Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

[ohms_law]

Ohms, traditionalist thought is not a bad thing in baseball. We don't need another overproduced pageant crammed full of cheerleaders, dunkin' midgets, and has been musicians in American sports. Thank G O D that there's a veterans committee to keep some balance. Not many people are getting in on their glove, but the Vets can help there.

There's nothing wrong with traditions in my book, as long as they don't prevent the furthering of thought. The "science" of baseball, looking at and interpreting stats critically, and questioning the decisions that baseball personnel make, has helped baseball come a long way since the 70's & 80's. There is more offense, less injuries, pitchers are used more wisely and many of their careers have been extended. Most of those results (not exclusively, but the driving force) are the direct result of findings by prominent sabermetricians. Just about every team in MLB these days has a sabermetric minded employee, and/or hires specialty consultants for certain purposes. The league itself has hired several companies, especially recently, for the express purpose of increasing stats collection and dissemination.

All I'm saying is that the BBWA, nor anyone else, should choose to ignore sabermetric stats simply because their new.

[robinhoodnik]

Nolan Ryan would argue the point of "wisely used" pitchers with you. Prior and Wood are prime examples of guys who were most likely shoved to the majors early. They had enough to play today for sure, but they probably hadn't developed physically (or mentally) to the point that they should have. I think that the major increases in pitcher longevity have arisen due to the quantum leap in surgical procedures. It's definitely not the norm for a team to keep a power pitcher in the minors for his own good when they can make a push for the playoffs this year, or for gate receipts.

[robinhoodnik]

Houston, OPS is the base stat in OPS+. If the stat is flawed, then how can the addition of more numbers give you a reliable product? It's like filling an ice cream cone with poop, and covering it with sprinkles. It looks like a cone, but it's nothing more than @#%* really.

[ohms_law]

Exactly my point. Since Ryan's time, pitch counts and tracking performances relative to them have become a big deal. That, in addition to some mechanics insights and improvements in conditioning and medical procedures, has had a revolutionary impact on pitching at... well, all levels of baseball.

The September pitching stints for kids aren't that harmful either, from what I've read. the real damage is done through chronic overuse, not from 2-3 extreme starts. Although, I've seen even that being debated recently as well. That's all part of the non-traditional thinking that's been developing since the 70's, though. None of this would be occurring now unless someone somewhere decided to ignore the conventional wisdom, and start listening to someone with the data to back up their points.

[HoustonGM]

Houston, OPS is the base stat in OPS+. If the stat is flawed, then how can the addition of more numbers give you a reliable product? It's like filling an ice cream cone with poop, and covering it with sprinkles. It looks like a cone, but it's nothing more than @#%* really.

OPS+ is better than OPS because it's a more advanced stat. Yes, it's flawed. Every single stat has its flaws and no one stat should ever be used completely alone when evaluating players. Adjusting for ballpark and league make OPS+ more reliable than OPS when using OPS to compare players.

[dps]

Nolan Ryan would argue the point of "wisely used" pitchers with you. Prior and Wood are prime examples of guys who were most likely shoved to the majors early. They had enough to play today for sure, but they probably hadn't developed physically (or mentally) to the point that they should have. I think that the major increases in pitcher longevity have arisen due to the quantum leap in surgical procedures. It's definitely not the norm for a team to keep a power pitcher in the minors for his own good when they can make a push for the playoffs this year, or for gate receipts.

I lean more towards the views expressed by ohms_law and HoustonGM about of the importance of stats, but in the case of more pitchers being able to have longer careers, I agree with robinhoodnik that advances in sports medicine (not all of which involve surgical procedure) is more of a factor than is sabermetric thought. Indeed, much more.

[ohms_law]

Their not really separable issues though, from what I know. I mean, medical technology would have advanced as it has regardless, but it's the application of the technology that is important to baseball. If MLB front offices had remained as traditionally unwilling to give beat up pitcher's a chance at rehab, nothing would have changed. If statisticians remained unheard regarding pitch counts and starts, owners and GM's would have no reason not to stick with 4-man rotations. I guarantee that if an owner felt that he could get away without that extra starter with a multi-million dollar contract, he would.

Point being, the medical techniques became available. Their application in baseball has been due to statistical analysis, and not merely for pitching either. Strength and conditioning workout regimes for all players are the norm now, where they were the exception 30-40 years ago. Full time medical and training teams are relatively new, as well.

[robinhoodnik]

It's not all stats dps, just that I think that OPS and by extension, OPS+ are really not much use in judging a players true value. There are a lot of more useful stats out there than these two in my opinion.

The medical in sports is more financial. If you spend 3 years on a guy, he's really in the hole financially. You paid him, you paid his upkeep, training, physical conditioning, medical expenses, travel, etc. he goes down, it's a loss, if he can be fixed he's still got upside. Same with regulars and stars. The marketing can make back your money from the insurance layout. Teams actually sell the rights to be the "official" team hospital. There're kickbacks all around for any positive mention. The local analysts aren't mentioning the doctors and specialists names because they think they're great guys, it's part of the whole marketing package.

I think that pitch counts are just the latest wave. Baseball's allways changing when a new way of thinking comes along. Now they're looking at the six man rotation. twenty years ago closers were still something of an oddity and just beginning to come into their own. There were closers before then but in the mid eighties it really took off. Same with pitch management, now it's 115-120 for most starters if they're going ok, less if they're not. It'll change again.

[ohms_law]

The medical in sports is more financial.

Yes, it is. And how do you think that owners and GM's were convinced that there is a financial upside in not overusing their multi-million dollar ace pitchers?

It'll change again.

Of course it will, but it's how it'll change that is the key. 6-man rotations, as you mentioned, are a good bet sometime down the road. GM's and Managers, let alone pitchers themselves, are never going back to 3 and 4 man rotations regularly again. The 5 man rotations are the standard now because there is evidence that their effective. It's not just a fad to the people in MLB front offices.

[dolfanar]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Many of the sabermetric stats are great when trying to get a handle on who is likely to have a big season, who is on the decline, etc... A wonderful tool for trying to predict POTENTIAL.

But when actually evaluating what a player HAS done, W-L, RBI and Runs scored are king. The whole point of the game is to Win, and to win you need to score more runs than the other guy. In the end *it doesn't matter how you did it... just that you did it!*. Otherwise you might as well induct guy's in A ball based on potential. Are there adjustments to be made based on era played? Yes! If the average game had 20% less runs scored 20 years ago, then that has an impact, but doing averages of averages to decide who goes in to the HOF or not is pointless.

Performance vs Potential
The HOF has nothing to do with potential, you are rewarding players on what they have done, and the noteriety that came with it. Hence the name: "Hall of Fame". That's why HR's, K's, and Hit's are so important as benchmarks? Because being a 3000K pitcher automatically makes you great? No! Because it makes you "famous". That's why no one ever mentions something like 500 Doubles or 150 Triples as auto HOF stats.

[robinhoodnik]

Yes, it is. And how do you think that owners and GM's were convinced that there is a financial upside in not overusing their multi-million dollar ace pitchers?

Having the balance sheets in front of them?
They're still overusing them, they're just better at fixing what they break now.

[HoustonGM]

It's not all stats dps, just that I think that OPS and by extension, OPS+ are really not much use in judging a players true value. There are a lot of more useful stats out there than these two in my opinion.

Of course, but they are worth something when used in conjuction with other stats.

But when actually evaluating what a player HAS done, W-L, RBI and Runs scored are king. The whole point of the game is to Win, and to win you need to score more runs than the other guy. In the end *it doesn't matter how you did it... just that you did it!*. Otherwise you might as well induct guy's in A ball based on potential. Are there adjustments to be made based on era played? Yes! If the average game had 20% less runs scored 20 years ago, then that has an impact, but doing averages of averages to decide who goes in to the HOF or not is pointless.

While those stats (W-L, RBI, R) are used to judge what a player has done, that doesn't mean that they're right. Those stats DO NOT represent a player's ABILITIES. When evaluating players in a trade or before signing a player, you need to evaluate what the player's ABILITIES are. If your team is full of guys who don't get on base, you can't look at a player who drove in 100 runs and say "He'll do the same for our team" because that isn't necessarily true. But, if that player got on-base at a 40% clip, you can say with reasonable certainity that he will do the same for you.

The HOF has nothing to do with potential, you are rewarding players on what they have done, and the noteriety that came with it. Hence the name: "Hall of Fame". That's why HR's, K's, and Hit's are so important as benchmarks? Because being a 3000K pitcher automatically makes you great? No! Because it makes you "famous". That's why no one ever mentions something like 500 Doubles or 150 Triples as auto HOF stats.

If we're going to induct players based on how "famous" they are, then Jose Canseco should be an automatic. Curt Flood too. Tons of players are FAMOUS. The Hall of Fame is for the greatest players in baseball. Milestone stats are great because in order to reach stats like 3,000 hits, you have to have had a long career. But, they only tell part of the picture, and just because a guy doesn't reach 3,000 hits or 3,000 K's or 500 home runs doesn't mean that he should be automatically excluded. With more stats at our disposal, we should use all the tools we can to evaluate players.

[disposablehero]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Many of the sabermetric stats are great when trying to get a handle on who is likely to have a big season, who is on the decline, etc... A wonderful tool for trying to predict POTENTIAL.

But when actually evaluating what a player HAS done, W-L, RBI and Runs scored are king. The whole point of the game is to Win, and to win you need to score more runs than the other guy. In the end *it doesn't matter how you did it... just that you did it!*. Otherwise you might as well induct guy's in A ball based on potential. Are there adjustments to be made based on era played? Yes! If the average game had 20% less runs scored 20 years ago, then that has an impact, but doing averages of averages to decide who goes in to the HOF or not is pointless.

Performance vs Potential
The HOF has nothing to do with potential, you are rewarding players on what they have done, and the noteriety that came with it. Hence the name: "Hall of Fame". That's why HR's, K's, and Hit's are so important as benchmarks? Because being a 3000K pitcher automatically makes you great? No! Because it makes you "famous". That's why no one ever mentions something like 500 Doubles or 150 Triples as auto HOF stats.

WARP, VORP, LWTS, XR, OPS, etc. are not about predicting the future. they are about quantifying an individual's prior contribution to the team's prior W-L record.

MLE, ZiPS, PECOTA, MARCEL, CHONE, etc. are about predicting the future. they are about using an individual's prior contribution to predict his future contribution to the team's W-L record.

[Redsauce]

Absolutely 100% true, disposable.

[edburns]

The joke of it that baseball is much deeper than statistics. The reason the Billy Beane model worked and still works is finding value. I have been reading Bill James since about 1983. I understand that stats side of things, however, to blindly keep saying OPS+ OPS+ is the joke. Yes it is useful, but it does not account for strategy at all. Take a look at someone like Vince Coleman...or the entire 1985 Cardinals team. Not too impressive on paper, yet they won the NL Pennant. They had 300+ steals and were built for a style of baseball that matched the era and their ball park. The point is that OPS+ or any statistic captures some data, but not all. How does OPS+ or any stat for that matter capture the pressure a pitcher feels with Vince Coleman on 1B getting ready to steal? What does that pressure do to the pitch selection? The point of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent, not to just score runs. Ask the Rockies about scoring runs...It is a team sport and it operates on a much deeper level than any one stat can capture. Go back and read what you have written. OPS+ over and over and yet you miss the entire point. The best way to judge a Hall of Famer is this... was he the one or two best players at his position over a 10+ year period. Ask anyone who actually saw Dawson play in the 1980s and they will tell you that he was.

Now look again at 1985...how did KCR win the WS? OPS+ for the team of 95 and STL had a team OPS+ of 108. How does that happen? Oh the playoffs are random? No, not at all it is just that statistics can not measure everything. Ask Theo Epstein how to measure team chemistry...they won a WS which they should do with or without Theo Epstein. He had the 2nd highest payroll in baseball year after year and get annointed as the great savior of statistics. A broken clock is right twice a day...