-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Obviously there are alot of people who believe it to be true, or there wouldn't be so many complaining about the catch phrases "he knows how to win" or "clutch" and the like. HGM, you argue that I cna't prove it...well, so many believe it...you prove it! Prove that it isn't true.
You can't prove a negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoomsamc
Well it's about as close to being disproven as it can be, whereas there basically is nothing to suggest it is true. Mostly all numbers and statistics point to it not being true.
Exactly.
People latch on to these "bullsh!t dump" phrases precisely because they really CAN'T be proven one way or the other because they AREN'T detectable. Everything we do know, though, points to them not being there in any meaningful way.
This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.
When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.
If this effect you claim exists did, in fact, exist, and you could detect it, as you claim to be able to, you'd be able to support it with SOMETHING, ANYTHING. That you can't do so speaks for itself.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.
If this effect you claim exists did, in fact, exist, and you could detect it, as you claim to be able to, you'd be able to support it with SOMETHING, ANYTHING. That you can't do so speaks for itself.
wow, this really seems to be a sore spot with you. are you that childish where you can't accept the fact that I disagree with your opinion? I've been pretty civil in this thread and said now more than once that I disagree with you. Why do you always feel the need to get sarcastic? You're the one that first said to "prove it", and I did cite examples of people I believe may fit the definition. Whether or not each do individual (shef for example), I don't know for sure....I don't proclaim to be an 'insider'. All i've stated is that in my opinion I do believe in things like "clutch, leadership, and that there are those that are just plain winners". I state that based upon my experiences in life as well as in organized sports. You're the one that can't provide anything tangible, except for theories as to why you believe so many claim these things to be true.
If you want to disagree...fine. I really don't give a rats a$$. But for once I'd appreciate if you respected anothers opinion on a matter. Again, as a moderator of these forum, you have a very childish demeanor.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
All I've asked was for you to provide something in support of your opinion. You're claiming this phenomenon exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Yes, I understand, we disagree. I don't see why that needs repeating. I'm open to seeing evidence of this thing existing, which is why I've asked you to provide some. I don't see how I've disrespected your opinion or acted childish.
This is a discussion about leadership/improving teammates/knowing how to win/whatever. You think it exists. I don't think it exists in any meaningful manner. I've asked you to provide evidence, mostly because I'm really interested in hearing it because this seems to be a widely held viewpoint, yet one of which I've seen not one inkling of evidence. It's that simple and, once again, you're shifting the discussion away from that very simple request. Why?
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
All I've asked was for you to provide something in support of your opinion.
And I've told you that it really can't be substantiated, I said that from the onset. I did provide examples of some I believe may possess this quality, and explained how I think it crosses over from baseball to the real world. There are some that are born winners IMO, largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities and drive for success.
Quote:
therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Why? All I've said was that I agree with many of the statements many others make on almost a daily basis in sports. It is you who disagrees with them. I've provided examples of whom I believe 'may' fit this bill and you even disputed one of them. That is fine. Why do you feel it needs to go beyond that? If you feel that way, then the burden is on you.
Quote:
Yes, I understand, we disagree. I don't see why that needs repeating.
I do. Because while i've said we disagree, you continue to pry looking for answers. If you understand that we disagree...why isn't that enough? It seems to me that you don't understand? :rolleyes:
Quote:
I don't see how I've disrespected your opinion or acted childish.
The child never does lol. :rolleyes: How bout this for starters?
Quote:
This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:
or this;
Quote:
When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.
Nice way to try and package all posts i've ever made, into completely untrue and unfair attacks. The issues you have in these threads with many, is that you have trouble seeing when you are being arrogant and condescending far far beyond debate.
Quote:
This is a discussion about leadership/improving teammates/knowing how to win/whatever. You think it exists. I don't think it exists in any meaningful manner. I've asked you to provide evidence, mostly because I'm really interested in hearing it because this seems to be a widely held viewpoint, yet one of which I've seen not one inkling of evidence.
Thank you for admitting its 'widely held'. I could swear i've seen others trying to make it out to be an opinion of the few rather than the many. Again, if you wish to disprove it....you have to bear some of the burden of that yourself.
Quote:
It's that simple and, once again, you're shifting the discussion away from that very simple request. Why?
Because you became childish in your debate. Thats the most civil way I could put it. I've already said I can't substantiate my opinion, and that I believe we disagree. What more do you want?
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds
i have never commented on your replys redsox....and in at least one case I really didn't think HGM was 'attacking' but in others they most certainly were. As is in this thread....I thank you for your honest assessment, thats all.
I really don't know why he feels the need to do this, but for some reason he just can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with his opinion. I've never met such a closed mind in my life that I could think of....and even when he's proven to be wrong and knows it (this thread is most certainly not one of those situations), he feels the need to stick behind his initial opinion rather than admit he was incorrect. For someone as intelligent as him (he's obviously intelligent in terms of baseball at least), this is a glaring personality flaw which one day he will open to and recognize.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
I should also mention about "improving teammates" because thats one I haven't really chimed in on much. HGM did mention it in his last post here, so I'll add my thoughts.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand and agree with. I have heard quite a few in this forum claim that they don't think the Celtics will win this year because 'they no longer have that drive to do so'. If it is believed that a team can lose motivation why is it hard to believe a team can get extra motivation? The phrase, "win one for the gipper" is very old. We constantly hear players saying about coaches, QB's, and others, "he's a guy you want to play hard for". You constantly here "we won it for XXXXX". There are those IMO that possess leadership qualities to motivate increased effort.
Also...improving teamates is constantly talked about in baseball. In boston, the question remains how Ortiz will do without Manny as protection. Obviously the pitches he sees will be different. Players have said at times they're more focused on defense when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to be the ones to ruin it.
There are many instances in sports in which a player 'improves teammates' performance. Sadly, there are no stats for the mental aspect of the game.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Why? All I've said was that I agree with many of the statements many others make on almost a daily basis in sports. It is you who disagrees with them. I've provided examples of whom I believe 'may' fit this bill and you even disputed one of them. That is fine. Why do you feel it needs to go beyond that? If you feel that way, then the burden is on you.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the people claiming the existence of something. You can't prove a negative. It is up to the people that say something exists to prove it exists, not for others to prove they're wrong. That's a rather basic concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I do. Because while i've said we disagree, you continue to pry looking for answers. If you understand that we disagree...why isn't that enough? It seems to me that you don't understand? :rolleyes:
Because i thought we were having a discussion. If all we were doing was stating whether or not we agree and leaving it at that, well...what the heck would be the point of that? Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. I'm seeking answers. I'd like to know why people believe in this phenomenon, and if it does indeed exist, I'd like to see evidence of it, because I don't like disbelieving something that exists. You claim that the thing exists, so, you know, logically, I figure you have some evidence in support of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The child never does lol. :rolleyes:
You're the only one making ad hominem attacks here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
]How bout this for starters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.
That's not acting childish. It's just describing you in this thread. Obviously, you place a lot of stock in those things. You also claim to be able to see these things. You claim to be able to tell who is a "winner." You claim to be able to detect who makes their teammates better. Is this an inaccurate representation of your stance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
or this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.or this;
Again, this is not an attack or acting childish. I've challenged your views by disagreeing. Instead of providing evidence, you've challenged me to prove it doesn't exist (an impossible task), made statements to the effect of "Those have played organized sports know it's there", and shifted the discussion away from the issue at hand and into the realm of the personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Nice way to try and package all posts i've ever made, into completely untrue and unfair attacks. The issues you have in these threads with many, is that you have trouble seeing when you are being arrogant and condescending far far beyond debate.
Please tell me how I'm "attacking" you and how that is not an accurate representation of your stance. You HAVE claimed that these players exist, correct? You HAVE claimed that you can tell who some of them are, correct? You HAVE indicated that you place emphasis on that quality, correct? You HAVE NOT provided any evidence in support of it, corrrect? If any of this is incorrect, please, tell me, because it is not my intention to misrepresent your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Thank you for admitting its 'widely held'. I could swear i've seen others trying to make it out to be an opinion of the few rather than the many.
Well, you'd be wrong. We likely wouldn't be discussing it if it wasn't something few people thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Again, if you wish to disprove it....you have to bear some of the burden of that yourself.
I don't "wish to disprove it". I don't believe it exists because I have not seen any evidence that it does. As I said above, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. That is why in a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant committed the act. The side that is saying something is the case is the side that bears the burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Because you became childish in your debate. Thats the most civil way I could put it. I've already said I can't substantiate my opinion, and that I believe we disagree.
I have not become "childish". You were the first to make any personal attacks (ie. calling me childish). You were the first to divert the discussion away from the issue and towards a personal issue. I've simply stated what it seems to me is your view. Apparently, that's an attack on you. :rolleyes: As I said, once more, if I'm misrepresenting your view, please point out exactly how so I can correct it because I do not wish to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
What more do you want?
I would've liked a discussion about the issue, but, I guess I forgot, discussions can't take place when the entirety of the argument on one side is nothing but gut feelings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSoxRockies
As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds
I have not attacked him AT ALL, let alone "over and over", and I certainly have not "complained when he responds." These comments of yours contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion and serve only to instigate further problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I really don't know why he feels the need to do this, but for some reason he just can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with his opinion.
I can absolutely accept that fact. I'm sorry that you equate "wanting to have a discussion with those of a different opinion so that he can learn" with "not being able to accept the fact that some people have a different opinion." That's not my problem, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I've never met such a closed mind in my life that I could think of
Excuse me? How is asking for evidence in support of an opposing viewpoint a "CLOSED MIND"? A closed mind would not ask for evidence. A closed mind would say "You're wrong and I don't wish to hear any more from you." The fact that I wish to participate in a discussion with you and listen to your side shows that I am not close-minded. Not only am I willing to listen to your side, I've practically begged you to give me something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
and even when he's proven to be wrong and knows it (this thread is most certainly not one of those situations), he feels the need to stick behind his initial opinion rather than admit he was incorrect. For someone as intelligent as him (he's obviously intelligent in terms of baseball at least), this is a glaring personality flaw which one day he will open to and recognize.
Please PM to me whatever examples you have of me having been proven wrong, knowing it, and refusing to admit that I'm incorrect. Don't post them here because that's unnecessary, but seriously, I'm really interested. I bet you I can find more examples of me admitting I'm incorrect and/or changing my opinion than you can of the opposite.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
I don't see why this is so hard to understand and agree with. I have heard quite a few in this forum claim that they don't think the Celtics will win this year because 'they no longer have that drive to do so'. If it is believed that a team can lose motivation why is it hard to believe a team can get extra motivation? The phrase, "win one for the gipper" is very old. We constantly hear players saying about coaches, QB's, and others, "he's a guy you want to play hard for". You constantly here "we won it for XXXXX". There are those IMO that possess leadership qualities to motivate increased effort.
See? This is all I'm asking for. Some level of discussion.
I believe a team can lose motivation, and gain motivation. I've yet to see any evidence, however, that it translates into actually doing better or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Also...improving teamates is constantly talked about in baseball. In boston, the question remains how Ortiz will do without Manny as protection. Obviously the pitches he sees will be different.
David Ortiz without Manny as protection: .262/.381/.519, or slightly better than he did this year with Manny.
Sure, it's talked about...needlessly, since every study I've ever seen indicates that "protection" affects nothing except slight differences in walk rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
There are many instances in sports in which a player 'improves teammates' performance. Sadly, there are no stats for the mental aspect of the game.
If there's an instance of a player "improving a teammate's performance", the stats would show it, considering the stats are a record of performance. See, here you claim there are many instances of it. All I'm asking is for you to show me those instances. Show me the evidence that a player improved his teammates. If there's many instances, that should be easy.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
It is so not worth my time and effort to indulge in your previous post. I'll just end it where it is.
As for this;
Quote:
David Ortiz without Manny as protection: .262/.381/.519, or slightly better than he did this year with Manny.
Sure, it's talked about...needlessly, since every study I've ever seen indicates that "protection" affects nothing except slight differences in walk rate.
So you use Ortiz's 'small sample size' from early this year while he was battling the effects of a wrist injury to support your claim that Ortiz is very similar with or without manny as protection?
Quote:
If there's an instance of a player "improving a teammate's performance", the stats would show it, considering the stats are a record of performance. See, here you claim there are many instances of it. All I'm asking is for you to show me those instances. Show me the evidence that a player improved his teammates. If there's many instances, that should be easy.
I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it. Off the top of my head i'll point to the Roger Maris / Mantle debate which has gone on for years. You can decipher the stats but there has been many that claimed Maris's numbers were greatly influenced by hitting in front of Mantle. I know you've heard players state that they concerntrate harder in the field when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to make an error. While impossible to quantify.....i'm not one to call the players liars. The situation and performance of the pitcher improved the concentration of the players who mentioned this.
Pippen / Jordan, Bird / Ainge, the other poster in here made alot of sense. In hoops, it is very prevalent as a great player will garner double teams allowing another to have better looks at the basket.
Same goes in football. The #2 reciever very often benefits when a truly great #1 is alongside. Again, off the top of my head but James Lofton, Eric Moulds are two that come to mind. May or may not be entirely accurate but i'm sure good examples exist.
Finally, the example i've already given of players who said, "we won it for XXXX". With many players admitting they were motivated to put forth extra effort because of a certain player, coach, etc......i'd prefer to believe them and IMO that more than shows to my satisfaction a player who improves a teammates performance. It can't be quantified....all i can do is point to personal experiences in organized sports. I can honestly tell you that there were situations in which I was impacted by events which caused extra motivation and effort. I doubt i'm alone in that, and I doubt it ends at the collegiate levels. Why me pointing to personal experiences bothers you...I don't know. It is what helps mold my opinion, and if thats an issue for you...well, tough.;)
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
It is so not worth my time and effort to indulge in your previous post. I'll just end it where it is.
As for this;
So you use Ortiz's 'small sample size' from early this year while he was battling the effects of a wrist injury to support your claim that Ortiz is very similar with or without manny as protection?
No, he probably uses reams of data that have discredited protection since the 80's. Just google "Protection baseball myth"
And I have no way of sifting out Mannyless Ortiz games...what a pain that would be...but i know for the last six weeks of 2006 he raked without Manny. And the last half of last year he did just as well with as without Manny.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
So you use Ortiz's 'small sample size' from early this year while he was battling the effects of a wrist injury to support your claim that Ortiz is very similar with or without manny as protection.
If I was being thorough, no, I'd use the countless studies that show that players perform the same regardless of the next batter in the order.
Quote:
I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it.
*see below*
Quote:
Off the top of my head i'll point to the Roger Maris / Mantle debate which has gone on for years. You can decipher the stats but there has been many that claimed Maris's numbers were greatly influenced by hitting in front of Mantle.
Well, considering Maris performed almost exactly the same in 1960 as he did in 1961, despite hitting behind Mantle, I'd say those claims are dubious at best.
Quote:
I know you've heard players state that they concerntrate harder in the field when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to make an error. While impossible to quantify.....i'm not one to call the players liars. The situation and performance of the pitcher improved the concentration of the players who mentioned this.
The question is not whether or not the players "concentrate more" or whatever...it's whether this actually has a meaningful effect on their performance.
Quote:
Pippen / Jordan, Bird / Ainge, the other poster in here made alot of sense. In hoops, it is very prevalent as a great player will garner double teams allowing another to have better looks at the basket.
Same goes in football. The #2 reciever very often benefits when a truly great #1 is alongside. Again, off the top of my head but James Lofton, Eric Moulds are two that come to mind. May or may not be entirely accurate but i'm sure good examples exist.
We've already established the vast differences between baseball and those sports. I suggest you reread the long post Swampdog made. I'm not discussing those sports. I'm talking specifically about baseball.
Quote:
I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it.
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?
I would like to discuss the topic further, because I find it interesting. If you wish to do so, I do have a serious question for you. How would you explain to somebody, say a younger child, a son or daughter, somebody just getting into baseball, how to separate the "winning player", the one that improves his teammates by his mere presence, etc. from the rest of the players? If it's so obvious, would you mind explaining what characteristics to look for?
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
The real question is do BASEBALL EXECUTIVES believe in protection?
It's such a ludicrous subject. Words like 'fear' and 'terrify' come up a lot. Dumb things are said like "Youkilis can't protect Ortiz, because no one fears him."
GOOD! Don't fear Youkilis. Please continue to challenge Youk.
/vent off. Sorry.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?
I've never stated that every opinion i've posted should be obvious. Far from it, and I beg you to not put words into my mouth. What I feel is obvious is what you've already agreed with me on which is;
Quote:
The question is not whether or not the players "concentrate more" or whatever...it's whether this actually has a meaningful affect on their performance.
To me it's obvious. If you agree that players can be motivated to 'concentrate more', and put forth additional effort that it has to improve performance. I think you simply are looking way too deep into this. If you believe in other sports that player performance can be effected for various reasons, why is it so hard to believe that the same would happen in baseball?
Quote:
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?
I am very open to the fact that my 'opinions' on whether a player is a 'winner' and stuff along those lines may not in fact be accurate. I have no problem with it....it's an opinion i have and I have based upon personal experiences of which I've endulged upon. I've already said I can't quantify it. Its very possible though it may be a wrong opinion. I say you are closed minded because you seem to ridicule my opinion rather than accept it as it is, an opinion. It goes far beyond 'looking for answers', you are not looking to do so. That is just a guise you are using as you look to lead others (me) into agreeing with your opinion. It's obvious you've already discarded any contrary opinion. As I've said, you are entitled to you opinion, even if its wrong. The same goes for me. Please respect that.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
I'm not going to address the baseball aspect of this (too much). It's not really my forte to get into mystique vs. SABR. No matter which side of the argument you take, you're going to be opposed by some sneering and harsh criticism.
In terms of basketball and football, it's a much different story. Swampdog touched on this earlier. They're team sports, where individual performance is highly dependent upon teammates. The game moves quickly, plays are run, everyone has to work together.
Baseball is far more of a station-to-station, turn-by-turn type of game. It's very difficult to discern what type of effect one guy can have on his teammates. There's no doubt that pitching strategies can change depending on who's in the lineup, and batters have to work together with runners, and fielders with each other, and so on, but for the most part, baseball is a collection of individuals, and a team is not much more or less than the sum of its parts.
There's no equivalent in baseball for basketball's point guard or playmaker (MJ, LeBron), or football's quarterback or middle linebacker. But even in those situations, the players around them don't suddenly become more skilled, the game changes for them.
A guy like Michael Jordan made his team "better" (or, as Swampdog noted, gave them more opportunities and made things easier for them) by commanding so much attention from the opposition, and knowing how to take charge of the offense and take charge of the game. If MJ wanted you to take a shot, you were going to take a shot. If MJ wanted you to pick a defender, you were going to pick a defender. Scottie Pippen would have been a vastly different player (although he'd have the same skills) without Michael Jordan.
Some QBs in football have a "knack" for making things happen when they have to. Since football has a clock, the face of the game changes depending on the situation. A QB that can adjust well to different situations is going to have an edge over those who don't. This is the difference between the Jeff Georges and Donovan McNabbs of the world. A QB also has to be an on-field coach, something that doesn't come up much with the slow pace and signs from the dugout of baseball.
It's pretty easy to see, in fast-moving, team sports with clocks, where players have effect on each other. Not so much in baseball.
Is it possible that Hitter A can effect Hitter B? It has to be. Just like what I eat for breakfast can effect the rest of my day somehow. What kind of effect, and how great an effect, that's what's difficult to tell.
This isn't a discussion that's going to be "won" by either side.
At the end of the day, I have to default to the idea that the average professional athlete is a grown man, a dedicated and hard-working individual, and is going to sustain the level of performance he's physically capable of, in spite of how heroic one of his teammates might be, or how many "grinders" he's surrounded by, or whatever. Outside of a guy's physical skills and knowledge, I can't believe there's a great deal of effect from one dude to another in the game of baseball, unless it's in preparation. Like sharing information about batting stances or swings or pitches or basestealing techniques. But that's called coaching, and it's not quite the same as one player mysteriously making other players change.
Still, sometimes you have to wonder about incidental effects. Such as the Manny in LA "having fun for once" effect...
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
I'm not going to address the baseball aspect of this (too much). It's not really my forte to get into mystique vs. SABR. No matter which side of the argument you take, you're going to be opposed by some sneering and harsh criticism.
In terms of basketball and football, it's a much different story. Swampdog touched on this earlier. They're team sports, where individual performance is highly dependent upon teammates. The game moves quickly, plays are run, everyone has to work together.
Baseball is far more of a station-to-station, turn-by-turn type of game. It's very difficult to discern what type of effect one guy can have on his teammates. There's no doubt that pitching strategies can change depending on who's in the lineup, and batters have to work together with runners, and fielders with each other, and so on, but for the most part, baseball is a collection of individuals, and a team is not much more or less than the sum of its parts.
There's no equivalent in baseball for basketball's point guard or playmaker (MJ, LeBron), or football's quarterback or middle linebacker. But even in those situations, the players around them don't suddenly become more skilled, the game changes for them.
A guy like Michael Jordan made his team "better" (or, as Swampdog noted, gave them more opportunities and made things easier for them) by commanding so much attention from the opposition, and knowing how to take charge of the offense and take charge of the game. If MJ wanted you to take a shot, you were going to take a shot. If MJ wanted you to pick a defender, you were going to pick a defender. Scottie Pippen would have been a vastly different player (although he'd have the same skills) without Michael Jordan.
Some QBs in football have a "knack" for making things happen when they have to. Since football has a clock, the face of the game changes depending on the situation. A QB that can adjust well to different situations is going to have an edge over those who don't. This is the difference between the Jeff Georges and Donovan McNabbs of the world. A QB also has to be an on-field coach, something that doesn't come up much with the slow pace and signs from the dugout of baseball.
It's pretty easy to see, in fast-moving, team sports with clocks, where players have effect on each other. Not so much in baseball.
Is it possible that Hitter A can effect Hitter B? It has to be. Just like what I eat for breakfast can effect the rest of my day somehow. What kind of effect, and how great an effect, that's what's difficult to tell.
This isn't a discussion that's going to be "won" by either side.
At the end of the day, I have to default to the idea that the average professional athlete is a grown man, a dedicated and hard-working individual, and is going to sustain the level of performance he's physically capable of, in spite of how heroic one of his teammates might be, or how many "grinders" he's surrounded by, or whatever. Outside of a guy's physical skills and knowledge, I can't believe there's a great deal of effect from one dude to another in the game of baseball, unless it's in preparation. Like sharing information about batting stances or swings or pitches or basestealing techniques. But that's called coaching, and it's not quite the same as one player mysteriously making other players change.
Still, sometimes you have to wonder about incidental effects. Such as the Manny in LA "having fun for once" effect...
excellent post and one which i agree with near 100%. I just feel the effects in baseball are obviously not as significant as those in the other sports due to the differences in the game....yet find it hard to believe they don't exist in one fashion or another regardless of how trivial they may be.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
To me it's obvious. If you agree that players can be motivated to 'concentrate more', and put forth additional effort that it has to improve performance.
Than why don't the statistics bear it out?
Quote:
I think you simply are looking way too deep into this.
I don't think "too deep" exists.
Quote:
If you believe in other sports that player performance can be effected for various reasons, why is it so hard to believe that the same would happen in baseball?
Swampdog and others have already gone over in detail why there's a huge difference (and I see justanewguy did so again in the above post). I'll refer you back to those posts, but just state it in the simplest way I can right here - Basketball and football are very team-oriented, while baseball is much less team-oriented.
Quote:
I say you are closed minded because you seem to ridicule my opinion rather than accept it as it is, an opinion. It goes far beyond 'looking for answers', you are not looking to do so. That is just a guise you are using as you look to lead others (me) into agreeing with your opinion. It's obvious you've already discarded any contrary opinion.
Man, you have got to lose the "He's out to get me" mindset. I'm not using any sort of guise. I'm being straight and up front. There's no conspiracy here. I don't, for the life of me, understand how asking for evidence and wishing to participate in a discussion is "ridiculing your opinion."
If I've already discarded any contrary opinion, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I don't care if you change your opinion or not. I wish to have a discussion because I enjoy discussing baseball, and don't mind my opinions being challenged, so long as I can LEARN something from those challenging my opinions, and that usually happens through the things they use to support their challenge. I'm not seeking to change your mind. It's obvious that you won't (which isn't a bad thing, by the way, so please, don't take that as an attack). However, as I said, this opinion is something widely held in the world of baseball, and I'd like to understand WHY, which is why I've been desperately seeking evidence. If you want to go on thinking that I'm somehow using that as a guise to get you to change your mind, go ahead, but you're wrong on that.
At any rate, I suppose I'll just come to terms with the fact that the people that believe in this thing believe in it as more a matter of faith than a matter of fact, and that's perfectly fine. I suppose the answers I seek just simply don't exist. I'm more than happy to entertain any "answers" you can provide, not as some crazy plan to change your mind but to further mine.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Than why don't the statistics bear it out?
IMO, its because the effects are minor but that doesn't mean to say insignificant. An extra hit in a pressure situation, or increased focus on the defensive aspect of the game can get a win yet do little to impact stats over a full year. Also, i honestly haven't looked through all the 'protection myth' stuff, but I do believe pitchers throw different dependant upon situations. With a runner on first, I strongly believe a hitter is pitched to differently in some situations depending upon who's next in the lineup. The red sox are not a good example as their lineup is so potent. When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better. In fact, when discussing the 'ideal' lineup in a thread a few months ago, my lineup was Barry Bonds, followed by Barry Bonds, followed by Bonds, by Bond, by Bonds, and guess who followed him? I posted in there, "imaging the numbers he would have put up"....and in that thread, I'm near positive you posted that you agreed. How does that scenario not explain that protection will improve performance if we both agree that having a player of bonds caliber hitting behind him would allow him to improve his stats?
Quote:
Swampdog and others have already gone over in detail why there's a huge difference (and I see justanewguy did so again in the above post). I'll refer you back to those posts, but just state it in the simplest way I can right here - Basketball and football are very team-oriented, while baseball is much less team-oriented.
People are people are people, regardless of what sport they play. In addition to the 'team aspect' of those games he talked about, in which a double team of a hoopster leaves another open....i think some of the posters also talked about a mental aspect of the game. I've already talked about motivation many times....if a player can be motivated by another player (win one for the gipper), than IMO that translates to increased performance however again it may be near impossible to quantify. I believe players can be motivated, thus...it doesn't matter what sport or walk of life we're talking, one person can improve the performance of another, IMO.
Quote:
Man, you have got to lose the "He's out to get me" mindset. I'm not using any sort of guise. I'm being straight and up front. There's no conspiracy here. I don't, for the life of me, understand how asking for evidence and wishing to participate in a discussion is "ridiculing your opinion."
If I've already discarded any contrary opinion, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I don't care if you change your opinion or not. I wish to have a discussion because I enjoy discussing baseball, and don't mind my opinions being challenged, so long as I can LEARN something from those challenging my opinions, and that usually happens through the things they use to support their challenge. I'm not seeking to change your mind. It's obvious that you won't (which isn't a bad thing, by the way, so please, don't take that as an attack). However, as I said, this opinion is something widely held in the world of baseball, and I'd like to understand WHY, which is why I've been desperately seeking evidence. If you want to go on thinking that I'm somehow using that as a guise to get you to change your mind, go ahead, but you're wrong on that.
At any rate, I suppose I'll just come to terms with the fact that the people that believe in this thing believe in it as more a matter of faith than a matter of fact, and that's perfectly fine. I suppose the answers I seek just simply don't exist. I'm more than happy to entertain any "answers" you can provide, not as some crazy plan to change your mind but to further mine.
This most certainly does not seem like the tone of your position earlier. Possibly I (and others) misread it, but it seems to me that when called on it in other threads as in this one you then take a more civil tone. Your last paragraph is exactly how I feel. In addition to faith, it just seems like common sense to me. common sense is not common however....and i could be entirely wrong.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
"When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better. "
1. The greatest hitter in the history of baseball-arguably-doesn't need protection.
2. He had a hall of fame hitter batting after him. What more 'protection' did he need?
3. I have no real way of seeing if Kent affected Bonds walk totals because with and without Kent, Bonds walk totals are all over the frigging place.
EDIT: I put in #1 because when people tell me Manny protected Ortiz, i say 'Who protects Manny? he rakes no matter who is hitting after him, no matter where he is.', and people say 'Manny Ramirez doesn't need protection'.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
"When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better. "
1. The greatest hitter in the history of baseball-arguably-doesn't need protection.
2. He had a hall of fame hitter batting after him. What more 'protection' did he need?
3. I have no real way of seeing if Kent affected Bonds walk totals because with and without Kent, Bonds walk totals are all over the frigging place.
why does protection have to end with the player hitting behind him? Kent is a quality hitter, but who was behind kent? the Giants have had pretty poor lineups for ahwile now. was kent of good enough quality to have pitchers change how they pitched? Who knows? Maybe some, not all? Who knows?
I just go back to what I feel is common sense. A team full of Barry Bonds type talents IMO are not going to be walked nearly as much. IMO, that does lead to better stats at least in terms of HR's and RBI's as well as team runs. Yes, a team full of Barry Bonds is an extreme and impossible example....but if you can believe that 'protection' could exist in that scenario I don't see how you can believe it doesn't exist at all.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Also, i honestly haven't looked through all the 'protection myth' stuff, but I do believe pitchers throw different dependant upon situations. With a runner on first, I strongly believe a hitter is pitched to differently in some situations depending upon who's next in the lineup. The red sox are not a good example as their lineup is so potent.
If you're at all interested in "protection", and well, an assortment of other baseball things, I strongly suggest The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. A runner on first does make pitchers throw differently, and according to the studies in that book, it results in a benefit for the hitter.
Quote:
When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better.
You're absolutely correct in the first part. As I said a few posts ago, the multiple studies on the issue have shown that the only thing affected by "protection" is walk rate. On the second part, well, whether or not you "can't see it", it's there. Players, on the whole, perform the same, regardless of who hits behind them (excepting, of course, walk rate).
Quote:
In fact, when discussing the 'ideal' lineup in a thread a few months ago, my lineup was Barry Bonds, followed by Barry Bonds, followed by Bonds, by Bond, by Bonds, and guess who followed him? I posted in there, "imaging the numbers he would have put up"....and in that thread, I'm near positive you posted that you agreed. How does that scenario not explain that protection will improve performance if we both agree that having a player of bonds caliber hitting behind him would allow him to improve his stats?
I vaguely recall that thread, but I don't think I agreed that Bonds hitting behind a player would allow that player to improve his stats. I definitely would've agreed to a lineup of 9 Barry Bonds's being the "ideal lineup" (well, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams over him, but I don't think that the previous discussion included them), but that has nothing to do with protection and is solely based on the fact that Barry Bonds is a fricken great hitter.
Quote:
I've already talked about motivation many times....if a player can be motivated by another player (win one for the gipper), than IMO that translates to increased performance however again it may be near impossible to quantify.
If the increased performance is so small that it is near impossible to quantify, it's not meaningful enough to matter.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
why does protection have to end with the player hitting behind him? Kent is a quality hitter, but who was behind kent? the Giants have had pretty poor lineups for ahwile now. was kent of good enough quality to have pitchers change how they pitched? Who knows? Maybe some, not all? Who knows?
This is exactly the issues "The Book" deals with.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
If the increased performance is so small that it is near impossible to quantify, it's not meaningful enough to matter.
Unless it gets you one win in a season in which you would have tied with another team, and had to end up playing one of those stupid 'tiebreaker' games we disagreed upon a week ago. ;)
Quote:
You're absolutely correct in the first part. As I said a few posts ago, the multiple studies on the issue have shown that the only thing affected by "protection" is walk rate. On the second part, well, whether or not you "can't see it", it's there. Players, on the whole, perform the same, regardless of who hits behind them (excepting, of course, walk rate).
But what you're looking for is a verifyable improvement of statistics to quantify the 'protection' label. If a player is seeing less walks, that equates to more opportunity. In the terms of bonds, that unquestionably would equal more HR's and RBI's which with all his walks IMO would be more than substantial enough to show a pretty quantifyable difference in the HR and RBI stats.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
But what you're looking for is a verifyable improvement of statistics to quantify the 'protection' label. If a player is seeing less walks, that equates to more opportunity. In the terms of bonds, that unquestionably would equal more HR's and RBI's which with all his walks IMO would be more than substantial enough to show a pretty quantifyable difference in the HR and RBI stats.
That may seem like "common sense", but the results don't bear it out.
I could've sworn that "The Book" had a section on protection, but I can't seem to find it. At any rate, Baseball Between the Numbers does, in the chapter dealing with lineup order titled "Was Billy Martin Crazy?"
They first show a graph of the performance of all players in 2004 that hit ahead of low-quality hitters, medium-low quality hitters, medium quality hitters, medium-high quality hitters, and high quality hitters. They show average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walk rate, and intentional walk rate, but for simplicity's sake, I'll just show the OPS:
Hitting in front of ___ quality hitters;
Low: .728
Med-low: .744
Med: .764
Med-high: .777
High: .796
At first glance, this would "confirm" the existence of protection. However, as the book goes on to note, there's serious problems with such a study. Lineups tend to be grouped by ability. The best hitters bat at the top or in the middle, and the worst hitters bat at the bottom. Therefore, players who bat in front of high quality hitters are more likely to be high quality hitters themselves. So, when you look at the performance of ALL players depending on who hit behind them, you're going to see a higher quality of performance from players ahead of high quality hitters simply because the methods of lineup construction will more often than not place high quality hitters in front of high quality hitters.
They correct for this, however, by comparing those numbers to what we'd expect the batters to do based on their overall season numbers. After doing that, rather than a steady upward progression, there's little chance in performance. Below is a chart of the change in OPS depending on the quality of the next hitter in the order.
Low: .008
Med-low: -.002
Med: -.002
Med-high: .010
High: -.013
There's no pattern at all here, and very little change in OPS depending on the next batter. As the chapter concludes on the protection issue:
"Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."
There's numerous other studies all over the internet that you can turn up with simple Google searches. If you're interested, I'd be happy to link to further ones.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/...l&endDate=null
You can create your ultimate clutch lineup starting with your cleanup hitter Carlos Zambrano.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
That may seem like "common sense", but the results don't bear it out.
I could've sworn that "The Book" had a section on protection, but I can't seem to find it. At any rate,
Baseball Between the Numbers does, in the chapter dealing with lineup order titled "Was Billy Martin Crazy?"
They first show a graph of the performance of all players in 2004 that hit ahead of low-quality hitters, medium-low quality hitters, medium quality hitters, medium-high quality hitters, and high quality hitters. They show average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walk rate, and intentional walk rate, but for simplicity's sake, I'll just show the OPS:
Hitting in front of ___ quality hitters;
Low: .728
Med-low: .744
Med: .764
Med-high: .777
High: .796
At first glance, this would "confirm" the existence of protection. However, as the book goes on to note, there's serious problems with such a study. Lineups tend to be grouped by ability. The best hitters bat at the top or in the middle, and the worst hitters bat at the bottom. Therefore, players who bat in front of high quality hitters are more likely to be high quality hitters themselves. So, when you look at the performance of ALL players depending on who hit behind them, you're going to see a higher quality of performance from players ahead of high quality hitters simply because the methods of lineup construction will more often than not place high quality hitters in front of high quality hitters.
They correct for this, however, by comparing those numbers to what we'd expect the batters to do based on their overall season numbers. After doing that, rather than a steady upward progression, there's little chance in performance. Below is a chart of the change in OPS depending on the quality of the next hitter in the order.
Low: .008
Med-low: -.002
Med: -.002
Med-high: .010
High: -.013
There's no pattern at all here, and very little change in OPS depending on the next batter. As the chapter concludes on the protection issue:
"Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."
There's numerous other studies all over the internet that you can turn up with simple Google searches. If you're interested, I'd be happy to link to further ones.
As you said, it "seems like common sense". That is why I can't take the stats you posted a face value. Stats can easily be manipulated, as in calling Kent a superb hitter who follows Bonds. Again, protection for Kent is equally as important IMO. I dont' know if that makes sense...but what i'm saying is I really don't think Ortiz will have that big of a dropoff without manny because they have a deep and dangerous lineup regardless. Behind Manny is other very quality bats. After Kent (who was much less than 'superb') was who, pedro ortiz?
To me...as I said...if one would believe a lineup full of Barry Bonds would cause pitchers to pitch MORE to Barry Bonds and not walk him as much, then that is clear evidence that pitchers pitch differently depending on the lineup. If they are pitching differently, its clear that the 'protection' is causing them to. Yes an extreme example which would have the most drastic and evident change....what i'm saying is if its done there, then its very likely done on a much smaller scale at times outside of fantasy land. I just don't see how that logic doesn't make sense.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Oh, and it just dawned on me. How bout the smartest man in baseball Tony Larussa walking Bonds with the bases loaded? Do you think he walks Bonds with Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, or a bat of that caliber hitting behind him in that situation?
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
As you said, it "seems like common sense". That is why I can't take the stats you posted a face value.
I suggest you look at the facts instead of accepting what "seems like common sense" at face value. It doesn't take much research to see that protection has been debunked.
Quote:
Stats can easily be manipulated, as in calling Kent a superb hitter who follows Bonds.
No stats are being "manipulated" here. They're simply showing what happened. Player performance does not show a meaningful change based on the following hitters in the lineup.
Quote:
Again, protection for Kent is equally as important IMO. I dont' know if that makes sense...but what i'm saying is I really don't think Ortiz will have that big of a dropoff without manny because they have a deep and dangerous lineup regardless. Behind Manny is other very quality bats.
Ortiz wouldn't have a big dropoff regardless of his lineup. Why? Because he's a great hitter. The players around him don't make him great. He IS great. I think all these attempts to try to attribute a player's performance to factors outside of...his performance....is a disservice to the player and disrespectful to his abilities.
Quote:
After Kent (who was much less than 'superb') was who, pedro ortiz?
In 2003 and 2004, Bonds hit mostly in front of Edgardo Alfonzo and Benito Santiago, not Jeff Kent as he did in 2001 and 2002. And, you know what? The only thing that changed in his performance was...his walk rate...despite hitting in front of meaningfully worse hitters than he did previously.
Quote:
To me...as I said...if one would believe a lineup full of Barry Bonds would cause pitchers to pitch MORE to Barry Bonds and not walk him as much, then that is clear evidence that pitchers pitch differently depending on the lineup. If they are pitching differently, its clear that the 'protection' is causing them to. Yes an extreme example which would have the most drastic and evident change....what i'm saying is if its done there, then its very likely done on a much smaller scale at times outside of fantasy land. I just don't see how that logic doesn't make sense.
Man, nobody is saying that pitchers don't pitch players differently depending on the lineup. All anybody is saying is that that has no effect on the performance of the batters. I'll refer you again to the conclusion of that section of the chapter I referenced:
"Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."
Quote:
Oh, and it just dawned on me. How bout the smartest man in baseball Tony Larussa walking Bonds with the bases loaded? Do you think he walks Bonds with Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, or a bat of that caliber hitting behind him in that situation?
I don't know why you keep trying to hammer home the point about walks. It's been established, and I've said repeatedly, that walk rates, particularly intentional walk rates, are affected by the next batter in the lineup. The most obvious example of this is #8 hitters being walked to face the pitcher. Nobody is disputing that.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
http://www.whatsatararrel.com/2009/0...tatistics.html
Quote:
I mean, any time you’re trying to figure out how often something happens, which is better: trying to remember how often it felt like happening, or going back and counting how many times it actually did happen? Clearly, counting, that is, figuring out what the actual facts are, rather than just what they seemed like, is the way to go.
The caveat being you have to make sure you are counting what you think you are counting
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
OK, i finally figured a way to explain this to you HGM, in a manner that I don't think even you can dispute. Providing protection is about maximizing opportunity. Obviously batting Bonds or a great bat in front of a pitcher (your example) is going to lead to alot of walks. Having someone like Manny hitting behind Bonds is, as you've already agreed upon, going to reduce the amount of walks Bonds faces.
If Bonds is a .300 hitter who hits 1HR per every 10 at bats and gets an RBI every 5 at bats (arbitrary numbers) his numbers aren't going to change much at all, but he is getting more at bats. If he walks 30 less times in a season (arbitrary) than in those 30 at bats he should still be about a .300 hitter, get an additional 3 HR's and an additional 6 RBI's. There's you're extra production. Nobody has said it definetly makes the batter more talented, but they get more opportunity. Just as in basketball when a guy is double teamed, another is open and benefits....you asked for a correlation in baseball and there it is! More opportunity due to the less walks.
Quote:
"Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."
The argument wasn't that it is overrated...i wouldn't be disagreeing on you there because I really don't have an opinion either way. The argument was that it doesn't exist...ie, is a "myth". Clearly it exists...as the protection for the batter provides more opportunity for production.
Now, I feel protection is fact, not myth and I think what I posted above makes it clear.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
If Bonds is a .300 hitter who hits 1HR per every 10 at bats and gets an RBI every 5 at bats (arbitrary numbers) his numbers aren't going to change much at all, but he is getting more at bats. If he walks 30 less times in a season (arbitrary) than in those 30 at bats he should still be about a .300 hitter, get an additional 3 HR's and an additional 6 RBI's. There's you're extra production. Nobody has said it definetly makes the batter more talented, but they get more opportunity. Just as in basketball when a guy is double teamed, another is open and benefits....you asked for a correlation in baseball and there it is! More opportunity due to the less walks.
The argument wasn't that it is overrated...i wouldn't be disagreeing on you there because I really don't have an opinion either way. The argument was that it doesn't exist...ie, is a "myth". Clearly it exists...as the protection for the batter provides more opportunity for production.
Now, I feel protection is fact, not myth and I think what I posted above makes it clear
Ah, but, you're forgetting one key component - he also will be making more outs. Thus, in the end, the overall production remains the same. Using your numbers, if he walks 30 less times, that means 30 plate appearances divvied up between singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs. If he's a .300 hitter that hits a homer once every 10 at bats, that'll mean 10 hits, 3 of which are home runs and 7 of which are of another sort, and 20 outs.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Ah, but, you're forgetting one key component - he also will be making more outs. Thus, in the end, the overall production remains the same. Using your numbers, if he walks 30 less times, that means 30 plate appearances divvied up between singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs. If he's a .300 hitter that hits a homer once every 10 at bats, that'll mean 10 hits, 3 of which are home runs and 7 of which are of another sort, and 20 outs.
the .300 average, extra HR's and RBI's are more far more valuable than the walks IMO. You asked for an example of increased production....i think i've made that point clear. And there is a such thing as a 'productive' out as well. Can't really guage that in this argument.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
the .300 average, extra HR's and RBI's are more far more valuable than the walks IMO. You asked for an example of increased production....i think i've made that point clear. And there is a such thing as a 'productive' out as well. Can't really guage that in this argument.
If those 30 plate appearances were made up solely of hits, than it'd be more valuable, but 30 walks is more valuable than 10 hits and 20 outs.
You have not shown that protection increases a player's production. You've continued to speak in terms of how things "seem" like they should be. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of getting hits and power production, players show no change based on who follows them in the order. I've shown you the exact numbers, at least in terms of the 2004 season. I'd be happy to dig up more articles and link you to them if you wish to explore the issue further. It goes without saying that I suggest you do research the issue instead of being beholden to what seems like common sense, but I'm not sure what else could be shown to you to convince you that player production is not affected by the following hitters in the order.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
If those 30 plate appearances were made up solely of hits, than it'd be more valuable, but 30 walks is more valuable than 10 hits and 20 outs.
You have not shown that protection increases a player's production. You've continued to speak in terms of how things "seem" like they should be. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of getting hits and power production, players show no change based on who follows them in the order. I've shown you the exact numbers, at least in terms of the 2004 season. I'd be happy to dig up more articles and link you to them if you wish to explore the issue further. It goes without saying that I suggest you do research the issue instead of being beholden to what seems like common sense, but I'm not sure what else could be shown to you to convince you that player production is not affected by the following hitters in the order.
lmao.....and i am thinking the same thing. I don't know what more can be shown to you to prove that production is increased. Players get more hits, and more power production (more HR's and RBI's) due to increased opportunity. Thats logic, plain and simple. Yes it comes at the sacrifice of walks, but you can't simply call it a wash. If walks were so much more valuable, Manny & Bonds would bat in front of the pitcher where they'd be walked so much more. If walks were so much more valuable, teams wouldn't be so quick to walk someone like Bonds instead of let him bat. You seem to be refusing pure logic so you can hold onto your premise, that protection is a myth. Thats what I mean by closed mind.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
OK, i finally figured a way to explain this to you HGM, in a manner that I don't think even you can dispute. Providing protection is about maximizing opportunity. Obviously batting Bonds or a great bat in front of a pitcher (your example) is going to lead to alot of walks. Having someone like Manny hitting behind Bonds is, as you've already agreed upon, going to reduce the amount of walks Bonds faces.
If Bonds is a .300 hitter who hits 1HR per every 10 at bats and gets an RBI every 5 at bats (arbitrary numbers) his numbers aren't going to change much at all, but he is getting more at bats. If he walks 30 less times in a season (arbitrary) than in those 30 at bats he should still be about a .300 hitter, get an additional 3 HR's and an additional 6 RBI's. There's you're extra production. Nobody has said it definetly makes the batter more talented, but they get more opportunity. Just as in basketball when a guy is double teamed, another is open and benefits....you asked for a correlation in baseball and there it is! More opportunity due to the less walks.
The argument wasn't that it is overrated...i wouldn't be disagreeing on you there because I really don't have an opinion either way. The argument was that it doesn't exist...ie, is a "myth". Clearly it exists...as the protection for the batter provides more opportunity for production.
Now, I feel protection is fact, not myth and I think what I posted above makes it clear.
Flawed logic. First, even Dickay admits that the alleged "protection" will not make Bonds better, per se. Thats a good first step. It's supposed, though, that by giving Bonds another 30 at bats, he will be more productive, thus helping the team score more runs, making the team better, overall. Not true, though.
In the suggested scenario, Bonds will not draw the 30 extra walks per year, but will get 30 additional at bats with better "protection". This will, in itself, not provide more runs for the team. It provides less runs. (A difference of 2 runs seems small, and it is, but we're talking about an incredible hitter. But the underlying point is that runs scored actually decrease with the "protection", instead of increase).
Based on 2007 stats (all I have handy), 30 walks has an expected value of about 10 runs, by linear weights. In 30 at bats, a .300 hitter who hits 3 homers, 2 doubles, and 4 singles (a .300 average) and makes 21 outs will provide about 8 runs. Thus, the 30 walks are of more value.
Again, numerous studies have shown that "protection" is a myth. Talking about what "seems logical", or what "makes common sense" will not change this. It's a fact. Protection does not exist. Compulsively walking a hitter to pitch to another simply results in MORE runs scored, in the long run.
I also suggest that you two give up on this debate. HGM is not going to accept speculative theories about protection in the lineup, when he has seen much research that shows it basically does not exist (for that matter, neither would I). Dickay does not place any stock in statistical analysis; he just believes that he "knows better", because it seems to be right.
It's become an exercise in futility.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
lmao.....and i am thinking the same thing. I don't know what more can be shown to you to prove that production is increased.
Anything that shows it?
Quote:
Players get more hits, and more power production (more HR's and RBI's) due to increased opportunity. Thats logic, plain and simple.
Can you show me any evidence of that? I've seen plenty of evidence that that is NOT the case, and have provided you with some, and could provide you with plenty more.
Quote:
Yes it comes at the sacrifice of walks, but you can't simply call it a wash.
It's not "at the sacrifice of walks" but rather "at the sacrifice of outs."
Quote:
If walks were so much more valuable, Manny & Bonds would bat in front of the pitcher where they'd be walked so much more. If walks were so much more valuable, teams wouldn't be so quick to walk someone like Bonds instead of let him bat.
I have no clue what you're arguing against here. One hit is more valuable than one walk. 30 walks is more valuable than 10 hits and 20 outs.
Quote:
You seem to be refusing pure logic so you can hold onto your premise, that protection is a myth. Thats what I mean by closed mind.
I'm not refusing "pure logic." I'm refusing flawed logic, which Swampdog eloquently put much better than I have.
The closed mind is not the one that refuses speculative logic based on what "seems right", but rather, the closed mind refuses facts.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Based on 2007 stats (all I have handy), 30 walks has an expected value of about 10 runs, by linear weights. In 30 at bats, a .300 hitter who hits 3 homers, 2 doubles, and 4 singles (a .300 average) and makes 21 outs will provide about 8 runs. Thus, the 30 walks are of more value.
And thus the problem. Logic IMO supercedes stats which scew rational thought. Stats can be very misleading....30 walks of one player is not the same as 30 walks of another player. I'd much rather prefer to have 30 at bats in which Manny is pitched to than 30 at bats in which the bat is taken out of his hands.
Over manny's career, he's averaged a HR every 14 at bats. and an RBI every 4 at bats approximately. Over 30 at bats, he'll average over 7 RBI's. That doesn't include the runs he'll score, just the RBI's, of which only 2 came from him scoring on a HR. He's also a career .314 hitter. I find it hard to believe that with only 2 at bats being a HR, the other 7-8 hits he gets won't be equivalent to at least 2-3 runs scored which would equal your 10 runs for 30 walks stat. I also find that 30 walks equals 10 runs stat extremely high, and am curious how it accounts for walks of these type of situations in which there is often nobody on base, or an open base to walk the player to.
You can play with stats however you like...there are obvious flaws with stats as well, and if you are honest with yourself you will at least agree to that.
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
And thus the problem. Logic IMO supercedes stats which scew rational thought. Stats can be very misleading....
I suggest you stop throwing around the term "closed minded" then, considering that rather than examine why a stat may be misleading, you have a blanket distrust of any stat that goes against what you feel is right.
Quote:
30 walks of one player is not the same as 30 walks of another player. I'd much rather prefer to have 30 at bats in which Manny is pitched to than 30 at bats in which the bat is taken out of his hands.
Whether not you yourself would "rather" it is irrelevant to the question of which provides more value.
Quote:
Over manny's career, he's averaged a HR every 14 at bats. and an RBI every 4 at bats approximately. Over 30 at bats, he'll average over 7 RBI's. That doesn't include the runs he'll score, just the RBI's, of which only 2 came from him scoring on a HR.
Can we not use just a context-dependent stat as RBI in this case? It doesn't give us any information about Manny's value as a player, as it is heavily dependent on the other players that bat ahead of him. Manny's career "RBI rate" doesn't tell us anything about how many RBI he's "expected" to have over any sample of at bats. Let's focus on those things that are purely of Manny's creation.
Quote:
He's also a career .314 hitter. I find it hard to believe that with only 2 at bats being a HR, the other 7-8 hits he gets won't be equivalent to at least 2-3 runs scored which would equal your 10 runs for 30 walks stat. I also find that 30 walks equals 10 runs stat extremely high, and am curious how it accounts for walks of these type of situations in which there is often nobody on base, or an open base to walk the player to.
Linear Weights.
Quote:
You can play with stats however you like...there are obvious flaws with stats as well, and if you are honest with yourself you will at least agree to that.
I'll gladly agree that stats can be flawed. But, see, I don't just say "Stats are flawed" and dismiss those that don't agree with my gut instinct. I'll examine the stats and see if they are, indeed, flawed. If they're not, and they disprove my gut instinct, I'll believe the facts and change my mind.
If you've examined the issue, feel free to show me the evidence. Hell, instead of you providing me evidence that protection exists, I'll even accept "disproving" the multiple studies that show protection doesn't exist.
Here, I'll link you to more:
The Myth of Protection
The Protection Externality: It Doesn't Exist
Protection Study
Pitching Around Batters (This is an excerpt from "The Book" which I couldn't find earlier)
The Protection Mini-FAQ
Subtle Aspects of the Game
I could probably keep going if I really wanted. The fact of the matter is that every substantial study done on the issue has come to the same conclusion. It is accepted fact in the baseball analysis community that lineup protection does not exist. You're free to disregard the mountains of evidence and continue holding on to your preconceived notions and gut feelings, but is that something an open-minded person would do?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
Because this thread has given me so much entertainment, and because I have a lot of time on my hands, I tried an experiment.
I used Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis Tool to compute the runs per game for the 1993 Giants given different scenarios.
The first scenario was to use each of the Giants regular players at each position in their regular batting order (as determined by looking at baseball reference). Using Barry Bonds (batting 5th) with OBP = .458 and SLG = .677
The result for this team was: 5.013 runs per game
I then substituted Barry Bonds with a fictional Barry Bonds who did not walk, but maintained the same slugging percentage over the same number of plate appearances. This Bonds hit: OBP = .336 and SLG = .677
The result for this team was: 4.781 runs per game
Then, I substituted that Barry Bonds with another fictional Barry Bonds who walked every time he was up to the plate. This Bonds had an OBP = 1.000 and a SLG = 1.000. I also moved him to 8th in the order hitting before the pitcher, as this was the only way I could even make a semblance of sense of Bonds walking 664 times per season.
The result for this team was: 5.706 runs per game
-
Re: What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?
The slugging percentage of a player that walks every time he comes to the plate would technically be "undefined", since Total Bases = 0 and At Bats = 0, and 0/0=undefined, which may change the calculations some, but shouldn't by too much. The point is the same - never underestimate the power of not making outs.
Also, just as to make a point about the accuracy of that lineup analysis tool. The actual Giants scored 4.99 runs per game, a near dead ringer for the 5.01 the estimator comes up with. The difference is entirely explained by the fact that the real life Giants employed more than just their 8 regulars and they didn't always bat in the exact same order.
