Manuel throws SABR-heads under bus

[oriole^]

I mean that winning and losing is about how well you play the game, not your sense of character.

Cart before the horse. If you don't have character, you generally don't play the game well.

I think it's pretty obvious what the hell went on with the Mets, as others have said repeatedly in this thread. They blew late-game leads very often because their bullpen sucked outside of Billy Wagner, who missed the latter part of the season.


"We have to work on holding leads"?

I don't know.

I don't, either. As for the Mets' bullpen, here are their IP and ERA+, for all with more IP than Wagner:

                                     IP                     ERA+
Aaron Heilman                      76.0                       79
Joe Smith                          63.1                      116
Duaner Sanchez                     58.1                       95
Scott Schoenweis                   56.2                      124
Pedro Feliciano                    53.1                      102

Okay, Heilman's kind of a dog, but other than him, that's not too bad. Is this the reason why the Mets lost? Or could it be something else, maybe even - oh, perish the thought! - something that can't be quantified as a number?

I hope that that's why Manuel said these things, and not that he really believes the problem is that they don't "know how to win" and that they have to "win and know how to win and not win with statistical people."

That's almost certainly part of it. The rest sounds like a legitimate gripe at people who are crawling all over the team with calculators and not once looking at the field.

[etothep]

i think the answer to why the mets blew it is pretty obvious....john maine

[BINGLEBOP]

Or Metsguy.

[HoustonGM]

Cart before the horse. If you don't have character, you generally don't play the game well.

I don't think the two are really all that connected. They CAN be, sure. But, there are and have been plenty of great baseball players who are/were total scumbags that lack character.

Anyway, the real point of this is...when teams "choke" (ie. a stretch of poor play happens to coincide with the end of the season), it's not due to some lack of character, or knowledge, or moral fiber, and likewise when teams win, it's not due to superior character and big hearts.

I don't, either. As for the Mets' bullpen, here are their IP and ERA+, for all with more IP than Wagner:

                                     IP                     ERA+
Aaron Heilman                      76.0                       79
Joe Smith                          63.1                      116
Duaner Sanchez                     58.1                       95
Scott Schoenweis                   56.2                      124
Pedro Feliciano                    53.1                      102

Okay, Heilman's kind of a dog, but other than him, that's not too bad. Is this the reason why the Mets lost? Or could it be something else, maybe even - oh, perish the thought! - something that can't be quantified as a number?

ERA for relievers doesn't really tell the story. It doesn't tell you the inherited runners they let score, for example, or the leads they blew.

And sorry for pulling out a "stathead" stat, but BP's Expected Wins Above Replacement stat (WXRL), models reliever performance way better than any basic stat (ERA, saves, or holds, being the most commonly used). It uses the win expectancy framework:

WX uses win expectancy calculations to assess how relievers have changed the outcome of games. Win expectancy looks at the inning, score, and runners on base when the reliever entered the game, and determines the probability of the team winning the game from that point with an average pitcher. Then it looks at how the reliever actually did, and how that changes the probability of winning. The difference between how the reliever improved the chances of winning and how an average pitcher would is his WX.

The Mets were 25th in the major leagues in WXRL, ahead of Texas, Seattle, Baltimore, Detroit, and Cleveland. Boston had the lowest WXRL of the playoff teams, and they placed 15th in the majors. 4 of the playoff teams (Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, and both LA teams) were in the top 5. The White Sox, Brewers, and Cubs were 10th, 11th, and 12th, respectively).

The Mets bullpen was terrible.

That's almost certainly part of it. The rest sounds like a legitimate gripe at people who are crawling all over the team with calculators and not once looking at the field.

Another strawman. No baseball team is going to employ somebody that doesn't watch games.

In fact, nobody would want to work in baseball if they don't watch the games. This mythical creature that has his head buried in statistics and never watches what happens on the field simply does not exist.

Any decently-ran baseball team knows that statistical analysis is NEEDED along with scouting and the like.

[haveacigar]

Cart before the horse. If you don't have character, you generally don't play the game well.



I don't, either. As for the Mets' bullpen, here are their IP and ERA+, for all with more IP than Wagner:

                                     IP                     ERA+
Aaron Heilman                      76.0                       79
Joe Smith                          63.1                      116
Duaner Sanchez                     58.1                       95
Scott Schoenweis                   56.2                      124
Pedro Feliciano                    53.1                      102

Okay, Heilman's kind of a dog, but other than him, that's not too bad. Is this the reason why the Mets lost? Or could it be something else, maybe even - oh, perish the thought! - something that can't be quantified as a number?



That's almost certainly part of it. The rest sounds like a legitimate gripe at people who are crawling all over the team with calculators and not once looking at the field.

those ERA+s aren't very good for relievers. 100 is league average for all pitchers. Well, a starter's ERA and reliever's ERA mean completey different things. A starter with an ERA around 4.25 is a dependable middle of the rotation starter, a reliever with that ERA is giving up a run every other outing and is not reallly dependable. 115 is about average for dependable relievers, which leaves Joe Smith, Scott Schoeneweis, and Wagner. Schoeneweis lefty/righty splits are so bad you really can't even consider him as a regular reliever. That least Wagner and Smith. When Wagner went down, you had Smith as the only reliever left who was dependably average. Ayala got thrown into the closers role, wasn't cut out for it, and that's that.

I'm not SABR geek. I'm much more old school than SABR inclined. But it doesn't take a calculator to figure out that the team just had a bad second half bullpen, and bullpens win divisions. Manuel can say wahtever he wants, it's immaterial until Minaya shores it up.

[haveacigar]

Another strawman. No baseball team is going to employ somebody that doesn't watch games.

In fact, nobody would want to work in baseball if they don't watch the games. This mythical creature that has his head buried in statistics and never watches what happens on the field simply does not exist.

Any decently-ran baseball team knows that statistical analysis is NEEDED along with scouting and the like.

Exactly

Lets simplify things:

Look at the Mets collapse this year (for the sake of simplicity, lets blame last year solely on Randolph)

What part of their lost division lead would suggest that some sort of misguided SABR principle brought down the Mets?

To me, it's all on the bullpen. I didn't see any other reason and certainly nothing involving SABRmetrics.

[oriole^]

Another strawman. No baseball team is going to employ somebody that doesn't watch games.

"Strawman"? You need to get out more.

In fact, nobody would want to work in baseball if they don't watch the games. This mythical creature that has his head buried in statistics and never watches what happens on the field simply does not exist.

Horsebleep. If you have never run into any of these creatures who get in your face and tell you Melvin Mora is the key to the Orioles' success because of these stats they invented last week, you are willfully ignoring the common worst aspects of your chosen pursuit.

Knowing when not to apply the numbers is every bit as important as knowing when to.

Any decently-ran baseball team knows that statistical analysis is NEEDED along with scouting and the like.

"Needed" does not mean "applicable in all situations". One who quotes numbers in every situation, to the point that they can't fathom one where it isn't applicable, shouldn't be listened to when the numbers do come out, either. Their judgment just frankly isn't that great.

[HoustonGM]

"Strawman"? You need to get out more.

??

A Straw Man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent.

The statistics obsessed nerd that doesn't watch games and cares only about numbers and thinks baseball games are played by number-compiling robots is a creation of the "anti-statistics" side of the argument. It misrepresents the "pro-statistics" side.

Horsebleep. If you have never run into any of these creatures who get in your face and tell you Melvin Mora is the key to the Orioles' success because of these stats they invented last week, you are willfully ignoring the common worst aspects of your chosen pursuit

Nope, I've never ran into that person, and I'm not willfully ignoring anything. I've honestly never seen this person. Show me them.

Knowing when not to apply the numbers is every bit as important as knowing when to.

Sure. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which the numbers shouldn't be considered though (Note: This isn't saying that numbers should always be used to make the final decision. It's saying that, if there are numbers available for the situation at hand, they should be taken into the decision-making process.).

"Needed" does not mean "applicable in all situations". One who quotes numbers in every situation, to the point that they can't fathom one where it isn't applicable, shouldn't be listened to when the numbers do come out, either. Their judgment just frankly isn't that great.

See above.




Also, regarding the Mets again, see here. Even using a simple stat like ERA, the Mets were 23rd in the majors in reliever ERA.

[BINGLEBOP]

7th in starters' ERA and 23rd in relievers' ERA? Ouch!

[HoustonGM]

Sure. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which the numbers shouldn't be considered though (Note: This isn't saying that numbers should always be used to make the final decision. It's saying that, if there are numbers available for the situation at hand, they should be taken into the decision-making process.).

I should probably clarify this.

The numbers should be ignored when it's quite obvious they mean nothing (like a player's statistics in day games on Thursdays).

[BorgHunter]

The statistics obsessed nerd that doesn't watch games and cares only about numbers and thinks baseball games are played by number-compiling robots is a creation of the "anti-statistics" side of the argument. It misrepresents the "pro-statistics" side.

I'm a computer science major at a tech-oriented university. I once worked at a national particle accelerator laboratory. I'm about as nerdy as they come. And I actually watch games. (Never ran into one of these odd, non-game-watching creatures, either. I think they're about as real as unicorns.) And the funny thing is? Statistics usually reaffirm the sorts of things I see in the games. That's why statistics (especially good statistics, like sabermetrics) are useful in a game like baseball. They have useful correlative and predictive power. Sure, statistics can't tell you if B.J. Upton is going to get a hit in this particular at bat, but they can give you useful odds which can inform the decisions you would make as a manager. Tempered, of course, by on-field, non-statistical observations. (Example: This umpire is calling lots of low strikes today. I should pinch hit my low ball hitter for this high ball hitter.)

If a manager isn't using sabermetrics to help his team, he's completely shut out one entire hemisphere of data useful to predict performance in certain areas, situations, etc. It's foolish.

[haveacigar]

If there is out there some stats dork who has attempting to quantify every part of baseball via charts and tables, without watching a single game, he sure as hell isn't working for a Major League Baseball team. Lets stop with that myth already.

[HoustonGM]

I'm a computer science major at a tech-oriented university. I once worked at a national particle accelerator laboratory. I'm about as nerdy as they come. And I actually watch games. (Never ran into one of these odd, non-game-watching creatures, either. I think they're about as real as unicorns.) And the funny thing is? Statistics usually reaffirm the sorts of things I see in the games. That's why statistics (especially good statistics, like sabermetrics) are useful in a game like baseball. They have useful correlative and predictive power. Sure, statistics can't tell you if B.J. Upton is going to get a hit in this particular at bat, but they can give you useful odds which can inform the decisions you would make as a manager. Tempered, of course, by on-field, non-statistical observations. (Example: This umpire is calling lots of low strikes today. I should pinch hit my low ball hitter for this high ball hitter.)

If a manager isn't using sabermetrics to help his team, he's completely shut out one entire hemisphere of data useful to predict performance in certain areas, situations, etc. It's foolish.

Very well said.

The bolded part reminded me of something. It seems to me that a lot of the "hate" for statistics stems from people "offended" when the statistics don't affirm what their perception leads them to believe.

[Swampdog]

You mean that Metsguy isn't John Maine?

[MeetDaMets]

Saying that you can't only use statistics is completely meaningless because nobody advocates only using statistics.

Like what I quoted in my above post, it's a ridiculous strawman used in a feeble attempt to discredit statistical analysis.

could you be a little more melodramatic ?

surely you dont believe managers have nothing else to do
then play "someone is wrong on the internet"