PDA

View Full Version : PECOTA 50: The best players to build a team around


gr8mexico
08-22-2008, 07:54 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/22/bp.pecotatop25/index.html?eref=si_mlb

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota50/1.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota.hm/index.html

Not one White Sox player:angry:

jabrch
08-22-2008, 07:55 PM
Is anyone is surprised that Pecota doesn't favor a Sox player?

mjmcend
08-22-2008, 09:12 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/22/bp.pecotatop25/index.html?eref=si_mlb

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota50/1.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota.hm/index.html

Not one White Sox player:angry:

No Swisher, Danks, Ramirez, or Quentin? I would take any one of those 4 over many of those listed.

Lefty34
08-22-2008, 09:24 PM
I'm confused, though: is this just talking straight fantasy baseball or just generally listing players one would want to build a team around?

munchman33
08-22-2008, 09:33 PM
No Swisher, Danks, Ramirez, or Quentin? I would take any one of those 4 over many of those listed.

I haven't read the SI list, and I'm surprised Quentin and, to a lesser extent, Danks isn't on there. But they instantly had more credibility than you did when you mentioned Swisher among the top 50 players in baseball.

If anyone wants to know why I'm so adamant in arguing against Swisher, it's posts like this, confusing a slightly below average player with a franchise player.

Daver
08-22-2008, 09:36 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/22/bp.pecotatop25/index.html?eref=si_mlb

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota50/1.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/21/bp.pecota.hm/index.html

Not one White Sox player:angry:

So let me get this straight, you are upset that no Sox player was included on a list based on a theory that has no basis in fact or reality?


Why?

Lefty34
08-22-2008, 09:40 PM
So let me get this straight, you are upset that no Sox player was included on a list based on a theory that has no basis in fact or reality?


Oh Lord, please no.

Daver
08-22-2008, 10:07 PM
Oh Lord, please no.

The truth hurts.

Lefty34
08-22-2008, 10:18 PM
The truth hurts.

I would really love to take that bait but it is move-in week and I have Rush Events to attend and really do not have the time to enter into arguments with stubborn, weak.....actually no screw that. It's been awhile since I've been on here and I absolutely love these discussions.

You say no basis in reality, however if you were to actually read the explanation of what was done, you would see that the players were ranked not by past performance, but by comparable performances historically (I'm really hoping that you do not wish to debate the factual basis of historical statistics). Also, in the beginning of the article, BP makes a point of saying that they relied heavily on their scouting abilities for this piece and that these rankings are based on upside as opposed to certainty. Never once do they say or indicate that PECOTA is the Gospel, because if they did BP would stop using the term "projection". P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N.

Daver
08-22-2008, 10:21 PM
I would really love to take that bait but it is move-in week and I have Rush Events to attend and really do not have the time to enter into arguments with stubborn, weak-minded people.

You rely on theories that deliver meaningless results, and you are calling someone else weak minded?

That is rich beyond mere words.

Lefty34
08-22-2008, 10:31 PM
You rely on theories that deliver meaningless results, and you are calling someone else weak minded?

That is rich beyond mere words.

See: Edited Post

Daver
08-22-2008, 10:34 PM
See: Edited Post

See my original post.

No basis in reality.

Lefty34
08-22-2008, 10:58 PM
See my original post.

No basis in reality.

Wow, you dig your heels in just like Joe Morgan did when he was told that Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball...which makes me wonder...are you Joe Morgan?

Daver
08-22-2008, 11:07 PM
Wow, you dig your heels in just like Joe Morgan did when he was told that Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball...which makes me wonder...are you Joe Morgan?

Joe Morgan also thinks this years Sox bullpen is the best ever, I'm not quite that stupid.

mjmcend
08-23-2008, 12:00 AM
I haven't read the SI list, and I'm surprised Quentin and, to a lesser extent, Danks isn't on there. But they instantly had more credibility than you did when you mentioned Swisher among the top 50 players in baseball.

If anyone wants to know why I'm so adamant in arguing against Swisher, it's posts like this, confusing a slightly below average player with a franchise player.

First off it is not a list of the top 50 players in baseball. It is a list of the 50 players you might want to build a team around. Therefore young players and players who play a tougher position to fill have a much higher value than someone on the downside of their career or deep positions. Thome is still a valuable player to an AL team, but since he is close to done he is not very valuable to build around. Nor did I claim that Swisher belongs on this list, just that I would have taken him over some of the players listed. Well actually I said many, and that was hyperbole with regards to Swisher. I would take him over a couple of players on that list.

Chipper Jones was on the list. If I was starting a team, I would take a 27 year old Swisher over an oft injured 36 year old who is admittedly a much better player than Swisher now. Cano is also on the list, and he is player that I think is still just a product of Yankee hype.

At the risk of drawing Davers ire, Swisher has a VORP of 14.6 for 2008. That makes him better than a "slightly below average" player. Cano has a 1.7 and was on the list.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 12:15 AM
First off it is not a list of the top 50 players in baseball. It is a list of the 50 players you might want to build a team around. Therefore young players and players who play a tougher position to fill have a much higher value than someone on the downside of their career or deep positions. Thome is still a valuable player to an AL team, but since he is close to done he is not very valuable to build around. Nor did I claim that Swisher belongs on this list, just that I would have taken him over some of the players listed. Well actually I said many, and that was hyperbole with regards to Swisher. I would take him over a couple of players on that list.

Chipper Jones was on the list. If I was starting a team, I would take a 27 year old Swisher over an oft injured 36 year old who is admittedly a much better player than Swisher now. Cano is also on the list, and he is player that I think is still just a product of Yankee hype.

At the risk of drawing Davers ire, Swisher has a VORP of 14.6 for 2008. That makes him better than a "slightly below average" player. Cano has a 1.7 and was on the list.

Swisher's VORP is based on centerfielders, of which he is not. He's a left fielder/first baseman thrown in center out of desperation.

mjmcend
08-23-2008, 12:45 AM
Swisher's VORP is based on centerfielders, of which he is not. He's a left fielder/first baseman thrown in center out of desperation.

I still stand by everything else I said. I would rather have Swisher than Cano or Jones if I was building a team for the long haul.

chaerulez
08-23-2008, 02:15 AM
Swisher's VORP is based on centerfielders, of which he is not. He's a left fielder/first baseman thrown in center out of desperation.

Well his OPS+ is 106, which measuring him purely as a hitter has him slightly above average this year. Add in the fact if he played LF or 1B he'd give you above average defense, I would say he's an above average player overall.

soltrain21
08-23-2008, 08:32 AM
So does this list keep us out of the playoffs? Who cares?

Daver
08-23-2008, 10:51 AM
So does this list keep us out of the playoffs? Who cares?

The list is meaningless.

It's playing with numbers, an act of pure mental masturbation.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 10:53 AM
At the risk of drawing Davers ire, Swisher has a VORP of 14.6 for 2008. That makes him better than a "slightly below average" player. Cano has a 1.7 and was on the list.

I totally agree with everything you said, however what are you doing bringing that hogwash VORP into here? Don't you propeller-heads get it? Numbers taken from on-field events can never, EVER have any meaning of any kind other than to make nerds like you feel better about living in your mom's basement. Now go get some more Kix.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 11:17 AM
I still stand by everything else I said. I would rather have Swisher than Cano or Jones if I was building a team for the long haul.

I'd rather have Cano, but not Chipper. And not because of his age, because of his injury history. If he's healthy, I think Chipper can still put up MVP numbers for a few more seasons.

Really though, you're talking about the two guys on the list who don't belong there. And there are a plethera of players way more deserving than Nick Swisher who didn't make the list.

turners56
08-23-2008, 11:20 AM
Not having Carlos Quentin on that list is silly. Quentin should be at least a top 20. Once again PECTOA shows us that it's flawed.

DumpJerry
08-23-2008, 11:44 AM
VORP
What took so long to mention this? I say build teams around players' VORP only. It is clear as day.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 11:55 AM
What took so long to mention this? I say build teams around players' VORP only. It is clear as day.

Somebody else mentioned it. I was helping explain it better.

Daver
08-23-2008, 11:59 AM
Somebody else mentioned it. I was helping explain it better.

So you are using one set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality to defend another set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality?

munchman33
08-23-2008, 12:12 PM
So you are using one set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality to defend another set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality?

I was explaining his misuse of it. It's based on positional value without regard to defense (I know, that's stupid). But if you're going to look at VORP for Swisher, you need to do it at a position he should be playing, like LF or 1B, where his VORP is a negative value.

TDog
08-23-2008, 01:03 PM
Swisher's VORP is based on centerfielders, of which he is not. He's a left fielder/first baseman thrown in center out of desperation.

Swisher was acquired as an outfielder who could play center. He was the A's regular centerfielder after Kotsay went down last year and ended up playing the most games in center of anyone on the team. Against the Sox last year, he played center, right and first base. Ramirez was the opening day centerfielder for the Sox, but Quentin in left was a matter of recovering from his injury. Konerko was set at first and Dye was set in right. If Kenny Williams didn't see Swisher as a potential centerfielder, he wouldn't have traded for him. (The "kids can play" A's traded both of their centerfielders during the offseason, bringing up prospects and signing a speedster the Giants released in April..)

In planning for the 2008 season, the only place Swisher fit was center with the hoped-for emergence of Quentin, although Konerko's offensive slump has assured that Swisher has seen a lot of time at first. You might consider trading for Swisher an act of desperation after the Sox didn't sign Hunter or Rowand, but Swisher wasn't thrown into center out of desperation.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 01:13 PM
So you are using one set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality to defend another set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality?

I still don't get how people can say that things like VORP, while slightly abstract, have absolutely no basis in "fact or reality". Is abstract thinking really that hard? Please explain to me how you can arbitrarily say that these numbers have no basis in "fact or reality", and be as detailed as you can, because I really can't understand why or how you can say that without a knowing chuckle.

I believe that Quentin should be on the list, if not because of his VORP, then because he has the third highest EqA (.322) in the AL and the second highest EqA as a LF, behind only Matt Holliday. However, speaking of VORP, Quentin's 49.1 puts him 6th in the AL and 2nd among all LF behind, who? You guessed it, Matt Holliday (60.3). Finally, given the fact that Quentin is putting up these numbers at the age of 25, I think his youth and clear upside should put him somewhere on this list.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 01:14 PM
but Swisher wasn't thrown into center out of desperation.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Nick wasn't picked up to be a utility guy. Nor was he picked up to play center. He just had to because no one else could.

When Nick first got here, he played pretty much left or first everyday in spring. It wasn't until Owens go hurt that they shifted him. Maybe that wasn't Kenny's intention, but Ozzie certainly didn't want to throw Nick out in center, because he's less than adequate. And he only threw him out there when there was no other choice. To me, that is the defination of desperate; when you do something you don't want to...something that isn't ideal, and you're doing it simply because there's nothing else you can possibly do.

Daver
08-23-2008, 01:22 PM
I still don't get how people can say that things like VORP, while slightly abstract, have absolutely no basis in "fact or reality". Is abstract thinking really that hard? Please explain to me how you can arbitrarily say that these numbers have no basis in "fact or reality", and be as detailed as you can, because I really can't understand why or how you can say that without a knowing chuckle.

I believe that Quentin should be on the list, if not because of his VORP, then because he has the third highest EqA (.322) in the AL and the second highest EqA as a LF, behind only Matt Holliday. However, speaking of VORP, Quentin's 49.1 puts him 6th in the AL and 2nd among all LF behind, who? You guessed it, Matt Holliday (60.3). Finally, given the fact that Quentin is putting up these numbers at the age of 25, I think his youth and clear upside should put him somewhere on this list.

Any time you make a projection you have removed fact from the equation, now having no basis in fact you have no basis in reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp that single truth?

It's pure mental masturbation.

kittle42
08-23-2008, 01:25 PM
Any time you make a projection you have removed fact from the equation, now having no basis in fact you have no basis in reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp that single truth?

It's pure mental masturbation.

Not much for the prognostication, are you?

voodoochile
08-23-2008, 01:26 PM
That's an opinion, not a fact. Nick wasn't picked up to be a utility guy. Nor was he picked up to play center. He just had to because no one else could.

When Nick first got here, he played pretty much left or first everyday in spring. It wasn't until Owens go hurt that they shifted him. Maybe that wasn't Kenny's intention, but Ozzie certainly didn't want to throw Nick out in center, because he's less than adequate. And he only threw him out there when there was no other choice. To me, that is the defination of desperate; when you do something you don't want to...something that isn't ideal, and you're doing it simply because there's nothing else you can possibly do.

No, it's because they wanted Owens to lead off and figured he would grow into a MLB CF. Swish is a better CF than Owens because he has better instincts and has been playing baseball longer than Owens.

turners56
08-23-2008, 01:28 PM
No, it's because they wanted Owens to lead off and figured he would grow into a MLB CF. Swish is a better CF than Owens because he has better instincts and has been playing baseball longer than Owens.

But according to 2007's +/- defensive system, Jerry Owens has a rating of +11 and was one of the leaders in centerfield, he must be a good in CF!

munchman33
08-23-2008, 01:29 PM
Swish is a better CF than Owens

:o:


:rolleyes:

TDog
08-23-2008, 01:36 PM
That's an opinion, not a fact. Nick wasn't picked up to be a utility guy. Nor was he picked up to play center. He just had to because no one else could.

When Nick first got here, he played pretty much left or first everyday in spring. It wasn't until Owens go hurt that they shifted him. Maybe that wasn't Kenny's intention, but Ozzie certainly didn't want to throw Nick out in center, because he's less than adequate. And he only threw him out there when there was no other choice. To me, that is the defination of desperate; when you do something you don't want to...something that isn't ideal, and you're doing it simply because there's nothing else you can possibly do.

The Sox expected Quentin to emerge this year and play left every day. They had Konerko and Thome for first and DH. Desperation is your opinion. (I didn't believe Owens would hit well enough in spring to make the team.) The fact is, the Sox picked Swisher up as a potential centerfielder, and they wouldn't have picked him up if they had signed Rowand or Hunter. They might not have signed Ramirez if they had signed Rowand or Hunter.

Desperate or not, when the Sox traded for Swisher, it was obvious to me he was going to be the everyday centerfielder, just as he was in Oakland last summer. Instead of whining about having Nick Swisher play out of position, you should have been whiining when they acquiring ihim in the first place.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 02:42 PM
Any time you make a projection you have removed fact from the equation, now having no basis in fact you have no basis in reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp that single truth?

It's pure mental masturbation.

Ok that's fine, but BP and others who use projections seem to make it clear that they are, in fact, projections, and in this SI article BP says that.

However I do take issue with your point, and not just from a statistical standpoint. So there is no reason to predict the weather, the stock market or even population growth? Making your premise a Universal Law, there would be no reason to build up defenses when another country is aligning troops along your border, because doing so would be projecting that they will attack, and that projection has no basis in fact or reality according to you, simply because they are not attacking. Even your precious scouting is rendered pointless, because any decision to move a young player along to the next level would seem moronic because he is, in fact, not playing at the next level. I agree with you that statistical analysis and projections are not perfect (far from perfect when you apply them to defensive abilities), but the thought process you use to dismiss those projections is based on a logical fallacy that would render any and all projections of any kind useless, which is certainly not possible.

Daver
08-23-2008, 02:47 PM
Ok that's fine, but BP and others who use projections seem to make it clear that they are, in fact, projections, and in this SI article BP says that.

However I do take issue with your point, and not just from a statistical standpoint. So there is no reason to predict the weather, the stock market or even population growth? Making your premise a Universal Law, there would be no reason to build up defenses when another country is aligning troops along your border, because doing so would be projecting that they will attack, and that projection has no basis in fact or reality according to you, simply because they are not attacking. Even your precious scouting is rendered pointless, because any decision to move a young player along to the next level would seem moronic because he is, in fact, not playing at the next level. I agree with you that statistical analysis and projections are not perfect (far from perfect when you apply them to defensive abilities), but the thought process you use to dismiss those projections is based on a logical fallacy that would render any and all projections of any kind useless, which is certainly not possible.

Projection is fine, I have no issue with that, trying to use projections to quantify performance in any mathematical formula is mental masturbation, it serves no purpose, it quantifies nothing because the numbers lie.

I don't see how that simple fact is so difficult for people to grasp.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 03:18 PM
Projection is fine, I have no issue with that, trying to use projections to quantify performance in any mathematical formula is mental masturbation, it serves no purpose, it quantifies nothing because the numbers lie.

I don't see how that simple fact is so difficult for people to grasp.

That is where you are wrong or, at least, incomplete. The correct phrase is: "the incorrect, though accepted, numbers lie." Batting Average lies, RBI's lie, ERA lies, Wins/Losses for pitchers lie, and even OPS lies if you weight it incorrectly. However most, if not all, of these numbers have become accepted as the way to evaluate or project baseball talent. You might hear that some guy is hitting .320 with 15 HR's for his team, however you will hear a good amount less about a guy hitting .250 but hitting 40+ HR's a year and walking 100 times a year. Which is better? If you go with simple BA numbers you have to say the first player, which would be incorrect, or a lie. If you look at OBP and SLG, though, you will get a clearer view of who is the player helping his team the most. Those are the kinds of stats that are way less likely to lie about a player's ability and performance, and thus can be used more freely in projections.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 03:33 PM
The Sox expected Quentin to emerge this year and play left every day. They had Konerko and Thome for first and DH. Desperation is your opinion. (I didn't believe Owens would hit well enough in spring to make the team.) The fact is, the Sox picked Swisher up as a potential centerfielder, and they wouldn't have picked him up if they had signed Rowand or Hunter. They might not have signed Ramirez if they had signed Rowand or Hunter.

Desperate or not, when the Sox traded for Swisher, it was obvious to me he was going to be the everyday centerfielder, just as he was in Oakland last summer. Instead of whining about having Nick Swisher play out of position, you should have been whiining when they acquiring ihim in the first place.

That's revisionist history. The Sox expected Owens in center, Swisher in left, and Quentin on the bench.

Swisher was in no way the "everyday centerfielder" in Oakland. He started 56 games in center, most due to injury. And in more than half of those games he started in center, he was either replaced or moved to another position late in the game.

Wow. Just wow.

Daver
08-23-2008, 03:36 PM
That is where you are wrong or, at least, incomplete. The correct phrase is: "the incorrect, though accepted, numbers lie." Batting Average lies, RBI's lie, ERA lies, Wins/Losses for pitchers lie, and even OPS lies if you weight it incorrectly. However most, if not all, of these numbers have become accepted as the way to evaluate or project baseball talent. You might hear that some guy is hitting .320 with 15 HR's for his team, however you will hear a good amount less about a guy hitting .250 but hitting 40+ HR's a year and walking 100 times a year. Which is better? If you go with simple BA numbers you have to say the first player, which would be incorrect, or a lie. If you look at OBP and SLG, though, you will get a clearer view of who is the player helping his team the most. Those are the kinds of stats that are way less likely to lie about a player's ability and performance, and thus can be used more freely in projections.

You are still quantifying nothing, it's an exercise in futility.

You can defend the theory all you want, it does not change the simple fact that it has no basis in fact or reality. No rational person pays any attention to it.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 03:47 PM
No rational person pays any attention to it.

It's blanket statements like this, with no basis in fact, that make people not want to listen to your opinions. Plenty of logical, rational people pay attention to things like VORP. Statistic minded people tend to me the most logical, rational people out there.

It's easy to hate statistics. People misuse them constantly. Others misinterpret them. But they aren't baseless. And they certainly aren't irrelevant to rational discussion. In fact, they're more important than most of what's brought to the table around here.

Daver
08-23-2008, 03:54 PM
It's blanket statements like this, with no basis in fact, that make people not want to listen to your opinions. Plenty of logical, rational people pay attention to things like VORP. Statistic minded people tend to me the most logical, rational people out there.

It's easy to hate statistics. People misuse them constantly. Others misinterpret them. But they aren't baseless. And they certainly aren't irrelevant to rational discussion. In fact, they're more important than most of what's brought to the table around here.


How is that any different than you propellerheads using imaginary numbers to back up illogical arguments?

munchman33
08-23-2008, 03:59 PM
How is that any different than you propellerheads using imaginary numbers to back up illogical arguments?

What imaginary numbers are you talking about? Daver if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it isn't real, relevant, or important.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 04:01 PM
How is that any different than you propellerheads using imaginary numbers to back up illogical arguments?

Now that's just foolish. Made up numbers? Do you mean the ones taken from actual on-field events or the numbers taken from on-field events adjusted for league and park-factors?

And illogical arguments? The only one who has made an illogical argument here is you, with the idea that all projections are worthless because they have no basis in fact or reality.

jabrch
08-23-2008, 04:03 PM
So you are using one set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality to defend another set of numbers that have no basis in fact or reality?

Welcome to the new age of "statistics"...

Daver
08-23-2008, 04:04 PM
What imaginary numbers are you talking about? Daver if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it isn't real, relevant, or important.

What is a stat that has no basis in fact or reality?

Imaginary.


I understand it fine, the whole theory behind it is flawed.

jabrch
08-23-2008, 04:07 PM
What is a stat that has no basis in fact or reality?

Imaginary.


I understand it fine, the whole theory behind it is flawed.

Calling it a "statistic" is also misleading. VORP is not a significant statistic. It is the result of a formula that makes many fallacious assumptions. Just because you perform math on a set of numbers does not make the result a statistic.

munchman33
08-23-2008, 04:13 PM
Calling it a "statistic" is also misleading. VORP is not a significant statistic. It is the result of a formula that makes many fallacious assumptions. Just because you perform math on a set of numbers does not make the result a statistic.

They are meant to be qualified. When you understand the formula and are able to use it based on that understanding, then it means a lot more than most conventinal statistics.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand what they mean and misuse them. But don't blame the statisticians for that. If you simply blow off the stat, you're just as bad as the people misusing it.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 04:13 PM
Calling it a "statistic" is also misleading. VORP is not a significant statistic. It is the result of a formula that makes many fallacious assumptions. Just because you perform math on a set of numbers does not make the result a statistic.

A formula that makes false assumptions, eh? Well then maybe you can tell me where to go to get the complete VORP mathematical equation, because as far as I know BP has kept it secret since the beginning (which I'm not a fan of) and/or never released the formula in it's entirety. Just because you disagree with a set of data does not mean it is not a statistic.

Daver
08-23-2008, 04:16 PM
A formula that makes false assumptions, eh? Well then maybe you can tell me where to go to get the complete VORP mathematical equation, because as far as I know BP has kept it secret since the beginning (which I'm not a fan of) and/or never released the formula in it's entirety. Just because you disagree with a set of data does not mean it is not a statistic.

Just because an imaginary number exists doesn't mean it is a statistic.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 04:18 PM
Just because an imaginary number exists doesn't mean it is a statistic.

Oh willful ignorance, how I covet thee.

FedEx227
08-23-2008, 04:20 PM
That's why I'm not too big into VORP, to an extent I kind of agree with jabrch. I'm a OBP, SLG, K/9, OPS+ etc. kind of guy because to me the stats are out there for you. I can do them, you can do them, they are readily available, I can do them after the game on my scorecard. They have basis, etc.

VORP, you can't even find the formula, it doesn't exist, only the guys at BP have it, thus how am I to say the numbers are correct. They could have guys with a dartboard hitting numbers for all I know.

I wouldn't call them imaginary, but even as an admitted stat-head I look at them a little fishy because they aren't very straight-forward and they leave a lot of room for questioning, more so then some of the basic stats we have today.

I'm in no way defending the old AVG, HR, RBI factor, I think we've gone way past those, but what's wrong with using SLG/OBP/OPS, HR, RBI, K/BB, OPS+ as a way to look at a player? Why do we need a non-existence fancy formula.

Show me the formula for VORP and I might be a little less weary of it, but until then I'm going to stay away.

Daver
08-23-2008, 04:25 PM
Oh willful ignorance, how I covet thee.

And propellerheads wonder why they get picked on, it is exactly because of the Superior than thou attitude. You pick their precious theories apart and they respond with you aren't smart enough to understand it.

I find it both appalling and amusing at the same time.

Please feel free to go back to your previously scheduled mental masturbation.

jabrch
08-23-2008, 04:26 PM
That's why I'm not too big into VORP, to an extent I kind of agree with jabrch. I'm a OBP, SLG, K/9, OPS+ etc. kind of guy because to me the stats are out there for you. I can do them, you can do them, they are readily available, I can do them after the game on my scorecard. They have basis, etc.

VORP, you can't even find the formula, it doesn't exist, only the guys at BP have it, thus how am I to say the numbers are correct. They could have guys with a dartboard hitting numbers for all I know.

I wouldn't call them imaginary, but even as an admitted stat-head I look at them a little fishy because they aren't very straight-forward and they leave a lot of room for questioning, more so then some of the basic stats we have today.

I'm in no way defending the old AVG, HR, RBI factor, I think we've gone way past those, but what's wrong with using SLG/OBP/OPS, HR, RBI, K/BB, OPS+ as a way to look at a player? Why do we need a non-existence fancy formula.

Show me the formula for VORP and I might be a little less weary of it, but until then I'm going to stay away.


You and I don't agree on much - so this is new territory...

The formula for VORP used to be available on stathead.com at the following link. http://stathead.com/vorp The page is still in existence, but it is 5 years dead - only existing as web debris. That being said, any stat used to conclude that Carlos is not one of the 50 players in baseball to build a team around is ridiculous. If anyone needs to argue that, they are welcome to seek out someone to argue with. I'm uninterested in proving 2+2 indeed does = 4.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 04:29 PM
And propellerheads wonder why they get picked on, it is exactly because of the Superior than thou attitude. You pick their precious theories apart and they respond with you aren't smart enough to understand it.

I find it both appalling and amusing at the same time.

Please feel free to go back to your previously scheduled mental masturbation.

Oh I have that scheduled, but it ain't mental. I'm not saying you cannot understand stats, Daver. From what I can gather from your posts you are quite an intelligent person. Aside from that, though, I see people like you not even try to understand statistical evaluation and the like. There is no give in your arbitrary point about stats being made up. They are not made up, anyone can see that they come from on-field play, and while the more eloquent statistical formulas may be daunting, even they come with on-field situations in mind.

FedEx227
08-23-2008, 04:31 PM
You and I don't agree on much - so this is new territory...


I know, I thought the full moon was earlier in the week.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 04:31 PM
You and I don't agree on much - so this is new territory...

The formula for VORP used to be available on stathead.com at the following link. http://stathead.com/vorp The page is still in existence, but it is 5 years dead - only existing as web debris. That being said, any stat used to conclude that Carlos is not one of the 50 players in baseball to build a team around is ridiculous. If anyone needs to argue that, they are welcome to seek out someone to argue with. I'm uninterested in proving 2+2 indeed does = 4.

But they didn't use VORP to calculate that story, they used PECOTA, a system which FedEx and I both agree is totally bogus and wrong way way way more often than right. Like I said, Quentin's VORP puts him 6th in the AL and 2nd among ML LF, which in my mind (and most people's minds I hope) puts him towards the top of that list.

jabrch
08-23-2008, 04:35 PM
I know, I thought the full moon was earlier in the week.

I'm sure this will be short lived... :-)

kittle42
08-23-2008, 04:36 PM
What imaginary numbers are you talking about? Daver if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it isn't real, relevant, or important.

Sorry, Daver, I usually agree with you, but I gotta go with munch and Lefty here.

Daver
08-23-2008, 04:43 PM
There is no give in your arbitrary point about stats being made up. They are not made up, anyone can see that they come from on-field play, and while the more eloquent statistical formulas may be daunting, even they come with on-field situations in mind.

We have agreed that a projection has no basis in fact.

We have agreed that because of that it has no basis in reality.

No matter what it is based on, it is not an accurate analysis, it is an arbitrary number with no real value.

If you want to waste time studying something with no real value, knock yourself out, but don't waste the rest of the memberships time using your valueless numbers to back any type of debate, the majority won't buy a word of it.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 05:02 PM
We have agreed that a projection has no basis in fact.

Not true, which I hope you will see here:



You say no basis in reality, however if you were to actually read the explanation of what was done, you would see that the players were ranked not by past performance, but by comparable performances historically (I'm really hoping that you do not wish to debate the factual basis of historical statistics).

We have agreed that because of that it has no basis in reality.

Umm....no, we have not agreed upon that. I said that projections are not perfect, but I never agreed with you that they are useless in reality. In fact, I said this, to show that your point about projections having no basis in reality was a logical fallacy:



However I do take issue with your point, and not just from a statistical standpoint. So there is no reason to predict the weather, the stock market or even population growth? Making your premise a Universal Law, there would be no reason to build up defenses when another country is aligning troops along your border, because doing so would be projecting that they will attack, and that projection has no basis in fact or reality according to you, simply because they are not attacking. Even your precious scouting is rendered pointless, because any decision to move a young player along to the next level would seem moronic because he is, in fact, not playing at the next level. I agree with you that statistical analysis and projections are not perfect (far from perfect when you apply them to defensive abilities), but the thought process you use to dismiss those projections is based on a logical fallacy that would render any and all projections of any kind useless, which is certainly not possible.

See?

No matter what it is based on, it is not an accurate analysis, it is an arbitrary number with no real value.

Isn't that an arbitrary statement/argument? No matter what a projection is based on (past performance, trends, etc.) it cannot be of value because....why? Because you say so? That is the very definition of arbitrary. Projections, while not perfect, do have basis in reality IF they are based on the right things, such as past performances and trends. Any moron can make the projection that Darin Erstad will hit 35 HR's next season, but it isn't based on anything substantial. This projection however, and others like it, ARE based on something tangible and real. That is the point of statistical analysis in baseball.

Daver
08-23-2008, 05:05 PM
What are you trying to achieve by repeating yourself?

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 05:07 PM
What are you trying to achieve by repeating yourself?

To get you to stop making false statements about what I agreed with you on, thus rendering your arbitrary point useless.

Daver
08-23-2008, 05:11 PM
Exactly how is a projection a fact?

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 05:21 PM
Exactly how is a projection a fact?

Clearly, it is not. However that was not your objection to it. You said a projection cannot be accepted because it has no basis in fact, meaning to me that it is not based on a fact. Which is clearly not true when one looks at the explanations of the projections in the SI article. Clearly projections are not a fact but, once again, neither are weather forecasts, stock market forecasts and military activity forecasts. However projections are based on some sort of reliable fact or precedent, thus giving them basis in fact.

Daver
08-23-2008, 05:25 PM
Clearly, it is not. However that was not your objection to it. You said a projection cannot be accepted because it has no basis in fact, meaning to me that it is not based on a fact. Which is clearly not true when one looks at the explanations of the projections in the SI article. Clearly projections are not a fact but, once again, neither are weather forecasts, stock market forecasts and military activity forecasts. However projections are based on some sort of reliable fact or precedent, thus giving them basis in fact.

If a projection is not a fact, then it does have no basis in fact.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 05:27 PM
If a projection is not a fact, then it does have no basis in fact.

But it is based on a fact, is it not? Maybe we are just confusing eachother's words, but my point is that a projection is based on a fact or precedent, granting it some degree of reliability.

Daver
08-23-2008, 05:37 PM
But it is based on a fact, is it not? Maybe we are just confusing eachother's words, but my point is that a projection is based on a fact or precedent, granting it some degree of reliability.

It only has reliability if you remove the human factor. You can use projections when you are figuring production in a factory with a degree of accuracy, because the conditions are constant. To project what a person is going to do based on the past is foolish, because the number of variables is staggering, and anything projected as it relates to that is meaningless.

If you want to give any credence to a severely flawed theory have at it, there are people out there that think the Earth is flat too.

whitesoxfan1986
08-23-2008, 06:57 PM
Let me mind you guys that I have seen BP's formula that they have released, and they do a lot of squaring of numbers. PECOTA is based on the Pythagrean W-L formula, which is related to the pythagorean theorem. As a mathematical truth, squaring numbers creates extraneous solutions. Squaring numbers can create a solution to a mathematical equation that is false. Once you raise a number to an even power, you distort the real number, because the when you try to go back to the number it can be both positive or negative, so when you add up the numbers, you don't know whether they are real or not. Because of squaring being this way, it was necessary to decide to arbitrarily create imaginary numbers because squaring numbers led to unsolvable solutions. They are "imaginary", which by definition means having no basis in fact or reality. Because of this, I would imagine that the real reason that BP has their formulas secret is that anyone with half a brain in math would find that because of the amount of squaring they do in them, taking a "statistic" like VORP and working backwards to the real statistics like BA, OBP, OPS,SLG, etc would end up with some sort of imaginary number when you get rid of the squares, even though to do that you had to have a square root of a negative number, because in certain cases subtraction done in the equation would result in a negative number. I find it hard to believe that in every formula that BP uses there is no subtraction involved outside of the area that is being squared. The only ways to avoid that is to only add things(highly unlikely) or to subtract and square the numbers a within after it has been subtracted which is also highly unlikely. and don't get me started if you square a number that has already been squared, because that even distorts the arbitrary imaginary number (i squared=-1)

turners56
08-23-2008, 07:46 PM
Let me mind you guys that I have seen some of BP's formulas that they have released, and they do a lot of squaring of numbers. As a mathematical truth, squaring numbers creates extraneous solutions. Squaring numbers can create a solution to a mathematical equation that is false. Once you raise a number to an even power, you distort the real number, because the when you try to go back to the number it can be both positive or negative, so when you add up the numbers, you don't know whether they are real or not. Because of squaring being this way, it was necessary to decide to arbitrarily create imaginary numbers because squaring numbers led to unsolvable solutions. They are "imaginary", which by definition means having no basis in fact or reality. Because of this, I would imagine that the real reason that BP has their formulas secret is that anyone with half a brain in math would find that because of the amount of squaring they do in them, taking a "statistic" like VORP and working backwards to the real statistics like BA, OBP, OPS,SLG, etc would end up with some sort of imaginary number when you get rid of the squares, even though to do that you had to have a square root of a negative number, because in certain cases subtraction done in the equation would result in a negative number. I find it hard to believe that in every formula that BP uses there is no subtraction involved outside of the area that is being squared. The only ways to avoid that is to only add things(highly unlikely) or to subtract and square the numbers a within after it has been subtracted which is also highly unlikely. and don't get me started if you square a number that has already been squared, because that even distorts the arbitrary imaginary number (i squared=-1)

I'm even more confused now.

whitesoxfan1986
08-23-2008, 08:02 PM
I'm even more confused now.
Let me put it a bit more simply then. I was trying to use a logical mathematical argument to prove the fact that Daver is correct about BP's statistics having no basis in fact or reality.
BP uses formulas that involve squaring numbers. Squaring numbers distorts the original number. Therefore, if BP uses formulas that square numbers, their assertions are distorted from reality. That is what I was trying to say, but was using math talk. I should have known better, nobody would have known what the hell I was talking about unless they are a math teacher or studying some math or math based science at the college level:smile:

turners56
08-23-2008, 08:09 PM
Let me put it a bit more simply then. I was trying to use a logical mathematical argument to prove the fact that Daver is correct about BP's statistics having no basis in fact or reality.
BP uses formulas that involve squaring numbers. Squaring numbers distorts the original number. Therefore, if BP uses formulas that square numbers, their assertions are distorted from reality. That is what I was trying to say, but was using math talk. I should have known better, nobody would have known what the hell I was talking about unless they are a math teacher or studying some math or math based science at the college level:smile:

They're squaring numbers that they think are more significant than others. Although squaring would totally make that number extremely high in value compared to other numbers, isn't it still fair to say that it works if it is applied for everybody?

I don't know the formula of VORP or the other complicated stats BP comes out with, but do you mind showing me one and pointing out its flaws? That would be a nice punch in the face for those sabermetrics-rules-all people. :redneck

whitesoxfan1986
08-23-2008, 08:42 PM
They're squaring numbers that they think are more significant than others. Although squaring would totally make that number extremely high in value compared to other numbers, isn't it still fair to say that it works if it is applied for everybody?

I don't know the formula of VORP or the other complicated stats BP comes out with, but do you mind showing me one and pointing out its flaws? That would be a nice punch in the face for those sabermetrics-rules-all people. :redneck
Unfortunately, I only know the Pythagorean W-L formula, and it is on MLB.com. This formula is the basis of PECOTA, and this also is the only one that is released. It involves squaring, like the pythagorean theorem. I can only imagine that if this formula is the basis for their main projection system, that they square numbers in their other formulas. Have you ever tried to do an algebra problem and squared both sides of an equation in order to solve it? Doing so produces extraneous solutions, or false solutions. It makes up a solution to an equation that does not exist in reality. To make up a one-formula-rules-all with variables(for example, players have different BAs, OBPs, SLGs, etc) that involves squaring distorts them for this reason. Now, my guess is that the geeks at BP who come up with these numbers/formulas are much bigger math geeks than I am, however the way they come across on their website and the arrogance during the Sox championship season suggests to me that they arbitrarily came up with these formulas as a way to make money and are selling bull**** to baseball fans who know nothing about math. For all I know, they could be really trying to make something of this and have gone around what I have pointed out. However, what makes baseball so great is that statistics don't tell the whole story about the game, and what pisses me off is that these guys think that they can use stats to explain what will happen before it does. Statistics like OPS, OBP, and SLG, which use only simple math operations like addition and division are reasonable, but once you start squaring numbers, you walk down a slippery slope and you better be damn sure that what you're doing does not create false truths. The fact that in 2005 the website gave the Sox an 88 percent chance to win the division after they had already clinched it, tells me that there is something goofed up in their math, and this, though a wild guess, is probably why it came out that way.

Daver
08-23-2008, 09:26 PM
Unfortunately, I only know the Pythagorean W-L formula, and it is on MLB.com. This formula is the basis of PECOTA, and this also is the only one that is released. It involves squaring, like the pythagorean theorem. I can only imagine that if this formula is the basis for their main projection system, that they square numbers in their other formulas. Have you ever tried to do an algebra problem and squared both sides of an equation in order to solve it? Doing so produces extraneous solutions, or false solutions. It makes up a solution to an equation that does not exist in reality. To make up a one-formula-rules-all with variables(for example, players have different BAs, OBPs, SLGs, etc) that involves squaring distorts them for this reason. Now, my guess is that the geeks at BP who come up with these numbers/formulas are much bigger math geeks than I am, however the way they come across on their website and the arrogance during the Sox championship season suggests to me that they arbitrarily came up with these formulas as a way to make money and are selling bull**** to baseball fans who know nothing about math. For all I know, they could be really trying to make something of this and have gone around what I have pointed out. However, what makes baseball so great is that statistics don't tell the whole story about the game, and what pisses me off is that these guys think that they can use stats to explain what will happen before it does. Statistics like OPS, OBP, and SLG, which use only simple math operations like addition and division are reasonable, but once you start squaring numbers, you walk down a slippery slope and you better be damn sure that what you're doing does not create false truths. The fact that in 2005 the website gave the Sox an 88 percent chance to win the division after they had already clinched it, tells me that there is something goofed up in their math, and this, though a wild guess, is probably why it came out that way.

Are you sure about this?

Lefty and Munchthetroll assured me that numbers don't lie, even when presented with evidence that their theories are misguided and based on nothing more than fuzzy math.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 09:49 PM
Let me mind you guys that I have seen BP's formula that they have released, and they do a lot of squaring of numbers. PECOTA is based on the Pythagrean W-L formula, which is related to the pythagorean theorem. As a mathematical truth, squaring numbers creates extraneous solutions. Squaring numbers can create a solution to a mathematical equation that is false. Once you raise a number to an even power, you distort the real number, because the when you try to go back to the number it can be both positive or negative, so when you add up the numbers, you don't know whether they are real or not. Because of squaring being this way, it was necessary to decide to arbitrarily create imaginary numbers because squaring numbers led to unsolvable solutions. They are "imaginary", which by definition means having no basis in fact or reality. Because of this, I would imagine that the real reason that BP has their formulas secret is that anyone with half a brain in math would find that because of the amount of squaring they do in them, taking a "statistic" like VORP and working backwards to the real statistics like BA, OBP, OPS,SLG, etc would end up with some sort of imaginary number when you get rid of the squares, even though to do that you had to have a square root of a negative number, because in certain cases subtraction done in the equation would result in a negative number. I find it hard to believe that in every formula that BP uses there is no subtraction involved outside of the area that is being squared. The only ways to avoid that is to only add things(highly unlikely) or to subtract and square the numbers a within after it has been subtracted which is also highly unlikely. and don't get me started if you square a number that has already been squared, because that even distorts the arbitrary imaginary number (i squared=-1)

I enjoyed reading both of your posts, and let me tell you it was like a trip down memory lane (though for a 21 year old, the trip wasn't that long). Looking at the Pythagorean Expected Win-Loss, I can see where your concerns of false solutions come in. I was only able to reach and pass (barely) Calculus 3 here at U of I, but I think (THINK!) that possible negative answers only come up when you try to unravel the squaring that you have done earlier in the equation, which does not happen in the Pythagorean Win-Loss. It is either that or the bounds that are set on the equation made to ignore the negative results because it is impossible to score negative runs or have negative runs scored against you. This would mean that RS and RA could possibly be treated as vectors (?).

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 09:54 PM
Are you sure about this?

Lefty and Munchthetroll assured me that numbers don't lie, even when presented with evidence that their theories are misguided and based on nothing more than fuzzy math.

Oh Daver, so quick to grasp at anything that resembles a straw. I believe what I said about the bounds of the Pythagorean equation to be true. Also, it has come out recently that squaring the numbers in the Pythagorean theorem are not the most accurate, and that an exponent of 1.81 is more accurate. thus eliminating the problem of possible negative results (?).

Daver
08-23-2008, 09:56 PM
Oh Daver, so quick to grasp at anything that resembles a straw. I believe what I said about the bounds of the Pythagorean equation to be true. Also, it has come out recently that squaring the numbers in the Pythagorean theorem are not the most accurate, and that an exponent of 1.81 is more accurate. thus eliminating the problem of possible negative results (?).

And we are right back at that holier than though attitude.


Pathetic, sad, and still amusing as hell.

Lefty34
08-23-2008, 10:03 PM
And we are right back at that holier than though attitude.


Pathetic, sad, and still amusing as hell.

Wrong again, not holier than you; not holier than any other man ever. I said I believe I am right about a certain aspect of the math behind that equation, if I am wrong I will freely admit it and I hope everyone has seen that I have a) done that in the past and b) have made an attempt to be intelligent and nice in my quest for knowledge. The post by whitesoxfan1986 really interests me and I am curious to learn about this phenomenon, whether it makes me right or wrong. Others (AHEM!), however, have been nothing but stubborn and refusing to engage in intelligent, knowledge-seeking conversation from the beginning, and you are damn right THAT characteristic warrants a holier than thou attitude.

whitesoxfan1986
08-23-2008, 11:28 PM
I enjoyed reading both of your posts, and let me tell you it was like a trip down memory lane (though for a 21 year old, the trip wasn't that long). Looking at the Pythagorean Expected Win-Loss, I can see where your concerns of false solutions come in. I was only able to reach and pass (barely) Calculus 3 here at U of I, but I think (THINK!) that possible negative answers only come up when you try to unravel the squaring that you have done earlier in the equation, which does not happen in the Pythagorean Win-Loss. It is either that or the bounds that are set on the equation made to ignore the negative results because it is impossible to score negative runs or have negative runs scored against you. This would mean that RS and RA could possibly be treated as vectors (?).
I looked up the pythagorean formula to check it out when I looked at it, it turned out to be even more goofy than I thought. Instead of just simply squaring the RS and RA, they are raising it to the 1.82 power. That means that they are raising RS and RA to the 91st power, and taking the 50th root of it. That is seriously messed up. taking the 50th root puts the raising of the even power into play. I am not a math teacher and am a college student myself. I'm thinking about the math in my head, and taking a guess, probably all of the solutions that are false are unrealistic to happen in a baseball season, so they can weed them out. However, the fact that they are raising a number to the 91st power and taking the 50th root of it, really reeks of nonsense to me. In my opinion arbitrarily making a number like 500(RS/RA which is the historically accurate fact) so large that the largeness of it is incomprehensible, and then taking an incomprehensibly large root of that incredibly large number(does anybody know by heart the 50th root of any number besides 1?) to dumb it back down to comprehensible terms, the fact that the original number(RS/RA) used to represent is so grossly distorted, that it loses all value it once had. This is JMHO. I will admit to you guys that what I am saying may not be entirely true, and if someone can ask their math professor at their college if there is a flaw with my argument and point it out to me I'll listen with open ears. I'm going on what I remember from my math classes. My original post was flawed, and there is no way that by simple squaring of positive numbers that things could get messed up so badly. However, when you have fractional roots where the base of the root is even, like in this case (50th root) now you have a problem.

Lefty34
08-24-2008, 12:01 AM
I looked up the pythagorean formula to check it out when I looked at it, it turned out to be even more goofy than I thought. Instead of just simply squaring the RS and RA, they are raising it to the 1.82 power. That means that they are raising RS and RA to the 91st power, and taking the 50th root of it. That is seriously messed up. taking the 50th root puts the raising of the even power into play. I am not a math teacher and am a college student myself. I'm thinking about the math in my head, and taking a guess, probably all of the solutions that are false are unrealistic to happen in a baseball season, so they can weed them out. However, the fact that they are raising a number to the 91st power and taking the 50th root of it, really reeks of nonsense to me. In my opinion arbitrarily making a number like 500(RS/RA which is the historically accurate fact) so large that the largeness of it is incomprehensible, and then taking an incomprehensibly large root of that incredibly large number(does anybody know by heart the 50th root of any number besides 1?) to dumb it back down to comprehensible terms, the fact that the original number(RS/RA) used to represent is so grossly distorted, that it loses all value it once had. This is JMHO. I will admit to you guys that what I am saying may not be entirely true, and if someone can ask their math professor at their college if there is a flaw with my argument and point it out to me I'll listen with open ears. I'm going on what I remember from my math classes.

Yeah that seemed kind of odd to me when they started taking things to a ridiculous power. However when I look at this (http://osu02.tripod.com/id69.html) and think about it (at least when I TRY think about it) it seems as though that 91st power becomes the multiplier for RPG after some fancy derivation (derivation that I can do...when sober, however now I am not). I think this gives some GREAT examples of how the Pythagorean Win-Loss is derived.

rainbow6
08-24-2008, 08:44 AM
I purchase the BP book every year and regularly frequent the website, so Daver's consistant bashing of their work initially annoyed me.

If I can speak for him, however, I think if the folks at BP didn't put comments like "the DEADLY accurate Pecota projections.." on the cover maybe there wouldn't be this much hostility.

I think the Pecota system is an interesting theory and a fun one to read and talk about. Calling it deadly accurate is borderline offensive. Go ahead and open up the White Sox section and try to not giggle out loud at most of their projections. Thank God the Gavin Floyd, Danks and Quinten Pecota dreamed up are not on this team. On the flip side, I sure wish the Pecota versions of Konerko and Macdougal could suit up.

I think most knowledgable baseball fans could sit down before the season starts and pencil in projections for every player in league and be just as "deadly accurate" as Pecota.

I don't think those fans would go as far as to call those projections "deadly accurate."

fquaye149
08-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Any time you make a projection you have removed fact from the equation, now having no basis in fact you have no basis in reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp that single truth?

It's pure mental masturbation.

So you don't favor scouting, then?

fquaye149
08-24-2008, 11:51 AM
:o:


:rolleyes:

And add another to the "I'll just make claims that are incorrect and act as if the mere fact that I make that ridiculous claim, it's true" brigade.

Ah! Since Munchman says that Swisher being a better CF than Owens is preposterous, it must be preposterous.

Never underestimate the "smarm-factor" when all rational analysis fails!

Daver
08-24-2008, 11:51 AM
So you don't favor scouting, then?

This was already covered, pay attention and maybe actually read the thread.

fquaye149
08-24-2008, 11:54 AM
This was already covered, pay attention and maybe actually read the thread.

Oh I read the thread. All I saw was:

The same ****ing thing he always says, refusing to address valid objections

You didn't address it the first time it was brought up. And you don't answer it now. Big shock.

Daver
08-24-2008, 11:58 AM
Oh I read the thread. All I saw was:



You didn't address it the first time it was brought up. And you don't answer it now. Big shock.


If you are going to misquote me at least spell my name correctly.

And you probably should of read West's post on altering people's posts, it was quite informative on why it won't be tolerated.

Elephant
08-24-2008, 12:18 PM
He didn't alter your post, he invented one.

TDog
08-24-2008, 12:24 PM
That's revisionist history. The Sox expected Owens in center, Swisher in left, and Quentin on the bench.

Swisher was in no way the "everyday centerfielder" in Oakland. He started 56 games in center, most due to injury. And in more than half of those games he started in center, he was either replaced or moved to another position late in the game.

Wow. Just wow.

You obviously didn't watch much Oakland A's baseball last year. Unfrotunately, I am in exile in A's country. With Kotsay out, Swisher was the primary centerfielder. I saw a game where Swisher started in center and was replaced defensively by Kotsay. Swisher played more center than Kotsay. I don't believe Swisher played any left at all last year. He played right and first and center. This year the A's are playing rookies regularly in center and at first

You can believe what you want to believe. Owens wasn't going to to be givein the starting centerfield job if he was a weaker centerfielder and weaker hitter than Brian Anderson. He wasn't going to become the leadoff hitter when the Sox had Swisher who walks better than he does anything else consistently and far better than Owens. And Kenny Williams didn't acquire Carlos Quentin to sit on the bench. He was going to get a chance to play when healthy. Jermaine Dye wasn't going anywhere. Much to the chagrin of many here, Paul Konerko wasn't going anywhere.

You make the call.

Of course, you can hope that Jerry Owens will suddenly emerge with major league tools and plug him in as the everyday centerfielder leading off for the Sox. Even if the season had started that way (and considering the impatience with Anderson's offense, I don't believe it would have gone that far), Owens up the middle and leading off wouldn't have lasted. (It is true that players with speed sometimes take a long time to develop, but that doesn't mean all players with speed will develop.)

When the Sox picked up Swisher, I knew he would be the Sox regular centerfielder, and I wasn't happy about it. I may even have complained about it in WSI posts. I know I complained about it to friends here in A's country. I suppose it is possible I don't know what I'm talking about and just made a lucky guess.

sullythered
08-24-2008, 12:29 PM
When the Sox picked up Swisher, I knew he would be the Sox regular centerfielder, and I wasn't happy about it. I may even have complained about it in WSI posts. I know I complained about it to friends here in A's country. I suppose it is possible I don't know what I'm talking about and just made a lucky guess.
Yeah, and the reason we knew that was that the Sox said he was the center fielder the day we traded for him. Cripes, some people around here have a short memory.

sullythered
08-24-2008, 12:40 PM
Uh-oh.

soxfanreggie
08-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Slightly off topic, but related to the link: Did anyone else see that Frank Thomas in his batting stance is the player logo at the top of this page?

cheeses_h_rice
08-24-2008, 12:54 PM
Hi, my name is Daver, and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

:gulp:

voodoochile
08-24-2008, 01:09 PM
:gulp:

You can go tell all the boyz that you got street cred now cheeses...

Lefty34
08-24-2008, 03:38 PM
I'm still just interested in how the Pythagorean Win-Loss, and thus PECOTA, deals with those pesky negative results (vectors? derivations? logs?).

SoxNation05
08-24-2008, 10:46 PM
Rich Harden 37? His 5 innings are that important?

Lefty34
08-24-2008, 11:01 PM
Rich Harden 37? His 5 innings are that important?

Because he is 26. Because in his last two kinda-full seasons (2005 and '08), he had ERA+'s of 172 and 204, respectively [though '08 isn't done yet]. Because in 2005 he had a WHIP of 1.063 and through '08 he has a WHIP of 1.076. Did I mention he's only 26?

ma-gaga
08-24-2008, 11:28 PM
PECOTA is based on the Pythagrean W-L formula, which is related to the pythagorean theorem.

uh. I don't think you are right.

The "Pythagarean W-L formula" was the one devised by Bill James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation), and was his way of simply back-calculating the Win Loss percentage. PECOTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PECOTA) is a player forecaster. They are two separate formulas/purposes and have nothing to do with each other. Their "Playoff Odds" uses Pythagorean, but that is a team based formula based on their adjusted stats.

I'm not jumping into this mess. VORP/WARP, are fun stats, and I think they have a lot of good ways of being used to compare players. Using them much beyond that is pointless. It's kind of like the definition of "Most Valuable Player". Everyone has a different opinion of what "Valuable" means. I tend to think that you should use adjusted stats to compare players of different positions, but some believe that RAW stats are enough.

It's a big mess. :cool:

chaerulez
08-25-2008, 07:08 AM
I don't know why people are getting so worked up about this list. It's not like they are saying if you don't have any of these players your team is bad. Just a list of guys you'd want on your team. Should Quentin and Danks be on there? I think so, Quentin is basically the AL MVP front runner (or at least he should be) and If Danks record was 14-4 he'd be a Cy Young contender (W-L is one of the stupidest stats in the game today).

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 01:42 PM
Any time you make a projection you have removed fact from the equation, now having no basis in fact you have no basis in reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp that single truth?

It's pure mental masturbation.
Completely agree.

Stats themselves are nothing more than sets of results totally ignorant of the circumstances under which they originated. They are perfectly fine to use to make reasonable predictions once a player has established himself, but that only works when you keep them separate and view them in the proper context.

For example, it is easy to look at Buehrle's career ERA and predict an ERA very similar. Mark's career ERA is 3.86, and right now he's at 3.81. That's fine. As long as he's healthy and in his prime he should stay somewhere near that range. But, when you grab a bunch of numbers measuring different things and then take them out of context and play around with them it gets really, really stupid, especially when you are dealing with players, like Quentin was prior to this year, who have not established themselves.

I've argued on this topic at length before so I won't do it again now, but the one thing I can't stand more than anything with the stat lovers is the excessive use of SLG% and OPS to compare incomparable players. My perfect example of this is Casey Kotchman in 2007 vs. Paul Konerko in 2007. Casey Kotchman had an OPS of .837 (.372 OBP, .467 SLG) while Paul Konerko (.351 OBP, .490 SLG) had an OPS of .841. There are actually delusional statheads who will say they are comparable players because of this, and maybe Kotchman is even more valuable because he got on base at a higher clip. This is not true at all. Casey is a line drive hitter without a home run swing while Paulie is a home run hitter, and doubles are NOT more valuable than home runs for ridiculously obvious reasons. Casey is more of a 6th/7th hole hitter playing a power position while Paulie is a legitimate middle of the order hitter playing a power position. The OBP numbers are also deceptive because Paulie generally hits higher and in front of more productive hitters while Casey, who should always slot lower, will probably never have the power behind him that a healthy Paulie does, and without any speed he's not going to get a whole lot of use out of those extra times on base. There just is no comparison at all. A healthy, productive Paulie is a much better player than a healthy, productive Casey Kotchman, and OPS/SLG% doesn't mean **** when the numbers are pretty close.

Eddo144
08-25-2008, 02:32 PM
I've argued on this topic at length before so I won't do it again now, but the one thing I can't stand more than anything with the stat lovers is the excessive use of SLG% and OPS to compare incomparable players. My perfect example of this is Casey Kotchman in 2007 vs. Paul Konerko in 2007. Casey Kotchman had an OPS of .837 (.372 OBP, .467 SLG) while Paul Konerko (.351 OBP, .490 SLG) had an OPS of .841. There are actually delusional statheads who will say they are comparable players because of this, and maybe Kotchman is even more valuable because he got on base at a higher clip. This is not true at all. Casey is a line drive hitter without a home run swing while Paulie is a home run hitter, and doubles are NOT more valuable than home runs for ridiculously obvious reasons. Casey is more of a 6th/7th hole hitter playing a power position while Paulie is a legitimate middle of the order hitter playing a power position. The OBP numbers are also deceptive because Paulie generally hits higher and in front of more productive hitters while Casey, who should always slot lower, will probably never have the power behind him that a healthy Paulie does, and without any speed he's not going to get a whole lot of use out of those extra times on base.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but this was a terrible example to pick. Konerko is having an awful season, and "statheads" were right that he was due to decline; he's at the age where hitters with his skillset usually start to lose their ability.

And for the record, I don't recall ever hearing Kotchman was better than Konerko, just because he had a higher OBP and similar OPS in 2007. Sure, you could say his 2007 season was better, but Kotchman doesn't have the track record. Would someone argue that Kotchman has a brighter future? Perhaps, given that he's 7 years younger than Konerko and did put up similar numbers in their most recent season. Kotchman is entering his prime, Konerko is leaving his.

There just is no comparison at all. A healthy, productive Paulie is a much better player than a healthy, productive Casey Kotchman, and OPS/SLG% doesn't mean **** when the numbers are pretty close.
That's just nonsense. If they're both healthy and "productive", then they're about equal. Now, if you say a healthy Konerko is more productive than a healthy Kotchman, I won't disagree, but you're essentially arguing that if Konerko plays 162 games and hits .300/.400/.500 with 30 HR and Kotchman plays 162 games and hits .300/.400/.500 with 30 HR, Konerko is better.

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 02:58 PM
Not that I totally disagree with you, but this was a terrible example to pick. Konerko is having an awful season, and "statheads" were right that he was due to decline; he's at the age where hitters with his skillset usually start to lose their ability.

Paul Konerko is 32. He's in his prime. The statheads were right about absolutely nothing unless they foresaw him dealing with hand issues that are completely unrelated to age. His skillset is the perfect skillset for a long playing career. He plays 1st base, the least active position on the field, and he's a slow-footed masher. If he's healthy Paulie can play until he's 40.

And for the record, I don't recall ever hearing Kotchman was better than Konerko, just because he had a higher OBP and similar OPS in 2007. Sure, you could say his 2007 season was better, but Kotchman doesn't have the track record. Would someone argue that Kotchman has a brighter future? Perhaps, given that he's 7 years younger than Konerko and did put up similar numbers in their most recent season. Kotchman is entering his prime, Konerko is leaving his.

I've heard that, or at least that they're similar. Usually it's because people think that because Kotchman is younger he'll just naturally evolve into this fantastic hitter that he has never been or will never be.

That's just nonsense. If they're both healthy and "productive", then they're about equal. Now, if you say a healthy Konerko is more productive than a healthy Kotchman, I won't disagree, but you're essentially arguing that if Konerko plays 162 games and hits .300/.400/.500 with 30 HR and Kotchman plays 162 games and hits .300/.400/.500 with 30 HR, Konerko is better.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Casey Kotchman is never going to hit 30 home runs, not unless he changes his swing completely, and there's no reason to do that while hitting above .270 at the major league level.

I strongly doubt either player will ever post a .400 OBP either. A .400 OBP is a truly elite number, and the hitters that do that regularly have great eyes at the plate and are also feared by pitchers. There's not a whole lot to fear about Casey Kotchman in comparison to the average baseball player.

A .500 SLG% is also a very high number, and while Paulie has reached that and gone well past that in previous years, he'll do it mainly with home runs. If Kotchman can do it, which he hasn't yet, he'll get there by doubles. Home runs >>> doubles. A healthy, productive Kotchman will do about what he did last year, maybe a little bit better, so you're probably talking about something close to a .300 average, 15 homers, 35 doubles, and an OBP around .380. A healthy, productive Konerko hits .280-.300+ with 25-30 doubles, 35-40 home runs, and an OBP around .380.

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 03:03 PM
Joe Morgan also thinks this years Sox bullpen is the best ever.

Well, Joe Morgan was also chasing after his refrigerator trying to catch it when the repairman told him that it was running.

Lefty34
08-25-2008, 03:25 PM
Completely agree.


Oh God...

Stats themselves are nothing more than sets of results totally ignorant of the circumstances under which they originated.Correct, however only SOME stats, like W/L, ERA, Errors and BA, are completely ignorant of context. That is why other, more intricate stats were created. Blanketing statements like that one are just as ignorant as the stats you claim to hate.

They are perfectly fine to use to make reasonable predictions once a player has established himself, but that only works when you keep them separate and view them in the proper context. Exactly, couldn't agree more: larger sample sizes help make it easier to determine a player's true ability, as long as you are using the proper stats (you know, the ones without bias). But something tells me...


For example, it is easy to look at ...you are about to use...

Buehrle's career ERA and predict an ERA very similar....one of the more ignorant stats out there to solidify your point. ERA IS one of those stats that can be completely ignorant of the context of the game! You HATE those, remember? If you would have used DERA or made an argument based on his BABIP I would have somewhere to go with that. But you used an ignorant stat...you hate...ignorant...stats...[sobbing]...

Mark's career ERA is 3.86, and right now he's at 3.81. That's fine. As long as he's healthy and in his prime he should stay somewhere near that range.Possibly, but other things may be going on to keep his ERA (which is, again, kind of an ignorant stat) at that level. Perhaps the Sox go out and field an amazing defensively-skilled team? He could start giving up more walks and serve up lollipops that get roped into the field, and his defense will make the plays, keeping his ERA at the same level. Does that make him the same pitcher? Yes, you will say, because his ERA is close to his career numbers, but his Defense-Adjusted ERA would have skyrocketed. With ERA you have room to become a bit of a different pitcher (i.e. worse) and still maintain a believable ERA.

But, when you grab a bunch of numbers measuring different things and then take them out of context and play around with them it gets really, really stupid, especially when you are dealing with players, like Quentin was prior to this year, who have not established themselves.
You mean like how Errors take the play somewhat out of context, or how Batting Average pretty much takes the entire season's course of AB's out of context?

I've argued on this topic at length before so I won't do it again now, but the one thing I can't stand more than anything with the stat lovers is the excessive use of SLG% and OPS to compare incomparable players.Can I tell you something in, like, total confidence? I don't like OPS that much, either. I think that OBP is way more important than SLG by maybe, I don't know, a factor of 4, just like Bill James and Billy Beane and the guys at FJM. So please, for the love of God, stop making blanketed statements about what you think you know about stat-nerds, other than the fact that we live in our moms' basements.

My perfect example of this is Casey Kotchman in 2007 vs. Paul Konerko in 2007. Casey Kotchman had an OPS of .837 (.372 OBP, .467 SLG) while Paul Konerko (.351 OBP, .490 SLG) had an OPS of .841. There are actually delusional statheads who will say they are comparable players because of this, and maybe Kotchman is even more valuable because he got on base at a higher clip.Generally, yes you will take the guy with an OBP of .370 and SLG .460 over a guy getting on base at a .350 clip but slugging .490, based on the importance of getting on base. OPS obviously isn't perfect, but it can tell you how patient and powerful a hitter is, and hey, at least it's not Batting Average.

This is not true at all.Ok, well I am now interested to hear your counter-point. Do tell.

Casey is a line drive hitter without a home run swing while Paulie is a home run hitter, and doubles are NOT more valuable than home runs for ridiculously obvious reasons.Wait what? In 2007, Kotchman had only 68 PA's that resulted in line drives, as opposed to Paulie's 82! They both had roughly the same amount of extra-base hits, and Paulie hit more HR's, but Paulie plays roughly 81 games a season at U.S. Cellular: a ballpark with an average HR Factor of 1.286 over the last 3 years! Meanwhile Kotchman was playing his home games in a stadium with a 3-year HR Factor of around .958.

Casey is more of a 6th/7th hole hitter playing a power position while Paulie is a legitimate middle of the order hitter playing a power position.This has to do with power numbers...how? Or are you trying to make a case for the pipe-dream known as "batter protection" (See also: things that do not exist)?


The OBP numbers are also deceptive because Paulie generally hits higher and in front of more productive hitters while Casey, who should always slot lower, will probably never have the power behind him that a healthy Paulie does, God I really hate to do this, I mean it goes against everything I stand for, but here goes: in 2007 Paulie had a majority of is PA's in the 4-hole, from which he scored 53 times. Meanwhile, Kotchman split a good amount of time between the 5- and 6-hole, and in a combined 430 PA's from the 5/6 hole, he scored a combined 59 times. That's all I'm going to say on that subject, because I HATE Runs Scored.

and without any speed he's not going to get a whole lot of use out of those extra times on base.No way, for the love of God NO! Do you know who this (http://images.camdenchat.com/images/admin/dusty_baker5.jpg) man is? Do you know what he has said repeatedly? Almost EXACTLY what you just said...wow...I didn't think people ACTUALLY thought that way.

There just is no comparison at all. A healthy, productive Paulie is a much better player than a healthy, productive Casey Kotchman, and OPS/SLG% doesn't mean **** when the numbers are pretty close.
Actually I think I have done a pretty good job at showing you that the numbers show that they ARE comparable, at-least somewhat. And did I mention that Kotchman put up similar numbers to Paulie that year when he was only 24? No? Just thought it should be mentioned.

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 03:28 PM
Projection is fine, I have no issue with that, trying to use projections to quantify performance in any mathematical formula is mental masturbation, it serves no purpose, it quantifies nothing because the numbers lie.
.

Maybe I am feeling (extra) stupid today, but is it me or does the above make no sense whatsoever?

It feels like Jackson Pollock throwing non-sequiturs on screen, only in reverse. It could be the effects of weed but I don't smoke weed so it's not it. :?:

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 04:21 PM
without any speed he's not going to get a whole lot of use out of those extra times on base.

If you don't understand why getting on base, especially when leading off the inning, is HUGELY important in terms of setting up a big inning, regardless of speed of the baserunner - and some of this is covered in 'NL MVP' thread in Talking Baseball sub-forum - then you need to watch a little more baseball and theorize a little less. ^^^ is simply nonsense.

And while I agree that Kotchman is not a world beater, by any means; he's been having awful time adjusting to Turner Field, though he's still young and has room to improve, I suppose...................Still, it's hilarious how while you play (incorrectly, at that) the 'line-up protection' card, you neglect to mention that KONERKO HAS PLAYED IN ARGUABLY THE MOST HR-FRIENDLY PARK IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES WHICH I'D VENTURE A GUESS WOULD HAVE MORE THAN A NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ON SLUG %.

And you know what? You got me thinking: Going forward, I'd much rather have a 25 year old Kotchman making a couple mill than Senor Kong-a-lot at 32 making 14 Mill, self-admitted semi-chronic wrist injury and all.

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 04:21 PM
Oh God...

Correct, however only SOME stats, like W/L, ERA, Errors and BA, are completely ignorant of context. That is why other, more intricate stats were created. Blanketing statements like that one are just as ignorant as the stats you claim to hate.

Exactly, couldn't agree more: larger sample sizes help make it easier to determine a player's true ability, as long as you are using the proper stats (you know, the ones without bias). But something tells me...


...you are about to use...

...one of the more ignorant stats out there to solidify your point. ERA IS one of those stats that can be completely ignorant of the context of the game! You HATE those, remember? If you would have used DERA or made an argument based on his BABIP I would have somewhere to go with that. But you used an ignorant stat...you hate...ignorant...stats...[sobbing]...

Possibly, but other things may be going on to keep his ERA (which is, again, kind of an ignorant stat) at that level. Perhaps the Sox go out and field an amazing defensively-skilled team? He could start giving up more walks and serve up lollipops that get roped into the field, and his defense will make the plays, keeping his ERA at the same level. Does that make him the same pitcher? Yes, you will say, because his ERA is close to his career numbers, but his Defense-Adjusted ERA would have skyrocketed. With ERA you have room to become a bit of a different pitcher (i.e. worse) and still maintain a believable ERA.

You mean like how Errors take the play somewhat out of context, or how Batting Average pretty much takes the entire season's course of AB's out of context?

Can I tell you something in, like, total confidence? I don't like OPS that much, either. I think that OBP is way more important than SLG by maybe, I don't know, a factor of 4, just like Bill James and Billy Beane and the guys at FJM. So please, for the love of God, stop making blanketed statements about what you think you know about stat-nerds, other than the fact that we live in our moms' basements.

Generally, yes you will take the guy with an OBP of .370 and SLG .460 over a guy getting on base at a .350 clip but slugging .490, based on the importance of getting on base. OPS obviously isn't perfect, but it can tell you how patient and powerful a hitter is, and hey, at least it's not Batting Average.

Ok, well I am now interested to hear your counter-point. Do tell.

Wait what? In 2007, Kotchman had only 68 PA's that resulted in line drives, as opposed to Paulie's 82! They both had roughly the same amount of extra-base hits, and Paulie hit more HR's, but Paulie plays roughly 81 games a season at U.S. Cellular: a ballpark with an average HR Factor of 1.286 over the last 3 years! Meanwhile Kotchman was playing his home games in a stadium with a 3-year HR Factor of around .958.

This has to do with power numbers...how? Or are you trying to make a case for the pipe-dream known as "batter protection" (See also: things that do not exist)?


God I really hate to do this, I mean it goes against everything I stand for, but here goes: in 2007 Paulie had a majority of is PA's in the 4-hole, from which he scored 53 times. Meanwhile, Kotchman split a good amount of time between the 5- and 6-hole, and in a combined 430 PA's from the 5/6 hole, he scored a combined 59 times. That's all I'm going to say on that subject, because I HATE Runs Scored.

No way, for the love of God NO! Do you know who this (http://images.camdenchat.com/images/admin/dusty_baker5.jpg) man is? Do you know what he has said repeatedly? Almost EXACTLY what you just said...wow...I didn't think people ACTUALLY thought that way.

Actually I think I have done a pretty good job at showing you that the numbers show that they ARE comparable, at-least somewhat. And did I mention that Kotchman put up similar numbers to Paulie that year when he was only 24? No? Just thought it should be mentioned.

1. Every basic stat is completely ignorant of the situation that dictated it. Every. Single. One.

2. If you're so concerned about DERA and BABIP and whatever other bad vanity license plate-sounding stat the propellerheads come up with, you should probably just watch the games instead.

3. Oh that's so right about Kotchman. Completely ignore his swing and only pay attention to what the stat sheets tell you. Smart.

4. Park adjusted whatever still doesn't change the fact that Konerko is a home run hitter and Kotchman is not one nor will he become one.

5. If you think the idea of batter protection is a myth you have no clue whatsoever and you have no business looking at stats when you cannot understand the game they are supposed to predict. I don't give a rat's ass about PCKLE or CHESE or SNDWCH or CALIFLWR or LNCHTYME or whatever other stat you have immediately available that will tell me how I'm wrong and how Bill James and his swindlers in training have discovered a new way to take money from gullible fans.

6. You're doing it again with the stupid, completely irrelevant SLG% argument comparing Kotchman to Paulie. You don't compare home runs to doubles. That's idiotic.

7. Paulie played on a ****ty team last year and he wasn't completely healthy. Kotchman didn't play on a ****ty team, was healthy, and he only hit that high in the order because the Angels haven't had any real home run power for quite a while until they made the deal for Tex.

8. You have done a great job of nothing. You still haven't shown me how doubles are better than home runs, how prototypical #6 hitters are better than prototypical clean-up hitters, and how an increase in OBP by .20 points or whatever from what should be a lower spot in a batting order makes up for the loss of all those home runs. You also haven't shown me why I should respect a cluster**** of numbers.

9. I'm done arguing this. I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread. These "discussions" always turn out the same way, and it always appalls me when I have to defend the importance of the game on the field.

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 04:29 PM
If you don't understand why getting on base, especially when leading off the inning, is HUGELY important in terms of setting up a big inning, regardless of speed of the baserunner - and some of this is covered in 'NL MVP' thread in Talking baseball - then you need to watch a little more baseball and theorize a little less. It's simply nonsense.

And while I agree that Kotchman is not a world beater, by any means; he's been having awful time adjusting to Turner Field, though he's still young and has room to improve, I suppose...................Still, it's hilarious how while you play (incorrectly, at that) the 'line-up protection' card, you neglect to mention that KONERKO HAS PLAYED IN ARGUABLY THE MOST HR-FRIENDLY PARK IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES WHICH I'D VENTURE A GUESS WOULD HAVE MORE THAN A NEGLEGIBLE IMPACT ON SLUG %.

And you know what? You got me thinking: Going forward, I'd much rather have a 25 year old Kotchman making a couple mill than Senor Kong-a-lot at 32 making 14 Mill, semi-chronic wrist injury and all.

Take your Paulie hate elsewhere. In his good years he's light years better than Kotchman and he was better than Kotchman last year on a crappy team in the middle of a bad year. Just because Kotchman got on base more last year doesn't mean he would be as productive in a good lineup as Paulie was. And, if you think that Kotchman could come to the Cell and hit a bunch of home runs you are horribly wrong; horribly, horribly, horribly wrong.

If you're going to start typing all in caps and suggest I watch more baseball, then I think you should stop being such a post whore and watch some baseball yourself.

Eddo144
08-25-2008, 04:39 PM
2. If you're so concerned about DERA and BABIP and whatever other bad vanity license plate-sounding stat the propellerheads come up with, you should probably just watch the games instead.
You do realize that the stats themselves are "watching" the games, right? There is enough record-keeping that there are stats like LD% (percent of contact that results in line drives) and HR/AB. But a record of these removes the biases of human observation, like when you're watching the games, but miss one of Konerko's PAs because you were in the bathroom or had to work late. I'm also guessing you've seen even fewer of Kotchman's plate appearances, considering you're a White Sox fan and likely don't live in southern California (I admit this is purely an educated guess on my part). The stats never miss a plate appearance.

And why do you think the "propellerheads" got into baseball statistics anyways, instead of something more lucrative like finance? Because they love to watch and be around baseball. They love it so much they decided to work with it every day of their lives, despite not being physically gifted enough to play, or lucky enough to know someone in a team's front office to get a job with an organization.

Stats can be taken out of context, yes, but no one here is arguing in absolutes.

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 04:40 PM
I think you should stop being such a post whore

Nice.

Now I don't mind being personally attacked, but I am nonetheless compelled to recommend that you control your temper better in the future. No need for such ugliness, CAPS or not.


Oh that's so right about Kotchman. Completely ignore his swing and only pay attention to what the stat sheets tell you. Smart.


At his best, Kotchman generates a fundamentally sound, considerable back-spin generating swing that is designed not just to pad stats but to also handle pitcher's pitches. He's isn't exactly punch and judy, either.

And considering how line-drives absolutely ride the gap jet streams out of the park during summertime at USCF... Methinks Kotchman would eventually be more than fine from in the power department there.

If Iguchi can hit close to 20 HR, Kotchman sure as hell can hit 25+ (eventually as power sometimes develops later) in our bandbox. And sorry to break it to you, but Konerko's days of hitting 30-35 HR are likely over for several reasons.

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 04:46 PM
You do realize that the stats themselves are "watching" the games, right? There is enough record-keeping that there are stats like LD% (percent of contact that results in line drives) and HR/AB. But a record of these removes the biases of human observation, like when you're watching the games, but miss one of Konerko's PAs because you were in the bathroom or had to work late. I'm also guessing you've seen even fewer of Kotchman's plate appearances, considering you're a White Sox fan and likely don't live in southern California (I admit this is purely an educated guess on my part). The stats never miss a plate appearance.

And why do you think the "propellerheads" got into baseball statistics anyways, instead of something more lucrative like finance? Because they love to watch and be around baseball. They love it so much they decided to work with it every day of their lives, despite not being physically gifted enough to play, or lucky enough to know someone in a team's front office to get a job with an organization.

Stats can be taken out of context, yes, but no one here is arguing in absolutes.
I understand that people watch things and then jot them down for use later, but LD% still doesn't tell you much of anything anyway. It still ignores the situation. Also, what constitutes a line drive to these observers anyway? How about a hard hit ball? And even then, what does that tell you?

The swing is a different thing altogether. Aside from seeing him play, I've heard it relayed on broadcasts from the Angels' front office as well as the Sox announcers and the ESPN guys. He's just not a home run hitter.

Optipessimism
08-25-2008, 04:50 PM
Nice.

Now I don't mind being personally attacked, but I am nonetheless compelled to recommend that you control your temper better in the future. No need for such ugliness, CAPS or not.

Well, don't use caps then because it looks like you're yelling. Underline your sentence or use italics. That's what they're there for. I'm not mad at you Adele :rolleyes: but it's something that will annoy others, especially me, when you do that. I don't mind terse language that much but the caps suck.

At his best, Kotchman generates a fundamentally sound, considerable back-spin generating swing that is designed not just to pad stats but to also handle pitcher's pitches.

Considering how line-drives absolutely ride the gap streams during summertime at USCF... Methinks Kotchman would eventually be more than fine from in the power department there.

If Iguchi can hit 20 HR, Kotchman can hit 25+ (eventually as power sometimes develops later).

I don't agree with that. Iguchi was a home run hitter in Japan before he came over here and became a different hitter. Kotchman may be able to hit 20 under the right circumstances, but the Cell doesn't equate to that kind of extreme jump.

FedEx227
08-25-2008, 04:52 PM
I don't agree with that. Iguchi was a home run hitter in Japan before he came over here and became a different hitter. Kotchman may be able to hit 20 under the right circumstances, but the Cell doesn't equate to that kind of extreme jump.

Actually if there's any field that will cause an extreme jump the Cell is definitely in the running. It is typically among the largest home run hitting field in the AL park factors, only rivaled by Philadelphia and Cincinnati in the NL.

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't agree with that. Iguchi was a home run hitter in Japan before he came over here and became a different hitter.

To my knowledge Iguchi has never hit more than 30 HR even against inferior Japanese pitching**


** - same Japanese pitching that made Tuffy Rhoads (not to mention Steve Guttenberg) a STAR!

Eddo144
08-25-2008, 05:06 PM
I understand that people watch things and then jot them down for use later, but LD% still doesn't tell you much of anything anyway. It still ignores the situation. Also, what constitutes a line drive to these observers anyway? How about a hard hit ball? And even then, what does that tell you?

The swing is a different thing altogether. Aside from seeing him play, I've heard it relayed on broadcasts from the Angels' front office as well as the Sox announcers and the ESPN guys. He's just not a home run hitter.
To counter your specific complaint, LD% is context-independent. It doesn't measure results (such as a run scoring, or if the hitter even reached base). It simply says that of all the times Player X made fair contact, what percent were line drives.

Granted, a line drive is somewhat subjective (they also classify "fliners", which are in between a line drive and a fly ball), but so are your comments about his swing - a line drive swing to one person could very well be a home run swing to others.

And isn't a line drive swing better than a home run swing, anyways? A home run swing is inherently a fly ball swing, and line drives are better than fly balls.

This is where I feel your argument in basically wrong; you're saying that if you watch the players, Konerko hits better, yet watching the players tells you Kotchman has a better swing. The statistics (HR and SLG), however, tell you that Konerko is better.

Lefty34
08-25-2008, 05:18 PM
1. Every basic stat is completely ignorant of the situation that dictated it. Every. Single. One.


Wow. It's like you and Daver made a pact to make blanketing arguments based on your own arbitrary definition of fact and reality, and those definitions were only valid in 1924, when Splergee McGee and the crew played baseball the way it was meant to be played, with grime and grit and soap scum...

Seriously, when was the last time YOU, or anyone you know, watched every single player in the MLB in every single game he played in. No, a box-score cannot tell you that a guy got the game-winning double in the bottom of the ninth, (and you might then say, therefore, that statistics cannot explain "clutch"; But then, Close and Late statistics are derived, and finally, clutch situations can now be represented without you actually having to watch every single situation)but you still need statistics, unless you have found a way to watch every single MLB inning, at-bat and pitch simultaneously.

2. If you're so concerned about DERA and BABIP and whatever other bad vanity license plate-sounding stat the propellerheads come up with, you should probably just watch the games instead.
I am concerned with those things, but that doesn't mean I don't watch the games. In fact, I do more than watch the games, I play the game, I'm still playing D-3 Equivalent baseball, meaning I watch more than my fair share of baseball games, but I still get to watch the Sox and, better yet, I still have time for BABIP and DERA! And even VORP! WoHoooo! Give me a break man, stop using the same old tired stereotypes about people who enjoy statistical analysis, that just glorifies the ignorance of people who hate stat-lovers (which is pretty hard).


3. Oh that's so right about Kotchman. Completely ignore his swing and only pay attention to what the stat sheets tell you. Smart.Now wait just a damn minute. YOU were the one that set the bounds on our little discussion-of-love. YOU said 2007 Kotchman v. 2007 Konerko. Regardless of swing, everyone has to believe that Kotchman could have hit 20+ homers if he hit in the same ballpark as Paulie does for home games. Park Factor stats are not hogwash as they represent real things that actually happened. Unless you are denying that US Celluar is a HR hitter's ballpark, you're not doing that, are you?

4. Park adjusted whatever still doesn't change the fact that Konerko is a home run hitter and Kotchman is not one nor will he become one.Kotchman is 25! He didn't break the 200 AB mark until last year (which was, in case you missed it, the season he put up OBP and SLG numbers
comparable to Paulie)! Just because he didn't break the 15-25 HR mark in his first full season (as a 24 year old) in a pitcher-friendly park does not mean you can make the arbitrary assessment that he is not, and never will be, a home run hitter.

5. If you think the idea of batter protection is a myth you have no clue whatsoever and you have no business looking at stats when you cannot understand the game they are supposed to predict. I don't give a rat's ass about PCKLE or CHESE or SNDWCH or CALIFLWR or LNCHTYME or whatever other stat you have immediately available that will tell me how I'm wrong and how Bill James and his swindlers in training have discovered a new way to take money from gullible fans.IT'S BEEN PROVEN! (http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/) Time and time again people have looked into the "protection" myth (using play-by-play data, which is about as contextual as you can get) and shown it to be false. False as in, it does not exist.

As for me not understanding the game, I'm just going to chose to label that thought as a non-sober one, thank you.


6. You're doing it again with the stupid, completely irrelevant SLG% argument comparing Kotchman to Paulie. You don't compare home runs to doubles. That's idiotic.What? What did I do? Do you mean, say this: Generally, yes you will take the guy with an OBP of .370 and SLG .460 over a guy getting on base at a .350 clip but slugging .490, based on the importance of getting on base. As in, unless you are this man (http://images.camdenchat.com/images/admin/dusty_baker5.jpg), you understand that getting on base is at least a little bit more important than SLG.

7. Paulie played on a ****ty team last year and he wasn't completely healthy. Kotchman didn't play on a ****ty team, was healthy, and he only hit that high in the order because the Angels haven't had any real home run power for quite a while until they made the deal for Tex.If you whole-heartedly believe that first sentence to be true (seeing as how he played in 151 games), then don't use the '07 Kotchman v. '07 Konerko as an argument. And here we go again with that "protection" nonsense...it...does...not...exist.

8. You have done a great job of nothing. You still haven't shown me how doubles are better than home runs, how prototypical #6 hitters are better than prototypical clean-up hitters, and how an increase in OBP by .20 points or whatever from what should be a lower spot in a batting order makes up for the loss of all those home runs. You also haven't shown me why I should respect a cluster**** of numbers.I never said that doubles are more important than the long-ball, and I don't believe I ever implied it. I never even tried to make the argument that Kotchman is better than Konerko. I made the argument that, in 2007, their numbers were comparable, the numbers behind the OBP and SLG showed that, and that Konerko's HR totals might be taken with a grain of salt because he plays his home games on a postage stamp.


9. I'm done arguing this. I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread. But you did post in this thread and, more often than not, you were shown to be wrong and/or ignorant of statistical analysis.

Tragg
08-25-2008, 05:36 PM
I'm still just interested in how the Pythagorean Win-Loss
Phythagorean wins - the most ridiculous statistic of all and an insult to the great mathematician who would repel against what his name is used for.

I don't know how they calculate VORP, but I think the idea of VORP is interesting.

BP has this habit of fudging results to fit their theories. They also ignore facts (or try to sweep them under the rug) if they don't fit with their theories. They do that WAY too often.



On a side note, had Owens stayed healthy, the Sox would be 7+ games out. That this field staff actually wanted to start him is mind-boggling.

Daver
08-25-2008, 05:40 PM
I'm not ignorant of it, there is just quite a bit of it that isn't worth a squirt of piss.

sullythered
08-25-2008, 08:10 PM
A question to the numbers people: is the Cell THAT much of a home run park, or is it primarily because we have recently had really really powerful teams and more than a few fly ball pitchers? I'm not arguing, just wondering if you guys think that is valid.

Also, if it is such a home run park, why? I mean scientifically, we don't have drastically short fences, and we don't play way above sea level, so why?


And also, Casey Kotchman is almost exactly Ross Gload, statistically. So no, he's not as good as Paul Konerko.

Eddo144
08-25-2008, 09:33 PM
A question to the numbers people: is the Cell THAT much of a home run park, or is it primarily because we have recently had really really powerful teams and more than a few fly ball pitchers? I'm not arguing, just wondering if you guys think that is valid.

Also, if it is such a home run park, why? I mean scientifically, we don't have drastically short fences, and we don't play way above sea level, so why?


And also, Casey Kotchman is almost exactly Ross Gload, statistically. So no, he's not as good as Paul Konerko.
As far as I know, park factors are determined using visiting hitters only, so the makeup of the White Sox doesn't affect U.S. Cellular's park factor.

As for why it's the best home run park, that's a good question. The fences are indeed on the short side, but nothing outrageous. It could just be the way the natural wind currents behave, though I really don't know.

Kotchman is not as good as Konerko. Kotchman is not as good as Konerko. I was pointing out why some people might say so, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. When you factor in salary and age, however, it makes it a little bit easier to see why some people would rather have Kotchman.

Hopefully Konerko doesn't follow the normal career arc of a hitter with his profile, and this year is an aberration and not the start of a decline phase.

sullythered
08-25-2008, 09:38 PM
As far as I know, park factors are determined using visiting hitters only, so the makeup of the White Sox doesn't affect U.S. Cellular's park factor.


Then does it factor in the home team's pitchers as well? If not, theoretically, any park whose home team's pitching staff yields lots of home runs would make that team's home park have a large home run factor, despite anything to do with the physical park itself.

Adele_H
08-25-2008, 09:57 PM
A question to the numbers people: is the Cell THAT much of a home run park, .

In the summer time, oh yeah it's THE home run IMO - and also I belive 2 years ago or so it was found to be statisically so, even ahead of Coors, BPIA, one in Philly, Cincy.

As for why.... I don't know exactly but my guess would be:

1) chopping off the upperdeck + already existing summertime jet streams
2) great hitting background.
3) relatively low fences, especially in LF
4) hitting facilities available to Sox hitters in between AB.

Daver
08-25-2008, 09:59 PM
In the summer time, oh yeah it's THE home run IMO - and also I belive 2 years ago or so it was found to be statisically so, even ahead of Coors, BPIA, one in Philly, Cincy.

As for why.... I don't know exactly but my guess would be:

1) chopping off the upperdeck + already existing summertime jet streams
2) great hitting background.
3) relatively low fences, especially in LF
4) hitting facilities available to Sox hitters in between AB.

I don't think the home team's numbers are used when considering the garbarge stat that is park factor.

Eddo144
08-25-2008, 10:11 PM
I don't think the home team's numbers are used when considering the garbarge stat that is park factor.
Alright Daver, I'll bite: why is park factor a garbage stat?

Park factor is 100% based in fact. You take the number of HR/AB players hit in U.S. Cellular, for example, and divide that by the number of HR/AB those same players hit everywhere else. There are similarly calculated park factors for singles, doubles, triples, batting average, etc.

No projections, no subjective variables included, no judgment of "value". It's calculated in the basic way batting average, on-base percentage, and K/BB ratio are.

Daver
08-25-2008, 10:22 PM
Alright Daver, I'll bite: why is park factor a garbage stat?

Park factor is 100% based in fact. You take the number of HR/AB players hit in U.S. Cellular, for example, and divide that by the number of HR/AB those same players hit everywhere else. There are similarly calculated park factors for singles, doubles, triples, batting average, etc.

No projections, no subjective variables included, no judgment of "value". It's calculated in the basic way batting average, on-base percentage, and K/BB ratio are.

It's a garbage stat for the same reason the "hold" is a garbage stat, it is meant to do nothing other than give agents bargaining leverage.

As far as I'm concerned save is a garbage stat too.

Lefty34
08-25-2008, 10:27 PM
Alright Daver, I'll bite: why is park factor a garbage stat?

Park factor is 100% based in fact. You take the number of HR/AB players hit in U.S. Cellular, for example, and divide that by the number of HR/AB those same players hit everywhere else. There are similarly calculated park factors for singles, doubles, triples, batting average, etc.

No projections, no subjective variables included, no judgment of "value". It's calculated in the basic way batting average, on-base percentage, and K/BB ratio are.

Because you can't see Park Factor. You can't sit in the stands and say, "That there is one hell of a Park Factor." You can't pay a 182 year old scout who can barely see far enough in front of his face enough to write his name a monthly pittance to sit in the stands and say, "That Park Factor is 'gonna be somethin' one day, I can feel it in my bones."

You can't give Buck Thrasher a Park Factor award for playing the game the right way, and if you can't give that to Buck "It Stops Here" Thrasher, Park Factor doesn't exist to me.

asindc
08-25-2008, 10:38 PM
Not having Carlos Quentin on that list is silly. Quentin should be at least a top 20. Once again PECTOA shows us that it's flawed.

The fact that TCQ is not on the list (and to a lesser extent, Danks), is yet another reason why I don't rely on numbers too much when evaluating a player. Any system that ranks 50 other players ahead of TCQ is inherently flawed if you ask me.

Daver
08-25-2008, 10:39 PM
Because you can't see Park Factor. You can't sit in the stands and say, "That there is one hell of a Park Factor." You can't pay a 182 year old scout who can barely see far enough in front of his face enough to write his name a monthly pittance to sit in the stands and say, "That Park Factor is 'gonna be somethin' one day, I can feel it in my bones."

You can't give Buck Thrasher a Park Factor award for playing the game the right way, and if you can't give that to Buck "It Stops Here" Thrasher, Park Factor doesn't exist to me.

Nice try, but don't put words in my mouth, I hate that.

Save McCuddy's
08-25-2008, 10:46 PM
It's a garbage stat for the same reason the "hold" is a garbage stat, it is meant to do nothing other than give agents bargaining leverage.

As far as I'm concerned save is a garbage stat too.

I've used it several times in my efforts to take Yaz and Boggs down a peg when it comes to their Fenway inflated numbers. I'm not an agent, nor are either of those players in a contract year. Lighten up a bit. Stats and their manipulation are just a part of the baseball conversation. They're not the be all end all, but they are useful attempts at predicting outcomes that have an extraordinary number of variables. I admire the effort.

Not sure who was number one on the list, but it's got to be Hanley Ramirez for me.

Rdy2PlayBall
08-25-2008, 11:53 PM
Tie game! :D:

the gooch
08-26-2008, 01:53 AM
Sorry to jump in the argument so late, but...6. You're doing it again with the stupid, completely irrelevant SLG% argument comparing Kotchman to Paulie. You don't compare home runs to doubles. That's idiotic.Of course not. But I think it is fair to compare the benefits to your team between a) two doubles or b) a home run and a strike out.
We know where you stand on this issue. So now I would like to ask you if you believe slugging percentage would be more accurate/valuable if it counted a home run as five bases? And by more accurate I mean "less evil". Perhaps we should raise the number of home runs to the 1.81 power?

7. Paulie played on a ****ty team last year and he wasn't completely healthy. Kotchman didn't play on a ****ty team, was healthy, and he only hit that high in the order because the Angels haven't had any real home run power for quite a while until they made the deal for Tex.

8. You have done a great job of nothing. You still haven't shown me how doubles are better than home runs, how prototypical #6 hitters are better than prototypical clean-up hitters, and how an increase in OBP by .20 points or whatever from what should be a lower spot in a batting order makes up for the loss of all those home runs. You also haven't shown me why I should respect a cluster**** of numbers.
The ****ty 2007 White Sox hit 190 Home Runs and 249 Doubles, resulting in 693 runs scored and 72 wins.
The not ****ty 2007 Angels hit 123 Home Runs and 324 Doubles, resulting in 822 runs scored, 94 wins, and a division title.
Of course, this doesn't mean or prove a damn thing, except that maybe this Angels team succeeded doing it their way - which was not exclusively through the home run.
You haven't shown us how home runs are better than doubles.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and for that Pythagorean imaginary number bull**** earlier in the thread, they aren't making any mathematical proofs, and there is no such thing as a negative statistic for home runs or hits, etc. They are simply trying to put a weighted average to what is good and what is bad with a bunch of statistics, and just like in many engineering practices they can have multiple conditional statements within the expression/formula. This could be easily used to eliminate your problem with negative numbers showing up, and I won't get into why I don't believe they would use differences inside a square root.
Most importantly, I believe that if I don't know how they are calculating these numbers, I don't give a four-star salute.

JermaineDye05
08-26-2008, 01:09 PM
I'm really surprised Quentin didn't make it, yet Justin Upton, Josh Hamilton, and Dustin Pedroia make it? I'll take Quentin over those 3 any day. Sure Josh Hamilton is a great story, and all however he has had a lot of protection in his lineup with Ian Kinsler and Milton Bradley among others, while Quentin has really only had Dye. People forget Dye started off the season relatively slow. I'm unsure as to why they leave Quentin out.

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 01:29 PM
I'm really surprised Quentin didn't make it, yet Justin Upton, Josh Hamilton, and Dustin Pedroia make it? I'll take Quentin over those 3 any day. Sure Josh Hamilton is a great story, and all however he has had a lot of protection in his lineup with Ian Kinsler and Milton Bradley among others, while Quentin has really only had Dye. People forget Dye started off the season relatively slow. I'm unsure as to why they leave Quentin out.

I agree with you completely that Quentin should be on that list, 100%. I just think he got screwed by the silliness that is PECOTA. And hey, it's not like we haven't been "screwed" by PECOTA before, right?

But please, please for the love of all things Holy, stop using this idea of "protection". A lot of people posting get to make statements that you arbitrarily can't argue with, and I'm making one that you really can't argue with: it does not exist. Good "baseball" idea (up there with grit, determination and intangibles, to be sure), but it really, and I mean really, does not exist.

JermaineDye05
08-26-2008, 01:32 PM
I agree with you completely that Quentin should be on that list, 100%. I just think he got screwed by the silliness that is PECOTA. And hey, it's not like we haven't been "screwed" by PECOTA before, right?

But please, please for the love of all things Holy, stop using this idea of "protection". A lot of people posting get to make statements that you arbitrarily can't argue with, and I'm making one that you really can't argue with: it does not exist. Good "baseball" idea (up there with grit, determination and intangibles, to be sure), but it really, and I mean really, does not exist.

I see what you're saying the fact is that both Hamilton and Quentin are great hitters, yet Quentin is still under the radar. Maybe if he wins the MVP this year he can finally get some recognition which he certainly deserves. The great thing about TCQ though is he's so humble he doesn't think he deserves the attention.

munchman33
08-26-2008, 01:44 PM
As far as I'm concerned save is a garbage stat too.

And people think I'm absurd and thick headed. :cool:

Daver you're not going to convince anyone the save is a meaningless stat. At least not anyone on a baseball forum.

Eddo144
08-26-2008, 01:51 PM
And people think I'm absurd and thick headed. :cool:

Daver you're not going to convince anyone the save is a meaningless stat. At least not anyone on a baseball forum.
I argue with Daver all the time. The save, however, is a completely meaningless stat. Totally. All it means is that the manager turned to this reliever to finish games in which his team won. It doesn't mean that reliever was necessarily his best, either.

Example: The home team is winning 3-2 after seven innings. Their starter gives up a leadoff double in the top of the eighth, at which point the manager brings in John McNoName. McNoName strikes out the side on nine pitches in the eighth, then strikes out the first two batters in the ninth. The manager turns to his closer, Frankie Kayrodd, who walks the first three batters he faces. The next batter hits a long flyball that the CF has to make a leaping catch on to end the game.

Kayrodd gets the save. It means so much because he pitched so well, right?

munchman33
08-26-2008, 02:18 PM
I argue with Daver all the time. The save, however, is a completely meaningless stat. Totally. All it means is that the manager turned to this reliever to finish games in which his team won. It doesn't mean that reliever was necessarily his best, either.

Example: The home team is winning 3-2 after seven innings. Their starter gives up a leadoff double in the top of the eighth, at which point the manager brings in John McNoName. McNoName strikes out the side on nine pitches in the eighth, then strikes out the first two batters in the ninth. The manager turns to his closer, Frankie Kayrodd, who walks the first three batters he faces. The next batter hits a long flyball that the CF has to make a leaping catch on to end the game.

Kayrodd gets the save. It means so much because he pitched so well, right?


Our bullpen has been effective most of the year. Yet, when Bobby went down, the rest of the pen nearly melted down entirely.

A star closer is just as important as a star starting pitcher, if not more so.

Do we discount wins based on scenerio too, like offensive explosions? It's like I always say, statistics need to be qualified. But they are far from meaningless.

Daver
08-26-2008, 02:55 PM
Our bullpen has been effective most of the year. Yet, when Bobby went down, the rest of the pen nearly melted down entirely.

A star closer is just as important as a star starting pitcher, if not more so.

Do we discount wins based on scenerio too, like offensive explosions? It's like I always say, statistics need to be qualified. But they are far from meaningless.

What purpose does the hold stat serve other than to provide agents with bargaining power?

Eddo144
08-26-2008, 03:01 PM
Our bullpen has been effective most of the year. Yet, when Bobby went down, the rest of the pen nearly melted down entirely.

A star closer is just as important as a star starting pitcher, if not more so.

Do we discount wins based on scenerio too, like offensive explosions? It's like I always say, statistics need to be qualified. But they are far from meaningless.
But the lack of saves didn't hurt the Sox bullpen, the lack of Bobby did. And Bobby is a star closer, yet doesn't appear among the top five in saves.

Wins are even worse. A starter can throw a complete game one-hitter, have one run score on an error, and get the loss!

Eddo144
08-26-2008, 03:04 PM
What purpose does the hold stat serve other than to provide agents with bargaining power?
Yeah, holds are worse than saves.

I'm just confused where you get this whole "stats are only used by agents" thing. It's quite clear that stats are used by many members of this site to judge players. It's also fairly clear that many writers use stats. Some of those writers vote for end-of-season awards and the Hall of Fame.

I mean, you have a point, that in the grand scheme of a baseball season, only the team's wins and losses matter. Do you object to people keeping score at the game, too? Where do you draw the line, Daver? (At this point I'm just really curious, I know we'll never agree on the subject.)

daveeym
08-26-2008, 03:18 PM
To my knowledge Iguchi has never hit more than 30 HR even against inferior Japanese pitching**


** - same Japanese pitching that made Tuffy Rhoads (not to mention Steve Guttenberg) a STAR!
Hold it just a second there. The Stonecutters made Steve Guttenberg a star.

munchman33
08-26-2008, 03:25 PM
What purpose does the hold stat serve other than to provide agents with bargaining power?

Generally if you have guys that can get them, your pen is in good shape. If you come into a game with the lead, you should keep it. If you don't, as a reliever, you haven't done your job. I would argue for setup guys the hold is the most important statistic. More often then not, they're coming into ballgames late with a small lead. It's the situation they have to thrive in. The hold tells you whether or not they do.

Daver
08-26-2008, 03:33 PM
Yeah, holds are worse than saves.

I'm just confused where you get this whole "stats are only used by agents" thing. It's quite clear that stats are used by many members of this site to judge players. It's also fairly clear that many writers use stats. Some of those writers vote for end-of-season awards and the Hall of Fame.

I mean, you have a point, that in the grand scheme of a baseball season, only the team's wins and losses matter. Do you object to people keeping score at the game, too? Where do you draw the line, Daver? (At this point I'm just really curious, I know we'll never agree on the subject.)

The hold was created by STATS Inc at the request of a group of agents to give them a number to quantify performance for relief pitchers, to be used in contract negotiations. Most of the superfluous mathematical formula stats didn't exist until free agency was brought into the game of baseball in the seventies, coincidence? I think not.

I am not against stats, I simply have no use for stats that use a projection of performance to deliver any type of quantifiable result, because the result is meaningless. I also have little use for stats like holds and saves, what are really keeping track of, a relief pitching doing what he is paid to do?

munchman33
08-26-2008, 04:40 PM
The hold was created by STATS Inc at the request of a group of agents to give them a number to quantify performance for relief pitchers, to be used in contract negotiations. Most of the superfluous mathematical formula stats didn't exist until free agency was brought into the game of baseball in the seventies, coincidence? I think not.

I am not against stats, I simply have no use for stats that use a projection of performance to deliver any type of quantifiable result, because the result is meaningless. I also have little use for stats like holds and saves, what are really keeping track of, a relief pitching doing what he is paid to do?

Daver that's the entire basis of the stat! It's a situational pitching statistic that accounts for guys who get help in the era category from garbage time pitching.

jabrch
08-26-2008, 04:58 PM
Wins are very important - to a team. Who gets them - that's less important. Now I imagine very few bad pitchers have ever won 20 games - and very few pitchers have had great seasons and not won 15+ games. But if the way you choose to compare and measure two SPs is based on wins only, you will be missing the boat. Taking just wins, without the context, is silly. At the same time, if all else is equal (and it never is) I'll take the guy who wins more games. Again - Nobody is saying a guy with 13 wins and a 6.00 ERA is better than a guy with 12 wins and a 4.00 ERA, but that is the exception, not the rule. That's also manipulating the statistics to prove a point.

Saves for a closer are similar. Very few people with 45 saves will be bad closers. Very few great closers won't have a lot of saves. But that doesn't mean it is a good stat to use - out of the context of the events that make it up.

You can evaluate/compare/contrast pitchers a lot more by understanding what they have done in terms of the raw events much better than by using either concocted numbers like Holds or Saves or by looking at stats that don't hold a related factual basis in the underlying game like Pecota or VORP.

Daver
08-26-2008, 05:04 PM
Daver that's the entire basis of the stat! It's a situational pitching statistic that accounts for guys who get help in the era category from garbage time pitching.

It's a garbage stat concocted by baseball agents, and you know it.

You want to assess a relief pitcher, batters faced compared to innings pitched would be a much better approach.

Hendu
08-26-2008, 05:09 PM
It's a garbage stat concocted by baseball agents, and you know it.

You want to assess a relief pitcher, batters faced compared to innings pitched would be a much better approach.

Percent of Inherited runners stranded would be a good one too, since that isn't reflected in a reliever's ERA.

jabrch
08-26-2008, 05:19 PM
Percent of Inherited runners stranded would be a good one too, since that isn't reflected in a reliever's ERA.

I'll take WHIP also. Some relievers don't get put in to the game in spots where they have inherited runners in enough quantity to make sample size good.

Bottom line - takes a lot of stats to truly compare relievers.

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 06:47 PM
You can evaluate/compare/contrast pitchers a lot more by understanding what they have done in terms of the raw events much better than by using either concocted numbers like Holds or Saves or by looking at stats that don't hold a related factual basis in the underlying game like Pecota or VORP.

Why all the hat on VORP? I mean, PECOTA is a projection system, and a crappy one at that, but VORP is a counting stat that reflects the number of runs player has produced (not will produce or might produce) over what an average replacement player would have given the same percentage of team at-bats. Granted BP has refused to release the formula (which I hate to no end because I want other people to look at it and be able to tell me if it makes sense), but it seems as though VORP is just another counting stat, like a lot of the other ones out there.

Daver
08-26-2008, 06:54 PM
Why all the hat on VORP? I mean, PECOTA is a projection system, and a crappy one at that, but VORP is a counting stat that reflects the number of runs player has produced (not will produce or might produce) over what an average replacement player would have given the same percentage of team at-bats. Granted BP has refused to release the formula (which I hate to no end because I want other people to look at it and be able to tell me if it makes sense), but it seems as though VORP is just another counting stat, like a lot of the other ones out there.

If they won't release the formula for this imaginary stat how can you be so sure what they are using to arrive at it?

That is a large part of why I dismiss without second thought the vast majority of what BP churns out and calls good statistics. They aren't actually accomplishing anything with their contrived mathematical projections because if they won't reveal how they achieve an answer why the hell would anyone that is reasonably rational buy a single word of it?

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 08:17 PM
If they won't release the formula for this imaginary stat how can you be so sure what they are using to arrive at it?

That is a large part of why I dismiss without second thought the vast majority of what BP churns out and calls good statistics. They aren't actually accomplishing anything with their contrived mathematical projections because if they won't reveal how they achieve an answer why the hell would anyone that is reasonably rational buy a single word of it?

I am not sure of how they arrive at what they say their stats represent, and that is why I am so frustrated with BP, because I think VORP has the potential to be a really cool and awesome stat. If they would just release the damn formula it would let people confirm what BP says (or not) and then I could freely use it to disagree with whatever Daver has to say.

Daver
08-26-2008, 08:56 PM
I am not sure of how they arrive at what they say their stats represent, and that is why I am so frustrated with BP, because I think VORP has the potential to be a really cool and awesome stat. If they would just release the damn formula it would let people confirm what BP says (or not) and then I could freely use it to disagree with whatever Daver has to say.

You disagree with what I say anyway, do really need the fuzzy math that is BP to help?

munchman33
08-26-2008, 09:05 PM
It's a garbage stat concocted by baseball agents, and you know it.

You want to assess a relief pitcher, batters faced compared to innings pitched would be a much better approach.


I disagree with every fiber of my being. ERA is the most bull**** stat in baseball when it comes to relievers. Don't tell me what you pitched, tell me when you pitched it.

Tell you what. If ERA only accounted for meaningful situations, then I would take it more seriously for relievers. But sooooooo many relievers' ERAs are products of garbage time pitching. Holds and saves are the only stats that account for that. Now, if you want to produce an ERA and BAA in Hold situation category for relievers, then I'll consider that more valuable. But until that's a statistic, holds and saves are the ONLY stats that matter for relievers.

Daver
08-26-2008, 09:15 PM
I disagree with every fiber of my being. ERA is the most bull**** stat in baseball when it comes to relievers. Don't tell me what you pitched, tell me when you pitched it.

Tell you what. If ERA only accounted for meaningful situations, then I would take it more seriously for relievers. But sooooooo many relievers' ERAs are products of garbage time pitching. Holds and saves are the only stats that account for that. Now, if you want to produce an ERA and BAA in Hold situation category for relievers, then I'll consider that more valuable. But until that's a statistic, holds and saves are the ONLY stats that matter for relievers.

I am not talking about ERA.

You really want to be an agent for baseball players don't you? Admit it.

You stress the significance of meaningless stats, you think a minor league player is more valuable than a proven MLB player, and you think pitching prospects are more valuable than position prospects.

You're like a cartoon, it's fun to watch what nonsense you can manage to spew next.

munchman33
08-26-2008, 09:21 PM
I am not talking about ERA.

You really want to be an agent for baseball players don't you? Admit it.

You stress the significance of meaningless stats, you think a minor league player is more valuable than a proven MLB player, and you think pitching prospects are more valuable than position prospects.

You're like a cartoon, it's fun to watch what nonsense you can manage to spew next.

Holds weren't created to give value to setup guys and middle relievers. It was invented to guage their value. And it's a really good way to gauge it. Better than any other method that's used.

When did I ever say pitching prospects were more valuable than position prospects? That's an assumption on your part. I evaluate that on a prospect by prospect basis.

I don't think minor leaguers are more valuable than proven mlb players, only mlb players "proven" to suck, like Nick Swisher.

FedEx227
08-26-2008, 09:22 PM
I am not talking about ERA.

You really want to be an agent for baseball players don't you? Admit it.

You stress the significance of meaningless stats, you think a minor league player is more valuable than a proven MLB player, and you think pitching prospects are more valuable than position prospects.

You're like a cartoon, it's fun to watch what nonsense you can manage to spew next.

Who doesn't? Great starting pitching will get you much farther than good hitting.

Daver
08-26-2008, 09:27 PM
Holds weren't created to give value to setup guys and middle relievers. It was invented to guage their value. And it's a really good way to gauge it. Better than any other method that's used.


The stat was created by baseball agents.

Keep going, please, this is some funny stuff.

Daver
08-26-2008, 09:28 PM
Who doesn't? Great starting pitching will get you much farther than good hitting.

Any scout that is sane?

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 09:33 PM
Holds weren't created to give value to setup guys and middle relievers. It was invented to guage their value. And it's a really good way to gauge it. Better than any other method that's used.

When did I ever say pitching prospects were more valuable than position prospects? That's an assumption on your part. I evaluate that on a prospect by prospect basis.

I don't think minor leaguers are more valuable than proven mlb players, only mlb players "proven" to suck, like Nick Swisher.

Yeah holds and saves are the best ways to evaluate relievers, right after WHIP, K/BB, BABIP and DERA, but yeah after those they're the best.

And "proven" to suck? Right because a career OBP/SLG/OPS+ of .359/.57/115, 25-30 HR's per season, 25-30 2B's a year and around 100 BB's a year really shows how a hitter blows the big one.

munchman33
08-26-2008, 09:33 PM
The stat was created by baseball agents.

Keep going, please, this is some funny stuff.

Are you capable of looking passed that and actually what the stat depicts? I could care less if Hitler invented the stat. It's still a good stat.

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 09:35 PM
Any scout that is sane?

I refer you to my post about scouts being able to see in front of their faces earlier in the thread.

Seriously though: fielding prospects better? Give me a break.

Daver
08-26-2008, 09:48 PM
I refer you to my post about scouts being able to see in front of their faces earlier in the thread.

Seriously though: fielding prospects better? Give me a break.

The truth hurts.

Do some research on how many pitching prospects go home to find a new career as opposed to position players, the numbers don't favor your argument.

Lefty34
08-26-2008, 09:54 PM
The truth hurts.

Do some research on how many pitching prospects go home to find a new career as opposed to position players, the numbers don't favor your argument.

Gladly, since I don't trust you with those evil, lying, cheating things known as numbers. But where would I be able to find such numbers? Any help you could give me would be appreciated, and then we can have an informed discussion.

EDIT: Nevermind, Daver, I saw a couple articles in the Hardball Times (aside: I saw one about Clayton Krenshaw: are his mechanics sick or what?) highlighting the higher attrition rates of pitching prospects. Point: Daver

Daver
08-26-2008, 10:50 PM
Gladly, since I don't trust you with those evil, lying, cheating things known as numbers. But where would I be able to find such numbers? Any help you could give me would be appreciated, and then we can have an informed discussion.

EDIT: Nevermind, Daver, I saw a couple articles in the Hardball Times (aside: I saw one about Clayton Krenshaw: are his mechanics sick or what?) highlighting the higher attrition rates of pitching prospects. Point: Daver

Us oldtimers ain't completely stupid.