I guess Smith was one of those players you had to see to believe.
Printable View
I guess Smith was one of those players you had to see to believe.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Yes, you're right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by houstongm
How true it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Yeah, gotta go with Ripken. Surprised you asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well this thread's now far off topic. Awesome.
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Attachment 28282Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
:cool:
;)
Thanks for the kind words. I am a pretty big deal though, right?
Win.
Would you expect any less from me?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Why was your brother such a ****face?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal Ripken, Jr.
I'm not sure, though the rumors that I had anything to do with that are 100% false, as I was too busy owning everyone at baseball.
(He is kind of a ****face, though, right?)
lol win (I wanna say free?)
OHMIGOD!! I'm your biggest fan.
I wish I was Ripken. I don't think I could handle the awesomeness.
You couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
<tear>
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!
Oh, you mean my off-season job?Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
Speaking of which...
Swoon
According to fangraphs:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Bay 3.5 WAR
Cameron 4.3 WAR
This does NOT mean Cameron was 20-25% better than Bay because:
- WAR is Wins Above Replacement, not Win Above Nothing
- WAR measures observed value, not who is the better player
Almost a full point of WAR difference comes from one playing CF and one playing LF.
Basically, it means that they were better offensively against their peers than Ozzie was against his.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Better offensively, not hitting. SB and CS are included.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Quote:
According to fangraphs:
Bay 3.5 WAR
Cameron 4.3 WAR
This does NOT mean Cameron was 20-25% better than Bay because:
1. WAR is Wins Above Replacement, not Win Above Nothing
2. WAR measures observed value, not who is the better player
Almost a full point of WAR difference comes from one playing CF and one playing LF.
my comments were referring to a post filihok made in another thread, which stated something to the effect that Camerons "value" from fangraphs last year was around 19 mil or so while Bay was around 13 or 14mil. That is a substantial difference in terms of dollar value.Quote:
Your issue is purely with FanGraphs WAR. It has Cameron as being about .8 of a win better in 2009. That isn't significantly better. It's 8 runs better overall. CHONE's WAR has Jason Bay being better. BP's WARP has them equal.
So all three graphs supposedly factor in defense and all three are a good deal different. One says equal, one says camerons better, one says bays better?? WTF?
here was fili's post;
that is a claim that Camerons worth was just about 20% more than Bays in 2009.Quote:
I know you're not a big believer, in this, but fangraphs has Cameron being above $7 every year since 2002 and worth about $19 million (4 WAR) the last two.
Jason Bay was worth $15.7 (3.5 WAR) last year
and Manny was worth 5.1 WAR and 1 WAR in 04 and 07
The value of a win recently has been about $4.5 million. Cameron's value in 2009 comes to $19.4 million and Jason Bay's comes to $15.7 million, a difference of $3.7 million, which is not a lot. It's less than a win, as I showed - 0.8 wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
FanGraphs has Bay at 3.5 and Cameron at 4.3.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Chone has Bay at 5.2 and Cameron at 3.6. Again, as I said, this is because their defensive metric has Bay as a slightly above average fielder in 2009.
BP has Bay at 4 and Cameron at 4.1. Their defensive metric has Bay at -2 and Cameron at +4.
And it's really NOT a good deal different. You're getting down to differences of about a win, which is not a lot.
Good to see that a Dickay/Houston disagreement can withstand even the biggest derailments.
you do realize that the 3.7 difference is a bit more than 20% correct??Quote:
The value of a win recently has been about $4.5 million. Cameron's value in 2009 comes to $19.4 million and Jason Bay's comes to $15.7 million, a difference of $3.7 million, which is not a lot. It's less than a win, as I showed - 0.8 wins.
so three apparently respectable stat algorithms place different values on defense, and even measure defensive performance differently as one feels Bay was good defensively and one does not. Why then are people on these forums treated as outcast geezers for doing the same?Quote:
FanGraphs has Bay at 3.5 and Cameron at 4.3.
Chone has Bay at 5.2 and Cameron at 3.6. Again, as I said, this is because their defensive metric has Bay as a slightly above average fielder in 2009.
BP has Bay at 4 and Cameron at 4.1. Their defensive metric has Bay at -2 and Cameron at +4.
And it's really NOT a good deal different. You're getting down to differences of about a win, which is not a lot.
my only point here from the beginning was not to say that these stats are rediculous and should never be used....but merely to say that they are imperfect and flawed. I think this pretty much sums that point up. Again, it is my opinion that any matrix that says Cameron was an equal value to Bay, let alone one that says Cameron was 20% more valuable...is flawed and gives way too much credence to defense.
i'm confused on our disagreement. I say one claims that Cameron is 20% better. He says no, its not a big difference and then posts the stats that show a 20% favor in Camerons favor?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosensgo101
btw.....a very merry christmas to all!
But it's not large in the context of the stat. It's a difference of 8 runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Your free to disagree on UZR's take on their difference - but remember that it's over the course of a year, UZR fluctuates A LOT in one year - as much as offensive stats fluctuate in 2 months or so (but even the long term view of UZR has Cameron being a very good fielder and Bay a very poor one, so that's a moot point in this regard). Personally, I don't find it flawed that a stat sees Cameron as a +10 defender and Bay as a -13 defender. Both numbers line up with the conventional view of their respective defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
But, in the grand scope of things, you really shouldn't be drawing conclusions about a stat based on what it says about two players in one year. What in the construction of the stat do you find flawed? I went through it step-by-step above.
HGM, if you don't think that $3.7million is much of anything, please send me a check for that amount. I'll pm you my mailing address. :D
My bad. I did actually know that and what I meant by better hitter was better offensive contributor. I expected you with your awesome powers to be able to read my mind SirK. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
So not to smash any sabermetric toes, but when WARP and VORP and UZR start being talked about, I almost expect you to figure out how to put a civilization on the moon. But instead you seem to make a beautiful game with so much history and and stories beyond numbers...into nothing but a bunch of numbers. kinda sad, but I guess that is progress
lol! I don't even see the connection between evaluating players and enjoying the game. Give me a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
I appreciate things like hustle and good clubhouse guys, if I didn't I wouldn't consider Jackie Robinson the greatest player to play the game. The only difference is that I don't say things like "Melky Cabrera is a great player and I wouldn't have given him up for Javier Vazquez because the fans here like him and he's a great defensive player because he shows a lot of hustle out there". The stories behind the game are interesting and I love reading interviews with the players on the teams I root for, but like I said, I just don't use the stories to try and make a dumb claim like "Melky Cabrera > Javier Vazquez".
Evaluating players using statistics does not have anything to do with getting rid of the history or stories. SABR, where the term sabermetrics comes from, is the Society for American Baseball Research, and it's contributed an absolute TON to the history and story side of things. Sabermetrics is just simply the search for a better understanding of the game, and statistics contribute to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
The whole "turning it into nothing but a bunch of numbers" is simply a phony strawman.
I think a more correct phrase would be - "Sabermetrics is the search for a better understanding of the game through statistics." Statistics aren't just a contribution to sabermetrics - they are sabermetrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That said, the people that tend to be sabermetrically inclined also tend to have a deep interest in the history of baseball outside of the statistics. So the basic point that you are making here:
is valid.Quote:
The whole "turning it into nothing but a bunch of numbers" is simply a phony strawman.
When sabermetrics are done poorly, either in terms of statistics, or in terms of explanation, it seems common to dismiss those elements that haven't been measured. But that isn't a fault of sabermetrics as a field, it is usually the fault of a poor explanation.
Anything that helps advance our understanding of baseball and our ability to analyze it more shrewdly is a good thing. It does nothing to reduce the beauty of the game, in fact it makes it all the more beautiful. You can analyze at an extreme depth using complicated metrics, look at it from afar, using more simplified ones, or gasp at watching a Jose Reyes type gazelle type fly around the bases and slide in safely at third with a triple. You can find out where all the modern rules came from: we can thank King Kelly (the original of the Billy Martin/Earl Weaver archetype) for a lot of them as he pushed the boundaries of the rules and I'm sure tried the patience of many an ump trying to find any way to win.
We can go from the subjective: as a Blue Jay fan I will never forget Joe Carter's World Series walkoff HR in 1993, or Tom Cheek's call of it for that matter...*goosebumps* every time...to the objective in a heartbeat. As in, thanks for the memory Joe, but I will never allow it to cloud my judgment that he was in fact one of the most overrated mediocre players to ever put on the uniform. In spite of that moment, whenever the movement to deify Joe rises up in these parts, as often happens, I'll be at the front of the line to club it like a baby seal. (F U Paul McCartney and PETA) ;)
HGM is the only one that I think doesn't really get any sort of sentimental feel about the game on here. Everyone else seems to have some good baseball memories, or are at least a fan of a team. He's just all about the stats. Pretty sad.
well the reason that a plethora of stats to cause issues is the tendancy of people to lean on a narrow point of view.
And that just what this is about.. the more ways we have to look at statistic the more statistics there are to ignore.
But anyone who ignores any statistic is foolish.. instead there is a constant attempt to make every stat more meaningful.