This is where those that look at stats are wrong compared to those that watch the games.
A player hits 3 homers in a game that his team wins 12-0. And doesn't get another hit the rest of the week.
Another player hits 1 homer in two different games that his team wins 2-1 and 1-0. And gets no more hits the rest of the week.
Who's stats are better? Who actually helped you win more games?
Give me the guy who hits a home run in more games vs the guy that hits the same amount of home runs but has many more multiple home run games. Give me the guy who steal 60 bases in 60 different trips on the basepaths vs the guy who steals 60 bases in 40 different trips on the basepaths. Stats never tell the whole story. It's like when Jay Bruce went on his well known hot streaks. I'd still take Joey Votto's stats during that same time period because he was helping in close to 100 percent of the games while Bruce was only helping in about 60 percent of them.
I'll take the guy who gets hits on a more regular basis but goes 0-5 during blowouts vs the guy that goes 5-5 in blowouts(usually he gets to face those 5.00 to 20.00 era pitchers) and is inconsistent on other days.
Last edited by foster15; 07-11-2019 at 02:15 PM.
goldglover9 (07-11-2019)
Implying that someone who frequents a baseball forum doesn't actually watch baseball is quite a jump, but ok.
There's not enough data from your example. It doesn't account for defense, the total number of plate appearances, and also loses all situational awareness. Did the player who hit 3 home runs in one game hit three grand slams? If so, they certainly were responsible for winning that game. Come up with a more specific and contrived week with more data and then we can run the numbers and figure out what the stats say.
lol, well, even if he did hit 3 grand slams, he helped win one game where the scenario I layed out for the 2nd player makes it obvious he helped win 2.
My point was that when we watch the games and get a feel for one player over another but the overall stats say otherwise, usually it's because of the game situations is why we favor one over the other. I am a firm believer that all stats being equal, or even less equal, consistency trumps bundles.
And my scenario, while a very small sample size to make it easier to get point across, does happen over larger samples. It's not coincidence. It's a players mental make up. Some rise to the occasion when needed most while kind of taking breaks when not needed and others fail under the pressure while taking advantage of padding stats when it's easiest to do so. Give me the first player every time. Give me Johnny Bench's game changing home runs any day compared to Adam Dunn's (hit them when it doesn't matter timing). Give me Joe Morgan's stealing 60 bases in 60 different trips on the bases to Billy Hamilton's same 60 in 40 different trips.(don't call me on those numbers because I pulled them out of thin air but I'll bet the situation I'm referred to is true).
My feeling on consistency is where some people lose perspective on how great Pete Rose really was. He was the most consistent batter I've even seen on the Reds and was a constant throughout the BRM years game after game. The rest were more hot and cold (fortunately not usually at the same time like we see nowadays) but Pete would get on base just about every game.
Last edited by foster15; 07-11-2019 at 02:57 PM.
Alright, but that's an odd example - Dunn and Hamilton are both statistically inferior to Morgan and Bench. Stolen bases are largely a function of opportunity or, OBP - Morgan got on base about .100 points higher over his career than Hamilton has to date. Bench and Dunn are similar in terms of total bat value - Bench's wOBA is .005 lower than Dunn's, but that's an insignificant amount - while playing a much more demanding defensive position. This results in Bench being a 75+ bWAR player while Dunn clocked 17.4 bWAR.
You're arguing that your eyeballs are better than stats because you believe that two statistically superior players are better than two statistically inferior players.
No, I'm arguing that stats leave out a lot of the content needed to judge one player vs another or vs history. Forget what else Morgan and Hamilton did. If just looking at stolen bases, one might conclude that Hamilton was as good or a better base stealer than Morgan in specific short time span(not overall). Let's go to small sample size again. I'd rather have the guy that steals 2nd 4 times in four different trips around the bases than the guy who steals 2nd 2 times and 3rd 2 times in two different trips. Yet the stats show them both with 4 stolen bases. Of course my reasoning here is 4 times in 4 trips equals being in scoring position 4 times while the 4 times in 2 trips is in scoring position(albeit better since he's on 3rd twice) only twice.
Last edited by foster15; 07-11-2019 at 03:14 PM.
If one just looks at stolen bases, then one doesn't know how to use stats. That's not how baseball, statistics, or sense works - if all I know about baseball is stolen bases, then it's fair to say that I don't know diddly about baseball.
We know how to value stolen bases and second is definitely more valuable than stealing third. We know that because we can calculate run expectancy based off different outcomes. Fangraphs did a fantastic write-up in 2011 that said basically the exact same thing that you're saying about stolen bases but used mathematics to prove the point. Not that we haven't known this since at least the 1970's - base running value tables are old. You are dismissing base running value statistics (wSB or others I'm less familiar with) in favor of your own beliefs when the statistics are telling you the same thing. Your arguments are more persuasive when you use mathematics as opposed to anecdote. They are even more so when you use anecdote to reinforce what the mathematics say.
If you haven't realized it yet, I'm old school and admit I can't argue all these new stats because I'm not terribly familiar with them. Heck, and I'm retired(meaning I have the time to learn, but feel I have better things to do which you wouldn't know by my participation in the threads the past two days lol) from a statistics department at a large pharma company.
But you're right, I could make my case better with all the stats available. I banged my head against the wall trying to explain that Hamilton's SBs didn't make up for his low obp with my main argument that too many of his stolen bases are in one trip around the diamond. If he stole only 2nd each time and acquired the same number of SBs, it would make up for his OBP better than stealing 2nd and 3rd on the same trip was my point.
Van Gorder and Bilardello were both billed as the our next Johnny Bench if I recall? I think if we listed our best 5 to 10 catchers since Johnny Bench, the rest could all go on this list with no argument. Diaz, Oliver and a handful of others that could either hit or catch and then the rest can go in this thread.
Last edited by foster15; 07-11-2019 at 04:52 PM.
IMO, you take a pretty cheap shot at Tucker Barnhart.
Yes, he is stuggling this year. The guy is fighting injury and you are naming him the worse catcher in your lifetime!
This guy has a career(all with the Reds) avg of .248 and a Golden Glove !! Sure he's struggling this season. But Geez.
Nice to write off one of our current players and a guy that has been a valuable player and could get back on track to help us again.
I kind of see his point. But let's start with the consistency of his list. It's obvious those aren't the absolute worst players, just his own feelings on guys imbedded in the starting lineup at some point. Back at the start of this decade, it looked like the Reds were finally serious about getting a high productive catcher and to stop with Ryan Hanigan types. They had Grandal and Mesoraco almost ready to take over. They picked Mes and traded Grandal. And then in 2013, Mes looked like we finally found the closest thing to Bench we've had since well, Bench. Barnhart looked nothing more than filler/backup. Mes drops off the face of the earth and it's like they said "Hell with it, let's just stick with the Ryan Hanigan types again". Kind of feels like they are settling.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Big Klu (07-11-2019)
do you guys think adam pettyjohn deserves some panegyric after all he of the 3.250 WHIP, 4 IP 11 HITS
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. |