Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Plexiglass

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Richmond, Indiana
    Posts
    1,705

    Plexiglass

    Bill James has 6 indicators the refer to his concept of the plexiglass principle. Lots of stats people refer to it as regression to the mean, but at it's core it's more than that.

    How do the Reds stack up?

    1. Did the team out perform their expected record (their pythag record)?

    The Reds did not, but it's so close -2 games. I'm not sure it matters when a team is that close. If they had out performed their pythag record by 10 games -then you could expect a big adjustment.

    2. Teams that improve tend to fall back to the pack and vice versa.

    The Reds did improve by 4 games. I'm still not sure that is signifigant in that it would require an adjustment.

    3. Teams tend to go toward .500. Regression to the mean.

    The Reds are doing so....by 4 games. Is that signifigant?

    4. Age. Young teams get better. Old teams declne.

    With this team there was a substantial push to younger in Bruce, Stubs, Janish, Votto, Hanigan. Rolen and Hernandez push the other way. Improvement occurred when playing the younger players.

    Most folks pointed toward the aquisition of Rolen as the differnece maker, but in reality the improvement occurred with Stubbs and Janish.

    Appears to me that the team is getting younger.

    5. Good Triple AAA teams.

    The Bats are a good team. They had a good record. They used a wide array of players and kept on winning -they had a deep team.

    What about the teams double A performance? It might be a better indicator. The double A team ran out of gas when many players either got hurt or were assigned to AAA.

    6. Late season performance.

    This is the principle were the Reds shine brightest.


    All in all, indicators 4 and 6 appear to point the team toward improved play next season. 1, 2, 3 appear to be break even and 5 may be break even depending on how you view it.

    I would say that the team looks headed toward improvement.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,873

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Bill James has 6 indicators the refer to his concept of the plexiglass principle. Lots of stats people refer to it as regression to the mean, but at it's core it's more than that.

    How do the Reds stack up?

    1. Did the team out perform their expected record (their pythag record)?

    The Reds did not, but it's so close -2 games. I'm not sure it matters when a team is that close. If they had out performed their pythag record by 10 games -then you could expect a big adjustment.
    It depends.... third order pythag says they were a 71 win team and WAR suggests they were a 73 win team....
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  4. #3
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Plexiglass

    It is amazing how many new measurements, stats, theories, etc there are that are being used to try and "figure out" the game of baseball.

  5. #4
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,015

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    .

    2. Teams that improve tend to fall back to the pack and vice versa.

    The Reds did improve by 4 games. I'm still not sure that is signifigant in that it would require an adjustment.
    I think the 4 game improvement was legitimate. Despite all the injuries (and Willy T), this team was more talented than it was in the previous year.


    3. Teams tend to go toward .500. Regression to the mean.

    The Reds are doing so....by 4 games. Is that signifigant?
    Don't really agree with James here. Teams like the Pirates are always going to go towards much lower than .500 Teams like the Yankees are going to go towards 90+ wins. Kind of silly to suggest that teams go to .500 naturally, because of the talent desparity in baseball (on both the field, the payrolls, and the front offfice)


    4. Age. Young teams get better. Old teams declne.
    Again, I disagree with James here. Talented young teams get better. A lot of youth is being played in the major leagues simply because it is a cheap way to plug holes. Case in point. Janish gets playing time simply because the Reds are so shallow at SS that there's not any better options. He's really not that much different than Corky Miller. Not a budding superstar by any means.

    A lot of the Reds talent which actually produced last season was Votto and the veteran players. Stubbs and Bruce have potential, but are we going to see it next year? Realistically, Harang could have a better bounce back next year than the youngsters (for example).. The good news is that the Reds veterans are really not that old. All the vets have a reasonable chance to meet expectations next year, IMO.

    6. Late season performance.

    This is the principle were the Reds shine brightest.
    Yes, but the cynics around here will all remember years where we finished great. The key contributors in the preceding Fall fell on their faces the next year. Dickerson was great at the end of last year, but tailed off this year.
    Hopefully Stubbs and Janish will not fall off from where they were.


    I would say that the team looks headed toward improvement.
    I think there's reason to be optimistic next season. I don't mean to be a total downer. I am not really convinced of James' formula though.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  6. #5
    Start the Reactor! *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    6,417

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    It is amazing how many new measurements, stats, theories, etc there are that are being used to try and "figure out" the game of baseball.
    I think it is what I find most interesting about it...
    "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,630

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    It is amazing how many new measurements, stats, theories, etc there are that are being used to try and "figure out" the game of baseball.
    This stuff is 20 years old. Probably the only thing "new" that appears on RedZone is BaPip which is the flip of Dips which is 10 years old. There are improved measures of defensive efficiency, but those aren't really new ideas. If Connie Mack could have had them, he would have used them. They're really made possible by video.

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Don't really agree with James here. Teams like the Pirates are always going to go towards much lower than .500 Teams like the Yankees are going to go towards 90+ wins. Kind of silly to suggest that teams go to .500 naturally, because of the talent desparity in baseball (on both the field, the payrolls, and the front offfice)
    Teams that do poorly try to improve. Teams that do well tend to get attatched to players and not look to improve. You are right that at the extremes this is probably less true than it was 20 years ago.
    "Even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me." Roy Tucker October 2010

  8. #7
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by dfs View Post
    This stuff is 20 years old. Probably the only thing "new" that appears on RedZone is BaPip which is the flip of Dips which is 10 years old. There are improved measures of defensive efficiency, but those aren't really new ideas. If Connie Mack could have had them, he would have used them. They're really made possible by video.
    Which stuff is 20 years old? I am definitely not on the cutting edge, but I never heard of plexiglass or third order pythag until today. Even on this board.

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,630

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    Which stuff is 20 years old? I am definitely not on the cutting edge, but I never heard of plexiglass or third order pythag until today. Even on this board.
    The plexiglass stuff is in James' 1989 baseball book.

    Pythag was being adjusted back then. I think the big 1.85 coefficient dates from then and I still don't know that anyone's proven anything more accurate. I'm always willing to be trained.
    "Even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me." Roy Tucker October 2010

  10. #9
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by dfs View Post
    The plexiglass stuff is in James' 1989 baseball book.

    Pythag was being adjusted back then. I think the big 1.85 coefficient dates from then and I still don't know that anyone's proven anything more accurate. I'm always willing to be trained.
    Either way, it just seems as if there are stats that dispute other stats and then it's a battle of which stat's "stat" is bigger. Kind of ridiculous. I was under the impression that these "advanced" metrics were supposed to clear up the cloudiness of the game of baseball...to me, it seems like it is just the opposite.

    Kind of like the financial industry. I'm sure Buffett would have a cool perspective.

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,176

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    I think the 4 game improvement was legitimate. Despite all the injuries (and Willy T), this team was more talented than it was in the previous year.




    Don't really agree with James here. Teams like the Pirates are always going to go towards much lower than .500 Teams like the Yankees are going to go towards 90+ wins. Kind of silly to suggest that teams go to .500 naturally, because of the talent desparity in baseball (on both the field, the payrolls, and the front offfice)




    Again, I disagree with James here. Talented young teams get better. A lot of youth is being played in the major leagues simply because it is a cheap way to plug holes. Case in point. Janish gets playing time simply because the Reds are so shallow at SS that there's not any better options. He's really not that much different than Corky Miller. Not a budding superstar by any means.

    A lot of the Reds talent which actually produced last season was Votto and the veteran players. Stubbs and Bruce have potential, but are we going to see it next year? Realistically, Harang could have a better bounce back next year than the youngsters (for example).. The good news is that the Reds veterans are really not that old. All the vets have a reasonable chance to meet expectations next year, IMO.



    Yes, but the cynics around here will all remember years where we finished great. The key contributors in the preceding Fall fell on their faces the next year. Dickerson was great at the end of last year, but tailed off this year.
    Hopefully Stubbs and Janish will not fall off from where they were.




    I think there's reason to be optimistic next season. I don't mean to be a total downer. I am not really convinced of James' formula though.
    I think you're losing the forest for the trees RedRead.

    On the whole, young players get better from year to year. Given Major league coaching, and training every day I would likely get better from ages 23-27 even if by getting better it meant I had zero hits out of 600 AB's to getting 2 hits out of 600 AB's. I would likely be better.

    Paul Janish will likely be a better hitter than he was this year, even if it means going from awfult to putrid.(Or is it putrid to awful?) He may not be, but the odds say that he will be.

    The odds also say that Aaron Harang will revert from his career highs. Again, he may not, but the odds say that he will.

    When looking at the plexiglass effect, you shouldn't say "Woo hoo the Reds are going to be over .500! Playoff baseball here we come!" instead you should say, "given what we know, the odds are the Reds could definately be looking at a possible improvement. Maybe."
    When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
    ---Joe Posnanski

  12. #11
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by dfs View Post

    Teams that do poorly try to improve. Teams that do well tend to get attatched to players and not look to improve. You are right that at the extremes this is probably less true than it was 20 years ago.
    At this juncture though, it's pretty much GIGO. The variables have changed so dramatically as to render this notion meaningless. The stratification of ball clubs has become almost petrified. The Royals will never again have the talent-amassing ability of the Yankees. It simply will not happen.

  13. #12
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Red View Post

    When looking at the plexiglass effect, you shouldn't say "Woo hoo the Reds are going to be over .500! Playoff baseball here we come!" instead you should say, "given what we know, the odds are the Reds could definately be looking at a possible improvement. Maybe."
    Respectfully, that's a bit like saying nothing at all.

  14. #13
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,873

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    At this juncture though, it's pretty much GIGO. The variables have changed so dramatically as to render this notion meaningless. The stratification of ball clubs has become almost petrified. The Royals will never again have the talent-amassing ability of the Yankees. It simply will not happen.
    There really isn't anything stopping the Royals from being the Rays. Well except Dayton Moore and the people who hired and then extended him.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  15. #14
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    There really isn't anything stopping the Royals from being the Rays. Well except Dayton Moore and the people who hired and then extended him.
    You're right--but can the Rays sustain it? Only one team has shown the consistent ability to contend on the cheap, and they play in the third-weakest division in baseball the AL Central: and that's the Twins. Cleveland hasn't done it, Oakland has by and large vanished from consistent contention. And it's not for lack of brains in either team's case. It's really hard to amass and keep talent without big payroll. It's not impossible for a team to thread the needle for a season here and there, but winning consistently when playing in the same division as the Yankees is basically impossible.

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,176

    Re: Plexiglass

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    Respectfully, that's a bit like saying nothing at all.
    That was sort of the point. Sorry I didn't make my sarcasm clearer.
    When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
    ---Joe Posnanski


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25