Player Evaluation

[Mariano_Rivera]

It seems like every thread here is becoming a debate about how you evaluate players and it takes away from the point of that discussion so I think it would be a good idea to compress all of that into one thread. Mods, I know it doesn't actually belong here but with all of the threads getting hijacked I think its pretty appropriate.

Anyway some users here tend to use statistics to evaluate players. Others rely on evaluating players based on how their team does. Different statistics are used by different people as well. Some believe in DIPS and use pitching statistics like FIP, K/BB, and GB%. Others believe in traditional statistics like Win/Loss and ERA.

This is just a thread to discuss what you believe is the best way to evaluate players please don't attack the posters here like in other threads. Thanks :happy:

[Mariano_Rivera]

it's not a curse.
everyone "circles" the games against the yankees.

and other teams bring their A stuff when playing against the Yanks..

Plus, when your team scores more, the other teams will want to get back more.
like, when you have higher income, your expense will also increase, and that impact will revealed on pitchers' ERAs.

Isn't it generally considered when you try harder you mess up in baseball? As a pitcher you end up throwing harder but lose your control? When you're a hitter and swing harder you end up swinging wildly and nothing good ever comes of that

[Mariano_Rivera]

Your scenario is near impossible, but most scenarios trying to illustrate a point are. But the answer to your question is one of the easiest. the most any pitcher can do for his team is WIN. A win for the pitcher is a win for the team, every time. The same for a loss. A loss for a pitcher is a loss for the team. Any pitcher won goes 30-0 has helped his team succeed to the highest degree. A pitcher who goes 0-20 has hurt his team to the worst degree. Again coming down to winning, the pitcher that helped his team is by far the best.

Obviously, its easier than making an actual realistic example.

You are acknowledging that it is possible for a good player to be on a bad team? If so we`ve gotten somewhere.

Now here's another ridiculous impossible example made to illustrate a point, that ERA and wins are very flawed statistics.

Suppose a pitcher gives up 20 hits and 10 runs. However, all of those hits are swinging bunts base hits and just little driblers up the third base line that they beat out for hits. Some of them are errors to. The hitters are completely off balance and the pitcher has great control and is throwing 100 mph FB's in perfect spots so that the hitters are beating them into the ground but the third baseman is terrible and the pitcher is really unlucky with the placement of those hits. Is it the pitchers fault that runs are scoring and that his team loses the game? Anyone who's ever played baseball knows that it isn't the pitchers fault his team lost and the pitcher pitched well. I didn't do the math on the hits/runs and I know this is completely unrealistic but things like this do happen to a lesser extent.

[joek7]

We have both cited extreme scenarios which to a lessor degree happen to a reasonable extent. The thought (notice I did not use the word fact) that these events occur very consistently amke the use of relying on statistice to define a player very shaky at best. Stats define the individual. Yes stats are very reasonable to define speed, power, contact, etc. But they can never define the best between the players. Only winning can do that. Yes it is the team that wins, but it is the players on the team that make the team win. The idea of the game is for the team to win not for the individual to succeed. It is the stat users contention that if so and so played here or there the results for the player and or the different team would be different. I agree, but not the way the stat guys always wish to believe them. Individual stats by any one player does not always translate to the success of his team.
Getting to your question. A pitcher not only pitches against a team but also to his opposing pitcher. If his opposing pitcher gives up only 1 run, then he must give up 0 to win. If the opposing pitcher gives up 10 runs, then he can give up 9 and win. If he give up 9 runs and wins, does that make him a bad pitcher because his ERA is 9.00? Lets say in the first scenario he gives up 2 runs and loses 2-1. In the second scenario, he gives up 9 and wins 10-9. Both pitchers after 2 games are 1-1 and both have 5.5 ERA. Which one was better using individual stats? To me they are equal, but only because they are both 1-1. Now let us say instead of giving up 9 runs and winning 10-9, the pitcher gives up 7 runs and wins 10-7. Both pitchers are 1-1 but now one pitchers ERA is 4.5. An entire run better than the other pitcher. To me they are still equal. WHY? Because they both achieved the same result for their teams. Individually, using stats, their is a difference in the individual stats. Which to the outcome of the games and to the outcome of the teams does not make a bit of difference. The difference is only in the eyes of the stat users and fantasy game players.

[Mariano_Rivera]

We have both cited extreme scenarios which to a lessor degree happen to a reasonable extent. The thought (notice I did not use the word fact) that these events occur very consistently amke the use of relying on statistice to define a player very shaky at best. Stats define the individual. Yes stats are very reasonable to define speed, power, contact, etc. But they can never define the best between the players. Only winning can do that. Yes it is the team that wins, but it is the players on the team that make the team win. The idea of the game is for the team to win not for the individual to succeed. It is the stat users contention that if so and so played here or there the results for the player and or the different team would be different. I agree, but not the way the stat guys always wish to believe them. Individual stats by any one player does not always translate to the success of his team.
Getting to your question. A pitcher not only pitches against a team but also to his opposing pitcher. If his opposing pitcher gives up only 1 run, then he must give up 0 to win. If the opposing pitcher gives up 10 runs, then he can give up 9 and win. If he give up 9 runs and wins, does that make him a bad pitcher because his ERA is 9.00? Lets say in the first scenario he gives up 2 runs and loses 2-1. In the second scenario, he gives up 9 and wins 10-9. Both pitchers after 2 games are 1-1 and both have 5.5 ERA. Which one was better using individual stats? To me they are equal, but only because they are both 1-1. Now let us say instead of giving up 9 runs and winning 10-9, the pitcher gives up 7 runs and wins 10-7. Both pitchers are 1-1 but now one pitchers ERA is 4.5. An entire run better than the other pitcher. To me they are still equal. WHY? Because they both achieved the same result for their teams. Individually, using stats, their is a difference in the individual stats. Which to the outcome of the games and to the outcome of the teams does not make a bit of difference. The difference is only in the eyes of the stat users and fantasy game players.

Good Post

Statistics are very useful at defining a player's power, contact, speed, etc.as you stated. Don't those things go into winning though? If a player gets a home run doesn't that help his team win. Yes basic statistics like RBI's are distorted because many meaningless RBI's are collected over the season in blowouts and most situational statistics have to small of a sample size to be worth anything. Certain statistics like WPA [Win Probability Added] though account for the situation.

WPA takes the player's teams' chances of winning the game before the players plate appearance and after it. THe teams chances of winning is taken from what has historically happened since 1978. The difference bewteen them is found and then converted to a decimal. This is done for every plate appearance the hitter has and it is all added up. For example, suppose A-Rod is up in the bottom of the eight inning with 2 outs with his team down by one. Since 1977 that situation has come up 344 times. The trailing team in that situation won 129 times or 37.5% of the time. Converted to a decimal that is .375. Suppose A-Rod strikes out. Then the new situation is the top of the 9th, no outs, and his team still down by 1. Since 1977 that situation has come up 6,295 times and the trailing team won 1,179 times. THe percentage of victory is 18.8% of the times or .188. .188-.375= -.187. A-Rod cost his team 18.7% chance of victory and that is subtracted from his WPA total. However, what he had hit a grand slam in that situation? Then the new situation is bases empty, 2 outs, and A-Rod's team is now up by three. That situation came up 2,673 times and the leading team won 2,624 times. That's 98.2% or .982. The teams original chances or winning was .375 so .982-.375= .606 so A-Rod gave his team another 60.6% chance of winning the game and that is added to his WPA total. If the game is a blowout and A-Rod has a homer in the 9th with his team up by ten they already have a 100% chance of victory [This doesn't mean its impossible, teams have come back when they have a 0% chance of victory it just means it has never happened before] so it doesn't add anything to WPA.

As I understand what you're saying is that when pitchers are in a high scoring games they don't give the same effort. I don't think that's true at all.

[joek7]

Good Post

Statistics are very useful at defining a player's power, contact, speed, etc.as you stated. Don't those things go into winning though? If a player gets a home run doesn't that help his team win. Yes basic statistics like RBI's are distorted because many meaningless RBI's are collected over the season in blowouts and most situational statistics have to small of a sample size to be worth anything. Certain statistics like WPA [Win Probability Added] though account for the situation.

WPA takes the player's teams' chances of winning the game before the players plate appearance and after it. THe teams chances of winning is taken from what has historically happened since 1978. The difference bewteen them is found and then converted to a decimal. This is done for every plate appearance the hitter has and it is all added up. For example, suppose A-Rod is up in the bottom of the eight inning with 2 outs with his team down by one. Since 1977 that situation has come up 344 times. The trailing team in that situation won 129 times or 37.5% of the time. Converted to a decimal that is .375. Suppose A-Rod strikes out. Then the new situation is the top of the 9th, no outs, and his team still down by 1. Since 1977 that situation has come up 6,295 times and the trailing team won 1,179 times. THe percentage of victory is 18.8% of the times or .188. .188-.375= -.187. A-Rod cost his team 18.7% chance of victory and that is subtracted from his WPA total. However, what he had hit a grand slam in that situation? Then the new situation is bases empty, 2 outs, and A-Rod's team is now up by three. That situation came up 2,673 times and the leading team won 2,624 times. That's 98.2% or .982. The teams original chances or winning was .375 so .982-.375= .606 so A-Rod gave his team another 60.6% chance of winning the game and that is added to his WPA total. If the game is a blowout and A-Rod has a homer in the 9th with his team up by ten they already have a 100% chance of victory [This doesn't mean its impossible, teams have come back when they have a 0% chance of victory it just means it has never happened before] so it doesn't add anything to WPA.

As I understand what you're saying is that when pitchers are in a high scoring games they don't give the same effort. I don't think that's true at all.

Ther have been many pitchers who have pitched to the score over the past 50+ years. some of them have admittedly grooved pitches to good hitters so they could get a hit just so they could set them up for a big out in a crucial situation.

Getting back to your stat analysis. Trying to give statistical values to events in my opinion is foolhardy. One needs only to watch the games to be aware of when a hit is crucial or not. Even though a game in April has equal value as game in September, there is a vast difference on a player in the same situation in September. There is also a vast difference of pressure on two teams who are also rans, and two teams playing for a playoff spot. The value of the atbats in these different cases are vastly different and have in my opinion tremendous difference in value. In other words you are crediting a player on Sept 20 who is playing a totally meaningless also ran game with the exact same value to a player who is playing a game on the same date with a playoff spot on the line. One player is hitting against a Sept call up player and the other may be hitting against a top closer. You just cannot evaluate players with man made stats.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Ther have been many pitchers who have pitched to the score over the past 50+ years. some of them have admittedly grooved pitches to good hitters so they could get a hit just so they could set them up for a big out in a crucial situation.

Getting back to your stat analysis. Trying to give statistical values to events in my opinion is foolhardy. One needs only to watch the games to be aware of when a hit is crucial or not. Even though a game in April has equal value as game in September, there is a vast difference on a player in the same situation in September. There is also a vast difference of pressure on two teams who are also rans, and two teams playing for a playoff spot. The value of the atbats in these different cases are vastly different and have in my opinion tremendous difference in value. In other words you are crediting a player on Sept 20 who is playing a totally meaningless also ran game with the exact same value to a player who is playing a game on the same date with a playoff spot on the line. One player is hitting against a Sept call up player and the other may be hitting against a top closer. You just cannot evaluate players with man made stats.

Fair point and true. However, I believe this is a fairly rare occurance. Games where the score spread is far enough for pitchers to do this without risking a loss is rare. The impact of luck on the amount of runs allowed and run support the pitcher is greater then the impact of pitching to the score.

Statistics though never forget any plays which people do tend to do. Personal observations are obviously very valuable but statistics give you more exact measurements.

THe time of the season does not affect a player's value. For example, if a player hits a walk off HR in April that wins a game off of a terrible pitcher it will basically win his team a game. If that same player hits a walk off HR in September in a pennant race against Joe Nathan it is much more difficult but it still just one win. The player's skill for the second one is much greater than the player's skill for the first one but it still just adds one win.

Is a win more valuable for a contender (like the Yankees) then for The Devil Rays? Yes, WPA shows how many wins the player has added to his teams total. I guess you just have to mentally account for the importance of those wins.

This is all assuming you're talking about value not skill. A players skill leads to value

[joek7]

Fair point and true. However, I believe this is a fairly rare occurance. Games where the score spread is far enough for pitchers to do this without risking a loss is rare. The impact of luck on the amount of runs allowed and run support the pitcher is greater then the impact of pitching to the score.

Statistics though never forget any plays which people do tend to do. Personal observations are obviously very valuable but statistics give you more exact measurements.

THe time of the season does not affect a player's value. For example, if a player hits a walk off HR in April that wins a game off of a terrible pitcher it will basically win his team a game. If that same player hits a walk off HR in September in a pennant race against Joe Nathan it is much more difficult but it still just one win. The player's skill for the second one is much greater than the player's skill for the first one but it still just adds one win.

Is a win more valuable for a contender (like the Yankees) then for The Devil Rays? Yes, WPA shows how many wins the player has added to his teams total. I guess you just have to mentally account for the importance of those wins.

This is all assuming you're talking about value not skill. A players skill leads to value

Agreed, the value of a win is the same for any of the 162 games. Each win and or loss is equal in value at any point in the season. But the value of a grand slam in Sept in identical situations, one between two also rans, and one between two contenders is not equal. It is affected by the talent level, the pressure level, etc. That is where man made stats fall far short. Joe Schmoe hitting that grand slam for the contender is of far more imoirtance and value than Superstar Sam hitting his grand slam in an also ran game.
A players skill only leads to value when (there is that word again [WHEN]) he performs when it is meaningful.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Agreed, the value of a win is the same for any of the 162 games. Each win and or loss is equal in value at any point in the season. But the value of a grand slam in Sept in identical situations, one between two also rans, and one between two contenders is not equal. It is affected by the talent level, the pressure level, etc. That is where man made stats fall far short. Joe Schmoe hitting that grand slam for the contender is of far more imoirtance and value than Superstar Sam hitting his grand slam in an also ran game.
A players skill only leads to value when (there is that word again [WHEN]) he performs when it is meaningful.

I think we agree that wins for a non-contender are of very little value.

I don't think your example shows the real thing we disagree on. Wins against a bad team for a good team are just as valuable as a win for a good team against another good team.

Game A: Yankees against Tigers

Game B: Yankees against Rangers

In game A you have two teams in contention for the same playoff spot but in game B you have one team in contention and another team that is in rebuilding mode and only has a few good players on their roster. The talent level of the two teams are different but the importance of winning the game is the same. Pressure and the opponent's talent has nothing to do with the importance of the game. It would affect the teams ability to win the game but not the importance of winning it.

[joek7]

I think we agree that wins for a non-contender are of very little value.

I don't think your example shows the real thing we disagree on. Wins against a bad team for a good team are just as valuable as a win for a good team against another good team.

Game A: Yankees against Tigers

Game B: Yankees against Rangers

In game A you have two teams in contention for the same playoff spot but in game B you have one team in contention and another team that is in rebuilding mode and only has a few good players on their roster. The talent level of the two teams are different but the importance of winning the game is the same. Pressure and the opponent's talent has nothing to do with the importance of the game. It would affect the teams ability to win the game but not the importance of winning it.

I understand where you are coming from. But when you state "I think we agree that wins for a non-contender are of very little value." I would think that once the stats for non-contenders are deemed to have very litle value, then all stats have very little value.
Let me try a different avenue. You and I and and almost everone agree each game of the season has the same value of 1/162. That is the physical aspect. Now lets think of the mental aspect. I do not think the pressure of a pennant race to a player in April, May and June is the same as that in July, August, and September. Particularly Sept. Mentally, it is hard for most people to think a game here and there in the early part of the season may be crucial. In the late part of the season as the game count dwindles, people realize it is now or never and the pressure to perform builds. When there is pressure to succeed, there then arises of the importance for a player to be able to perform 'in the clutch.' To put what I have just said in perspective. Although the value of the 2 games I will now cite are identical, I believe it is harder to hit a grand slam in Sept which could mean the playoffs as compsred to hitting a grand slam in April, each of which wins the game. Physically and statistically they are equal, mentally they are not. That is something statistics cannot bring to the table and allow for. That is why I use 'WHEN' so much when I discuss the WIN METHOD.
Also the value given to an RBI in your WPA is not valid in my opinion. Example. You play 2 games, win both 1-0. Game 1 HR in 1st inning. Game 2 HR in 9th inning. According to WPA they are different values.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I understand where you are coming from. But when you state "I think we agree that wins for a non-contender are of very little value." I would think that once the stats for non-contenders are deemed to have very litle value, then all stats have very little value.
Let me try a different avenue. You and I and and almost everone agree each game of the season has the same value of 1/162. That is the physical aspect. Now lets think of the mental aspect. I do not think the pressure of a pennant race to a player in April, May and June is the same as that in July, August, and September. Particularly Sept. Mentally, it is hard for most people to think a game here and there in the early part of the season may be crucial. In the late part of the season as the game count dwindles, people realize it is now or never and the pressure to perform builds. When there is pressure to succeed, there then arises of the importance for a player to be able to perform 'in the clutch.' To put what I have just said in perspective. Although the value of the 2 games I will now cite are identical, I believe it is harder to hit a grand slam in Sept which could mean the playoffs as compsred to hitting a grand slam in April, each of which wins the game. Physically and statistically they are equal, mentally they are not. That is something statistics cannot bring to the table and allow for. That is why I use 'WHEN' so much when I discuss the WIN METHOD.
Also the value given to an RBI in your WPA is not valid in my opinion. Example. You play 2 games, win both 1-0. Game 1 HR in 1st inning. Game 2 HR in 9th inning. According to WPA they are different values.

The fact that they don't think its crucial is meaningless. The fact is that it is just as important as a game in September and that is what really matters. Pressure makes it more difficult to win but not more important

Correct, because in Game A the game is not yet over and the toehr team could still easily win but in Game 2 that player has essentially decided the game.

BTW do we agree that stats like BA and HR can measure a player's skill if not value?

[joek7]

The fact that they don't think its crucial is meaningless. The fact is that it is just as important as a game in September and that is what really matters. Pressure makes it more difficult to win but not more important

Correct, because in Game A the game is not yet over and the toehr team could still easily win but in Game 2 that player has essentially decided the game.

BTW do we agree that stats like BA and HR can measure a player's skill if not value?

Point 1 is where we disagree. If or if not a player thinks a game is crucial determines the pressure he puts upon himself under to perform. No question the game itself is just as important, there we agree. Pressure to perform and importance are different. Even though the value of the game is equal, the difficulty to perform under the same circumstances in Sept is more difficult than in April.

Point 2. The fact that you agree there is a significant difference in the value of the 2 scenarios, in my opinion unequivocally illustrates just how faulty man made stats are.

Point 3. No question we agree that factual stats determine a players abilty at certain skills. I will even go further is saying they determine who a team may want at a position if they are looking far a BA guy, a powere guy, or speed guy. But they by no means determine which player is best over the others.

[Mariano_Rivera]

The pressure and difficulty of the game has nothing to do with the player's value. Yes, it does affect their skills but the value of a game that is hard to win is the same as a game that is easy to win. Therefore the value of a player getting a hit against Joe Nathan in the middle of a pennant race is the same as getting a hit against Mike Myers in April if it happens in the same situation. Its definitely more difficult to get a hit against Joe Nathan but the importance of getting the hit is the same.

I don't understand what this means. You think the runs are of equal value?

So you agree with me in saying that the hitter that bats .300 is is a better contact hitter than the guy that bats .250? But disagree with me in saying you don't believe that if you look at HR's, BA, SB's, CS's, and ability to play under pressure it will show you who the best offensive player is?

[joek7]

The pressure and difficulty of the game has nothing to do with the player's value. Yes, it does affect their skills but the value of a game that is hard to win is the same as a game that is easy to win. Therefore the value of a player getting a hit against Joe Nathan in the middle of a pennant race is the same as getting a hit against Mike Myers in April if it happens in the same situation. Its definitely more difficult to get a hit against Joe Nathan but the importance of getting the hit is the same.

I don't understand what this means. You think the runs are of equal value?

So you agree with me in saying that the hitter that bats .300 is is a better contact hitter than the guy that bats .250? But disagree with me in saying you don't believe that if you look at HR's, BA, SB's, CS's, and ability to play under pressure it will show you who the best offensive player is?

The pressure of a game has everything to do with a players value. I player sho performs WHEN it matters most is far more valuable than a player who does not perform WHEN it counts. The player who performs WHEN it counts can even have much less individual stats than teh player who does not perform WHEN it counts.

Yes the runs are of equal value. A run scored in the 2nd inning of a 1-0 games is the same as a run scored in the 8th inning of a 1-0 game. That is where man made values become glaringly flase , inaccurate and therefore useless.

Yes the .300 hitter hits for a higher average than the .250 hitter. Each players contact may be identical. One just gets more hits than the other. If the .300 hitter perform at the same level as the .250 hitter under pressure and when the game is on the line, they are equal. If either the .300 or the .250 hitter performs better than the other under the same condidtions, then he is better.

[Mariano_Rivera]

The pressure of a game has everything to do with a players value. I player sho performs WHEN it matters most is far more valuable than a player who does not perform WHEN it counts. The player who performs WHEN it counts can even have much less individual stats than teh player who does not perform WHEN it counts.

Yes the runs are of equal value. A run scored in the 2nd inning of a 1-0 games is the same as a run scored in the 8th inning of a 1-0 game. That is where man made values become glaringly flase , inaccurate and therefore useless.

Yes the .300 hitter hits for a higher average than the .250 hitter. Each players contact may be identical. One just gets more hits than the other. If the .300 hitter perform at the same level as the .250 hitter under pressure and when the game is on the line, they are equal. If either the .300 or the .250 hitter performs better than the other under the same condidtions, then he is better.

I agree, the situation does matter. A run scored in the 9th inning of a 10-0 game is less valuable than a run scored in the 9th inning of a 0-0 game. The time of the game doesn't matter though. A game in September is just as important as a game in April.

[DoubleX]

It seems that under Joek7's theory, the guy who goes 1-4, killing rallies by hitting into double plays and striking out, but getting the go-ahead hit in the 9th in a 3-3 game, is more valuable than the guy who goes 3-4 with 2 RBI earlier in the game but makes out in the 9th with the game tied. Under Joek7's theory, the first guy is more valuable because of the timing of his hit, nevermind that he was a rally killer earlier in the game, while the second player is less valuable because he made out in a close game, nevermind that the game wouldn't even be tied if not for his two earlier RBI.

[Mariano_Rivera]

It seems that under Joek7's theory, the guy who goes 1-4, killing rallies by hitting into double plays and striking out, but getting the go-ahead hit in the 9th in a 3-3 game, is more valuable than the guy who goes 3-4 with 2 RBI earlier in the game but makes out in the 9th with the game tied. Under Joek7's theory, the first guy is more valuable because of the timing of his hit, nevermind that he was a rally killer earlier in the game, while the second player is less valuable because he made out in a close game, nevermind that the game wouldn't even be tied if not for his two earlier RBI.

No, I don;t think that's what he means.

The timing of the hit doesn't matter to him as long as its in a close game.

Here, read this part of one of his posts in this thread



Yes the runs are of equal value. A run scored in the 2nd inning of a 1-0 games is the same as a run scored in the 8th inning of a 1-0 game. That is where man made values become glaringly flase , inaccurate and therefore useless.
.

[joek7]

No, I don;t think that's what he means.

The timing of the hit doesn't matter to him as long as its in a close game.

Here, read this part of one of his posts in this thread

Thank you for responding ti doublex. It appears doublex does not read responses in posts but just posts knee jerk reactions.

It is very logical and simple, some runs mean more than others at any time of the season. All games are equal in value at any time in the season. The pressure at any given posint in any given game varies at any point in the season. Just the FACT that runs scored are not of equal value, verifies that individual stats are not what they appear except in fantasy games.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Thank you for responding ti doublex. It appears doublex does not read responses in posts but just posts knee jerk reactions.

It is very logical and simple, some runs mean more than others at any time of the season. All games are equal in value at any time in the season. The pressure at any given posint in any given game varies at any point in the season. Just the FACT that runs scored are not of equal value, verifies that individual stats are not what they appear except in fantasy games.

I`m not a mod here but we try to stick to a policy of "attacking" the post not the poster. Just a friendly reminder :)

I agree with that theory completely. However, I still think statistics are valuable measures of a players value.

Statistics do actually correlate well with a teams performance. Yes, its imperfect but they're a better indicator of a player's skill then just watching what the individual's team does. Teams with good statistics usually win more games than teams with bad statistics. Look at the Royals/Devil Rays team statistics and compare it to the Yankees/Angels team statistics.

[DoubleX]

Statistics do actually correlate well with a teams performance. Yes, its imperfect but they're a better indicator of a player's skill then just watching what the individual's team does. Teams with good statistics usually win more games than teams with bad statistics. Look at the Royals/Devil Rays team statistics and compare it to the Yankees/Angels team statistics.

Exactly. Earlier somewhere I believe Joek7 was equating a .250 hitter to a .300 hitter based on timeliness of hitting. What that fails to take into account is that while the .250 hitter might on occasion come up with a big hit, there are probably a lot more situations in which the .250 hitter is coming up short, thereby holding the team back, while the .300 hitter is coming through more often, thereby contributing more, and perhaps making a big 9th inning hit unnecessary by virtue of the fact that they've already contributed in the game, whereas the .250 hitter is more likely to have come up short earlier in the game, making it more likely that you'd need late inning heroics.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Exactly. Earlier somewhere I believe Joek7 was equating a .250 hitter to a .300 hitter based on timeliness of hitting. What that fails to take into account is that while the .250 hitter might on occasion come up with a big hit, there are probably a lot more situations in which the .250 hitter is coming up short, thereby holding the team back, while the .300 hitter is coming through more often, thereby contributing more, and perhaps making a big 9th inning hit unnecessary by virtue of the fact that they've already contributed in the game, whereas the .250 hitter is more likely to have come up short earlier in the game, making it more likely that you'd need late inning heroics.

I think that was just an example to show that hitting in close games is more important than hitting in blowouts

[Westlake]

I think that was just an example to show that hitting in close games is more important than hitting in blowouts

Probably wouldn't be a blowout if the guy wasn't hitting.

[bigbadwolf]

Exactly. Earlier somewhere I believe Joek7 was equating a .250 hitter to a .300 hitter based on timeliness of hitting. What that fails to take into account is that while the .250 hitter might on occasion come up with a big hit, there are probably a lot more situations in which the .250 hitter is coming up short, thereby holding the team back, while the .300 hitter is coming through more often, thereby contributing more, and perhaps making a big 9th inning hit unnecessary by virtue of the fact that they've already contributed in the game, whereas the .250 hitter is more likely to have come up short earlier in the game, making it more likely that you'd need late inning heroics.

.300 hitter vs. .250 hitter over a season.

Assume 500 atbats for each hitter.

.300 hitter = 150 hits for season .250 hitter = 125 hits for season

season is roughly 25 weeks long

difference in hits between .250 and .300 hitter = 1 hit per week or about 1 hit every 6.5 games.

There really isn't that much of a contribution between the two hitters. The differnce only being as joek7 has said, 'it is WHEN the hits occur that matters most.' The differnce in the averages is therefore in essence meaningless. Yes, if the .300 hitters hits came at the right time, he would be the better hitter, and if they did not, then the .250 hitter would be the better hitter as long as his hits came at the right time. Conclusion = A .250 hitter can be more valuable and a better hitter than the .300 hitter.

[joek7]

I agree with that theory completely. However, I still think statistics are valuable measures of a players value.

Statistics do actually correlate well with a teams performance. Yes, its imperfect but they're a better indicator of a player's skill then just watching what the individual's team does. Teams with good statistics usually win more games than teams with bad statistics. Look at the Royals/Devil Rays team statistics and compare it to the Yankees/Angels team statistics.

Statistics are measures of a players value. they tell me who hits HRs, who hits for average, etc. But only winning tells me which players are best.

You hit the nail on the head. TEAMS with good stats WIN more. That is exactly the goal of the game. Individual players with good stats do not neccessarily help a team succeed. Remember, I aver individual statsw are meaningless and do not tell the true ability of a player. Winning does that.

[joek7]

.300 hitter vs. .250 hitter over a season.

Assume 500 atbats for each hitter.

.300 hitter = 150 hits for season .250 hitter = 125 hits for season

season is roughly 25 weeks long

difference in hits between .250 and .300 hitter = 1 hit per week or about 1 hit every 6.5 games.

There really isn't that much of a contribution between the two hitters. The differnce only being as joek7 has said, 'it is WHEN the hits occur that matters most.' The differnce in the averages is therefore in essence meaningless. Yes, if the .300 hitters hits came at the right time, he would be the better hitter, and if they did not, then the .250 hitter would be the better hitter as long as his hits came at the right time. Conclusion = A .250 hitter can be more valuable and a better hitter than the .300 hitter.

You've got it bigbadwolf. Good post. And your scenario is between two players with a 50 point difference. Close those 50 points to 40 30 20 and you get an even far greater shot of meaningless.

[Mariano_Rivera]

.300 hitter vs. .250 hitter over a season.

Assume 500 atbats for each hitter.

.300 hitter = 150 hits for season .250 hitter = 125 hits for season

season is roughly 25 weeks long

difference in hits between .250 and .300 hitter = 1 hit per week or about 1 hit every 6.5 games.

There really isn't that much of a contribution between the two hitters. The differnce only being as joek7 has said, 'it is WHEN the hits occur that matters most.' The differnce in the averages is therefore in essence meaningless. Yes, if the .300 hitters hits came at the right time, he would be the better hitter, and if they did not, then the .250 hitter would be the better hitter as long as his hits came at the right time. Conclusion = A .250 hitter can be more valuable and a better hitter than the .300 hitter.

You forget the value of walks and extra base hits though

[Mariano_Rivera]

Statistics are measures of a players value. they tell me who hits HRs, who hits for average, etc. But only winning tells me which players are best.

You hit the nail on the head. TEAMS with good stats WIN more. That is exactly the goal of the game. Individual players with good stats do not neccessarily help a team succeed. Remember, I aver individual statsw are meaningless and do not tell the true ability of a player. Winning does that.

I`m a little confused here. It seems like you`re contradicting yousrself.
Especially those last two sentences.

Stats help a team win but personal stats don't show how good a player is? Or do you believe they both help show how good a player is when you combine him but winning takes precedence? Please explain this post

[joek7]

I`m a little confused here. It seems like you`re contradicting yousrself.
Especially those last two sentences.

Stats help a team win but personal stats don't show how good a player is? Or do you believe they both help show how good a player is when you combine him but winning takes precedence? Please explain this post

Look at it the way bigbadwolf posted. You can hit .250 and help your team more than someone else helps their team hitting .300. Winning takes precenence over everything. The object of the game is for the team to win, not for any one or two players to amass individual statistics. A team can be WS champion and not have the most HRs, the most runs scored, the lowest ERA ro etc. One thing they MUST have is enough WINS to get to the playoffs and enough WINS to get through the playoffs and WS. Wha t any players individual stats are is unimportant, it is all in the winning. Does that help?

[Mariano_Rivera]

Look at it the way bigbadwolf posted. You can hit .250 and help your team more than someone else helps their team hitting .300. Winning takes precenence over everything. The object of the game is for the team to win, not for any one or two players to amass individual statistics. A team can be WS champion and not have the most HRs, the most runs scored, the lowest ERA ro etc. One thing they MUST have is enough WINS to get to the playoffs and enough WINS to get through the playoffs and WS. Wha t any players individual stats are is unimportant, it is all in the winning. Does that help?

A player can help his team win by hitting mostly in close games

A bad player can be on a good team and a good player can be on a bad team

The goal of a player is to help his team win. A player can help his team win but the other players could be bad.

When measuring a team the best way to measure it is wins but stats do help a team win games. Winning teams have good stats. Losing teams have bad stats. Some teams do finish the season with bad stats but make the WS anyway. That's usually because of the fact that players that lost games earlier in the season were gone after the trade deadline or they got hot later in the season (Look at even the Yankees this year, Mientkiewicz was playing badly and he was replaced with Phillips who's hit well, Myers and Villone are both gone and replaced by Joba, Damon's hitting, Abreu's hitting, Cano's hitting).

It is also possible for a player with worse statistics to be more valuable than a player with better staistics because of great timely hitting. However, this is very rare if it has ever actually happened. If it ever did happen then you would probably notice that a hitter was being that clutch. If you don;t trust your memory then you can check situational stats.

Nobody roots for individual statistics (other than sometimes guys to break records) the point is for the team to win.

Thanks for clearing things up

[joek7]

Your post is the epitome of confusing and mis-direction.

All players on a team help the team win or lose. A player with a higher BA or more HRs than another player does not make him a better player than the player with lessor stats. All it means is that as an individual he hits for a higher BA and more HRs. The determining factor in making a player great is, does he help his team win. Correct me if I am wrong, but do you not assume that the player that hits more HRs and for a higher BA helps his team more than the player with lesser individual stats? If you do, then in my opinion and after discussing this with many WS ring wearers, you would be wrong.

To put it in a most simplistic form. You can have at the end of this season any and all of the players who fail to help take their team to the playoffs this year. I will take only players who have helped their team to the playoffs this year. In the end, I will have the best players in the game, who have demonstrated their ability to help their team WIN, (which is the object of the game) and my team will be far more likely to trounce your team in the real world every day. However, there is a great chance your team could trounce mine in the fantasy world games, where in my opinion individual stats rule.

Take this as an example. David Ortiz and Arod. Both amazing individual stat performers. One helps his team to the playoffs consistently, the other to a far lesser degree. Which one do you want up with a big game on the line? Mine would be Ortiz, every time. Followed by a slew of others before I come to Arod. Therein lies the difference between the players who are truly the best in the game.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Your post is the epitome of confusing and mis-direction.

All players on a team help the team win or lose. A player with a higher BA or more HRs than another player does not make him a better player than the player with lessor stats. All it means is that as an individual he hits for a higher BA and more HRs. The determining factor in making a player great is, does he help his team win. Correct me if I am wrong, but do you not assume that the player that hits more HRs and for a higher BA helps his team more than the player with lesser individual stats? If you do, then in my opinion and after discussing this with many WS ring wearers, you would be wrong.

To put it in a most simplistic form. You can have at the end of this season any and all of the players who fail to help take their team to the playoffs this year. I will take only players who have helped their team to the playoffs this year. In the end, I will have the best players in the game, who have demonstrated their ability to help their team WIN, (which is the object of the game) and my team will be far more likely to trounce your team in the real world every day. However, there is a great chance your team could trounce mine in the fantasy world games, where in my opinion individual stats rule.

Take this as an example. David Ortiz and Arod. Both amazing individual stat performers. One helps his team to the playoffs consistently, the other to a far lesser degree. Which one do you want up with a big game on the line? Mine would be Ortiz, every time. Followed by a slew of others before I come to Arod. Therein lies the difference between the players who are truly the best in the game.

Usually when a player has better stats he is helping his team win more games. It is possible for a player to be extremely clutch but that will show up in situational stats and is usually easily noticed.

I don't play fantasy and never mentioned it so I don;t understand your point in bringing it up at all.

A player can do everything he can to make his team win but his teammates could still fail him. You say that all players deserve equal credit/blame for their teams success/failures. Ortiz was clearly a bigger part of the 2004 Red Sox than Kevin Millar. Is it Carl Crawford's fault that his bullpen can't hold a 7 run lead or that their starting pitchers routinely give up about 5 runs a game?

A player can only do so much to help his team win.

A pitcher can only pitch once every 5 days and if he gives up one un-earned run in a complete game then he`s done everythign that could be reasonably hoped for him to do. Yet his offense could still lose him the game and get shut out. He can't control his run support or what his defense does.

A htter only gets about 4 at bats a game and if he has a HR or 2 then he`s done everything you could reasonably hope for him to do but if his teammates aren't doing anything then then they ight only score 2 runs off of them. His team's pitching might also give up runs.

Baseball is a team game and you need a complete team to win. One player is only a small part of that team and can only do so much for his team. If you can;t surround that one good player with other good players then he can't win many games. Good teams always have many good players. Bad teams sometimes have a few good players.

[joek7]

You never answered the Ortiz/Arod question.

Used the fantasy game correaltion to show how meaningless individual stats are in the real world game as compared to the fantasy world game. In the real world, it is the success of the team with everyone on the team contributing that determines the best. In the fantasy world game it is only the individual stats that matter and determine the outcome.

Hitting 2 HRs in the 6th and 8th inning of a 10-2 loss after trailing 10-0 in the 5th is meaningless and illustrates just how meaningless individual stats can be. Yes the 2 HR guy did everything he could to help his team, and no one else on the team did a thing.

These are your own words....."""""One player is only a small part of that team and can only do so much for his team."""""".......Exactly what I believe, and his individual stats don't matter a wit unless he helps (along with his team mates) the team win. Point being, a team does not need, or have to have a high individual stat player on the team to succeed. It is fine to have any number as long as the team succeeds, but having any number does not mean team success. Only winning defines the best.

Again, correct me if I am wrong......What you are saying is if a player has great individual stats and the team fails, it is all his team mates fault. And when a player has lesser individual stats and helps lead his team to the playoffs and beyond, he is not good and it is all his team mates credit. The WIN METHOD belief is that all players on a team help it succeed or fail and very best players help their team succeed the most.

[PVNICK]

Where would you stand on the Guillermo Mota situation. Comes in with two outs gives up a 2 out, 2 run hit to tie the game, Mets get a run in the bottom of the eigth, Wagner pitches a 1-2-3 ninth. Mota gets the win. Maine gave up one dubious earned run and gets no decision. Maine 0-0. Mota 1-0.

[TonyStarks]

Your post is the epitome of confusing and mis-direction.


Oh the irony!

joek7, you don't think your entire theory is confusing?
It's almost like chasing your own tail.

[Mariano_Rivera]

You never answered the Ortiz/Arod question.

Used the fantasy game correaltion to show how meaningless individual stats are in the real world game as compared to the fantasy world game. In the real world, it is the success of the team with everyone on the team contributing that determines the best. In the fantasy world game it is only the individual stats that matter and determine the outcome.

Hitting 2 HRs in the 6th and 8th inning of a 10-2 loss after trailing 10-0 in the 5th is meaningless and illustrates just how meaningless individual stats can be. Yes the 2 HR guy did everything he could to help his team, and no one else on the team did a thing.

These are your own words....."""""One player is only a small part of that team and can only do so much for his team."""""".......Exactly what I believe, and his individual stats don't matter a wit unless he helps (along with his team mates) the team win. Point being, a team does not need, or have to have a high individual stat player on the team to succeed. It is fine to have any number as long as the team succeeds, but having any number does not mean team success. Only winning defines the best.

Again, correct me if I am wrong......What you are saying is if a player has great individual stats and the team fails, it is all his team mates fault. And when a player has lesser individual stats and helps lead his team to the playoffs and beyond, he is not good and it is all his team mates credit. The WIN METHOD belief is that all players on a team help it succeed or fail and very best players help their team succeed the most.

Sorry, missed that

Its a tough uestion to answer, bothy are excellent hitters and a year ago I would have taken Ortiz but now I`d rather have A-Rod. A-Rod's having a better year and also seems to now be able to handle pressure. It could really go either way though and you could easily take Ortiz.

I don't get how that applies to our discussion but whatever. Fantasy baseball doesn't really have ahnything to do with real baseball.

So does the 2 HR guy deserve the blame for that particular loss? Yes or No answer please.

I don't understand what you mean by this, this seems very condtradictory. A a player can't guarentee his team a championship but you believe an individual player can be held responsible for his team's success and failure? Teams do need players with good staistics to win. Name one WS winning team without a star player on it. The numbers make a team win. You can't win without scoring runs or giving up tons of runs.

Yes that is completely true. Again, by your theory a guy who doesn't get on base all season and gets out in every AB he has is a better player than a guy who bats .400/.500/.600 but is surrounded by terrible players.

[joek7]

Where would you stand on the Guillermo Mota situation. Comes in with two outs gives up a 2 out, 2 run hit to tie the game, Mets get a run in the bottom of the eigth, Wagner pitches a 1-2-3 ninth. Mota gets the win. Maine gave up one dubious earned run and gets no decision. Maine 0-0. Mota 1-0.

Sadly that is the rules of official scoring. I can give you several more 'official rulings' that are screwed up and or downright stupid. Very similar to adoring a player who fails to help his team succeed.

[joek7]

Oh the irony!

joek7, you don't think your entire theory is confusing?
It's almost like chasing your own tail.

I do not think for a moment that saying the best players in the game are the ones who help their team succeed the most often is confusing. It is downright the most intelligent thing a person can say. On the other hand, saying a player is one of the gretest for helping lead his team to failure so consistently, is confusing.

[joek7]

Sorry, missed that

Its a tough uestion to answer, bothy are excellent hitters and a year ago I would have taken Ortiz but now I`d rather have A-Rod. A-Rod's having a better year and also seems to now be able to handle pressure. It could really go either way though and you could easily take Ortiz.

I don't get how that applies to our discussion but whatever. Fantasy baseball doesn't really have ahnything to do with real baseball.

So does the 2 HR guy deserve the blame for that particular loss? Yes or No answer please.

I don't understand what you mean by this, this seems very condtradictory. A a player can't guarentee his team a championship but you believe an individual player can be held responsible for his team's success and failure? Teams do need players with good staistics to win. Name one WS winning team without a star player on it. The numbers make a team win. You can't win without scoring runs or giving up tons of runs.

Yes that is completely true. Again, by your theory a guy who doesn't get on base all season and gets out in every AB he has is a better player than a guy who bats .400/.500/.600 but is surrounded by terrible players.

Arod hasn't had any 'real pressure' yet this year.

Fantasy baseball is all individual statistics and nothing relevant to real baseball. There we agree.

YES! The 2HR guy gets equal blame along with all his team mates.

No, all palyers on the team are responsible for the teams success or failure.

If your .000 to .400+ scenario ever happens, let me know. Then I may have to agree with you. In the meantime I'll take my .250 hitter and a player who helps my team succeed over your .300 player who helps his team fail.
Also in your .000 to 400+ scenario, one would think that the manager funning the team has a very solid reason for playing the .000 hitter. Maybe defense. The .000 hitter gets every ball hit near him and never makes an error, while the .400+ hitter has never ever made a play in the field.

[DoubleX]

I do not think for a moment that saying the best players in the game are the ones who help their team succeed the most often is confusing. It is downright the most intelligent thing a person can say. On the other hand, saying a player is one of the gretest for helping lead his team to failure so consistently, is confusing.

You have no way of quantifying and justifying that though. Everything you say is oxymoronic and baseless. You say one player can't be solely responsible for winning and one player cannot be solely responsible for losing, yet here you are saying that a team is suceeding and failing on account of one player. Do you not see the contradiction here? Plus, how on Earth can you quantify and justify how much someone like Scott Brosius contributed to winning and someone like Alex Rodriguez contributed to losing? How do you know that for Brosius it wasn't just right place at the right time and Rodriguez the wrong place at the wrong time? How do you know that? How can you justify that? Your system has absolutely no way of accounting for how much any individual contributes to a team winning or a team losing, and how much responsibility should be assigned to the other 24 players. Your system treats winning and losing as preordained and does not account for in the least what goes into winning or losing from a total team perspective or individual perspective. Your system is all about convenience, it's all about "well this person was on a winning team, so he must be a winner." But you don't know that, for all you know, that player could have had absolutely nothing to do with the team winning or losing - the team may have won or lost whether he was there or not under your system. Basically, your system is empty and meaningless and has no way of reflecting what an individual player's actual value is to the winning or losing effort.

Moreover, I am sick and tired of you insinuating that you have some enlightened view and that everyone else's opinion is unintelligent and unknowledgeble rhetoric. You consistently say the most baseless, contradictory, and hypocritical things I have ever seen in my three and a half years on these boards. You over-simplify, dismiss everything else as ignorant, and then contradict yourself. I have had enough - Next time I feel like you are posting with this misplaced haughtiness and refusing to show an openness to intelligent conversation, I will take action and I will suspend you. I do not suspend people lightly, so this is a strong indication of just how greatly you have exacerbated my patience and how consistenly offended and perturbed I am by your haughty and hypocritical tone.

In the meantime, here's another recommendation for you - why don't you venture into the history forum here and try out your win method theory there. I believe some of the most intelligent baseball fans around can be found in the history forum, so you might want to engage them in conversation if you feel that we are not intelligent or knowledgeble enough for you.

[TonyStarks]

Arod hasn't had any 'real pressure' yet this year.



How could you possibly say this with a straight face?
Last year he had this label of that of a choke-artist? Not being clutch?

I do think there was alot of pressure on ARod. He was on the verge of practically being pressured out of New York. He had to prove to everyone that he was not this choker that ESPN, fans and Steve Phillips made him out to be.

Coming up plenty of times in the 9th inning with a chance to win the game...each time was a chance to prove the nay-sayers wrong. And time and time again he's come through!

[Mariano_Rivera]

Arod hasn't had any 'real pressure' yet this year.

Fantasy baseball is all individual statistics and nothing relevant to real baseball. There we agree.

YES! The 2HR guy gets equal blame along with all his team mates.

No, all palyers on the team are responsible for the teams success or failure.

If your .000 to .400+ scenario ever happens, let me know. Then I may have to agree with you. In the meantime I'll take my .250 hitter and a player who helps my team succeed over your .300 player who helps his team fail.
Also in your .000 to 400+ scenario, one would think that the manager funning the team has a very solid reason for playing the .000 hitter. Maybe defense. The .000 hitter gets every ball hit near him and never makes an error, while the .400+ hitter has never ever made a play in the field.

I very much disagree with that. Every single AB for him is magnified just because its him and everybody will jump on him because of his contract. He was on the verge of getting run out of New York. All of this in a key situation even in APriul is a lot of pressure.

That doesn't make sense to me. This player did everything he did to help his team win but his teammates couldn't back him up and you blame him justa s much as everyone else on the team?

In 1941 Ted Williams hit .406/.551/.735. His team failed to win the WS. THe Yankees won that year and for them George Selkirk batted .220/.340/.360. He played about half the season. Who was the better player that year? Selkirk also played the corner OF spots.

[TonyStarks]

I very much disagree with that. Every single AB for him is magnified just because its him and everybody will jump on him because of his contract. He was on the verge of getting run out of New York. All of this in a key situation even in APriul is a lot of pressure.

That doesn't make sense to me. This player did everything he did to help his team win but his teammates couldn't back him up and you blame him justa s much as everyone else on the team?

In 1941 Ted Williams hit .406/.551/.735. His team failed to win the WS. THe Yankees won that year and for them George Selkirk batted .220/.340/.360. He played about half the season. Who was the better player that year? Selkirk also played the corner OF spots.

Mo, you should know by now that according to his Win Method Ted Williams was a stat padder in 1941! ;)

[joek7]

You have no way of quantifying and justifying that though. Everything you say is oxymoronic and baseless. You say one player can't be solely responsible for winning and one player cannot be solely responsible for losing, yet here you are saying that a team is suceeding and failing on account of one player. Do you not see the contradiction here? Plus, how on Earth can you quantify and justify how much someone like Scott Brosius contributed to winning and someone like Alex Rodriguez contributed to losing? How do you know that for Brosius it wasn't just right place at the right time and Rodriguez the wrong place at the wrong time? How do you know that? How can you justify that? Your system has absolutely no way of accounting for how much any individual contributes to a team winning or a team losing, and how much responsibility should be assigned to the other 24 players. Your system treats winning and losing as preordained and does not account for in the least what goes into winning or losing from a total team perspective or individual perspective. Your system is all about convenience, it's all about "well this person was on a winning team, so he must be a winner." But you don't know that, for all you know, that player could have had absolutely nothing to do with the team winning or losing - the team may have won or lost whether he was there or not under your system. Basically, your system is empty and meaningless and has no way of reflecting what an individual player's actual value is to the winning or losing effort.

Moreover, I am sick and tired of you insinuating that you have some enlightened view and that everyone else's opinion is unintelligent and unknowledgeble rhetoric. You consistently say the most baseless, contradictory, and hypocritical things I have ever seen in my three and a half years on these boards. You over-simplify, dismiss everything else as ignorant, and then contradict yourself. I have had enough - Next time I feel like you are posting with this misplaced haughtiness and refusing to show an openness to intelligent conversation, I will take action and I will suspend you. I do not suspend people lightly, so this is a strong indication of just how greatly you have exacerbated my patience and how consistenly offended and perturbed I am by your haughty and hypocritical tone.

In the meantime, here's another recommendation for you - why don't you venture into the history forum here and try out your win method theory there. I believe some of the most intelligent baseball fans around can be found in the history forum, so you might want to engage them in conversation if you feel that we are not intelligent or knowledgeble enough for you.

I find your post insulting and degrading. If you are unable to comprehend the the difference between winning and losing that is entirely your problem. I insult, demean, nor post with haughtiness. i have my views and opinions which I have had passed along to me from some of the most highly respected men in baseball. I do not contradict myself. I believe the best players help their team win. There it is in a nutshell. This thread was opened by a poster to discuss our different views. You then come in here with your high handed moderator attitude and threaten me. It appears you are unable to accept an opposing view, particularly one that shows withour question just why the best players win. If a poster gets suspended for that, then it is the forums loss.

[joek7]

How could you possibly say this with a straight face?
Last year he had this label of that of a choke-artist? Not being clutch?

I do think there was alot of pressure on ARod. He was on the verge of practically being pressured out of New York. He had to prove to everyone that he was not this choker that ESPN, fans and Steve Phillips made him out to be.

Coming up plenty of times in the 9th inning with a chance to win the game...each time was a chance to prove the nay-sayers wrong. And time and time again he's come through!

Indeed and without doubt Arod has had a fantastic year. He has won over many a YANKEE fan and skeptic. He has had several big hits so far this season. But each persons definition of pressur may vary. To this point, I do not feel any big time pressure situations have presented themselves as yet. As a lifelong YANKEE fan I can only hope Arod carries his season through the playoffs and delivers when it may be do or die.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Again, as I posted in the original post on this thread I`m not a mod here but please stay respectful of others. To be honest, Joek has come across as a little arrogant but I don't think that their is any reason to suspend him and you might be overeacting a bit DoubleX.

Please, just try and keep things peaceful here :)

[joek7]

I very much disagree with that. Every single AB for him is magnified just because its him and everybody will jump on him because of his contract. He was on the verge of getting run out of New York. All of this in a key situation even in APriul is a lot of pressure.

That doesn't make sense to me. This player did everything he did to help his team win but his teammates couldn't back him up and you blame him justa s much as everyone else on the team?

In 1941 Ted Williams hit .406/.551/.735. His team failed to win the WS. THe Yankees won that year and for them George Selkirk batted .220/.340/.360. He played about half the season. Who was the better player that year? Selkirk also played the corner OF spots.

Fair for you to disagree. Then there we will have a difference of opinion. Arod getting run out of NY was his own doing or undoing. Right now he is a hero in NY, again because of his doing. Pressure wise, not yet in my opinion.

Yes, achieving in meaningless situations, in my opinion does not make a player great.

I think it would be more fair and logical to compare Ted Williams' (the best bosux outfielder) season in 1941 to the best YANKEE outfielder in that season.
Williams did have a better season than Selkirk.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Fair for you to disagree. Then there we will have a difference of opinion. Arod getting run out of NY was his own doing or undoing. Right now he is a hero in NY, again because of his doing. Pressure wise, not yet in my opinion.

Yes, achieving in meaningless situations, in my opinion does not make a player great.

I think it would be more fair and logical to compare Ted Williams' (the best bosux outfielder) season in 1941 to the best YANKEE outfielder in that season.
Williams did have a better season than Selkirk.

Theirs no way for us to prove or disprove this so we`ll have to agree to disagree here :)

Suppose he hits his first homer when its still 0-0 and when he hits his second the score is 1-1. Are those meaningless considering that the end result of the game is still undetermined?

Doesn't this contradict the Win Method? According to stats Williams helped his team and did everything he could to have his team succeed but they still failed. On the other hand Selkirk didn't help his team win but his team still ultimately succeeded. By the win method Selkirk should be the better player right?

I`m not sure we completely understand it. How much stock do you put in stats? Do you view stats as a way to seperate players onto different levels and whether or not the player is historically a winner as a way to decide the very best? THis makes slightly mroe sense than what I originally thought the win method was

[joek7]

Again, as I posted in the original post on this thread I`m not a mod here but please stay respectful of others. To be honest, Joek has come across as a little arrogant but I don't think that their is any reason to suspend him and you might be overeacting a bit DoubleX.

Please, just try and keep things peaceful here :)

Thank you for your post. If anyone feels I come across as arrogant, I appologize. I just feel very strongly in what I have learned over the decades. It has always bothered me to see fans glorify players who have been detrimental to the success of their team while achieving high meaningless individual stats. I don't think I have insulted anyones intelligence and do try to respond to their opinions, as we have done here. I think no less of you or your opinion, albeit different than mine. I have more respect for you, because you are willing to try to discuss our difference. In the end, we will more than likely have the same differences, but we did discuss them openly. If anyone here has done any insulting, demeaning, and is arrogant, it would be douglex in his post threatening me and espousing that his view his far greater and more logical than others. I can accept doublex' opinion as long as he doesn't threaten me or post in the arrogant manner he did.
Yes, lets keep the peace and discuss opinions openly.

[Mariano_Rivera]

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

[joek7]

Theirs no way for us to prove or disprove this so we`ll have to agree to disagree here :)

Suppose he hits his first homer when its still 0-0 and when he hits his second the score is 1-1. Are those meaningless considering that the end result of the game is still undetermined?

Doesn't this contradict the Win Method? According to stats Williams helped his team and did everything he could to have his team succeed but they still failed. On the other hand Selkirk didn't help his team win but his team still ultimately succeeded. By the win method Selkirk should be the better player right?

I`m not sure we completely understand it. How much stock do you put in stats? Do you view stats as a way to seperate players onto different levels and whether or not the player is historically a winner as a way to decide the very best? THis makes slightly mroe sense than what I originally thought the win method was

Agreed.

In your scenario that is WHEN comes into play. WHEN he hit the HRs they were indeed meaningful.

Selkirk was a better player when compared to the equal OFer for the bosux in that season. I do not think it is fair to compare a best OFer to a worst OFer, but much more logical to compare a best OFer to a best OFer. Also in that era of baseball the WIN METHOD is a little more flexible for several reasons.

Yes

[Mariano_Rivera]

In your scenario that is WHEN comes into play. WHEN he hit the HRs they were indeed meaningful.

Selkirk was a better player when compared to the equal OFer for the bosux in that season. I do not think it is fair to compare a best OFer to a worst OFer, but much more logical to compare a best OFer to a best OFer. Also in that era of baseball the WIN METHOD is a little more flexible for several reasons.


So you would give the player credcit for that HR since it was meaningful when it happened? If so you should definitely consider using Win Probability Statistics.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this argument. The main point where we disagree is how exact the tiers of players should be and I think we have to agree to disagree here :)

[joek7]

So you would give the player credcit for that HR since it was meaningful when it happened? If so you should definitely consider using Win Probability Statistics.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this argument. The main point where we disagree is how exact the tiers of players should be and I think we have to agree to disagree here :)

That is what I have always stated, it is WHEN that counts. Win probability stats are still man made contrived stats that try to place a man made value on an event. In my opinion, that is where all man made stats fail. The WIN METHOD has never failed. It always recognizes the best players, be it for a season or career.

That is and should be the finality of any debate. Both sides go on their way sith their own opinions and views. At least you could illustrate your points in a civilized and capable manner. We agree to disagree. One parting comment for the road, the players I recognize as the best ALWAYS WIN, be it for a season or for a career. And that is the object of the game, as conveyed to me by some of the best palyers in the game.

[Mariano_Rivera]

That is what I have always stated, it is WHEN that counts. Win probability stats are still man made contrived stats that try to place a man made value on an event. In my opinion, that is where all man made stats fail. The WIN METHOD has never failed. It always recognizes the best players, be it for a season or career.

That is and should be the finality of any debate. Both sides go on their way sith their own opinions and views. At least you could illustrate your points in a civilized and capable manner. We agree to disagree. One parting comment for the road, the players I recognize as the best ALWAYS WIN, be it for a season or for a career. And that is the object of the game, as conveyed to me by some of the best palyers in the game.

The Win Probability method shows the percent that his teams chances of winning the game is why is their something wrong with this?

:) I enjoyed this debate and I hope we can have many others here.

[joek7]

The Win Probability method shows the percent that his teams chances of winning the game is why is their something wrong with this?

:) I enjoyed this debate and I hope we can have many others here.

Thanks,
Is the following what you are talking about? If it is, I have found it very poor.
Even the author in his last paragraph states ""It is imperfect — I don’t think it’s a very good judge of comparing players on different teams, or even comparing players on the same team.""

On the other hand my WIN METHOD never deviates from crediting the players who help their team win as being the best. Over a season or over a career.



WPA: Win Probability Added

WPA is simply a counting stat like hits, home runs, or RBI. But instead of counting individual events — hits or home runs, for example — it adds up the total probability of winning that the player adds to his team in every at bat.

Perhaps WPA is best explained in an example:

In the 2007 home opener for the Royals against the Red Sox, Gil Meche started the game off well for the Royals by striking out Boston leadoff hitter Julio Lugo. This was a 0.023 WPA, in favor of the Royals. This means that Meche, the Royals pitcher, gets credited with .023 WPA (2.3% of “a win”), and Lugo, the Red Sox hitter, gets debited with a negative .023 WPA. For this one at bat, Meche has a .023 WPA and Lugo is at -.023 WPA.

In his second appearance, Lugo led the third inning off and Meche struck him out again. The WPA for this at bat is .027, in favor of the Royals. So, following the same result for the at bat (strikeout), why is the value of the WPA different? Because the situations were different. The game was obviously tied, 0-0, in the top of the first. But in the third, the Royals were up, 2-1. So, two innings closer to the end of the game and with a one-run deficit, this strikeout cost the Red Sox even more than the first strikeout did, in terms of the likelihood of winning. For this at bat, Meche has a .027 WPA and Lugo gets a -.027 WPA.

In his third appearance, Lugo was hitting in the fifth with two outs and the bases empty. The Royals were now up, 5-1. Meche struck him out a third time. The WPA for this at bat was .007, in favor of the Royals. For this third at bat, Meche has a .007 WPA and Lugo gets a -.007 WPA.

This doesn’t make sense at first — Lugo’s second strikeout cost the Red Sox more than the first one because it was later in the game than the first, plus the Royals were up by one instead of it being a tie game. Applying that further, it only makes sense that this third strikeout would be even more costly to the Red Sox, as the game was even later in the game and the Royals had an even bigger lead. But, remember, the game is much more out of hand than when Lugo was up to bat in the third inning. The game is getting out of hand, so his strikeout is of less consequence, and so the WPA value is lower.

To illustrate the point, if the Royals are up 10,000-0 in the top of the ninth with two outs, the last out’s WPA value would be microscopic. The Red Sox’ chances of winning in that situation go from very, very, very, very poor to impossible. Conversely, if the score is 0-0 and the batter hits an extra-innings, walk-off solo home run in the bottom of the tenth, the WPA for that at bat would be huge. The chances of the batter’s team winning goes from so-so, about a 50-50 shot, to 100%.

Back to our specific example, Lugo had one more at bat, in which he singled off of Royals reliever Joel Peralta (a WPA value of +.014 for Lugo, a -.014 for Peralta).

So, if you add up the WPA from his first three strikeouts and his single, Lugo’s WPA for the game is -.043.

WPA simply adds up what a batter or pitcher contributes in every one of his at bats. I like it because it’s an all-in-one stat. It tells you, in one number, how much a player has contributed to his team’s chances to win, either for one game or for the whole season.

It is imperfect — I don’t think it’s a very good judge of comparing players on different teams, or even comparing players on the same team. But it is extremely interesting.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Thanks,
Is the following what you are talking about? If it is, I have found it very poor.
Even the author in his last paragraph states ""It is imperfect — I don’t think it’s a very good judge of comparing players on different teams, or even comparing players on the same team.""

On the other hand my WIN METHOD never deviates from crediting the players who help their team win as being the best. Over a season or over a career.



Yes, the reason the person believes it is poor is because certain players will get more opportunities in clutch situations than others and it is possible he believes that clutch hitters do not exist. From what I`ve read from you it doesn't look like you share those opinions. Why do you dislike it then?

It is imperfect but so is the Win Method. As we`ve stated before a lesser player can be on a better team than a greater player and therefore be a winner while the other is a loser.

[joek7]

Yes, the reason the person believes it is poor is because certain players will get more opportunities in clutch situations than others and it is possible he believes that clutch hitters do not exist. From what I`ve read from you it doesn't look like you share those opinions. Why do you dislike it then?

It is imperfect but so is the Win Method. As we`ve stated before a lesser player can be on a better team than a greater player and therefore be a winner while the other is a loser.

I dislike any system that give arbitrary values to events. For my own education, if a batter makes the 3rd out of lets say the 3rd inning. Is his negative different if there are men in scoring position, or one just on first, or no one on? If yes, how significant the arbitrary value?

The lesser and greater player being determined by individual stats as I have stated is not realistic, since the game is played for the team to win, not for any one or two individuals to amass personal stats. The WIN METHOD gives no arbitrary or man made values to anything. It is only concerned with winning. That is where, you as a sabermathician have a hard time dealing with it. You feel if a player has great stats, those great stats convey to helping a team win. I do not see it that way. An individuals great stats from what I have seen over many decades does not always help a team succeed. Fact being a one run win has exactly the same value as a 20-0 win. The difference is the slew of meaningless hits and runs atat are amassed in the 20 run win or even 10 run or 6 run win. However, musch can depend on WHEN those runs are scored.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I dislike any system that give arbitrary values to events. For my own education, if a batter makes the 3rd out of lets say the 3rd inning. Is his negative different if there are men in scoring position, or one just on first, or no one on? If yes, how significant the arbitrary value?

The lesser and greater player being determined by individual stats as I have stated is not realistic, since the game is played for the team to win, not for any one or two individuals to amass personal stats. The WIN METHOD gives no arbitrary or man made values to anything. It is only concerned with winning. That is where, you as a sabermathician have a hard time dealing with it. You feel if a player has great stats, those great stats convey to helping a team win. I do not see it that way. An individuals great stats from what I have seen over many decades does not always help a team succeed. Fact being a one run win has exactly the same value as a 20-0 win. The difference is the slew of meaningless hits and runs atat are amassed in the 20 run win or even 10 run or 6 run win. However, musch can depend on WHEN those runs are scored.

This isn't an arbitrary value though. It takes actual game results and situations and gets the percentage of the time the team won in one situation and compared it to the next one. These are taken using real-world situations. They didn't just come up with it

[joek7]

This isn't an arbitrary value though. It takes actual game results and situations and gets the percentage of the time the team won in one situation and compared it to the next one. These are taken using real-world situations. They didn't just come up with it

Exactly. One situation has absolutely nothing to do with the next situation. Different opponent, different ballpark, different pitcher, different batter, different umpire, possibly different field conditions, day/night etc. etc.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Exactly. One situation has absolutely nothing to do with the next situation. Different opponent, different ballpark, different pitcher, different batter, different umpire, possibly different field conditions, day/night etc. etc.

But those things don't affect the importance of the situation. It affects the difficulty of it.

If the Yankees are playign the Royals and Gil Meche is pitching it is easier to win the game than if they were playing Josh Beckett and the Red Sox but it doesn't make one game more important than the other as we`ve already discussed.

Bottom of the 9th two outs with a runner on second is just as important if Mariano Rivera is pitching as it is if Julian Tavarez is pitching.

Nothing in the world can change the importance of a situation

[joek7]

But those things don't affect the importance of the situation. It affects the difficulty of it.

If the Yankees are playign the Royals and Gil Meche is pitching it is easier to win the game than if they were playing Josh Beckett and the Red Sox but it doesn't make one game more important than the other as we`ve already discussed.

Bottom of the 9th two outs with a runner on second is just as important if Mariano Rivera is pitching as it is if Julian Tavarez is pitching.

Nothing in the world can change the importance of a situation

Excellent reply, but it does change the importance. A win against your rival has double the importance. It not only gives you the win or loss, but does the reverse for your rival. Double the outcome. It also takes a better player to perform against a quality pitcher than a so-so pitcher. A player can be a hero agsinst a so-so pitcher and a bust against a quality pitcher. Throw in intra-league play. A win against an intra-league opponent does not give a loss to an inter-league opponent. Therfore different games can be more important.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Excellent reply, but it does change the importance. A win against your rival has double the importance. It not only gives you the win or loss, but does the reverse for your rival. Double the outcome. It also takes a better player to perform against a quality pitcher than a so-so pitcher. A player can be a hero agsinst a so-so pitcher and a bust against a quality pitcher. Throw in intra-league play. A win against an intra-league opponent does not give a loss to an inter-league opponent. Therfore different games can be more important.

Thanks :)

The point on the rival is true. A normal game represents a swing of 1 game in the standings while a game against the team you are chasing represents a swing a 2 games in the standings. I think you may have found a flaw in WPA. Their might be a way to correct that though and improve it. Good point.

For your other examples it does not affect the importance of the situation at all. A player can be a hero against a bad pitcher and a bust against a good pitcher but the fact is that he was still a hero against that bad pitcher and he won his team a game there. Whether he is facing a good pitcher or a bad pitcher in a critical situation it is still a critical situation. It is more difficult to get a hit off of the good pitcher but it is not more valuable to get a hit off the good pitcher.

[joek7]

Thanks :)

The point on the rival is true. A normal game represents a swing of 1 game in the standings while a game against the team you are chasing represents a swing a 2 games in the standings. I think you may have found a flaw in WPA. Their might be a way to correct that though and improve it. Good point.

For your other examples it does not affect the importance of the situation at all. A player can be a hero against a bad pitcher and a bust against a good pitcher but the fact is that he was still a hero against that bad pitcher and he won his team a game there. Whether he is facing a good pitcher or a bad pitcher in a critical situation it is still a critical situation. It is more difficult to get a hit off of the good pitcher but it is not more valuable to get a hit off the good pitcher.

Value and/or importance are the key words. For arguments sake lets agree the value of one game is always equal. The difference in importance can be immense. Jeter hits 3 run HR off Schilling in 8th inning in Sept pennant race. The following is where I believe the equal value system falls short. I do not feel that a 3 run HR by any player off any pitcher in a game between two teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs done on the same day is equal. The importance of one opposed to the unimportance of the other is so overwhelming, I can't imagine them being valued equally.

Maybe you can help me with this example. Using a recent real scenario helps put things into better perspective. When the YANKEES scored the 6 runs Friday in boston in the 8th inning. How are each of the hits, runs scored, and rbis scored leading to Arods single which scored the 6th run?In my opinion, this is where the WIN METHOD is so effective. It gives everyone credit for the win. Look at the last 2 innings alone. 6 different YANKEES scored, 5 different players got RBIs, 3 different pitchers pitched, several different players where involved defensively. That doesn't even include the other 7 innings. That defines how all players on a team working together to achieve the win is so important, irregardless of any ones individual stats.

[bigbadwolf]

I love this thread. You two guys are great. I hope some people are learning something here. Best thread I've seen in ages.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Value and/or importance are the key words. For arguments sake lets agree the value of one game is always equal. The difference in importance can be immense. Jeter hits 3 run HR off Schilling in 8th inning in Sept pennant race. The following is where I believe the equal value system falls short. I do not feel that a 3 run HR by any player off any pitcher in a game between two teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs done on the same day is equal. The importance of one opposed to the unimportance of the other is so overwhelming, I can't imagine them being valued equally.

Maybe you can help me with this example. Using a recent real scenario helps put things into better perspective. When the YANKEES scored the 6 runs Friday in boston in the 8th inning. How are each of the hits, runs scored, and rbis scored leading to Arods single which scored the 6th run?In my opinion, this is where the WIN METHOD is so effective. It gives everyone credit for the win. Look at the last 2 innings alone. 6 different YANKEES scored, 5 different players got RBIs, 3 different pitchers pitched, several different players where involved defensively. That doesn't even include the other 7 innings. That defines how all players on a team working together to achieve the win is so important, irregardless of any ones individual stats.

I suppose if you want to take importance literally than any game two non-contenders play are meaningless since they won't make the playoffs

I think you made a few typos with:

"How are each of the hits, runs scored, and rbis scored leading to Arods single which scored the 6th run?In my opinion, this is where the WIN METHOD is so effective."

I`m assuming you mean that the guys that scored that first run aren;t credited as much as the guys that drove in the game tying run. At the time that the first run was scored the run seemed unimportant. WPA also accounts for the whole game.

The win method does credit all players that work together for a win but it also discounts the efforts of a player that was on a team that ultimately failed to win and it also overly credits mediocore players that were lucky enough to be on a team with other great players


I love this thread. You two guys are great. I hope some people are learning something here. Best thread I've seen in ages.

Thanks, I like this thread to. Most others just involve people spewing out stats they looked up 5 minutes ago. This is more interesting

[joek7]

I suppose if you want to take importance literally than any game two non-contenders play are meaningless since they won't make the playoffs

I think you made a few typos with:

"How are each of the hits, runs scored, and rbis scored leading to Arods single which scored the 6th run?In my opinion, this is where the WIN METHOD is so effective."

I`m assuming you mean that the guys that scored that first run aren;t credited as much as the guys that drove in the game tying run. At the time that the first run was scored the run seemed unimportant. WPA also accounts for the whole game.

The win method does credit all players that work together for a win but it also discounts the efforts of a player that was on a team that ultimately failed to win and it also overly credits mediocore players that were lucky enough to be on a team with other great players



Thanks, I like this thread to. Most others just involve people spewing out stats they looked up 5 minutes ago. This is more interesting

Sorry about that. That sentence I wrote was pretty pathetic. What I was trying to say is how much value is given to the hits, runs scored, rbis of each player in that 6 run inning?
Did the values change after the YANKEES got closer, tied the game, then took the lead?

Yes the WIN METHOD crdits all players, but the lesser plays should only be compared to their counterparts on other teams. The WIN METHOD is not saying the 25th player on the WS champion is better than starters on other teams. Only that he is the best 25th man in baseball for that year. If that 25th man over his career has multiple playoff appeanrances, pennants, and WS, then he can be considered the best 25th man in baseball over his career.

True, the WIN METHOD would give no credit for losing. But the credit is based, not on one game or event, but on the entire season. Players earn credit for how well their team ultimately finishes the season.

Thanks, bigbadwolf. Mariano_Rivera has been great in his points.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Sorry about that. That sentence I wrote was pretty pathetic. What I was trying to say is how much value is given to the hits, runs scored, rbis of each player in that 6 run inning?
Did the values change after the YANKEES got closer, tied the game, then took the lead?

Yes the WIN METHOD crdits all players, but the lesser plays should only be compared to their counterparts on other teams. The WIN METHOD is not saying the 25th player on the WS champion is better than starters on other teams. Only that he is the best 25th man in baseball for that year. If that 25th man over his career has multiple playoff appeanrances, pennants, and WS, then he can be considered the best 25th man in baseball over his career.

True, the WIN METHOD would give no credit for losing. But the credit is based, not on one game or event, but on the entire season. Players earn credit for how well their team ultimately finishes the season.

Thanks, bigbadwolf. Mariano_Rivera has been great in his points.

No problem, its happened to me more than anyone else here

When it was a 6 run game the chance of winning was small and the ABs seemed unimportant so not much credit was given for those hits. There was still a small chance of them winning and it helping so some credit was given but not much. As the game got closer the AB's became important and more credit was given for those AB's. However, the value of the earlier hits were not changed because of the fact that they won the game after all.

THat makes some sense but it can even happen with great players. If Dave Winfield had had Sparky Lyle, Thurman Munson, and Ron Guidry of 1978 instead of whoever he had on his teams than maybe we might remember him and Reggie Jackson differently.

And so have you :)

[DoubleX]

True, the WIN METHOD would give no credit for losing. But the credit is based, not on one game or event, but on the entire season. Players earn credit for how well their team ultimately finishes the season.

I understand where you're coming from with this view, even though I very much disagree with it, but I have to ask...How do you determine how much credit to ascribe to each individual player for the winning effort? How do you differentiate between someone who is a driving force on the team, and someone who could just be along for the ride? Basically, how, under your method, do you determine the individual value for each player? Couldn't it be entirely possible that a player on a losing team could contribute more towards winning than a player on a winning team? Should the player on the losing team be penalized because the rest of his team didn't do enough, and vice versa, should the player on the winning team be overly rewarded because his teammates did more despite his mediocre contributions?

For example, which player is the better player to you?

Player A: Plays CF on a team that wins 85 games. He is one of just two All Stars on his team and most of his teammates are average at best, and the pitching on his team is mostly mediocre. He's been extremely clutch, delivering a number of late game-winning hits. However, his team misses the playoffs. Without this guy on this team, it's highly doubtful that the team finishes with a winning record.

Player B: Also plays CF but on a team that wins 95 games and goes on to wn the WS. He's a good solid player, but is not an All Star, though the team has six All Stars on its roster and five more players that had been All Stars within the last five years, plus a very solid pitching staff. He's delivered some big hits, though not as many as Player A. He's also not as talented as Player A. Without this guy on the team, the team still would probably be strong enough to compete for the title with a replacement.

Under the win method, as you've described it, it would seem that you would take Player B over Player A because he's on a winning team. However Player A seems to have contributed more to his team's winning than Player B did to his.

Basically, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the Win Method, as you've described it so far, doesn't seem particularly adept at determinig how much each player contributes to the winning, and it seems to ignore that a good player on a bad team can contribute more to winning than a so-so player on a good team can.

[Mariano_Rivera]

*Bump*

If anybody wants to discuss Player Evaluation (especially the Win Method) talk about it here

[Mariano_Rivera]

You can do all who know Arod hurts any team he plays on a favor by keeping your adoration of Arod to a minimum.....Arod leaving teams and the teams instantly doing significantly better is a damn good reason, whether you like it or not. I listen to your opinions regarding meaningless individual stats and you condemn my facts based on why the game is played (winning and wins). You can have your individual stats anyday. I will take the players who win the most and smile.

No it isn't. Its a BS reason whether you like it or not. 90% of what you say is BS not facts and I`m tired of you and others touting this ridiculous Win method that ignores any reality about how the game of baseball is played. However, the reason that the Yankees didn't win the World Series this year had nothing to do with them not having more than one well-pitched game or them not having more than 2 half decent relievers. Its because A-Rod didn't smile enough????!!!!!


Because Arod is non WIN METHOD. WIN METHOD players play for the success of the team. Arod plays for himself. Arod considers money more importatnt than winning. joek has interviewed Arod twice. Both times he found him not to be a WIN METHOD player. Arod proved this when he wouldn't sign with Yankees when he jumped the M's, but took the most money he could get to play in Texas.

I find it interesting how many of you are so willing to blame everyone else, but the palyer who actually creates the problem. I do not find it odd, that every team over 10+ years either won more or less when they had or did not have Arod on their squad. Every team, every time is not coincidence.

You`re right. A-Rod doesn't care about how his team does at all.

The Yankees had a SS already and A-Rod wnated to play short then. Texas owner promised they would be competitive.

Players aren't entitle to championships. Its not his World Series to lose. Don't you get it? 25 players out of a few hundred win the World Series every year. The odds are against winning it.

The fact is that is not HIM that is the problem.

I`m reposting this in the Player Evaluation thread. And rather than having this discussion spill over into other threads I (and probably others) would rather confine it to one.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Scott Brocius earned a WS ring or two for his team. Arod did not. Yet again, individual stats are just that, for the individual and thus meaningless in the big picture. Wins earned for the team is what determines the champions and the best. Brocius lays over Arod. I take Brocius and earn a WS ring. You take Arod earn the MVP and watch Brocius put on his WS ring. That is the difference.

No, Brocius was a mediocore player who went along for the ride with a great team or two that won a World Series ring. Credit Pettitte for it, credit Rivera for it, credit O`Neill for it but don't call Scott Brocius the difference maker on those teams.


Bingo, who just addressed the stupidity of that. It is WHEN not how much. You just defined the stupidity of your argument.

Their are more than two meaningful situations in a career of thousands.


I think you mean the great joek. The real joke here is those who love individual stats over winning.

More well thought out meaningful reponses.....

Please, continue this in the Player Evaluation thread. I`m reposting this there

[Mariano_Rivera]

I agree, and that defines just how unimportant individual awards and individual stats are. Who defines and determines which ones are important or not. Is every other stat or award pulled out of a hat meaningful. Or is it the second odd one and third even one. Are you guys serious. Only winning defines what is important. That leaves Jeter as the best. Even Arod had to move position to defer to the best shortstop.

I`m not a big fan of awards personally. Many take into account team performance for individual awards. The writers are biased and often ignore meaningful stats while using poor stats.

Their are genuine ways to decide which statistics are meaningful and which aren't.

First you need to carefully think out if that statistic is actually under the control of the player as much as can be reasonabl expected. For example, RBI's are very dependant on many factors outside of the hitters ability like batting order, the skill of hitters around him, and the baserunning skills of hitters around him. On the other hand we have home runs which is purely decided by the batter and pitcher (and very very rarely the fielder). Its as much under the batter's controls as possible.

Next consider whether a player doing well in this area will help his team win. For example, hitting home runs will help a team win. However, avoiding strike outs will not actually help a team win (strikeouts are in fact no different from any ordinary out. the value of moving runners over is offset by double plays).

In my opinion, if the stat passes these two tests then it should be considered valuable and used in the evaluation of players. People have taken this to the next level and considered the actual, exact value of events by using historical data. If you want to know how these were calculated or what they are I can give you a link.

A-Rod moved because he was a superior third baseman and the New York propaganda machine had/has people thinking Jeter was Ozzie Smith. Admit it, if Jeter had moved you would have said Jeter was being an unselfish team player putting his team first.

We already have a thread for discussion like this here (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1048495#post1048495). I`m reposting this there and please continue this debate there. It takes away from other discussions.

[bigbadwolf]

I am honored to join this thread between you and joek. as you can see I am a joek and WIN METHOD believer. I cannot explain things as well as joek, but in a nutshell I see more value in a hitter going 0 -4 and moving a runner over from 1st to 2nd and then his teamate knock the runner in with a single and winning the game 1-0 than hitting 3HRs and getting 10 rbis in a 22-1 rout.

I think the above also covers your paragraph on individual HRs and a batted ball out over a strikeout. almost every hitter strikes out more than each hits into a DP. A strikeout is totally useless, where a batted bal can help your team in a variety of ways. Move a runner, sac fly, on by an error, etc. A HR, as any hit or atbat can be important at any given time. And that time is determined by WHEN a hitter performs his deed as compared to how many times he performs the deed.

Interesting how you spin the Arod move to thirdbase. Since Jeter has not pl;ayed thirdbase, it wouldn't be fair to comment if Jeter would be better or not. However, using logic, I would assume Jeter would be better than Arod at third since he was so much better at shortstop, the real reason
Arod was moved to third.

This morning as I was shaving i was listening to a fantasy football radio show. The two guys where talking about the Thursday night game between the Bears and the Redskins and how Clinton Portis the Sins running back had a very poor game. Of course they where using individual statistics in refernce to their fantasies. I started laughing inside, thinking how great a game Portis really did have. HIS TEAM WON.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I am honored to join this thread between you and joek. as you can see I am a joek and WIN METHOD believer. I cannot explain things as well as joek, but in a nutshell I see more value in a hitter going 0 -4 and moving a runner over from 1st to 2nd and then his teamate knock the runner in with a single and winning the game 1-0 than hitting 3HRs and getting 10 rbis in a 22-1 rout.

I think the above also covers your paragraph on individual HRs and a batted ball out over a strikeout. almost every hitter strikes out more than each hits into a DP. A strikeout is totally useless, where a batted bal can help your team in a variety of ways. Move a runner, sac fly, on by an error, etc. A HR, as any hit or atbat can be important at any given time. And that time is determined by WHEN a hitter performs his deed as compared to how many times he performs the deed.

Interesting how you spin the Arod move to thirdbase. Since Jeter has not pl;ayed thirdbase, it wouldn't be fair to comment if Jeter would be better or not. However, using logic, I would assume Jeter would be better than Arod at third since he was so much better at shortstop, the real reason
Arod was moved to third.

This morning as I was shaving i was listening to a fantasy football radio show. The two guys where talking about the Thursday night game between the Bears and the Redskins and how Clinton Portis the Sins running back had a very poor game. Of course they where using individual statistics in refernce to their fantasies. I started laughing inside, thinking how great a game Portis really did have. HIS TEAM WON.

Thanks, I find this discussion very interesting but it can take away from other threads when it spills over. :)

Fair enough. However, these things usually even out and one player has just as much a chance of having his stats spread out as another. Its not a talent to be able to have the hits in the 1-0 game instead of the 22-1 game. Its luck. THeir is also stats like Win Probability Added that account for situation.

Actually, the DP causes so much damage that it makes up for the value of moving guys over. This has been calculated with real events. Again, I can show you a study.

I disagree about A-Rod being worse at short. From both my own observation of Jeter and numbers I find it hard to believe A-Rod weas worse. Jeter's weaknesses would be exposed further at third since his weakness of going to his left is more critical at third.

His team had a great game that is not due to his performance.

[bigbadwolf]

Thanks, I find this discussion very interesting but it can take away from other threads when it spills over. :)

Fair enough. However, these things usually even out and one player has just as much a chance of having his stats spread out as another. Its not a talent to be able to have the hits in the 1-0 game instead of the 22-1 game. Its luck. THeir is also stats like Win Probability Added that account for situation.

Actually, the DP causes so much damage that it makes up for the value of moving guys over. This has been calculated with real events. Again, I can show you a study.

I disagree about A-Rod being worse at short. From both my own observation of Jeter and numbers I find it hard to believe A-Rod weas worse. Jeter's weaknesses would be exposed further at third since his weakness of going to his left is more critical at third.

His team had a great game that is not due to his performance.

'Just as much chance' is very subjective. Of course it's a talent to get hits in a 1-0 game compared to a 22-1 game. The hits in a 1-0 game may mean the difference between winning and losing. Hits in a 22-1 game are most often very meaningless.

We can go on forever re Arod/Jeter. Factually, Jeter is playing short and Arod was moved to third by knowledgable baseball people on the field. Short being a more key position than third, the better defensive player is playing short.

In the football story. The main thing you stat gurus always wish to forget, is who won the game. Individuals do not win games, teams of individuals win games. It is the job of each individual to help his team win. If an individual can achieve lesser individual stats and help his team win, he is far more valuable than the player with great individual stats who helps his team lose.

[Mariano_Rivera]

'Just as much chance' is very subjective. Of course it's a talent to get hits in a 1-0 game compared to a 22-1 game. The hits in a 1-0 game may mean the difference between winning and losing. Hits in a 22-1 game are most often very meaningless.

We can go on forever re Arod/Jeter. Factually, Jeter is playing short and Arod was moved to third by knowledgable baseball people on the field. Short being a more key position than third, the better defensive player is playing short.

In the football story. The main thing you stat gurus always wish to forget, is who won the game. Individuals do not win games, teams of individuals win games. It is the job of each individual to help his team win. If an individual can achieve lesser individual stats and help his team win, he is far more valuable than the player with great individual stats who helps his team lose.
I agree, the valkue of the hits are different but I think studies have shownthat it is not a talent to be able to spread your hits iout into close games. It all evens out in the ends
You over-simplify it though. THeir's more factors than just Who's the better shortstop. Who's the better third baseman?

Individuals make up teams though. Individual's help their team win and it is possible that in a game that their team loses they will have done more to try and help their team win than any other player on the field. Statistics measure how much a player helps his team win.

[bigbadwolf]

I agree, the valkue of the hits are different but I think studies have shownthat it is not a talent to be able to spread your hits iout into close games. It all evens out in the ends
You over-simplify it though. THeir's more factors than just Who's the better shortstop. Who's the better third baseman?

Individuals make up teams though. Individual's help their team win and it is possible that in a game that their team loses they will have done more to try and help their team win than any other player on the field. Statistics measure how much a player helps his team win.

I do not think it even out in the end. Not evening out determines the winners and losers and who is actually the best players. The best players perform under the most trying if circumstances and help their team to success after success.

No, statistics measured individually tell what a player has attained for himself.himself. There have been countless players who have attained high honors individuall, yet do not help their team. while there have been countless players who have attained lesser individual stats, but help their team to great success.

Here is an example that happened in a nfl game yesterday. Philly running back with about a minute and a half left in a 10-6 game with his team winning. Breaks the line on a running play, runs 24 yards to the goal line and stops, lies down on the one yard line and forgoes a TD that would pad his individual stats. He could have put his team up 17-6 with the extra point but knew that if he scored the oppsing team would then get the ball and have a chance to score and possibly make a remarkable although very doubrful comeback. He didn't allow the opposition that chance. The opposition had no timeouts left and all his team needed to do was take a knee three times to run out the clock, which they did. This gave the opposition no chance to come back. He hurt his individual stats, but gave a positive win to his team. That is the WIN METHOD in a nutshell.

[Westlake]

Ok, show me where a guy stopping at 3rd base instead of taking an easy score has helped a team in baseball, where there is no clock. That's an example of someone being smart, not someone using "win method" (I dont know why you capitalize the whole thing).

[TonyStarks]

'Just as much chance' is very subjective. Of course it's a talent to get hits in a 1-0 game compared to a 22-1 game. The hits in a 1-0 game may mean the difference between winning and losing. Hits in a 22-1 game are most often very meaningless.

We can go on forever re Arod/Jeter. Factually, Jeter is playing short and Arod was moved to third by knowledgable baseball people on the field. Short being a more key position than third, the better defensive player is playing short.
In the football story. The main thing you stat gurus always wish to forget, is who won the game. Individuals do not win games, teams of individuals win games. It is the job of each individual to help his team win. If an individual can achieve lesser individual stats and help his team win, he is far more valuable than the player with great individual stats who helps his team lose.


Do you seriously believe Jeter playing SS over ARod had nothing to do with Politics? Or slapping Jeter in the face by asking him to move??

[Mariano_Rivera]

I do not think it even out in the end. Not evening out determines the winners and losers and who is actually the best players. The best players perform under the most trying if circumstances and help their team to success after success.

No, statistics measured individually tell what a player has attained for himself.himself. There have been countless players who have attained high honors individuall, yet do not help their team. while there have been countless players who have attained lesser individual stats, but help their team to great success.

Here is an example that happened in a nfl game yesterday. Philly running back with about a minute and a half left in a 10-6 game with his team winning. Breaks the line on a running play, runs 24 yards to the goal line and stops, lies down on the one yard line and forgoes a TD that would pad his individual stats. He could have put his team up 17-6 with the extra point but knew that if he scored the oppsing team would then get the ball and have a chance to score and possibly make a remarkable although very doubrful comeback. He didn't allow the opposition that chance. The opposition had no timeouts left and all his team needed to do was take a knee three times to run out the clock, which they did. This gave the opposition no chance to come back. He hurt his individual stats, but gave a positive win to his team. That is the WIN METHOD in a nutshell.

The truth is over a long career it does even out in the end.

How can you say that? Just winning a game is som level of success. The player that has high stats is helping his team to win but one player can't do it on his own.

As Westlake said, show us an example where not scoring a run will help your team. Football and baseball have one or two difference as a sport.

[bigbadwolf]

Ok, show me where a guy stopping at 3rd base instead of taking an easy score has helped a team in baseball, where there is no clock. That's an example of someone being smart, not someone using "win method" (I dont know why you capitalize the whole thing).

Jeter stopped at third in a game in order to give Abreu a chance at his 100th rbi.

I find it interesting how you guys ignore the fact that a player ignores individual stats and self glorification so his team is assured a win.

In baseball different things are done by players to help their team while not inflating their meaningless individual stats. Hitting behind a runner instead of trying to hit a HR. Bunts, sacrfices, intentional walks, etc.

The WIN METHOD is a player evaluation tool developed over a period of 30 or so years and is the best player evaluation tool I have ever come across.

Smart is WIN METHOD, playing for the team and a win and not giving a darn about individual stats.

[bigbadwolf]

Do you seriously believe Jeter playing SS over ARod had nothing to do with Politics? Or slapping Jeter in the face by asking him to move??


Positively. The best player was put into the key shortstop position and the lesser player moved to third.

If I read your statement correctly, you would then believe the Yankees deliberately played the poorer player in the key position in order to hurt the team. Are you for real? Or just not able to believe that there are wiser people than us who know Jeter is the better player at shortstop?

[bigbadwolf]

The truth is over a long career it does even out in the end.

How can you say that? Just winning a game is som level of success. The player that has high stats is helping his team to win but one player can't do it on his own.

As Westlake said, show us an example where not scoring a run will help your team. Football and baseball have one or two difference as a sport.

I beg to differ, it does not even out. A player who plays for his team rather than a player who plays for his individual stats never evens out.

The point is, you do not need to have high individual stats to help your team succeed. The greatest success of the greatest players is in the winning, not the individual stats.

I agree, not scoring a run in baseball is not the same as what happened in the football game. But my premise and point was that a player who helps his team win while forgoing individual glorification, can be a better player for a team than a player who seeks individual glory while not helping his team.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Jeter stopped at third in a game in order to give Abreu a chance at his 100th rbi.

I find it interesting how you guys ignore the fact that a player ignores individual stats and self glorification so his team is assured a win.

In baseball different things are done by players to help their team while not inflating their meaningless individual stats. Hitting behind a runner instead of trying to hit a HR. Bunts, sacrfices, intentional walks, etc.

The WIN METHOD is a player evaluation tool developed over a period of 30 or so years and is the best player evaluation tool I have ever come across.

Smart is WIN METHOD, playing for the team and a win and not giving a darn about individual stats.

That helps the team win? That just helps Abreu "pad" his personal stats.

THeir is not a situation like that. Give us an example of where a player hurting his stats will help his team win.

Another fact is that bunts and sacrifices really don't help unless it is one of a very few situations. WPA is a stat that does actuallyu count the contribution of sacrifices though. How is it any particular unselfishness to intentionally walk a player?

How would you know? Are you really Joek7? The Win Method is actually the WORST player evalutation method I have come across.

Smart is trying to score runs and help your team win. Even if these players have the misfortune of playing with lesser teammates their contributions should not be discounted

[Mariano_Rivera]

I beg to differ, it does not even out. A player who plays for his team rather than a player who plays for his individual stats never evens out.

The point is, you do not need to have high individual stats to help your team succeed. The greatest success of the greatest players is in the winning, not the individual stats.

I agree, not scoring a run in baseball is not the same as what happened in the football game. But my premise and point was that a player who helps his team win while forgoing individual glorification, can be a better player for a team than a player who seeks individual glory while not helping his team.

You really honestly believe that their are players who don't play to win? You side-stepped the real issue.

The goal of every player is to win. However, stats and winning are related. Stats measure what a player has done to help their team win. The ONLY thing a player can do to help their team win is to set up situations where the team can score runs. Whether this is by walking, hitting a double, or bunting late in a game that is the ONLY thing a player can do to help their team win. Stats measure this.

In football in some rare occasions, yes, in baseball no. Again, give me an example of a player helping his team win a game by not scoring a run. Your example does not support your point.

[Westlake]

Complains about personal stats, and then loves it when Jeter stops at 3rd (instead of scoring to help his team win) to help Abreu pad his stats.

[bigbadwolf]

You really honestly believe that their are players who don't play to win? You side-stepped the real issue.

The goal of every player is to win. However, stats and winning are related. Stats measure what a player has done to help their team win. The ONLY thing a player can do to help their team win is to set up situations where the team can score runs. Whether this is by walking, hitting a double, or bunting late in a game that is the ONLY thing a player can do to help their team win. Stats measure this.

In football in some rare occasions, yes, in baseball no. Again, give me an example of a player helping his team win a game by not scoring a run. Your example does not support your point.

All players play to win. Some play for their own personal stats over the win. They will give lip service about winning. Arod saying I would give up my mvp awarda and other awards for a WS ring comes to mind.

getting hits WHEN the really matter is more important than how many you get. that is where individual stats greatest fallacy lies. It is not how much but when that matters. I car not a wit about how many hits a player gets, but when he gets them. Ten rbis in a 22-1 rout is meaningless compared to the one rbi in a one run game.

By the way, being compared to joek7 is a great honor and I accept the compliment. Being compared to a man who knows baseball inside and out is fantastic.

The football illustration I used was only to show how a player can play for the team to win over his own personal stats. the fact that you cannot realize that, belies your inability to see the difference between winners and losers.

[bigbadwolf]

Complains about personal stats, and then loves it when Jeter stops at 3rd (instead of scoring to help his team win) to help Abreu pad his stats.

Didn't love it, just used it a an illustration just how meaningless individual stats can be. The rbi would have been meaningless, yet one player was willing to give up a sure run scored adding to his individual stats so that another player may get another rbi to pad his individual stats. All meaningless.

[DoubleX]

All players play to win. Some play for their own personal stats over the win.

How do you play for personal statistics over winning, when putting up good statistics can directly contribute to winning? The goal of the game is to score more runs than the other team, and a player that is good at contributing to runs, thereby his own statistics, will probably be helping his team win.

You put too much emphasis on the timing of when a player comes through. If Player A hits a 3-run homerun in the 3rd, and then strikes out in the 8th, but his team wins 4-3 anyway, the homerun in the 3rd proved to be extremely important and directly related to winning.

Or a counter example, Player A hits into three double plays in his first three ABs, but comes up in the 9th with the game tied and gets a hit. You'll likely heap a ton of praise on Player A for coming through in the 9th, but completely ignore the fact that if he hadn't hit into three double plays earlier, the big hit might have been unwarranted. Plus, you'd also likely ignore the runs that went into the game being tied. For example, player B hit a homerun in the 1st, but then went 0-3 in his next three ABs. Well, if he didn't hit the homerun in the 1st, the game wouldn't be even tied and the team wouldn't be in a position to win.

Basically, your position seems to ignore that what happens during all 9 innings contributes to winning or losing, not just a "clutch" moment near the of the game. The fact that a clutch moment is even a clutch moment is itself dependent on what has already happened in the game. I refuse to say that the player who hits into 3 DPs but gets the game winning hit, contributed more to winning than the player who hit the 3-run homer early in the game. Your opinion would seem to say that the game winning hit player should get more credit, totally ignoring that he wouldn't even been in that position if not for the earlier 3-run homer.

In your world, it sounds like only the 9th inning of a game should be played and that everything else that happened in the first 8 innings towards deciding the outcome of the game is meaningless.

[bigbadwolf]

How do you play for personal statistics over winning, when putting up good statistics can directly contribute to winning? The goal of the game is to score more runs than the other team, and a player that is good at contributing to runs, thereby his own statistics, will probably be helping his team win.

You put too much emphasis on the timing of when a player comes through. If Player A hits a 3-run homerun in the 3rd, and then strikes out in the 8th, but his team wins 4-3 anyway, the homerun in the 3rd proved to be extremely important and directly related to winning.

Or a counter example, Player A hits into three double plays in his first three ABs, but comes up in the 9th with the game tied and gets a hit. You'll likely heap a ton of praise on Player A for coming through in the 9th, but completely ignore the fact that if he hadn't hit into three double plays earlier, the big hit might have been unwarranted. Plus, you'd also likely ignore the runs that went into the game being tied. For example, player B hit a homerun in the 1st, but then went 0-3 in his next three ABs. Well, if he didn't hit the homerun in the 1st, the game wouldn't be even tied and the team wouldn't be in a position to win.

Basically, your position seems to ignore that what happens during all 9 innings contributes to winning or losing, not just a "clutch" moment near the of the game. The fact that a clutch moment is even a clutch moment is itself dependent on what has already happened in the game. I refuse to say that the player who hits into 3 DPs but gets the game winning hit, contributed more to winning than the player who hit the 3-run homer early in the game. Your opinion would seem to say that the game winning hit player should get more credit, totally ignoring that he wouldn't even been in that position if not for the earlier 3-run homer.

In your world, it sounds like only the 9th inning of a game should be played and that everything else that happened in the first 8 innings towards deciding the outcome of the game is meaningless.


There is a major fallacy in your thinking. All individual statistics earned by a player do not always determine winning and or losing. A significant amount of individual stats are very meaningless.

You pose several scenarios, which can be very real. You then claim I would believe in a manner you think I believe in. To the contrary, it appears all the scenarios you pose are relatively valid to a point. One difference is that a hit at a certain point can be far more clutch than at another point. Three run homer in the first inning probably is not awe inspiring clutch. Yes, it can mean the game and surely to me, are valid individual stats. Take the ame game in a slightly different direction however. After seven innings, one team is now up 9-0. In the bottom of the eight, a player hits a grand slam to make the score 13-0. Totaly and utterly meaningless. Makes his stats look great and may even be the individual rbi leader for the game. and as an example if it was Arod who hit the grand slam in the eight, espn would cover the game as Yanks win 13-0 rout of whomever, Arod hits grand slam. All fact, but ushers the fan in the wrong direction.

The other scenario, 3 DPs then the game winning hit in the last inning. That is clutch and very meaningful. Giving creedance to the point that a .250 hitter can help his team win a game just as much as the .300 hitter or 40 HR guy.

In conclusion, in my world, each and every game is different. different events, different outcomes, different scenarios. All thos events, outcomes, scenarios determine the value of what players accomplish. What players accomplish individually is in essence not paramount. It is the team winning which is paramount.

Thus, in your world, if a player has massive stats and the team loses, it is everyone elses fault. But when a team wins and player delivers WHEN it counted the most, it is only because of everyone else. In fact, everyone on a team contributes to a teams wins and losses. Yes, there can be players who contribute more than others. there are starters and there are backup players. But there is no way on this GODS earth that decrees that the player who has the highest individual stats contributes the most or even more than several of his team mates. That is my point, which many of you refuse to see. It is seldom how much, but far more importantly, when.

PS: There can be games where there is no star, no clutch, no big hit, yet there is a winner and a loser. There can be games when almost all individual stats are relatively meaningless, and again there is a winner and a loser. There can be games where almost everything that occurs can be critical, big, or clutch, and again there is a winner and loser. The players who help there team to the playoffs, pennants and WS rings the most are, in conclusion, the very best in the game. Because that is why the games are played, something many of you seem to put second fiddle to individual meaninglss stats.

[DoubleX]

The other scenario, 3 DPs then the game winning hit in the last inning. That is clutch and very meaningful. Giving creedance to the point that a .250 hitter can help his team win a game just as much as the .300 hitter or 40 HR guy.

But you're completely ignoring the fact that he has directly hurt his team's chances of winning three times in the game. The fact his team even needs late inning heroics are very much the fault of this guy who hit into 3 DPs already. The team would be in a much better position to win if he played well earlier, and you're ignoring that.


In conclusion, in my world, each and every game is different. different events, different outcomes, different scenarios. All thos events, outcomes, scenarios determine the value of what players accomplish. What players accomplish individually is in essence not paramount. It is the team winning which is paramount.

I agree, but you still don't seem to understand that what happens in innings 1-8 very much factor into the outcome. You seem to say that the player who delivers the game winning hit has contributed more to winning, but if that's his only hit, and there's a guy with a three-run homer on the team earlier in the game, the guy with the three-run homer would have contributed more to the win. Do you not agree with that?


Thus, in your world, if a player has massive stats and the team loses, it is everyone elses fault. But when a team wins and player delivers WHEN it counted the most, it is only because of everyone else. In fact, everyone on a team contributes to a teams wins and losses. Yes, there can be players who contribute more than others. there are starters and there are backup players. But there is no way on this GODS earth that decrees that the player who has the highest individual stats contributes the most or even more than several of his team mates. That is my point, which many of you refuse to see. It is seldom how much, but far more importantly, when.

No, in my world I choose not to over-simplify things and prefer to see winning and losing and the role of statistics as a complex amalgmation of events that happen throughout an entire game (or season). I'm not going to simply annoit a player the better player because he delivered the game winning hit, when he may have been stinking up the place and directly hurting his team's chances of winning earlier in the game (or perhaps throughout the season).

Yes, some statistics are superfluous and I don't think players should be signed based on statistics alone (as you want high-character guys that grind), but the goal of the game is to score more runs than the other team. So wouldn't you want a player whose statistics show that he regularly contributes to scoring runs? Don't you want a player that is proven reliable at contributing to runs? You're going to say, something like, "all that matters is when the player is contributing." I don't agree with that though because that completely ignores that player might not be contributing the rest of the time, thereby hurting his team's chances of winning. You're putting way to much stock in one moment, and ignoring all the other possible failures of the player that might have occured in innings 1-8 or the rest of the season. Innings 1-8 matter as well, and what happens in those innings factor into the outcome. You take away a guy that routinely produces run for the team throughout the game, you're taking away runs from the team, thereby hurting the chances of winning. A player that hits .250 is a player that does not contribute consistently and reliably, and it likely means that he's left a lot of opportunitites on the table that you're probably ignoring, and therefore regularly hurting his team rather than helping. It's great that he gets a couple of key hits during the season, but he's coming up short and hurt his team the majority of his team by making more outs throughout entire games and throughout entire seasons in moments where coming through would factor into winning (even if not a "clutch" moment), thereby wasting many more opportunities for his team to win than helping his team win. Clutch moments are rare, and I'm not going to take a .250 hitter because he has a few clutch moments but in general and the vast majority of the time, doesn't come through for the team, as evidenced by his .250 average. I'd much rather have a guy I know can consistently produce on a daily basis and contribute to winning on a consistent basis.

If you want to go construct a team of .250 hitters that have some key hits to their resume, go ahead, but that team will not be a good team. You know why? Because they're not contributing the vast majority of the time, and directly undermining the team's chances of winning.

[Mariano_Rivera]

All players play to win. Some play for their own personal stats over the win. They will give lip service about winning. Arod saying I would give up my mvp awarda and other awards for a WS ring comes to mind.

getting hits WHEN the really matter is more important than how many you get. that is where individual stats greatest fallacy lies. It is not how much but when that matters. I car not a wit about how many hits a player gets, but when he gets them. Ten rbis in a 22-1 rout is meaningless compared to the one rbi in a one run game.

By the way, being compared to joek7 is a great honor and I accept the compliment. Being compared to a man who knows baseball inside and out is fantastic.

The football illustration I used was only to show how a player can play for the team to win over his own personal stats. the fact that you cannot realize that, belies your inability to see the difference between winners and losers.

How do you know A-Rod isn't being honest? Do you know the man personally? No, a passing conversation or listening to interviews don't count.

The truth is that 22-1 game rarely happen and it all evens out in the end. WPA accounts for situations if you actually want to account for it.

I didn't say it was an insult. i`m curious if you are Joek7, that`s all.

But this is not football we are talking about. Its baseball. I agree a player can sacrifice individual stats for team perforamcen in football but not in baseball. I believe the winner is the team that scores more "runs" than the other team. Correct me if I`m wrong please.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Didn't love it, just used it a an illustration just how meaningless individual stats can be. The rbi would have been meaningless, yet one player was willing to give up a sure run scored adding to his individual stats so that another player may get another rbi to pad his individual stats. All meaningless.

RBI's and runs scored are meaningless. However, we have "new" statistics now.

[AVA8]

How can anyone argue that any moment is more "clutch" than any other? The only thing that changes is the pressure (all imaginary, when you actually think about it) emotion and the sense of urgency involved. The first inning is just as important as the last and there is no evidence to the contrary, only emotional feelings and pressure that come with trying to win at the end.

How can you fault a player or label him as selfish or "unclutch" for getting rbis in a blowout? As though he should be more timely? Can you imagine Girardi telling Alex next year "dont hit now, save it for bottom of the 9th next week when we play the Sox" Baseball hits are not like a bank where you can just run to the ATM and grab one whenever you think you need it.

Steals I can see. No need to swipe bags in a blowout. Have you ever notice AROD only steals bases in close games or when we are loosing, though?

[Mariano_Rivera]

How does the Win Method evaluate minor leaguers?

[bigbadwolf]

But you're completely ignoring the fact that he has directly hurt his team's chances of winning three times in the game. The fact his team even needs late inning heroics are very much the fault of this guy who hit into 3 DPs already. The team would be in a much better position to win if he played well earlier, and you're ignoring that.


I agree, but you still don't seem to understand that what happens in innings 1-8 very much factor into the outcome. You seem to say that the player who delivers the game winning hit has contributed more to winning, but if that's his only hit, and there's a guy with a three-run homer on the team earlier in the game, the guy with the three-run homer would have contributed more to the win. Do you not agree with that?


No, in my world I choose not to over-simplify things and prefer to see winning and losing and the role of statistics as a complex amalgmation of events that happen throughout an entire game (or season). I'm not going to simply annoit a player the better player because he delivered the game winning hit, when he may have been stinking up the place and directly hurting his team's chances of winning earlier in the game (or perhaps throughout the season).


Yes, some statistics are superfluous and I don't think players should be signed based on statistics alone (as you want high-character guys that grind), but the goal of the game is to score more runs than the other team. So wouldn't you want a player whose statistics show that he regularly contributes to scoring runs? Don't you want a player that is proven reliable at contributing to runs? You're going to say, something like, "all that matters is when the player is contributing." I don't agree with that though because that completely ignores that player might not be contributing the rest of the time, thereby hurting his team's chances of winning. You're putting way to much stock in one moment, and ignoring all the other possible failures of the player that might have occured in innings 1-8 or the rest of the season. Innings 1-8 matter as well, and what happens in those innings factor into the outcome. You take away a guy that routinely produces run for the team throughout the game, you're taking away runs from the team, thereby hurting the chances of winning. A player that hits .250 is a player that does not contribute consistently and reliably, and it likely means that he's left a lot of opportunitites on the table that you're probably ignoring, and therefore regularly hurting his team rather than helping. It's great that he gets a couple of key hits during the season, but he's coming up short and hurt his team the majority of his team by making more outs throughout entire games and throughout entire seasons in moments where coming through would factor into winning (even if not a "clutch" moment), thereby wasting many more opportunities for his team to win than helping his team win. Clutch moments are rare, and I'm not going to take a .250 hitter because he has a few clutch moments but in general and the vast majority of the time, doesn't come through for the team, as evidenced by his .250 average. I'd much rather have a guy I know can consistently produce on a daily basis and contribute to winning on a consistent basis.

If you want to go construct a team of .250 hitters that have some key hits to their resume, go ahead, but that team will not be a good team. You know why? Because they're not contributing the vast majority of the time, and directly undermining the team's chances of winning.

You are assuming an awful lot when you claim he hurt his teams chances of winning three times in the game. It may be so and it may be not. as I stated, each game is different and must be judged on its own merit.

I do understand what happens in innings 1-8 is very important in games. and by no means the player who delivers the game winning hit is of the upmost inportance. For a player to get the game winning hit(not a HR), a team mate contributed by reaching base. Yes I agree if a team wins a close game the 3run homer early in the game could have been the key hit. However do you agree that the 3run HR in the 8th inning with your team winning 10-0 is totally meaningless? And do you agree that the game winning single in the 8th or 9th inning is produced under more pressure than the HR in the 1st or 2nd inning?

I do not annoit a player ofor a game winning hit . I annoit players for helping lead their respective team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings. The players who do this the most often are the best players in baseball. What makes them the best? They have achieved the goal of why the game is played.

You again are missing the point. I judge players not on BAs, HRs, RBIs, etc. But on how many wins they help their team earn. To repeat, players that help their team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings are the best players in the game. Irregardless of their individual stats.


On the other hand, I only want to construct a team of players who have helped their team to the most playoffs, pennants, and WS rings. Their inidividual stats do not matter as long as the help the team win. thusly, you may have and want a team of the highest individual stat players in baseball under one roof. When they do not help lead their team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings, they are meaningless.

[bigbadwolf]

How can anyone argue that any moment is more "clutch" than any other? The only thing that changes is the pressure (all imaginary, when you actually think about it) emotion and the sense of urgency involved. The first inning is just as important as the last and there is no evidence to the contrary, only emotional feelings and pressure that come with trying to win at the end.

How can you fault a player or label him as selfish or "unclutch" for getting rbis in a blowout? As though he should be more timely? Can you imagine Girardi telling Alex next year "dont hit now, save it for bottom of the 9th next week when we play the Sox" Baseball hits are not like a bank where you can just run to the ATM and grab one whenever you think you need it.

Steals I can see. No need to swipe bags in a blowout. Have you ever notice AROD only steals bases in close games or when we are loosing, though?


I do not think getting an rbi single in the first inning of a 0-0 game is the same as getting an rbi single in the ninth inning of a 0-0 game. same value, same result , but produced under far more game defining circumstances. Game defing liely equaling clutch.


I do not fault any player for getting hits or rbis in blowouts or consider that player neccessarily unclutch. I do consider those hits and rbis meaningless however. Yes, basehits are not garnered from an ATM, but they are delivered most when they are needed by the best players in the game. those best players help their team earn WS rings the most often.

[bigbadwolf]

How does the Win Method evaluate minor leaguers?

Please ask joek7 that when he gets back. the WIN METHOD is his brilliant conception. From what I know of that part of the WIN METHOD only joek7 can explain properly. I guarantee you will not accept it, since you cannot accept that the best players in the game help their team win.

[DoubleX]

You are assuming an awful lot when you claim he hurt his teams chances of winning three times in the game. It may be so and it may be not. as I stated, each game is different and must be judged on its own merit.

When you hit into three double plays, and the game ends up tied in the 9th inning, I think you're assuming a lot to say he is not hurting his team. There is nothing more a player can do to directly undermine winning than hitting into double plays. If a player comes through just once in those three previous attmepts, his team would have a much better chance of being ahead and thus having a much better chance of winning. If the Win Method doesn't not account for that, something is seriously very, very, very flawed with it.


I do understand what happens in innings 1-8 is very important in games. and by no means the player who delivers the game winning hit is of the upmost inportance. For a player to get the game winning hit(not a HR), a team mate contributed by reaching base. Yes I agree if a team wins a close game the 3run homer early in the game could have been the key hit. However do you agree that the 3run HR in the 8th inning with your team winning 10-0 is totally meaningless? And do you agree that the game winning single in the 8th or 9th inning is produced under more pressure than the HR in the 1st or 2nd inning?

Is not totally meaningless. What if the other team comes back to score 10 runs in the 9th inning? You can't say that won't happen and that three run homer would be the difference. You're actually holding the fact that a player hit a homerun againt him? A player can't control when he comes up with big hits - the game is just not that easy. If a player could control it, why wouldn't the player get hits all the time in all situations? I do agree though that a player's approach might be different in different situations, but the simple objective of the game in any situation is to put bat on ball and score runs.


I do not annoit a player ofor a game winning hit . I annoit players for helping lead their respective team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings. The players who do this the most often are the best players in baseball. What makes them the best? They have achieved the goal of why the game is played.

I agree that winning is the ultimate goal, and that scoring runs is what leads to winning. But I still think you oversimplify a player's role in winning - to you it seems to be enough that a player is on a winning team, but you don't seem to assign any value to what a player individually contributed to winning. You also seem to imply that a player can coast by off his past feats. For instance, Jeter has come up big in the postseason, but that's for the most part, going back 7 seasons now. How long can he get by on that and when does he actually have to start contributing towards winning again? He was a complete killer for the Yankees in this postseason and was terrible in the 2004 collapse to the Sox (at a time when you'd expect the team captain to rally the troops and lead by example). So it's nice that Jeter came through in the past, but that doesn't seem to be doing much for the present, and should show that winning is a very complex things. Players are not just winners and losers forever, things change.


You again are missing the point. I judge players not on BAs, HRs, RBIs, etc. But on how many wins they help their team earn. To repeat, players that help their team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings are the best players in the game. Irregardless of their individual stats.

But how do you quantify how much a player contributed to winning? How do you know how much that exact player contributed? You'll say he delivered a few key hits throughout the season, but if he's a .250 hitter, what about the dozens, and perhaps hundreds of key outs he made? I don't see why a couple of key hits should completely overshadow hundreds of outs that cut directly against winning. The sample size over a season is so large that it would be almost impossible for the player to not being making outs that hurts his teams chances of winning at some point.


On the other hand, I only want to construct a team of players who have helped their team to the most playoffs, pennants, and WS rings. Their inidividual stats do not matter as long as the help the team win. thusly, you may have and want a team of the highest individual stat players in baseball under one roof. When they do not help lead their team to the playoffs, pennants, and WS rings, they are meaningless.

Ok, you take the team of .250 hitters that have been on teams that have been on the playoffs, and they still won't be a good team. .250 hitters make more outs, plain and simple. They might come through every now and then, but you're ignoring the fact that they are not coming through the vast majority of the time. When they hit into a double play in inning 5 of a game, you are not realizing it, but that could have cost the team the game right there.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Please ask joek7 that when he gets back. the WIN METHOD is his brilliant conception. From what I know of that part of the WIN METHOD only joek7 can explain properly. I guarantee you will not accept it, since you cannot accept that the best players in the game help their team win.

So you use a system you don't understand?

[Mariano_Rivera]

If the best player`s are the ones that win than how did the Chicago White Sox fail to make the playoffs when an inexperienced Tigers team won the pennant?

[bigbadwolf]

So you use a system you don't understand?

I understand how the WIN METHOD recognizes the best players in the game. I have a fairly good idea how the WIN METHOD selects minor league talent. But since the WIN METHOD is joek7s brilliant tool, I feel it better that he explain the minor league aspect to you. But then I could always ask why you guys use tools that are totally meaningless and in many instances never come close to showing who the best players are.

[bigbadwolf]

If the best player`s are the ones that win than how did the Chicago White Sox fail to make the playoffs when an inexperienced Tigers team won the pennant?

I would tend to think the Tigers developed the better players in that season. Teams change each year with the addition and subtraction of players. that is why over a players career you can see just how great he is by how many playoffs, pennants and WS rings he helps lead his team to.