PDA

View Full Version : Keith Law's a fan of Viciedo, not so much of John Van Benschoten


WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 11:00 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3966405&name=law_keith&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3966405%26name%3dlaw_ keith

RichFitztightly
03-10-2009, 11:34 PM
I saw that article too. I gotta say I agree with him on both accounts. I think Viciedo will eventually be the replacement for Paulie if and when he decides to hang 'em up. The Cuban has a few years of seasoning ahead of him in the minors in my opinion.

Van Benschoten, well... he has a long name. I gotta give him that.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 11:37 PM
I saw that article too. I gotta say I agree with him on both accounts. I think Viciedo will eventually be the replacement for Paulie if and when he decides to hang 'em up. The Cuban has a few years of seasoning ahead of him in the minors in my opinion.

Van Benschoten, well... he has a long name. I gotta give him that.
Obviously Van Benschoten has no chance ot make the big club, but I was a bit surprised to see he was surprised by Danks. Anyone can have a bad outting, I'm not at all worried about him.

soltrain21
03-11-2009, 09:34 AM
I saw that article too. I gotta say I agree with him on both accounts. I think Viciedo will eventually be the replacement for Paulie if and when he decides to hang 'em up. The Cuban has a few years of seasoning ahead of him in the minors in my opinion.

Van Benschoten, well... he has a long name. I gotta give him that.

Well it can't be too many years, he is only signed for four. It's not like we have him for arbitration or anything. At least I don't think...?

He gone
03-11-2009, 04:16 PM
Obviously Van Benschoten has no chance ot make the big club, but I was a bit surprised to see he was surprised by Danks. Anyone can have a bad outting, I'm not at all worried about him.

I'm not worried about Danks either. As for Van Benschoten, he'll look good in a Knights uniform :tongue:

jabrch
03-11-2009, 04:57 PM
That...25cents....gumball

Eddo144
03-11-2009, 05:16 PM
That...25cents....gumball
And all our discussions...2cents...gumball too. What's your point? :scratch:

jabrch
03-11-2009, 05:24 PM
And all our discussions...2cents...gumball too. What's your point? :scratch:

There is a lot of value to some people's opinion here. Not Law's.

SoxSpeed22
03-11-2009, 05:24 PM
I think Viciedo will end up being one of the better finds in this offseason. I don't know what position he will play, but as long as he keeps his head on straight, he can be a good one.
As for JVB, I didn't expect much from him. He's really been unimpressive. Those kind of decisions are why the Pirates are the Pirates.

chaerulez
03-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Well it can't be too many years, he is only signed for four. It's not like we have him for arbitration or anything. At least I don't think...?

I believe he still can't be a FA until he has 6 years of MLB service time, the Sox would have to decline him arbitration for him to walk after 4 years. But because he has the MLB contract I think he still gains MLB service time even if he's in the minors.

Eddo144
03-11-2009, 06:30 PM
There is a lot of value to some people's opinion here. Not Law's.
Meh. Law's a pompous ass at times, but at least he actually thinks about things before writing them and doesn't get caught up in hype and cliches. His opinion is better than Heyman's, Stark's, and Roger's, to name a few. I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he explains his opinions rationally.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Meh. Law's a pompous ass at times, but at least he actually thinks about things before writing them and doesn't get caught up in hype and cliches. His opinion is better than Heyman's, Stark's, and Roger's, to name a few. I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he explains his opinions rationally.

He's easily the best analyst for ESPN (Neyer's good too, but Law is excellent) He's been wrong plenty of times (and will continue to be in the future) but he allows us (the readers) to catch a glimpse of how scouts evaluate talent.

The only real issue I have with Law is an issue that I too am guilty of- when a player has a glaring hole in his game, Law seems to zero in on that aspect of the game and forget everything else.

Case in point, Ramirez. He's absolutely correct that Ramirez has horrible plate discipline and is a rather poor defender. That said, he also supplies an incredible amount of power for a middle infielder and he posses very solid contact skills. Is he overrated by some, certainly. However he was still worth about 4.5 million dollars last season and is a viable option for any team in contention.

Now before I throw Law under the bus for that- I must admit, again- I'm guilty of that all the time. It took me the longest time to admit, despite his weaknesses that Alfonso Soriano was an excellent baseball player (I generally regulated him to the category of good).

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 09:01 PM
Case in point, Ramirez. He's absolutely correct that Ramirez has horrible plate discipline and is a rather poor defender. That said, he also supplies an incredible amount of power for a middle infielder and he posses very solid contact skills. Is he overrated by some, certainly. However he was still worth about 4.5 million dollars last season and is a viable option for any team in contention.

Now before I throw Law under the bus for that- I must admit, again- I'm guilty of that all the time. It took me the longest time to admit, despite his weaknesses that Alfonso Soriano was an excellent baseball player (I generally regulated him to the category of good).

Two things:

Alexei is poor defensively?

What makes Soriano an "excellent" ballplayer? His weak defense, his streaky hitting, or his lowish OBP? (sorry for the sarcasm)

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 09:24 PM
Two things:

Alexei is poor defensively?

What makes Soriano an "excellent" ballplayer? His weak defense, his streaky hitting, or his lowish OBP? (sorry for the sarcasm)

A career OPS+ of 116 (135, 123, 121 over the past 3 years) with average to good defense in the OF (awful defense at 2b) and a boat load of steals at an 80% clip is pretty damn solid. He's a very good player, though you're right he has his weaknesses (OBP being a massive one).

Though looking back at his stats, excellent may be overselling it- very good is better.

and yes, Alexei is an awful defensive 2b. FRAA of -12, and according to +/- he wasn't in the top 1/3 of players either.

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 09:41 PM
A career OPS+ of 116 (135, 123, 121 over the past 3 years) with good defense in the OF (awful defense at 2b) and a boat load of steals at an 80% clip is pretty damn solid. He's a very good player, though you're right he has his weaknesses (OBP being a massive one)

and yes, Alexei is an awful defensive 2b.

I don't agree with the assessment of Soriano in the OF, I see a guy getting bad reads with a lollipop arm. The steals are nice and so are the power numbers, but he is currently a leadoff hitter, so OBP is pretty huge, at least in my eye.

I know that Alexei had problems adjusting to 2b at the beginning of the season last year, but I thought he made great strides as the season progressed. He's one hell of an athlete.

soxfandoug
03-11-2009, 09:43 PM
I have always felt that Keith Law has something of a unique viewpoint. He is just about the only "scout" type that I know of that is heavily influenced by "sabermetrics". He and Neyer are about the only writers worth reading at ESPN.com. Even Gammons seems to have lost his touch.

oeo
03-11-2009, 09:47 PM
A career OPS+ of 116 (135, 123, 121 over the past 3 years) with average to good defense in the OF (awful defense at 2b) and a boat load of steals at an 80% clip is pretty damn solid. He's a very good player, though you're right he has his weaknesses (OBP being a massive one).

Average to good defense? Are you talking about the same Soriano? I'm guessing you have some stat in front of your face, and if it's telling you that he's a good outfielder, then that stat sucks.

And his 'boat load' of steals days are likely behind him, or very close to it.

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 09:53 PM
And his his 'boat load' of steals days are likely behind him, or very close to it.

More than likely yes, but I'm curious to see how he performs if he does actually hit lower in the order. His numbers while hitting anywhere from 2- 5 are surprisingly bad over his career.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 09:54 PM
Average to good defense? Are you talking about the same Soriano? I'm guessing you have some stat in front of your face, and if it's telling you that he's a good outfielder, then that stat sucks.

And his his 'boat load' of steals days are likely behind him, or very close to it.

and you eyes stink if you think Alexei's a good defensive 2b.

19 sb with CS has a decent amount of value. He's a good player, again- I oversold it when I said he was excellent- but he's constantly around a WARP of 5, that's almost an All star. Over the past two two years have been 18 and 10, not outstanding but certainly not bad. He's a slightly better than average fielder in the OF.

SoxGirl4Life
03-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Keith Law is a turd, IMO

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 09:56 PM
I have always felt that Keith Law has something of a unique viewpoint. He is just about the only "scout" type that I know of that is heavily influenced by "sabermetrics". He and Neyer are about the only writers worth reading at ESPN.com. Even Gammons seems to have lost his touch.

I think that with in the end of the next decade scouts will have developed more respect for the saber element and the stat folks will likewise gain a bit of an appreciation for scouting. You already see it with baseballprospectus and baseballamerica to a degree. I personally can't wait for the two camps to become fully integrated because it'll likely cause those who dismiss statistical analysis to shut up.

oeo
03-11-2009, 09:57 PM
and you eyes stink if you think Alexei's a good defensive 2b.

This is your defense? Accusing me of something I never said? Alexei had great range to his left, but subpar to his right. He also got better as the season progressed. At the very least, he's more valuable as a defender than Soriano ever has been or will be.

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 10:03 PM
I personally can't wait for the two camps to become fully integrated because it'll likely cause those who dismiss statistical analysis to shut up.

All major league teams make use of both stats and scouting, it's just how much they decide to advertise it.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:07 PM
This is your defense? Accusing me of something I never said? Alexei had great range to his left, but subpar to his right. He also got better as the season progressed. At the very least, he's more valuable as a defender than Soriano ever has been or will be.

Sorry I thought you were another poster, I seem to be arguing with two people and not paying attention to each screen name, bad arguments look the same to me. I also did include Soriano's defensive statistics in my defense as well- his FRAA has been above average to good over the past two seasons.

And you're dead wrong about Alexie's defense. Certainly, he's more valuable because of the positional disadvantage 2b to left field is a big drop down the spectrum (and I actually think Ramirez would be a plus defensive outfielder), but he was pretty crappy defensively at 2b last year, the facts bear that out.

It boils down to what worth more, a slightly above average defensive LF (according to FAA)/ a great defensive LF (according to defensive win shares) or a bad defensive 2b (according to both FAA and defensive win shares).

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:08 PM
All major league teams make use of both stats and scouting, it's just how much they decide to advertise it.

certainly but at first (and even now) we often hear members of each community bashing each other. It's childish and unproductive, both are important.

oeo
03-11-2009, 10:09 PM
Sorry I thought you were another poster, I seem to be arguing with two people and not paying attention to each screen name, bad arguments look the same to me. I also did include Soriano's defensive statistics in my defense as well- his FRAA has been above average to good over the past two seasons.

And you're dead wrong about Alexie's defense. Certainly, he's more valuable because of the positional disadvantage 2b to left field is a big drop down the spectrum (and I actually think Ramirez would be a plus defensive outfielder), but he was pretty crappy defensively at 2b last year, the facts bear that out.

It boils down to what worth more, a slightly above average defensive LF (according to FAA)/ a great defensive LF (according to defensive win shares) or a bad defensive 2b (according to both FAA and defensive win shares).

Any stat that says Soriano is an above average defender is dead wrong. Can't be, though, can it?

I'd like to know what is taken into account, because Soriano isn't even average in my eyes.

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 10:10 PM
certainly but at first (and even now) we often hear members of each community bashing each other. It's childish and unproductive, both are important.

Although I do very much favor good old fashioned scouting, I agree.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:12 PM
This is your defense? Accusing me of something I never said? Alexei had great range to his left, but subpar to his right. He also got better as the season progressed. At the very least, he's more valuable as a defender than Soriano ever has been or will be.

Oh what the hell for poops and giggles-

Value wins Defense

Ramirez last season: -9.4 runs defensively last year (almost worth one loss)

Soriano the last 3: 10, 19.4, 2.6

I mean hell, why am I even arguing about this, Soriano's HOF monitor is 75%, he's been a very good player over his career. If he wasn't a Cub you'd be singing a different tune.

oeo
03-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Oh what the hell for poops and giggles-

Value wins Defense

Ramirez last season: -9.4 runs defensively last year (almost worth one loss)

Soriano the last 3: 10, 19.4, 2.6

I mean hell, why am I even arguing about this, Soriano's HOF monitor is 75%, he's been a very good player over his career. If he wasn't a Cub you'd be singing a different tune.

No, I'm clearly talking about his defense, only. I'd take Soriano on the Sox in a heartbeat, but I would still disagree that he's an above average defender, or even average.

And what the hell is HOF monitor? You take this **** too seriously. Stats can be wrong.

Daver
03-11-2009, 10:13 PM
certainly but at first (and even now) we often hear members of each community bashing each other. It's childish and unproductive, both are important.

Actual real stats have value, contrived stats like Win Shares, PECOTA, and VORP are pure garbage, and will probably always be viewed as pure garbage because they measure nothing.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:14 PM
Any stat that says Soriano is an above average defender is dead wrong. Can't be, though, can it?

I'd like to know what is taken into account, because Soriano isn't even average in my eyes.

He's a god awful 2b (worse than Ramirez even) but he's above average in LF. I tend to think both scouts and stat heads would agree. On top of that, both stats I'm listing must be wrong.

Plus +/- must be wrong too. Everyone's wrong but you.

WhiteSox1989
03-11-2009, 10:15 PM
I am not worried about Danks, at all. The kid had one bad outing..in SPRING TRAINING. I have heard only about his cutter and fastball from the game against Cleveland, chances are he was "working" on it.

As for Viciedo, I think he'll be playing with the big guys by 2011-At the latest.

Daver
03-11-2009, 10:16 PM
He's a god awful 2b (worse than Ramirez even) but he's above average in LF. I tend to think both scouts and stat heads would agree. On top of that, both stats I'm listing must be wrong.

Plus +/- must be wrong too. Everyone's wrong but you.

Please add any defensive stat to my previous post.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Actual real stats have value, contrived stats like Win Shares, PECOTA, and VORP are pure garbage, and will probably always be viewed as pure garbage because they measure nothing.

Nate Silver- predicting elections down to 10 electoral votes, one of the creaters of PECOTA

Daver- modding a board full of people who call anyone who disagrees with their limited world view propeller heads


I mean, I know deferring to expert opinion isn't the most intellectually honest exercise in argument, but screw it, you don't know what you're talking about.

rdivaldi
03-11-2009, 10:18 PM
He's a god awful 2b (worse than Ramirez even) but he's above average in LF. I tend to think both scouts and stat heads would agree. On top of that, both stats I'm listing must be wrong.

Plus +/- must be wrong too. Everyone's wrong but you.

Here's where scouting and stats part ways...

oeo
03-11-2009, 10:20 PM
He's a god awful 2b (worse than Ramirez even) but he's above average in LF. I tend to think both scouts and stat heads would agree. On top of that, both stats I'm listing must be wrong.

Plus +/- must be wrong too. Everyone's wrong but you.

That's probably the case. :wink:

Seriously, I couldn't disagree more. I'd like to see these scout's opinions on Soriano's LF defense. He routinely gets bad jumps, is all over out there more than Quentin was last year, does that terrible jump deal before making a catch, his arm isn't very good, he's very tentative, etc.

BTW, you're pissing all over the place about people who are at the one extreme that think all this stuff is bull crap, but you are at the other extreme where everything is right. They were made by humans which means they're not immune to mistakes.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:20 PM
[quote=rdivaldi;2172245]Here's where scouting and stats part

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:27 PM
That's probably the case. :wink:

Seriously, I couldn't disagree more. I'd like to see these scout's opinions on Soriano's LF defense. He routinely gets bad jumps, is all over out there more than Quentin was last year, does that terrible jump deal before making a catch, etc.

BTW, you're pissing all over the place about people who are at the one extreme that think all this stuff is bull crap, but you are at the other extreme where everything is right. They were made by humans which means they're not immune to mistakes.

The defensive statistics are far from perfect, I believe UZR (which is one of the better ones) believes anything that hits a wall is catchable, even if the wall is 30 feet high. Subsequently a number of players who play in parks with extremely large walls get really odd defensive ratings from time to time. Manny Ramirez is nothing short of a putrid fielder for instance, but according to one metric he was like a 2 win player because of all the catchable balls that dinged off the upper half of the Green Monster.

That said, when each statistic seems to think that a player is above average, I'd tend to think there's something there. Especially when we as fans are so clearly dumb (not you guys, everyone)

Arguments I hear die hard fans make all the time:

Bobby Abreu is a great fielder but is afraid of walls- actually he's awful no and walls have really no impact on his ability

Derek Jeter is a great fielder-

Ichero is the best defensive OF in baseball- he's good but he's likely not in the top ten anymore

Tori Hunter is one of the best defensive OF in baseball- see above

Alexie Ramirez is a good fielder

and so on and so on

Daver
03-11-2009, 10:28 PM
Nate Silver- predicting elections down to 10 electoral votes, one of the creaters of PECOTA

Daver- modding a board full of people who call anyone who disagrees with their limited world view propeller heads


I mean, I know deferring to expert opinion isn't the most intellectually honest exercise in argument, but screw it, you don't know what you're talking about.

OK this made me laugh.

What qualifications make one an expert?

oeo
03-11-2009, 10:32 PM
Daver- modding a board full of people who call anyone who disagrees with their limited world view propeller heads.

You have, by far, the most limited view in this thread. I'm trying to understand why this statistic calls Soriano a good outfielder, and have even asked you what it takes into account. All you have responded with is a bunch of jibberish about stats being the end all, be all to the game by just throwing more stats down my throat. If you're looking for someone that needs to be open to more than one idea, look in the mirror.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:38 PM
OK this made me laugh.

What qualifications make one an expert?

I'm just saying the way you dismiss the hard work of very intelligent people, work that mind you has actually seen some real world success (who else was predicting the Rays were a 90 win team last year?) is beyond annoying. In fact it screams of anti intellectualism and without getting too political, I tend to think the distrust of intellectualism / pride in ignorance we see in this country is very troubling.

From past arguments it seems that your main beef with baseballprospectus is the lack of transparency with VORP and WARP. I agree, this is a problem. No unprofessional research should ever eliminate pear review, it's vital in growing in our understanding of everything. That said, the fielding bible guys are completely transparent and you dismiss them too, all the while not knowing how they come up with their results (despite the fact that they outline it one their website).

Additionally, with the success of PECOTA on all things non white sox related, it seems that a reasonable person would say, "Jeez, these guys are pretty good at creating statistical models for predicting uncertain future events." But instead, you just dismiss.

VORP should be more open, but the majority of the statistics you throw under the bus are. Not only that, they've shown to be useful. Pride in ignorance man, it's infuriating.

...
03-11-2009, 10:39 PM
OK this made me laugh.

What qualifications make one an expert?

Plumbing of course.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:44 PM
You have, by far, the most limited view in this thread. I'm trying to understand why this statistic calls Soriano a good outfielder, and have even asked you what it takes into account. All you have responded with is a bunch of jibberish about stats being the end all, be all to the game by just throwing more stats down my throat. If you're looking for someone that needs to be open to more than one idea, look in the mirror.

What?

When did you ask me to break down?

The statistics I have used take into account the amount of balls hit to each fielder and the percentage of them the fielder gets to. Several of the statistics do this by watching every play (+/-) others by just box scores. Clearly, the +/- is likely more accurate, though somewhat more subjective given that they judge where the ball is hit by where it was hit in the field in relation to their positioning and how hard the ball was hit. Some statistics take into account kills (assists) or times the batter prevented a runner from advancing (again the methodology defers from each, and again I prefer +/-)

but you know what, do you're own research. Soriano gets to more balls than the average outfielder- that's pretty much the summation of the statistics. Ramirez gets to less. One method uses mere statistics (under the theory that each player should get to a certain percentage over the course of the season) while another reviews each game in a painstaking manner.

Both agree with my contention that Soriano is a average to good fielder.

Also forgive me for finding it hilarious that somehow the burden of proof is placed on me, when you're essentially just arguing "my eyes tell me so and my eyes aint failing me"

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 10:46 PM
Plumbing of course.

I'm sorry are you calling me a plumber? God, I wish. They make good money.

jabrch
03-11-2009, 10:55 PM
Meh. Law's a pompous ass at times, but at least he actually thinks about things before writing them and doesn't get caught up in hype and cliches. His opinion is better than Heyman's, Stark's, and Roger's, to name a few. I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he explains his opinions rationally.

If you like Law - fine. Read him. I don't put any value to what he says.

Daver
03-11-2009, 10:59 PM
I'm just saying the way you dismiss the hard work of very intelligent people, work that mind you has actually seen some real world success (who else was predicting the Rays were a 90 win team last year?) is beyond annoying. In fact it screams of anti intellectualism and without getting too political, I tend to think the distrust of intellectualism / pride in ignorance we see in this country is very troubling.

From past arguments it seems that your main beef with baseballprospectus is the lack of transparency with VORP and WARP. I agree, this is a problem. No unprofessional research should ever eliminate pear review, it's vital in growing in our understanding of everything. That said, the fielding bible guys are completely transparent and you dismiss them too, all the while not knowing how they come up with their results (despite the fact that they outline it one their website).

Additionally, with the success of PECOTA on all things non white sox related, it seems that a reasonable person would say, "Jeez, these guys are pretty good at creating statistical models for predicting uncertain future events." But instead, you just dismiss.

VORP should be more open, but the majority of the statistics you throw under the bus are. Not only that, they've shown to be useful. Pride in ignorance man, it's infuriating.

You continue to make me laugh.

The very fact that they waste time inventing stats that measure nothing is why I dismiss propellerheads. Anyone that can spend that much time to achieve absolutely nothing that is based on fact should find something more constructive to do.

Propellerheads are like Mac fans, they are ten percent of the market, and attract ninety percent of the mentally imbalanced.

jabrch
03-11-2009, 11:01 PM
I'll never understand why people continue to feed the egos of those who come here for no purpose other than to troll for arguements.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:08 PM
You continue to make me laugh.

The very fact that they waste time inventing stats that measure nothing is why I dismiss propellerheads. Anyone that can spend that much time to achieve absolutely nothing that is based on fact should find something more constructive to do.

Propellerheads are like Mac fans, they are ten percent of the market, and attract ninety percent of the mentally imbalanced.

So to refute my last several points, you've provided no evidence and resorted to name calling. Sweet. You truly are a God among men.

Well since we're name calling, they're also likely more educated given that they understand simple statistical truisms unlike the majority of the people who dismiss them.

I mean hell, in the Beckham thread it's pretty obvious that the majority of people posting on this board think he should start because of his hot spring training. The guy's had what, 20 plate appearances. Anybody believe in variance being more prevalent in small sample sizes around here? If the guy had an awful spring, he'd still be a stellar prospect. However, his hot start has people comparing him to A-Rod and Griffey.

I guess I'd rather be imbalanced than stupid.

...
03-11-2009, 11:14 PM
I'll never understand why people continue to feed the egos of those who come here for no purpose other than to troll for arguements.

Someone has to keep Daver full.

Daver
03-11-2009, 11:17 PM
So to refute my last several points, you've provided no evidence and resorted to name calling. Sweet. You truly are a God among men.

Well since we're name calling, they're also likely more educated given that they understand simple statistical truisms unlike the majority of the people who dismiss them.

I mean hell, in the Beckham thread it's pretty obvious that the majority of people posting on this board think he should start because of his hot spring training. The guy's had what, 20 plate appearances. Anybody believe in variance being more prevalent in small sample sizes around here? If the guy had an awful spring, he'd still be a stellar prospect. However, his hot start has people comparing him to A-Rod and Griffey.

I guess I'd rather be imbalanced than stupid.

Again, what constitutes an expert?

You're last offering on this question was laughable. Statiscal analylisis is the lowest form of judging the game, if you can't accept that fact then you truly are living in your own little world,and please have fun with that.

The rest of us are dealing with more realistic views.

Tragg
03-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Nate Silver- predicting elections down to 10 electoral votes, one of the creaters of PECOTA


had he done so through his own polls that might be impressive. He didn't .....he accumulated others' work in a blowout election. He got some pub from running a site that accumulated polls and soothed Obama supporters. It was okay - but not some statistical legerdermain as some portray it. (He's now a stock market guru -he can predict the bottom).

Why is PECOTA so inaccuarate with the Sox?

How many WS winners has the remarkably accurate PECOTA picked in the last decade? (let me guess - the Red Sox). How many WS winners have the BP writers as a group picked?

The defensive stats they use are rote (not that anyone else's are better), and the pitching stats basically consider 1 thing - strikeouts. Hitting stats are much better developed.

My favorite is phythagorean wins -an absolutely inane contrived statistic. Margin of victory, which is all pythagorean wins are, is about pretty close to irrelevant. This is the stat that they used to crown the Indians baseball's best in 2005.

Fact: Williams 7, BP's main man Shapiro 1; now, let's see how many times PECOTA and the BP writers have predicted the Williams' team to best Shaprios (probably the inverse).

It's an interesting site -I subscribe. But they have a lot of blind spots and biases that they refuse to acknowledge

oeo
03-11-2009, 11:23 PM
What?

When did you ask me to break down?

I said I'd like to see what is taken into account for the FRAA statistic you mentioned.

but you know what, do you're own research.I'll pass, I have no interest in that stuff. Since you seem to have a throbbing boner over all of it, I thought I'd just ask you. Oh well, I'll keep letting my eyes lie to me, you keep boning over a bunch of numbers.

Also forgive me for finding it hilarious that somehow the burden of proof is placed on me, when you're essentially just arguing "my eyes tell me so and my eyes aint failing me"No, I tried to ask you where the numbers were coming from. You must seriously believe that this **** can do no wrong. You've come here on a number of occasions with nothing but numbers.

dickallen15
03-11-2009, 11:23 PM
Oh what the hell for poops and giggles-

Value wins Defense

Ramirez last season: -9.4 runs defensively last year (almost worth one loss)

Soriano the last 3: 10, 19.4, 2.6

I mean hell, why am I even arguing about this, Soriano's HOF monitor is 75%, he's been a very good player over his career. If he wasn't a Cub you'd be singing a different tune.

Soriano has a great arm, and has had a lot of assists. Other than that, he is a horrible OF. Maybe if he had been one all along he would be good, but he's terrible. When a Cubs broadcast booth is saying people in the stands are better defenders than a Cubs player, they must be pretty bad no matter what his Value Defense Wins rate or whatever stat it is you are quoting says. I do agree, most on this board would see a Cub and White Sox doing the exact same thing 2 different ways positive with the White Sox, negative with the Cubs, but Soriano should be a DH. I think Ramirez's defense has been overrated. He made some spectacular plays but showboated a few as well. I hope he can improve with the move to SS but I'm very skeptical.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:32 PM
had he done so through his own polls that might be impressive. He didn't .....he accumulated others' work in a blowout election. He got some pub from running a site that accumulated polls and soothed Obama supporters.

Why is PECOTA so inaccuarate with the Sox?

The defensive stats they use are rote (not that anyone else's are better), and the pitching stats basically consider 1 thing - strikeouts. Hitting stats are much better developed.

My favorite is phythagorean wins -an absolutely inane contrived statistic. Margin of victory, which is all pythagorean wins are, is about pretty close to irrelevant. This is the stat that they used to crown the Indians baseball's best in 2005.

Fact: Williams 7, BP's main man Shapiro 1

To be fair, they look at DIPS which takes a lot more into account (bb/ per 9, HR rate, and so on),

Additionally, the theory behind the Pythag is that you win just about as many blow outs as you lose- that's a large leap logically and it's far from perfect but go ahead and throw 500 teams into a spread sheet and compare the their actual records with their expected records- it works pretty damn well. Another problem is that people lean on pythag too much for future predictions. The Red Sox for example were better at run prevention than they should have been because Matsuzaka was lucky as hell with his strand rate- that's not going to happen again (likely). Therefore, their run prevention numbers will be different in 09 than they were in 08.

The biggest problem with projection is that it ignores the human elements of the game. Certainly, a player having his K rate decline severely may be predictive in regards to injury (look out Johan Santana) but at the same time- it can't predict that a guy will tear his knee to hell covering first base or if a pitcher will really start to gain traction with a new pitch (Jon Danks last year).

You're also totally underplaying the math behind 538, yes he was using other polls but it wasn't like CNN's poll of polls- he actually created a model that's pretty impressive (I wouldn't be shocked if he's got a new career in the near future).

Projections aren't theology, they're not even science, people keep calling me an extremist despite the fact that I've admitted a number of the faults behind the statistics being used- however, I will not concede the point that 95% of these criticisms are coming from people who don't even understand why they're knocking it.

What these statistics are, are useful tools in understanding more about a game we all love enough to argue about on an online message board. Bill James works for a wildly successful major league organization and he's a fan of DIPS, BP projects seasons better than anyone else- and yet people mock.

It's far from perfect, but if anyone wants to bet they can project better than PECOTA, I'm up for it.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:33 PM
I said I'd like to see what is taken into account for the FRAA statistic you mentioned.

I'll pass, I have no interest in that stuff. Since you seem to have a throbbing boner over all of it, I thought I'd just ask you. Oh well, I'll keep letting my eyes lie to me, you keep boning over a bunch of numbers.

No, I tried to ask you where the numbers were coming from. You must seriously believe that this **** can do no wrong. You've come here on a number of occasions with nothing but numbers.

Nice of you to ignore the break down on the statistics, but I guess you got me. So long as you don't quote the part of the post where I hand your ass to you, I'll never be right.

DSpivack
03-11-2009, 11:38 PM
To be fair, they look at DIPS which takes a lot more into account (bb/ per 9, HR rate, and so on),

Additionally, the theory behind the Pythag is that you win just about as many blow outs as you lose- that's a large leap logically and it's far from perfect but go ahead and throw 500 teams into a spread sheet and compare the their actual records with their expected records- it works pretty damn well. Another problem is that people lean on pythag too much for future predictions. The Red Sox for example were better at run prevention than they should have been because Matsuzaka was lucky as hell with his strand rate- that's not going to happen again (likely). Therefore, their run prevention numbers will be different in 09 than they were in 08.

The biggest problem with projection is that it ignores the human elements of the game. Certainly, a player having his K rate decline severely may be predictive in regards to injury (look out Johan Santana) but at the same time- it can't predict that a guy will tear his knee to hell covering first base or if a pitcher will really start to gain traction with a new pitch (Jon Danks last year).

You're also totally underplaying the math behind 538, yes he was using other polls but it wasn't like CNN's poll of polls- he actually created a model that's pretty impressive (I wouldn't be shocked if he's got a new career in the near future).

Projections aren't theology, they're not even science, people keep calling me an extremist despite the fact that I've admitted a number of the faults behind the statistics being used- however, I will not concede the point that 95% of these criticisms are coming from people who don't even understand why they're knocking it.

What these statistics are, are useful tools in understanding more about a game we all love enough to argue about on an online message board. Bill James works for a wildly successful major league organization and he's a fan of DIPS, BP projects seasons better than anyone else- and yet people mock.

It's far from perfect, but if anyone wants to bet they can project better than PECOTA, I'm up for it.

Pythagorean record is a joke. I understand the idea behind it, but it does absolutely nothing to take into account variance in scoring. There are teams that score consistently, and then there are the all or nothing teams that the Sox unfortunately have had quite a few of this decade. To simply ignore that and say 'it all balances out' is lazy and stupid.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:42 PM
Again, what constitutes an expert?

You're last offering on this question was laughable. Statiscal analylisis is the lowest form of judging the game, if you can't accept that fact then you truly are living in your own little world,and please have fun with that.

The rest of us are dealing with more realistic views.

So the wildly successful organizations that use statistical analysis are just lucky? Gotcha.

You need both scouting and analysis. The funny thing with the people who complain about statistics here is that they all act as if they're scouts. You're not. Most of you likely never played baseball beyond middle school. Most of you wouldn't know a good foot work if you watched it everyday. Sure, you can recognize Adam Dunn tripping over his own feet but beyond that- you don't know what you're talking about. No matter how long you've watched the game.

I mean, I think about the majority of the epic arguments I've gotten in here and the proof is in the damn pudding:

-Josh Fields would not be a good 3b given his lack of defense and contact rate issues. I was called a stat head for that, turned out I was right.

-Jonathan Papelbon is a better closer than Bobby Jenks- anyone want to take that one up again?

-Gio Gonzalez is overrated due to the fact that he has a flat fastball-

-Alexie Ramirez isn't a good 2b (why the hell are the White Sox in such a rush to move him to SS or the OF)

-Jon Danks has a chance to be a great starter

So far the two issues I can recall being incorrect about are
1) Gavin Floyd is a back end rotation starter tops (though I still have serous doubts given his K/bb ratio, though he did improve over the course of the season)

2) Alexie Ramirez will likely be a super sub.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:44 PM
Pythagorean record is a joke. I understand the idea behind it, but it does absolutely nothing to take into account variance in scoring. There are teams that score consistently, and then there are the all or nothing teams that the Sox unfortunately have had quite a few of this decade. To simply ignore that and say 'it all balances out' is lazy and stupid.


Go ahead and disprove it then, it's not hard- write up a null hypothesis that run differential has no impact on team record, pick a large number of teams at random, compare, run a test and see if the results at statistically significant.

If you do that, you'll earn a lot of money as a lot of people would pay to see that study.

Actually you shouldn't do that, it would be a waste of your time. Because that study has already been done I'm sure, by the people who freaking argued pythag in the first place. It's basic stats 101.

Billy Ashley
03-11-2009, 11:56 PM
Again, screw it- I'll do some research for you

8 games represents about 5% of 162 games, actually a tiny tiny bit less

Teams that Pythag wasn't 95% right about- 2 teams.

They were:

LAA (12 games)
Houston (9 games)

You would think it would get annoying being right all the time, but it isn't.

The year before, 2 teams again. One of those teams were the very improbable Diamondbacks and the other were Mariners by 8 games. The year before that, the famed Indians team were the only ones to miss. The year before, two the Diamondbacks and your world championship White Sox. The year before that, we have 3 (though one of them is right on that dot at 8, and if I was very picky could be eliminated, as it's only .0493 but then I'd have to eliminate half of the other teams too from 05-08 and that doesn't seem fair. Way back in 03, we get 1 team again and again, right on the dot at .0493. Lookie there, 2002 we got 1 team again. 2001, 3 teams- 2 of them at 8 games exactly or at just under 5%.

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the people who are consistently wrong.

DSpivack
03-12-2009, 12:08 AM
Again, screw it- I'll do some research for you

8 games represents about 5% of 162 games, actually a tiny tiny bit less

Teams that Pythag wasn't 95% right about- 2 teams.

They were:

LAA (12 games)
Houston (9 games)

You would think it would get annoying being right all the time, but it isn't.

The year before, 2 teams again. One of those teams were the very improbable Diamondbacks and the other were Mariners by 8 games.

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the people who are consistently wrong.

:rolling:

chaerulez
03-12-2009, 09:20 AM
The reason PECOTA has been off about the Sox, except for the 72-90 thing in 2007, is and Silver has admitted this, KW and the Sox manage to find either a reclaimation project that turns successful (Floyd, Quentin) or rely on prospects that PECOTA can't predict well (Fields, Alexi). To be fair to them, they were very conservative in Floyd's projection and rightfully so. It's very hard for anyone to predict this season for the White Sox. You have unknowns in last two spots of the rotation that could either be decent or really bad. It's hard to predict Fields, I think he can put up Troy Glaus like numbers in his prime, but that's no guarantee. Add in the unknowns in second and center, the season success can range from repeating as division champs to 4th or 5th place.

chaerulez
03-12-2009, 09:21 AM
Oh and John Van Benschoten sucks, why are we even talking about him?

chaerulez
03-12-2009, 09:24 AM
Oh what the hell for poops and giggles-

Value wins Defense

Ramirez last season: -9.4 runs defensively last year (almost worth one loss)

Soriano the last 3: 10, 19.4, 2.6

I mean hell, why am I even arguing about this, Soriano's HOF monitor is 75%, he's been a very good player over his career. If he wasn't a Cub you'd be singing a different tune.

Soriano is a good player but the Cubs are misusing him at the leadoff spot, and they will regret his contract in his last 3 or 4 years when he's like 39 to 41.

Billy Ashley
03-12-2009, 10:08 AM
Soriano is a good player but the Cubs are misusing him at the leadoff spot, and they will regret his contract in his last 3 or 4 years when he's like 39 to 41.

I agree, though they should regret it now as he creates a ton of outs at the top of that order. Most of his value comes from his power and while the impact over the season can't be that dramatic, they'd like score more runs if he was batting fifth or six.

Oh and you're right, he's got an awful contract.