentiate between a good hitter, and bad hitter WITHOUT using their calculated forumulaic averages based over a 162 game season.

I came on here and right away this Steel guy starts patronizing me and trying to talk down to me because he obviously believes in his numbers so religiously that he can't fathom the idea that those formulas (dating back to the 1800's by a guy whose experience came from cricket) might not give you a very detailed explanation of the event. No matter, imo, how involved those formulas have evolved thanks to Bill James.

Which is the primary reason I went from paying attention to them greatly to dismissing them almost entirely.

Which by the way, and I don't have access to the quote, Bill James himself has said that his whole fundamental philosophy was to improve stat keeping in general because they are used to evaluate players and that influences the money they make.

If these "averages" that some of you are so enthralled with are so accurate and perfect then explain to me why the ML managers and coaches, whose very jobs depend upon success, and have millions and millions of dollars at stake, don't use them?

Not to mention, I came on here BECAUSE I have such a small sample size to work with when it comes to the Reds, (I watch alot of White Sox and Cubs games and of course their opponents) and I was looking for some further insight into what I was seeing, and all the input and feedback I could find was "the Reds are the #1 offense because their OBS is blah, blah, blah, and we are the best situational team because it averages out over a 162 game season this way, blah, blah" when I had personally watched, among a million things, in every Reds game I saw, poor fundamentals (including a game I paid money to go see, where the Reds TWICE had the game winning runner on third with nobody out, and failed to score) not to mention the many times I saw lead off doubles and the runner wasn't even moved over the third...

So the last thing I want to hear is some stathead spewing out numbers trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about when I have asked numerous questions, and legitimate ones in my eyes, about the actual skills and abilities of the Reds and no-one, NO-ONE has answered a single one of them (although I do appreciate the one website recommended about the different pitches) simply because you can't do it without looking up a bunch of statistical averages.

And what I was hoping to find actually involved watching the team consistently and knowing what you are looking at.

I have worked with computers for over 11 years, and if all I needed was Sean Casey's on base percentage against the Mets, or Adam Dunn's RBI totals with an 0-2 count and runners on second and third I would just look it up.....

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 03:53 PM
That pretty much sums up what I was saying, only in fewer words. I don't know any so called "stat geeks" who don't at least watch the game from time to time. The statheads are more rounded fans because they want to back up their observations with data.

I tend to try to stay away from qualitative assignments like "more rounded". I think there are plenty of well-rounded fans who have no interest in statistical analysis.

I look at it as more of a "less impressionable" quality. I want to know whether or not something is actually true before I position it as truth. That doesn't necessarily make for the best bar conversation but I can guarantee that we all know three guys who'll sit at that bar cracking peanuts and drinking Budweiser and going on and on about how right they are about something they're just plain wrong about. Heck, some folks have jobs that pay them for doing almost exactly that sans the beer. They're called "baseball announcers".

Heck, I used to do it. Then, some years ago, I ran into a guy on an internet message board site. I was armed to the teeth with baseball theory, coaching and instructional experience, observational impressions, and subjective data. So I figured I could argue a point or two. Well, simply put, I got destroyed. There's no other way to say it. Things I thought were true weren't, impressions I had were wrong, and all the subjectivity in the world couldn't help me wriggle out of a position when I was clamped down by real facts.

What I figured out one day is that the "truth" was only my truth. That's the beginning for anyone who takes an interest in metrics. And if you do, just watch- eventually someone is going to get on your case and attempt to box you as someone who doesn't watch baseball games (guess I wasted my money on the Extra Innings package). You're a math geek (I hate math), and broadening your knowledge base is assumed to be exclusionary in nature. I dunno why. That assumption has long reminded me of an episode of Fox's "Married With Children". Kelly Bundy was to be a contestant on a quiz show and her brain eventually got "full" from studying. After that, every time she learned a new fact something old was squeezed out.

It's not like I suddenly forgot how to grip a curveball when I learned what Secondary Average was, but that appears to be the assumption from the "I hate stats" folks. Well, either that or that all "stat geeks" just woke up one day and decided that they'd like a game they'd never seen but would only like the statistics the game produced.

Being shown that you're wrong is a great way to figure out how to be more right the next time. Some folks never make that jump, because they don't engage in the kind of conversations others do (meaning that validation is less important) or prefer to work with a belief system that allows them to be accurate as long as someone else agrees with them. Shoot, I've seen a bunch of very reasonable people get together and be collectively flat out wrong about something.

But if they do debate the fine points of how this whole baseball thing works, I can't see why anyone would want to limit their knowledge base (either subjective or objective). In fact, I can't understand why anyone would attempt to enter a debate before having a firm grasp as to whether whatever they say has the slightest chance of being accurate for anyone other than himself. I'm not sure why the practice of accuracy validation is so disliked by so many. It's not a new practice. Heck, we were told in grade school to check our work.

Probably the biggest misconception around is that the "stat geeks" are just stubborn inflexible folks who perpetuate nigh-intractable positions steeped in dogmatic piles of sabermetric mantra learned from the stat-swami de' jour. The irony there is that I've never met people more willing to change their positions than a group of analytical folks who are searching for overall truth rather than personal truth. Is that more "rounded"? Well, maybe. But, to me, it's really just a different motivation rather than a qualitative thing.

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.

And yes, the real friction happens when someone jumps up and says, "Stats suck and because you use stats YOU suck!"

Oh well.

Ravenlord
10-11-2005, 04:01 PM
I point is that stats are MISLEADING....
"If you look at it folks, the Reds are first in the NL in homer runs and second in runs scored, but that's misleading as to how bad this offense really is."
-Marty B. during the Red Sox series


so, what do YOU remember about the Big Red Machine, Milezinni?

westofyou
10-11-2005, 04:05 PM
so, what do YOU remember about the Big Red Machine,

Best national league team secondary average in modern history.

http://info.med.yale.edu/yfp/ymg/comply/images/poindexter.jpg

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 04:17 PM
I said that I prefer to go by observational analysis of a player or a team, because the boxscore gives so and so a base hit when I know from watching the game that it wasn't hit very well, off a pitcher who had been missing his spots and into a defense that was below average and out of position.

Where the hitter behind him puts on a perfect swing on a pitchers pitch and it just happened to be caught for an out.

Now I know that this is just an example, but it actually can work to illustrate both sides to this argument. If you're looking at the micro incident of that one game, you might end with some statistical quirks now and then.

Player A has 4 hits in that game. The first one came with a runner on first with the 1B holding the runner on and he grounded one in the hole that the 1B would have gotten if he hadn't been holding the runner on. The next at bat he gets fooled on a changeup and puts a terrible swing on the ball, resulting in a high chopper down the third base line that he beats out for an infield hit because the 3B couldn't make a play. The third at bat he gets jammed on a ball in on the fists and gets a blooper that drops in no man's land between the SS and the CF. The fourth hit comes in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and none out. The defense is playing in all around and he hits a weak grounder through the infield that would have been an out if the infielders would have been at their normal depth. Player A just went 4-4 with the game winning hit. He's a hero to the average fan and he gets interviewed on the star of the game show.

Player B gets robbed of a homer in his first at bat, hits a screamer right at the 1B in his second, gets picked clean by the SS going behind the bag in his third, and gets robbed of a double by a diving catch by the CF in the gap. He went 0-4 and doesn't get interviewed for the star of the game show.

You were at that game and you know good and well that Player B was locked in all night and hit the ball hard every time up, while Player A was extremely lucky. I wasn't at that game and didn't see it or listen to it, so I just check the box score and think Player A had a good day at the plate while Player B must have had an off day.

That's how your example plays out in the micro, the example of one game and how the simple stat can mislead someone into drawing the wrong conclusion about the game. I will give you that point. Nobody is disputing that this happens from time to time. On the other hand, Joe Statgeek didn't watch the same game but only went and checked the stats on Player A and Player B over the course of that season. Player A is a Juan Castro clone with a great glove and not much of a bat. He has hit .220 for the season with 4 homers and a .400 OPS. Player B has a .260 average with 41 homers and a .980 OPS. Joe Statgeek is going to come to the same conclusion you came to with your direct observation. Player B is a better hitter than Player A. I might have an incorrect impression of that one game based on the box score from one game, but over the course of the season those cheap hits and hard hit outs are going to balance out. Over the season, your direct observations and the opinion of Joe Statgeek are going to be pretty close if you have reported correctly on what you observed.

Ok, so I will agree with you that stats can be misleading, but they only mislead if you are looking at small sample sizes. Over the course of a season, the guy who hits the ball hard on a consistent basis is going to have better numbers than the guy who doesn't. An observation of those hitters over a large enough sample or a look at the stats over that same period of time will show you the same thing.

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 04:19 PM
The Big Red machine?

Well, I was just a kid then, but the one impression I have is that they were clutch.

One of the best clutch and situational teams I have ever seen, and could, arguably, be cosidered the greatest TEAM in MLB history.

They did it all, and did it well. And if there were mistakes made, they picked each other up.

paintmered
10-11-2005, 04:24 PM
Considering the following famous painting.....

http://tccc.iesl.forth.gr/art/seurat_1.jpeg

As I'm sure you are well aware, this was painted entirely of dots; individual tiny specs of color all combining together to form one famous image.

I look at statistics in much the same way. Individual situations such as:

There's no outs and a runner on second. Even if the batter made an out, did he hit behind the runner and thus advance him? Paint a dot.

1 out, runner on second. Sharp ground ball up the middle and Felipe Lopez lays out and is able to field it but doesn't make the throw to first. It's scored a hit but the runner doesn't make it past third because the ball didn't reach the outfield. Paint another dot.

I'm sure you can come up with many other similar situations. If you look at enough of them, eventually you have the picture.

Now here's the rub. Once you stand back a few feet and look at the picture, it's tough to go see the individual dots. Sure, we can tell the grass is generally green and umbrella lady's butt is enormous, but we can't see the individual dots themselves anymore.

Also, we can assume that grass is green, but a few of those dots may be brown, or blue or some other color. That brown dot is still there when you take a step back, but it is drowned out when surrounded by all the green dots.

The same is true when you see situation where there's 1 out and a runner on third and the batter fails to get the RBI. The batter obviously failed in in that instance, but he's also going to succeed sometimes too. So when you were present, you saw a few brown dots. Does this make the grass brown? Of course not.

So when a stat tells us the Reds have one of the best batting averages with runners in scoring position, that simply says that more of the dots are going to be green than brown. It doesn't say more than that. They can't tell us that Dunn is going to settle for a single the other way on an 1-2 outside slider. But they do tell us that in X number of similar situations, this is how he's performed.

Okay, enough rambling. You get the picture (pun intended).

westofyou
10-11-2005, 04:25 PM
I remember the Big Red Machine, they destroyed weak teams and piled it on to boost their runs totals.

In 1976 307 of their 857 runs were agains the Padres, Braves and Astros, all sub .500 teams. That's 36% of their runs against 3 teams out of 11.

BTW Here's their situation stats from 1976


Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
None On 3083 77 852 150 29 76 76 307 0 490 15 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 .276 .345 .418
Men On 2619 780 747 121 34 65 726 374 64 412 13 67 60 0 46 103 210 57 .285 .370 .432
RISP 1620 690 442 73 18 42 643 275 64 296 7 25 60 0 27 40 72 11 .273 .369 .418
Bases Loaded 179 139 44 4 1 4 130 22 0 31 1 0 12 0 1 14 0 0 .246 .313 .346

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 04:29 PM
I remember the Big Red Machine, they destroyed weak teams and piled it on to boost their runs totals.

In 1976 307 of their 857 runs were agains the Padres, Braves and Astros, all sub .500 teams. That's 36% of their runs against 3 teams out of 11.

BTW Here's their situation stats from 1976


Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
None On 3083 77 852 150 29 76 76 307 0 490 15 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 .276 .345 .418
Men On 2619 780 747 121 34 65 726 374 64 412 13 67 60 0 46 103 210 57 .285 .370 .432
RISP 1620 690 442 73 18 42 643 275 64 296 7 25 60 0 27 40 72 11 .273 .369 .418
Bases Loaded 179 139 44 4 1 4 130 22 0 31 1 0 12 0 1 14 0 0 .246 .313 .346

Wow, a higher average with none on than with RISP. That's really clutch. That sure was a great situational hitting team.

westofyou
10-11-2005, 04:34 PM
Wow, a higher average with none on than with RISP. That's really clutch. That sure was a great situational hitting team.

Their power was challenged with no one on and feared with runners on, creating more walks.. hence the great secondary average.

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 04:36 PM
First off, I never said stats are bad, or useless. I point is that stats are MISLEADING....

Misleading?

You stated, quite clearly, that it did not matter if the Reds got really good pitching because the Reds could not win well-pitched games.

I then looked at information that showed us exactly what happened when the Reds got well-pitched games out of their staff. That real-life information did not confirm what you were attempting to position as true. In fact, the actual game results were 100% contrary to your position.

In short, the Reds won an exceptionally high percentage of well-pitched games. That's what we found to be true.

It appears that stats are "misleading" only when they run contrary to your beliefs.


I said that I prefer to go by observational analysis of a player or a team...

We'll just stop you right there because you don't actually watch Reds games.


This is just an example, but, my point is, was and always will be that the last 2 generations of fantasy baseball players have come to look at the game with all the mental acuity of an accountant.

Strawman. You have no information as to how others watch, digest, and learn from baseball games. In fact, your inability to watch games invalidates your position on this as do your inaccurate conclusions. In short, no one should trust that you know what you're seeing because you've provided nothing but inaccurate conclusions in an attempt to demonstrate your proficiency.


They can't differentiate between a good hitter, and bad hitter WITHOUT using their calculated forumulaic averages based over a 162 game season.

Again, an inaccurate assumption that those who are interested in statistical analysis are less qualified to judge players based on observation than you are.


I came on here and right away this Steel guy starts patronizing me and trying to talk down to me because he obviously believes in his numbers so religiously that he can't fathom the idea that those formulas (dating back to the 1800's by a guy whose experience came from cricket) might not give you a very detailed explanation of the event. No matter, imo, how involved those formulas have evolved thanks to Bill James.

Strawman # infinity. And I fail to see how pointing out the inaccuracy of your contentions makes me the bad guy. So far, I've only seen one person on this thread swearing and carrying on.


Which is the primary reason I went from paying attention to them greatly to dismissing them almost entirely.

Circular logic is not your friend.


Which by the way, and I don't have access to the quote, Bill James himself has said that his whole fundamental philosophy was to improve stat keeping in general because they are used to evaluate players and that influences the money they make.

If these "averages" that some of you are so enthralled with are so accurate and perfect then explain to me why the ML managers and coaches, whose very jobs depend upon success, and have millions and millions of dollars at stake, don't use them?

They do. You just don't realize they do, even though you appear to have some special telepathic power that allows you to read the collective mind of every MLB coach and manager. I mean, considering the amount of time you spend telling us what they think, you do have that power, correct?

BTW- You're mixing all sorts of things up there. Small sample-size situational and matchup data is used by MLB Managers to do all sorts of things (lineup cards, pinch-hitters, SB attempts, etc. etc.). But at the macro level, the Front Offices of a yet-increasing number of MLB teams are using far more objective data than they used to in order to evaluate both performance and risk. Your contention that baseball people don't use numbers is yet another in a continuing line of non-factual things you've typed in an effort to support your impossible position.


Not to mention, I came on here BECAUSE I have such a small sample size to work with when it comes to the Reds, (I watch alot of White Sox and Cubs games and of course their opponents) and I was looking for some further insight into what I was seeing...

Ah, there we go. Now you're admitting that you don't really know what was going on. About time.


...and all the input and feedback I could find was "the Reds are the #1 offense because their OBS is blah, blah, blah, and we are the best situational team because it averages out over a 162 game season this way, blah, blah"...

Jeez. That situational data was isolated to THE SITUATIONS OVER TIME. In short, it represents how good or bad the Reds were situationally. There's no other way to slice it. You didn't say "The Reds were bad situationally on May 3rd." You stated that the Reds were a poor situational hitting team. The data I provided you proves otherwise, but still you persist...


...when I had personally watched, among a million things, in every Reds game I saw, poor fundamentals (including a game I paid money to go see, where the Reds TWICE had the game winning runner on third with nobody out, and failed to score) not to mention the many times I saw lead off doubles and the runner wasn't even moved over the third...

Well, if you see something twice then it must be true for the whole of a season.


So the last thing I want to hear is some stathead spewing out numbers...

Actually, the last thing you wanted to hear is anyone who could provide you information that ran contrary to your now-demonstrated false impressions.


...trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about when I have asked numerous questions, and legitimate ones in my eyes, about the actual skills and abilities of the Reds and no-one, NO-ONE has answered a single one of them (although I do appreciate the one website recommended about the different pitches) simply because you can't do it without looking up a bunch of statistical averages.

Every question you've asked has been a red herring positioned in an effort to avoid the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong.


And what I was hoping to find actually involved watching the team consistently and knowing what you are looking at.

I do watch the team consistently and know exactly what I'm looking at. But see...I need to make sure that my "impressions" can be validated or it may cause me to say dumb things like "The Reds can't win with really good pitching".


I have worked with computers for over 11 years, and if all I needed was Sean Casey's on base percentage against the Mets, or Adam Dunn's RBI totals with an 0-2 count and runners on second and third I would just look it up.....

Your computer experience has nothing to do with anything. And I suggest you start looking some stuff up. Validating your positions before you post them in the future will go a long way to ensuring that you're going to be wrong a lot less.

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 04:46 PM
Sorry Old Right hander but I am affraid my point is deeper than that. It was just an example.

What got me started in this direction, some years ago, was very real, and involved an entire season. I used to go by the stats myself. And have since seen the light. This was the pinnacle, and the final draw.

It was 2003 and it involved Jose Valentin (Javier's brother) and the Chicago White Sox.

What basically happened that season, was that Jose batted .237 and had 20 errors as the starting SS.

The stats give the impression that he wasn't very good.

However, I watched about 130+ games, and I am telling you, and you wont find the stats anywhere that I know of, he was the MVP of the team.

His average may come out to a base hit every 5 at bats or so, but every single one of them, and I mean everyone of them, was HUGE.

Game tying, critical game winning, the man was clutch up and down the board. And every time you turned around he was involved at the most critical times and the most critical plays.

Constantly moving runners, rarely with a bunt, hitting behind runners, and smart, smart baserunning. And winning games almost every nite, it seemed like, single handed.

And sure he had a ton of errors, but it was rare, and I mean very rare, that ANY of them cost the team a run. They were all meaningless and ineffectual errors.
Not to mention, one of the reasons, he had so many errors was that he was always in the position to make the play. Very smart defender, because he didn't have the greatest agility.
Again, at very, very critical, game changing at bats.

But everywhere I went around Chicago, the Sox fans, are all spewing off stats trying to justify benching him, sending him to the minors, or trading him for a bag of baseballs. Just bad mouthing him in general. And I was shocked!

And they all had the numbers to back their arguments. But, if you watched the games at all, and the announcers and analysts all knew it too, he was the biggest asset in the lineup because he was a smart player and he was probably the most clutch hitter I had seen in years. Proabably since Pete Rose.

But, go ahead, look up his numbers for that season, and you tell me if they are impressive?
You tell me if they tell the whole story?

Because I guarantee you they don't. And unless you actually watched it, and know what to watch, there is no way you could put the true value on the player.

That just got me thinking, and doubting, and have yet to find any stat that confirms or proves what I, and alot of people in the White Sox organization, know as a fact.

The numbers and the statistical averages worked out to be more impressive in Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko and Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez' favor. But you ask anybody who knows this game, and watched that season, and they will all tell you that Jose Valentin was the MVP that year and he had an absolutely spectacular season.

And the stats just don't show it.

traderumor
10-11-2005, 04:47 PM
This is just an example, but, my point is, was and always will be that the last 2 generations of fantasy baseball players have come to look at the game with all the mental acuity of an accountant.

All right, I was gonna stay out of this, but dem's fightin' words. Let's step outside :duel:

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 04:52 PM
All right, I was gonna stay out of this, but dem's fightin' words. Let's step outside :duel:

I'm selling tickets for anyone who wants to watch. $20.00 a piece. Proceeds go to the Mrs. RightHander shopping fund.

pedro
10-11-2005, 04:52 PM
I don't know Milezinni. I look at Jose Valentin's 2003 stats and see a guy who OPS'd .776. Frankly that's not bad for a starting SS. Neither is 20 errors (if he had decent range, which I'm too lazy to research)

Ravenlord
10-11-2005, 04:55 PM
stats be damned! Sean Casey and Derek Jeter for MVP!!!

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 04:57 PM
Sorry Old Right hander but I am affraid my point is deeper than that. It was just an example.

What basically happened that season, was that Jose batted .237 and had 20 errors as the starting SS.

The stats give the impression that he wasn't very good.


The numbers and the statistical averages worked out to be more impressive in Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko and Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez' favor. But you ask anybody who knows this game, and watched that season, and they will all tell you that Jose Valentin was the MVP that year and he had an absolutely spectacular season.

And the stats just don't show it.

Well, that depends on which stats you look at. Average doesn't really tell everything. He had a pretty good OPS that year, over .700 and 20 errors wouldn't be too bad considering he has decent range and got to a lot of balls some other guys would not have gotten to.

OldRightHander
10-11-2005, 04:58 PM
I don't know Milezinni. I look at Jose Valentin's 2003 stats and see a guy who OPS'd .776. Frankly that's not bad for a starting SS. Neither is 20 errors (if he had decent range, which I'm too lazy to research)

Oops. I think we both must have posted this little bit of info right about the same time. Great minds think alike, I guess.
:D

traderumor
10-11-2005, 05:06 PM
BTW, to take the accountant reference a step further, where you seem to be confused is the difference between a stats "bookkeeper" and a stats "accountant." A stats "bookkeeper" will be fascinated by the numbers themselves and considers themselves into stats because they like to keep track of the numbers. And they will be very adept at keeping track of every number imaginable and will worry most about accuracy. The team's stats will proof, not one number will be out of order. But don't dare to ask that poor lover of data to explain what any of the numbers represent. They simply love putting together the numbers, but what you actually do with them is someone else's problems. They really aren't much help when it comes to evaluating the measures that they have gathered data for. Talk to the stats bookkeeper and you'll think you're talking to Rainman. I don't know, maybe those are the stats hounds you've been hangin' with.

Then there is the stats "accountant." That person will find tracking, entering and balancing the numbers quite tedious and will hire someone to do that work for them (or buy the software ;) ). But, give them the opportunity to analyze the numbers and interpret the numbers and you will gain a lot of useful information. Talk to a stats accountant and the world of baseball's numbers take on meaning that will prove to be more reliable measurements of a player's true worth than the subjective world of observation will ever be able to provide.

Folks like Steel and WOY are stats CPAs. They know their stuff when it comes to what the numbers mean. And there are many more around these parts just like them. So, spend some time with stats "accountants" rather than stats "bookkeepers" and the presuppositions you brought to this thread will start to fall away as one after another gets debunked by conclusions supported by evidence, that is if you're willing to learn.

BoydsOfSummer
10-11-2005, 05:17 PM
Hey Annie...What's all this molecule stuff?

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 05:22 PM
Alright Steel, here we go....

My IMPRESSION of Adam Dunn having only watched sixteem games. Actually it might have been 18 a season over 4-5 seasons.

Adam Dunn is a full rotational hitter that despite preferring the ball low in the zone, keeps his hands unusually high just before launch. With an open stance, and short compact power stroke he tends to be completely out of position when he completes his swing, but, makes up those important seconds on groundballs in the infield by being left handed.
Needless to say, he rarely ever beats them out.

He is never cheated on a swing, but, he also doesn't utilize his hand eye co-ordination.
Dunn never rolls his top hand, and since top hand is the most dominant in rotational hitting this is also unusual, but not that unusual, and will lend itself to alot of line drives that seem to hang for the outfielders.

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.

With his hands up that high, and then dropped anticipating the low pitch, he is extremely vulnerable to the high pitch. Almost impossible to keep his hands that high, drop them in anticipation of the pitch, and then get them back up again to hit the high fastball.

In games where the umpire is calling the high strike he is helpless.

He prefers fastballs about mid thigh to the knee and definitely middle in on the plate.
He has however, shown a great ability to hit hard breaking pitches such as sliders (if they break in) and splitters, and can time his stride and swing to adjust to the changeup, but, only if he guesses correctly. And only if they are middle in.

With the open stance, he is also vulnerable to the outside pitches. He has almost no ability to go opposite field, although I did see him hit one, an RBI double, earlier this season. But only once, and no attempts whatsoever in the previous season. And the one success was on a two strike count, off the end of the bat when the defense played an exaggerated pull position.

He also lacks the mental ability to sacrifice his at bats for the good of the team. Probably ego. But more likely that Adam doesn't take baseball very seriously, and because he was labled a superstar, by Bowden and his scouts, and rushed to the major leagues he probably doesn't feel there is any reason to change his game. But that is pure speculation, I don't know what he is really thinking.

Rarely does Dunn bat to the situation, and most likely because it his intention to power pull anything in his hitting zone. He also cannot inside-out a pitch, regardless of where it's pitched. Not really rare in today's game.

In general, in my opinion, Adam Dunn has alot more holes in his swing than his swing can cover the plate. Very vulnerable and totally exposed, however, the upside is that if he does get his pitch (usually a mistake by the pitcher, if not on type, at least location) he has the power to drive it a long way. To the tune of 39 homeruns, but, not enough to justify his expected expense. Or the at bats that he is given.

For every run he does put up, he cost's just as many with his below average defense.
He does have good speed, and he is not a dumb fielder, but, for whatever reason, whatever speed he does have is usually spent just trying to get close to the balls because he is usually no where near the play.

How much of it can be blamed on coaching strategies and philosophies is diluted by the fact that he has played under 3 different managers.

He also tends to play what is called a "lazy" OF, which is, he will concede the hit out of what appears to be fear of letting the ball get past him. Even if that means a game winning or game tying run will score.

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. This is common knowledge and consistent with the scouting reports going around the league.

On the basepaths Dunn is rarely anything but a liability. Rarely does he take the aggressive extra base, and although, speed was one of the atributes that impressed scouts at the minor league level, he rarely displays it at the major league level. Maybe the coaches have no faith in his speed.

Overall my impression is that Dunn is a laid back, if not lazy, player whose abiltiy to hit towering homeruns, which is awe inspiring to todays fan, will keep him in the lineup. It is all the other shortcomings that will keep him out of the #3-4-5 spots.
His youth would lend itself to the optimism that he will get better, but, over 4+ seasons in the major leagues tells otherwise. He may never be anything but a number 6 or 7 hitter.

He is destined to be DH, and for now, should be moved to first permanently in attempt to maximize his one dimensional offense by decreasing the runs given up defensively.

It, is in my opinion, a mistake to sign him to anything but a 3 year 5-6 million dollar contract, and would be better served to be traded this offseason while his stock is still high.

And that's my impression, and from my memory, and I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that opinion, even in the numbers.

westofyou
10-11-2005, 05:29 PM
He has almost no ability to go opposite field, although I did see him hit one, an RBI double, earlier this season. But only once, and no attempts whatsoever in the previous season.

8 of Dunn's 35 doubles were in LF this season.

BTW I told ya'all that Dunn was driving this wagon.

flyer85
10-11-2005, 05:29 PM
Be on the lookout for a person of short stature with purple Don King like hair.

gonelong
10-11-2005, 05:34 PM
Alright Steel, here we go....
And that's my impression, and from my memory, and I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that opinion, even in the numbers.

I am very curious as to what numbers you are looking at. I think a specific list of the numbers you have used to come to this conclusion would shed quite a bit of light on your position.

GL

Milezinni
10-11-2005, 05:37 PM
All of them.

flyer85
10-11-2005, 05:39 PM
Person is reputed to be of ill-temper.

ochre
10-11-2005, 05:40 PM
And that's my impression, and from my memory, and I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that opinion, even in the numbers.

So we should take your "impression" from your "memory", which could be "wrong", of 16-18 games (per season I guess?) of observation as a valid measure of a players worth? I'll pass.

remdog
10-11-2005, 05:41 PM
by Traderumor"Talk to a stats accountant and the world of baseball's numbers take on meaning that will prove to be more reliable measurements of a player's true worth than the subjective world of observation will ever be able to provide."

Sorry Traderumor, I usually respect what you write but that statement is even more subjective than the 'world of observation' that you just trashed. The stats that you bow down to are created by actully playing the game. Many people observe that play. Many people form opinions about the value/future value of a player based upon observation. Stats, OTOH, tell you about the past. Valuable as that may be it's still only the past. You need to observe things like attitude, effort, injuries, intangibles etc. right down to the very last pitch to determine true worth.

Benji Molina was a very big part of the Yankees being dumped out of the playoffs but his stats would have never predicted that much value.

If people like stats, that's great. As a kid I could recite the stats for any player in the league. The more I played the more I realized that the game was really about what was happening on the field at that moment. I love history and stats are history. So is the battle of 1812 but I don't expect to see the Americans and Brits dukeing it out on Lake Erie anytime soon.

Rem

pahster
10-11-2005, 05:42 PM
All of them.

Career .383/.518/.901

Ugly, ugly numbers! The man's a lock to be a 7 hitter any day now.

BoydsOfSummer
10-11-2005, 05:48 PM
While I generally agree with the assesment of his defense. I was looking at his rankings in zone rating and range factor. Among qualifiers, he's 12th in ZR and 9th in RF. Playing a cozy GABP left field helps, but he's become very adequate methinks.

Rotate the way ya wanna big boy!

ochre
10-11-2005, 05:55 PM
Where are all the Snowdens of Yesteryear?

traderumor
10-11-2005, 06:14 PM
Sorry Traderumor, I usually respect what you write but that statement is even more subjective than the 'world of observation' that you just trashed. The stats that you bow down to are created by actully playing the game. Many people observe that play. Many people form opinions about the value/future value of a player based upon observation. Stats, OTOH, tell you about the past. Valuable as that may be it's still only the past. You need to observe things like attitude, effort, injuries, intangibles etc. right down to the very last pitch to determine true worth.

Benji Molina was a very big part of the Yankees being dumped out of the playoffs but his stats would have never predicted that much value.

If people like stats, that's great. As a kid I could recite the stats for any player in the league. The more I played the more I realized that the game was really about what was happening on the field at that moment. I love history and stats are history. So is the battle of 1812 but I don't expect to see the Americans and Brits dukeing it out on Lake Erie anytime soon.

Rem
Hey, I'm not infallible, but I always prefer objective evidence over subjective observations in any endeavor, whether it be business, personal finances, or baseball.

So, if you were going to invest money in a company, how would you determine if they were a good risk? If you are a wise investor, you will certainly look to historical performance results and attempt to predict future performance based on that performance and make that information primary in forming your conclusion about making the investment.

Now, I'm sure there are some investors out there who simply claim to have a feel about investing in a company and will do on sight observations of operations, see whether or not he gets a good vibe from the executives, ask questions about the company's direction, and various questions. Because, you see, he just has a feel for a good company when he sees one. And he will find some people that will give him money to spend (more like burn).

I can tell you, if its my money you're playing with, you better have some good hard facts as to why you think a player is going to be a good investment. If you have a few intangible observations to add, all the better, but my primary decision making is going to be based on whether I believe the player will be able to perform according to his track record. Otherwise, I might just as well get out my dartboard, make a target for each one of the observations, and start tossing as to try to sort through the trustworthiness and worth of those observations. And that person could be the best non-stat talent evaluators the game has ever seen.

ochre
10-11-2005, 06:22 PM
...I'm not fallible...
I think you forgot a prefix here :)

flyer85
10-11-2005, 06:33 PM
I think you forgot a prefix here :)freudian slip

traderumor
10-11-2005, 06:40 PM
freudian slip
Fixed :redface: I know I don't actually know everything. I just act like I do :p:

harangatang
10-11-2005, 06:45 PM
Benji Molina was a very big part of the Yankees being dumped out of the playoffs but his stats would have never predicted that much value.


Exactly right. I was just thinking who would have guessed that in Game 4 of the NLDS that Chris Burke would hit the walk-off homerun in the 18th inning? With a lineup featuring Berkman, Ensberg, and Biggio and Bagwell pinch hitting the stats show they should be hitting the homerun not Chris Burke. That's why we play the game because you never know what's going to happen.

Ravenlord
10-11-2005, 06:58 PM
Exactly right. I was just thinking who would have guessed that in Game 4 of the NLDS that Chris Burke would hit the walk-off homerun in the 18th inning? With a lineup featuring Berkman, Ensberg, and Biggio and Bagwell pinch hitting the stats show they should be hitting the homerun not Chris Burke. That's why we play the game because you never know what's going to happen.
is their any bigger fallacy about stats than that statement?

if i make an out 75% of the time. that doesn't mean i'm not going to have days where i reach base 4 times, or go 0 for 3. it's absolutely idiotic to think so, and even more idicotic to believe that anyone is thinking that.

if i'm hitting 333, that doesn't mean i'm going to 1 for 3 or 2 for 6 every night. it means i'm going to go 0-3, 0-2, 2-3, and 2-4. or whatever combonation you want to use. and in short series play, you have this all the time. it's impossible to regress to the mean in a 5, or even 7 game series. it usually takes at least 30 games.

traderumor
10-11-2005, 07:02 PM
Exactly right. I was just thinking who would have guessed that in Game 4 of the NLDS that Chris Burke would hit the walk-off homerun in the 18th inning? With a lineup featuring Berkman, Ensberg, and Biggio and Bagwell pinch hitting the stats show they should be hitting the homerun not Chris Burke. That's why we play the game because you never know what's going to happen.

Apples and oranges to compare one postseason series or one at bat to the merits of statistical analysis as a primary tool for predicting performances of major league baseball players over the course of one or more seasons.


And just think how many millions of dollars have been wasted by owners of professional franchises on guys who made a name for themselves with postseason glory but were not nearly worth a huge contract for what they could contribute over a full season (see Aaron Boone). Chris Burke will most likely now have a few more jobs in the big leagues because he hit a walk off HR at exactly the right time. He might even develop the nickname "Mr. Clutch" from here on out. And a lot of time and money could be saved if someone would simply get on the net and look at some basic numbers when his name comes up to invite to ST one year sometime in the future to do more than "yea, I've heard of that guy, bring him on in for a looksee."

westofyou
10-11-2005, 07:05 PM
I was just thinking who would have guessed that in Game 4 of the NLDS that Chris Burke would hit the walk-off homerun in the 18th inning?

Dusty Rhodes? Don Larson? Bill Mazeroski? Gene Tenance?

traderumor
10-11-2005, 07:12 PM
Dusty Rhodes? Don Larson? Bill Mazeroski? Gene Tenance?
Joe Carter

westofyou
10-11-2005, 07:12 PM
Joe Carter

Jimmy Wilson?

harangatang
10-11-2005, 07:15 PM
is their any bigger fallacy about stats than that statement?

if i make an out 75% of the time. that doesn't mean i'm not going to have days where i reach base 4 times, or go 0 for 3. it's absolutely idiotic to think so, and even more idicotic to believe that anyone is thinking that.

if i'm hitting 333, that doesn't mean i'm going to 1 for 3 or 2 for 6 every night. it means i'm going to go 0-3, 0-2, 2-3, and 2-4. or whatever combonation you want to use. and in short series play, you have this all the time. it's impossible to regress to the mean in a 5, or even 7 game series. it usually takes at least 30 games.

In 318 at bats in the 2005 regular season Chris Burke had 5 HR 26 RBI. Compared to Ensberg 36 HR 101 RBI, Berkman 24 HR 82 RBI, 26 HR 69 RBI, and Bagwell career numbers 449 HR 1529 RBI who's most likely to hit the homerun on statistics? On batting average with pure stats would you rather have the guy who has a hit every 25% of the time or 33.3% of the time? You go with the one that gives you the greatest chance but you never know.

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 07:23 PM
Alright Steel, here we go....

My IMPRESSION of Adam Dunn having only watched sixteem games. Actually it might have been 18 a season over 4-5 seasons.

Your impression is inaccurate, but let's play...


Adam Dunn is a full rotational hitter that despite preferring the ball low in the zone, keeps his hands unusually high just before launch. With an open stance, and short compact power stroke he tends to be completely out of position when he completes his swing, but, makes up those important seconds on groundballs in the infield by being left handed. Needless to say, he rarely ever beats them out.

I'm going to point out that you just stated that Adam Dunn uses a rotational approach much like that of Ted Williams. In fact, Dunn is a very similar hitter to Williams. When he's going well, he's waiting for his pitch and mashing it (that takes exceptional hand-eye coordination BTW). When things are going poorly, it's because he becomes overanxious and simply swings at bad pitches- creating low quality ball-in-play events.


He is never cheated on a swing, but, he also doesn't utilize his hand eye co-ordination. Dunn never rolls his top hand, and since top hand is the most dominant in rotational hitting this is also unusual, but not that unusual, and will lend itself to alot of line drives that seem to hang for the outfielders.

Another mention of rotational hitting technique. This will become important shortly.


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.

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.

It's easy to do a Google search and to swipe information someone else wrote but when you lack a clear understanding of the subject matter, you'll demonstrate it soon enough. And low-and-behold...you just did.

I was moving through the rest of the post while attempting to cut out the remainder of your mostly irrelevant observations and flawed conclusions, but then I happened upon this gem...


For every run he does put up, he cost's just as many with his below average defense.

Here we see another in the long line of completely unsupportable things you try to position as fact.

In 2005, Adam Dunn was worth approximately 116.9 Runs Created to the Cincinnati Reds offensively. You're saying that he's worth 116.9 NEGATIVE Runs defensively. If that were an accurate assessment of his defense, we'd see that reflected somewhere. In this case, let's look at Win Shares. If your contention that Dunn is worth a negative 116.9 Runs in Left Field, we'll see those numbers translate to Dunn's Win Shares as follows:

Win Shares- Batting: 26.5
Win Shares- Fielding: -26.5
Win Shares- Total: 0.0

But instead, we see this:

Win Shares- Batting: 26.5
Win Shares- Fielding: 1.8
Win Shares- Total: 28

See, Adam Dunn isn't a great fielder by any stretch of the imagination. But there's also no Left Fielder in the world who is worth a negative 116.9 Runs to his team. That player doesn't exist anywhere but in your own mind.

You can't just say outlandish things and think that folks won't do their homework. I know you don't. But other people have a firm grasp on what's going on out there on that ballfield.

The remainder of your post is just another example of tired Adam Dunn bashing positioned to draw attention away from the original point (you know, the one you keep failing to address)...

You said the Reds couldn't win with really good pitching. Yet the facts tell us that the Reds won an exceptionally high percentage of games when they pitched well.

You ready to admit that you were wrong yet?

Ravenlord
10-11-2005, 07:26 PM
On batting average with pure stats would you rather have the guy who has a hit every 25% of the time or 33.3% of the time? the one with the better OPS.

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 07:55 PM
Chris Burke will most likely now have a few more jobs in the big leagues because he hit a walk off HR at exactly the right time. He might even develop the nickname "Mr. Clutch" from here on out.

Heck, one might even be inducted to the Hall of Fame with modest numbers due to having a reputation of being a vital "clutch" performer...

Playoff Performance: 172 AB- .238 BA/.291 OBP/.378 SLG

Anyone?

paintmered
10-11-2005, 07:57 PM
Heck, one might even be inducted to the Hall of Fame with modest numbers due to having a reputation of being a vital "clutch" performer...

Playoff Performance: 172 AB- .238 BA/.291 OBP/.378 SLG

Anyone?

Tony Perez?

SteelSD
10-11-2005, 08:01 PM
Tony Perez?

We have a WINNAH!

And Perez spread it around. He was awful across six LCS appearances (.234 BA/.256 OBP/.390 SLG) and through five WS (.242 BA/.318 OBP/.378 SLG).

Oh, he's in the Hall of Fame...but he's no Billy Hatcher.;)

traderumor
10-11-2005, 08:29 PM
Jimmy Wilson?
Joe Namath? Oh, different sport.

gonelong
10-11-2005, 09:31 PM
All of them.

Shenanigans

BoydsOfSummer
10-12-2005, 12:14 AM
Man I love these education threads!:thumbup:

Ron Madden
10-12-2005, 03:26 AM
Man I love these education threads!:thumbup:

Me too.:thumbup:

SteelSD
10-12-2005, 06:29 AM
The stats that you bow down to are created by actully playing the game. Many people observe that play. Many people form opinions about the value/future value of a player based upon observation.

Y'know, after re-reading this post, I think that it raises a couple items that really should be addressed- including more than one misconception as to how statistical analysis can aid a team in addition to qualified subjective analysis.

First, we need to consider something (and tr did a good job of noting it)...

No one can watch every MLB player in every MLB game for 162 games per season. In short, it's impossible. Even if it were possible, the human brain is incapable of recording every piece of data from every event taking place- much less record it accurately.

The brain plays tricks on us; sometimes convincing us that we saw something that didn't happen or have an impression about something that isn't accurate. I've seen near-infinite instances where two completely reasonable people disagree about exactly what happened two minutes ago. Simply put, perception is not reality so why rely only on perception when we have a record of what actually happened right in front of us?

As time passes, memory degrades. Potential relevant information is forgotten and/or skewed by a recall and storage system that, at best, is imperfect.

None of that means that subjective observational data is meaningless. None of that means that what we see isn't reality. But it does place things in proper perspective.


Stats, OTOH, tell you about the past. Valuable as that may be it's still only the past.

So is your observation of an event. In fact, that memory can't be recorded by your brain until said event is in the past. So there's no "on the other hand" that applies. Both performance records and our own observations are "past" event recordings. What we're talking about here isn't statistics versus observation. We're looking to appropriately contextualize what each can be valuable for.


You need to observe things like attitude, effort, injuries, intangibles etc. right down to the very last pitch to determine true worth.

Here's the problem regarding players a GM is looking to acquire...

First, a General Manager doesn't sit in the dugout. He has no way of knowing those things first-hand for every player on his own team much less every team (both MLB and minors) for every player. This means that GM's are almost completely reliant on second-hand subjective opinions for almost all stuff like that (injuries are a lot easier to figure out of course). And, ironically, GM's are particularly reliant on Managers they end up firing. How are we to know that the person giving him the information is reliable and accurate?

Weren't we given the impression that Rich Aurilia should be a good clubhouse influence instead of the continual PT whiner he turned out to be? Weren't we told that Eric Milton would be really valuable because of Dan O'Brien's impression that he "knows how to win"?

When teams are spending millions of dollars on the Eric Miltons of the world, they're not spending it on his character. They're investing in an expectation of future peformance. It's all well and good to know whether a guy is, reportedly, a hard worker or good in the clubhouse- but those are mitigating factors.

Injury history is a great example of how non-statistical information can be used to adjust performance expectations. Eric Milton is a perfect case in point as to how more subjective data can help. Considering his recent performance history- and including the fact that Milton has a knee injury that will never heal- he was a completely inappropriate risk, particularly for a small-market club. Yet, Milton was signed to that contract and ballyhooed as a great "intangibles" guy by a GM who apparantly hasn't the first clue about how to understand and use past performance to determine future performance probability. In fact, I question whether or not O'Brien can properly analyze any information, stats or no.

Sean Casey is another example of how more subjective data can allow us to understand performance and probability. It appears that he may have played much of 2005 with a shoulder injury. Knowing that, we can look at his performance in a new light and adjust our expectations for the future based on the fact that he wasn't 100% physically. However, there's a flipside to that- Casey has had recurring shoulder issues, meaning that we need to also adjust our expectations due to his high potential injury risk.

What about attitude? I can reasonably predict that Jose Guillen will be suspended by someone at some point next season. Same with Milton Bradley. So yeah, those attitude issues matter to me because we can reasonably predict that the team's performance will be impacted by their antics at some point. That reduces their value to me but they're pretty extreme examples.

And we need to remember that one man's "malcontent" is quite often another guy's "emotional gamer". Ask Frank Robinson about Guillen's attitude and you'll most likely get a completely different response than if you ask Mike Scioscia. Yet both are MLB managers and, as such, both are assumed to be experts at understanding player motivations, behavior, attitude, and other intangibles.

So, who'd be right? Would Robinson give us the best take on Guillen or do we consider Robinson himself unreasonable and, therefore, an untrustworthy source? Scoscia has a lot of Wins under his belt with the Angels. Does that give him more credibility? In the end, our impression of a player's "intangibles" might just come down to a subjective judgement of how credible the sources are (which has nothing at all to do with the player). That's not so much a problem with exteme cases like a Jose Guillen or a Milton Bradley because their actions tend to speak more loudly for them. But for players at a less extreme level, it's a big issue and there's no way to reconcile it.

What isn't an issue, however, is being able to reasonably predict how a player will most likely perform in my team's uniform because we can, with a great deal of accuracy, understand the player's most probable future value by analyzing the historical data we have at our disposal. That seems to be a real issue for some folks. To this day I don't know why because the overall evaluation isn't designed to exclude credible subjective information. And, in fact, a good analysis might actually raise questions as to whether or not some external factor is affecting performance.


Benji Molina was a very big part of the Yankees being dumped out of the playoffs but his stats would have never predicted that much value.

Actually, Benjie Molina had a very good offensive year for a Catcher. That doesn't mean anyone can or could predict AB-to-AB how Molina (or any other player for that matter) would perform in the ALDS over the short-term, but no one has ever claimed that statistics are useful for predicting individual AB event outcome anyway so that's not a real issue.

The fact that statistics cannot spot-on predict single AB or short-term game performance doesn't invalidate their use as an actuarial-like future probability indicator. Any expectation that statistics should be able to predict AB-by-AB micro performance is simply unreasonable, yet that idea is consistently used in efforts to discard statistical analysis off-hand.

If that's our logic, we might as well invalidate observation as a tool because those observations can't be used to reasonably predict micro-level performance either.

Case in point- John Vander Wal was signed prior to the 2004 season and one of the primary reasons given was that John Vander Wal was an exceptional Pinch Hitter. You think anyone actually cross-checked that against his most recent performance as a Pinch Hitter?

John Vander Wal 2002-2004 (as Pinch Hitter):

2002- .154 BA/.294 OBP/.231 SLG
2003- .207 BA/.207 OBP/.276 SLG

Now, that's a sample of only 42 AB. Big deal, right? Well, not if your logic is that you're signing a guy whose primary value is going to be as an effective Pinch Hitter. In fact, looking at that data might actually make you ask a couple questions about player age, decreasing bat speed and the effect on a player who's recording PA's while facing a large percentage of late-game flamethrowers. Now, if you're signing a guy because he's a good hitter overall that's one thing. John Vander Wal did have a recent history of being a good hitter over the course of a season. But if you're signing him because you feel he possesses some special ability to hit hard-throwing relievers late in ballgames off the bench, wouldn't it be of value to ask yourself if the performance matches the reputation? At minimum wouldn't an objective take allow one to raise questions as to potential subjective mitigating factors?

In any case, here's what happened after Vander Wal got healthy:

2004- .037 BA/.161 OBP/.037 SLG

Yes, that's a .198 OPS over his 32 PA as a Pinch Hitter in 2004. And yes, his 2002-2004 PH performance may have just been John Vander Wal regressing to the mean. All that being said, if Vander Wal's primary projected value was as a Pinch Hitter, there was good reason to not spend money on him (primarily age-affected injury risk and potentially declining bat speed). And yeah, in that example we can see how statistical analysis can lead us to search out relevant subjective information in an effort to incorporate it into our risk model.

But without seeing those numbers, we'd have taken Vander Wal's reputation at face value and signed him anyway- just like Dan O'Brien has signed a bunch of "gamers" and "scrappers" and "professional hitters" and guys who "know how to win" and who are "good in the clubhouse" (allegedly) and everything but...a real difference-making performer.


If people like stats, that's great. As a kid I could recite the stats for any player in the league. The more I played the more I realized that the game was really about what was happening on the field at that moment.

And neither observation nor statistical analysis can spot-on predict what's going to happen at that very moment.

But accurate statistical analysis can help set a team up over the long haul to maximize their ability to perform across all those moments. Observation may be able to lend an assist there, but let's remember that no one can observe everything there is to see. No brain can record it as accurately as we'd like to think or recall all those memories as clearly as they went in...if they were clear in the first place.


I love history and stats are history. So is the battle of 1812 but I don't expect to see the Americans and Brits dukeing it out on Lake Erie anytime soon.

Maybe not, but we can get a pretty good idea how to win the next battle by studying an unbiased record of the events from the previous one. That practice requires work and an understanding that our own experiential and observational data is at least as flawed as an objective record of behavior and outcome for any event.

RedsBaron
10-12-2005, 06:58 AM
Excellent series of posts, SteelSD.
Tony Perez's postseason performance also illustrates the effect of small sample sizes upon statistical data. Tony's overall performance in postseason play was not nearly as good as his reputation as a great clutch hitter, but his performance also varied widely, series to series.
In the 1970 NLCS, Perez hit .333 with a .385 OBP and .750 SPCT--Mr. Clutch, right? He then went .056 .190 .056 in the 1970 World Series.
In the 1972 NLCS, Perez went .200 .200 .250. Well, obviously his good 1970 NLCS was a fluke; he's now shown that he just can't do it in two straight post-season series. However, Perez then went .435 .500 .522 in the 1972 World Series. Maybe he can do it.
In the 1973 NLCS, Perez went .091 .091 .227.
In the 1975 NLCS, Perez went .417 .462 .667.
After his great NLCS in 1975, at least he will be hot for the World Series, right? Well no, he went 0-15 before finally breaking out with two HRs in game five. For the whole 1975 World Series Perez went .179 .258 .500 ( he did hit another huge HR in game seven).
In the 1976 NLCS, Perez went .200 .231 .200--ice cold, right? He then went .312 .353 .375 in the 1976 World Series.
In the 1983 NLCS he was 1.000 1.000 1.000. He then went .200 .200 .200 in the 1983 World Series.
Small sample sizes.

Milezinni
10-12-2005, 11:07 AM
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. ?


Whoa, way off!

You have confused Ted Williams "the Science of hitting" with the actual rotational theory of batting mechanics.

You see, and this isn't in your stats, 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.

Your wayyyy off.

The majority of hitters today ARE rotational hitters, and you are tyring to tell me that NONE of them are trying a level swing, or drive down on the ball?

What games are YOU watching?

Look, the rotational school of mechanics (vs the weight shift school, re-introduced and supposedly perfected by Charlie Lau, though very few weight shifters use the Lau approach) is primarly focused on the legs.

In basic, the "corkscrew" effect of a short stride, leading with the hips keeping the hands close, and their weight shifted on the back half of their body, and using a quick powerful swing where the bottom hand pulls the bat through the zone, while the top hand drives it. Top hand being considered more important by most.

In fact, a FACT, the more arc, or uppercut the hitter uses, the lower the average and the higher the strikeouts, which is way ALOT of rotational hitting is much more level or down, because the swing itself is going to have a little bit of a natural arc.

Tons and Tons and Tons of hitters use the rotational hitting mechanic but DO NOT use an uppercut swing. And some rotational only hitters have a perfectly level swing, and it's no accident.

And I could go on and on and on, and you know what Steel, you might as well give up this trying to make me look bad, because you are only make yourself look alot worse.

I give a solid and very accurate evaluation of Adam Dunn and all you can come back with is "I am wrong because you heard somewhere once that you always uppercut on the rotational swing"? and all the stats, stats, stats.

Thats all you got?????

You can't give an analysis of Adam Dunn, because outside of the stats, and despite "watching all the games" you have NO IDEA what you are looking at.....

Why don't you give us YOUR impressons of Adam Dunn, and spare me the stat spewing, I know the numbers. I can look them up too.

You keep assuming that I don't know anything about stats, but your WAY off, I know quite a bit about stats and their corresponding formulas, which is why I don't rely on their information or "what they are telling us", not over my own eyes..

Cooper
10-12-2005, 11:49 AM
Uh...one thing i do disagree with ...adam does not have a good arm. Throwing a football and throwing a baseball are not the same. To do each well it takes completely different mechanics --adam does not have good mechanics for throwing a baseball. He throws from the elbow --much like a qb.

What games were u watching?

Chip R
10-12-2005, 11:52 AM
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

Blimpie
10-12-2005, 12:20 PM
Chip:

I believe this picture is more accurate. I think Steel is the one on the right...

http://www.richardsfault.com/nostalgia/TV%20screen%20shots/TV%20SNL3.jpg

SteelSD
10-12-2005, 12:29 PM
Whoa, way off!

You have confused Ted Williams "the Science of hitting" with the actual rotational theory of batting mechanics.

You see, and this isn't in your stats, 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.

Your wayyyy off.

The majority of hitters today ARE rotational hitters, and you are tyring to tell me that NONE of them are trying a level swing, or drive down on the ball?

What games are YOU watching?

Look, the rotational school of mechanics (vs the weight shift school, re-introduced and supposedly perfected by Charlie Lau, though very few weight shifters use the Lau approach) is primarly focused on the legs.

In basic, the "corkscrew" effect of a short stride, leading with the hips keeping the hands close, and their weight shifted on the back half of their body, and using a quick powerful swing where the bottom hand pulls the bat through the zone, while the top hand drives it. Top hand being considered more important by most.

In fact, a FACT, the more arc, or uppercut the hitter uses, the lower the average and the higher the strikeouts, which is way ALOT of rotational hitting is much more level or down, because the swing itself is going to have a little bit of a natural arc.

Tons and Tons and Tons of hitters use the rotational hitting mechanic but DO NOT use an uppercut swing. And some rotational only hitters have a perfectly level swing, and it's no accident.

And I could go on and on and on, and you know what Steel, you might as well give up this trying to make me look bad, because you are only make yourself look alot worse.

I give a solid and very accurate evaluation of Adam Dunn and all you can come back with is "I am wrong because you heard somewhere once that you always uppercut on the rotational swing"? and all the stats, stats, stats.

Thats all you got?????

You can't give an analysis of Adam Dunn, because outside of the stats, and despite "watching all the games" you have NO IDEA what you are looking at.....

Bunk times infinity. You've boxed yourself into a nasty corner here by puffing out your chest and then taking on a subject you quite obviously don't understand.

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. Furthermore, it's tough enough to strike a batted ball while plane-matching through the hitting zone. Hitting "down" on the ball actually makes productive contact more difficult because the angle of the bat will be at odds with a high-velocity moving object. It doesn't matter that some current hitters may hit down on the ball. What does matter is that no credible instructor will tell his students to do so while he's teaching them rotational hitting because those concepts do NOT align themselves with rotational theory.

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.


Why don't you give us YOUR impressons of Adam Dunn, and spare me the stat spewing, I know the numbers. I can look them up too.

You get nothing more on Adam Dunn from me until you address why you were entirely wrong about the Reds winning well-pitched ballgames. No more red herrings for you. They taste bad and smell worse as they ripen.


You keep assuming that I don't know anything about stats, but your WAY off, I know quite a bit about stats and their corresponding formulas, which is why I don't rely on their information or "what they are telling us", not over my own eyes..

I'm not assuming anything. I'm drawing a logical conclusion as to your ability to understand and analyze statistical data based on evidence that you've freely given us during this thread.

savafan
10-12-2005, 12:51 PM
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

An argument isn't just contradiction.

Chip R
10-12-2005, 12:56 PM
An argument isn't just contradiction.
Well, it can be.

Blimpie
10-12-2005, 01:24 PM
Well, it can be.No, it can't. :D

OldRightHander
10-12-2005, 02:07 PM
This gets my vote for one of the most entertaining threads we've seen in a while.

KronoRed
10-12-2005, 02:25 PM
This gets my vote for one of the most entertaining threads we've seen in a while.
We need more of these in the offseason :D

Milezinni
10-12-2005, 02:52 PM
"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."


"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. Furthermore, it's tough enough to strike a batted ball while plane-matching through the hitting zone. Hitting "down" on the ball actually makes productive contact more difficult because the angle of the bat will be at odds with a high-velocity moving object. It doesn't matter that some current hitters may hit down on the ball. What does matter is that no credible instructor will tell his students to do so while he's teaching them rotational hitting because those concepts do NOT align themselves with rotational theory."

----Steel

I am not going to waste my time looking up better examples, but here is one just of the top of my head.
Here's a link, scroll down to Don Mattingly, ever heard of him, explains how to hit a homerun?

http://www.yesnetwork.com/multimedia/

You should stick to accounting, and leave baseball to the people who know what they are talking about.

Ravenlord
10-12-2005, 03:05 PM
You should stick to accounting, and leave baseball to the people who know what they are talking about.
you mean guys like Dan O'Brien who have a baseball pedigree and know what they're looking for.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 03:21 PM
you mean guys like Dan O'Brien who have a baseball pedigree and know what they're looking for.ie., the guys who are smarter than everyone else because they can see and discern things subjectively that others cannot(hence they don't need to consult any misleading statistics that just confuse the issue).

Thanks for Milton, DanO.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 03:25 PM
Don Mattingly, ever heard of him, explains how to hit a homerun? Those 222 dingers over 14 years really jump out. Oh, I forgot, those silly misleading statistics.

I mean "Mattingly was one of the truly great HR hitters in baseball history". I feel much better now, I'm not confused anymore.

larryboy
10-12-2005, 03:46 PM
Why if you are a stats guy or a pure observer does it mean the other side does not what they are talking about? There are many ways to analyse baseball. Some you may like or dislike, that's life. One person's idiot is another's genius and vice versa. Remember you are probably someone's idiot, and never forget you could be wrong. Stats don't tell everything, that is why still play the games and don't just calculate the result ahead of time. Stats are great tools that are wonderful at raising new questions as well as providing some answers.

Debate on, but can the sentiment that the other side must not know what they are talking about be dropped by both sides. It prevents you from hearing each other.

traderumor
10-12-2005, 03:53 PM
Why if you are a stats guy or a pure observer does it mean the other side does not what they are talking about? There are many ways to analyse baseball. Some you may like or dislike, that's life. One person's idiot is another's genius and vice versa. Remember you are probably someone's idiot, and never forget you could be wrong. Stats don't tell everything, that is why still play the games and don't just calculate the result ahead of time. Stats are great tools that are wonderful at raising new questions as well as providing some answers.

Debate on, but can the sentiment that the other side must not know what they are talking about be dropped by both sides. It prevents you from hearing each other.

I think it has been shown that one side does not know what they are talking about, thus hearing is hindered by incoherence, even if one had super suction ears ;) . This isn't even really a debate, its more like Ohio State playing a Jr. High team.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 04:22 PM
Why if you are a stats guy or a pure observer does it mean the other side does not what they are talking about? The entire point is that it takes both and focusing on one to the exclusion of the other is ignorant. The point of data analysis(in any field, not just baseball) is to verify /question more subjective means of analysis. It all plays into risk mitigation.

That is why the informal Six Sigma(improving processes and outcomes) motto is "In God we trust, all others must bring data".

Milezinni
10-12-2005, 04:24 PM
Okay, then why don't you give me YOUR evaluations of Adam Dunn?

Or any Reds player for that matter. I really want to know, I don't get to see the team all that often, and I would really like, genuinely, an impression, or evaluation, or your scouting report on a player. Any of them.

You guys want to sign Dunn for millions of dollars, drop or trade Milton and Ortiz, tell us why?

I mean, anybody can look up the numbers and see that Milton had a bad year, but, I really want to know why.....

Tell me, WHY did Milton have such a bad year? Or any player?

If you watch alot of games you must have an opinion of why so-and-so is good, bad, average, great etc.

You guys must have SOME kind of personal opinion.

ochre
10-12-2005, 04:33 PM
Okay, then why don't you give me YOUR evaluations of Adam Dunn?

Or any Reds player for that matter. I really want to know, I don't get to see the team all that often, and I would really like, genuinely, an impression, or evaluation, or your scouting report on a player. Any of them.

You guys want to sign Dunn for millions of dollars, drop or trade Milton and Ortiz, tell us why?

I mean, anybody can look up the numbers and see that Milton had a bad year, but, I really want to know why.....

Tell me, WHY did Milton have such a bad year? Or any player?

If you watch alot of games you must have an opinion of why so-and-so is good, bad, average, great etc.

You guys must have SOME kind of personal opinion.
rather than continue flogging a fallen equine:deadhorse
try http://www.suncircle.org/images/search.gif

*edit I r gut spelr.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 04:39 PM
I mean, anybody can look up the numbers and see that Milton had a bad year, but, I really want to know why.....
Milton has a straight fastball that sits at about 90(great hitting speed), he has a rolling curve and a changeup with little deception and no tumble. When his command isn't exacting he gets beat up. The Milton of the Twins with the 95 mph fastball and sharp curve are long gone. His change wasn't a good pitch when he was with the Twins either.

RFS62
10-12-2005, 04:39 PM
Boy, how did I miss this thread?!?!?!

I guess the title. You guys have been talkin' about hitting without me!!!

Oh well, It'll probably take three or four days to catch up, but me likey.

Milezinni
10-12-2005, 05:29 PM
That's pretty vague.

Have you noticed anything consistent or inconsistent in his mechanics? Or delivery?

Why has he lost such much velocity?

Did he always have control problems?


Because I noticed, and again I don't have access to all the video I would like, that he has a tendency to drop his elbow, sometimes completely below his shoulder, and that causes his hand and wrist to buckle underneath the ball, which causes him to sling the pitch instead of throw it. Effects the grip too, and that effects the movement.

Getting palm and wrist underneath the ball will almost always cause the pitch to come in alot higher than the pitcher thought it would. And as a result, besides the obvious - missing his spots, will also cause the pitcher to lose confidence in his ability.

Milton specifically seems to me to be an extremely emotional player and despite his quotes to the contrary you can definitely see......

Oh well, I am sure I am not telling you guys anything you don't already know, I feel kind of stupid even trying.

paintmered
10-12-2005, 05:31 PM
That's pretty vague.

Have you noticed anything consistent or inconsistent in his mechanics? Or delivery?

Why has he lost such much velocity?

Did he always have control problems?


Because I noticed, and again I don't have access to all the video I would like, that he has a tendency to drop his elbow, sometimes completely below his shoulder, and that causes his hand and wrist to buckle underneath the ball, which causes him to sling the pitch instead of throw it. Effects the grip too, and that effects the movement.

Getting palm and wrist underneath the ball will almost always cause the pitch to come in alot higher than the pitcher thought it would. And as a result, besides the obvious - missing his spots, will also cause the pitcher to lose confidence in his ability.

Milton specifically seems to me to be an extremely emotional player and despite his quotes to the contrary you can definitely see......

Oh well, I am sure I am not telling you guys anything you don't already know, I feel kind of stupid even trying.


Actually, his mechanics have been discussed quite a bit around here over the last year. Perform a search and find out for yourself.

Milezinni
10-12-2005, 05:32 PM
"We do not know how many times each player was thrown out attempting to take an extra base. We do not know how many times each player gave away a base by throwing to the wrong one. We do not know how many hits Mark Belanger has robbed the opposition of over the years, how many doubles Greg Luzinski has given away. We don't have any idea how many runs Roberto Clemente prevented by keeping people at third on sacrifice flies. We couldn't even guess how many runs Mickey Cochrane saved his teams by knowing what pitches to call for, or Carlton Fisk. We do not know which or whether players are especially good in the clutch. And this is only the shadow of the monster; our whole ignorance is much larger than we can conceive of."


"Bad sabermetrics attempts to end the discussion by saying that I have studied the issue and this is the answer. Good sabermetrics attempts to contribute to the discussion in such a way as to enable it to move forward on a ground of common understanding.
Bad sabermetricians characteristically insist that those things which cannot be measured are not important, like Earnshaw Cook's incredible assertion that major league teams should play the best hitters available, more or less regardless of defense. Bad sabermetricians run from the monster in terror, and insist that he does not really exist, that there is only That Shadow."

-----Bill James, founder of Sabermetrics, in his 1981 Baseball Abstract.

westofyou
10-12-2005, 05:40 PM
Any system which is never surprising is never interesting. Any system which is consistently surprising is probably wrong.

Bill James

larryboy
10-12-2005, 05:40 PM
A lot of pitchers in MLB have lost velocity over the past two years.
Steroid testing has started the past two years.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with Milton, but the number of pitchers who have juiced is vastly under estimated in my opinion. You do not have to look like the hulk to juice, Ryan Franklin was an example of that.

wheels
10-12-2005, 05:52 PM
That's pretty vague.

Have you noticed anything consistent or inconsistent in his mechanics? Or delivery?

Why has he lost such much velocity?

Did he always have control problems?


Because I noticed, and again I don't have access to all the video I would like, that he has a tendency to drop his elbow, sometimes completely below his shoulder, and that causes his hand and wrist to buckle underneath the ball, which causes him to sling the pitch instead of throw it. Effects the grip too, and that effects the movement.

Getting palm and wrist underneath the ball will almost always cause the pitch to come in alot higher than the pitcher thought it would. And as a result, besides the obvious - missing his spots, will also cause the pitcher to lose confidence in his ability.

Milton specifically seems to me to be an extremely emotional player and despite his quotes to the contrary you can definitely see......

Oh well, I am sure I am not telling you guys anything you don't already know, I feel kind of stupid even trying.

How can you assert that Milton drops his elbow? You've hardly seen him pitch.

Milton's biggest problem is that he gets almost zero leg drive because of the degenerative knee. He finishes his motion in an almost vertical manner, which is probably the biggest reason for his pitches remaining up in the zone with much less velocity.

His curve is flat, and not biting.

His fastball is as straight as an arrow.

I don't know where you assert that he has control problems, because walks have never been an issue. Maybe you meant to say "command problems".

If that's the case, read my second paragraph.

No, Eric Milton does not let his emotions get in the way. Does he huff a little after he gives up yet another homer?

Yeah, but what pitcher doesn't?

I haven't seen him yell at umps, bean guys, or bash water coolers. That makes it seem to me that he's got his emotions in check.

It all boils down to the fact that he needs to keep his front leg staight in order to avoid the searing pain in his leg, that in turn, keeps him from having the command necessary to get the ball down in the zone, which in turn provides hitters the opportunity to hit long fly balls (which is what ALL hitters want to do, not chop down on the ball).

Anything else?

Ravenlord
10-12-2005, 05:54 PM
He finishes his motion in an almost vertical manner, which is probably the biggest reason for his pitches remaining up in the zone with much less velocity.
actually, in his QS, and occasionally in he'd do this in his bad starts too, he'd bend his back A LOT to compensate for not bending his right knee. i think another year of it he'll start having arm problems because it looks like it puts horrible strain on the shoulder.

wheels
10-12-2005, 05:59 PM
actually, in his QS, and occasionally in he'd do this in his bad starts too, he'd bend his back A LOT to compensate for not bending his right knee. i think another year of it he'll start having arm problems because it looks like it puts horrible strain on the shoulder.

Yeah, I think remember noticing that he'd adjusted in one of his starts, but in the very next start he was back to being upright.

See...That's the problem with using the memory and the eyes as evaluation tools.

I saw one thing, you saw another.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 06:12 PM
If one truly followed the game they would know that Milton has a degenerative knee problem that caused him to miss the majority of his last season as a Twin. Since the initial injury his velocity has never came back. He has never had smooth, consistent mechanics resulting in inconsistent command. His arm slot is much more 3/4 than when he first came up. Before the injury he got by on very good stuff. Now the stuff is only average(at best) consequently his is not a good pitcher.

Is he as bad as his 2005 numbers? Probably not but he is a genuine boat anchor to a franchise like the Reds. Most pitchers have inconsistent mechanics and flaws. They are constantly working to correct them, that is why they have coaches.

When pitchers don't stay on top of the ball and get their weight over their front leg, guess what, the ball stays up. Who knew? Pitchers are constantly working to refine their mechanics and make them more repeatable. The key with Milton is he has a knee condition that is most likely the cause of his problems. DanO knew that and was dumb enough to throw the money at him anyway.

Changing the focus from "stats are misleading" to analyzing hitting and pitching mechanics is nothing but a red herring. There is nothing inherently difficult about just like there isn't in statistical analysis. Stats are simply a way of making an objective comparison as possible between certain skill sets of players. Otherwise player analysis is nothing but subjective opinion.

westofyou
10-12-2005, 06:21 PM
If you followed the game you would know that Milton has a degenerative knee problem that caused him to miss the majority of his last season as a Twin. Since the initial injury his velocity has never came back. He has never had smooth, consistent mechanics resulting in inconsistent command. His arm slot is much more 3/4 than when he first came up. Before the injury he got by on very good stuff. Now the stuff is only average(at best) consequently his is not a good pitcher.

Is he as bad as his 2005 numbers? Probably not but he is a genuine boat anchor to a franchise like the Reds.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2472

The trade of Eric Milton to the Philadelphia Phillies in return for Carlos Silva, Nick Punto, and a MLTBNLATRFD (minor leaguer to be named later, after the Rule 5 draft) is one fraught with medhead angst. Milton, of course, is coming off a season defined by and almost completely lost to an extensive knee surgery. Is this surgery the reason that the Twins were willing to move him, or was his 17-inning audition at the end of the 2003 season enough for the Phillies to be satisfied that he can move into a rotation that may lose ace Kevin Millwood?

Like most instances where baseball and medicine meet, the answer is "both." After Milton's late-March knee surgery, details came out about the severe deterioration that was found despite his relatively youthful age of 27 (he's now 28). His surgeon, Dr. Thomas Rosenberg had operated earlier in 2003 on Tiger Woods, but unlike Woods' relatively simple surgery, Rosenberg found Milton's knee required much more extensive work. In the procedure, Rosenberg removed more than 30 discreet pieces of cartilage from both the medial and lateral meniscus. He was also forced to debride what was described as significant osteoarthritis from the knee both above and below the joint. As you can see from this illustration and description of similar procedures, Milton's knee likely looked like that of a much older person that may at some point be a candidate for complete joint replacement in order to maintain function.

The six-month recovery and involved rehabilitation that Milton went through in order to return to the game went according to plan, according to Twins sources. Once he began to pitch again, both in drill and during a brief minor league rehab stint, it was clear that at least in the short term, Milton was able to return to his previous level of pitching. There is, however, a significant worry that his knee will continue to degrade over the course of a full season, endangering his ability to contribute as expected. It's one thing to pitch 17 good innings and quite another to the reach the 200-inning level for which the Phillies are paying.

Milton's injury is similar to, but much more advanced than that of fellow lefty Randy Johnson. Johnson was able to come back after injections of synvisc, a synthetic lubricant that seeks to reduce bone-on-bone friction in the absence of normal, natural shock absorbers. There is a great deal of disagreement over which, if any, technique is more effective in the long-term, but sports medicine often takes an odd perspective on both efficacy and function. There is clearly room for interpretation and individuality. Where both techniques returned the respective pitchers to function, both are also likely to be walking around with their children and grandchildren on a replacement joint. It is one price of professional sports that we seldom see.

The Phillies receive a pitcher with significant risk of recurrence who will likely pitch--and walk--with some level of pain. It is Milton's pain tolerance and the abilities of the Phillies' medical staff that will decide his effectiveness on the mound. The team takes on a one-year risk, which given the usual timeframe for recurrence, is only slightly elevated over a normal pitcher of this age. They also deal with a known quantity: By knowing the level of damage, the Phillies' staff will be able to come up with a plan to keep Milton as healthy as possible, something they were unable to do in Minnesota before the problem showed up.

Cyclone792
10-12-2005, 06:47 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2472

The team takes on a one-year risk, which given the usual timeframe for recurrence, is only slightly elevated over a normal pitcher of this age. They also deal with a known quantity: By knowing the level of damage, the Phillies' staff will be able to come up with a plan to keep Milton as healthy as possible, something they were unable to do in Minnesota before the problem showed up.

Must be nice to know that Dan O'Brien then decided to take on a three year risk at the cost of a cool $25 mil after an entire season of further deterioration that may or may not have occurred.

:bang:

Ravenlord
10-12-2005, 06:52 PM
Must be nice to know that Dan O'Brien then decided to take on a three year risk at the cost of a cool $25 mil after an entire season of further deteoration that may or may not have occurred.

:bang:
he also signed Wilson, knowing that Paul had a frayed rotator cuff.

SteelSD
10-12-2005, 07:50 PM
I am not going to waste my time looking up better examples, but here is one just of the top of my head. Here's a link, scroll down to Don Mattingly, ever heard of him, explains how to hit a homerun?

Translation...you don't know what you're talking about so you'll start talking about something completely irrelevant in an effort to sidetrack the reader. Another in a growing list of red herrings and it's getting seriously tiresome.

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.

You might as well have said, "Water isn't wet and here's a brick to prove it."

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.

You'd have done well to avoid commenting on statistical analysis althogether. If you had, you might have been able to perpetuate a little reasonable doubt as to your topic ignorance. But THEN you start talking about non-statistical hitting theory you don't really understand in an effort to draw attention away from your lacking knowledge base in another area? All you DID was draw attention to your now-displayed ignorance of things non-statistical as well.

I think we should, by now, be firmly convinced that you shouldn't be trusted to accurately depict events even if sitting next to us at a real life baseball game. You've been given opportunity to explain yourself and back your positions with relevant information but have instead done nothing but demonstrate that you simply don't have the ability to accurately determine, store, and recall what just happened right in front of you during a baseball game .

In fact, my "more likely to know what really happened" list would include all blind people, most of the mentally challenged, some invertebrates, at least three strains of bacteria, and a squirrel who lives in our back yard. At least I know when that squirrel finds a nut he's not going to try to tell me it's a cheeseburger.

KronoRed
10-12-2005, 07:52 PM
he also signed Wilson, knowing that Paul had a frayed rotator cuff.
He should have been fired immediately when that was revealed.

Ravenlord
10-12-2005, 08:19 PM
He should have been fired immediately when that was revealed.
Bowden knew too. i think that's why Wilson's contract was backloaded to way it was. he was probably looking to deal him in that second year. however, people saw through the Wilson pyrite (or more people knew about the shoulder than Bowden thought), and before the end of that original contract, Bowden was fired.

O'Brien however, i think he might have believed that it wouldn't come up...or more likely felt obligated to resign Wilson because of 'his competitive spirit' and being 'the veteran leader of the staff.'
only DanO would think it wise to sign a guy for 3 years who's been pitching with a frayed rotator cuff for at least 330 IP the last 2 years because of intangible quality.

DanO is aware that guys on the 60-day DL don't stay with the team, right?

RedsBaron
10-12-2005, 08:21 PM
He should have been fired immediately when that was revealed.
I agree. This team will not win as long as DanO is GM and he will eventually be fired, but unfortunately only after some more losing.

Aronchis
10-12-2005, 08:29 PM
I agree. This team will not win as long as DanO is GM and he will eventually be fired, but unfortunately only after some more losing.

lol. He won't be fired, but not resigned as it lays now. A stopgap, is a stopgap. You keep on trying to make it like the Reds are stuck with DanO, the truth is, DanO is lucky to be stuck with us and hope some of his kids down in the minors pan out for the staff over the next 2-3 years, good resume building for a personal job with a different franchise. But his time with Cincy is not for long, unless the new owners are really that stupid to rehire him other than a 99 type season happening.

M2
10-12-2005, 08:34 PM
Alright Steel, here we go....

My IMPRESSION of Adam Dunn having only watched sixteem games. Actually it might have been 18 a season over 4-5 seasons.

Adam Dunn is a full rotational hitter that despite preferring the ball low in the zone, keeps his hands unusually high just before launch. With an open stance, and short compact power stroke he tends to be completely out of position when he completes his swing, but, makes up those important seconds on groundballs in the infield by being left handed.
Needless to say, he rarely ever beats them out.

He is never cheated on a swing, but, he also doesn't utilize his hand eye co-ordination.
Dunn never rolls his top hand, and since top hand is the most dominant in rotational hitting this is also unusual, but not that unusual, and will lend itself to alot of line drives that seem to hang for the outfielders.

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.

With his hands up that high, and then dropped anticipating the low pitch, he is extremely vulnerable to the high pitch. Almost impossible to keep his hands that high, drop them in anticipation of the pitch, and then get them back up again to hit the high fastball.

In games where the umpire is calling the high strike he is helpless.

He prefers fastballs about mid thigh to the knee and definitely middle in on the plate.
He has however, shown a great ability to hit hard breaking pitches such as sliders (if they break in) and splitters, and can time his stride and swing to adjust to the changeup, but, only if he guesses correctly. And only if they are middle in.

With the open stance, he is also vulnerable to the outside pitches. He has almost no ability to go opposite field, although I did see him hit one, an RBI double, earlier this season. But only once, and no attempts whatsoever in the previous season. And the one success was on a two strike count, off the end of the bat when the defense played an exaggerated pull position.

He also lacks the mental ability to sacrifice his at bats for the good of the team. Probably ego. But more likely that Adam doesn't take baseball very seriously, and because he was labled a superstar, by Bowden and his scouts, and rushed to the major leagues he probably doesn't feel there is any reason to change his game. But that is pure speculation, I don't know what he is really thinking.

Rarely does Dunn bat to the situation, and most likely because it his intention to power pull anything in his hitting zone. He also cannot inside-out a pitch, regardless of where it's pitched. Not really rare in today's game.

In general, in my opinion, Adam Dunn has alot more holes in his swing than his swing can cover the plate. Very vulnerable and totally exposed, however, the upside is that if he does get his pitch (usually a mistake by the pitcher, if not on type, at least location) he has the power to drive it a long way. To the tune of 39 homeruns, but, not enough to justify his expected expense. Or the at bats that he is given.

For every run he does put up, he cost's just as many with his below average defense.
He does have good speed, and he is not a dumb fielder, but, for whatever reason, whatever speed he does have is usually spent just trying to get close to the balls because he is usually no where near the play.

How much of it can be blamed on coaching strategies and philosophies is diluted by the fact that he has played under 3 different managers.

He also tends to play what is called a "lazy" OF, which is, he will concede the hit out of what appears to be fear of letting the ball get past him. Even if that means a game winning or game tying run will score.

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. This is common knowledge and consistent with the scouting reports going around the league.

On the basepaths Dunn is rarely anything but a liability. Rarely does he take the aggressive extra base, and although, speed was one of the atributes that impressed scouts at the minor league level, he rarely displays it at the major league level. Maybe the coaches have no faith in his speed.

Overall my impression is that Dunn is a laid back, if not lazy, player whose abiltiy to hit towering homeruns, which is awe inspiring to todays fan, will keep him in the lineup. It is all the other shortcomings that will keep him out of the #3-4-5 spots.
His youth would lend itself to the optimism that he will get better, but, over 4+ seasons in the major leagues tells otherwise. He may never be anything but a number 6 or 7 hitter.

He is destined to be DH, and for now, should be moved to first permanently in attempt to maximize his one dimensional offense by decreasing the runs given up defensively.

It, is in my opinion, a mistake to sign him to anything but a 3 year 5-6 million dollar contract, and would be better served to be traded this offseason while his stock is still high.

And that's my impression, and from my memory, and I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence contrary to that opinion, even in the numbers.

Well there's a pile of nonsense. In short, you've witnessed various things about Adam Dunn that you haven't been able to fit together into any sort of usable whole.

Some specifics -

1) By your own admission Dunn has a swing designed to avoid the infield and then you fault him for not beating out more grounders.

2) As hard as Dunn hits the ball, he's never going to beat out a lot of grounders. His grounders either scoot through or quickly find a fielder.

3) A lot of batters start with their hands high because the #1 cardinal sin in hitting is getting your hands below the ball. Some need to exaggerate it and it's nothing unusual to see a guy with a high starting point.

4) Dunn doesn't hold his hands all that high in compaison to other guys.

5) Dunn seems to like the ball down and inside? First time I've ever heard of a lefty hitter with those traits. Does he also seem to generate more power when he gets his arms extended?

6) I believe Dunn goes opposite field A LOT more often than Jr. and he certainly sees far fewer shifts.

7) I don't want my best power hitter sacrificing ABs. That would to the detriment of the team. You won't see Vlad Guerrero, Paul Konerko, Lance Berkman and Albert Pujols doing it this week either.

8) Dunn doesn't have an inside-out swing. Derek Jeter does. It's like they're different hitters with different strengths and approaches in a game where you see all kinds.

9) A good coach focuses on getting a hitter to accentuate what he does well. You've got the germinal form of identifying Dunn's strengths here (though I'd suggest getting a statistical breakdown of how he performs in each section of the strikezone). No one disputes that he's got some holes in there, every hitter does. Dunn should lay off his weak spots, even the ones IN the strikezone, unless he's got two strikes on him.

Cooper
10-12-2005, 08:58 PM
I'll write it again, but i'm curious this time ---does anyone think Dunn has a strong throwing arm? Besides Casey, i believe it's the weakest on the team. Am i wrong about this? Just checking.

flyer85
10-12-2005, 09:09 PM
I'll write it again, but i'm curious this time ---does anyone think Dunn has a strong throwing arm? Besides Casey, i believe it's the weakest on the team. Am i wrong about this? Just checking.He has above average arm strength. His problem not getting himself on balance to make a strong and accurate throw. His size results in being not as agile and Dunn has a habit of throwing the ball off-balance, which results in a weak inaccurate throw. His throwing is the main problem I have with his defense. When you go to the game and see Dunn in person you realize he gets decent jumps and takes good angles(as opposed to WMP), his outfield play overall is slightly below average but his abiltiy to track and judge a flyball is good. His main problem is not getting himself in a good thowing position before fielding the ball.

ochre
10-12-2005, 09:10 PM
I'll write it again, but i'm curious this time ---does anyone think Dunn has a strong throwing arm? Besides Casey, i believe it's the weakest on the team. Am i wrong about this? Just checking.
I think Dunn's arm is an enigma. And I'm not talking WWII German encryption device. He made a throw to third (while playing 1b) on an overthrown pickoff that made me look twice. It was a laser. From the outfield he seems to throw lolipops at rainbows. Can't figure out why such disparate results, unless he has had a sore arm. Maybe he should use rotational throwing techniques and throw up on the ball.

M2
10-12-2005, 09:18 PM
Maybe he should use rotational throwing techniques and throw up on the ball.

Had there been milk in my mouth when I read that it surely would have shot out my nose.

IslandRed
10-12-2005, 09:48 PM
Had there been milk in my mouth when I read that it surely would have shot out my nose.

"Lucky him," mutters the gentleman cleaning his keyboard...

RFS62
10-12-2005, 10:00 PM
Maybe he should use rotational throwing techniques and throw up on the ball.



Bwahahahahahahahaha

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

SteelSD
10-12-2005, 11:10 PM
I'll write it again, but i'm curious this time ---does anyone think Dunn has a strong throwing arm? Besides Casey, i believe it's the weakest on the team. Am i wrong about this? Just checking.

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.

That is most definitely an issue and I saw Dunn push a number of throws off-line this season because he hurried throws he, instead, should have become set on before his throw release. But, again, guaging specifically on OF Assists is inexact at best and a lot of it has to do with the Catcher's skill level. And, yes, a lot of it has to do with how scared a team is of a guy's arm (i.e. Vlad has a huge arm and his Assist numbers are surpressed by opponents who choose not to challenge him).

However, Dunn has played a total of 419 Innings in Right Field. That's not a huge amount of time, but it's decent. During that time, he averaged one OF Assist every 83.9 Innings. Here's a list of RF since 2001 who have individual seasonal averages of better than 1 Assist per 83.9 Innings played.

2005- None
2004- Richard Hidalgo, Bobby Higginson
2003- Richard Hidalgo, Jose Cruz Jr.
2002- Larry Walker, Robert Fick
2001- Tim Salmon, Raul Mondesi

Fick seems out of place, but he's a former Catcher. Hidalgo can just plain air it out. I don't think there's any question as to his arm. Higginson had a huge arm in his prime. Walker wasn't as deadly, but has always had a cannon. Jose Cruz produced a ton more Assists per Inning (93.5 Innings per Assist) in RF than in either CF or LF. Salmon wasn't always a DH and he registered an OF assist in Right every 110.3 Innings. We know about Mondesi's arm.

Yes, we've got a small sample size for Dunn there in a fairly nebulous area. But his performance in RF over that time has been shadowed only by a few guys who have (or had) really good arms.

Honestly, I'd have zero issue putting Adam Dunn in RF. If the Reds were to field an OF of Dunn (LF), Pena (CF), and Kearns (RF), they've got RF arm strength at three different OF positions regardless of where they play.

Steve4192
10-12-2005, 11:50 PM
It was 2003 and it involved Jose Valentin (Javier's brother) and the Chicago White Sox.....

Game tying, critical game winning, the man was clutch up and down the board.
Jose Valentin 2003 splits


Overall: 237/313/463
None on: 231/313/441
RISP: 229/306/466
RISP w/2 out: 173/271/269

In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

paintmered
10-13-2005, 12:24 AM
In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.parseerror.com/images/moments/inconceivable/vizzini.jpg

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 09:51 AM
3) A lot of batters start with their hands high because the #1 cardinal sin in hitting is getting your hands below the ball. Some need to exaggerate it and it's nothing unusual to see a guy with a high starting point.

You remember the criticism Eric Davis used to get for starting his hands so low? Apparently it still worked for him. Anyway, it doesn't look like Dunn's hands are too high, all things considered.

Cooper
10-13-2005, 10:38 AM
He has a cannon? Wow, i just don't see it. Throwing a football and throwing a baseball does not require the same mechanics. In my view, it looks like he leads with his elbow --throwing a football well requires a qb to get "on top of the ball" thus he uses his elbow more creating a proper spin --a baseball player throws the ball with more of an emphasis on his shoulder (rotator). QB's have problems with tendinitis whereas baseball players have problems with shoulder problems. I'm generalizing here.

I've watched a lot of games and i've never thought to myself --"wow, adam really aired one out there".

I'll shut up:)

RFS62
10-13-2005, 10:44 AM
I think his throwing mechanics have actually gotten sloppy in the last couple of years. He has a strong arm, but it seems like he rarely gets set up behind the ball correctly to crow hop or have his momentum moving towards the target.

He reminds me a lot of times of a quarterback rolling out and throwing on the run. You just can't get as much on the ball that way.

ochre
10-13-2005, 10:46 AM
I've watched a lot of games and i've never thought to myself --"wow, adam really aired one out there".

I'll shut up:)
Me too until I saw him throw that ball to third (while playing 1b). It looked like a mirror image of an EE throw from 3b.

SteelSD
10-13-2005, 11:08 AM
He has a cannon? Wow, i just don't see it. Throwing a football and throwing a baseball does not require the same mechanics. In my view, it looks like he leads with his elbow --throwing a football well requires a qb to get "on top of the ball" thus he uses his elbow more creating a proper spin --a baseball player throws the ball with more of an emphasis on his shoulder (rotator). QB's have problems with tendinitis whereas baseball players have problems with shoulder problems. I'm generalizing here.

I've watched a lot of games and i've never thought to myself --"wow, adam really aired one out there".

I'll shut up:)

Coop, I don't disagree that I've seen a couple throws from Dunn where I end up going, "What was THAT???" But then, I've seen him throw bullets as well.

I would have to agree with RFS that, when Dunn doesn't get much on a throw, it has a lot to do with mechanics. IMHO, I think it's tough for a 6'6" guy to pick a ball off the grass and get his whole body set before the throw anyway, but adjustments can be made to help. Certainly, that's something he should be working on. But when I've seen him take the ball high, he gets a ton behind his throws.

I also think there's a difference as to how often you're going to see a LF just plain air it out versus a RF. Very rarely is a LF just going to be able to ignore the cutoff man and, let's face it, far fewer runners are going to attempt to score from third on a fly out to LF. Put him in RF and I think he'll surprise you.

M2
10-13-2005, 11:13 AM
I think his throwing mechanics have actually gotten sloppy in the last couple of years. He has a strong arm, but it seems like he rarely gets set up behind the ball correctly to crow hop or have his momentum moving towards the target.

He reminds me a lot of times of a quarterback rolling out and throwing on the run. You just can't get as much on the ball that way.

That's my take too.

Actually going off of what Steel said, I wonder if he wouldn't benefit from playing RF because he'd get to air it out from there more often, reconstruct the muscle memory if you will.

M2
10-13-2005, 11:20 AM
You remember the criticism Eric Davis used to get for starting his hands so low? Apparently it still worked for him. Anyway, it doesn't look like Dunn's hands are too high, all things considered.

That's sort of my point. Different players pull the trigger from different spots. I'd worry about Dunn's hands being high if he couldn't catch up to a good fastball. That's not his problem. His problem, at least when he gets awry, is he's swinging at pitches outside his kill zone.

I'd work on pitch selection and his two-strike approach before I started messing with his stance overly much. You've got a guy who can do a tremendous amount of damage with his current mechanics, I'd build around that rather than try to strip it down (which is what Bob Boone and Tom Robson tried to do in 2002).

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 01:11 PM
Well, like I said, I am NOT going to waste too much time trying to explain the mechanics of rotational vs weight shift (or linear if you prefer) batting.

But here is one interesting article that kind of summarizes the concept.

http://www.mikeepsteinhitting.com/extra/askmike36.pdf

I will try to link it.

Ha, ha, ha, ha my reputation is taking a nose dive. What's a matter am I shaking the very foundation you have for the numbers.

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 01:16 PM
Oh yeah, here' another interesting quote from Bill James, the FATHER of Sabermetrics.

"The truth is that saves are far better defined than wins and losses are, that the description is far more carefully tailored to avoid rewarding an undeserving pitcher than is the description of the "win," which requires of a starter only that he last five. People seize on the occasional undeserved save because it is uncommon, whereas they simply accept the large numbers of undeserved wins and losses because they are commonplace.
...The other objection is that saves are imbalanced; there should be a "failure to save" to balance the books. Well, great, count them...People actually say that saves are the only category in baseball where the positive is not balanced by any potential negative, where the player has a possibility of gaining something without any chance of losing something. This is riotous nonsense. Did you ever see a record for runners not driven in? How about double plays not turned? Sacrifice hits not delivered? The record books are full of uncounted negatives.

Not that saves are perfect. They're not, but neither is any other category. People make demands of a "new" statistic that they would never think of making of the traditional data. They demand that the statistic be pure wheat and no chaff. They demand that it tell them all there is to know about the subject. By those standards, all statistics would be found wanting."

Bill James, 1982 Baseball Abstract.

pedro
10-13-2005, 01:18 PM
Ha, ha, ha, ha my reputation is taking a nose dive. What's a matter am I shaking the very foundation you have for the numbers.

Um no.

I think it has more to do with the name calling and question dodging.

I'm fairly certain that the only point you have made is that you really don't have one. But keep it coming, it is amusing.

Joseph
10-13-2005, 01:23 PM
I'll second Pedro here. You have come in with that parent statement of 'Because I said so...' and not really given a reason to believe you know what you are debating. You summarily dismiss salient point by others with "Hey, I trust my eyes," while refusing to look at the evidence before you.

I pray you aren't a judge.

savafan
10-13-2005, 01:23 PM
Oh yeah, here' another interesting quote from Bill James, the FATHER of Sabermetrics.



For what it's worth, Branch Rickey came up with a lot of what is now considered sabermetrics long before James.

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 01:24 PM
"That is most definitely an issue and I saw Dunn push a number of throws off-line this season because he hurried throws he, instead, should have become set on before his throw release. "
----Steel

"However, an impression is obviously often an "imprecise notion or remembrance". In short, you still don't know what really happened. You have to verify that it actually happened. You have to put your "impression" to the litmus test of verification and validation."
-----Steel

Well Steel which is it?

pedro
10-13-2005, 01:26 PM
Steel has another stalker.

How cute.

westofyou
10-13-2005, 01:30 PM
Oh yeah, here' another interesting quote from Bill James, the FATHER of Sabermetrics.

Here's another one from his 1985 Baseball Abstract, it's credited to Craig Wright.

As for the word "sabermetric" it combines the pronuciation of the acronym SABR (society for american baseball research) with "metric" for measurement. The first sabermerician may have been John McGraw or perhaps Fielder Jones or Ned Hanlon...

Then there's this one from 1982.


It is not the numbers that fill out the story which is known from other sources, but that the bits and pieces of knowledge which we have about the ballplayers flesh out the numbers which are the true story. There is no fiction so absorbing and no other poetry so hypnotic.

Iatalics his.

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 01:32 PM
There's nothing wrong with stats by themselves. Where we have problems is how they're interpreted and which stats are considered more important than others. The problem isn't that stats mislead people, it's that people attach undue importance to the wrong stats and tend to judge a player's importance by the wrong set of numbers. You need some stats just so you can quantify what anyone has done, but how people interpret those stats is where we end up with the problems and all of the disagreements about Adam Dunn.

Chip R
10-13-2005, 01:37 PM
Steel has another stalker.

How cute.

Like moths to a flame.

KronoRed
10-13-2005, 02:03 PM
Steel has another stalker.

How cute.

He is one popular guy. :D

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 02:20 PM
There's nothing wrong with stats by themselves. Where we have problems is how they're interpreted and which stats are considered more important than others. The problem isn't that stats mislead people, it's that people attach undue importance to the wrong stats and tend to judge a player's importance by the wrong set of numbers. You need some stats just so you can quantify what anyone has done, but how people interpret those stats is where we end up with the problems and all of the disagreements about Adam Dunn.

I don't agree.

I have always found the stat keeping concepts, even the sabermetricians, and basically they're whole philosophy, flawed and inept.

There is a huge difference between a bloop single, on an 0-1, badly played by an OF with a weak relay throw to a second baseman who is out of position, or just doesn't know the proper play, that allows a double and a absolute laser, on a 3-2 pitch with the tying run on second that splits the OF's and wins the game.

But according to stats they both are going to be credited with a "hit", a double, it compiles into an ungodly amount of sabermetric formulas that require referencing and cross referencing to try and value the player when in fact there is still too many questions to be accurate enough. No matter how much you study it, which is why the stats as they are now, are just a statistical average and not a very good barometer of skill or events.

I personally have always felt that there should be a completely new system that in no way compiles a statistical average over 162 games, and gives a fan or analyst something alot more concrete as to a players worth and accomplishments.

A numeric representation for record, since we already have "good" "great" and "bad" and that doesn't really explain anything either, that would better describe exactly what happened and "who was better" and the more I go over it, including the rumored +/- system talked about some years ago, the more I realize it is utterly impossible.

No number or formula, no matter how advanced, could accurately describe the millions of variables and factors that go into even the most basic Major League Baseball event.

Although the +/- system might be better than what they have now, their can be no perfect system.

And I too, for the most part, look them up, I pay some attention to them, and am not annoyed by the statistical analyses, not at all, as I am copletely annoyed by some baseball fans complete and unbending faith that they are perfect and accurate.

Trying to talk baseball, without eye witness account, and based soley on the "stats" is like trying to tell a friend about a movie you watched only using numbers.

pedro
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Trying to talk baseball, without eye witness account, and based soley on the "stats" is like trying to tell a friend about a movie you watched only using numbers.


Trying to understand your posts might be easier if converted to hexidecimal.

4920646F6E27742061677265652EDADA49206861766520616C 7761797320666F756E64207468652073746174206B65657069 6E6720636F6E63657074732C206576656E2074686520736162 65726D657472696369616E732C20616E64206261736963616C 6C7920746865792772652077686F6C65207068696C6F736F70 68792C20666C6177656420616E6420696E6570742EDADA5468 6572652069732061206875676520646966666572656E636520 6265747765656E206120626C6F6F702073696E676C652C206F 6E20616E20302D312C206261646C7920706C61796564206279 20616E204F4620776974682061207765616B2072656C617920 7468726F7720746F2061207365636F6E6420626173656D616E 2077686F206973206F7574206F6620706F736974696F6E2C20 6F72206A75737420646F65736E2774206B6E6F772074686520 70726F70657220706C61792C207468617420616C6C6F777320 6120646F75626C6520616E642061206162736F6C757465206C 617365722C206F6E206120332D322070697463682077697468 20746865207479696E672072756E206F6E207365636F6E6420 746861742073706C69747320746865204F46277320616E6420 77696E73207468652067616D652EDADA427574206163636F72 64696E6720746F207374617473207468657920626F74682061 726520676F696E6720746F2062652063726564697465642077 69746820612022686974222C206120646F75626C652C206974 20636F6D70696C657320696E746F20616E20756E676F646C79 20616D6F756E74206F662073616265726D657472696320666F 726D756C617320746861742072657175697265207265666572 656E63696E6720616E642063726F7373207265666572656E63 696E6720746F2074727920616E642076616C75652074686520 706C61796572207768656E20696E2066616374207468657265 206973207374696C6C20746F6F206D616E7920717565737469 6F6E7320746F20626520616363757261746520656E6F756768 2E204E6F206D617474657220686F77206D75636820796F7520 73747564792069742C20776869636820697320776879207468 65207374617473206173207468657920617265206E6F772C20 617265206A757374206120737461746973746963616C206176 657261676520616E64206E6F742061207665727920676F6F64 206261726F6D65746572206F6620736B696C6C206F72206576 656E74732EDADA4920706572736F6E616C6C79206861766520 616C776179732066656C742074686174207468657265207368 6F756C64206265206120636F6D706C6574656C79206E657720 73797374656D207468617420696E206E6F2077617920636F6D 70696C6573206120737461746973746963616C206176657261 6765206F766572203136322067616D65732C20616E64206769 76657320612066616E206F7220616E616C79737420736F6D65 7468696E6720616C6F74206D6F726520636F6E637265746520 617320746F206120706C617965727320776F72746820616E64 206163636F6D706C6973686D656E74732EDADA41206E756D65 72696320726570726573656E746174696F6E20666F72207265 636F72642C2073696E636520776520616C7265616479206861 76652022676F6F6422202267726561742220616E6420226261 642220616E64207468617420646F65736E2774207265616C6C 79206578706C61696E20616E797468696E6720656974686572 2C207468617420776F756C6420626574746572206465736372 6962652065786163746C7920776861742068617070656E6564 20616E64202277686F20776173206265747465722220616E64 20746865206D6F7265204920676F206F7665722069742C2069 6E636C7564696E67207468652072756D6F726564202B2F2D20 73797374656D2074616C6B65642061626F757420736F6D6520 79656172732061676F2C20746865206D6F7265204920726561 6C697A652069742069732075747465726C7920696D706F7373 69626C652EDADA4E6F206E756D626572206F7220666F726D75 6C612C206E6F206D617474657220686F7720616476616E6365 642C20636F756C642061636375726174656C79206465736372 69626520746865206D696C6C696F6E73206F66207661726961 626C657320616E6420666163746F7273207468617420676F20 696E746F206576656E20746865206D6F737420626173696320 4D616A6F72204C6561677565204261736562616C6C20657665 6E742EDADA416C74686F75676820746865202B2F2D20737973 74656D206D6967687420626520626574746572207468616E20 7768617420746865792068617665206E6F772C207468656972 2063616E206265206E6F20706572666563742073797374656D 2EDADA416E64204920746F6F2C20666F7220746865206D6F73 7420706172742C206C6F6F6B207468656D2075702C20492070 617920736F6D6520617474656E74696F6E20746F207468656D 2C20616E6420616D206E6F7420616E6E6F7965642062792074 686520737461746973746963616C20616E616C797365732C20 6E6F7420617420616C6C2C206173204920616D20636F706C65 74656C7920616E6E6F79656420627920736F6D652062617365 62616C6C2066616E7320636F6D706C65746520616E6420756E 62656E64696E67206661697468207468617420746865792061 7265207065726665637420616E642061636375726174652EDA DA547279696E6720746F2074616C6B206261736562616C6C2C 20776974686F757420657965207769746E657373206163636F 756E742C20616E6420626173656420736F6C6579206F6E2074 68652022737461747322206973206C696B6520747279696E67 20746F2074656C6C206120667269656E642061626F75742061 206D6F76696520796F752077617463686564206F6E6C792075 73696E67206E756D626572732E

M2
10-13-2005, 02:31 PM
I have always found the stat keeping concepts, even the sabermetricians, and basically they're whole philosophy, flawed and inept.

Seeing that you've shown little aptitude for non-statistical evaluation so far and zero aptitude in terms of understanding even the basics of statistics, I'm not inclined to take your word for it.

Your claim that know the game at a deeper level has been belied by your posts. Maybe you do have a good grasp of the game, but I'm not seeing it. Your post on Dunn was an unqualified mess.

So, much as you may not trust the statistics, I see no reason why anyone would trust you.

flyer85
10-13-2005, 02:37 PM
There is a huge difference between a bloop single, on an 0-1, badly played by an OF with a weak relay throw to a second baseman who is out of position, or just doesn't know the proper play, that allows a double and a absolute laser, on a 3-2 pitch with the tying run on second that splits the OF's and wins the game.... and there is a huge difference between that line drive rocket that is hit right to the OF versus the ball 20 feet either direction that goes to the wall.

Unless you are going to watch every play of every season(and you admit to seeing very little) so you can see all the good luck plays(bloop hits, weak throws) and the bad luck plays(rocket right at a fielder) then how is your subjective judgement better than some statistic that doesn't differentiate between good breaks/bad breaks?

One of things of baseball is often the differences between baseball players are more subtle than most realize. I defy anyone to watch a .260 and .280 hitter and be able to tell a difference between the two over the course of a season without statistics. The actual difference is about one hit every two weeks. However, baseball places quite a different value between the two even though an ardent observer is unlikely to be able to discern the difference between the two based solely on visual observation.

The entire reason for the use of statistics is to try to develop a standard frame of reference to use to evaluate the differences between players. Otherwise the determination of the relative value of players falls into the realm of nothing more than subjective opinion which in reality means than any opinion is basically as good as anyone elses.

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 02:48 PM
There is a huge difference between a bloop single, on an 0-1, badly played by an OF with a weak relay throw to a second baseman who is out of position, or just doesn't know the proper play, that allows a double and a absolute laser, on a 3-2 pitch with the tying run on second that splits the OF's and wins the game.

Hence the difference between micro and macro, which has already been brought up ad infinitum throughout this thread. I have been at games where a guy had three hits without ever hitting the ball hard and then someone else hit rockets right at fielders all night and had nothing to show for it. But you know what? When all is said and done, the numbers are going to balance out. Is the weak hitter going to go all season without ever hitting the ball hard and get three hits every night because all of his bloopers keep falling in? I don't think so. Is the rocket hitter going to get robbed every night and end up hitting .067 for the season? I don't think so. You keep bringing up the isolated incident and the rest of us are speaking in the macro, the whole forest vs. trees argument brought into baseball. Yes, those isolated incidents do occur. Nobody is saying they don't. Sometimes the box score from one game can't tell you the whole story, but the cumulation of those box scores over a longer period of time will show you that the guy who got three cheap hits that game is a poorer hitter than the guy who got robbed all night and went 0-4. In person observations and a proper interpretation of stats gathered over a large enough sample are going to give you the same "impression" of the worth of the player if you are being honest enough in your observations.

Cyclone792
10-13-2005, 02:57 PM
Milezinni is in a much smaller world with his point of view, which could be called the World of Oblivion, and I really don't see him opening his mind up to the World of Reality.

That being said, it's pretty apparent to me that in the World of Oblivion, NEILYNG is Plato and Milezinni is Aristotle.

I remember NEILYNG from another board about eight years ago, and the similarities are striking. The argument style is very similar, the posting style is very similar and the opinions are very similar. Given they live in the same city, they probably know each other.

Unless, of course, they are the same. :help:

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 02:59 PM
You guys keep harping on this idea I only watch 16-18 games a season.

What I said is, I only get to watch 16-18 Reds games during the season, plus I review every game summary and box score, plus the little highlights clips (on MLB.com), although baseball is not conducive to highlights, plus I will occasional order the game highlights on MLB.com plus I watch CBS Sportsline.com gamecenter (which I think is the best one out there) for afternoon games.

But thats just the Reds.

I watch an absolute TON of baseball, but living in Chicago, I watch White Sox, and their opponent, and Cubs, and their opponent, games.

For over 35 years....well, the Chicago connection only over the last 6 years.

I also played, naturally, although not seriously, and I have studied. The mechanics of pitching, and their grips, and hitting and fielding including all the different variations of the playbook. Studied managers and all the different era's of baseball and it's evolution.

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.

I have also tried to end this discussion (although I really enjoyed the parts about Miltons mechanics) with the proverbial your entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
But it didn't end there, and this cat Steel keeps trying to belittle and patronize with his opinions and I found that humorous.

Could it be that some of you have the shadow of doubt about the totality of statistical analysis that you absolutley have to discredit me, if you can't sway me into your belief's, in order for your belief's to be valid?

westofyou
10-13-2005, 03:01 PM
I decided it would be hypocritical of me to use stats in my arguments, and I tried to keep that aspect to a minimum.
Try and explain Shakespeare, but avoid discussing his use of language.

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 03:03 PM
Could it be that some of you have the shadow of doubt about the totality of statistical analysis that you absolutley have to discredit me, if you can't sway me into your belief's, in order for your belief's to be valid?

I also have a pretty valid belief that the apostrophe is normally reserved for possessive forms and not plurals, but perhaps that is a topic for a different thread.

IslandRed
10-13-2005, 03:06 PM
I don't agree.
There is a huge difference between a bloop single, on an 0-1, badly played by an OF with a weak relay throw to a second baseman who is out of position, or just doesn't know the proper play, that allows a double and a absolute laser, on a 3-2 pitch with the tying run on second that splits the OF's and wins the game.


Oddly enough, those kinds of systems already exist in MLB front offices, albeit not nearly all of them -- systems that dissect every event to the nth degree and spit out evaluations without reference to the traditional boxscore stats.

In Moneyball, those systems were presented in the context of defensive evaluation -- in the A's case, trying to quantify the difference between a good defensive CF (Johnny Damon) and a bad one (Terrence Long).

Offensively speaking, as others have pointed out, you're correct that boxscore stats can give an inaccurate "micro" picture. But player evaluation is done on larger sample sizes and a lot of that bloop-hit, screaming-out stuff averages itself out over a season.

SteelSD
10-13-2005, 03:08 PM
Steel has another stalker.

How cute.

Another?

Probably one of the same. I'm waiting for something to be directly cut-and-pasted (we may have seen it already) from another site and/or for "KRISP" to come up.

Until then, I make no assumptions.

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 03:13 PM
Moneyball, I KNEW that was going to pop up sooner or later.

SteelSD
10-13-2005, 03:17 PM
I watch an absolute TON of baseball, but living in Chicago, I watch White Sox, and their opponent, and Cubs, and their opponent, games.

That's wonderful. Do you understand any of what you're seeing?

I mean, from watching Reds games, you drew completely erroneous conclusions about both their ability to win well-pitched games and their ability to hit situationally.

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.

Answer the question.

westofyou
10-13-2005, 03:19 PM
Moneyball, I KNEW that was going to pop up sooner or later.
You must prefer Beadles Dime Store Base-Ball Player Reader or Balldome by Moreland then eh?

SteelSD
10-13-2005, 03:22 PM
You must prefer Beadles Dime Store Base-Ball Player Reader or Balldome by Moreland then eh?

I'm waiting for him to declare mastery over the Moneyball subject matter before telling us he hasn't read it.

I mean, I'm sure he heard Joe Morgan talk about it once or twice.

Cyclone792
10-13-2005, 03:33 PM
I'm waiting for him to declare mastery over the Moneyball subject matter before telling us he hasn't read it.

I mean, I'm sure he heard Joe Morgan talk about it once or twice.

[Joe Morgan]

The Reds are not a very good offensive team because they cannot come up with big clutch hits with runners in scoring position. Guys like Adam Dunn are holding the overall offensive production up since they refuse to give themselves up for the benefit of the team. If the Reds are ever going to reach that next level, they need Dunn to go up there swinging, trying to put the bat on the ball so it forces the defense to be on their toes.

One move Dan O'Brien could make is moving Dunn for a better overall hitter, someone like Roberto Petagine. Petagine hits for average, hits for power and does all the little things necessary to help his team win. He's a bonafide team player because he comes up with clutch hits in clutch situations. Petagine is also one of the best in the game at moving runners into scoring position. He's always able to get the ball to the right side of in the infield and move that key runner along.

[/Joe Morgan]

:evil:

Milezinni
10-13-2005, 03:57 PM
I'm waiting for him to declare mastery over the Moneyball subject matter before telling us he hasn't read it.

I mean, I'm sure he heard Joe Morgan talk about it once or twice.


Not only have I read it, I just read it for the third time two weeks ago.

I believe the whole scouting structure needs to be re-evaluated, and that the "old" guard needs to be replaced.

I just don't buy the Beene/DePodesto, Epstein and possibly Riccardi approach to evaluating skill.

But they could be on to something, it just needs tweaking.

pedro
10-13-2005, 04:01 PM
I suggest you work on your phrasing Milezinni.

No need for name calling.

OldRightHander
10-13-2005, 04:01 PM
You see Steel this is what makes you a <edited>.

The pot is making comments on the color of the kettle.

Boss-Hog
10-13-2005, 04:02 PM
Not only have I read it, I just read it for the third time two weeks ago.

I believe the whole scouting structure needs to be re-evaluated, and that the "old" guard needs to be replaced.

I just don't buy the Beene/DePodesto, Epstein and possibly Riccardi approach to evaluating skill.

But they could be on to something, it just needs tweaking.
Well, you can't say I didn't warn you...

ochre
10-13-2005, 04:10 PM
"That is most definitely an issue and I saw Dunn push a number of throws off-line this season because he hurried throws he, instead, should have become set on before his throw release. "
----Steel

"However, an impression is obviously often an "imprecise notion or remembrance". In short, you still don't know what really happened. You have to verify that it actually happened. You have to put your "impression" to the litmus test of verification and validation."
-----Steel

Well Steel which is it?
Its both!

What do I win?

(the difference is that Steel is commenting on a couple of isolated events he witnessed and making a statement based on his evaluation of those singular events, not a fallatious extrapolative evaluation of a player based on a subjective observation.)

M2
10-13-2005, 04:16 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.

Well, that and you started off by making a demonstrably false statement, namely that the Reds wouldn't win if they got good pitching (proven false by the reality that they won like crazy when they got good pitching). Forget about "statistics," you can't even get your facts straight. I can see why you'd stay away.

You seem to think making an empty blanket statement constitutes some sort of argument. It doesn't. Your say-so means nothing and it means even less with every new post you've made. If you actually understood statistics you'd be pointing to where specific statistics actually lead people astray and what sorts of real-world mistakes are being made by those who've headed in the wrong direction.

BTW, we do that on this board all the time. For instance, pitching wins is an unbelievably worthless statistic and we've covered that. Batting average? It'll lead you into a black hole if you don't know when to get off its tail. Batter's strikeouts? Don't sweat 'em. Want to know which pitchers are better or worse than their ERA? We frequently delve into that one.

This board doesn't lack for statistical skepticism. It abounds with it. Often you'll see someone use an observation to go back, look at the statistical record and find where it's wanting, uncovering the overlooked numbers which back that assertion. Juan Castro's lack of fielding range leaps to mind. Lost in his fielding percentage and sometimes pretty zone ratings was the fact that pretty much everyone made more plays than he did.

But you've walked onto this board puffing out your chest, dropping bald-faced whoppers, making a confused mess of eyeball scouting and evading multiple instances where people have shown your statements to be outright nonsense. Clearly you're self-convinced, but I suspect you're a party one on that score.

ochre
10-13-2005, 04:26 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.


the act of "making an argument" would imply that you are taking on the burden of proof. That would be the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy.

flyer85
10-13-2005, 04:36 PM
Not only have I read it, I just read it for the third time two weeks ago.

I believe the whole scouting structure needs to be re-evaluated, and that the "old" guard needs to be replaced.

I just don't buy the Beene/DePodesto, Epstein and possibly Riccardi approach to evaluating skill.

But they could be on to something, it just needs tweaking.You read the details but missed the big picture of Moneyball. The real quest of Beane is not in finding a new way to evaluating skill. If it was then why did he draft all those HS players this year who really can't be evaluated with statistical analysis.

Do you know what Beane is really doing?

BTW, it's not explicity stated so there is no need to look for it. I'll give you a hint, Beane would be an outstanding market analyst.