Printable View
Um no. If he were just all about the stats he would be in actuarial science or he would be an accountant. You've got to love baseball to examine it as thoroughly as he does. But you're just on a Christmas trolling expedition, so I don't know why I bother. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
He's not a fan of any team. AFAIK he's never played baseball. He seems to be in it for the numeros.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Somewhat like HGM I think, I'm not a huge fan of any team - I'd like the Jays to win because they are local, but I really don't care that much. And I did play as a kid, but stopped at the end of Little League because I preferred/was better at other sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
That doesn't mean that I'm not a fan of the game - to me the best baseball fans are those that love the game regardless of who is playing. And there is a huge distance between knowing the statistics, and not knowing anything else about the game.
But as action said, I'm not sure why I bother when the Christmas trolling expedition has obviously begun.
First of all, you have no right to tell me how and what I should derive enjoyment from. Second of all, you're flat out wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I have played baseball before, stopped in Little League because I wasn't all that good, but that's completely and utterly irrelevant to everything. You don't have to have played a sport to enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
If I was "just in it for the numbers", I wouldn't be a fan of baseball. I'd be a fan of math. There's no way that anybody who delves into the game as much as I or any other "stathead" does doesn't love the game. That's why the whole "making the game about numbers" thing is a completely absurd notion. If you don't love the game of baseball, you're not going to get so deep into it. Why would I spend so much time following the game, analyzing the game, playing simulations of the game, reading articles about the game, etc. if I didn't love the game?
Seriously, shut up and quit your stupid ass trolling.
It just pisses me off how HGM is sometimes. I'm sorry to everyone else.
I'm sorry that I am different from you. I know how people not being just like you pisses you off, but that's something you need to grow up and get over.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Stop picking on me please.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Picking on you? LOL. You come in here and randomly start trolling ME. If you don't want to be "picked on", don't troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Don't pay any attention to his obvious trolling and inflammatory comments. It makes you look just as bad as it does him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Guys, there is no need to fight. Give love this holiday season...
...and my DVD, Baltimore Orioles Legends - Cal Ripken Jr. Collector's Edition , available at Amazon and all higher quality retail stores!
Whatever guys. HGM is like a god on these boards. So ridiculous.
There can be only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
LOL. Quit trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I commandeth ye two to stop.
Ripken hath spoken.
HNAAIUEGFBNEUFUEWF Just. Quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
God, this thread sucks.
God forbid HGM tell you guys you're wrong when you try to tell him how much he likes baseball. Do you noobs really expect anyone to respond favorably when you say things like "What you are doing is ruining the thing that I like because you don't actually like it"? Because when people say that whole "you don't know/care about baseball, you just care about numbers" to me, I take great exception to that. That doesn't have a place on this forum (unless the Joe Morgan schtick is saying it).
The HGM/Dickay conversation was actually going in a positive, civil, and informative direction, which doesn't happen that often. Then reflections had to say something stupid, and then metsguy had to be metsguy, and now here we are.
Someone bring the Ripken schtick back.
Ok. Well although I didn't think it would turn into some name calling fest, I do understand the importance of the advancement of baseball numbers...but when I read a book like "Crazy '08 How a Cast of Cranks, Rogues, Boneheads, and Magnates Created the Greatest Year in Baseball History", it doesn't have me thinking about UZR, WARP or any of those. I understand when evaluating players it is far better to use those than the old compiling numbers....but in the conversation that preceded....it just seemed as though it was all about numbers (the Ozzie/Tejada/Fernandez and Cameron/Bay discussions). I love the SABR site but I guess I didn't word it at all correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As far as the guy who said I said something stupid. That's fine. I've loved baseball since I was 4 and saw my first Dodger game in 1979. I guess i'm just a stupid fan that collected baseball cards, played strat-o-matic and always tried to find a game that would encompass the entire history of baseball (i had to use my own collection of baseball cards to actually get close to that).
And your strawman theory. No. It was just the same numbers being used over and over again trying to tell who was better that got to me (I wasn't saying the numbers were wrong or not important), but as usual I guess I knew there would be a name calling match in there afterwords...That is what the internet turns into.
Okay? Nor should it...What's the point here?Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
Well, this thread IS about statistics...so I don't know why we would suddenly start talking about crazy stories of baseball's funniest characters or something...Naturally, a thread about statistics will be largely about the statistical side of things...Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
And calling something a "strawman" isn't name-calling. Sorry if you took it that way. It's simply tiresome though that whenever there's a serious statistical discussion, there's always someone that has to start throwing out the whole "making the game only about numbers" crap. It is a strawman. Just because there's a discussion about the advanced statistics of the game doesn't mean anybody is "making the game only about numbers."
He's an internet tuff guys; don't mess with him broshef!Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
See, this here is a strawman, because you think that I called you stupid because you like the sentimental side of baseball. I did not do that. I called your comment stupid, because you went into a thread ABOUT STATISTICS and said, essentially, "when you talk about your stats, you are taking all the fun out of the game." For one, it's dumb to jump into a conversation other people are having and criticize what they're talking about anyway. And secondly, the game has always been about numbers so these are just different numbers, so I don't see why that's any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
That's ok, we all make stupid comments now and again. I make stupid comments. HGM makes stupid comments. No big deal.
I happen to like the fact that there are people using new formulas and statistics to review baseball players performanced. I do think many have an elitist attitude towards those who don't subscribe immediately to the so called "geniuses" that put these together, but thats not unlike any scientific advance that has questioned popular opinion since the beginning of mankind. I realize and believe much of what they claim.
however....those who use these stats should be careful not to discredit the obvious. Not to discredit good scouting and in some cases the simple "eye test". There are IMO alot of things that these newage methods can't yet factor yet try to unsuccessfully. I'm learning that defense is definetly one of them. I admit, normally its unfair for me to make that claim not knowing all that goes into their equation, but my eye test in this situation is more than enough for me to make that claim IMO. I simply can never buy the claim that factoring in all factors (bay 09 LF performance in Boston vs. cameron 09 CF performance in MIL) that Cameron was worth 20+% more in terms of dollars than Bay. Thats a fail.
The newage stats make me question alot of the determinations I've made over the years using some of the previously accepted stats and the eye test. I think this Cameron / Bay debate amongst others surely should cause the statiticians to question their currently accepted stats.
After all, I hope history would tell them not to be so foolish as to believe their newage stats won't one day be in the "previously accepted" category as well. Scouting, common sense, and a keen eye have been IMO the only measurement that has remained constant throughout baseballs history. Even in this newage statistical period, teams still have scouts that watch major league and minor league players. If they were irrelevant and teams TRULY BELIEVED the numbers were 100% accurate they'd simply save tons of money by firing them all and using only computers.
As for all this other crap.....both sides benefit from accepting other possibilities. Many of those against the stats refuse because they don't understand it (ignorance)...many of the statiticians refuse because they think they are better and more advanced and refuse to see fault (arrogance). both are wrong.
Wow, an interesting Christmas on the Forum indeed. Great to see people act so grown up and being so nice to each other. It looks like the Christmas spirit or even common courtesy has become a "strawman." as well...
Excellent post dickay. The only quibble I would have is that there's absolutely no f**king need for the two sides in the game to be having this pi$$ing contest. If only both sides would realize they are both right and get together and combine their knowledge, wisdom and abilities, player evaluation would take a quantum leap forward. Inroads are already being made in this area as most team front offices use some combination/hybrid of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Tom Tango is currently one of the leading sabermetricians in the game, but that doesn't prevent him from enlisting the support of fans of all 30 teams every year to help compile his annual "Scouting Report For The Fans By The Fans". It's not quite the diametrically opposed warring factions anymore, that really got stoked by the book "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis (yes that's right Joe Morgan, Billy Beane did not write that book), which is still one of the most misunderstood books out there.
"Moneyball" is about looking for market inefficiencies in the game in order to find less expensive options to fill out a roster, but to this day, people seem to think it's a book about how OBP is the only thing that matters in baseball, or that it's about fat, slow, mostly white dudes whose only redeeming feature is that they can draw walks, or that it's about a bunch of computer nerds hunkered down over their spreadsheets searching for future stars in the reams of numbers on their monitors.
The A's used these methods because they didn't have much money for a scouting department. Personally I think that's backwards. I think teams should put as much as they can into scouting, development, draft bonuses, and yes statistics etc because if you do that and build up a system that produces year after year, you don't have to go buying free agents or locking up your own players to free agent type contracts, when they get close to free agency as you would otherwise. Big money contracts for players that are usually older are easily the most inefficient way that any team can spend their revenue, yet time after time teams do it. I would bet that a scouting/development department, complete with draft bonuses and international free agent bonuses (parts of the world where you have to pay $50 million+ for the privilege of speaking to the player excluded ;) ) can be run optimally on a per year basis for less than the cost of 1 premium free agent over the term of his whole contract and if done right that system can produce at least one premium major leaguer per year.
A couple of examples that cost pennies in baseball franchise terms are proper nutrition and proper coaching/training in the minor leagues. The per diem mandated by MLB for minor leaguers is $20 per day - can you say fast food and fast food only? How much does the average minor league coach/trainer cost? In relative terms peanuts, and when you consider the type of ROI you can get from the very good ones, it's a no brainer to seek out only the best for these positions.
You mention the "eye test". Just like Mark Twain's saying about lies, damned lies and statistics, our eyes can fool us as well. Ask any cop about the reliability of eyewitness statements, particularly when there are cases involving multiple eyewitnesses. The eyes can lie every bit as much as the numbers do. That's why it behooves every MLB organization to have representatives from both factions involved in decisions regarding player personnel, even if they disagree. Disagreement is healthy for an organization, provided the animosity and resentment that can arise from it are dealt with in a timely, respectful manner.
Only like 4 people on the forums celebrate Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
For one, the "eye test" for me matches up just fine with what the stats...well, FanGraphs WAR...says.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
For two, can you buy the claim that Cameron was worth 8 more runs than Bay over the course of the entire season, or about 1 run every 3 weeks?
Who has ever said that scouting and such is irrelevant? This is another all too common yet completely absurd strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Pretty much. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say stats are always better than scouting. This is just a common argument by people who don't know what they're talking about. It's always about a blend of stats & scouting.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Also, looking at WAR in terms of percentage is very misleading. A 4 win player, about an All Star caliber player, would thus be "100%" better than an average player (roughly 2 wins). Pretty misleading
I generally agree with your post - but I don't think that the Fan's Scouting Reports, like Fan Projections, are anything but a reflection of the statistical data. The people that post on that site are people that follow the statistical data - so asking them to define who are good players and who aren't is not an unbiased check on the accuracy of statistical measures of defensive ability. The two coincide because the fans that post know the statistical evidence, and simply parrot it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
If the translation of WAR to a dollar figure is meaningful, then looking at WAR in terms of percentages is meaningful. It might be reasonable to say that neither makes sense, but if someone says that Cameron is worth $10m and Bay is worth $8m, then it isn't wrong to say that Cameron is 25% better. WAR defines the metric with which you are measuring players.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
while I feel this may be off the topic of complaining about each other i found this an intersting tool
http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/RBIPCT.py
uses retro sheet data to calculate the % of runners available driven in by a player.
I absolutely agree with this, and have mentioned as such. Thats why I appreciate stats as they can and have changed my mind on things. I don't however see the same appreciation in the contrary. Whenever disagreeing with a stat with a "stathead" their views are always absolute because the numbers say so. In my experiences, and I'll say that my opinion exists in these forums as well, its nothing but a "strawman", as you call, it to say a statitician buys into the eye test, or to be more just...gives it any consideration whatsoever.Quote:
You mention the "eye test". Just like Mark Twain's saying about lies, damned lies and statistics, our eyes can fool us as well.
Absolutely not.Quote:
For two, can you buy the claim that Cameron was worth 8 more runs than Bay over the course of the entire season, or about 1 run every 3 weeks?
Quote:
Who has ever said that scouting and such is irrelevant? This is another all too common yet completely absurd strawman.
These two comments are just spin city and the type of arrogance I was referring to. Others opinions are cast off because they are apparently "ignorant" in the minds of statheads, ie. "people who don't know what they're talking about". If its truly a blend of stats and scouting than one would have to agree IMO that the stats are flawed because no scout IMO will say that the 09 Cameron was worth more than the 09 Bay.Quote:
Pretty much. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say stats are always better than scouting. This is just a common argument by people who don't know what they're talking about. It's always about a blend of stats & scouting.
Agreed. Since we're still somewhat on the Bay/Cameron thing, lemme just mash three of the different types of Wins Above Replacement measures together and see if things improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
CHONE WAR:
Bay: 5.2
Cameron: 3.6
fangraphs WAR:
Bay: 3.5
Cameron: 4.3
Baseball Prospectus' WARP1:
Bay: 4.0
Cameron: 4.1
AVG
Bay: 12.7/3 = 4.23
Cameron: 12.0/3 = 4.00
So, there you have it dickay, Bay was slightly better than Cameron last year when we mash all these value metrics together. I'm not sure how valid what I just did is, but who gives a s**t, I'm running with it. I take it you're a Red Sox fan from your screen name and that explains your concern with the Bay/Cameron comparison. My question for you is:
If you have two outfielders who offer differing skill sets, but who are relatively close in value, who do you take if you're Theo Epstein? The guy who you can sign for two years at $7.25 mil per plus a $1 mil signing bonus, but whose contract will take you through his age 38 season, or the guy who spurned your 4 year $60 mil offer last July and is now finding it tough to get a gig because he perhaps overestimated his value? Bay would be with them through 2013 (age 34) if he signed a four year deal. Why sign an OF to a contract that's twice as long and pays twice as much per year, when the player doesn't offer significantly more value? It might be worth it to sign him, so he could slide into the DH role come 2011, but probably not at the price he's asking. He's probably more valuable as a DH, so that might make sense, but then 2010 becomes a bit messy in the OF while Big Papi is on his farewell tour at DH. Of course there are always injuries to consider as well.
Another thing to look at is their farm system and it's loaded with OF prospects. Josh Reddick is knocking on the door. Ryan Kalish is probably a year or so away and further away than that are Ryan Westmoreland and further still Reymond Fuentes. That's a lot of prospects and they're all graded pretty highly by the various people that keep track of these things. No prospect is a sure thing, but these guys are all very highly regarded by those in the know. Throw in Ellsbury as an MLB starter and Hermida as an MLB backup and things don't look too bad in the OF once Drew and Cameron's contracts come off the books after '11. There's not much point in clogging things up with a big contract that runs for 4 years when you can have a couple of guys for two years and allow the studs a chance to break through, while also offering them time to develop by having quality veterans at the big league level. Drew could probably replace Ortiz at DH in '11 if Reddick shows he can handle things this year.
i have zero problem with them not signing bay...in fact I hope they don't. i take the homer hat off in this comparison, and am merely pointing out that I don't see how one system can say Bay was even with Cameron let alone worse by quite a bit regardless of how some want to spin it.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
The better question is, why are the three reviews so different..or at least why is fangraphs significantly different?
Differing formulas make the results different. One day we'll get a handle on it, but right now measuring defense is such a new frontier, that expecting them to get it "right" is rather futile. It'll evolve and it's certainly a quantum leap beyond PO, A, E, FPCT etc. Hopefully the days of rewarding the slug who doesn't get to many balls, but makes the play when he does whilst punishing the waterbug who gets to so many more balls and therefore flubs plays more often, will eventually be behind us. I think it's kind of cool that this stuff is even being attempted and I look forward to where it'll go next. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
i agree with this...and think the older stats say very little about defensive performance. I honestly don't know or care to know the intrinquicies of these new methods at the moment. For the most part, I usually buy their interpretations of who is the better defender. What I have trouble with is how they include defense into the grand scheme of things and determine how player A's great defense makes him more valuable than player B and his great offense. While in alot of cases I may feel that is true, I personally don't feel it is 100% as is obvious with my opinions on the Cameron matter. I think Bay's total package was far more valuable than Camerons contributions, especially considering that I don't think Bay was that bad a defender last year from what I saw, and I don't value greatly LF defense at Fenway. I think Fangraphs may degrade Bays defensive contributions too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Good job making up info based on lies. Keith Law and Jason Churchill are two that come to mind, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
here is some interesting stuff on Bay and fangraphs defensive reviews. Even god himself, by that i mean Bill James, says the results are inaccurate...or some of the posts i've found have stated. I have yet to find his quote on it. I"m assuming its out there since i've seen it now in multiple spots.
http://seattlesportsinsider.com/news/weekender
this was a follow up post in the thread;Quote:
Fenway & LF
Submitted by Sandy on Mon, 12/07/2009 - 5:16am.
Personally, I put zero, zilch, nada weight on individual defensive stats coming out of Boston's LF. Some historical perspective. Looking at only the range portion of UZR.
Manny:
* 2002 - (1.8)
* 2003 - +3.7
* 2004 - (0.8)
* 2005 - (19.8)
* 2006 - (20.6)
* 2007 - (21.0)
* 2008 - (5.7) - combined from Boston/Dodgers
* 2009 - (2.9)
According to UZR, between 2004 and 2005, Manny lost 20 runs of range, which he maintained right up until the instant he was traded, at which point, he got back 17 of those runs.
As a comparison, let's look at his RF/9 over the same span.
* 2002 - 1.7
* 2003 - 1.8
* 2004 - 1.7
* 2005 - 1.9
* 2006 - 1.6
* 2007 - 1.7
* 2008 - 1.8
* 2009 - 1.6
It just so happens, that 2005, the year Manny morphed into the worst fielder in baseball, he set his CAREER HIGH in actual putouts, (243). UZR gave him a 7.0 ARM rating that year, (he had 17 assists, so not shocking).
Jason Bay was a plus fielder until 2007, (by UZR), then plunged toward Manny-land, with -14.6 and -14.4 range ratings since arriving in Fenway. Note that while Manny was posting consistent 1.7ish numbers, Bay posted a 1.8 in his first partial season in Boston, but posted a 2.3 RF/9 in 2009, and made 310 putouts, (and added 15 assists). Somehow, UZR says Bay COST the team 0.7 runs with his arm.
How many LFs in all of baseball posted a 2.3 RF/9 in LF? Three -- Crawford, DeJesus and Bay. To believe that Bay is *HORRID* in LF, I have to believe that a RF VASTLY above that of any LF in baseball would be required for him to be AVERAGE. Bay records the 2nd most outs of any LF in baseball, (trailing only Crawford), and is pegged as a bumbling bafoon by UZR.
Sorry, but if UZR says Manny was an average LF in 2004 with 198 POs, a 1.7 RF/9 ... and then contends Bay, with 310 POs, a 2.3 RF/9 in 2009 cost them more than 14 runs due to his poor range ... well, then UZR is a complete *****. (Or is anyone who chooses to believe UZR in this case).
According to Fangraphs, Bay was "expected" to make 327 outs. That would make him (in theory), a perfectly average LF. That was the most outs made by ANY LF in all of baseball. I am supposed to believe that Boston has what ... an order of magnitude more chances for the LF than any other LF in all of baseball? With the GREEN MONSTER?!?!? In what Bizarro world does LF in Boston become the place to pad DEFENSIVE stats? You have to go back to 1986 with Jim Rice to find a LF who had more POs for Boston than Bay.
Manny, at age 38, improves his range runs by 18 by leaving Boston. I'm thinking Bay -- going to Seattle -- probably ups his range runs by about 60. (No, that's not hyperbole ... that's my opinion on how reliable UZR range factors happen to be).
Quote:
But Bay, in 2009, was second only to Crawford in putouts, had a basically identical RF/9, and they played the same innings, (3 apart). I CANNOT accept that the 17 extra POs Crawford managed in 2009 explain the 32 run differential in range rating from UZR. It makes no logical sense.
Ok, just because you think the other side has legitimacy doesn't mean you have to agree with them. C'mon now. I can accept a scout's opinion and then say based on stats that I disagree with them, and the disagreement doesn't make stats flawed anymore than it makes scouting flawed. In any case, judging someone else's opinion false isn't arrogant.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Anyway, scouts don't deal in "worth." That is a question that is almost only approached by statisticians. A scout would say "Jason Bay has much better power and contact hitting ability, while Mike Cameron has much better speed and fielding range ability" and let someone else make the "worth" judgment. The only people interested in the "worth" judgment are general managers and people who analyze roster moves. Scouts generally aren't analyzing roster management so much as the tools of individual players. On the other hand, most statistical applications of baseball involve analyzing roster moves, so that sort of analysis is generally exclusive to statisticians, management, and certain media members.
I don't know how you could have any discussion of worth in a given season without using stats anyway. How else are you supposed to make that determination?