Are Sabermetrics Going Too Far?

[DoubleX]

The Jose Cruz thread, coupled with some other discussions in recent weeks, are really turning me off to the appeal and value of sabermetrics in analyzing players. I'm sure many will vehemently disagree with me, but I think there is becoming far too much reliance on sabermetrics, and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones), I think a lot of it is still conjecture (especially the advance statistics) that are born when people try too hard to overly analyze and quantify the game. I'm starting to think that the people who rely too heavily on these stats, particularly the advances one, are missing on out on certain fundamental aspects of the game. It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play, rathan than actually watching (or even playing) some games. I've said this before, it's like they may listen to Jimi, but they don't hear Jimi.

It's like the spirit of the game is being lost in this pseudo-science.

Anyway, I'm sure people will disagree, and perhaps passionately, but I just had to get this out of me.

[DoubleX]

As a follow-up, I just feel like more and more people believe that baseball can be reduced down to sabermetrics. That little else matters other than what some of these advanced and complicated measures say. That greatness can be captured in these measures. Whereas I believe there is a lot more involved in being a great ballplayer, a lot more than cannot just be reduced to numbers. And it had been this way for well over a century before the rise of sabermetrics.

[Pine Tar]

As a follow-up, I just feel like more and more people believe that baseball can be reduced down to sabermetrics. That little else matters other than what some of these advanced and complicated measures say. That greatness can be captured in these measures. Whereas I believe there is a lot more involved in being a great ballplayer, a lot more than cannot just be reduced to numbers. And it had been this way for well over a century before the rise of sabermetrics.

I totally agree. Statistics certainly have value but they are only part of the picture. I equate a lot of the rise of sabermetrics with the rise in the number of poeple who take introduction to statistcs courses in college. 20 or 30 years ago, not as many people would have taken such a course. Now, many more people are going to college and are taking statistics as a course requirement. Its almost as if they know just enough to be dangerous. I even would put Bill James in this group of people. As I understand it, he was not even educated in statistics or in theories of statistics and yet he has developed his theory of win-shares which a lot of people hold as really the only necessary information needed to judge the worth of baseball players. So much of what makes up sabermetrics are arbitrarily chosen and numbers do lie and mislead.

[DoubleX]

Sorry to keep harping on this (I guess I have a lot to say), but the problem I perceive is that people are relying way too heavily on sabermetrics, in an effort to quantify and objectify the game. However, the game is not meant to be completely objective - it's impossible; there are too many variable for an objective analysis of baseball. Baseball is meant for subjective analysis, and probably a considerable amount of subjective analysis. Sabermetrics are good for support, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all. I'm starting to think that people who rely on sabermetrics for the be all and end all are missing something about the game.

[BoSox Rule]

The hate for sabermetrics on such a great site is ridiculous. Sabermetrics are not measuring anything new. They are using traditional stats and making them into better all-in-one stats. And guess what? The "new" stats have a higher correlation to run scoring, winning, whatever.

[wamby]

Last night I read an article about Eddie Joost and it talked a bit about his 1947 season. Joost had a sub-par statistical year, batting .206 and having an OBP of .348 as a lead-off hitter, although he did have 13 HRs and 64 RBIs. But because of his hustle and his attitude, he actually received two votes for the MVP. I would like to know how the stat-guys can measure things like attitude, hustle and desire. I don't think it can done whether you use OPS+, WARP3 or CRAP.

That said, the sabermetric arguements bore me to death. I see them and my eyes glaze over pretty quickly and I move on.

[Pine Tar]

The hate for sabermetrics on such a great site is ridiculous. Sabermetrics are not measuring anything new. They are using traditional stats and making them into better all-in-one stats. And guess what? The "new" stats have a higher correlation to run scoring, winning, whatever.
Then why not just look at the number of runs scored and wins? Why go the hard way to arrive at the same place?

[RuthMayBond]

and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones)Those are exactly the ones that are NOT helpful (Can you make no distinction between stats from 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?)

<It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play>

Because
1) eyewitnesses are never prejudiced, and
2) you actually saw Cobb play, right?

[RuthMayBond]

Last night I read an article about Eddie Joost and it talked a bit about his 1947 season. Joost had a sub-par statistical year, batting .206 and having an OBP of .348 as a lead-off hitter, although he did have 13 HRs and 64 RBIs. But because of his hustle and his attitude, he actually received two votes for the MVP. I would like to know how the stat-guys can measure things like attitude, hustle and desire.Those things are great but contributing to runs is even better :D And Joost didn't have that bad a year, 13 HR, 64 RBI for a leadoff guy, .348 OBP plus great D (unfortunately a stat guy had to remind you of those :laugh

<That said, the sabermetric arguements bore me to death. I see them and my eyes glaze over pretty quickly and I move on.>

You mean, like the "every Brooklyn Dodger was the greatest ever at their position because I say so", talk about boring

[wamby]

Those things are great but contributing to runs is even better :D And Joost didn't have that bad a year, 13 HR, 64 RBI for a leadoff guy, .348 OBP plus great D (unfortunately a stat guy had to remind you of those :laugh

<That said, the sabermetric arguements bore me to death. I see them and my eyes glaze over pretty quickly and I move on.>

You mean, like the "every Brooklyn Dodger was the greatest ever at their position because I say so", talk about boring

It seems like every numbers guy has the exact metrics to cherry pick when he is ranking players by position. I'm reasonably certian that I mentioned those stats about Joost.

[SABR Matt]

Simple...short answer.

Sabermetrics haven't gone nearly far enough.

Far from "coming too far"...the simple statistics that traditionalists see as appealing (while certainly better than BA/HR/RBI) do very little help us understand how runs are actually scored and games are actually won. In fact simple defensive metrics have done more to OBSCURE the truth about the game than to reveal it. It's the advanced metrics that will eventually tell us in more detail what is really happening in the field.

[RuthMayBond]

It seems like every numbers guy has the exact metrics to cherry pick when he is ranking players by position.And eyewitness guys are NEVER biased :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

<I'm reasonably certian that I mentioned those stats about Joost.>

Some of 'em, anyway

[wamby]

And eyewitness guys are NEVER biased :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

<I'm reasonably certian that I mentioned those stats about Joost.>

Some of 'em, anyway

Here's what I think about eyewitness accounts using Ty Cobb as an example. I think eyewitness acounts about Cobb are valuable from 1905 or 1912 or 1920 or 1927 when he was active, especially in game accounts. I don't trust eyewitness accounts from later on, maybe 10 years after he retired. I definetely don't trust them from much later on, for example I don't trust any of the accounts in the The Glory of Their Times. I think it's an entertaining book but I don't believe a lot of what's in it. I don't trust some of my memories form 20 years ago and I'm nowhere near as old as those guys were.

[RuthMayBond]

Here's what I think about eyewitness accounts using Ty Cobb as an example. I think eyewitness acounts about Cobb are valuable from 1905 or 1912 or 1920 or 1927 when he was active, especially in game accounts. I don't trust eyewitness accounts from later on, maybe 10 years after he retired. I definetely don't trust them from much later on, for example I don't trust any of the accounts in the The Glory of Their Times. I think it's an entertaining book but I don't believe a lot of what's in it. I don't trust some of my memories form 20 years ago and I'm nowhere near as old as those guys were.But how ya gonna compare Cobb with DiMag or Mantle? (Actually I don't see how a Cobb account from 1905 could be that valuable)

[wamby]

But how ya gonna compare Cobb with DiMag or Mantle? (Actually I don't see how a Cobb account from 1905 could be that valuable)

I don't care about comparing them. I think a Cobb account from his rookie season could be interesting.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't care about comparing them.What kind of eyewitness accounts are you referring to, if they're not evaluating a player in some way? :confused: :noidea just wondering

[Brooklyn]

I'm on the side "yes, they are going to far". But a lot of it may be that I haven't spent the time to really look at what goes into these stats. One of my issues is that I suspect that a lot of people that throw around these stats don't know what goes into them either.

I can respect someone who has studied Win Shares and truly believes that the underlying components are the best way to evaluate players. If this person uses them when comparing players, I can respect that. They have done the research and formulated an opinion. But I suspect a lot of people throw terms like Win Shares out there and fight for players based on Win Shares without even knowing what goes into it. That I can't respect - These people are arguing based on someone else's opinion.

Without turning this into the sabermetrics forum, can someone give me a brief (if possible) description of how Win Shares are determined, or how sabermetric stats that you feel are important are developed?

[RuthMayBond]

Without turning this into the sabermetrics forum, can someone give me a brief (if possible) description of how Win Shares are determined, or how sabermetric stats that you feel are important are developed?My understanding is that they go through each win of a team that the player was on, figure out who had the three best performances in that win, and assign shares to each. I will go on the record as saying I'm not that crazy about Win shares
1) The guy that was 4th best gets nothing
2) The guy who's on a bad team that bats in or scores all his teams runs in a 6-5 loss gets nothing
3) A guy could get a win share in an 14-2 win when his performance really didn't affect the outcome of the game
I suppose it all evens out but if luck was spread evenly Blyleven and maybe RReuschel :eek: would be in the Hall, and Hunter/ Pennock/ Bender/ Lemon might not be

[DoubleX]

Those are exactly the ones that are NOT helpful (Can you make no distinction between stats from 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?)

<It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play>

Because
1) eyewitnesses are never prejudiced, and
2) you actually saw Cobb play, right?

That's not what I meant to be my point. My point was that there is more to the game than just these advanced and complex stats, and I think there are growing number of people relying almost solely on the stats when analyzing players, when baseball is not meant to be completely objective.

[RuthMayBond]

My point was that there is more to the game than just these advanced and complex stats, and I think there are growing number of people relying almost solely on the stats when analyzing players, when baseball is not meant to be completely objective.I have no problem with that statement :cool: :o :p :clapping

[DoubleX]

I have no problem with that statement :cool: :o :p :clapping

Thank you. I realize I probably came across poorly in my opening posts. So I should probably clarify. I do think there is value in sabermetrics, especially in comparing players across generations. I'm just getting vibes that more and more people rely almost exclusively on sabermetrics, and I think such an approach is missing some fundamental aspects of the game. The game is meant for subjectivity. Sabermetrics help to limit that somewhat, but it's impossible to eliminate. I feel like in 30 or 40 years, people will be looking at some metrics and start arguing that Bobby Abreu or Garret Anderson or someone like that should be in the Hall (I just picked these players randomly, I have no idea how metrics show them to be), based completely on the stats, when I don't think there would be many people who saw them play or followed the game when they played that would ever consider them a Hall of Famer. We could go back to the Jose Cruz example. Nice player, underrated player, and the metrics show that, but to say the metrics make him a Hall of Famer doesn't seem right. There has to be more than just the stats.

[Captain Cold Nose]

When people start putting the analysis as more important than what is being analyzed, the analysis has lost sight of its purpose. Those who value the analysis more than what is being analyzed are missing the point.

[RuthMayBond]

We could go back to the Jose Cruz example. Nice player, underrated player, and the metrics show that, but to say the metrics make him a Hall of Famer doesn't seem right. There has to be more than just the stats.There also has to be more than unindexed stats that don't account for home park or an era's level of offense. I don't know that the metrics show that Cruz is a definite HOFer but it seems that his career was better than that of Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler

[RuthMayBond]

When people start putting the analysis as more important than what is being analyzed, the analysis has lost sight of its purpose. Those who value the analysis more than what is being analyzed are missing the point.I'd like an example of what you're referring to

[DoubleX]

There also has to be more than unindexed stats that don't account for home park or an era's level of offense. I don't know that the metrics show that Cruz is a definite HOFer but it seems that his career was better than that of Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler

Well Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler were bad selections. :p Given that baseball had a much shorter history to that point, I think there was more chance for those kind of bad selections because the spectrum of comparison, particularly at the top, is not was it is today. In 1930, I don't think people really knew that players like Manush and Cuyler would be a dime a dozen over the next 70 years. They seemed pretty good at the time, they put up shiny averages, so they got put in the Hall. I guess my point is, that it was easier to be a Hall of Famer if you played in earlier part of the century than in more recent decades. Nevertheless, arguing that Cruz is better than Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler, isn't particularly good argument for his Hall of Fame case. If you want that to be the standards for the Hall, then we might as well open the floodgates. :)

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'd like an example of what you're referring to
It's a generalization, but I've seen where people have said it was wrong to analyze somebody in the context of their own time at that time because they weren't using the same type of analysis used today. The voices of the time were called wrong for essentially not anticipating a trend thirty years in the future.
It's not so much I'm placing so much credence on eyewitness accounts or earlier determination of success factors but, coming from someone who works with actual statistics based on real numbers and not some hypothetical arbitrary starting point, I'm not going to pour blind adulation into something that adds so much "say this happens" to actual living, breathing events.

[Brooklyn]

My understanding is that they go through each win of a team that the player was on, figure out who had the three best performances in that win, and assign shares to each. I will go on the record as saying I'm not that crazy about Win shares
1) The guy that was 4th best gets nothing
2) The guy who's on a bad team that bats in or scores all his teams runs in a 6-5 loss gets nothing
3) A guy could get a win share in an 14-2 win when his performance really didn't affect the outcome of the game
I suppose it all evens out but if luck was spread evenly Blyleven and maybe RReuschel :eek: would be in the Hall, and Hunter/ Pennock/ Bender/ Lemon might not be

I agree with your issues with Win Shares as you've described it. If a player bats 500 times in a season and hits 500 solo homeruns, but he has terrible pitching and no supporting players and his team goes 0-162, he would get no win shares? I realize this can't happen, but this stat seems as team dependant (if not more) than the traditional stats (like RBIs and Runs) that people seem to like to put down.

Yes, it should even out over the long term, but of course no individual player is around long enough for it to truly even out.

If you are not crazy about Win Shares, is there something you prefer?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Sorry to keep harping on this (I guess I have a lot to say), but the problem I perceive is that people are relying way too heavily on sabermetrics, in an effort to quantify and objectify the game. However, the game is not meant to be completely objective - it's impossible; there are too many variable for an objective analysis of baseball. Baseball is meant for subjective analysis, and probably a considerable amount of subjective analysis. Sabermetrics are good for support, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all. I'm starting to think that people who rely on sabermetrics for the be all and end all are missing something about the game.

There is no such thing as "subjective" analysis. There is a danger of going to far the other way as well, relying too much in one's eyes and biases to determine who good a player is. Scouts are the worst at this. They look at a player in a few games and then "extrapolate" what they think the player will do as a major leaguer. Most of the time this is done in a haphazzard way. They overemphasize pure phyiscal gifts over actual baseball skills. The scouts basically imagine what they want the player to be. To me this is ridiculous. If you read a a lot of scouting reports a lot of them are garbage. They use phrases like "having good face", "the bat jumps off their bat", "can't handle breaking stuff in inside lower corner". These qualitative phrases have no meaning. In the book Moneyball I was really ntersted in the Billy Beane story as a player. He was a monster prospect coming out of high school. He had it all, power, strength, speed, size, "good face" etc. All the scouts were just drooling over him. They all "knew" that he would be a superstar in the majors. But Beane failed. The scouts never realized that becasue of Beane's phyiscal abilities he was able to totally dominate high school baseball. But Beane actually struggled as a senior. He went to hitting over .500 as a junior to just over .300 as senior. That should have bee na red light to scouts but not one scout bothered to check Beane's actual performace. They just saw his great body and automatically assumed he was would be a great major league. And they were 100% wrong.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Last night I read an article about Eddie Joost and it talked a bit about his 1947 season. Joost had a sub-par statistical year, batting .206 and having an OBP of .348 as a lead-off hitter, although he did have 13 HRs and 64 RBIs. But because of his hustle and his attitude, he actually received two votes for the MVP. I would like to know how the stat-guys can measure things like attitude, hustle and desire. I don't think it can done whether you use OPS+, WARP3 or CRAP.

That said, the sabermetric arguements bore me to death. I see them and my eyes glaze over pretty quickly and I move on.

How do you measure attitude, hustle, and desire at your job?

[RuthMayBond]

Well Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler were bad selections. :p And guess what had NOT been developed back then :D

<They seemed pretty good at the time, they put up shiny averages, so they got put in the Hall.>

Guess what would have discovered that shiny averages aren't always what they seem :D

<Nevertheless, arguing that Cruz is better than Manush, Hafey, and Cuyler, isn't particularly good argument for his Hall of Fame case. If you want that to be the standards for the Hall, then we might as well open the floodgates.>

I never said for that to be the standard, but you could probably get plenty of eyewitnesses saying Manush/ Hafey/ Cuyler belong in the Hall

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, it should even out over the long term, but of course no individual player is around long enough for it to truly even out.

If you are not crazy about Win Shares, is there something you prefer?It has nothing to do with being around long enough. About half of the pitchers in my top whatever# have run support well within a normal range of 96-104% of average, but that means about half of them don't.
I go with a combination of OPS+, PA, various fielding & SB metrics, EqA, WARP3, AND WinShares (since many use them) for position players,
and a combination of ERA+, IP, times leading and in top10 for both K/BB and WHIP, adjusted Pitchers Runs Above Average and again, the ubiquitous Win shares for SP.

[RuthMayBond]

There is no such thing as "subjective" analysis. There is a danger of going to far the other way as well, relying too much in one's eyes and biases to determine who good a player is. Scouts are the worst at this. They look at a player in a few games and then "extrapolate" what they think the player will do as a major leaguer. Most of the time this is done in a haphazzard way.Thank you. And you realize if you are comparing two players, what the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is. One hit in a day? One hit in two days? One hit in about a WEEK

[SABR Matt]

My understanding is that they go through each win of a team that the player was on, figure out who had the three best performances in that win, and assign shares to each. I will go on the record as saying I'm not that crazy about Win shares
1) The guy that was 4th best gets nothing
2) The guy who's on a bad team that bats in or scores all his teams runs in a 6-5 loss gets nothing
3) A guy could get a win share in an 14-2 win when his performance really didn't affect the outcome of the game
I suppose it all evens out but if luck was spread evenly Blyleven and maybe RReuschel :eek: would be in the Hall, and Hunter/ Pennock/ Bender/ Lemon might not be

Your understanding of Win Shares is...well..way off. They don't go through each win and account for performances in said win...that's not at all how they work...they look at the season in total and attempt to define how the wins...in total...occured based on performance of players above the margin.

[Tigerfan1974]

This whole sabermetrics thing is new to me.
However, I don't see much value in OPS+ and WARP3 and winshares.
It all sounds pretty made up to me.

This whole thing of adjusting for different time periods is bogus.
It is almost like the asterisk by Maris' 61 HR.
So he did it in more games, so what. Times and rules change.

If you want to get specific, there is not set distance for outfield walls.
So we may need to start measuring deep center flyouts.
A 400' out in 1 park may be a HR in another. So we should adjust someones HR total because if they had hit it in another park it would have been gone.
SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS CAN GET???

Let's just stick with the raw data and not make up a bunch of extras that we don't need and, I anyway, don't understand.

[RuthMayBond]

Your understanding of Win Shares is...well..way off. They don't go through each win and account for performances in said win...that's not at all how they work...they look at the season in total and attempt to define how the wins...in total...occured based on performance of players above the margin.I may stand corrected about the way Win Shares are determined (that's what I read, sorry if it's incorrect :ughh ), but I'm not sure that the possible problems I outlined wouldn't still come into play. Do you have some explanation of how they determine performance above the margin?

[RuthMayBond]

This whole thing of adjusting for different time periods is bogus.Can you see no difference in 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?

<It is almost like the asterisk by Maris' 61 HR.
So he did it in more games, so what. Times and rules change.>

Do you see any difference between number of games in even from 1885 NL to 1888? (let alone 1876 to 1962).

<If you want to get specific, there is not set distance for outfield walls.
So we may need to start measuring deep center flyouts.
A 400' out in 1 park may be a HR in another. So we should adjust someones HR total because if they had hit it in another park it would have been gone.>

It's not adjusting anyone's lifetime stats, just trying to make a more apples-to-apples comparison

<Let's just stick with the raw data and not make up a bunch of extras that we don't need and, I anyway, don't understand.>

Well, that's what we could go by. I bet you love to talk about your Tigers defense in 1968, just not so much about their hitting :D

[DoubleX]

I never said for that to be the standard, but you could probably get plenty of eyewitnesses saying Manush/ Hafey/ Cuyler belong in the Hall

And I think you'd get very few eyewitnesses that say Cruz belongs in the Hall. That's a fundamental difference and something that Sabermetrics can't account for.

[Brian McKenna]

stats are a great compliment to any story

for some it is like a grown up video game - they tweak these numbers so they can impress their friends in various rating systems and comparative analysis - that's fine but don't think it speaks for the whole - the game of rating players and comparing them statistically is popular and can be fun but it is not a real study of the history of the game - they say ooh, ooh guy a is better than b because...or guy c is a piece of crap because... - looking at the game this way, to me, is a complete waste of time - for one they only study the best players in history and have limited knowledge elsewhere because they spend too much time focusing on the relative data - there is so much that needs to be examined, researched and studied in this sport - the history of baseball is not limited to the study of its hall of famers - it includes the 100s of thousands who have played in the minors, in japan, in latin america, around the world, in the negro leagues, in female baseball and in the semi-pro and amateur game - the game's history is deep - deeper than we know now and all this time is wasted by the men and women of bbf who love this sport a great deal so they can have their "best this or that" list or spend their time whining in the hall of fame forum

guys like sabrmatt take it seriously and actually seek well-rounded information that involve the totality of the game and how we view it - i think that is great we should all seek new ways to look at the game and refine our understanding of it - but if all it is going to be used for is comparing addie joss to jack powell or claiming that joss is a piece of crap that coasted into the hall of fame than i say the focus has been lost (not saying that's all matt uses it for)

my two cents

[RuthMayBond]

And I think you'd get very few eyewitnesses that say Cruz belongs in the Hall. That's a fundamental difference and something that Sabermetrics can't account for.Are you saying you believe Manush /Hafey/ Cuyler were significantly better than Cruz? (career value)

[leecemark]

--I think the whole premise of this thread is a little off base. Sabermetrics does not say Jose Cruz belongs in the Hall of Fame, that was just the opinion of one random poster who was looking over his stats (and who seems to have an Astrodome fixation;) ). Advance metrics do say he is better than his raw numbers look and I think most of us can agree with that. They also say he is comparable to some bottom tier HoF OFers and I don't think that is a wild claim either. I remember Cruz as an active player and he was highly regarded then, without the benifit of advanced metrics.
--There are two problems with the sabermetric focus and neither are really the fault of the numbers, but rather how they are used. Some people adopt a metric and follow it blindly without looking at other evidence. If Win Shares says Johnny X was a great player then that is interesting. However, if other metrics and contemporary opinion (or your own observations if you saw him play) say he was a bum then you need to examine if WS got it wrong. There is no one metric that has everything pegged just right - adn there probably never will be. So using sabermetrics to make a point is usefull, you just need to be willing to a) examine over sources and b) question the findings of your metric of choice when it seems to reach a false conclusion (or better yet, be willing to look at any metric, but not become devoted to any one).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This whole sabermetrics thing is new to me.
However, I don't see much value in OPS+ and WARP3 and winshares.
It all sounds pretty made up to me.

This whole thing of adjusting for different time periods is bogus.
It is almost like the asterisk by Maris' 61 HR.
So he did it in more games, so what. Times and rules change.

In 1930 the ENTIRE National League hit .303 as a league. In 1968 Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title with a .301 average. Does that prove that the average 1930 National League player was better than Yaz? What you don't seem to understand is that through the years the balance between hitting and pitching has NOT been constant. In some eras the hitters had the advantage, in other eras the pitchers had the advantage. Why are almost all the .400 BAs before 1930? The environment of the game has changed constantly. Comparing playes from different is not as simple as simply comparing their raw stats. Let me ask you this. Is hitting .300 easier at Coors Field or Dodger Stadium?


If you want to get specific, there is not set distance for outfield walls.
So we may need to start measuring deep center flyouts.
A 400' out in 1 park may be a HR in another. So we should adjust someones HR total because if they had hit it in another park it would have been gone.
SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS CAN GET???
What are you talking about?


Let's just stick with the raw data and not make up a bunch of extras that we don't need and, I anyway, don't understand.
The raw data doesn't always tell us much especially stats like RBI and wins since they are so team dependent.

[DoubleX]

Are you saying you believe Manush /Hafey/ Cuyler were significantly better than Cruz? (career value)

Ugh..no. I have no idea why you'd think that. I'm saying that Cruz was never perceived as a Hall of Famer and that subjective observation heavily factors into the perception of how good he was. My point is that there is more to being a great player than what deep analysis tells us, and some of that is just perception. For instance, with Cruz, 538280 referenced a bunch of defensive measurements that indicate how great Cruz was defensively. That's nice and all, but if it were so apparent, how come Cruz didn't even win a single gold glove? Look at his competition, it wasn't like he was playing against the greatest defenders ever.

I think the metrics are good at showing that Cruz was underappreciated during his career, but if a player is truly great, it will be recognized without the measurements. If a player's Hall of Fame case rests solely with these obscure measurements, it's really not much of a case IMO, because the best don't need to rely on that - simple perception and reliance on the more superficial and traditional numbers are good enough. So yeah, the metrics will tell me that Cruz was better than he was given credit for, but it's not going to convince me that he's a Hall of Famer, without more (awards, recognition, big traditional numbers on a yearly basis, and so forth).

[RuthMayBond]

I'm saying that Cruz was never perceived as a Hall of Famer and that subjective observation heavily factors into the perception of how good he was.Cruz was never perceived as a LOCK for the Hall

<For instance, with Cruz, 538280 referenced a bunch of defensive measurements that indicate how great Cruz was defensively. That's nice and all, but if it were so apparent, how come Cruz didn't even win a single gold glove? Look at his competition, it wasn't like he was playing against the greatest defenders ever.>

Because once again eyewitness accounts can be biased

<So yeah, the metrics will tell me that Cruz was better than he was given credit for, but it's not going to convince me that he's a Hall of Famer, without more (awards, recognition, big traditional numbers on a yearly basis, and so forth).>

You do realize that players get less recognition in small markets and on non-winning teams

[Tigerfan1974]

In 1930 the ENTIRE National League hit .303 as a league. In 1968 Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title with a .301 average. Does that prove that the average 1930 National League player was better than Yaz? What you don't seem to understand is that through the years the balance between hitting and pitching has NOT been constant. In some eras the hitters had the advantage, in other eras the pitchers had the advantage. Why are almost all the .400 BAs before 1930? The environment of the game has changed constantly. Comparing playes from different is not as simple as simply comparing their raw stats. Let me ask you this. Is hitting .300 easier at Coors Field or Dodger Stadium?

I don't know. But I do know that no one plays all their games in either park.
I understand that a player plays half their games in the same park.
But that is the luck of the draw.
It makes no sense to try to equalize things becuase people play in different parks, or eras.
So Maris got more games to hit in, so? He still hit more home runs in a season.
The fact that the season was 8 games longer is inconsequential. If you gave Ruth 8 more games he may have hit 63 or 64, so therefore Ruth held the record and Maris did nothing? Things change. You have to judge someone on the basis of what they did and when they did it.
It should NOT be on what Ruth would do today, or what Clemens may have been able to accomplish back when.

There is no equalizing, because it is all just hypothesis and conjecture.
Take the stats for what they are and go from there.




What are you talking about?


The raw data doesn't always tell us much especially stats like RBI and wins since they are so team dependent.

How are RBI's team dependent?
1st, the RBI stat is messed up anyway, because one can get an RBI for walking with the bases loaded, yet it is not an official time at bat.
How do you get a Run Batted In if you never batted?

2d, if you do not get a hit to drive yourself or others in, the RBI is immaterial.
An RBI actually measures, to an extent, how well one bats with runners on.
Should we make adjustments to Rickey Henderson, et al, for all those leadoff at-bats where there was no opportunity to get an RBI? (except of course for those lead-off home runs.)

As far as a Win, I understand how it is a team stat. That is how a team gets to the playoffs.
Yet for pitching, there has to be something to measure the effort.

If a pitcher, as the one who serves it up, needs to get alot of outs, else the other team will get ahead.
The pitcher is solely responsibile for allowing the hitters to hit, or not, so it is their responsibility if runs are scored and the game is won or lost.

Splitting a win up to give credit for outs made, assists, etc on defense or hits, hr, rbi on offense is ridiculous.
In the NL, where pitchers bat, if a pitcher throws a great game, but gets three or four outs at the plate, does it cancel out and he gets no win share?
He helped defensively by getting outs, but hindered offensively by also making outs.

It all is just senseless to me. I see no reason for it. :crazy
But that is just my opinion.
I am not going to change your thinking and you are not going to change mine.
So I guess we agree to disagree and move on to another thread.:clapping

See you there!!

[DoubleX]

Cruz was never perceived as a LOCK for the Hall

I've never heard anyone before recently describe Cruz as having any contemporary consideration for the Hall. I can see that Cruz made a huge impression for his Hall of Fame chances with his whopping 0.44% of the vote in 1994. Yeah, the writers are idiots, but to receive only 2 votes indicates that practically no one, anywhere (including writers that covered Cruz) thought he was a Hall of Famer.

Because once again eyewitness accounts can be biased

So the popular perception, a composite of all fans from all over the country, was biased? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that there is a national conspiracy against Cruz? No, he just wasn't good enough and never left an impression that he was that good - that is the reason he didn't get recognition. The only way you can even start to make an argument for Cruz as a great ballplayer is be devling deep into these metrics.

You do realize that players get less recognition in small markets and on non-winning teams.

I am fully aware of this, yet that didn't stop Cruz's teammate Cesar Cedeno from winning 5 Gold Gloves and making 4 All Star teams (2 more than Cruz), or Gary Carter from winning 3 Gold Gloves and making 7 All-Star teams while playing in relative obscurity in Montreal; or Andre Dawson from winning 6 Gold Gloves, making 3 All-Star appearances, and two 2nd place MVP finishes in Montreal; or Tim Raines from making 7 All-Star appearances in Montreal. If you're good, no matter where you play, you will get some recognition, including Houston (as seen by Cedeno). Cruz was just never considered that good, and there is a reason for that, he wasn't that good superficially, and that kind of perception should matter when assessing ballplayers. So yeah, if Cruz was as good as sabermetrics say he was, why wasn't he winning Gold Gloves and making All-Star Teams? Players like Cedeno, Carter, and Dawson, show that playing in relative obscurity is not an impediment to recognition.

[RuthMayBond]

I've never heard anyone before recently describe Cruz as having any contemporary consideration for the Hall. I can see that Cruz made a huge impression for his Hall of Fame chances with his whopping 0.44% of the vote in 1994. Yeah, the writers are idiots, but to receive only 2 votes indicates that practically no one, anywhere (including writers that covered Cruz) thought he was a Hall of Famer.Look at the voting for Gowdy and Dickie Kerr, compared with BDowning, Roy White, JWynn, Singleton, Jim McCormick, TMullane, Caruthers ...

<So the popular perception, a composite of all fans from all over the country, was biased? Is that what you're saying?>

I'm saying the two things I said previously

<I am fully aware of this, yet that didn't stop Cruz's teammate Cesar Cedeno from winning 5 Gold Gloves and making 4 All Star teams (2 more than Cruz),>

Voters also like CF best

< or Gary Carter from winning 3 Gold Gloves>

He probably deserved about EIGHT

[Brooklyn]

It has nothing to do with being around long enough. About half of the pitchers in my top whatever# have run support well within a normal range of 96-104% of average, but that means about half of them don't.
I go with a combination of OPS+, PA, various fielding & SB metrics, EqA, WARP3, AND WinShares (since many use them) for position players,
and a combination of ERA+, IP, times leading and in top10 for both K/BB and WHIP, adjusted Pitchers Runs Above Average and again, the ubiquitous Win shares for SP.

My comment of being around long enough was meant to normalize every player. Some will of course fall around the mean, but some will be outlliers, and this doesn't seem to help fix that problem, and more than W/L doesn't fix the run support problem

How are EqA and WARP3 calculated?

Your understanding of Win Shares is...well..way off. They don't go through each win and account for performances in said win...that's not at all how they work...they look at the season in total and attempt to define how the wins...in total...occured based on performance of players above the margin.

Matt - if this isn't correct, than how do they do it? I think it is important to know what goes into the stat in order to discuss its mertis.

[538280]

RMB, watch what you say about Win Shares. Do you really think Bill James would ever make a metric like THAT? Do you really think I'd ever even so much as mention a metric like THAT? I hope you think I'm more intelligent.

If you want to know how Win Shares are calculated, I reccommend you buy the Win Shares book. It gives a full explantion. If you want a shorter explantion that gives you a good idea, read this:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

[DoubleX]

Look at the voting for Gowdy and Dickie Kerr, compared with BDowning, Roy White, JWynn, Singleton, Jim McCormick, TMullane, Caruthers

Again, you're comparing different eras when the reference of comparison and historical perspective is vastly different. Kerr was compared to about 1/3 of the history that the other names were compared to. If Kerr played in the 70s and 80s, he would have received a small handful of votes as well.

I'm saying the two things I said previously

Which are what?

Voters also like CF best

That didn't stop Bobby Bonds, Roberto Clemente, Dave Parker, Ellis Valentine, Dave Winfield, Andre Dawson, Dusty Baker, and Tony Gwynn from winning NL OF Gold Gloves during Cruz's career, or Carl Yastrzemski, Joe Rudi, Dwight Evans, Al Cowens, Sixto Lezcano, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, and Jesse Barfield from winning AL Gold Gloves during Cruz's career.

He probably deserved about EIGHT

He nevertheless got some, proving that if you're truly that good, at some the award will come. Plus, unlike Carter, who when he didn't win awards was beaten by just one person, Cruz was beaten by three every year, which even further emphasizes just how he was perceived. If he was so great, surely at least at some point in his career, he would have been received one of the 3 OF Gold Gloves...But no.

[RuthMayBond]

RMB, watch what you say about Win Shares. Do you really think Bill James would ever make a metric like THAT? Do you really think I'd ever even so much as mention a metric like THAT? I hope you think I'm more intelligent.

If you want to know how Win Shares are calculated, I reccommend you buy the Win Shares book. It gives a full explantion. If you want a shorter explantion that gives you a good idea, read this:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalcGeez, I was never intending to question your intelligence (I have a line, but I won't say it). I said that's what I read, and I'm sorry if what I read was incorrect

[538280]

My personal opinion is that sabermetrics haven't gone too far at all. I realize, of course, that there are other factors in rating players and that no system will ever be able to 100% correctly define how much value a player has to his team. But, sabermetrics have added to the general understanding of the game. People used to think a walk didn't really mean much, and it was almost entirely on the pitcher. This has been throughly proven wrong, of course, and people have learned new and very useful knowledge about the game. New breakthroughs like that can happen all the time with sabermetrics. As far as I'm concenred the better we know the game the better off we are.

TigerFan1974-It's about adjusting for context. Baseball stats mean little without context. In 1968 if you hit .300 you were a bona fide superstar, and a truly great average hitter that year. If you hit .300 in 1894, you were below league average, and probably not much of a hitter. So, how can we put these performances on close to equal ground? Simply by dividing the hitter's average by the league average. Not perfect because of a variety of factors, but it gives us a much better idea of the player's ability than just looking at raw numbers. It's about finding how good a player actually is by taking out the part of his stats which tell more about the environment he played in than the player's actual ability.

[Brooklyn]

RMB, watch what you say about Win Shares. Do you really think Bill James would ever make a metric like THAT? Do you really think I'd ever even so much as mention a metric like THAT? I hope you think I'm more intelligent.

If you want to know how Win Shares are calculated, I reccommend you buy the Win Shares book. It gives a full explantion. If you want a shorter explantion that gives you a good idea, read this:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

Thansk for the link, this was the level I was looking for. I'm finding it hard to see how this is independent of team performance (which is the biggest knock on W/L, RBI, runs, etc.). The answer to that question may be in the details, but I'm still finding it hard to believe that the average person that quotes this stat really understands it.

[RuthMayBond]

Again, you're comparing different eras when the reference of comparison and historical perspective is vastly different. Kerr was compared to about 1/3 of the history that the other names were compared to. If Kerr played in the 70s and 80s, he would have received a small handful of votes as well.Which would still be sad, compared to the guys I listed who have had basically none

<Which are what?>

Small market, non-winning team

<That didn't stop Bobby Bonds, Roberto Clemente, Dave Parker, Ellis Valentine, Dave Winfield, Andre Dawson, Dusty Baker, and Tony Gwynn from winning NL OF Gold Gloves during Cruz's career, or Carl Yastrzemski, Joe Rudi, Dwight Evans, Al Cowens, Sixto Lezcano, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, and Jesse Barfield from winning AL Gold Gloves during Cruz's career.>

News flash. I just checked and I don't believe Cruz ever DESERVED a Gold Glove. He was good but every year there was always someone at least a little more deserving

<Plus, unlike Carter, who when he didn't win awards was beaten by just one person, Cruz was beaten by three every year, which even further emphasizes just how he was perceived.>

And how many OF are there in the lineup?

<If he was so great, surely at least at some point in his career, he would have been received one of the 3 OF Gold Gloves...But no.>

What did I say about CF? How many GG have LGonzalez, RWhite, BiWilliams, Callison, PO'Neill, Mondesi? Some of the best at their position but CORNER OF.

[wamby]

What kind of eyewitness accounts are you referring to, if they're not evaluating a player in some way? :confused: :noidea just wondering

I'm talking about the stories in the sports page the day after a game.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm talking about the stories in the sports page the day after a game.I guess I just wonder about what the stories talk about

[wamby]

How do you measure attitude, hustle, and desire at your job?

By the way I am treated.

[RuthMayBond]

By the way I am treated.But a hardworking peon can be treated badly, and a lazy boss's pet can be praised

[wamby]

I guess I just wonder about what the stories talk about

They talk about what happened in the game that was played.

[RuthMayBond]

They talk about what happened in the game that was played.Don't they say anything about a guy doing well, or failing?

[wamby]

Don't they say anything about a guy doing well, or failing?

When you are reading a series a game accounts, it isn't that hard to see who is doing well or failing without being told.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How are RBI's team dependent?
1st, the RBI stat is messed up anyway, because one can get an RBI for walking with the bases loaded, yet it is not an official time at bat.
How do you get a Run Batted In if you never batted?
First of all it's RBI not RBIs. RBIs would be "runs batted ins". ;) RBI are team dependent because a player's RBI total are partly a function of the frequency of the hiters in front of him getting on base. If you bat third, you are going to have more RBI if you have Rickey Henderson instead of Juan Pierre. Even if Henderson and Pierre have the same BA, Rickey wouls still have a much higher OBP and be on base more often for you to drive in.


2d, if you do not get a hit to drive yourself or others in, the RBI is immaterial.
An RBI actually measures, to an extent, how well one bats with runners on.
Should we make adjustments to Rickey Henderson, et al, for all those leadoff at-bats where there was no opportunity to get an RBI? (except of course for those lead-off home runs.)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. :confused:


As far as a Win, I understand how it is a team stat. That is how a team gets to the playoffs.
Yet for pitching, there has to be something to measure the effort.

If a pitcher, as the one who serves it up, needs to get alot of outs, else the other team will get ahead.
The pitcher is solely responsibile for allowing the hitters to hit, or not, so it is their responsibility if runs are scored and the game is won or lost.
So a pitcher who throws a one hit complete game and loses 1-0 didn't have as good as game as the pitcher who pitches 5 innings, allows nine runs but wins 10-9?


Splitting a win up to give credit for outs made, assists, etc on defense or hits, hr, rbi on offense is ridiculous.
In the NL, where pitchers bat, if a pitcher throws a great game, but gets three or four outs at the plate, does it cancel out and he gets no win share?
He helped defensively by getting outs, but hindered offensively by also making outs.
:confused:


It all is just senseless to me. I see no reason for it. :crazy
But that is just my opinion.
I am not going to change your thinking and you are not going to change mine.
So I guess we agree to disagree and move on to another thread.:clapping

See you there!!
So you don't want to learn knew things? You want to see the game as you always have? You have no desire to appreciate baseball in a new way? :confused:

Post # 3,000! :clapping

[FatAngel]

In my opinion the application of sabrmetrics on baseball performances dramatically improved the assessment of a player´s value. However, it is very important to always use statistics properly. If you don´t do this, a statistic isn´t reduced in significance, it usually loses it completely. It is my strong belief that this essential requirement - proper application and interpretation of stats - has been violated more in the past than today. Sabrmetrics also gave me a new perspective on how the game works. I want to post Bill James´ views from his last Baseball Abstract in 1988 - sounds like Nostradamus nowadays ;)

"Of all the studies I have done over the last twelve years, what have I learned? What is the relevance of sabermetric knowledge to the decision-making process of a team? If I were employed by a major-league team, what are the basic things that I know from the research I have done which would be of use to me in helping that team?
1. Minor-league batting statistics will predict major league batting performance with essentially the same reliability as previous major-league statistics.

2. Talent in baseball is not normally distributed. It is a pyramid. For every player who is 10 percent above than the average player, there are probably 20 players who are 10 pecent below average.

3. What a player hits in one ballpark may be radically different from what he would hit in another.

4. Ballplayers, as a group, reach their peak value much earlier and decline much more rapidly than people believe.

5. Players taken in the June draft coming out of college (or with at least two years of college) perform dramatically better than players drafted out of high school.

6. The chance of getting a good player with a high draft pick is substantial enough that is clearly a disastrous strategy to give up a first-round draft pick to sign a player like Rick Dempsey, Pete Falcone, or Bill Stein.

7. A power pitcher has a dramatically higher expectation for future wins than does a finesse pitcher of the same age and ability.

8. Single-season won-lost records have almost no value as an indicator of a pitcher's contribution to a team.

9. The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on.

10. Any one of the following:


A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense.


True shortages of talent almost never occur at the left end of the defensive spectrum.


Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work.


Our idea of what makes a team good on artificial turf is not supported by any research.


When a team improves sharply one season, they will almost always decline in the next.


The platoon differential is real and virtually universal."

[Ubiquitous]

Like in all things it isn't the inanimate objects and tools that have gone too far but the people using them. Part of the problem no actually I think the biggest problem is ignorance. Ignorance on both sides. Most of the sabremetric naysayers know very little about sabremetrics while a lot of the loudest backers of sabremetrics understand very little about sabremetrics and their limitiations.

[DoubleX]

News flash. I just checked and I don't believe Cruz ever DESERVED a Gold Glove. He was good but every year there was always someone at least a little more deserving

But sabermetrics show him to be one of the best corner OFers ever according to 538280. Shouldn't he have won a Gold Glove then? You've illustrated my point perfectly. Sabermetrics don't capture the whole picture, and if we rely too much on them, to the point where we're making blanket statements like "Cruz is one of the greatest ever because of these obscure measurements," we're missing the big picture. There is a lot more to baseball that just these numbers. People get too easily lost in these numbers and lose sight of the game itself.

[RuthMayBond]

But sabermetrics show him to be one of the best corner OFers ever according to 538280. Shouldn't he have won a Gold Glove then? You've illustrated my point perfectly.No, you have to be the best for ONE year, not almost the best several times, it's not a lifetime award. It's like Musial never won the HR crown. They both just had bad timing.

<Sabermetrics don't capture the whole picture, and if we rely too much on them, to the point where we're making blanket statements like "Cruz is one of the greatest ever because of these obscure measurements," we're missing the big picture. There is a lot more to baseball that just these numbers. People get too easily lost in these numbers and lose sight of the game itself.>

Some do, but I play, I go to batting practice, I even play in batting practice (trying to catch a ball), I'm not removed from the game

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But sabermetrics show him to be one of the best corner OFers ever according to 538280. Shouldn't he have won a Gold Glove then? You've illustrated my point perfectly. Sabermetrics don't capture the whole picture, and if we rely too much on them, to the point where we're making blanket statements like "Cruz is one of the greatest ever because of these obscure measurements," we're missing the big picture. There is a lot more to baseball that just these numbers. People get too easily lost in these numbers and lose sight of the game itself.
It's funny you mentioned GGs since they are NOT determined by baseball stats. They are sometimes determined by "reputation" and who looks good tripping and falling down (i.e Derek Jeter). Most managers are to just too lazy to take the GG voting very seriously. They tend to vote based on just a few games of observation and their memeories are hazy at best.

[DoubleX]

It's funny you mentioned GGs since they are NOT determined by baseball stats. They are sometimes determined by "reputation" and who looks good tripping and falling down (i.e Derek Jeter). Most managers are to just too lazy to take the GG voting very seriously. They tend to vote based on just a few games of observation and their memeories are hazy at best.

I realize that, but I also think if a player is so obviously good (which was the insinuation about Cruz and the defensive sabermetrics), I think at some point that will be recognized. The statement was something to the effect of Cruz being one of the best to have ever played (defensively). That's quite a statement, and if true, that kind of talent rarely escapes some recognition. Things like that are just not completely missed, no matter where a player plays. If you're that good - all time good in this case, the recognition will find you.

[DoubleX]

Small market, non-winning team.

Like I said, that didn't stop Cesar Cedeno (i.e. he was good and the recognition found him), and that didn't stop Gary Carter and Andre Dawson playing in even greater obscurity with less successful teams in Montreal.

It should also be noted, that Cruz's teams were not always that bad and three times played on a national stage in the NLCS during his career (that's twice more than Carter and Dawson's Expos). The Astros finished 3rd or higher 10 times during Cruz's tenure, so his teams were often competitive

[DoubleX]

Some do, but I play, I go to batting practice, I even play in batting practice (trying to catch a ball), I'm not removed from the game

I never said nor thought you were one of the people who gets lost in the numbers. Though I'm not sure how playing in batting practice is relevant to all of this :p. I'm more talking about just watching games, observing players, rather than solely scrutinizing numbers. I definitely think there is a place for the numbers, I just think that there should be a balance in the approach to analyzing players, and one that is not too focused on numbers and removed from observing the actual game. This applies vice versa as well.

[SABR Matt]

RMB...the margin for performance is a well documented sabermetric ideal now...PCA uses it...WS uses it...Baseball-Prospectus uses it for WARP, VORP uses it...

Each different system defines the margin differently...but it's a similar idea in all cases...I'll get back to you when I find a site that describes it succinctly, but in the case of PCA I determined that because an average team wins at a .500 clip and is made up of two componants (offense and defense) that share essentially equally in creating wins, one could claim:

Offensive Winning% - Offensive Margin + Deffensive Winning% - Defensive Margin = Team W%

And from that claim...with the assumption that there is an equivalent margin for both offense and defense...

Offensive W% + Defensive W% - 2*Margin = Team W%...

Now an absolutely average team would have an offense and defense that averaged out to a .500 W%...therefore OW% + DW% would equal or be very close to 1...and an average team wins half their games...so the margin must be (1 - .5) / 2 or 0.25

Meaning that, at the team level, the margin for offensive and defensive excellence is a .250 W%.

Through use of the pythagorean equation (RS^Pyth / (RS^Pyth + RA^Pyth)) where Pyth is classically thought of to be 2 but is somewhat impacted by the run scoring environment (in a league where 1 run per game is scored, whoever scores a run...wins a game, so the Pyth would HAVE to be 1)...we can determine that a .250 W% occurs when the offense scores roughly 57% of the league average RS/G (that varies a bit as you go through time and the overall run scoring environment changes)...so the margin is set at about 57% of the normal run scoring rate.

It's a similar idea no matter where you go (James used 52% for offense, BP uses about 55%, VORP it varies by position...etc).

Sorry if I didn't word that well..the idea is to determine the minimum level of production that would actually produce wins.

[digglahhh]

You guys thought you were going to get this thread by me?

No, no, much to the dismay of Chris (the elder), Potato and some of the others who count on me to be one of the generals in the stat mongering arguments, I'm not going to give my same rant. I've articulated dozens of times the nonexistence of true objectivity and the fact that these metrics too, are based on assumption and team dependent. If anybody wants to include one of those posts in the debate find one of the twenty I've written and just paste it up.

I am actually going to approach this from a different angle because contrary to perception I have tremendous respect for the field of sabermetrics and the truly visionary thinkers involved in the pursuit, but not necessarily the Joe Schmoes who just rattle of Win Share or WARP numbers.

Sabermetrics is very valuable, and it is so much bigger than these metrics. Many sabermetricians work on such interesting topics, yet so many pigeonhole sabermetrics as just Win Shares, WARP or EQA. I know sometimes I criticize "sabermetrics" when I criticize the metrics, but I just refer to saber in the interest of being concise. I think I'm going to try to stop that. Yeah I know, many of you are shocked to find I ever try to be concise.:D

Why do we focus on these metrics in the world of stimulating baseball research. That's like going to Peter Luger's to order a hamburger...

I have two main problems I'd like address here. One is that there are just too many metrics. Whatever case you want to make, just look through enough metrics and you'll find one to back your point- that's not good. By the way, its not about winning the argument people, it's about educating people are providing others with the best and most thorough information you can.

Two, this is a critique on all of us. Why do we feel that comparing two legendary players to eachother to see who's better is the pinnacle of baseball research? Why are we so consumed with ranking players in list form?

In truth it is the paradigm that invites the gross overuse of the metrics. Take two greats from different eras, Frank Thomas and Lou Gehrig, add a bunch of people armed with opinions and stacks of Bill James books and what do you think will happen to the discussion? More importantly, is this really furthering our understanding of the game, is it the best use of our time?

I mean the lists and comparisons are fine and they do generate discussion, but everyday there are like 5 live player x vs. player y comparisons. Or top ten at a position or of an era polls. These are the types of topics that invite the "stat mongering." If we want our analyses to be a little more holistic and abstract, we need to start considering some more holistic and abstract topics.

[Imapotato]

The Jose Cruz thread, coupled with some other discussions in recent weeks, are really turning me off to the appeal and value of sabermetrics in analyzing players. I'm sure many will vehemently disagree with me, but I think there is becoming far too much reliance on sabermetrics, and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones), I think a lot of it is still conjecture (especially the advance statistics) that are born when people try too hard to overly analyze and quantify the game. I'm starting to think that the people who rely too heavily on these stats, particularly the advances one, are missing on out on certain fundamental aspects of the game. It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play, rathan than actually watching (or even playing) some games. I've said this before, it's like they may listen to Jimi, but they don't hear Jimi.

It's like the spirit of the game is being lost in this pseudo-science.

Anyway, I'm sure people will disagree, and perhaps passionately, but I just had to get this out of me.


Amen

and we lost many a good poster because some are very aggresive in their approach with said stats

But that is what baseball is becoming, a more fantasy baseball then watching the game itself

As for Hafey getting thrown in the mix, that is perfect

See Hafey was not put in because he put up 'shiny' numbers

But that he put up very good numbers while legally blind!!

He needed 6 or so pair of glasses, had night blindness and was a great man

As for the job, say statistically we make your job performance number orientated

You are a jerk, tick off your coworkers contanstly, are arrogant etc.
But you excel at your job skils...say out of a 100, you score 98

Another co worker is a 80 out of 100
But they do the birthday card, party thing, ask how everyones family

Promotion time, guess who is going to get it?
Not Mr. 98
Human Nature...and baseball was started as a game...a playful activity and when it comes to selecting great players human nature still comes into play

A very good player like Maranville, will get in over someone bland like Jose Cruz with better numbers

Why we constantly argue and throw numbers out to say old timers were horrid and Frank Thomas is great is beyond me

[Imapotato]

Those are exactly the ones that are NOT helpful (Can you make no distinction between stats from 1894/1930/2001 and 1908/1968?)

<It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play>

Because
1) eyewitnesses are never prejudiced, and
2) you actually saw Cobb play, right?


Btw here is what I mean by the 'aggressiveness' of some...

Some of our stat guys seem to have the same persona

A belittling, patronizing bite to their retorts, and I have found myself ready to get into a fight everytime I post ANYTHING on these boards away from the Philly Forum

[mac195]

Bogus sabermetric arguments, like all other bogus arguments, deserve criticism. But it is silly to criticize sabermetrics itself as "going too far". It's like criticizing Porche for making cars that "go to fast". If someone speeds and drives recklessly in a Porche, it isn't the fault of the car.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In truth it is the paradigm that invites the gross overuse of the metrics. Take two greats from different eras, Frank Thomas and Lou Gehrig, add a bunch of people armed with opinions and stacks of Bill James books and what do you think will happen to the discussion? More importantly, is this really furthering our understanding of the game, is it the best use of our time?

I mean the lists and comparisons are fine and they do generate discussion, but everyday there are like 5 live player x vs. player y comparisons. Or top ten at a position or of an era polls. These are the types of topics that invite the "stat mongering." If we want our analysis to be a little more holistic and abstract, we need to start considering some more holistic and abstract topics.

Couldn't agree more.

The problem is that there are those of us who know the game/have played the game, and there are those who rely more on stats. Where's the middle ground? A formula can be learned and the meaning of stats can be explained, but nothing replaces the experience and knowledge gained from having played. It's sorta like in bmx freestyle competitions. Bikers riding down rails, doing spins and flips up walls and over tables, stalling on the front tire, etc... They get former bmx riders to judge those competitions, because they understand how hard a trick is, and what it's like to be in that position.

What makes Pujols such a great player? Is it his stats, or is it his approach, and him never giving away an AB. His ability to sit back and go the other way with a good changeup, or to get his hands through on an inside fastball, even though it's a 1-2 count. His smart baserunning makes him great, his hustle makes him great, his fundamentals make him great, and his on field/clubhouse leadership makes him great. He sets the tone. Stats don't show any of this.

This site could be better. This site could still talk about numbers while also getting into what makes players so good.

Take Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, or any player, and there's enough baseball knowledge here for their greatness to not be confined to numbers. Wagner hit a ton of balls to right field; a true spray hitter with power in the deadball days.

Cobb could have hit with power had he chose to, but he wouldn't have stayed the all around player. In other words, adding that to his repertoire would have limited his ability to exploit his other skills.

Ruth, well despite his power numbers, he could go the other way for singles and doubles with the best of 'em. He was much faster than most give him credit for, had a cannon for an arm, solid fielder.

Our goal should be to come together and learn more. To be open to reconsider previously held opinions/beliefs.

[RuthMayBond]

Btw here is what I mean by the 'aggressiveness' of some...

Some of our stat guys seem to have the same persona

A belittling, patronizing bite to their retorts, and I have found myself ready to get into a fight everytime I post ANYTHING on these boards away from the Philly ForumWhatever you say, pot, er ,kettle :laugh

[mac195]

What makes Pujols such a great player? Is it his stats, or is it his approach, and him never giving away an AB. His ability to sit back and go the other way with a good changeup, or to get his hands through on an inside fastball, even though it's a 1-2 count. His smart baserunning makes him great, his hustle makes him great, his fundamentals make him great, and his on field/clubhouse leadership makes him great. He sets the tone. Stats don't show any of this.
Stats are a very good way to measure how great Pujols is. They can't measure the skills (or lack of skills), or the strength of his character that contributes to, or detract from, his greatness. Who here thinks that they can? Yes, there is a lot of discussion of statistics, but I don't see how that prevents anyone from discussing a player's skills or other attributes. Go ahead and discuss. Why bash sabermetrics?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why bash sabermetrics?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, or my words just came off the wrong way. I'm not bashing sabermetrics by any means. Anyone intrigued by baseball, whether stat driven or "on the field" driven, is a good thing. I've tried to understand what is behind certain saber stats, and some of them can add to discussions, but 1) They shouldn't be the end all (not that you say they should be) 2) Many have flaws 3) They can be spun to back up your argument no matter which side you take

[leecemark]

--1) There are a few people who will push a single stat system into every discussion as their contribution. Thankfully we have plenty of people to bring other perspectives to the debate. I've never seen a thread where somebody presents a number and everybody agrees that the discussion is over and that is the final word.
--2) Everything has flaws. Sabermetrics are one side of the coin (or actually many sides of the coin, since there are many different metrics that can shed light on a subject).
--3) Stats can not be spun to support ANY side of an arguement you want. In an interesting comparison where both sides have merit then either can find numbers to support their case. In cases where someone has tried to twist some numbers to put forth a questionable proposition they are always quickly buried in disent - by other stat minded folk as well as the anti-stat crowd.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I realize that, but I also think if a player is so obviously good (which was the insinuation about Cruz and the defensive sabermetrics), I think at some point that will be recognized. The statement was something to the effect of Cruz being one of the best to have ever played (defensively). That's quite a statement, and if true, that kind of talent rarely escapes some recognition. Things like that are just not completely missed, no matter where a player plays. If you're that good - all time good in this case, the recognition will find you.
This is true in general. But on occasion you'll have a Richie Ashburn as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Stats are a very good way to measure how great Pujols is. They can't measure the skills (or lack of skills), or the strength of his character that contributes to, or detract from, his greatness. Who here thinks that they can? Yes, there is a lot of discussion of statistics, but I don't see how that prevents anyone from discussing a player's skills or other attributes. Go ahead and discuss. Why bash sabermetrics?
I've often thought about this. If we were to watch Pujols all season, every game, and never kept any stats would we would know how great he was just by watching him? It's kind of the "if a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around does it make any noise?" type of idea.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--3) Stats can not be spun to support ANY side of an arguement you want.

Is this really true Mark? If you're into formulas and stuff, can't you hand-pick the one that adds more or less emphasis on a certain stat? Just pick that stat that supports your argument or goes against what the players peers said about him. We give formulas a nod over a fellow ballplayer/writer/historian's first hand accounts all the time.

Some stats have crazy era adjustments and don't take everything into account. Just like with that crazy EqA bs. It seems to boost a player because it's hard to separate from the pack, but doesn't realize WHY it's harder to separate.

[leecemark]

--You might be able to find an isolated stat that supports a bogus point, but there will be many others to discredit that approach. Mindlessly following any one stat (or any one anything) will lead you down many a wrong path.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--You might be able to find an isolated stat that supports a bogus point, but there will be many others to discredit that approach. Mindlessly following any one stat (or any one anything) will lead you down many a wrong path.

Ok, let's try a little test.

I think Ripken is completely over-rated. Mostly because of his steak, his 3,000 hits, and his "good guy" played in one city thing.

Not sure what your opinion on him is, but let's say you disagree with me. What stats will you break out, or what formula would you use to prove me wrong?

Prove to me that he wasn't a compliler, and didn't need his 11,500 AB to compile 3,000/400. You gonna compare his numbers to his league average, and make the argument that he was very good? Or use his position and his offensive numbers to make some positional argument. Or heaven forbid break out the gold glove/2MVP thing on me (which means little).

[mac195]

Or use his position and his offensive numbers to make some positional argument.
Yep. That's what I would do. A good fielding shortstop who also hits well is probably more valuable than a first baseman, even if he is one of the best hitters in the league. Ripken and Barry Larkin were better than Fred McGriff and Mo Vaughn, even though they couldn't hit as well.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yep. That's what I would do. A good fielding shortstop who also hits well is probably more valuable than a first baseman, even if he is one of the best hitters in the league. Ripken and Barry Larkin were better than Fred McGriff and Mo Vaughn, even though they couldn't hit as well.

Alright cool. Thanks for jumpin' in Mac. Don't you think you could take either side and present a case?

Your position would lean heavily on positional adjustment, which focuses on his "value" to his team rather than how good of a player he actually was.

And I would say that the glove he uses has little to do with how many AB it took him to get to 3,000 or 400, or how dominant he was.

[mac195]

Your position would lean heavily on positional adjustment, which focuses on his "value" to his team rather than how good of a player he actually was.
Sounds like you are talking about "good" only in terms of hitting. Ripken was very, very good with the glove, and had a good arm. Taking both offense and fielding into account, Ripken was a better player than McGriff or Vaughn.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sounds like you are talking about "good" only in terms of hitting. Ripken was very, very good with the glove, and had a good arm. Taking both offense and fielding into account, Ripken was a better player than McGriff or Vaughn.

McGriff or Vaughn? :noidea Well lets hope so, lol.

I meant overrated as a ballplayer and in terms of actual greatness. In terms of "value" of course he's valuable. Most good shortstops are, just from the position itself.

Maybe he's not overrated on here. This site seems to have more knowledgable posters than other forums.

[mac195]

Greatness and value usually go together except when a player with very good fielding skills is stuck at a position where those skills are underutalized. Ichiro, for example, probably isn't as valuable as he is great because he is stuck in right field.

[Bluesteve32]

The Jose Cruz thread, coupled with some other discussions in recent weeks, are really turning me off to the appeal and value of sabermetrics in analyzing players. I'm sure many will vehemently disagree with me, but I think there is becoming far too much reliance on sabermetrics, and I while I believe certain measures are indeed very helpful (mostly the more simple ones), I think a lot of it is still conjecture (especially the advance statistics) that are born when people try too hard to overly analyze and quantify the game. I'm starting to think that the people who rely too heavily on these stats, particularly the advances one, are missing on out on certain fundamental aspects of the game. It's like they think they can get the whole gist from looking at a composite of box scores and quantifying players that they've never seen play, rathan than actually watching (or even playing) some games. I've said this before, it's like they may listen to Jimi, but they don't hear Jimi.

It's like the spirit of the game is being lost in this pseudo-science.

Anyway, I'm sure people will disagree, and perhaps passionately, but I just had to get this out of me.

Sabermetrics is baseball alchemy. There are stats that baseball people are actually asking what they mean. Many fantasy league players are the ones who have seemed to be in the forefront of many of these types of stats and baseball can be broken down to a myriad of different stats.

On the flip side, those "stat geeks" are a great boom to the popularity of the game and couses great fun in discussions about the game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Greatness and value usually go together except when a player with very good fielding skills is stuck at a position where those skills are underutalized. Ichiro, for example, probably isn't as valuable as he is great because he is stuck in right field.

In Ripken's case though, his value was much higher than his greatness, especially when you bring positional adjustments into it. Someone else might be a better hitter, but because they may play an "offensive" position, you expect them to be Babe Ruth. Ripken gets a break when you do that, because shorstops in general tend to be light hitters, so he rises further above his relative peers.

I just realize a flaw in my original question though. I was stating my opinion of how Ripken is overrated, and expecting someone to prove he wasn't. The problem with that is, different people have different ideas of what overrated is, or where Ripken actually stands. It's too subjective. The original idea was just to see how someone could take both sides of an argument and use fancy stats to prove their point either way. Sounded good in theory :ughh

[Tigerfan1974]

First of all it's RBI not RBIs. RBIs would be "runs batted ins". ;) RBI are team dependent because a player's RBI total are partly a function of the frequency of the hiters in front of him getting on base. If you bat third, you are going to have more RBI if you have Rickey Henderson instead of Juan Pierre. Even if Henderson and Pierre have the same BA, Rickey wouls still have a much higher OBP and be on base more often for you to drive in.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. :confused:


So a pitcher who throws a one hit complete game and loses 1-0 didn't have as good as game as the pitcher who pitches 5 innings, allows nine runs but wins 10-9?

:confused:


So you don't want to learn knew things? You want to see the game as you always have? You have no desire to appreciate baseball in a new way? :confused:

Post # 3,000! :clapping

I have no desire to get so lost in numbers and stats that I lose appreciation for the game. It is about the game on the field, not the numbers in the book!
At least for me!!

[538280]

Ok, let's try a little test.

I think Ripken is completely over-rated. Mostly because of his steak, his 3,000 hits, and his "good guy" played in one city thing.

Not sure what your opinion on him is, but let's say you disagree with me. What stats will you break out, or what formula would you use to prove me wrong?

Prove to me that he wasn't a compliler, and didn't need his 11,500 AB to compile 3,000/400. You gonna compare his numbers to his league average, and make the argument that he was very good? Or use his position and his offensive numbers to make some positional argument. Or heaven forbid break out the gold glove/2MVP thing on me (which means little).

Ripken had a tremendous peak in the mid 1980s. I think people remember the older Ripken and forget he was an even greater player back then, in fact an all time great. I believe his 1984 season is like 5th all time in TPR or something like that. He was the best player in the game by stats and contemporary opinion. Of course, once the 1990s started he slid down the hill, but he continued to play every game, even if he shouldn't have. People remember him as the guy who hung around too long.

He may be a bit overrated, because many sportswriters believe he was the greatest shortstop of all time, but I think he's underrated here are BBF and underrated by lots of people.

[baseballPAP]

Btw here is what I mean by the 'aggressiveness' of some...

Some of our stat guys seem to have the same persona

A belittling, patronizing bite to their retorts, and I have found myself ready to get into a fight everytime I post ANYTHING on these boards away from the Philly Forum
How ironic that I came to BBF in the first place because of a sabr discussion about Bobby Abreu on the Phillies forum :)

That one got quite heated, and honestly I don't understand the passion behind defending something that has no proof behind it. To me its like saying that the sky is pink, then arguing for days with everyone who simply looks up and says, nope, its blue.

I tend to try and see both sides of things, but I always fall back to the numbers. Why? Because thats where the proof lies. I highly agree that there are too many "new-fangled" sabr-stats out there, and that if used wrong they can support any argument. The same can be said for public opinion. Some prefer game accounts and first hand opinion when comparing players. Does this mean that every sportswriter knows exactly what he's talking about? So these posters have never read Joe Schmo in their local paper and thought 'what a hack'? Its all about the combination of evidence.

[Dasperp]

I think people generally don't understand what sabermetrics is. Everyone thinks it's just these complicated stats, while it's really just about studying baseball, past and present. If you go to hardballtimes.com, you'll find articles on the upcoming CBA, on new stadium deals, a take on Sammy Sosa, histories of pinch-hitters and 3rd basemen, as well as statistical studies on things like plate discipline.

I don't think the main contributions of sabermetrics have been complicated stats, but coming up with new ways of thinking to counter the traditionalism and bias of the mainstream media. Instead of just saying Carl Pavano "couldn't handle the pressure of New York", sabermetrics looks for an actual reason he didn't succeed (he wasn't that good, just lucky in 2004). Players like Jose Cruz were underrated during their careers and guys like Jim Rice were overrated because the media didn't look at stats like OBP or account for park differences and overvalued RBI. We shouldn't penalize Cruz because his particular skills, which were of great value, were undervalued by the media.

The GG argument never works, because Rafael Palmeiro won it when he was a DH and Jeter now has two of them, due completely to his image and not to his true talent in the field. No fielding metric is perfect, but i think that they are better measures of a player's true ability than the subjective evaluation of scouts, coaches, and newspaper reporters. And most of the time the metrics end up agreeing with the general consensus, it's only in certain cases where the general thinking is off, usually when the player in question has other skills that lead people to overrate their fielding.

And can people stop using the stereotype of statheads as people who don't watch the games and just sit at home with their calculators. I would bet that the average SABR member watches many more games a year than the average fan. The research is something to do when there's no baseball to watch.

[baseballPAP]

OK...I can't believe I skipped this thread for 3 days!

This is what occurs to me....
Sabermetrics is like alcohol. There are many different types, and in the wrong hands all of them lead to problems. Those who do not partake tend to not understand. Mixing different types can often lead to other problems.

Sabr Matt is a statholic.
I'm the 3 beers a night guy.
Tigers1974 is the straight laced guy who's never been to a party.

Everyone has a level.
What's yours? :)

[baseballPAP]

I think people generally don't understand what sabermetrics is. Everyone thinks it's just these complicated stats, while it's really just about studying baseball, past and present. If you go to hardballtimes.com, you'll find articles on the upcoming CBA, on new stadium deals, a take on Sammy Sosa, histories of pinch-hitters and 3rd basemen, as well as statistical studies on things like plate discipline.

I don't think the main contributions of sabermetrics have been complicated stats, but coming up with new ways of thinking to counter the traditionalism and bias of the mainstream media. Instead of just saying Carl Pavano "couldn't handle the pressure of New York", sabermetrics looks for an actual reason he didn't succeed (he wasn't that good, just lucky in 2004). Players like Jose Cruz were underrated during their careers and guys like Jim Rice were overrated because the media didn't look at stats like OBP or account for park differences and overvalued RBI. We shouldn't penalize Cruz because his particular skills, which were of great value, were undervalued by the media.

The GG argument never works, because Rafael Palmeiro won it when he was a DH and Jeter now has two of them, due completely to his image and not to his true talent in the field. No fielding metric is perfect, but i think that they are better measures of a player's true ability than the subjective evaluation of scouts, coaches, and newspaper reporters. And most of the time the metrics end up agreeing with the general consensus, it's only in certain cases where the general thinking is off, usually when the player in question has other skills that lead people to overrate their fielding.

And can people stop using the stereotype of statheads as people who don't watch the games and just sit at home with their calculators. I would bet that the average SABR member watches many more games a year than the average fan. The research is something to do when there's no baseball to watch.
Very nice post, and dead on.

[RuthMayBond]

OK...I can't believe I skipped this thread for 3 days!

This is what occurs to me....
Sabermetrics is like alcohol. There are many different types, and in the wrong hands all of them lead to problems. Those who do not partake tend to not understand. Mixing different types can often lead to other problems.

Sabr Matt is a statholic.
I'm the 3 beers a night guy.
Tigers1974 is the straight laced guy who's never been to a party.

Everyone has a level.
What's yours? :)Keep Matt out of rehab :laugh

[leecemark]

--Sultan, Ripken WAS a great player. His peak as a hitter would have been good regardless of position and his career totals would have him in the Hall of famer even if he were a LFer. He wouldn't be a first tier guy in the OF (and maybe wouldn't have been kept in the lineup long eonough to compile the HoF numbers), but nobody with 3,000 hits and few with 400 HR are not included. Certainly none with both. That he accomplished his offensive feats while also playing an outstanding defensive SS makes him an all time great.
--You shouldn't need any sabermetric numbers to prove how great Ripken was. This is a situation where justihaving watched a little baseball in the 1980s and early 90s makes the numbers redundant to the discussion. You only need to dig deep when trying to find his exact place amoung the best SS (or players) of all time.

[leecemark]

--Scott, I am the kind of guys who likes to have some stats with my dinner - and occasionally goes on a bender:laugh .

[Bluesteve32]

OK...I can't believe I skipped this thread for 3 days!

This is what occurs to me....
Sabermetrics is like alcohol. There are many different types, and in the wrong hands all of them lead to problems. Those who do not partake tend to not understand. Mixing different types can often lead to other problems.

Sabr Matt is a statholic.
I'm the 3 beers a night guy.
Tigers1974 is the straight laced guy who's never been to a party.

Everyone has a level.
What's yours? :)

Never been nor never will go to the party! ;)

[DoubleX]

On the flip side, those "stat geeks" are a great boom to the popularity of the game and couses great fun in discussions about the game.

I definitely agree. It certainly adds a dimension to discussions and can help distinguish players that seem to be close, especially players from different eras. I just get concerned when people use it as the be all and end all of their perspective. Such as saying that Player A should be in the Hall of Fame because these obscure measures rank them 12th all-time at the position. I just think some people take the stats too far and lose sight of the game itself.

[SABR Matt]

RMB...the margin for performance is a well documented sabermetric ideal now...PCA uses it...WS uses it...Baseball-Prospectus uses it for WARP, VORP uses it...

Each different system defines the margin differently...but it's a similar idea in all cases...I'll get back to you when I find a site that describes it succinctly, but in the case of PCA I determined that because an average team wins at a .500 clip and is made up of two componants (offense and defense) that share essentially equally in creating wins, one could claim:

Offensive Winning% - Offensive Margin + Deffensive Winning% - Defensive Margin = Team W%

And from that claim...with the assumption that there is an equivalent margin for both offense and defense...

Offensive W% + Defensive W% - 2*Margin = Team W%...

Now an absolutely average team would have an offense and defense that averaged out to a .500 W%...therefore OW% + DW% would equal or be very close to 1...and an average team wins half their games...so the margin must be (1 - .5) / 2 or 0.25

Meaning that, at the team level, the margin for offensive and defensive excellence is a .250 W%.

Through use of the pythagorean equation (RS^Pyth / (RS^Pyth + RA^Pyth)) where Pyth is classically thought of to be 2 but is somewhat impacted by the run scoring environment (in a league where 1 run per game is scored, whoever scores a run...wins a game, so the Pyth would HAVE to be 1)...we can determine that a .250 W% occurs when the offense scores roughly 57% of the league average RS/G (that varies a bit as you go through time and the overall run scoring environment changes)...so the margin is set at about 57% of the normal run scoring rate.

It's a similar idea no matter where you go (James used 52% for offense, BP uses about 55%, VORP it varies by position...etc).

Sorry if I didn't word that well..the idea is to determine the minimum level of production that would actually produce wins.

Making sure RMB saw this...

As for this idea that I'm a "stataholic"...that would imply an overuse on my part...an idea I strenuously object to.

There's a reason I don't post here all that often...the atmosphere is not inviting to a person who wants a serious debate on baseball related questions when one of the major tools in debate is seen by a huge chunk of the regulars here is PUUUURRREE. EEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL.

This forum used to be great. *sigh*

[RuthMayBond]

Making sure RMB saw this...

As for this idea that I'm a "stataholic"...that would imply an overuse on my part...an idea I strenuously object to.Sorry Matt, that's not what I intended. I meant that you're really into stats, and by NOT sending you to rehab, I do NOT want you to stop your work

<There's a reason I don't post here all that often...the atmosphere is not inviting to a person who wants a serious debate on baseball related questions when one of the major tools in debate is seen by a huge chunk of the regulars here is PUUUURRREE. EEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL.

This forum used to be great. *sigh*>

I know what ya mean

[baseballPAP]

Making sure RMB saw this...

As for this idea that I'm a "stataholic"...that would imply an overuse on my part...an idea I strenuously object to.

There's a reason I don't post here all that often...the atmosphere is not inviting to a person who wants a serious debate on baseball related questions when one of the major tools in debate is seen by a huge chunk of the regulars here is PUUUURRREE. EEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL.

This forum used to be great. *sigh*
Sorry Matt...I did not intend that as an insult whatsoever. In fact, from my perspective its a compliment. Maybe I should have "labeled" you as a wine expert...you know your stuff and occasionally like to indulge in your expertise for the benefit of others :)

[SABR Matt]

It's not like I was *furious* at the label...just taking exception to the negative connotation of "aholic" as a suffix. :)

I admit the bulk of my research focus is sabermetrically oriented, but that's because that's where I'm most skilled and able to advance...it's not so much an addiction as it is an acquired taste. LOL

[Freakshow]

Making sure RMB saw this...

As for this idea that I'm a "stataholic"...that would imply an overuse on my part...an idea I strenuously object to.

There's a reason I don't post here all that often...the atmosphere is not inviting to a person who wants a serious debate on baseball related questions when one of the major tools in debate is seen by a huge chunk of the regulars here is PUUUURRREE. EEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL.

This forum used to be great. *sigh*
No more casting pearls before swine, eh?

[Pine Tar]

No more casting pearls before swine, eh?

Oink Oink!

I have no objections to some advanced statistical methods being used in discussions of players, but there are a lot of persons who blindly follow win shares or WARP or whatever without really understanding what they mean and how they are calculated. I would compare this trend to the broader trend in statistics to teach advanced statistics on a computer program rather than by hand. People end up knowing to click buttons on SPSS without really understanding what the numbers that result mean.

In baseball, people are happy when they see that their favorite baseball player has the most win shares or WARP value and then get to throw those numbers all around the forum. Its very exciting for them, but when you point out problems with the statistic they often become defensive because they don't know enough about the statistic to respond intelligently.

On the other hand, I have seen times when people who are in the know about the ins and outs of a statisic will intentionally use the statistic incorrectly just to make their point, assuming that no one will catch them on it. Its very tiring to be have to sift through all the numbers that get thrown around this forum in a halfhazard way.

I would like this to be a more contructive discussion though of how to address how we use statistics. For instance, 4 of the most popular metrics used on this forum are win-shares, OPS+, WARP, and adjusted ERA+. I believe all have some value in evaluating a player's worth but when they are used, people often completely fail to account for any postseason success players have. For instance, they'll report the career ERA+ of a pitcher or their total win shares and say that pitcher A is better than B because they have a lower ERA+ or more career win shares. BUT hardly anything is ever said about postseason success. Why is that? Isn't the postseason why they play baseball?

The other problem I have with current statistics is that for the most part they try to turn baseball into an individual-level sport. What I mean is that the most prized statistics are often considered those that are the more independent of the rest of the team's performance. Baseball is a team sport. This isn't tennis. There are so many things we cannot quantify that are relevant to discussions of player worth. For instance, look at all the Catfish Hunter hating that goes around this forum that is based on how his ERA+ was nothing special. It seems to me that you don't need such a great ERA+ when your team is scoring a ton of runs, as was the case with the A's of the early 70's. For instance, one of the reasons Clemens' ERA was so low last year was that his team didn't score any runs for him. As a result he had to work harder for the whole game. When pitchers have a comfortable lead, they will try to put more balls in play so that they save their pitch count and the game ends sooner. As a result, they tend to give up more inconsequential runs. This factor is especially relevant to discussions of Bert Blyleven and his low early years ERAs and his lack of run support. Would his ERA been so low had his team scored a few runs for him from time to time. I contend that it wouldn't have been nearly as low as it was.

I would therefore like to see more complex, ecological and contextual models used when analyzing player worth.

Another good example of this is the argument that Will Clark's 1989 season was nearly as good as Ted Williams' was in 1942 (the last time someone hit .400). THis argument is based solely on win-shares. To me that is way too narrow an approach to evaluating a player. It doesn't account for the fact that Kevin Mitchell was protecting Will Clark in 1989 and Mitchell had one of the most dominating offensive seasons of the last 20 years.

So, I guess I have no problem with all the advanced metrics out there. I just think they need to be improved, used appropriately, and understood for what they are. I would like to see more appreciation for post season success and more ecologically and contextually based discussions of player worth. Sorry about the long post.

[RuthMayBond]

The other problem I have with current statistics is that for the most part they try to turn baseball into an individual-level sport. What I mean is that the most prized statistics are often considered those that are the more independent of the rest of the team's performance. Baseball is a team sport. This isn't tennis. There are so many things we cannot quantify that are relevant to discussions of player worth. For instance, look at all the Catfish Hunter hating that goes around this forum that is based on how his ERA+ was nothing special. It seems to me that you don't need such a great ERA+ when your team is scoring a ton of runs, as was the case with the A's of the early 70's. For instance, one of the reasons Clemens' ERA was so low last year was that his team didn't score any runs for him. As a result he had to work harder for the whole game. When pitchers have a comfortable lead, they will try to put more balls in play so that they save their pitch count and the game ends sooner. As a result, they tend to give up more inconsequential runs. This factor is especially relevant to discussions of Bert Blyleven and his low early years ERAs and his lack of run support. Would his ERA been so low had his team scored a few runs for him from time to time. I contend that it wouldn't have been nearly as low as it was.
I don't know about not NEARLY as low but at least he might have got 13 more wins and detractors would have to stop nagging about 300 wins

<Another good example of this is the argument that Will Clark's 1989 season was nearly as good as Ted Williams' was in 1942 (the last time someone hit .400). THis argument is based solely on win-shares. To me that is way too narrow an approach to evaluating a player. It doesn't account for the fact that Kevin Mitchell was protecting Will Clark in 1989 and Mitchell had one of the most dominating offensive seasons of the last 20 years.>

I agree with you on this

<I would like to see more appreciation for post season success and more ecologically>

There's already too much recycling of players going on :laugh

[Pine Tar]

There's already too much recycling of players going on :laugh

And of arguments...:p

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I have no desire to get so lost in numbers and stats that I lose appreciation for the game. It is about the game on the field, not the numbers in the book!
At least for me!!
Well, that fine for you. But there are some people that enjoy baseball "through the numbers". I know of people who don't care for seeing the game in person. They find it boring. But they gain great appreciation for the game by studying its history and baseball statistics and sabermetrics. And there is nothing wrong with that. Let me ask you this. Do you look at any stats on a player? How do you know how a great a player is without looking at his stats?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The other problem I have with current statistics is that for the most part they try to turn baseball into an individual-level sport. What I mean is that the most prized statistics are often considered those that are the more independent of the rest of the team's performance. Baseball is a team sport. This isn't tennis. There are so many things we cannot quantify that are relevant to discussions of player worth. For instance, look at all the Catfish Hunter hating that goes around this forum that is based on how his ERA+ was nothing special. It seems to me that you don't need such a great ERA+ when your team is scoring a ton of runs, as was the case with the A's of the early 70's. For instance, one of the reasons Clemens' ERA was so low last year was that his team didn't score any runs for him. As a result he had to work harder for the whole game. When pitchers have a comfortable lead, they will try to put more balls in play so that they save their pitch count and the game ends sooner. As a result, they tend to give up more inconsequential runs.

I'm sorry but this absurd. Clemens had a 1.87 ERA because the Astros didn't score any runs for him? If this were true then how did Greg Maddux have such a low ERA in 1994-95 and Pedro Martinez in 1999? They both had pretty good offensive teams. Clemens was simply awesome last year. The Astros anemic offense didn't cause Clemens to have a lower ERA.

[Pine Tar]

I'm sorry but this absurd. Clemens had a 1.87 ERA because the Astros didn't score any runs for him? If this were true then how did Greg Maddux have such a low ERA in 1994-95 and Pedro Martinez in 1999? They both had pretty good offensive teams. Clemens was simply awesome last year. The Astros anemic offense didn't cause Clemens to have a lower ERA.
I said it was one of the factors. I didn't say it was the only factor. I actually got this idea based on an interview with him where he stated that he had to keep the score lower because his team wasn't scoring any runs for him. So argue with Clemens because you know more about pitching stats than he does.:waving

[Ubiquitous]

And this is why we need stuff like sabremetrics. Stuff that takes a closer look at the game instead of relying on cliches.

[Pine Tar]

And this is why we need stuff like sabremetrics. Stuff that takes a closer look at the game instead of relying on cliches.
I don't follow...

[Ubiquitous]

NOt to insult you or anything but your oink oink post is full of unsubstantiated cliches that have been handed down for generations in baseball. Pitching to the score and protection. Sabremetrics is an attempt to look at these things and see if the cliche is true. A lot of times it isn't

[Pine Tar]

NOt to insult you or anything but your oink oink post is full of unsubstantiated cliches that have been handed down for generations in baseball. Pitching to the score and protection. Sabremetrics is an attempt to look at these things and see if the cliche is true. A lot of times it isn't
Why don't you tell me then how people use your precious metrics to handle post season success? Nevermind...

You know its funny but actually, blind faith to numbers is also a cliche. What I said was that numbers certainly have value, then I gave some specific examples of how numbers don't tell the whole story. What's cliche about that.

Your defensiveness actually fits nicely within my statement about people who don't really understand the numbers enough to address the issues. WHy else would you be resulting to calling my arguments Cliche's instead of showing how metrics can see through it all and access the truth? Not to offend, but your response is a typical response to critisisms of sabremetrics.

[Ubiquitous]

Coincedentally enough as I was heading out the door to go to work, I discovered a package on my doorstep. The BookTangotiger, MGL, and Andy Dolphin of Baseball primer fame was just delivered today. Its a look into a lot of the sacrifices and practices of baseball. I'll let you know how it is when I'm finished with it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I said it was one of the factors. I didn't say it was the only factor. I actually got this idea based on an interview with him where he stated that he had to keep the score lower because his team wasn't scoring any runs for him. So argue with Clemens because you know more about pitching stats than he does.:waving
Please post a link to that interview. I think you misquoted Clemens. If he had the ability to keep the score down at will then why would he only do it when he's up 1-0 and not 8-1?

[Pine Tar]

Please post a link to that interview. I think you misquoted Clemens. If he had the ability to keep the score down at will then why would he only do it when he's up 1-0 and not 8-1?
Sorry but it was a television interview not a print interview.

I don't say he has the ability to keep the score down at will, just that he will try harder to keep the score down in a 1-0 game versus a 8-1 game. Why would someone do that? Because you can get through a game faster and with less pitches if you aren't worried about giving up a game tying or winning home run.

Here is a really basic example:
If you are up 2-1 and Barry Bonds is up to bat, what do you do? You walk him or pitch around him. If you are up 8-1 and Barry Bonds is up to bat, what do you do? You pitch to him. What will be the overal impact of the pitcher's ERA in the two situations. In the first situation, you are likely to get away with the walk with no earned runs. In the second scenario, you are pretty likely to give up an inconsequential home run that will result in your ERA being higher. But who cares if you ERA gets a bit higher in that situation?? It certainly doesn't reflect the pitcher's worth.

This is just one example of a situation where run support results in different pitching strategies. These pitching strategies then result in different numbers of runs scored against a pitcher and different ERAs.

I have no doubt that these types of factors could be addressed through statistics, its just that no one has. For instance, one could go through box scores and look at the number of runs pitchers give up related to the number of runs their team scores. Its likely that there will be a significant relationship even after controlling for park and team factors. I think the reason no one has looked at it is it would be a "duh" finding.

[Imapotato]

I've often thought about this. If we were to watch Pujols all season, every game, and never kept any stats would we would know how great he was just by watching him? It's kind of the "if a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around does it make any noise?" type of idea.


Actually Sabermetrics actually rise him above what I think he really is...as it does Bonds

I think if you watched Vlad Guerrero, Pujos and Bonds every game, every AB, every fielding chance, you'd probably say Vlad was the better ballplayer

Pujos and Bonds are great hitters...Bonds ABs are dull and I find myself saying "How was THAT not a strike?"
Pujos really doesn't adjust to the fielders or situation as much as he should...he is too talented right now for that flaw to shine through, but later down the road, his wanting a gap hit/HR technique may turn into outs

[Imapotato]

Making sure RMB saw this...

As for this idea that I'm a "stataholic"...that would imply an overuse on my part...an idea I strenuously object to.

There's a reason I don't post here all that often...the atmosphere is not inviting to a person who wants a serious debate on baseball related questions when one of the major tools in debate is seen by a huge chunk of the regulars here is PUUUURRREE. EEEEEEEEEVVVVIILLL.

This forum used to be great. *sigh*


This is a 'baseball' site

From your last comment, it is very condescending in the fact that you believe a 'serious' baseball discussion means YOUR way

There are forums at SABR are there not? Or baseball prospectus

Those sites cater to my number is better then yours, if you don't like the fact that some may say "so and so" is not so great but he doesn't hustle, and has a pea sized striekzone...or any of the other intangibles that cannot be measured

[RuthMayBond]

From your last comment, it is very condescending in the fact that you believe a 'serious' baseball discussion means YOUR wayNon-stat guys have been acting that way for years, why are you letting them off the hook?

[Ubiquitous]

I have no doubt that these types of factors could be addressed through statistics, its just that no one has. For instance, one could go through box scores and look at the number of runs pitchers give up related to the number of runs their team scores. Its likely that there will be a significant relationship even after controlling for park and team factors. I think the reason no one has looked at it is it would be a "duh" finding.

People are actually doing this.

[DoubleX]

This is a 'baseball' site

From your last comment, it is very condescending in the fact that you believe a 'serious' baseball discussion means YOUR way

There are forums at SABR are there not? Or baseball prospectus

Those sites cater to my number is better then yours, if you don't like the fact that some may say "so and so" is not so great but he doesn't hustle, and has a pea sized striekzone...or any of the other intangibles that cannot be measured

I don't know if Matt meant to come across the way he did, but I agree that his post did have a tone of condescencion and elitism, and if true, I think that illustrates why I started this thread in the first place. There is certainly a place for sabermetrics, but there needs to be a balance. There is a lot more to baseball than these deep stats, and it is very possible to have an intelligent baseball converation without reliance on sabermetrics. People who think that sabermetrics are the be all and end all of baseball analysis and observation, and that intelligent baseball conversation necessarily requires sabermetrics, are missing the boat.

However, I don't know if Matt meant to imply that, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. :)

I also want to make clear that I didn't mean to start this thread as a witch-hunt against sabermetrics and sabermetricians. I do believe there is value in the stats that will enhance good baseball conversation, especially when comparing players that seem to be close upon examination of impression and traditional stats.

[digglahhh]

Here is a really basic example:
If you are up 2-1 and Barry Bonds is up to bat, what do you do? You walk him or pitch around him. If you are up 8-1 and Barry Bonds is up to bat, what do you do? You pitch to him. What will be the overal impact of the pitcher's ERA in the two situations. In the first situation, you are likely to get away with the walk with no earned runs. In the second scenario, you are pretty likely to give up an inconsequential home run that will result in your ERA being higher. But who cares if you ERA gets a bit higher in that situation?? It certainly doesn't reflect the pitcher's worth.


Actually the numbers and percentages say that Bonds is walked too often and that teams would actually be better off pitching to him more than they do.

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbonds.html

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbondschart2.html

[Pine Tar]

Actually the numbers and percentages say that Bonds is walked too often and that teams would actually be better off pitching to him more than they do.

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbonds.html

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbondschart2.html

That's interesting but it doesn't change the validity of my example. Just because people did it too much, like with people already on 1st and 2nd, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it often in close games.

[Pine Tar]

People are actually doing this.

Well good. Then I do not understand why you called this idea a cliche earlier and tried to poke fun at it. If "people" are looking at trying to address how much of a factor the number of runs a teams scores has on a pitcher's own ERA, then how is that a laughable question? It seems to me that it must have some merit. Of course, you won't find many discussions here of that issue when you read threads about Catfish Hunter or Bert Blyleven. Why is that? Are we so hung up on the stats available to us that we are unable to think outside of them? If a statistic can't address an issue, is it still worth considering?

[SABR Matt]

This is a 'baseball' site

From your last comment, it is very condescending in the fact that you believe a 'serious' baseball discussion means YOUR way

There are forums at SABR are there not? Or baseball prospectus

Those sites cater to my number is better then yours, if you don't like the fact that some may say "so and so" is not so great but he doesn't hustle, and has a pea sized striekzone...or any of the other intangibles that cannot be measured

A serious debate isn't necessary exclusively sabermetric...but when your attempts at baseball discussion stridently attempt to shut that tool out of the dialogue...it's no longer serious debate.

Any more than it owuld be in your eyes if sabermetricians tried to shut the historical perspective out of debate.

What a shame that you find it condescending that I should want an environment that is at least slightly open to my perspective before I commit to spending much of my time bothering to read and post here...and of late, aside from a few psters here...i find the anti-sabermetric vitriol is getting quite tiresome.

[Ubiquitous]

I didn't poke fun of it, what I said was that it was cliches, unsubstantiated cliches and sabremetrics allows us a closer look into the situation. I never said anything of yours was laughable.



AS for MAtt and elitism.

I didn't find anything he said condescending or elite. I do find that several people opposing him or at least stats to be condescending and elitist in their tone. Theres this odd notion held by some of you that people who play with the numbers don't play baseball, don't watch baseball, and our somehow inferior to those of you who hold more conventional attitudes and backgrounds about baseball. That is condescending, that is acting elite.

[Pine Tar]

I didn't poke fun of it, what I said was that it was cliches, unsubstantiated cliches and sabremetrics allows us a closer look into the situation. I never said anything of yours was laughable.



AS for MAtt and elitism.

I didn't find anything he said condescending or elite. I do find that several people opposing him or at least stats to be condescending and elitist in their tone. Theres this odd notion held by some of you that people who play with the numbers don't play baseball, don't watch baseball, and our somehow inferior to those of you who hold more conventional attitudes and backgrounds about baseball. That is condescending, that is acting elite.

We all think that our views are right (and therefore superior), or that other viewpoints are wrong (and therefore inferior). Its not elitism, its reality. If we thought otherwise, we would do otherwise.

[RuthMayBond]

We all think that our views are right (and therefore superior), or that other viewpoints are wrong (and therefore inferior). Its not elitism, its reality. If we thought otherwise, we would do otherwise.Hey, you know, your view is right :D but Ubiquitous is talking about the double-standard (thinking you're right seen as a positive for traditionalists, a negative with sabr guys)

[Pine Tar]

Hey, you know, your view is right :D but Ubiquitous is talking about the double-standard (thinking you're right seen as a positive for traditionalists, a negative with sabr guys)
:D

I don't think I follow. Both sides think they are right. Both sides think the other is wrong. Both sides think they are good for thinking they are right. There is no double-standard since both sides are advocating for their own perspective.

I, on the otherhand, think both traditionalists and stats guys usually get it wrong. Where they get it wrong is by somehow thinking that they got it right. Socrates said that the only way he was smarter than other people was that he at least knew he didn't know anything. Other people always think they have the answers.:confused:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

:D

I don't think I follow. Both sides think they are right. Both sides think the other is wrong. Both sides think they are good for thinking they are right. There is no double-standard since both sides are advocating for their own perspective.

I, on the otherhand, think both traditionalists and stats guys usually get it wrong. Where they get it wrong is by somehow thinking that they got it right. Socrates said that the only way he was smarter than other people was that he at least knew he didn't know anything. Other people always think they have the answers.:confused:

That's illogical. If Socrates truly believed he didn't know anything they he cannot assert that he is smarter than anyone else. How could he possibly know if he doesn't know anything? That would presuppose that Socrates has some knowledge (about the intellegence of others). His statement is contradictory. Socrates is so overrated. So, Pine Tar, are you saying that you don't know anything? Is this is true then why should we believe anything you say?

[DoubleX]

A serious debate isn't necessary exclusively sabermetric...but when your attempts at baseball discussion stridently attempt to shut that tool out of the dialogue...it's no longer serious debate.

Any more than it owuld be in your eyes if sabermetricians tried to shut the historical perspective out of debate.

I think this is a very good, valid, and fair point.

[Pine Tar]

That's illogical. If Socrates truly believed he didn't know anything they he cannot assert that he is smarter than anyone else. How could he possibly know if he doesn't know anything? That would presuppose that Socrates has some knowledge (about the intellegence of others). His statement is contradictory. Socrates is so overrated. So, Pine Tar, are you saying that you don't know anything? Is this is true then why should we believe anything you say?

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its illogical or "overrated.":crazy

Yeah I guess he should be in the baseball hall of fame since he is so "overrated." :laugh

What Socrates was referring to was how people think they know the answers to things. He on the other hand never thought he had the answer to anything particular. THe only thing he knew was that others were wrong about what they thought they knew. Have you ever heard of skepticism?

I am a skeptic of the current statistics that exist today. I am a skeptic of first hand accounts of baseball players. When you say so and so should or shouldn't be enshrined in the hall of fame, I am skeptical. What's so bad about that. If we challenged the "truth" more instead of trying so hard to convince others that we are right, we we might actually learn something .

[Victory Faust]

If I may add my two cents' worth to this discussion...

I think everything hinges on what you want out of baseball. Personally, I prefer a mix of both stats and lore.

That said, I've never trusted people who blindly stick to sabre-stats to measure players. The year Ichiro broke George Sisler's single-season hit mark, Mr. Suzuki actually posted a mediocre OPS. That speaks volumes.

I don't need a stat book to tell me Ichiro is a wonderful ballplayer. All I have to do is watch him for a few games.

There are so many things a ballplayer can do to be valuable that cannot be measured. I'm a Detroit Tiger fan, and when I was a kid there was a utility guy named John Wockenfuss on the team. On paper, John wasn't any great shakes; just another journeyman ballplayer, one of the faceless thousands who have passed through the big leagues over the last 150 years.

But anyone who watched the Tigers every day back then knows that John Wockenfuss was a very valuable player to have on the team. His strong points were executing the hit-and-run, and hitting behind baserunners -- skills that are difficult to measure.

Here's another Tiger example from my childhood: There was a game in which there was a runner on third base. The batter hit a pop fly to medium right field -- deep enough for the runner to tag up and score most instances.

Not in this case, though, because Al Kaline was patrolling right field. Mr. Kaline caught the ball, and threw an absolute bullet to the catcher; the runner on third stayed put.

How do you measure something like that? You can't. Often, a player with a great arm won't get a lot of assists, because once the fielder gets the reputation of having a gun for an arm, runners won't try to take an extra base on him. That's all stuff that's measured by the gut and the eye, not a calculator.

Then again, statistics have a valuable place in this game we love so much. The numbers 714, 2130, 4,191 are ingrained into our conciousness, and are part of what makes reading about the game's history so interesting. Without stats, baseball history wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is.

In fact, when it comes to these "ingrained" stats, I don't even care if subsequent research proves those statistics to be flawed. For instance, I know researchers say that Ty Cobb didn't actually have 4,191 hits, because of some errors in the score keeping.

But, you know what? I don't care. To me, Ty Cobb notched 4,191 hits, and amassed a .367 lifetime batting average, and that's what I'm sticking with. I know this may not be the absolute truth. But this is baseball. It's just a game. In the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter -- so, to me, I'll stick to the numbers I'm most comfortable with.

And that's the beauty of baseball. There's something in it for everyone. Whether you enjoy watching the game with a slide-rule in one hand and a calculator in the other; or if you prefer to be holding a beer and hot dog -- both of you can get something out of it.

But beware: Beer dulls the senses, making cold, unobjective analysis almost impossible!! :crazy

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its illogical or "overrated.":crazy

Yeah I guess he should be in the baseball hall of fame since he is so "overrated." :laugh

What Socrates was referring to was how people think they know the answers to things. He on the other hand never thought he had the answer to anything particular. THe only thing he knew was that others were wrong about what they thought they knew. Have you ever heard of skepticism?
This statement is the definition of contradictory. Do you kow what the word "contradictory" means?

Example:

1) "I do not know anything."
2) I know person A's statement X is wrong."

These two sentences are exclusionary. Both cannot be true at the same time.


I am a skeptic of the current statistics that exist today. I am a skeptic of first hand accounts of baseball players. When you say so and so should or shouldn't be enshrined in the hall of fame, I am skeptical. What's so bad about that. If we challenged the "truth" more instead of trying so hard to convince others that we are right, we we might actually learn something .
If you are "true" skeptic then you should also be skeptical of your skepticism as well. A well reasoned argument for Frank Thomas being a HoF player has been presented by Jim Albright in another thread:

Even conceding that Thomas was a liabilty with the glove, and forgetting all win share, ink, and HOF standards categories as well as any career rate stats (which could decline), one can make a heck of a case for Thomas' inclusion in the Hall when he retires so long as he doesn't get involved with folks like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose did:

He was in the top eight in MVP voting eight times;
He won 1 batting title, and was in the top ten in average seven times;
He led the league in slugging percentage once, and was in the top six in that category nine times;
He led the league in runs scored once, and was in the top ten in that category seven times;
He was in the top eight in total bases eight times;
He was the runner up in homers four times, and was in the top eight in that category eight times;
He was in the top seven in RBI eight times;
He led his league in times on base three times and was in the top five in that category ten times;
He led his league in walks drawn four times and was in the top seven in that category 11 times;
He twice led his league in extra base hits and was in the top ten in that category eight times;
He's currently 30th in career homers;
He's currently 48th in career RBI;
He's currently seventeenth in career walks drawn; and
He's currently 47th in career extra base hits.

I hope none of this is too complicated for those of you who don't like the numbers. For those who doubt his credentials, please advise of all cases of players with this many top-flight performances who have not made the Hall without being declared permanently ineligible.

Jim Albright

Yet as a skeptic you have not presented any contrary evidence that Frank Thomas is not a HoF player. All you have done is asserted that he is not and that is not evidence. As a skeptic you have failed in your duties. So lease tell us why Frank Thomas is not a HoF player and should not be inducted into the HoF?

[SABR Matt]

People love to point to Ichiro as evidence that somehow Sabermetrics are missing something HUGE (I am once again not saying statistics capture anything...I am however saying they get you close if you use the right tools and understand the tools you'e using)...I would point out that the year Ichiro broke the hits record, he rates by PCA as the most valuable hitter in the AL...I don't think I'm missing something.

[digglahhh]

That's illogical. If Socrates truly believed he didn't know anything they he cannot assert that he is smarter than anyone else. How could he possibly know if he doesn't know anything? That would presuppose that Socrates has some knowledge (about the intellegence of others). His statement is contradictory. Socrates is so overrated. So, Pine Tar, are you saying that you don't know anything? Is this is true then why should we believe anything you say?

Because we don't know anything either.

I take that Socratic musing to be more figurative than literal.

Some people will say that they know they like Britney Spears, but they never even listened to Sam Cooke... The point is that people's opinions aren't necessarily their own so you haven't really developed the knowledge you know, just synthesized a series of assertions by others.

Today people have a very difficult time explaining why they do things or like them. If you ask somebody why they think Scarlett Johansen is a good actress, they don't reply much of substance oftentimes. It basically comes down to they think she's good because everybody says she is, because that is the view propogated by all the sources of "authority" and influence. So just because somebody has an opinion or thinks they know something that doesn't mean that the person has actually thougt about it. People learn more than they discover.

By realizing the way in which "learning" is often so much a product of priming and conditioning and less a product of self-discovery we realize that you can learn much without ever knowing anything. At the core, there is very little independent choice made by people, whether it wanting to buy a Gucci Bag or its singing the praises of Win Shares.

[digglahhh]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its illogical or "overrated.":crazy

Have you ever heard of skepticism?


I don't think that Socrates was a Skeptic though. He held the notion that there were absolute truths and virtues, and wouldn't really see eye to eye with somebody like Hume and doesn't really fit with the positivists or academics. Socrates was probably more of a fair weather Skeptic, and in that sense was actually somewhat elitist.

Sorry back to baseball...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Even conceding that Thomas was a liabilty with the glove, and forgetting all win share, ink, and HOF standards categories as well as any career rate stats (which could decline), one can make a heck of a case for Thomas' inclusion in the Hall when he retires so long as he doesn't get involved with folks like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose did:

He was in the top eight in MVP voting eight times;
He won 1 batting title, and was in the top ten in average seven times;
He led the league in slugging percentage once, and was in the top six in that category nine times;
He led the league in runs scored once, and was in the top ten in that category seven times;
He was in the top eight in total bases eight times;
He was the runner up in homers four times, and was in the top eight in that category eight times;
He was in the top seven in RBI eight times;
He led his league in times on base three times and was in the top five in that category ten times;
He led his league in walks drawn four times and was in the top seven in that category 11 times;
He twice led his league in extra base hits and was in the top ten in that category eight times;
He's currently 30th in career homers;
He's currently 48th in career RBI;
He's currently seventeenth in career walks drawn; and
He's currently 47th in career extra base hits.

I hope none of this is too complicated for those of you who don't like the numbers. For those who doubt his credentials, please advise of all cases of players with this many top-flight performances who have not made the Hall without being declared permanently ineligible.

Jim Albright

Just wanna get this straight.

So even though he can't field, can't throw and can't run (which makes his walks and OBP less valuable than expected), he is a HOFer? Because he was in the top "whatever" in however many offensive categories in an offensive era? Maybe your definition of the HOF standards differ from mine, but it's not the hall of very good for a short time, or even the hall of great for awhile. Where have the standards gone? If it was JUST a "hitters HOF," then I could see case to be made.

[digglahhh]

Sultan doesn't the extent of his strengths outweigh the depths of his shortcomings. To me, that's what it comes down to. I have no delusions about him as a player, but he is pretty close to the cream of the cream of the crop as a hitter.

[leecemark]

--There are over 200 players in the Hall of Fame. Thomas was a better hitter than all but a dozen of them at most. Although I agree he was lousy at every other phase of the game, hitting is the most important skill by far and Thomas' bat is enough to qualify him with room to spare.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--There are over 200 players in the Hall of Fame. Thomas was a better hitter than all but a dozen of them at most. Although I agree he was lousy at every other phase of the game, hitting is the most important skill by far and Thomas' bat is enough to qualify him with room to spare.

True.

It will become a hall full of one or two tool players very shortly. Which is why the standards need to go up offensively. Hopefully they keep this era in mind.

[leecemark]

--I think they will. Lots of guys are putting up power numbers that would be Hall worthy had they been accomplished in any early period. Not all of them are going to get elected. None of them, except Balco Barry, could match Thomas offensive numbers though. I think he is one of the least likely mashers of this era to have his numbers enhanced via chemistry. He may have dominated even more if some of his competition hadn't been roided up.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He may have dominated even more if some of his competition hadn't been roided up.

Mark, do you think Thomas has ever been on any supplements? Or even any type of pre-cursor?

[leecemark]

--It wouldn't surprise me if ANY player from the last 15 years had used. Thomas doesn't really fit the profile of a hard core user though. He is very strong, but it looks like natural strength. He isn't exactly cut;) . He has gotten bigger over time, but it looks more like blubber than an explosion of muscle. He has never been a workout warrior either and steroids aren't a magic pill. If you don't put in the work to go along with them they don't do much for you.

[Ubiquitous]

:D

I don't think I follow. Both sides think they are right. Both sides think the other is wrong. Both sides think they are good for thinking they are right. There is no double-standard since both sides are advocating for their own perspective.



This isn't about right or wrong but how people act towards each other. When I made these comments Theres this odd notion held by some of you that people who play with the numbers don't play baseball, don't watch baseball, and our somehow inferior to those of you who hold more conventional attitudes and backgrounds about baseball. That is condescending, that is acting elite. I wasn't talking about right or wrong. Though I do agree with RMB. Traditionalists are allowed to feel they are right and the other side is wrong but statheads are considered elite or snobs if they hold the same view. But that is besides the point. The point is is that there is a group of people out there that believe that statheads do not appreciate the game like normal people do. Do not watch games, do not play baseball, and do not attend games. That simply isn't true, its done so that they can marginalize and trivialize what the other side is saying.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True.

It will become a hall full of one or two tool players very shortly. Which is why the standards need to go up offensively. Hopefully they keep this era in mind.
The HoF has always been that way. Ruth, Mays, Wagner, Cobb, Johnson, Grove, etc. were NEVER the standard. If it were then what the heck is Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs, Phil Rizutto, Bill Mazeroski, and George Sisler, Jessie Hines, and Earl Combs doing in the HoF? It's call the HALL of FAME. It's supposed to honor the best and most famous major leaguers and Thomas certainly qualifies.

[csh19792001]

People love to point to Ichiro as evidence that somehow Sabermetrics are missing something HUGE.

That's not what sabermetrics (when used in isolation) are missing.

People use sabermetrics to make arguments like "Adam Dunn has been as great (or even a greater) baseball player as Ichiro Suzuki" simply become some abstruse compositie statistic states it to be that he was in a way that makes it ostensibly factual and beyond reproach. Or even worse, that Dunn is a much greater hitter because his OPS+ is much better.

Adam Dunn hasn't done anything novel, he hasn't set any records, and isn't unique. To further illustrate, I'll cite one of my favorite posts I've read here...on those exact two guys. You may have missed it, Matt.

Young Chris,

Greatness wows you. Greatness makes you turn down other plans to sit down and watch a guy play a game. Greatness is what you tell the next generation about. Greatness sells tickets, hot dogs, jerseys and brings awareness, and wealth in the process, to a team. Greatness trancends esoteric minutia and brings life to the game. All great players are valuable, in all senses of the word. Not all valuable players are great.

Thirty years from now, are you going to be sitting down with your son and saying there once was a man who took a lot of pitches, walked a lot, and struck out even more, but sometimes he hit homeruns. He had very little personality, had a good arm and a bad glove. Sometimes he hit some long homers and sometimes he was standing on base when other guys did. His name was Adam Dunn. What kinda nonsense would that be?

Now take a guy like Ichiro. He's the type of player you will tell your kids about. The guy can amaze you so many different ways, with speed, with his arm, acrobatic plays, slapping balls all over the place, and the occasional homer. Ichiro is a greater player than Dunn, even if Dunn is more valuable. Guys like Ichiro can get overrated in terms of value, but they personify the beauty of the game, and that is a quality too great for statistics to measure. People don't show up to the park to see guys like Dunn; guys like Dunn didn't make baseball the part of America that it is.

So yes, in cases like this (of which there who knows how many), sabermetric analysis is bereft in a major way.

[Ubiquitous]

You are arguing that sabremetric studies are flawed because the can't capture some sort of splendor that has nothing to do with sabremetrics. Thats misusing sabremetrics. You can't use sabremetrics to determine who future generations are going to hold close to their heart. You can't use sabremetrics to determine who is going to transcend the game and who isn't. Nor can personal opinions and anecdotes be trusted in this situation. One mans hero is another mans villain. So in the end you are setting up strawmen to knock down.

I said it in that thread and I'll say it again in this thread Ichiro is considered great because he is Ichiro! If his name was Mark Whitlock from Boise, Idaho the fanfare wouldn't even be close to what it is now. If his name was Rocco and he played for Tampa it wouldn't even be close to what it is now.

[DoubleX]

That's not what sabermetrics (when used in isolation) are missing.

People use sabermetrics to make arguments like "Adam Dunn has been as great (or even a greater) baseball player as Ichiro Suzuki" simply become some abstruse compositie statistic states it to be that he was in a way that makes it ostensibly factual and beyond reproach. Or even worse, that Dunn is a much greater hitter because his OPS+ is much better.

Adam Dunn hasn't done anything novel, he hasn't set any records, and isn't unique. To further illustrate, I'll cite one of my favorite posts I've read here...on those exact two guys. You may have missed it, Matt.



So yes, in cases like this (of which there who knows how many), sabermetric analysis is bereft in a major way.

Terrific post (and to digglahhh too).

[Pine Tar]

This statement is the definition of contradictory. Do you kow what the word "contradictory" means?

Example:

1) "I do not know anything."
2) I know person A's statement X is wrong."


These two sentences are exclusionary. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Your issue is about semantics, not logic.

Yet as a skeptic you have not presented any contrary evidence that Frank Thomas is not a HoF player. All you have done is asserted that he is not and that is not evidence. As a skeptic you have failed in your duties. So lease tell us why Frank Thomas is not a HoF player and should not be inducted into the HoF?
I never stated that Frank Thomas shouldn't be a hall of famer. I feel pretty confident in saying that you have me confused with someone else. ;)

[Pine Tar]

I don't think that Socrates was a Skeptic though. He held the notion that there were absolute truths and virtues, and wouldn't really see eye to eye with somebody like Hume and doesn't really fit with the positivists or academics. Socrates was probably more of a fair weather Skeptic, and in that sense was actually somewhat elitist.

Sorry back to baseball...
Yeah you are right. I was trying to use somebody that I thought most people would know something about.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The HoF has always been that way. Ruth, Mays, Wagner, Cobb, Johnson, Grove, etc. were NEVER the standard. If it were then what the heck is Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs, Phil Rizutto, Bill Mazeroski, and George Sisler, Jessie Hines, and Earl Combs doing in the HoF? It's call the HALL of FAME. It's supposed to honor the best and most famous major leaguers and Thomas certainly qualifies.

Combs brought more to the ballyard than Big Frank ever has. I see your point though.

[Ubiquitous]

While reading The Book I came across a passage in which the authors looked into one of the cliches that was mentioned above. The pitching or playing to the score. There conclusion?

Neither pitchers nor batters demonstrate any ability to play to the score.

[leecemark]

--Combs had more of a variety of skills than Thomas. He was nowhere near as great a player though and has no business in the Hall of Fame. He was the the Yankees of the 20s what Mickey Rivers was to the Yankees of the 70s.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

While reading The Book I came across a passage in which the authors looked into one of the cliches that was mentioned above. The pitching or playing to the score. There conclusion?

Having pitched and hit for several years, I completely disagree with that. As a pitcher, the score, the situation, the ballpark you're in, and the defense behind you ALWAYS dictates your pitch selection, your aggressiveness, your approach, and your confidence.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Combs had more of a variety of skills than Thomas. He was nowhere near as great a player though and has no business in the Hall of Fame. He was the the Yankees of the 20s what Mickey Rivers was to the Yankees of the 70s.

So Combs was a better "ballplayer" but Frank is a better "hitter," which makes Hurt greater in your mind, right.

[Ubiquitous]

Having pitched and hit for several years, I completely disagree with that. As a pitcher, the score, the situation, the ballpark you're in, and the defense behind you ALWAYS dictates your pitch selection, your aggressiveness, your approach, and your confidence.


If you are winning 8-0 after 4 innings are you likely to suddenly give up 5 runs? If you are losing 1-0 after 4 are you more or less likely to give up 4 runs. If you are losing 8-7 after 3 innings are you more or less likely to give up runs?

Yes you may change styles but that isn't the point. The point is that whatever you do based on the score has no real impact on your performance. If you are pitching poorly you are likely to continue to pitch poorly. If you are pitching well you are likely to continue to pitch well. Regardless of your teams run output.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If you are pitching well you are likely to continue to pitch well. Regardless of your teams run output.

If you are pitching well, there comes a point in the game when it's in hand. Like you said, up 8-0 for instance. The time comes when you no longer pitch the same way as you would if it was still 0-0 or even 2-0. If you're up 8-0, it changes everything. Why is it so hard to believe that players are human, and that various situations on the ballfield determine their decision making; for better or worse.

[Ubiquitous]

Again that isn't the point. The point is that pitchers have the same outcomes whether or not the score is 5-0 in there favor or 1-0 in there favor. The offensive output of their own team has no real impact on the offensive output of the team they are pitching against.
A pitcher is not more likely to buckle down and not give up the run with the score 1-0 then he would be if the score was 5-0.

The pitcher might say to himself "to heck with it I'm just going to chuck it up there" but that doesn't mean he is going to suddenly get lit up. The stats show that to be the case. Is it possible that there are players that do this? Sure but I'm willing to bet the difference in performance between expected and real are small.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Again that isn't the point. The point is that pitchers have the same outcomes whether or not the score is 5-0 in there favor or 1-0 in there favor. The offensive output of their own team has no real impact on the offensive output of the team they are pitching against.
A pitcher is not more likely to buckle down and not give up the run with the score 1-0 then he would be if the score was 5-0.

The pitcher might say to himself "to heck with it I'm just going to chuck it up there" but that doesn't mean he is going to suddenly get lit up. The stats show that to be the case. Is it possible that there are players that do this? Sure but I'm willing to bet the difference in performance between expected and real are small.

Whether or not it shows up in stats can be blamed on the law of averages then. The fact is that it does happen, and the players are human. They feel pressure, and they make decisions based on that pressure. If you're up 1-0, you will throw a different pitch on a 2-2 count, than if you are up 8-0. If you have Andruw Jones patrolling centerfield, you'll be more comfortable making a certain pitch to a certain guy. The ability of your catcher to block pitches will affect how and when you throw a curveball or splitter. Everything matters in baseball that's why it's so beautiful. Not all of it comes with "proof" in the end.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Combs brought more to the ballyard than Big Frank ever has. I see your point though.
Combs was a good player but he got a huge boost from being part of the 1927 NY Yankees. I do think all-around players do get shafted, though. Specialists like Tony Gywnn, Wade Boggs, and MArk McWire have one thing they did exceptionally well and people focus on that. all-around players like Combs, Barry Larkin, Rickey Henserson, Tim Raines are often underrated.

[mac195]

So Combs was a better "ballplayer" but Frank is a better "hitter," which makes Hurt greater in your mind, right.
No. Combs was not a better ballplayer.

I play (have played) lots of sports - baseball, basketball, cross country, tennis, table tennis, bowling, martial arts - none at more than a recreational level though. As far as I know, Ichiro Suzuki only plays baseball. Does that mean I am a better athlete than Ichiro?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

No. Combs was not a better ballplayer.

I play (have played) lots of sports - baseball, basketball, cross country, tennis, table tennis, bowling, martial arts - none at more than a recreational level though. As far as I know, Ichiro Suzuki only plays baseball. Does that mean I am a better athlete than Ichiro?

I'm having a hard time finding the correlation here Mac. Are you saying that Combs was playing in a "recreational" league?

What is your definition of "ballplayer?"

To me, it's having all around skills and doing things both big and little that help the team succeed. As hitters, there's no comparison, I agree. Combs was a leadoff hitter/centerfielder, and Frank was a 1B/DH. If you feel that Frank's offense in this era, at 1B/DH are enough to compensate for his other skills, or lack there-of, then I respect your opinion. I'd take the more complete player on my team.

HWR, you mean Combs gets a boost in terms of historical perception because he was on the '27 Yanks? Can't argue with that; but he was also a big part of what made that team so great.

[mac195]

Are you saying that Combs was playing in a "recreational" league?
Umm... no Sultan, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that being pretty good at a lot of things doesn't necessarily trump being great at one thing. The fact that I can play lots of sports, and Ichiro can't, doesn't make me a better athlete than Ichiro. Likewise, Combs being good at several different baseball skills doesn't make him better than a great hitter like Thomas.

A better comparison is Thomas vs. Ripken. Does Ripken's package of skills trump Thomas' big bat? Maybe not, peak for peak, but if longevity is also considered, I think Ripken wins out.

[Dasperp]

So yes, in cases like this (of which there who knows how many), sabermetric analysis is bereft in a major way

You're missing the point of sabermetrics. It's not to determine who is more fun to watch or who will go down in legend, but to determine who has or had more actual value. If you gave me the choice in 2001 of watching Ichiro play or watching Giambi play, i would take Ichiro every time. But if tell me to choose the one that will help my team the most, i would choose Giambi without a doubt. If you talk to SABR-inclined mets fans about Jose Reyes, you'll hear the same type of thing. He's not a good player yet, but he's so much fun to watch that they love him.

I agree that there is no way i'll remember Adam Dunn more than Ichiro, but last year Dunn was probably the better player. This all gets back to the stereotype of statheads "not watching the games" and "not really liking baseball", which is just complete crap. And Diglahhh, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to be telling my kids about those seasons when Barry Bonds walked a lot and hit some long homeruns, and how we all knew that was greatness.

[baseballPAP]

A serious debate isn't necessary exclusively sabermetric...but when your attempts at baseball discussion stridently attempt to shut that tool out of the dialogue...it's no longer serious debate.

Any more than it owuld be in your eyes if sabermetricians tried to shut the historical perspective out of debate.

What a shame that you find it condescending that I should want an environment that is at least slightly open to my perspective before I commit to spending much of my time bothering to read and post here...and of late, aside from a few psters here...i find the anti-sabermetric vitriol is getting quite tiresome.
I have to agree here. But, as with most any arguement, those on the extremem viewpoints will always be on the frontlines. Those like myself who tend to see both sides somewhat tend to get caught in a 3rd grade nu-uhhh....uh-huhhhh type of arguement where no one learns anything.

[baseballPAP]

So Combs was a better "ballplayer" but Frank is a better "hitter," which makes Hurt greater in your mind, right.
Sultan, what you're trying so desperately not to say is Combs played with the great Ruth, so he's better :)

Combs was a perfect example...a good player on a great team who's numbers were helped by his teammates. He was also a defensive liability, as everyone in the league ran on him. Somewhere while looking for references for my Yankee Stadium park factors posts I saw where fast runners routinely scored from second on SAC flies hit to the deeper parts of Yankee Stadium that found their way into Combs' glove, because he couldn't throw. Thats more of an impact than Thomas lack of range at the easiest defensive position IMO. Thomas could flat out rake....enough so that the rest is unimportant. Combs was pretty good, but not so good that he could overcome anything else.

[baseballPAP]

Whether or not it shows up in stats can be blamed on the law of averages then. The fact is that it does happen, and the players are human. They feel pressure, and they make decisions based on that pressure. If you're up 1-0, you will throw a different pitch on a 2-2 count, than if you are up 8-0. If you have Andruw Jones patrolling centerfield, you'll be more comfortable making a certain pitch to a certain guy. The ability of your catcher to block pitches will affect how and when you throw a curveball or splitter. Everything matters in baseball that's why it's so beautiful. Not all of it comes with "proof" in the end.
This makes no sense. The point is that the results don't change. Not that one player is trying harder or whatever. Have you been to those games? The pitcher is throwing strikes...the batters are swinging at anything and BOTH sides just wanna go home. I would like to see the numbers for walks in those situations however...because like everyone else, the umpires want to go home too, and the strike zone tends to get a little bigger.

[Captain Cold Nose]

When walking is what a player is most remembered for, and that equates greatness, then yes, it is going too far. But you can't really blame the process for that. As a tool for understanding baseball, a tool, and just one tool, not the tool, the advanced method of statistical analysis cannot be ignored. Like all great things, the messenger needs to be careful as to where they actually get the message from. Without the boring sport, there would be no reason for sabermetrics at all. It will always be a servant of the game.
Onward and upwards.
If Combs didn't play for your beloved Yankees, Sultan, would you still make that statement about Combs? I think that's an honest question.

[DoubleX]

Not sure how this became an Earl Combs debate, but I guess I'll offer my two cents...

I don't think Combs is a Hall of Famer, but I think he is better that a lot of people would make him out to be. He was a good hitter and a good CFer, and I think if his career was a little longer, he'd be a more legitimate Hall of Famer, say like Edd Roush.

[digglahhh]

baseball" And Diglahhh, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to be telling my kids about those seasons when Barry Bonds walked a lot and hit some long homeruns, and how we all knew that was greatness.

So will the entire baseball watching population whether or not they have the the slightest clue about sabermetrics.

I don't want to make wild accusations but even comparing Bonds to Dunn is, in a certain way, indicative of an over-reliance on the metrics, deep in the caverns of your subconcious.

Hit homers and walking, that is the beginning and end of any Bonds and Dunn similariteis. In fact, even in those departements they aren't really that similar. Bonds has so much more power its ridiculous, plus he walks for different reasons. Look at the K rate, they are really nothing alike as hitters.

Barry Bonds in an inner circle legend, Adam Dunn is the poster child for OPS.

[Ubiquitous]

Whether or not it shows up in stats can be blamed on the law of averages then. The fact is that it does happen, and the players are human. They feel pressure, and they make decisions based on that pressure. If you're up 1-0, you will throw a different pitch on a 2-2 count, than if you are up 8-0. If you have Andruw Jones patrolling centerfield, you'll be more comfortable making a certain pitch to a certain guy. The ability of your catcher to block pitches will affect how and when you throw a curveball or splitter. Everything matters in baseball that's why it's so beautiful. Not all of it comes with "proof" in the end.

40 years of data that points to no difference in performance at the major league level and you want to say its because of "the law of averages".

Ignore your offense and only look at what you are allowing the opposing offense. Group performances based on that. You will see that pitchers that give up say 1 run behave the same and that pithcers who give up 6 runs behave the same. Then throw in your score and you will see that the data doesn't change becuase of score.

On the net you can look up Jack Morris and you will find studies into this.

Over the past few years, I've tested many pitchers to who have a "pitch to the score" reputation, including Jack Morris, Jack McDowell, Doc Gooden, and Dave Stewart. I have also followed the careers of two pitchers with the opposite reputation, Dave Stieb and Jose DeLeon. In no case have I found any pattern whatsoever of a pitcher winning or losing more games during his career than the formula projects. In all these cases I found pitchers who tended to win and lose the number of games that their runs allowed and run support totals project them to win and lose.

The pitchers who get a reputation of "pitching to the score" have one thing in common - they have all generally gotten good run support through most of their careers. It seems apparent to me that pitchers get this reputation because they get better run support than most other pitchers and thus have a W-L record that looks better than their ERA or runs allowed. In general, these pitchers get good run support because they are on good offensive teams for a number of years. Jack Morris is the best example of this; in his entire career, he was on only one below-average offensive team (1989), and he pitched for several great offensive teams. The "pitch to the score" theory seems to be an effort to imbue a pitchers' won-loss record with a value other than luck.

Another thing that pitchers with this reputation often have in common is that they pitch alot of innings. This leads to more wins (as well as losses), and the number of wins often seems to impress people more than the won-loss record itself, if Cy Young voting is used as a measure. Of course, pitching more innings is generally a good thing, and makes a pitcher (especially an effective one) more valuable, but it has little to do with the issue at hand

[Ubiquitous]

Barry Bonds in an inner circle legend, Adam Dunn is the poster child for OPS.


Since when did OPS become such a bad horrible stat?

[Dasperp]

Hit homers and walking, that is the beginning and end of any Bonds and Dunn similariteis. In fact, even in those departements they aren't really that similar. Bonds has so much more power its ridiculous, plus he walks for different reasons. Look at the K rate, they are really nothing alike as hitters

I wasn't comparing Dunn and Bonds, i was just responding to your comment that walking a lot and hitting homeruns can't be an indicator of greatness. It is very exciting to watch Ichiro leg out an infield single on a ball he hit off the ground, but it is also exciting watching the mind-game between a pitcher and a batter with great plate discipline. When Giambi is going good, it's a lot of fun to watch him really wait for his pitch, and not be fooled into going after something he can't hit.

[SABR Matt]

BTW...it's a myth that Dunn's style of hitting is bad for his team (or shall I say...worse than another hitter who hits for a higher average but nearly the same OPS).

Throughout the history of the game, teams with a lot of Adam Dunn style hitters have scored a LOT of runs. Now...a .240/.380/.600 hitter is less valuable than a .340/.380/.600 hitter simply because a hit is slightly more valuable than a walk overall...but the difference is captured in linear-weight based metrics.

[digglahhh]

OPS is not a horrible stat at all, but considering Dunn a great player based upon in is an incomplete perception of its scope.

I think OPS is a very good stat in fact. I don't however think it is precise enough that a few points matter much either way, even in its relative form. There are several ways for a player with an inferior OPS to overcome a player who has a slightly better mark. That doesn't make it a bad state at all, just a bad dogma.

[csh19792001]

Terrific post (and to digglahhh too).

Thank you. I'm glad we're getting through to some. :o

[Ubiquitous]

OPS is not a horrible stat at all, but considering Dunn a great player based upon in is an incomplete perception of its scope.

I think OPS is a very good stat in fact. I don't however think it is precise enough that a few points matter much either way, even in its relative form. There are several ways for a player with an inferior OPS to overcome a player who has a slightly better mark. That doesn't make it a bad state at all, just a bad dogma.

In terms of hitting how is that so? If we have one player who has an OPS of .850 and another player who is .825 how can the .825 hitter make up the difference hitting wise? Now can he be a better defender and baserunner thus making up for the difference? Yes, but again when simply measuring who is the better hitter how is it possible that the player with the higher OPS is not the better hitter? About the only way possible is in the rather extreme situations of comparing a really high average guy against a really low average guy. For instance in Matts example the really high average guy is slighlty more valuable a hitter then the really low average guy and that is because about 65 or so walks get turned into hits. But again the two players have to be really really close in terms of OPS and have an extreme batting average difference. For instance in the extreme two players take two hits away from the high average player his OPS plummets his batting average only falls .004 and overall his value is now slightly less then the low average guy.

[csh19792001]

You're missing the point of sabermetrics. It's not to determine who is more fun to watch or who will go down in legend, but to determine who has or had more actual value.

All well and good, but baseball and baseball history is about a hell of a lot more than "who had more value". Baseball history doesn't fit neatly into a boxscore or a formula.

Once again, people are completely missing the value vs. greatness dichotomy. Just talking numbers and value all day amounts to nothing than a quickly devolving discussion that consists of people manipulating sabermetric measures to support the candidate they like at that moment.

And in this (all too common) scenario, nothing novel or interesting is learned or exchanged, and we're no longer discussing baseball history.

All of these threads aren't asking "who had better statistics" or "which player garnered more Win Shares"; they're asking who was the greater baseball player. And when we do the greatest positional player polls and top 10's at each position, it's the same thing.

And if greatness is entirely encapsulated in a number, then what's the point of having a baseball history discussion board? You can find the greatest players in history, perfectly ordered and exactly enumerated in less than a minute, and that's the end of it. It will vary slightly depending on which statistic you choose, but that's the extent of depth of the investigation. This strict sabermetric approach obviates anecdotes, in-depth biographical information, discussion of the minutiae and intricacies of the game of baseball, the flavor and context of the times, any discussion of skills, guile, etc, etc. In short, anything qualitative is completely eschewed, and we're left with an endless numbers palaver played out ad nauseum on an endless series of threads. It sucks all the interest and fun out of this forum, and it's the reason several of our most knowledgeable and erudite members now either very infrequently participate, or have left the forum entirely.

[Dasperp]

In terms of hitting how is that so? If we have one player who has an OPS of .850 and another player who is .825 how can the .825 hitter make up the difference hitting wise?

a .300/.400/.425 hitter is better than a .300/.350/.500 hitter. OPS is a good enough stat, but it undervalues OBP. Last year Andruw Jones had a .263/.347/.575 line for a .922 OPS, bit i'd say Brian Giles was easily a better hitter with a .301/.423/.483 line for a .905 OPS.

[Ubiquitous]

We are not missing it. You are simply talking about something different. We are asking who helps his team win more games on the field with his performance. You are asking who awes us more or who wows us more or who is more exciting. Ichiro could be the star wars of baseball players but that doesn't mean he is the citizen Kane of movies too.

Ichiro for some is exciting that doesn't mean he helps his team win more games then Adam Dunn does.

Again we are simply defining greatly differently, to me great players are players that help their team win greatly. Your definition seems to factor in some sort of excitement factor.

[RuthMayBond]

So even though he can't field, can't throw and can't run (which makes his walks and OBP less valuable than expected), he is a HOFer? Because he was in the top "whatever" in however many offensive categories in an offensive era? Where have the standards gone? If it was JUST a "hitters HOF," then I could see case to be made.Then what's your take on Ted Williams?

[Ubiquitous]

a .300/.400/.425 hitter is better than a .300/.350/.500 hitter. OPS is a good enough stat, but it undervalues OBP. Last year Andruw Jones had a .263/.347/.575 line for a .922 OPS, bit i'd say Brian Giles was easily a better hitter with a .301/.423/.483 line for a .905 OPS.

You're right of course. I wasn't thinking about it like that but should have. For some reason I was only looking at it from the perspective of similar OBP and SLG but different average.

[RuthMayBond]

Adam Dunn hasn't done anything novel, he hasn't set any records, and isn't unique.Would Ichiro have been worthless if he'd got a few less hits that year?

[RuthMayBond]

Combs brought more to the ballyard than Big Frank ever has.Define "more"

[DoubleX]

Thank you. I'm glad we're getting through to some. :o

I don't think that I needed much convincing. :p

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If Combs didn't play for your beloved Yankees, Sultan, would you still make that statement about Combs? I think that's an honest question.

I'm not even a big Yankee fan, so yes. If he played for the A's I'd say he was a better all around player than Thomas.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

40 years of data that points to no difference in performance at the major league level and you want to say its because of "the law of averages".


Ubi, some things just don't show up but they exist, plain and simple. You might say, "well if they don't show up, then it's not worth talking about," but if you ignore them, you're ignoring part of what makes the game so great.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Then what's your take on Ted Williams?

Did Ted play 1B/DH?

I don't think Ted's other skills could be considered "tools" by any means, but at the same time, I think he gets a worse rap than he deserves for baserunning/fielding/throwing.

After the early 50's he wasn't as good a baserunner as he previously was. It can't be the only measure, but his fielding percentage was only .003 off the league average. I've also read pieces that describe his fielding as being viewed much too harshly. The green monster might have helped in terms of real-estate to cover, but he also had to deal with tricky bounces that might have caused a few errors a season.

I have him ranked 10th all time right now, and yes, it's mostly because of hitting. To me, Thomas only brought hitting to the table. And while people love to look at walks and OBP, the fact is, some players' walks are less valuable than others because of either a lack of stolen base threat and/or lack of baserunning ability.

As far as the Combs thing, I'm not even a Combs fan, or a Yankee fan, but he brought leadership, aggressiveness, a winning attitude, speed, contact hitting and fielding. Hard to see the true effect of a team's "spark plug" through stats.

[SABR Matt]

OPS is not a horrible stat at all, but considering Dunn a great player based upon in is an incomplete perception of its scope.

I think OPS is a very good stat in fact. I don't however think it is precise enough that a few points matter much either way, even in its relative form. There are several ways for a player with an inferior OPS to overcome a player who has a slightly better mark. That doesn't make it a bad state at all, just a bad dogma.

Does anyone here use OPS as though it were dogma??

I sure as hell don't.

[SABR Matt]

In terms of hitting how is that so? If we have one player who has an OPS of .850 and another player who is .825 how can the .825 hitter make up the difference hitting wise? Now can he be a better defender and baserunner thus making up for the difference? Yes, but again when simply measuring who is the better hitter how is it possible that the player with the higher OPS is not the better hitter? About the only way possible is in the rather extreme situations of comparing a really high average guy against a really low average guy. For instance in Matts example the really high average guy is slighlty more valuable a hitter then the really low average guy and that is because about 65 or so walks get turned into hits. But again the two players have to be really really close in terms of OPS and have an extreme batting average difference. For instance in the extreme two players take two hits away from the high average player his OPS plummets his batting average only falls .004 and overall his value is now slightly less then the low average guy.

Uh...singles are more valuable than walks, but OPS counts singles twice and walks only (in effect) once...so it is indeed quite possible for two hitters...even if we're ignoring park effects...to have OPS values of .825 and .850 and have the .825 hitter be better even just as a hitter.

[RuthMayBond]

Does anyone here use OPS as though it were dogma??

I sure as hell don't.I don't use OPS at all :eek:

[SABR Matt]

Neither do I really except as a quick-glance when I'm just trying to get a rough idea about players.

[Bill Burgess]

I don't think sabermetrics has evolved enough. I want them to continue growing.

Mature people know that not all baseball events can be reduced to numerical values. Only silly foolish people think that. But the rest of us can sympathize with the desire to have all things rendered into numbers.

If baseball events COULD be rendered into formulas, they might be far too inconvenient to do quickly and easily. But we would all like for the statisticians to continue to evolve and make progress.

There are too many factors that complicate stats. Injuries, psychologyy, intangibles.

The temptation is great to have a stat tell us who is better. Like having a fingerprint or DNA tell us who committed a murder. But baseball is a lot more involved and subjective that DNA. It's part art, part science, part heart, part head, part tools, part skills, etc. But I think if anyone has a shot at doing a credible job as far as stats can be done, Matt Souders might be He, for whom we have long waited.

Bill

[Ubiquitous]

Ubi, some things just don't show up but they exist, plain and simple. You might say, "well if they don't show up, then it's not worth talking about," but if you ignore them, you're ignoring part of what makes the game so great.

I'm not saying ignore them, I'm saying that even if a major league pitcher mentally or physically does change his style because of the score it does not show up in his performance to any real degree of measurability. Both from an entire pitcher pool perspective and individual player perspective.

[Ubiquitous]

Uh...singles are more valuable than walks, but OPS counts singles twice and walks only (in effect) once...so it is indeed quite possible for two hitters...even if we're ignoring park effects...to have OPS values of .825 and .850 and have the .825 hitter be better even just as a hitter.

I'm not seeing how an .825 hitter could be better because of singles. An .825 hitter could be better because he has a higher OBP but hitting singles instead of walks would not help unless the guy has a really high batting average and the guy we are comparing him too has a really low average, and even sometimes not even then.

For instance I have one guy with 516 PA a .358/.378/.448 line against another guy of 516 PA, .251/.347/.504 line. An .826 vs an .851 line. First guy has 66 more hits, 100 more singles and 50 less walks. In the end the second guy who walks more and hits for more power according linear weights has created more runs over average.

So I guess I'm not understanding your line about singles and how that relates to a .825 hitter being better then an .850 hitter because of it.

[csh19792001]

I'm not seeing how an .825 hitter could be better because of singles.

For instance I have one guy with 516 PA a .358/.378/.448 line against another guy of 516 PA, .251/.347/.504 line. An .826 vs an .851 line. First guy has 66 more hits, 100 more singles and 50 less walks. In the end the second guy who walks more and hits for more power according linear weights has created more runs over average.


Whose derivation of linear weights are you using? The ones in Total Baseball that James and Palmer came up with (looking at all the 1901-1977 data) which found a walk to be worth only 72% of a single, across eras?

[leecemark]

--A single is more valuable than a walk. However, it is not twice as valuable and it does get double counted in OPS (1.000 OBP and 1.000 SLG, while a walk is 1.000 OBP and .000 SLG).

[Ubiquitous]

Whose derivation of linear weights are you using? The ones in Total Baseball that James and Palmer came up with (looking at all the 1901-1977 data) which found a walk to be worth only 72% of a single, across eras?


Tangotigers, and his has the walk worth 68% of a single

[SABR Matt]

My own dynamic LW research suggests that the ratio between a walk and a single changes with time...and that during eras where there are a lot of errors, the single is worth as much as 2.1 times the value of a walk, whereas in the modern game, it's only 1.24 times the walk.

During certain eras in which singles...and generally balls in play...had more significance, a high contact hitter who didn't walk is sometimes worth more than a guy with a higher OPS derived more from power and walks.

[barzilla]

Hey everyone, long time no see. Let me throw a couple of points out here.

1. I have to admit I got advance notice of this thread since it started out dissing sabermetrics.

2. I do think the "fun to watch" idea is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone enjoys watching Ichiro, but he is frustrating player to watch because he doesn't draw more walks for those that appreciate the statistic. Some of us enjoy watching a hitter that works the count, but most people enjoy a slasher.

--A single is more valuable than a walk. However, it is not twice as valuable and it does get double counted in OPS (1.000 OBP and 1.000 SLG, while a walk is 1.000 OBP and .000 SLG).

I hate mathematics, but if we want to get technical a walk is 1.000 OBP and an undefined slugging percentage. This might seem like nitpicking, but it really comes into play when we look at the style of hitter. Someone that has more extra base hits will actually see a boost in slugging percentage because fewer at bats will be in the denominator (never thought I'd use that term after high school). A singles hitter wouldn't derive as much benefit from that distinction.

As for OPS, I do use it as a quick reference because I think it captures a considerable amount of a ballplayer, but if anyone wants to make a decision involving millions of dollars or decisions on ranking players in any systematic way they need to go beyond that. I use a variety of different tools because I believe relying on one stat is what gets us in trouble a lot.

In a serious/philosophical moment I would say that all stats people would agree that baseball needs elements of scouting and psychology (particularly in amateur scouting) along with the stats. My issue is who teams have picking and intepreting the data. I think we would all agree it would be foolish to ask a tobacco chewing scout to adminster and interpret a personality profile kind of test. Could you imagine one of those folks trying to hypnotize a kid to see about his relationship with his mother? It sounds utterly ludicrous. However, a lot of teams do that with their stats. They have that same scout who would likely say something like "SABR what?" picking numbers to conduct performance scouting on a player.

So, it would be ideal to let scouts be scouts, stat geeks be stat geeks, and shrinks be shrinks. As a GM you consult all three and make an informed decision based on what they all say. However, as a player becomes closer and closer to being a big leaguer, I would argue that the reliability of the stats goes up and the need for those other elements decreases (READ: not eliminated just decreased). I think the focus of the scouting and psychological questions need to change. It isn't about succeeding on the big league level because they're doing that. It's about how much the get along in the clubhouse and whether they will succeed in that market. With scouting you might look at whether a player's physical skills will benefit from being on your team (ie home ballparks) or whether they will suffer. Do they have a mechanical flaw that your coaches can easily solve?

I've thrown my hat in the ring with the local team (Astros) and have always had the attitude that I don't want to replace scouts and shrinks, but to augment what they do. The more minds you can add to a problem the better off you are.

[digglahhh]

Hey, I admire all of your tenacity, but when I made the comment about a lower OPS guy overcoming the higher OPS guy, I meant in terms of all around skill. Defense, speed, situational awareness, etc.

[Imapotato]

There's a thing called a wall diglahhh, and I think you are talking to it.

They don't get it and as a former player, it makes me bang my head against said wall, that there are people who think of baseball players as numbers, or fantasy points, that have no emotion or different work ethics

[Ubiquitous]

Ah yes reduce your opponent to a strawman and assume your experiences trump theirs and then commiserate with those on your side.

[SABR Matt]

There's something called a wall Ubi...and you're talking to it.

It makes me crazy to think that there are people out there who think the statistics of the game are utterly worthless in the face of their overwhelming "evidence" as communicated in the form of anecdotes, intangibles, and clutch performances.

[Bill Burgess]

Is it absolutely necessary to share every thought in our heads. Perhaps discretion/diplomacy is to be preferred to brutal honesty.

[SABR Matt]

LOL...I'm sorry Bill, but the stench of arrogance coming from some of the former players around here is overpowering my diplomacy cologne.

[Ubiquitous]

Is it absolutely necessary to share every thought in our heads. Perhaps discretion/diplomacy is to be preferred to brutal honesty.

I agree with that, only about a quarter of what I want to say ends up getting posted, and half the stuff I want to say manages to make it onto the screen before I say "ah to heck with it" and just move on.

[Bill Burgess]

I agree with that, only about a quarter of what I want to say ends up getting posted, and half the stuff I want to say manages to make it onto the screen before I say "ah to heck with it" and just move on.

Thank you, Ubi, my friend. Of all the others here, you have taught me how to be a better man. To step back and realize, the other guy is trying hard too.

So often now, thanks to you, I pause to consider whether or not I am truly comprehending what the other brother was trying to say. Maybe the other person spoke in haste, or anger. Maybe he failed to make his point clearly.

And even if someone hates my stuff, is it really necessary for me to have an argument that is forgone to have no victor? Arguments have no winners. Just soured feelings.

Let there be peace, brothers. Please.

Bill

[Ubiquitous]

I finished The Book the other day and overall it was good. Nothing revolutionary but then again I wouldn't expect it to be. Basically what the book is is a in depth look at baseballs most commonly held strategic decisions and cliches. Things such as bunting, platooning, reliever usage, and so forth. Lots of charts and explanations of how they do things so one never really has to guess at how they came to their conclusions but at the same time one can easily skim a section if the material is too laborious for ones interest and not lose track of what they are saying.

One of the things I liked about the book is they mention game theory and go over it a little and how it relates to baseball. They do it in away that I don't think most people, and thats including stat-bashers and statheads. They don't just look at it in terms of success and failure but how it forces other teams to play you. For instance in terms of bunting if you never bunt in sac bunt situations then your opposing teams can alter their defense in a way that gives them an advantage. The corner infielders don't have to protect against the bunt, middle infielders can play deeper and play against a hit and so forth. So by not forcing the opposing team to respect the bunt you make it harder to get a hit in those situations. So there are times when one has to bite the bullet and sac bunt just to show people you will.

Now for what it isn't. This isn't an exciting book, it isn't a bill james book. Theres no stories no history no essay type sabremetric book like a Barra or Neyer book. This is more like a report prepared for a baseball manager then a fun summer read. This book isn't a book that ranks players, you won't be seeing people using quotes and passages from this book in these forums like they do with Bill James. This is simply a book that tries to explain what happens in a game when certain events occur and I believe that they do this very well.

[SABR Matt]

Sounds like a must-have reference manual...I'll have to pick it up.

[Ubiquitous]

Sounds like a must-have reference manual...I'll have to pick it up.

There it is that is basically the word I was looking for, a reference manual. For some reason I kept getting technical manual stuck in my head and knew that wasn't what I wanted to say.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Simple...short answer.

Sabermetrics haven't gone nearly far enough.

Far from "coming too far"...the simple statistics that traditionalists see as appealing (while certainly better than BA/HR/RBI) do very little help us understand how runs are actually scored and games are actually won. In fact simple defensive metrics have done more to OBSCURE the truth about the game than to reveal it. It's the advanced metrics that will eventually tell us in more detail what is really happening in the field.
The more I think about this, the more I like this post. It tells me that the application of these advanced metrics is far from finished, and what is currently being used is by no means perfect. There is still so much room for it to grow that any measure used today cannot be honestly taken as gospel. The metrics aren't going to rest on their laurels because there is still much work to be done.

[Pine Tar]

The more I think about this, the more I like this post. It tells me that the application of these advanced metrics is far from finished, and what is currently being used is by no means perfect. There is still so much room for it to grow that any measure used today cannot be honestly taken as gospel.
That statement exposes the false faith that numbers give people. It represent post-positivism in its worst form. Numbers will never be able to get it correct. They will also need interpretation, and that interpretation will always be dependent on people. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, and should never be taken as Gospel.

[barzilla]

That statement exposes the false faith that numbers give people. It represent post-positivism in its worst form. Numbers will never be able to get it correct. They will also need interpretation, and that interpretation will always be dependent on people. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, and should never be taken as Gospel.


Funny, but I never have heard Matt say that numbers don't need interpretation. I hate to be a bear, but those of you who are anti-stat should probably slow down and read our posts instead of just putting words in our mouth. I think the problem here is that people have a preconcieved notion of what we are saying and it doesn't match up with what it already says. Here is what I'm saying:

1) Statistics have always been a part of the game and will always be a large part of rating players.
2) Who do you want interpreting the numbers? Statisticians who work with numbers on a regular basis or scouts who rely on their eyewitness accounts?

This doesn't say that traditional scouting and pyschological profiles shouldn't be included. I'm just saying that experts in each area should be used.

[Bill Burgess]

It's not hard to discern why statmen and non-statmen argue so much. It's because they need each other to confirm the other's work.

It's like men/women. They fight so much because they need each other so much for vital needs. We will continue to co-exist together. We will do so either well or badly, but we will continue to co-exist because we have no other choice. We will never be cleanly separated. Can't be done.

And there is also no such thing as a 100% stat person, or a 100% opinions person. No such thing, my brothers. No such thing. Ain't no such animal.

Bill

[barzilla]

It's not hard to discern why statmen and non-statmen argue so much. It's because they need each other to confirm the other's work.

It's like men/women. They fight so much because they need each other so much for vital needs. We will continue to co-exist together. We will do so either well or badly, but we will continue to co-exist because we have no other choice. We will never be cleanly separated. Can't be done.

And there is also no such thing as a 100% stat person, or a 100% opinions person. No such thing, my brothers. No such thing. Ain't no such animal.

Bill

This is all true Bill to a certain extent. I agree that both sides will always be there, but I think it is important to point out that both sides get themselves in trouble when they try to incorporate too much of the other side. I've made some dubious statements when I've left my numbers aside and non-statmen have made some dubious statements when they've tried to incorporate numbers.

While I agree that I am nowhere near 100 percent stat, I am mostly stat and struggle in a debate where stats are barred. I suppose my point is that a discussion becomes fuller not when I incorporate all sides myself, but when each of us incorporate our own truth from that narrow perspective. I think that is what is being missed here. Most of us come from one side in this primarily which makes our view narrow. It doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the other half (at least some of us acknowledge the need for both), it just means we come from the side we know and believe in. It is the inclusion of multiple opinions that gives the discussion depth.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree with the last two posts.

It's sort of a tug of war that goes on, but it doesn't have to be. We can still both tug on the rope with no intentions of making the other team fall in the "middle mud pit."

It's good if we don't go too far one side or the other. You go to far one way, and you become content with only knowing about that one thing, and all learning is lost.

I like to learn whats involved in advanced stats, although I don't expect to understand it. If it include some whacky adjustment or something, I give it no credibility though. That's just injecting my own views into deciding if the stat is relevant. No harm in that.

[SABR Matt]

I hope in recent days some of you who have read my extensive commentaries on the merits and shortcomings of PCA's fielding analysis and the necessity of advanced metrics in the rating of fielders have come to realize that what drives my work in sabermetrics is the deep belief that fielding is BEAUTIFUL...that it is something that needs to be explored and discussed far *FAR* more thoroughly than it has been so far.

I know RMB kinda hates me periodically because I get on his case about using "bad statistics" in his fielding analysis...and that's partly my fault, because I shouldn't be calling them "bad" statistics...they're not "bad" so much as severely limited. I know he incorporates a lot of things into his estimates of fielding abilities, but when he throws stuff out there like relative range factor and league leads in component statistics it irks me...not because I think I'm better than him, but because I think fielding is something that can't even really begin to be expressed in those kinds of shorthand metrics.

The intricacies of fielding require a model that may be uncomfortably complex and difficult to understand to even get a close approximation...I know that's frustrating, but that's just the way I see it.

And of course I hope you all realize that I don't believe I'll ever have the "perfect answer"...but the merit is in the struggle to get closer.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That statement exposes the false faith that numbers give people. It represent post-positivism in its worst form. Numbers will never be able to get it correct. They will also need interpretation, and that interpretation will always be dependent on people. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, and should never be taken as Gospel.
I'm sorry, but, outside of the negative comments, I thought that was the point I was making. A true numbers guy is never going to sit back, take one number and say "See, this is it!" because the numbers can never truly measure everything and they realize that.

[barzilla]

I'm sorry, but, outside of the negative comments, I thought that was the point I was making. A true numbers guy is never going to sit back, take one number and say "See, this is it!" because the numbers can never truly measure everything and they realize that.


My point is that we shouldn't even go that direction if none of us (us being stat people) are going that direction. That should be a given since I think we are in universal agreement on that. The question at hand is whether sabermetrics can become advanced and accurate enough to where we can base decisions on it and feel good about the conclusion. This becomes the same kind of debate that exists in the scientific community. What is the benchmark in a test of statistical significance? .10? .05? .01? A general manager or BBWAA Hall of Fame voter might not define it in those exact terms, but that is the real question.

After all, if sabermetrics does reach that point, but those that have the power to make real decisions don't use it then what's the point? All you'll have is a group of us on the outside alternatively laughing and crying at decions we find to be faulty. Are we there yet? I'm doubting it. Is there room for subjective analysis that exists outside of sabermetrics? Absolutely. The fallacy here though is that we are introducing an element into player evaluation. In fact, statistical analysis has been used since Harry Chadwick developed the basic stats in the 19th century. However, just as there have to be advances in athletic scouting and psychological scouting, there have been advances in statistical scouting. Teams that don't avail themselves of that will be left behind.

[Bill Burgess]

They will also need interpretation, and that interpretation will always be dependent on people. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, and should never be taken as Gospel.
I think Pine Tar has made an incisive point here. Stats will always require human interpretation. And not just any stat man's interpretation, but one fully immersed/familiarized with the culture/nature of baseball.

Numbers, regardless of how well-presented, without nuanced human interpretation are like hieroglyphics or The Rosetta Stone. They just won't be able to reveal their secrets without human help.

And I think that the early statmen, Ernest Lanigan, Branch Rickey and yes, even Bill James, understood that and never dreamed of a separation between numbers and baseball culture. Would have been appalled by the mere thought of it.

And I also believe that our statmen here, SABR Matt, David Kent, Jalbright, CubbieinExile, and Barzilla, have WAY proven themselves to be far from dry statpeople. Have proven themselves to be totally enthusiatic fans too.

[csh19792001]

That statement exposes the false faith that numbers give people. It represent post-positivism in its worst form. Numbers will never be able to get it correct. They will also need interpretation, and that interpretation will always be dependent on people. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, and should never be taken as Gospel.

This is one of the best posts I've read on this site in a long, long time. Absolutely dead on with this, and right to the point.

Good luck with convincing the "numbers are absolutely everything" contingent we have here. That group of people will obviously never understand this.

[RuthMayBond]

Good luck with convincing the "numbers are absolutely everything" contingent we have here. That group of people will obviously never understand this.And the eyewitness group understands everything perfectly :laugh :clapping ;) :crazy :rolleyes: :waving What do you think eyewitness testimony depends upon?

[Bill Burgess]

Christopher/Jeffrey!! Go to your rooms until you learn to play nicely!

Hall Monitor

[RuthMayBond]

Christopher/Jeffrey!! Go to your rooms until you learn to play nicely!

Hall MonitorMOM, Christopher STARTED it! :laugh

[Ubiquitous]

This is one of the best posts I've read on this site in a long, long time. Absolutely dead on with this, and right to the point.

Good luck with convincing the "numbers are absolutely everything" contingent we have here. That group of people will obviously never understand this.


This is silly and once again you set up a strawman argument so you can feel superior and patronize the those you do not agree with. Name me the people here who feel, "numbers are absolutely everything". You can't because nobody here feels that way and you know it. Yet you keep acting like we all do, why? Personally I think you do it because you don't know how to have a discussion with somebody that disagrees with you. If you can't attack the message attack the person seems to be your motto.

[Bill Burgess]

MOM, Christopher STARTED it! :laugh

Christopher! Go to the study. Your father would like a word with you.

June Cleaver

[Bill Burgess]

Things were going so nicely. I was having a lovely, charming morning's cup of coffee.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Christopher! Go to the study. Your father would like a word with you.

June Cleaver
Jus' hang loose, blood. She gonna catch ya up on da' rebound on da' med side.

Ditto.

[csh19792001]

And the eyewitness group understands everything perfectly :laugh :clapping ;) :crazy :rolleyes: :waving What do you think eyewitness testimony depends upon?

Jeff,

You gotta have numbers. I agree. Unless you're dealing with Negro Leaguers, you need statistical evidence as a knowledge base. I'm a SABR member, I read articles on SABR-L and all of the articles in the Research Journal each time I get it. In fact, my friends think I have a photographic memory for numbers when I recite a guy's career line, top 10's even. I don't even have a good memory for numbers; but I have wasted God knows how many hours looking at baseball statistics. I often find numbers fascinating (some of Dave Kent's work is a good example), but how can the study and analysis end there?

Yes, you gotta have numbers, but this isn't theoretical physics. Some people approach it as if it were. This is a game played for entertainment by irreducably complex human beings. To think you can affix a number to someone and get an absolute (or nearing %100 accurate and completely comprehensive) depiction of everything about a baseball player's entire is silly, incredibly limiting, and an exercise in futility in the end. It's a completely hollow epistemology, and taking a strict numeric approach obviates everything anecdotal, historical, biographical and everything qualitative. In short, just looking (or bantering about) stats exclusively sucks all the life out of the game.

A major league baseball player is a universe beyond a bunch of numbers on a page- seriously, (if you haven't already) read through Hiddengem's (David Matranga's) threads here. Or check out the baseball art & lit. forum we have here for some book recommendations on your favorite players/eras. There's tons of stuff I know you'd really love, as a die hard.

Why do several people here want to turn baseball players into numbers?

You're obviously an intelligent person and a dedicated fan, Jeff. I'm not sure what your point of contention is based on, and why you limit yourself to a strict statistical analysis.

[csh19792001]

Christopher! Go to the study. Your father would like a word with you.

June Cleaver

LOL. :laugh I was a victim of the chicanery of Lumpy Rutherford and Eddie Haskel....it really wasn't my fault!

[RuthMayBond]

I often find numbers fascinating (some of Dave Kent's work is a good example), but how can the study and analysis end there?Where in the world are you getting that it does?

<A major league baseball player is a universe beyond a bunch of numbers on a page- seriously, (if you haven't already) read through Hiddengem's (David Matranga's) threads here.>

Obviously you haven't or you'd know I've contributed there

<I'm not sure what your point of contention is based on, and why you limit yourself to a strict statistical analysis.>

I'm not sure where you get this from. I'm taking a trip this summer just to visit five parks I'll probably never see again. Not to a stats convention. Hope to meet non-stats-man Burgess. Why the continued false accusations?

[barzilla]

This is one of the best posts I've read on this site in a long, long time. Absolutely dead on with this, and right to the point.

Good luck with convincing the "numbers are absolutely everything" contingent we have here. That group of people will obviously never understand this.


Chris,

Let me try it this way. Can you tell me where those losers are who believe stats or everything so we can collectively beat the crap out of them? I'd honestly like to know where they are. :rolleyes:

Every sabermetrician I have read includes subjective analysis. You have to. I've done it in the book I have coming out on the Hall of Fame. Simply put, different people value different things when they WATCH the game.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not going to name names because I really can't, but there are users who throw out the same one or two stats time and time again without the slightest explanation of what they mean or even if they have a full understanding behind them.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not going to name names because I really can't.Pretty amazing for something that happens "so much". Just take your word for it, right? ;) At least stat guys are citing SOMETHING, what are you bringing to the table? Do you have a full understanding of how to critique eyewitness accounts?

[csh19792001]

I'm not going to name names because I really can't, but there are users who throw out the same one or two stats time and time again without the slightest explanation of what they mean or even if they have a full understanding behind them.

Yep. That's also a big part of what I'm talking about.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pretty amazing for something that happens "so much". Just take your word for it, right? ;)
I choose not to mention anyone because I'm not the type to call people out, especially if they're not taking part in the discussion.
But it happens. If you say it doesn't, you're either not paying attention or you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

[wamby]

I'm not going to name names because I really can't, but there are users who throw out the same one or two stats time and time again without the slightest explanation of what they mean or even if they have a full understanding behind them.

Completely Agree.

[Brian McKenna]

I'm not going to name names because I really can't, but there are users who throw out the same one or two stats time and time again without the slightest explanation of what they mean or even if they have a full understanding behind them.

or copy and paste them from a forum other than bbf

[Ubiquitous]

Statheads don't have sole-ownership of this flaw. I've seen people say the same thing over and over about the Black Sox that would be on the same level as you describe (note: not talking about the regulars in those debates). I've seen non-statheads cherry pick a stat and think it answers the debate when it very clearly doesn't. I've seen people use quotes from managers free of context and again think it means something when a lot more work is needed to validate the statement. You guys are crucifying all statheads for a theoretical injustice that most if not all regulars do not commit nor do they condone. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Lets throw stats out the window because we don't like how a 14 year old uses them. I don't see how that is a reasonable solution. If you don't like the way somebody is using a piece of data whether it be observational or numerical then tell them. Don't bash everybody who knows how to add or everybody who cherishes a memory for the sins of one.

[digglahhh]

If the whole of your contribution to a player x vs player y thread is pasting their career Eqa or Win Shares, why are you even participating? We all have books, presumably many of the well-rounded members have looked at those numbers before entering the debate. Amazingly, they still may think there is a debate to be had.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that there are that many posters who rely on a single reductionist metric to fault, but there are certainly some.

[csh19792001]

Don't bash everybody who knows how to add or everybody who cherishes a memory for the sins of one.

Obviously it isn't just one, though (although that would be nice). And if you think this is just me who believes this, ask Bill, CCN, Wamby, Diglahh, Shlevine, Wjackman, Sultan, and several others I've chatted with about this very topic both here and via PM.

[RuthMayBond]

If the whole of your contribution to a player x vs player y thread is pasting their career Eqa or Win Shares, why are you even participating? We all have books, presumably many of the well-rounded members have looked at those numbers before entering the debate.We also have others eyewitness accounts, so what's your point? Some can't/don't look them up, some think they are some value when they are really another value

[csh19792001]

If the whole of your contribution to a player x vs player y thread is pasting their career Eqa or Win Shares, why are you even participating? We all have books, presumably many of the well-rounded members have looked at those numbers before entering the debate. Amazingly, they still may think there is a debate to be had.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that there are that many posters who rely on a single reductionist metric to fault, but there are certainly some.

Per your usual, Derek- absolutely dead on- and I hadn't even seen that post until 2 seconds ago, after I just wrote the preceeding response.

[RuthMayBond]

Obviously it isn't just one, though (although that would be nice). And if you think this is just me who believes this, ask Bill, CCN, Wamby, Diglahh, Shlevine, Wjackman, Sultan, and several others I've chatted with about this very topic both here and via PM.Your point? We also believe there's many stat-bashers. You mention Bill, who champions Matt's stat system?