Joe Posnanski with more data showing that closers simply don't matter

[scott91575]

I'm friends with Puffy, so anything is possible.

Doesn't look good though.

Ya know Raisor, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

[scott91575]

Brakes ain't baseball.

Your argument is that since baseball is not played on a computer, but in the real world, the usage of computer data and statistics is irrelevant. If that is true, then anything with real world applications would not have any use of statistics, data, or computers.

It's not that baseball and brakes are the same, it's the fact your premise for your conclusion is flawed since it breaks down when trying to apply it in other areas. If something is a part of the real world, it does not make statistics invalid.

Perhaps if you went with something like "baseball is a game." Yet even then I would claim that not to be true, especially since every baseball team uses statistics in some form.

[Raisor]

Ya know Raisor, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

I'm your huckleberry

[bigredmechanism]

You condescended first, so get off your high horse. I am going to guess that a course in logic is one of those garbage first year courses people with a useless major like Philosophy take. How close am I? Sorry, I took a real major in college.

My major was Computer Science. I took Philosophy 101, Logic, in my first semester.

Talk about high horses. Jeez.

[TSJ55]

Your argument is that since baseball is not played on a computer, but in the real world, the usage of computer data and statistics is irrelevant.

No. That is most certainly not my argument and I never even hinted at stats being irrelevant. My argument is that baseball transcends data. The numbers are useful, but because of the human element there are no absolutes.

[kaldaniels]

I get that runs in the first count as much as runs in the 9th and for the most part am on board with not "over-hyping" the ninth inning.

But are the first and ninth innings truly the same? Over the history of the game does a solo home run (just an easy example) in the first and ninth inning have the same WPA? Part of me says it should, but part of me says the one in the ninth just might be a bit more "important". I don't know. Anyone?

[Raisor]

I get that runs in the first count as much as runs in the 9th and for the most part am on board with not "over-hyping" the ninth inning.

But are the first and ninth innings truly the same? Over the history of the game does a solo home run (just an easy example) in the first and ninth inning have the same WPA? Part of me says it should, but part of me says the one in the ninth just might be a bit more "important". I don't know. Anyone?

They all fit together.

Let's say the 9th inning homer "wins" the game. But if that fisr inning homer hadn't been hit, the 9th inning homer would have "only" tied the game.

A 9th inning homer feels like its more important, but a run is a run.

[kaldaniels]

They all fit together.

Let's say the 9th inning homer "wins" the game. But if that fisr inning homer hadn't been hit, the 9th inning homer would have "only" tied the game.

A 9th inning homer feels like its more important, but a run is a run.

Yeah I figure along those lines, as there will be totally irrelevant home runs in the ninth, but also some very meaningful ones. I bet it's a wash or close to it, but didn't know if any WPA data existed.

[jojo]

I get that runs in the first count as much as runs in the 9th and for the most part am on board with not "over-hyping" the ninth inning.

But are the first and ninth innings truly the same? Over the history of the game does a solo home run (just an easy example) in the first and ninth inning have the same WPA? Part of me says it should, but part of me says the one in the ninth just might be a bit more "important". I don't know. Anyone?

Read your first paragraph really fast and it registered as you get the runs as much in the first as in the ninth....

[757690]

They all fit together.

Let's say the 9th inning homer "wins" the game. But if that fisr inning homer hadn't been hit, the 9th inning homer would have "only" tied the game.

A 9th inning homer feels like its more important, but a run is a run.

Just curiously, is a hit a hit? Are all hits of equal value?

If hits can be of different values, of different importance, than why can't runs?

[Dom Heffner]

You taught logic, you didn't teach statistics.

That's for darn sure.

A run is a run is a run.

You can look at run differential and predict a teams win loss record. If late scoring runs were more valuable we should be able just to see who scored late. We can't.

The dagger in the heart of your argument is that teams don't choose when they score. If late inning runs were more valuable, teams should just sit on their hands until late, put out a "clutch" effort and win at the end.

This is a hindsight argument with zero predictive value.

[Raisor]

Just curiously, is a hit a hit? Are all hits of equal value?

If hits can be of different values, of different importance, than why can't runs?

A home run is the same as a run.

A triple is 3/4ths of a run

A double is 1/2 of a run.

A single is 1/4th of a run.

A run = a run.

[Dom Heffner]

This is more of a would you rather have a five run lead in the first or ninth type thing.

I'll take the latter, I don't get to choose.

All this talk of logic- it's a stats issue. Go to the math building, learn about probability and distribution and come back to the fold.

Did I really read a comparison with poker hands? Someone said that if they lose the first hand the third is now more valuable?

On a higher end baseball sight?

[757690]

You taught logic, you didn't teach statistics.

That's for darn sure.

A run is a run is a run.

You can look at run differential and predict a teams win loss record. If late scoring runs were more valuable we should be able just to see who scored late. We can't.

The dagger in the heart of your argument is that teams don't choose when they score. If late inning runs were more valuable, teams should just sit on their hands until late, put out a "clutch" effort and win at the end.

This is a hindsight argument with zero predictive value.

Run differential is a very blunt statistical instrument that isn't right all of the time. I doubt that it could recognize the difference in value between runs scored late, and runs scored early. Btw, has anyone ever tried this? Seen if teams that score runs late win more or less games than teams that score run early?

As for when teams choose to score runs, they never choose when to score runs, they score them whenever they can. They never stop trying to score runs. Because all runs are valuable. They just aren't of the same value.

I am not saying that early runs have no value, just that they have less value in terms of affecting the who wins the game than runs scored later. How much difference in value between runs scored early and runs scored late? I have no idea. It might be insignificant, not worth worrying about, or it might be big enough to justify deploying different strategies in those situations.

I think we can all admit that not all hits are of equal value. All are valuable, but some are more valuable than others. Hits with runners in scoring position, hits in tight games, are more valuable than hits with no one on base, or in blowouts.

Why? Because hits only have value in how many runs they create. By themselves, they are useless. Their value comes in how they help the team score runs.

Likewise, runs only have value in how they help a team win a game. They have no value by themselves (which is why a run is not a run is not a run.) Their value comes in the role they play in winning the game.

And some runs play a bigger role in deciding who wins the game than others. Because all events in a baseball game play a different role in deciding who wins the game, and thus some events have more value in deciding who wins than others. A run is just an event in a game, each one is different, and has a different value in deciding who wins, based on circumstance and situation.

[Roy Tucker]

I went to college, but I'm having a real hard time with what the heck you guys are arguing about.