PDA

View Full Version : Beckham--Sporting News Rookie of the Year


Pages : [1] 2

DSpivack
10-20-2009, 01:56 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/white-soxs-gordon-beckham-named-sporting-news-al-rookie-of-the-year.html

The "real" award, from the Baseball Writer Association of America, will be announced following the end of the World Series.

spawn
10-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Awesome. Congrats Gordon. :gulp:

sox1970
10-20-2009, 02:08 PM
And he still won't win the AL Rookie of the Year...or come close.

Still, a nice honor for a great season.

TDog
10-20-2009, 02:47 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/white-soxs-gordon-beckham-named-sporting-news-al-rookie-of-the-year.html

The "real" award, from the Baseball Writer Association of America, will be announced following the end of the World Series.

This award involves a players' poll (people who, like, actually played against Beckham) while the BBWAA award is voted on from writers in each American League city. Some would say this award has more meaning. Carlos May won The Sporting News Rookie of the Year award in 1969 but Lou Piniella won the BBWAA award.

Who knows what goes through the minds of the few writers who vote on the award or even how they choose to define the award. The fact that Beckham was mired in a slump the last six weeks of the season, after being moved to the No. 2 spot in the order, ending the year at .270 after getting his batting average above .310 at one point, will influence writers who mainly look at stats.

Beckham probably has the most potential of any 2009 MLB rookie. But I don't expect he will win the writer's award.

oeo
10-20-2009, 02:47 PM
And he still won't win the AL Rookie of the Year...or come close.

Still, a nice honor for a great season.

Not even close? There is no one that sticks out, like Longoria last year.

Mendoza Line
10-20-2009, 02:52 PM
Is the official award still simply called "AL Rookie of the year" or is it something like "Dorito's Fiesta Cheese AL Rookie of the Year"?

soxfanreggie
10-20-2009, 02:57 PM
Is the official award still simply called "AL Rookie of the year" or is it something like "Dorito's Fiesta Cheese AL Rookie of the Year"?

You mean you don't like the "ROLAIDS Relief Man of the Year"? :D:

Congrats Becks, a great honor, just hopefully you will keep building on the success you had from this season!

doublem23
10-20-2009, 03:09 PM
And he still won't win the AL Rookie of the Year...or come close.

Still, a nice honor for a great season.

He's no shoe-in, but won't even come close? There are some interesting candidates, but I don't think any have resumes that are above and beyond anyone else.

sox1970
10-20-2009, 03:13 PM
He's no shoe-in, but won't even come close? There are some interesting candidates, but I don't think any have resumes that are above and beyond anyone else.

I just think with the writers only voting for top 3, I think a lot of ballots will have Porcello and Andrus being the top two, and then their local player being the third place vote. I'm not saying they're right. I just think that's the way it's going to go.

Boondock Saint
10-20-2009, 03:15 PM
Congrats, Bacon. You earned it.

MisterB
10-20-2009, 03:49 PM
I just think with the writers only voting for top 3, I think a lot of ballots will have Porcello and Andrus being the top two, and then their local player being the third place vote. I'm not saying they're right. I just think that's the way it's going to go.

I think the top 3 will be some combination of Porcello, Andrus and Andrew Bailey. Beckham is better than Andrus, but will only get a couple of third place votes because (just like the world in general) the BBWAA is mostly idiots.

october23sp
10-20-2009, 03:52 PM
I agree that he won't come close, I have read several articles and websites that don't even list him as an honorable mention.

oeo
10-20-2009, 04:15 PM
I didn't realize the vote was by players. IMO, that says a lot more than media members.

spawn
10-20-2009, 04:19 PM
I didn't realize the vote was by players. IMO, that says a lot more than media members.
My thoughts exactly. He was honored by his peers. That speaks volumes IMO.

Domeshot17
10-20-2009, 04:25 PM
I didn't realize the vote was by players. IMO, that says a lot more than media members.

Yes and no, the players also dont have time to follow a guy everyday. The players also get to vote on guys for all star games and such and once voted in Jason Varitek when he was hitting like .219.

It is an honor to be recognized for your peers for sure, but I wouldn't say its bigger than the actual award

oeo
10-20-2009, 04:31 PM
Yes and no, the players also dont have time to follow a guy everyday. The players also get to vote on guys for all star games and such and once voted in Jason Varitek when he was hitting like .219.

It is an honor to be recognized for your peers for sure, but I wouldn't say its bigger than the actual award

The writers' selection does not go without flaws. They will usually pick their own guy.

LITTLE NELL
10-20-2009, 04:54 PM
The writers' selection does not go without flaws. They will usually pick their own guy.
Its the writers who kept Nellie Fox out of the HOF for so long.

TDog
10-20-2009, 05:07 PM
Its the writers who kept Nellie Fox out of the HOF for so long.

Actually, it was 24.4 percent of the writers. Then it was Fox's former manager for awhile when Fox came up before the Veterans Committee.

Trav
10-20-2009, 05:17 PM
Actually, it was 24.4 percent of the writers. Then it was Fox's former manager for awhile when Fox came up before the Veterans Committee.


Do you know the story on that? I had heard that for awhile now but no way to find out.


As for Gordon, his ability to adjust at the plate is exciting. I keep thinking about his first at bat against Joe Nathan and how bad he looked. Then his next one against him was the one that started the two out rally in MN. He is a very impressive ballplayer.

guillensdisciple
10-20-2009, 05:18 PM
Beckham is a beast. He, Quentin, Alexei, Rios, Flowers, Viciedo, and Getz will terrorize competition for the next 10 years.

Congrats Gordon! May you get better as each year passes.

Lawson
10-20-2009, 05:41 PM
Congratulations, Gordon :)

Your development at third base this year was one of the highlights of the season for me.

WSox597
10-20-2009, 06:30 PM
Phil Rogers and Joe Crowley are members of the Baseball Writers of America, right?

How about Mariotti?

If it was me, I'd rather win the other award. It would seem to have more prestige than having an assortment of wordy nitwits pick you.

thomas35forever
10-20-2009, 06:42 PM
It's definitely better to be honored and respected by your peers. Congrats, Gordon!

Dibbs
10-20-2009, 06:49 PM
I think Andrew Bailey deserves it hands down. His numbers are sick.

chisoxfanatic
10-20-2009, 07:09 PM
It's definitely better to be honored and respected by your peers. Congrats, Gordon!
Being respected among your peers is much more important than what some writers think. Congrats Bacon.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-20-2009, 07:32 PM
I'd rather be voted by players then some fat people at their desks looking at stats. :rolleyes:

Way to go Beckham.

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2009, 07:41 PM
I'd rather be voted by players then some fat people at their desks looking at stats. :rolleyes:

Way to go Beckham.
The writers are idiots that look at the wrong stats.

That being said, I don't think Beckham really deserves to be in the top two, maybe three.

ode to veeck
10-20-2009, 07:44 PM
Congrats, Bacon. You earned it.

who is Bacon!?


Congrats to Gordon Beckham.

Crestani
10-20-2009, 08:06 PM
The writers are idiots that look at the wrong stats.

That being said, I don't think Beckham really deserves to be in the top two, maybe three.


Not all writers are idiots.

Yes, any of the names mentioned could win including Beckham, its that close.

cheezheadsoxfan
10-20-2009, 08:17 PM
Phil Rogers and Joe Crowley are members of the Baseball Writers of America, right?

How about Mariotti?

If it was me, I'd rather win the other award. It would seem to have more prestige than having an assortment of wordy nitwits pick you.

Sums up the argument for me. Congratulations Gordon!!

Lip Man 1
10-20-2009, 08:24 PM
Congratulations and well deserved.

Lip

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 08:35 PM
I can think of a number of players I'd vote for ahead of Beckham. He's a very good young player and is at worst the fourth most likely rookie to have a truley memorable career (Matt Weiters, Rick Porcello, Brett Anderson and Beckham are clearly the top of the class, talent wise) but some players simply had better seasons.

-Elvis Andrus provided plus defense at an incredibly difficult position while not killing his team on offense.

-Nolan Reimold hit better (though at a less difficult position)

-Several pitchers had damn solid years (Porcello, Anderson, Romero, Andrew Bailey).

Interestingly enough, this could be a year in which the guy who wins looks very silly in hindsight in contrast to the rookie talent in the league.

TDog
10-20-2009, 10:15 PM
Phil Rogers and Joe Crowley are members of the Baseball Writers of America, right?

How about Mariotti?

If it was me, I'd rather win the other award. It would seem to have more prestige than having an assortment of wordy nitwits pick you.

Two beat writers from each city get to vote for their three players in order, first to third. I don't believe Mariotti as a columnist would be selected to vote. When the ballots were mailed (I'm not sure if they still are), they had to be postmarked before the beginning of the first postseason games. The Sporting News used to publish the names of the voters, but I haven't read The Sporting News since they ceased to be a baseball publication.

Last year, I believed Ramirez was more deserving than Longoria, but Ramirez got no first-place votes and was left off of five ballots. Ramirez still finshed second with more than twice as many second place votes than Jacoby Ellsbury. This year it wouldn't surprise me if no one is named on as many as 20 of the 28 ballots.

oeo
10-20-2009, 10:39 PM
The writers are idiots that look at the wrong stats.

That being said, I don't think Beckham really deserves to be in the top two, maybe three.

Why? Only one guy had a truly great season, and that's Andrew Bailey. I think being a closer works against him. Other than him, there is no one that jumps out at you. Yes, there were some good seasons, Beckham being one of them, but nothing that screams, 'that's the best rookie in the league' like Longoria from a year ago.

oeo
10-20-2009, 10:53 PM
-Elvis Andrus provided plus defense at an incredibly difficult position while not killing his team on offense.

Beckham didn't kill his team on defense and was a major part of our offense. Could you imagine how bad the offense would have been without Beckham the last four months?

-Nolan Reimold hit better (though at a less difficult position)

How so? Don't tell me the difference in average which is equal to about 4 hits. Beckham also hit 8 more XBH's, struck out less, and drove in nearly 20 more runs.

-Several pitchers had damn solid years (Porcello, Anderson, Romero, Andrew Bailey).

Key word being 'solid.' There were a lot of 'solid' years, Beckham included. I love how this is just obvious that Beckham will not be named Rookie of the Year, or even in the Top 2 or 3 and these are the names that are being thrown out. If the writers get anything right, it will be a close race.

BadBobbyJenks
10-20-2009, 10:58 PM
Last year, I believed Ramirez was more deserving than Longoria, but Ramirez got no first-place votes and was left off of five ballots. Ramirez still finshed second with more than twice as many second place votes than Jacoby Ellsbury. This year it wouldn't surprise me if no one is named on as many as 20 of the 28 ballots.

Alexei: 290/317/792 21 homers 77 rbis
Longoria: .272/343/874 27 homers 85 rbis

Really?

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Alexei: 290/317/792 21 homers 77 rbis
Longoria: .272/343/874 27 homers 85 rbis

Really?

Let's not forget that Longoria is also an elite defender at third while Ramirez was below average.

Regarding

Beckham V Reimold- Reimold did better in AVE/OBP/Slug, HR, SB and SB% in a natural ball park while Beckham played in a hitters park. The fact that Beckham's a 3b adds a lot of value but I'm not sure if that puts him over the top.

I'm not trying to say Beckham sucks, in fact if I could pick any AL rookie to build a team around, he'd be my 2nd choice behind Weiters (though I could be swayed towards Anderson).

guillensdisciple
10-20-2009, 11:28 PM
Let's not forget that Longoria is also an elite defender at third while Ramirez was below average.

Regarding

Beckham V Reimold- Reimold did better in AVE/OBP/Slug, HR, SB and SB% in a natural ball park while Beckham played in a hitters park. The fact that Beckham's a 3b adds a lot of value but I'm not sure if that puts him over the top.

I'm not trying to say Beckham sucks, in fact if I could pick any AL rookie to build a team around, he'd be my 2nd choice behind Weiters (though I could be swayed towards Anderson).

Brian?

Soxfest
10-20-2009, 11:46 PM
Congrats :smile:

oeo
10-20-2009, 11:59 PM
Beckham V Reimold- Reimold did better in AVE/OBP/Slug, HR, SB and SB% in a natural ball park while Beckham played in a hitters park. The fact that Beckham's a 3b adds a lot of value but I'm not sure if that puts him over the top.

He hit one more homerun, slugged only 6 points higher, and stole only one more base. Also, the Cell is NOT a hitter's park, contrary to popular belief. It is a homerun friendly park, but not a hitter friendly park. The outfield is way too small to be friendly to a hitter. We have no gaps and it's just too small from corner to corner. That's a big reason why it's so homer friendly, that and the ball just shoots out of the park in the summer. However, a lot of doubles are caught, a lot of triples are doubles, it's easy to play shallow and take away bloop hits, etc.

I could actually see Beckham, being a good gap hitter, be more successful in a park like Camden Yards (or most places). But as Beckham's body matures, a lot of those balls in the gaps that are being caught will go out of the park, anyway.

I'm not trying to say Beckham sucks, in fact if I could pick any AL rookie to build a team around, he'd be my 2nd choice behind Weiters (though I could be swayed towards Anderson).

I never said you were, but Reimold was not any better than Beckham.

soxinem1
10-21-2009, 12:04 AM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/white-soxs-gordon-beckham-named-sporting-news-al-rookie-of-the-year.html

The "real" award, from the Baseball Writer Association of America, will be announced following the end of the World Series.

Being chosen by your peers after 120 days in the big leagues would mean more to me, and according to his comments, means more to Beckham.

Kudos either way. A well-deserved honor.

Athrun
10-21-2009, 12:05 AM
Beckham V Reimold- Reimold did better in AVE/OBP/Slug, HR, SB and SB% in a natural ball park while Beckham played in a hitters park. The fact that Beckham's a 3b adds a lot of value but I'm not sure if that puts him over the top.
Most of those are too close to matter. Reimold hit .009 better and had 1 more HR and SB. Beckham had alot more doubles and RBIs and did much better with runners on and runners in scoring position.

Nellie_Fox
10-21-2009, 12:46 AM
Actually, it was 24.4 percent of the writers.
At the risk of furthering a hijack, it was 25.4%. Had it been 24.4, he'd have been in.

TDog
10-21-2009, 01:23 AM
Alexei: 290/317/792 21 homers 77 rbis
Longoria: .272/343/874 27 homers 85 rbis

Really?

Really. Ramirez hit almost 20 points higher, and while he had just six fewer home runs, he had just eight fewer RBIs, playing much of the season near the bottom of the White Sox lineup. The biggest difference between the two was that writers were raving about Longoria all season as the Rays were winning the division.

I expected Ramirez to get at least one or two first place votes and be named on all of the ballots.

BadBobbyJenks
10-21-2009, 02:46 AM
Really. Ramirez hit almost 20 points higher, and while he had just six fewer home runs, he had just eight fewer RBIs, playing much of the season near the bottom of the White Sox lineup. The biggest difference between the two was that writers were raving about Longoria all season as the Rays were winning the division.

I expected Ramirez to get at least one or two first place votes and be named on all of the ballots.

No, the biggest difference was Ramirez's .317 on base percentage. Longoria was and always will be a far superior player.

LITTLE NELL
10-21-2009, 06:02 AM
At the risk of furthering a hijack, it was 25.4%. Had it been 24.4, he'd have been in.
And that was only in his last year of eligibility, before that Fox, IIRC usually garnered in the 60 to 70% range.

October26
10-21-2009, 10:34 AM
Congratulations to Gordon Beckham! I am celebrating today - don't know how I'm gonna celebrate, but I'm celebrating! :bandance:

MeteorsSox4367
10-21-2009, 12:00 PM
Unless I was still fully asleep while reading the Sun-Times sports section this morning, there was no mention of Beckham's winning the Sporting News Rookie of the Year.

You would think this would merit some type of mention in the paper. Granted, Bacon isn't Jay Cutler, but c'mon. How about a little something for the kid?

Anyway, way to go, Gordon. May this be followed by an AL MVP and World Series MVP or ten in the future.

TDog
10-21-2009, 01:07 PM
No, the biggest difference was Ramirez's .317 on base percentage. Longoria was and always will be a far superior player.

A .290 hitter is more dangerous than a .272 hitter regardless of how many times the hitters reach base by not swinging the bat. Longoria had more than twice as many walks and twice the strikeouts. Nether hitter was a leadoff man (although Ramirez led off three games, in which he hit .417 while failing to get a walk). Longoria was in an RBI position in the lineup and Ramirez was mostly hitting at the bottom of the order.

Longoria came up 162 times with runners in socring position and registered a .241 batting average. In 24 times up with the bases loaded, Longoria hit .263. Ramirez hit .380 in 119 appearances with runners in scoring position and .471 in 21 appearances with the bases loaded.

Neither had the rookie season that Ted Williams or Tony Oliva had (Oliva hit .323 in his first full season -- .331 with runners in scoring position and .333 with the bases loaded), but if you're going to look at stats, demonstrating the ability to hit with men on base and runners in scoring position is more important than getting on base without swinging the bat.

Lip Man 1
10-21-2009, 03:57 PM
Meteor:

Joe Cowley had a story on it, read it on-line yesterday.

Lip

MeteorsSox4367
10-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Meteor:

Joe Cowley had a story on it, read it on-line yesterday.

Lip

Lip: Thank you, sir. I'll look online and look again in the print version at home.

Soxfanspcu11
10-22-2009, 12:57 AM
As a few others have touched on, I am much more impressed with this than the "official" award that is given out by idiot sportswriters.

And while I agree that they are not ALL idiots, 98% of them are. Just watch Around the Horn or 1st and 10 on ESPN2. If those boners are any indication of the intelligence of most writers, yikes!

Congratulations Gordon!!!!! Can't wait to see you representing the Sox in the All-Star game and winning championships for years to come! :bandance::gulp:

thedudeabides
10-22-2009, 01:13 AM
A .290 hitter is more dangerous than a .272 hitter regardless of how many times the hitters reach base by not swinging the bat. Longoria had more than twice as many walks and twice the strikeouts. Nether hitter was a leadoff man (although Ramirez led off three games, in which he hit .417 while failing to get a walk). Longoria was in an RBI position in the lineup and Ramirez was mostly hitting at the bottom of the order.

Longoria came up 162 times with runners in socring position and registered a .241 batting average. In 24 times up with the bases loaded, Longoria hit .263. Ramirez hit .380 in 119 appearances with runners in scoring position and .471 in 21 appearances with the bases loaded.

Neither had the rookie season that Ted Williams or Tony Oliva had (Oliva hit .323 in his first full season -- .331 with runners in scoring position and .333 with the bases loaded), but if you're going to look at stats, demonstrating the ability to hit with men on base and runners in scoring position is more important than getting on base without swinging the bat.

You can't possibly believe that, can you?

I like Alexei, but Longoria was a monster, and it's hard to compare their seasons, I guess unless you cherry pick a few stats. You listed some things that Alexei did better, but it's a laundry list in Longorias favor.

TDog
10-22-2009, 01:53 AM
You can't possibly believe that, can you?
...

Not only do I believe that, but I find it hard to believe more people don't.

Most walks to most hitters can be attributed to failings of a pitcher more than successes of the hitter. A walk usually isn't as good as a hit. In some situations, it's not as good as a warning-track flyout.

In Longoria's case, he struck out more than twice as many times as he walked, so if being patient and working the pitcher was part of his game, he was a failure at it.

BadBobbyJenks
10-22-2009, 02:02 AM
Not only do I believe that, but I find it hard to believe more people don't.

Most walks to most hitters can be attributed to failings of a pitcher more than successes of the hitter. A walk usually isn't as good as a hit. In some situations, it's not as good as a warning-track flyout.

In Longoria's case, he struck out more than twice as many times as he walked, so if being patient and working the pitcher was part of his game, he was a failure at it.

His on base plus slugging was also 100 points higher. You are being ridiculous.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 04:33 AM
His on base plus slugging was also 100 points higher. You are being ridiculous.
What is this "on base plus slugging" you speak of? It's definitely not batting average. Or even a batting average that dissects an already small sample size by using irrelevant dividers and qualifiers.

TDog
10-22-2009, 01:03 PM
His on base plus slugging was also 100 points higher. You are being ridiculous.

First of all, I wrote that I was surprised the vote for Longoria was unanimous and that Ramirez was not named on every ballot. I wasn't surprised that Longoria won the award. If Longoria had the season he had for the Rays playing for the White Sox, I don't believe it would have been unanimous because there wouldn't have been the hype.

Based on his slugging percentage and where he was hitting in a lineup that was putting people on base in front of him, he should have had well over 100 RBIs. He didn't break 90. People who decry RBIs as a statistic say it depends on the number of chances a hitter has to drive in runs. Longoria came up with 327 men on base, 193 of whom were at second or third -- 41 on third with less than two outs -- and he still only drove in 85 runs despite hitting 27 home runs and 37 doubles. He had 42 percent more strike outs than hits with appearances with runners in scoring position. Those aren't empty statistics, those are things you would have noticed if you watched him play or even following his results on a regular basis. It isn't like he was helping the team by getting on base for other hitters to drive him in. He scored only 67 runs in that offense, just two more than Ramirez despite hitting more home runs. I have noted Ramirez' superior hitting success with runners on base. Neither player had a league MVP year, although Ramirez was probably the offensive MVP of 2008 White Sox.

If you read the stories in the mass media (stories written by people who vote on the award), you never see any mention of on-base percentage. Beat writers were influenced by the power stats, though. Ramirez' fourth grand slam came in the Monday game against Detroit (and it was huge) after the ballots for the award were due. But just as the people who voted for Manager of the Year in 2005 were due in by mid-September, many writers would have sent in their Rookie of the Year ballots last year last year long before the deadline, having already made up their minds.

This year, I would have voted, had I a vote, for Beckham after the series in Oakland in mid-August. After that, pitchers approached him differently, he failed to adjust, and his average dropped 40 points. I don't know who I would have voted for If I had a vote on the eve of the postseason. It may not have been Beckham. It wouldn't have been Andrew Bailey, though. But I saw too much of Bailey to be impressed with his numbers.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 01:31 PM
This year, I would have voted, had I a vote, for Beckham after the series in Oakland in mid-August. After that, pitchers approached him differently, he failed to adjust, and his average dropped 40 points. I don't know who I would have voted for If I had a vote on the eve of the postseason. It may not have been Beckham. It wouldn't have been Andrew Bailey, though. But I saw too much of Bailey to be impressed with his numbers.
I can't fathom how you'd be unimpressed by a sub 2 ERA, a WHIP under 1 and 91 strikeouts in 83 innings.

TDog
10-22-2009, 08:57 PM
I can't fathom how you'd be unimpressed by a sub 2 ERA, a WHIP under 1 and 91 strikeouts in 83 innings.

For one thing, he only pitched 83 innings. There were other pitchers on the A's who were more impressive but didn't have the stats Bailey did because they pitched more innings. Coming out of the All-Star break, Bailey wasn't a very good pitcher at all, getting hit hard.

In only five of Bailey's saves did the A's win by one run. In 12 of his saves, the A's scored by three runs (or more, as there was a game in August where he game up two runs in a four-out save sealing a four-run win).

Bailey ended up with four blown saves in 30 chances and three losses, none of which came in save situations and people want to make him rookie of the year. Bobby Jenks had six blown saves in 35 chances and four losses, three of which came in blown saves and WSI is full of posts about how the Sox need a real closer.

Craig Grebeck
10-23-2009, 03:18 AM
For one thing, he only pitched 83 innings. There were other pitchers on the A's who were more impressive but didn't have the stats Bailey did because they pitched more innings. Coming out of the All-Star break, Bailey wasn't a very good pitcher at all, getting hit hard.

In only five of Bailey's saves did the A's win by one run. In 12 of his saves, the A's scored by three runs (or more, as there was a game in August where he game up two runs in a four-out save sealing a four-run win).

Bailey ended up with four blown saves in 30 chances and three losses, none of which came in save situations and people want to make him rookie of the year. Bobby Jenks had six blown saves in 35 chances and four losses, three of which came in blown saves and WSI is full of posts about how the Sox need a real closer.
...to the tune of 49 hits in 83 innings.

TDog
10-23-2009, 04:47 AM
...to the tune of 49 hits in 83 innings.

Seriously, Bailey came into nine games in the ninth inning with a one-run lead and he blew four of those leads.

Bailey will get some votes. The A's were promoting him as a potential rookie of the year to visiting media near the end of the season as the season wore down Brett Anderson and eroded his statistics. Bailey did not pitch enough for the season to wear him down.

I wouldn't vote for a reliever throwing less than 85 innings for rookie of the year. If I were voting for a pitcher, I would be voting for a starter.

Craig Grebeck
10-23-2009, 05:12 AM
Seriously, Bailey came into nine games in the ninth inning with a one-run lead and he blew four of those leads.

Bailey will get some votes. The A's were promoting him as a potential rookie of the year to visiting media near the end of the season as the season wore down Brett Anderson and eroded his statistics. Bailey did not pitch enough for the season to wear him down.

I wouldn't vote for a reliever throwing less than 85 innings for rookie of the year. If I were voting for a pitcher, I would be voting for a starter.
Which is an understandable argument, but you're trying to tell me that a pitcher with a sub 2 ERA, a sub 1 WHIP and a ton of strikeouts wasn't good.

TDog
10-23-2009, 12:47 PM
Which is an understandable argument, but you're trying to tell me that a pitcher with a sub 2 ERA, a sub 1 WHIP and a ton of strikeouts wasn't good.

I never said he wasn't good. But he didn't impress me as a rookie of the year candidate.

Craig Grebeck
10-23-2009, 02:53 PM
I never said he wasn't good. But he didn't impress me as a rookie of the year candidate.
Okay. You weren't impressed.

This is a perfect example of visual perception not equaling statistical reality.

Frater Perdurabo
10-23-2009, 03:04 PM
This is a perfect example of visual perception not equaling statistical reality.

Good thing baseball is played on grass (not graphs), outdoors (not in CPUs), by humans (not computers), with horsehide and wood bats (not wires and silicon).

Only one statistic matters: Wins and losses.

Craig Grebeck
10-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Good thing baseball is played on grass (not graphs), outdoors (not in CPUs), by humans (not computers), with horsehide and wood bats (not wires and silicon).

Only one statistic matters: Wins and losses.
TDog watched a pitcher who had absolutely phenomenal numbers for a rookie probably a handful of times and walked away unimpressed. Meanwhile, the kid was an absolute stud and TDog's perception of an unimpressive season is flat wrong.

Lip Man 1
10-23-2009, 04:56 PM
Frater:

Very well said...post of the week.

Lip

TDog
10-23-2009, 05:09 PM
TDog watched a pitcher who had absolutely phenomenal numbers for a rookie probably a handful of times and walked away unimpressed. Meanwhile, the kid was an absolute stud and TDog's perception of an unimpressive season is flat wrong.

Bailey had a great season for a reliever. He had a good season as a closer. I saw a lot of A's games this year on local television, and I saw Bailey pitch a lot, although I heard one of his blown saves on a car radio.

His stats say he was lights out, but he wasn't lights out when he came into games with one-run leads, as I noted. He came into nine games with one-run leads and lost four of those leads. If he had been pitching for the White Sox, WSI would be screaming for a new closer (although not for a trade as people inexplicably are with Bobby Jenks) because his his numbers were so good.

He was a closer. He was named to the All-Star team as a closer (in large part because someone from the A's had to be named -- he didn't pitch in the game). But as a closer in one-run games, he was not a reliable closer.

Bailey actually supports the Billy Beane belief that you don't need to spend money on a closer. If you pick up good arms, you can find someone to close games. Bailey, who wasn't drafted out of college, in 2008 was starting in the the AA Texas League in 2008, and he was a so-so pitcher before they moved him to the closer role at the end of the season. He always had a high-innings pitched-to-strikeout ratio, but he was mostly a struggling starter with great stuff when he was pitching for Kane County in 2007.

As I said, I'm sure he will get votes for rookie of the year. I'm also sure that a lot of his votes will come from beat writers who didn't see him pitch much but just go by his lights-out stats.

spawn
10-23-2009, 05:10 PM
TDog watched a pitcher who had absolutely phenomenal numbers for a rookie probably a handful of times and walked away unimpressed. Meanwhile, the kid was an absolute stud and TDog's perception of an unimpressive season is flat wrong.
He said two things that you have misconstrued:

1. He said he wasn't impressed with him after the All-Star break
2. He said he wasn't impressed with him as a Rookie of the Year candidate.

Billy Ashley
10-25-2009, 07:46 AM
It's sad to see how many people disagree with the guy with evidence juxtaposed to the praise being heaped on to those using cliches.

Here is a question: How good was Gordon Beckham this year?

My eyes told me that he's an exceptionally talented hitter who performed excellent for a 22 year old this year. That said, he still has a ton to grow. Incidentally, the statistics seem to confirm such an opinion.

American League 3b by OPS+

A-Rod-143
Young-132
Longoira-128
Rolen- 122
Lowell- 117
Figins- 107
Beckham- 106

From a defensive stand point, the following players on that list were better fielders than Beckham last season: Figgins, Longoira, Rolen, A-Rod.

Beckham had a very good season, especially for a 22 year old. He however didn't have a great season.

Andrew Bailey did. Now I'm willing to have the discussion about how 89 innings really aren't that valuable (I'd probably actually agree with that actually) but then we get candidates like Rick Porcello, who of course posted an ERA+ of 115 in 170 innings. Or Brett Anderson, who while he only had an ERA+ of 102 also had great peripherals suggesting his was a bit unlucky.

In short- Andrew Bailey was absolutely dominant out of the pen this year. To argue differently is to argue the world is flat.

-You can dismiss his accomplishment on the basis that relievers really don't have nearly as much value as SP or position players (but then again, it seems that those most adamant about Baily not deserving have little time for arguments such as this given their hatred of all things not AVE/HR/RBI, W/L and ERA).

-Even if Bailey is dismissed over his lack of IP, there are better candidates in Porcello, Reihmold and possibly Anderson and Andrus (depending on how much one values defense).

Again, I'd also argue that despite the fact that we didn't get many stand out years- this rookie class has the potential to be amazing. Ias fat's very possible that whoever wins the award won't have a career as good as the many players who did not. In fact, of the rookie class this year the most talented guy isn't even being discussed.

Beckham's a great talent and white sox fans should be thrilled to have him. I've said it before and I'll say it again that of the 2009 AL rookie class I'd probably take him 2nd behind Weiters as far as likelyhood in becoming a star.

Billy Ashley
10-25-2009, 08:40 AM
Also on a side note- I don't understand why fans, all fans, not just white sox fans get so worked up about the RoY. I understand the MVP and Cy Young as every year there are a number of excellent seasons by both pitchers and batters but we given the restrictions placed on the award it's not uncommon that the award is handed out to people who enjoyed rather pedestrian years? Additionally, being the winner of the RoY is certainly not some great indicator of future success.

I mean does anyone really care that Bob Hamlin won the award? How about Todd Hollinsworth? Marty Cordova? Angel Berrora? Eric Hinske? Bob Horner?

Hell, if Beckham had been drafted 2 years ago, got a call up last season due to the Crede getting hurt and he made 60 starts to fill in, he'd not even be eligible to win the award this season. Nor would he have likely won it in 2008 by only appearing in 60 games. Or in a real life example- Carlos Quentin never had a chance to win the award, it took him 3 years to crack 500 PAs. Is that his fault?

It's a silly award.

Craig Grebeck
10-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Good thing baseball is played on grass (not graphs), outdoors (not in CPUs), by humans (not computers), with horsehide and wood bats (not wires and silicon).

Only one statistic matters: Wins and losses.
Frater, this is garbage. Come on. I'm saying that TDog's visual perception is invalid. No one has ever said anything that you're refuting above -- and people would be crazy to. I'm simply saying that there are instances when a person (in this case, TDog) can watch a player and come to a false conclusion about his talent/performance.

And on this "only one statistic matters" nonsense: if that's the only stat that matters, how come you would often post updates on Paulie's quest for an .850 OPS? Shouldn't we only concern ourselves with wins? Or is that just some sad, tired cliche that people march out when confronted with a differing opinion? Just curious!

1. He said he wasn't impressed with him after the All-Star break

Whoops. I totally missed that. I guess that could do something for his argument.

*checks pre/post all-star splits*

Wait, nope. Turns out Bailey was even more of a monster in the second half of the season.

31.2 IP, 31 K/5 BB, 18 H, 16 SV, 0 BS, .73 WHIP, 1.71 ERA, .162 BAA

2. He said he wasn't impressed with him as a Rookie of the Year candidate.

Fair enough.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-25-2009, 12:10 PM
Beckham's 162 game average is pretty beastly for a rookie season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beckhgo01.shtml

:cool:

TDog
10-25-2009, 12:45 PM
...
Wait, nope. Turns out Bailey was even more of a monster in the second half of the season.

31.2 IP, 31 K/5 BB, 18 H, 16 SV, 0 BS, .73 WHIP, 1.71 ERA, .162 BAA. ...

I didn't write "after the All-Star break." I wrote "coming out of the All-Star Break," when he lost his first two games, both in extra innings. Granted, he only had three losses -- all three in games when he entered with the score tied. Sadly, two of those losses were to the Twins (the first in June and the second the day after the A's come back from a 12-2 deficit to win 14-13 -- a game in which Michael Wuertz, who led A's relievers in strikeouts, came in to get the save with a scoreless ninth).

He didn't have a great percentage in holding leads in tie games. He didn't have a great percentage in holding leads in one-run games. Granted, both reflect a small sample size, but so does his season. After the All-Star break, he pitched increasingly more on four, five or six days' rest, pitching only one inning in a week, because the A's played fewer close games.

Closing is about securing wins for your team in close games, the success of which I value more than statistics, just as you seem to value statistics over winning. I don't know if great relief stats are predictive of future success. Sometimes they are. Often they are not.

This started with the simple observation that I wouldn't vote for Andrew Bailey if I had a vote for Rookie of the Year. But I labor under the handicap of having watched a lot of A's games in 2009.

Craig Grebeck
10-25-2009, 01:01 PM
I didn't write "after the All-Star break." I wrote "coming out of the All-Star Break," when he lost his first two games, both in extra innings. Granted, he only had three losses -- all three in games when he entered with the score tied. Sadly, two of those losses were to the Twins (the first in June and the second the day after the A's come back from a 12-2 deficit to win 14-13 -- a game in which Michael Wuertz, who led A's relievers in strikeouts, came in to get the save with a scoreless ninth).

He didn't have a great percentage in holding leads in tie games. He didn't have a great percentage in holding leads in one-run games. Granted, both reflect a small sample size, but so does his season. After the All-Star break, he pitched increasingly more on four, five or six days' rest, pitching only one inning in a week, because the A's played fewer close games.

Closing is about securing wins for your team in close games, the success of which I value more than statistics, just as you seem to value statistics over winning. I don't know if great relief stats are predictive of future success. Sometimes they are. Often they are not.

This started with the simple observation that I wouldn't vote for Andrew Bailey if I had a vote for Rookie of the Year. But I labor under the handicap of having watched a lot of A's games in 2009.
Well, this is where we differ. I think a pitcher's job is to pitch well, just like a position player's job is to hit and field well.

JermaineDye05
10-25-2009, 01:53 PM
Beckham's 162 game average is pretty beastly for a rookie season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beckhgo01.shtml

:cool:

Yeah, that's my argument. If he had started the season with Chicago, it could be argued that his stats would have blown away all the other candidates. However, it could also be argued that the 2+ months in the minors were just what Beckham needed to get ready for the majors and if he had been called up at the beginning of the season, he wouldn't have been nearly as good.

As far as Beckham's 162 game average goes, I think he'll have a little more RBI and more SB (I expect him to have 20+ steals a year).

Rdy2PlayBall
10-25-2009, 02:00 PM
Yeah, that's my argument. If he had started the season with Chicago, it could be argued that his stats would have blown away all the other candidates. However, it could also be argued that the 2+ months in the minors were just what Beckham needed to get ready for the majors and if he had been called up at the beginning of the season, he wouldn't have been nearly as good.

As far as Beckham's 162 game average goes, I think he'll have a little more RBI and more SB (I expect him to have 20+ steals a year).His RBIs better be better than 99. I say 100+ (yah only 1 away, but he will probably only play 155 games)... And I agree about the 20+ SBs, I'm sure he will work on timing over the off season.

He did mention about working-out to get more homeruns... I imaging an batting average potential (.300) drop and doubles and homeruns to flip flop. I'm scared he will only bat .270 again because of swinging for the fenses the whole time.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-25-2009, 02:03 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again that of the 2009 AL rookie class I'd probably take him 2nd behind Weiters as far as likelyhood in becoming a star.I don't understand this??? :scratch:

Craig Grebeck
10-25-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't understand this??? :scratch:
He means Wieters -- Matt Wieters, the catcher for Baltimore.

JermaineDye05
10-25-2009, 02:11 PM
His RBIs better be better than 99. I say 100+ (yah only 1 away, but he will probably only play 155 games)... And I agree about the 20+ SBs, I'm sure he will work on timing over the off season.

He did mention about working-out to get more homeruns... I imaging an batting average potential (.300) drop and doubles and homeruns to flip flop. I'm scared he will only bat .270 again because of swinging for the fenses the whole time.

He said on Mully and Hanley that that was taken out of context. He said he wants to get stronger because he feels that some of his doubles hit to the opposite field could have turned into homeruns. We'll probably see the same swing and approach, just some of those doubles will become homeruns with some more strength behind Beckham.

Tragg
10-25-2009, 02:24 PM
Beane will have Bailey on the trading block in a year and a half: Buyer Beware.

WhiteSox5187
10-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Yeah, that's my argument. If he had started the season with Chicago, it could be argued that his stats would have blown away all the other candidates. However, it could also be argued that the 2+ months in the minors were just what Beckham needed to get ready for the majors and if he had been called up at the beginning of the season, he wouldn't have been nearly as good.

As far as Beckham's 162 game average goes, I think he'll have a little more RBI and more SB (I expect him to have 20+ steals a year).

I honestly wouldn't be stunned if he became a 30/30 guy.

TDog
10-25-2009, 04:22 PM
Well, this is where we differ. I think a pitcher's job is to pitch well, just like a position player's job is to hit and field well.

But he didn't pitch well (by closer standards) in close games -- giving up almost half the one-run leads he was given before recording three outs (in such cases pitching well and winning, technically saving, being synonymous).

And he didn't pitch much.

I don't know if Beckham will win the award. I don't know if I would vote for him. There are other players who probably deserve the award. But Andrew Bailey isn't among them. Other players were tested more than he was. Other players did more to show they have potential for future success.

Craig Grebeck
10-25-2009, 04:48 PM
But he didn't pitch well (by closer standards) in close games -- giving up almost half the one-run leads he was given before recording three outs (in such cases pitching well and winning, technically saving, being synonymous).

And he didn't pitch much.

I don't know if Beckham will win the award. I don't know if I would vote for him. There are other players who probably deserve the award. But Andrew Bailey isn't among them. Other players were tested more than he was. Other players did more to show they have potential for future success.
You are splitting hairs to the nth degree right now. How can you complain about a pitcher that was this good at missing bats? How can you complain about a pitcher that was this good at limiting baserunners? How can you complain about a pitcher that got better as the year went on?

Yes, I also think that Brett Anderson, Matt Wieters, Elvis Andrus, Rick Porcello, Gordon Beckham and Nolan Reimold will probably have longer, better careers than Andrew Bailey -- but he was damn good. Your assertion that White Sox fans would actually complain about having a closer THIS good is insane.

TDog
10-25-2009, 07:07 PM
You are splitting hairs to the nth degree right now. How can you complain about a pitcher that was this good at missing bats? How can you complain about a pitcher that was this good at limiting baserunners? How can you complain about a pitcher that got better as the year went on?

Yes, I also think that Brett Anderson, Matt Wieters, Elvis Andrus, Rick Porcello, Gordon Beckham and Nolan Reimold will probably have longer, better careers than Andrew Bailey -- but he was damn good. Your assertion that White Sox fans would actually complain about having a closer THIS good is insane.

I'm not splitting hairs. This has been my argument all along. Bailey was not a reliable closer unless he had a multi-run lead. That is the antithesis of being a solid closer. As I said a long time ago, I watched Bailey a lot this season, and he didn't impress me as a rookie of the year candidate.

If he had blown four of nine one-run leads for the White Sox, many the WSI game thread might be roadhoused if he came into a 10th one-run game (something he didn't do for the A's).

He had great stats, but he wasn't a reliable closer. I know, however, that some people don't care.

Johnny Mostil
10-25-2009, 08:47 PM
If he had blown four of nine one-run leads for the White Sox, many the WSI game thread might be roadhoused if he came into a 10th one-run game (something he didn't do for the A's).



This is exactly right. Whether fans should have such a reaction is another question, but anybody thinking this an "insane" claim doesn't much follow fan reaction here.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-25-2009, 08:54 PM
He said on Mully and Hanley that that was taken out of context. He said he wants to get stronger because he feels that some of his doubles hit to the opposite field could have turned into homeruns. We'll probably see the same swing and approach, just some of those doubles will become homeruns with some more strength behind Beckham.That makes me feel a lot better. When I first heard him say that... I thought we were getting another HR or nothing guy out of him. :whiner:

:D:

Pablo_Honey
10-25-2009, 10:30 PM
I'm not splitting hairs. This has been my argument all along. Bailey was not a reliable closer unless he had a multi-run lead. That is the antithesis of being a solid closer. As I said a long time ago, I watched Bailey a lot this season, and he didn't impress me as a rookie of the year candidate.

If he had blown four of nine one-run leads for the White Sox, many the WSI game thread might be roadhoused if he came into a 10th one-run game (something he didn't do for the A's).

He had great stats, but he wasn't a reliable closer. I know, however, that some people don't care.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I thought I'd just chime in. This season, Bailey was 6-3, saved 26 and blew 4. Not bad for a rookie pitcher who was pitching in AA last season and made the roster out of spring training. It gets better if you check the game logs: His last blown save was on June 16th and is last loss was on July 21st. He went 3 MONTHS without blowing a save, and he didn't cost them a game for 2 MONTHS. If that's not ROY worthy, well I don't know what kind of a season a closer has to have to be ROY worthy. Personally, I think, in today's baseball, a closer is expected to pitch only 1 inning, and that is to save the game no matter how big of a lead the team has. I don't care if the closer comes in with a 3-run lead or a 1-run lead as long as he gets the save and secures the win. Bailey has done that this season. Whereasin Beckham cooled off BIG time, Bailey got even better. He converted 21 consecutive save opportunities since his last blown save in June. I'm sorry, but to me, that screams a top tier closer. This is the kid's first season in majors and he's putting up numbers other closers wish they could be putting up. I love Gordon and I loved what he has done for us this season, but that horrendous August cost him the award.

TDog
10-26-2009, 12:41 AM
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I thought I'd just chime in. This season, Bailey was 6-3, saved 26 and blew 4. Not bad for a rookie pitcher who was pitching in AA last season and made the roster out of spring training. It gets better if you check the game logs: His last blown save was on June 16th and is last loss was on July 21st. He went 3 MONTHS without blowing a save, and he didn't cost them a game for 2 MONTHS. If that's not ROY worthy, well I don't know what kind of a season a closer has to have to be ROY worthy. Personally, I think, in today's baseball, a closer is expected to pitch only 1 inning, and that is to save the game no matter how big of a lead the team has. I don't care if the closer comes in with a 3-run lead or a 1-run lead as long as he gets the save and secures the win. Bailey has done that this season. Whereasin Beckham cooled off BIG time, Bailey got even better. He converted 21 consecutive save opportunities since his last blown save in June. I'm sorry, but to me, that screams a top tier closer. This is the kid's first season in majors and he's putting up numbers other closers wish they could be putting up. I love Gordon and I loved what he has done for us this season, but that horrendous August cost him the award.

Although Beckham went into a huge slump after being moved to the No. 2 spot in the batting order (which I don't believe was coincidental, and, in fact, forecast would happen if he was moved to the No. 2 spot in the batting order), the players still gave Beckham The Sporting News award. They didn't give it to Bailey.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 08:08 AM
Although Beckham went into a huge slump after being moved to the No. 2 spot in the batting order (which I don't believe was coincidental, and, in fact, forecast would happen if he was moved to the No. 2 spot in the batting order), the players still gave Beckham The Sporting News award. They didn't give it to Bailey.


And the players believed Jason Varitek was an All-Star in 2008 and Jeff Francoeur has as much disdain for OBP as you do...

A lot of the time, players say/ believe stupid things (unless that player is Brian Bannister, who is very smart, not that talented and damned to play on a damn stupid organization).

oeo
10-26-2009, 09:05 AM
And the players believed Jason Varitek was an All-Star in 2008 and Jeff Francoeur has as much disdain for OBP as you do...

A lot of the time, players say/ believe stupid things (unless that player is Brian Bannister, who is very smart, not that talented and damned to play on a damn stupid organization).

And you once said that Alfonso Soriano was a plus defender and Gavin Floyd could not improve, he had no where to go but down.

I find it funny that in your original post, you only mentioned Bailey as having a 'solid' year. Now all of a sudden he's your guy (after Reimold was shot down).

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 09:32 AM
And you once said that Alfonso Soriano was a plus defender and Gavin Floyd could not improve, he had no where to go but down.

I find it funny that in your original post, you only mentioned Bailey as having a 'solid' year. Now all of a sudden he's your guy (after Reimold was shot down).

I once was wrong about Floyd, that is correct. I stated Soriano was a plus defender in the OF which he was (not anymore) he was an abortion in the infield though.

I'm wrong often, but less often than most here. Other examples- I thought the Rangers were foolish in calling up Andrus, I also felt that Porcello would have an ERA around 5.00 this year (though I wasn't far off on the FIP).

I'm lazy and don't want to look back but I suspect I argued Reimold was a better hitter (he was) and a bad fielder. I don't think I argued he was a better player.

It also should be noted that my points about Floyd were that as long as he doesn't improve his K/BB ratio he wouldn't be the pitcher he was in 2008. Guess what changed?

I went back and checked and no, I never argued Reimold should win the RoY. Instead, I only stated he hit better (which again, he did). In fact until the post below, I hadn't endorsed any one person as the best pick. In fact, even in that post I suggest that I'm still torn over Anderson and Porcello.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 09:33 AM
I figured a substantive post covering every player worthy of discussion would help illuminate this discussion. To my friends who are so invested in the “But watching these guys tells us so much more than statistics,” crowd I ask you to please indulge me and actually think about content of this post for the following reasons: A) It’s impossible to have job/be in school/be married or any relationship and have had the time to see large samples of all of these guys play. B) As we are fans, chances are we all saw one or two of these guys play a hell of a lot more than others and C) None of us are professional scouts D) even if we were, one cannot properly scout by way of Direct TV.
With that said, I give you the rookies who mattered in the American League this season (In no Particular order):

1. Elvis Andrus: 145 Games, 541 PA, 480 AB, 72 Runs, 17 2b, 6 HR, 40 RBI, 33 SB, 6 CS, 85% SB%, Batting Average .267, OBP .329, Slugging .373, OPS .702, OPS+ 85, Fielding Runs 10.4, Batting Runs -5.0, Replacement 18.0, Positional 6.7, Wins above replacement player 30.1, Value on open market 13.6.

Andrus’ entire value is pretty much linked to the fact that he was an elite defender at one of the hardest defensive positions to fill. He did steal a pretty decent chunk of bases at an excellent success rate, so that helps as well. Going into 2008, I was totally against the idea of starting Andrus at such an age, but he performed well. It’s doubtful he gets much attention as the voters tend to not take into consideration the value of defense and position while voting. Furthermore, while the voters like stolen bases, they also seem slow on the uptake regarding the importance of success rate, which may be the most impressive aspect of Andrus’ running game.

He’s a tough sell, because compared to the average major league hitter he was pretty lousy but he wasn’t that bad when compared to the average shortstop.

2. Brett Anderson: 30 G, 30 GS, 11 Wins, 11 Loses, 175.1 innings, ERA 4.06, ERA+ 102, WHIP 1.283, K/9 7.7, BB/9 2.2, HR/9 1.0, FIP 3.69, Wins Above Replacement player (WAR) 3.8, Value on open market 17.1 million dollars.

Anderson was a little unlucky this season. He did a great job of controlling the strike zone while also gaining plenty of swings and misses. Of all the rookie starting pitchers this year, he might have pitched the best despite having results that didn’t completely illustrate his achievements. There’s a tremendous value in pitching league average for 175 innings and given the fact that his ERA should of actually been around 3.7, he was far better than average even in the pitchers paradise he calls home for half the season.


3. Gordon Beckham: G 103 , PA 430, AB 378, Runs 58, 28 2b, 1 3b, HR 14, RBI 63, SB 7, CS 4, SB% 64%, BA .270, OBP .347, SLG .460, OPS .808, OPS+ 106, Batting Runs 6.4, Fielding -1.0, Replacement 14.3, Positional 1.6, WAR 2.1, Dollars on Open market 9.6 million.

Beckham’s candidacy is hurt by two factors beyond his control. 1) he got started kind of late and subsequently couldn’t rack up a ton of counting statistics (HR, RBI, RS). 2) He was moved to 3b which hurt his value for the following 2 reasons A) It was an adjustment and he underperformed a bit due to the learning curve, given his athletic ability and his defense are more difficult positions in the past- there is no reason to think he’ll be anything but a damn good fielder at 3b in the future and B) Third basemen are worth a whole lot less than SS and 2b. That said, he had a very good rookie year despite these two obstacles.

The fact that he’s only a season removed from college is pretty remarkable. He got on base at a slightly above average clip and hit with authority posting an excellent slugging percentage. Defensively, he was average though for the aforementioned reasons, I wouldn’t hold that against him too much. Beckham winning wouldn’t be a travesty, but looking at his numbers in addition to having seen him play a lot makes me believe that he’s not likely the best choice for the award. Player’s opinions be damned.


4. Andrew Bailey: G 68, GS 0, Wins 6, Loses 3, Saves 26, BS 4, S% 87%, 83.1 IP, K/9 9.8, BB/9 2.6, HR/9 .50, FIP 2.56, WAR 2.4, Money 10.8 Million.

As usual, the closer is the most difficult player for me to analyze. For the record, I don’t believe Wins (especially for relievers), Saves and Blown saves tell us damned near anything about a pitcher. Andrew Bailey was excellent at pounding the zone and getting strike outs. His HR rate seems to be a fluke but how much of that should impact how we value him? In short, I don’t know. Damn good season, likely winner of the RoY, not certain as to whether or not he deserves it but like Beckham- it wouldn’t be a travesty.


5. Rick Porcello: G 31, GS 31, IP 270.1, W 14, L 9, ERA 3.96, ERA+ 115, WHIP 1.34, K/9 4.7, BB/9 2.2, HR/9 1.2, FIP 4.77, WAR 1.9, Money 8.6.

Another very difficult case. Porcello pulled a Ching Min Wang/ Bill Lee/ Fuesto Carmona this year. His ability in getting ground balls broke FIP, since FIP is used to determine WAR- both stats could be worthless here if we accept the argument that pitchers with tremendous ground ball rates don’t play by the same rules of probably as other pitchers (which I do believe to a certain degree). He logged a lot of innings, had great success and could very well be the best rookie this season, depending on how you evaluate ground ball pitchers.


6. Nolan Reimold: G 104, PA 411, AB 358, 2b 18, 3b 2, HR 15, 8 SB, 2 SB, SB% 80%, BA .279, OBP .365, SLG .466, OPS .831, OPS+ 115, Batting Runs 12.2, Fielding Runs -10.1, Replacement 13.7, Positional -5.5, WAR 1.0, Money 4.7 Million.

The old man of the 2009 rookie class has the distinction of being both the best batter by far as well as the most useless fielder. First, what did he do well? He compared marginally favorably to Beckham everywhere but OBP (Where he killed Beckham) and SB% (ditto), he did so while playing in a ball park that slightly depresses offense while Beckham plays in a ball park that’s likely in the top 5 for hitting. That said, we’d expect some difference in offense between a LF and a 3b, especially when the 3b was capable and the LF sucked.


As mentioned by a lot of posters- this class doesn’t really have a massive stand out. I wouldn’t give it to Beckham though, because the pitchers appeared to be more valuable this season. Though as I’ve argued a dozen times before, it shouldn’t matter- this is a silly award after all and of the players listed- Beckham has the best chance at a long healthy career as a star. Hell, the guy we’ll all likely be talking about over the next decade isn’t even on this list.
Gun to my head, I’d rank them as the following:
1) Porcello
2) Anderson
3) Bailey
4) Beckham
5) Andrus
6) Reimold
I will admit, that I could be convinced that Anderson was better than Porcello and believe that 3-5 could be ranked in any order and defended well.

Lip Man 1
10-26-2009, 12:05 PM
After reading that post (or more to the point trying to read through all the formulas, mathematical theories and gobbledgook) I can only say that, like Mr. Gumby, "my brain hurts..."

Yea my FIP and WAR can beat up your FIP and WAR!

What the hell is he talking about?

Lip

Balfanman
10-26-2009, 12:07 PM
I He compared marginally favorably to Beckham everywhere but OBP (Where he killed Beckham) and SB% (ditto), he did so while playing in a ball park that slightly depresses offense while Beckham plays in a ball park that’s likely in the top 5 for hitting.

First I will say that overall I like your post. Even though I've really just started posting, I've read this site for years and whether people agree or disagree with you, your posts seem to me to be well thought out.

I would like to challenge (not you in particular, but the thought in general) that U. S. Cellular is a hitters park. I think that it is a very good power hitters park, but for average, doubles, and triples hitters not so much. This is one of the perils I see in going forward as less of a power and more of a OBP. and speed team. While overall I agree with that concept, I'm not sure how that will play out overall at the Cell. I personally wish that they would move the fences out a little further.

In fact, I think that as great a doubles hitter Beckham seems to be, for that aspect of his game he seems to be with the wrong team. Beckham would be a beast in that department in Detroit, for example. Maybe this is some of the thought process that Beckham is using when thinking he needs to get stronger. JMHO

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 12:20 PM
First I will say that overall I like your post. Even though I've really just started posting, I've read this site for years and whether people agree or disagree with you, your posts seem to me to be well thought out.

I would like to challenge (not you in particular, but the thought in general) that U. S. Cellular is a hitters park. I think that it is a very good power hitters park, but for average, doubles, and triples hitters not so much. This is one of the perils I see in going forward as less of a power and more of a OBP. and speed team. While overall I agree with that concept, I'm not sure how that will play out overall at the Cell. I personally wish that they would move the fences out a little further.

In fact, I think that as great a doubles hitter Beckham seems to be, for that aspect of his game he seems to be with the wrong team. Beckham would be a beast in that department in Detroit, for example. Maybe this is some of the thought process that Beckham is using when thinking he needs to get stronger. JMHO
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, as the park undoubtedly deflates 2B and 3B because of smaller gaps. Of course, some of that has been offset by our horrendous outfield defense the last few seasons.

After reading that post (or more to the point trying to read through all the formulas, mathematical theories and gobbledgook) I can only say that, like Mr. Gumby, "my brain hurts..."

Yea my FIP and WAR can beat up your FIP and WAR!

What the hell is he talking about?

Lip
Why are you so against a different form of analysis? The people who develop these statistics use scouting as well. They are trying to better talent evaluation.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 12:27 PM
First I will say that overall I like your post. Even though I've really just started posting, I've read this site for years and whether people agree or disagree with you, your posts seem to me to be well thought out.

I would like to challenge (not you in particular, but the thought in general) that U. S. Cellular is a hitters park. I think that it is a very good power hitters park, but for average, doubles, and triples hitters not so much. This is one of the perils I see in going forward as less of a power and more of a OBP. and speed team. While overall I agree with that concept, I'm not sure how that will play out overall at the Cell. I personally wish that they would move the fences out a little further.

In fact, I think that as great a doubles hitter Beckham seems to be, for that aspect of his game he seems to be with the wrong team. Beckham would be a beast in that department in Detroit, for example. Maybe this is some of the thought process that Beckham is using when thinking he needs to get stronger. JMHO


Upon further review, it appears I was somewhat incorrect about how much the Cell inflates offense. It still does, just not as much as I had initially suspected. Over the past five years it's been 9th three times and fourth once and 3rd once.

Balitmore has been all over the place over the same period of time (as high as 6th and as low as 27th).

The long and short of it is that the Cell is a very good hitters park, just not as good as I thought, my bad.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 12:38 PM
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, as the park undoubtedly deflates 2B and 3B because of smaller gaps. Of course, some of that has been offset by our horrendous outfield defense the last few seasons.


Why are you so against a different form of analysis? The people who develop these statistics use scouting as well. They are trying to better talent evaluation.

The funny thing about that response is that I listed mostly more traditional numbers to evaluate the players. WAR and FIP only represented a sliver of the analysis.

Additionally, FIP is not even that abstract of an idea. It's based on some pretty intuitive assumptions- Pitchers success is generally associated with how well they prevent walks, how well they prevent home runs and how well they make batters miss.

My suspicion as to why Lip and others dismiss so readily is because they're not that intellectually curious. They don't like seeing people challenging ideas that they (and all of us) have traditionally veiwed as correct.

The good news is that the struggle to ignore new ideas is always a losing one. I suspect that when I talk to my kids about Albert Pujols, they'll be astonished at how good he was at not getting out and producing runs.

Lip Man 1
10-26-2009, 01:22 PM
Billy:

I dismiss most stats so readily because as stated time and time again by Daver and others, baseball has a million million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, filed, spindled and catalogued.

If you could do so there would be no need to play any games. We'd get the geniuses from MIT or VMI or FIP or WHIP or whereever they came from to tell us who won the World Series...on opening day...in April.

Those of that ilk who think they can 'predict' everything's that's going to happen aka Baseball Prospectus are arrogant, know it all's who when their 'perfect' analysis of every nuance proves to be wrong...never, repeat NEVER admit that they ****ed up.

It's always some excuse. The White Sox couldn't possibly win the World Series in 2005. Yet they did. The Twins couldn't possibly win three consecutive divisional titles, the numbers don't add up...yet they did. The Diamondbacks couldn't possible get to the playoffs let alone beat the Cubs in the first round, not after allowing as many runs as they did...yet they did.

If these mathematical constructs developed by people who may or may not know what they are doing, are so good, then they'd stand the test of reality. No 'excuses' as to why they were wrong would be needed because like algebra or geometry if a principle is true and works the first time it will ALWAYS work... period.

I don't base predictions or give awards based only on numbers...baseball isn't a game played by robots, cyborgs or perfect killing machines.

And I'd assume your kids would know how good Albert is just by watching him. They don't need a 20 page spread sheet of meaningless mumbo jumbo to tell them that.

Lip

spawn
10-26-2009, 01:28 PM
Billy:

I dismiss most stats so readily because as stated time and time again by Daver and others, baseball has a million million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, filed, spindled and catalogued.

If you could do so there would be no need to play any games. We'd get the geniuses from MIT or VMI or FIP or WHIP or whereever they came from to tell us who won the World Series...on opening day...in April.

Those of that ilk who think they can 'predict' everything's that's going to happen aka Baseball Prospectus are arrogant, know it all's who when their 'perfect' analysis of every nuance proves to be wrong...never, repeat NEVER admit that they ****ed up.

It's always some excuse. The White Sox couldn't possibly win the World Series in 2005. Yet they did. The Twins couldn't possibly win three consecutive divisional titles, the numbers don't add up...yet they did. The Diamondbacks couldn't possible get to the playoffs let alone beat the Cubs in the first round, not after allowing as many runs as they did...yet they did.

If these mathematical constructs developed by people who may or may not know what they are doing, are so good, then they'd stand the test of reality. No 'excuses' as to why they were wrong wouldn't be needed because like algebra or geometry if a principle is true and works the first time it will ALWAYS work... period.

I don't base predictions or give awards based only on numbers...baseball isn't a game played by robots, cyborgs or perfect killing machines.

And I'd assume your kids would know how good Albert is just by watching him. They don't need a 20 page spread sheet of meaningless mumbo jumbo to tell them that.

Lip

:clap::clap::clap:

TDog
10-26-2009, 01:28 PM
And the players believed Jason Varitek was an All-Star in 2008 and Jeff Francoeur has as much disdain for OBP as you do...

A lot of the time, players say/ believe stupid things (unless that player is Brian Bannister, who is very smart, not that talented and damned to play on a damn stupid organization).

The players aren't primarily looking at the stats. They don't need to.

If you want to make the argument that the BBWAA beat writers are more worthy of naming a rookie of the year than the players, please do so. Actually, I don't happen to believe there are as many idiot baseball writers as most people around here do. But you seem to be suggesting that stats should be plugged into a computer. I don't place such a high value on strikeouts that I consider former Cubs pitcher Michael Wuertz worthy of any American League Cy Young Award votes because for the A's this year he struck out more than 100 hitters in less than 80 innings.

Comparing Beckham and Bailey for The Sporting News award wouldn't have been necessary a few years ago. From 1963 to 2003, separate awards were given to pitchers and position players. In 1998, players in the National League didn't have to choose between Todd Helton and Kid K. I would have voted for Helton, had I been one of the two writers from each NL city with a BBWAA vote. Kerry Wood beat out Helton, of course, and he didn't pitch at all the following year. This year a pitcher won the NL award, so it isn't as if players harbor a prejudice against pitchers. It didn't hurt that J.A. Happ pitched close to twice as many innings as Bailey.

I have no idea who finished second or third behind Beckham for The Sporting News award, so I don't know if Bailey was in the running. I doubt he finished second. In fact, I doubt would have been named rookie pitcher of the year if The Sporting News still gave out the award.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 02:01 PM
Billy:

I dismiss most stats so readily because as stated time and time again by Daver and others, baseball has a million million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, filed, spindled and catalogued.

If you could do so there would be no need to play any games. We'd get the geniuses from MIT or VMI or FIP or WHIP or whereever they came from to tell us who won the World Series...on opening day...in April.

Those of that ilk who think they can 'predict' everything's that's going to happen aka Baseball Prospectus are arrogant, know it all's who when their 'perfect' analysis of every nuance proves to be wrong...never, repeat NEVER admit that they ****ed up.

It's always some excuse. The White Sox couldn't possibly win the World Series in 2005. Yet they did. The Twins couldn't possibly win three consecutive divisional titles, the numbers don't add up...yet they did. The Diamondbacks couldn't possible get to the playoffs let alone beat the Cubs in the first round, not after allowing as many runs as they did...yet they did.

If these mathematical constructs developed by people who may or may not know what they are doing, are so good, then they'd stand the test of reality. No 'excuses' as to why they were wrong wouldn't be needed because like algebra or geometry if a principle is true and works the first time it will ALWAYS work... period.

I don't base predictions or give awards based only on numbers...baseball isn't a game played by robots, cyborgs or perfect killing machines.

And I'd assume your kids would know how good Albert is just by watching him. They don't need a 20 page spread sheet of meaningless mumbo jumbo to tell them that.

Lip

How man strawmen are there in this post? I count at least 5.

1- When did I say that there was no human element to the game?
2- When did I say the game was played by robots?
3- When did I say the White Sox should not have won the world series in 2005?
4- When did I say that statistical analysis can predict everything?
5- When did I say that statistics explain everything in baseball?

You wrote a compelling counter argument to a bunch of things I never said. Congratulations, this post gets the rhetorical fallacy award of the year-

You assume much and know little of where I'm coming from and prove my point over and over again.


(Oh and chances are, my kids won't ever watch Pujols in his prime being that said children are hypothetical at this point)

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 02:08 PM
I dismiss most stats so readily because as stated time and time again by Daver and others, baseball has a million million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, filed, spindled and catalogued.

Yeah. No ****, Lip. You are presupposing that the people who use/develop these statistics believe they are developing some end all/be all formula -- but they aren't. They are simply adding a couple variables in pretty simple equations. You are heaping a load of **** on those of us who use statistics like FIP that isn't warranted.
If you could do so there would be no need to play any games. We'd get the geniuses from MIT or VMI or FIP or WHIP or whereever they came from to tell us who won the World Series...on opening day...in April.

Again, strawman argument. No one is arguing that there is no need to play games. This is simply a branch of analysis on a gigantic, seemingly infinite tree.
Those of that ilk who think they can 'predict' everything's that's going to happen aka Baseball Prospectus are arrogant, know it all's who when their 'perfect' analysis of every nuance proves to be wrong...never, repeat NEVER admit that they ****ed up.

They do quite a bit, actually.
It's always some excuse. The White Sox couldn't possibly win the World Series in 2005. Yet they did. The Twins couldn't possibly win three consecutive divisional titles, the numbers don't add up...yet they did. The Diamondbacks couldn't possible get to the playoffs let alone beat the Cubs in the first round, not after allowing as many runs as they did...yet they did.
What on earth does all this bitterness have to do with FIP?

Also, FIP was developed by a guy who disagrees a ton with BP. If you want to use BP as the group behind every statistic that you don't agree with, go right ahead -- but you're in the wrong here for even bringing them up.
If these mathematical constructs developed by people who may or may not know what they are doing, are so good, then they'd stand the test of reality. No 'excuses' as to why they were wrong wouldn't be needed because like algebra or geometry if a principle is true and works the first time it will ALWAYS work... period.
We're talking about FIP, not PECOTA or Chone or Marcels or any other projection system. Take it up with them, but once again, it really has no place in any argument about FIP.
I don't base predictions or give awards based only on numbers...baseball isn't a game played by robots, cyborgs or perfect killing machines.
Again, no one is arguing this. People use FIP in conjunction with scouting.

And perfect killing machines? **** the heck are you talking about?

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 02:12 PM
Lip, making that post even more ridiculous are the insinuations that statheads like myself claim to understand everything and can't admit if they're ever incorrect.

Not 5 posts ago, I commented about the debate of how extreme ground ball tendencies impact FIP. It's a damn good discussion to have and I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue for sure, yet. I could be convinced either way. On top of that, I flat our admit- I have a ton of trouble dealing with closers, it's really difficult for me to understand their value.

Additionally, I commented as to how I was incorrect about the Rangers and Tigers aggressively promoting Andrus and Porcello.

Next time, instead of posting about how my ilk can't admit it when we're wrong or how we claim to understand everything you actually read my arguments.

Thanks, and remember that reading is fundamental.

Carolina Kenny
10-26-2009, 03:19 PM
Them young whippersnappers with their fancy dan numbers.

Them numbers don't mean jack. I look at the man and he is or he ain't a ballplayer and that's that.

All these here numbers give me a headache. I got to take my medicine and sit a spell in my rockin chair.

BadBobbyJenks
10-26-2009, 03:28 PM
You kids keep throwing that ball on the old man's porch and you are going to lose it forever.

Lip Man 1
10-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Carolina:

This and that.

First off I don't consider 54 to be old. If you're lucky you might reach that age yourself someday.

Second I think stats have a place in the game, it's the EXTREMISM that these stat-geeks place on them that drive me up the wall, coupled with, as mentioned, their overall unwillingness to admit they ****ed up when their god (statistics) goes south.

I think stats can be a big help say in trying to figure out if you should get a back up player, if a particular bench player or spare outfielder or a middle relief pitcher would work well on your team.

I don't need a 20 page spread sheet with VORP and WAR and XYZ and E-I-E-I-O to tell me Frank Thomas was a great player or that Albert is one of the best in the game today.

The problem with many statheads is they forget this is a human game and that the eyes can usually tell you as much as a computer screen or that an actual conversation with a player or a potential player to determine some of their intangibles goes a lot farther than just looking at his OBP. (See I can throw out abbreviations too! I'm a stat-geek!!!)

:D:

I prefer to trust myself, my judgment, my observations based on many years of watching the game, meeting those who played the game and interviewing people who make their living in the game than relying on a spread sheet put together by someone who may have skewed the numbers consciously or subconsciously to promote their point of view.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 04:21 PM
Carolina:

This and that.

First off I don't consider 54 to be old. If you're lucky you might reach that age yourself someday.

Second I think stats have a place in the game, it's the EXTREMISM that these stat-geeks place on them that drive me up the wall, coupled with, as mentioned, their overall unwillingness to admit they ****ed up when their god (statistics) goes south.

I think stats can be a big help say in trying to figure out if you should get a back up player, if a particular bench player or spare outfielder or a middle relief pitcher would work well on your team.

I don't need a 20 page spread sheet with VORP and WAR and XYZ and E-I-E-I-O to tell me Frank Thomas was a great player or that Albert is one of the best in the game today.

The problem with many statheads is they forget this is a human game and that the eyes can usually tell you as much as a computer screen or that an actual conversation with a player or a potential player to determine some of their intangibles goes a lot farther than just looking at his OBP. (See I can throw out abbreviations too! I'm a stat-geek!!!)

:D:

I prefer to trust myself, my judgment, my observations based on many years of watching the game, meeting those who played the game and interviewing people who make their living in the game than relying on a spread sheet put together by someone who may have skewed the numbers consciously or subconsciously to promote their point of view.

Lip
So you just aren't going to respond to my post?

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 04:25 PM
"you see I like not addressing any of the points made by others when they point out I make up arguments. To reinforce my opinion, I repeat said erroneous arguments. Then I say that I like to trust my eyes and assume that the people I'm talking about don't have eyes or something."

-Lip

I played baseball in High School, I've watched it since I was a kid. Along with statistical analysis I enjoy looking at driveline mechanics (a scouting site), Pitch F/x is also a cool tool that comes from the scouting tradition, hell my favorite fielding evaluation is +/- which again is not really a statistic but rather recorded observations of each play done by each player over the course of a season.

I've only spoken to a few people who've played baseball professionally, most of them haven't been interested in Saber, but most of them also don't understand anything about it (IE the "Billy Beane wrote moneyball" crowd).

A lot of the people who do run organizations do care about it though, many of them have degrees from Ivy league schools.

We see the whole, trust your eyes argument here often. Let me ask that crowd the following questions:

-How many games do you watch in person?
-How many games do you watch on TV?
-Do you watch film over and over again trying to see patterns in how a person throws/swings/ positions themselves?
-Do you talk to friends/family while watching baseball?
-Drink beer?
-Eat Pizza?

When I watch baseball, I'm enjoying myself. It would be insulting for me to claim that I can properly evaluate how a player performs from watching a game on a flat screen. I talk to my friends, go to the fridge and sometimes take a leak.

Scouts put hours and hours of work into the game- Lip you're not a scout, what your eyes are telling you is the exact thing my eyes tell me, I like baseball.

JermaineDye05
10-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Beckham wins another one.

Link (http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2805)

Let's hope the writers appreciate what he did this year and understand that it was only in 103 games, playing almost every day since his call-up (I think he was benched once or twice).

TDog
10-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Beckham wins another one.

Link (http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2805)

Let's hope the writers appreciate what he did this year and understand that it was only in 103 games, playing almost every day since his call-up (I think he was benched once or twice).

This was another award based on player voting. Interestingly enough, Bailey wasn't mentioned among the rookies Beckham beat out. It quite possibly could be that Bailey didn't make as big an impression around the league as he did among among the people blown away by his stats.

But as someone who doesn't drinks beer and has never sipped a beer at a baseball game, my opinions may be suspect.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 05:29 PM
This was another award based on player voting. Interestingly enough, Bailey wasn't mentioned among the rookies Beckham beat out. It quite possibly could be that Bailey didn't make as big an impression around the league as he did among among the people blown away by his stats.

But as someone who doesn't drinks beer and has never sipped a beer at a baseball game, my opinions may be suspect.
Perhaps.

Daver
10-26-2009, 05:31 PM
-How many games do you watch in person?
-How many games do you watch on TV?
-Do you watch film over and over again trying to see patterns in how a person throws/swings/ positions themselves?
-Do you talk to friends/family while watching baseball?
-Drink beer?
-Eat Pizza?



Amateur or professional?
Every White Sox game that I don't attend for the most part, on a regular basis, though I do watch other teams.
Yes.
While watching a live broadcast? Yes, for a recording? No
No, spring water, usually room temperature.
My wife seldom makes pizza, as a chef she does not consider it a meal.

munchman33
10-26-2009, 05:34 PM
OMG.

People realize statistics are a rather advanced field of academics. Right? RIGHT? People seriously spend decades studying statistics. And for good reason.

There's a lot to be said for the value of statistics. And in NO instance are statistics meant to tell you what will happen. They tell you what should, or what is most likely to happen. They help make informed decisions. Our entire system of government is based on statistics.

Not understanding context is no excuse for denouncing something. Not once have I heard a statistician deem his findings infallible. Not once were the basis of the results from baseball statisticians taken from a personal bias. Not once were the findings based on anything other than previous play on the field.

Stop taking these results so damn seriously. Apologies? Admit when they're wrong? Seriously? It's a prediction! This isn't even an "I think x is going to happen" kind of situation. This is a mathematical prediction of what should happen based on what has happened. Not based on the author's opinion. Not based on all contingencies. Just based on baseball results. Just what is most likely to occur.

Lip Man 1
10-26-2009, 06:23 PM
Munch:

Tell that to the people at BP. Still waiting for the apology after they ripped Ozzie, the franchise and Sox fans in 2006 with their "editorial" about how "right" they were.

Feel free to look it up in these archives, it was discussed a lot.

It's not a 'prediction' to them, those arrogant fools think it's the word of God brought down from heaven...they write like it is, talk like it is and conduct themselves like it is.

By the way how's De Los Santos doing? Is he still Hall of Fame bound??

Lip

WhiteSox5187
10-26-2009, 06:34 PM
OMG.

People realize statistics are a rather advanced field of academics. Right? RIGHT? People seriously spend decades studying statistics. And for good reason.

There's a lot to be said for the value of statistics. And in NO instance are statistics meant to tell you what will happen. They tell you what should, or what is most likely to happen. They help make informed decisions. Our entire system of government is based on statistics.

Not understanding context is no excuse for denouncing something. Not once have I heard a statistician deem his findings infallible. Not once were the basis of the results from baseball statisticians taken from a personal bias. Not once were the findings based on anything other than previous play on the field.

Stop taking these results so damn seriously. Apologies? Admit when they're wrong? Seriously? It's a prediction! This isn't even an "I think x is going to happen" kind of situation. This is a mathematical prediction of what should happen based on what has happened. Not based on the author's opinion. Not based on all contingencies. Just based on baseball results. Just what is most likely to occur.

Stats and baseball are just another way of trying to understand the game. That's all they are. They aren't always right nor are they wrong. They are just trying to understand the game. Some work better than others though and then there are statistical abnormalities.

munchman33
10-26-2009, 06:41 PM
Stats and baseball are just another way of trying to understand the game. That's all they are. They aren't always right nor are they wrong. They are just trying to understand the game. Some work better than others though and then there are statistical abnormalities.

Except the people who hate statistics use that to say statistics are wrong. That's like getting all but one question on a test right and your teacher failing you for getting one wrong.

Seriously, statistics are math based. They are a science. Saying you don't believe in them is akin to saying you don't believe in String Theory or the Doppler Effect. Which is fine if that's your religious belief, but we don't debate religion here. Statistics are real, and they have meaning. Debating their meaning is one thing. Not believing in them, or their merit? Yeah...

munchman33
10-26-2009, 06:43 PM
Munch:

Tell that to the people at BP. Still waiting for the apology after they ripped Ozzie, the franchise and Sox fans in 2006 with their "editorial" about how "right" they were.

Feel free to look it up in these archives, it was discussed a lot.

It's not a 'prediction' to them, those arrogant fools think it's the word of God brought down from heaven...they write like it is, talk like it is and conduct themselves like it is.

By the way how's De Los Santos doing? Is he still Hall of Fame bound??

Lip

Please provide link to article. I read a similar article explaining why their prediction didn't play out, but nothing with the kind of bias you're describing.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 06:49 PM
Munch:

Tell that to the people at BP. Still waiting for the apology after they ripped Ozzie, the franchise and Sox fans in 2006 with their "editorial" about how "right" they were.

Feel free to look it up in these archives, it was discussed a lot.

It's not a 'prediction' to them, those arrogant fools think it's the word of God brought down from heaven...they write like it is, talk like it is and conduct themselves like it is.

By the way how's De Los Santos doing? Is he still Hall of Fame bound??

Lip
BP is not the lone representative for statistical analysis.

TDog
10-26-2009, 07:07 PM
Except the people who hate statistics use that to say statistics are wrong. That's like getting all but one question on a test right and your teacher failing you for getting one wrong.

Seriously, statistics are math based. They are a science. Saying you don't believe in them is akin to saying you don't believe in String Theory or the Doppler Effect. Which is fine if that's your religious belief, but we don't debate religion here. Statistics are real, and they have meaning. Debating their meaning is one thing. Not believing in them, or their merit? Yeah...

Statistics are a rear-view mirror. They tell you what has happened, not what will -- certainly not why.

Martinigirl
10-26-2009, 07:19 PM
Back to the topic of Gordon Beckham, he was interviewed today on Mike & Mike.

What he had to say about Thome was very sweet. I would love for Thome to be a coach with the Sox some day.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/show?showId=mikeandmike

Daver
10-26-2009, 07:20 PM
Except the people who hate statistics use that to say statistics are wrong. That's like getting all but one question on a test right and your teacher failing you for getting one wrong.

Seriously, statistics are math based. They are a science. Saying you don't believe in them is akin to saying you don't believe in String Theory or the Doppler Effect. Which is fine if that's your religious belief, but we don't debate religion here. Statistics are real, and they have meaning. Debating their meaning is one thing. Not believing in them, or their merit? Yeah...

Statistics are a blueprint of the past, nothing more and nothing less, they tell you what has happened, there is no sound science to back up using those numbers as they relate to baseball to project the future. If you are using numbers based in the past to project the future you are projecting crap and how bad the crap will stink, because there is no solid science behind it, merely theory. I can park next to a Porta a Potty and predict how bad it will stink with about the same accuracy of how a player will perform based on his past performance, there are far too many variables to make any projection accurate to a level that is acceptable in real terms.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 07:22 PM
Statistics are a rear-view mirror. They tell you what has happened, not what will -- certainly not why.
This isn't true at all.

doublem23
10-26-2009, 07:23 PM
Statistics are a blueprint of the past, nothing more and nothing less, they tell you what has happened, there is no sound science to back up using those numbers as they relate to baseball to project the future. If you are using numbers based in the past to project the future you are projecting crap and how bad the crap will stink, because there is no solid science behind it, merely theory. I can park next to a Porta a Potty and predict how bad it will stink with about the same accuracy of how a player will perform based on his past performance, there are far too many variables to make any projection accurate to a level that is acceptable in real terms.

Never heard of actuarial science or probability theory?

munchman33
10-26-2009, 07:27 PM
Statistics are a blueprint of the past, nothing more and nothing less, they tell you what has happened, there is no sound science to back up using those numbers as they relate to baseball to project the future. If you are using numbers based in the past to project the future you are projecting crap and how bad the crap will stink, because there is no solid science behind it, merely theory. I can park next to a Porta a Potty and predict how bad it will stink with about the same accuracy of how a player will perform based on his past performance, there are far too many variables to make any projection accurate to a level that is acceptable in real terms.

Daver....this is just not correct.

munchman33
10-26-2009, 07:30 PM
Statistics are a rear-view mirror. They tell you what has happened, not what will -- certainly not why.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

~Santayana

kufram
10-26-2009, 07:31 PM
Are there stats for clutch hitting? I'm not being arguementative here, I really am asking. Can you quantify a clutch hitter with statistics? The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is 50 hits over 1,000 at-bats, yes? What if the .250 hitter is much better at getting his hits when it really matters? What if the .300 hitter never has anybody on base in front of him?

I believe stats are important to a point, but too often just a tool in contract negotiations. Performance is another thing altogether. Players that come up big in bigtime situations are, to me, the most valuable players you can have.

There are managers that make decisions based on statictical probabilities and managers who make decisions from a gut instinct. Can anybody tell me which type of manager is the most successful?

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 07:32 PM
Statistics are a blueprint of the past, nothing more and nothing less, they tell you what has happened...
And often times this information can be combined with other information (scouting, batted ball rates, pitch f/x, etc.) to give management an idea of a player's probability for success in the future.
If you are using numbers based in the past to project the future you are projecting crap and how bad the crap will stink, because there is no solid science behind it, merely theory.
And there is no solid science behind a bunch of men walking around with radar guns and clipboards. Their "theories" on mechanics and tools have no science behind them either.
I can park next to a Porta a Potty and predict how bad it will stink with about the same accuracy of how a player will perform based on his past performance, there are far too many variables to make any projection accurate to a level that is acceptable in real terms.
You know that no one is arguing that statistics are all anyone needs to project future performance, right?

Yes, for the umpteenth time, there are tons of variables. No one is disputing that -- rather, we are disputing Lip's arsenal of Terracotta strawmen he's been charging into battle.

munchman33
10-26-2009, 07:33 PM
Are there stats for clutch hitting? I'm not being arguementative here, I really am asking. Can you quantify a clutch hitter with statistics? The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is 50 hits over 1,000 at-bats, yes? What if the .250 hitter is much better at getting his hits when it really matters? What if the .300 hitter never has anybody on base in front of him?

I believe stats are important to a point, but too often just a tool in contract negotiations. Performance is another thing altogether. Players that come up big in bigtime situations are, to me, the most valuable players you can have.

There are managers that make decisions based on statictical probabilities and managers who make decisions from a gut instinct. Can anybody tell me which type of manager is the most successful?

Situational statistics are a large part of player evaluation, and are integral tools both for agents in negotiations and for scouts/GM's in the players they target.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 07:35 PM
Are there stats for clutch hitting? I'm not being arguementative here, I really am asking. Can you quantify a clutch hitter with statistics? The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is 50 hits over 1,000 at-bats, yes? What if the .250 hitter is much better at getting his hits when it really matters? What if the .300 hitter never has anybody on base in front of him?
Clutch is extremely difficult to quantify and it's significance is negligible. Your best bet is to just have good players -- guys who can field and hit consistently, not just in the ninth inning.

Good hitters hit, bad hitters don't. It's pretty simple.

There are managers that make decisions based on statictical probabilities and managers who make decisions from a gut instinct. Can anybody tell me which type of manager is the most successful?

Chances are their "instinct" is derived from some statistical probability.

kufram
10-26-2009, 07:43 PM
Do you seriously think that the really good players don't bear down a little more when it really matters. Do you really not think that some players live for pressure situations and have the ability to rise to occasions? That doesn't mean in the ninth, by the way. It means at moments when the player can make something happen and that can be in the first.

Have a team of good, fundamental baseball players and you will win games. Have a team of good, fundamental baseball players that perform in clutch situations and you win World Series.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 07:45 PM
Do you seriously think that the really good players don't bear down a little more when it really matters. Do you really not think that some players live for pressure situations and have the ability to rise to occasions? That doesn't mean in the ninth, by the way. It means at moments when the player can make something happen and that can be in the first.

Have a team of good, fundamental baseball players and you will win games. Have a team of good, fundamental baseball players that perform in clutch situations and you win World Series.
I believe that trying to quantify "clutch" to the point that you are basing your talent evaluation off of it is stupid. Absolutely stupid.

Just have talent. Health, talent, and luck win it all more often than not.

Daver
10-26-2009, 08:13 PM
Daver....this is just not correct.

Prove it.


And there is no solid science behind a bunch of men walking around with radar guns and clipboards. Their "theories" on mechanics and tools have no science behind them either.


Since when is known knowledge a theory?

TDog
10-26-2009, 09:30 PM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

~Santayana

That isn't necessarily true as it applies to baseball. No one alive can remember the last time the Cubs won a World Series. And the Cubs haven't repeated that feat.

spawn
10-26-2009, 09:34 PM
That isn't necessarily true as it applies to baseball. No one alive can remember the last time the Cubs won a World Series. And the Cubs haven't repeated that feat.
Booyah.

doublem23
10-26-2009, 09:43 PM
Since when is known knowledge a theory?

Remember when people raved about Mark Prior's "perfect" mechanics?

Plus, how is scouting "known knowledge" when so many prospects fail? If that were knowledge and not theory, wouldn't you be able to sift the winners from losers?

Lip Man 1
10-26-2009, 10:36 PM
Munch:

It was a commentary from Joe Sheehan from what I remember talking directly to Sox fans who e-mailed him to complain about what BP had to say about the team.

It was the height of arrogance.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 11:32 PM
Munch:

It was a commentary from Joe Sheehan from what I remember talking directly to Sox fans who e-mailed him to complain about what BP had to say about the team.

It was the height of arrogance.

Lip
You do know there are people other than Joe Sheehan that work at BP, right?

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 11:33 PM
Statistics are a blueprint of the past, nothing more and nothing less, they tell you what has happened, there is no sound science to back up using those numbers as they relate to baseball to project the future. If you are using numbers based in the past to project the future you are projecting crap and how bad the crap will stink, because there is no solid science behind it, merely theory. I can park next to a Porta a Potty and predict how bad it will stink with about the same accuracy of how a player will perform based on his past performance, there are far too many variables to make any projection accurate to a level that is acceptable in real terms.

I take it you've never taken a college level statistics course.

Here's an example-

Debbie plays basketball for her highschool team, she's terrible at free throws. Half way through her senior year she changes her mechanics due to a suggestion from a coach. Through the first 16 games, she went 3-40 on free throws, over the next ten she went 8-20.

The beauty of statistics is that we can very simply analyze whether this improvement is statistically significant- as in evidence that something has changed or if this sample is not indicative of anything and could simply be the result of chance.

Therefore, if we do find that the results are statistically significant (generally seen as being 2 standard deviations from the mean) we can speculate (but not prove) that the change has been beneficial.


In baseball terms- Player A is having a great year. At 30 years old, he ends up hitting .335 despite that his walks, strike outs, LD rate, GB rate, FB rate are all the same. Over his career, he's a .301 hitter.

To start our analysis, we form a null hypothesis. We assume that it's not statistically significant for a .301 hitter to have a season in which he hits .335 over 500 ABs (compared to .301 over 2500 ABs).

Statistically, we can find how likely it was for the batter to post such an average. In doing so, let's for the sake of argument assume that the probability of such an event is 03%. We would reject our null hypothesis and as this fluctuation does suggest that something was a foot (though it doesn't prove what or how, it just proves that the .330 average is statistically significant).

Therefore, we can speculate that the improvement is real and forecast that he'll hit closer .330 than .300. Though of course, this is a projection and could be thrown off by any number of variables.

Conversely, let's assume that the likelihood was actually 18%. That would suggest that player A's season could very easily be merely a function of luck. We accept the null hypothesis. This doesn't damn the player to a 2010 of .301, but it does suggest that it's more likely that he'll revert the following year.

Statistics are used for forecast all the time. Sure projections can be wrong, but they're important. You'll often hear projections regarding public policy made by the CBO (congressional budget office) during debates in congress. The reason we do this, is that while no one can see the future- we can try to prepare for what seems the most likely.

Laws live and die every day because of the CBO- statistics are damned important.

Craig Grebeck
10-26-2009, 11:47 PM
Since when is known knowledge a theory?
Their knowledge is not infallible, therefore it is theory.

Scouting without statistics is no better way to run a franchise than statistics without scouting. They each need one another.

Billy Ashley
10-26-2009, 11:52 PM
Their knowledge is not infallible, therefore it is theory.

Scouting without statistics is no better way to run a franchise than statistics without scouting. They each need one another.

And with Neither, you're Dayton Moore.

TDog
10-27-2009, 02:02 AM
I take it you've never taken a college level statistics course.

Here's an example-

Debbie plays basketball for her highschool team, she's terrible at free throws. ...

You probably don't need statistical analysis to see that Debbie's free-throw shooting is improving if you are watching her shoot free throws. And free throw shooting doesn't compare to hitting. Rick Barry could have hit free throws blindfolded (he once hit 10 of 10 blindfolded from the free-throw line on a bet.) Ty Cobb couldn't have hit a baseball blindfolded.

Baseball is a game where the defense puts the ball into play. The offense has to react to varying qualities of defense, something that doesn't exist in free-throw shooting. Even in field-goal shooting, players, in theory, have control of the ball when they shoot. Some pitchers have better control than others when they throw to hitters, who have no control over where they ball will be. Some throw harder than others. Some are smarter than others. And hitting a ball mechanically well doesn't guarantee a hit. It would be nice if the balls that weren't hit well for hits evened things out, but I've watched Nick Punto play baseball, and I don't believe that is the case.

There are more variables in baseball than there are in other sports. There are a lot of statistics and some attempt to take those variables into cosideration. Some are more predictive than others. Some that are predictive with some hitters are not predictive with other hitters.

kufram
10-27-2009, 03:11 AM
I am just expressing my opinion like you are expressing yours. Am I not entitled to do that without being called stupid? I didn't say I'd base my talent evaluation off anything. I am just saying there is an x factor and when a player has that he has something that stats can't quantify.

I didn't start posting here to be called stupid and I won't be taking part anymore.

I believe that trying to quantify "clutch" to the point that you are basing your talent evaluation off of it is stupid. Absolutely stupid.

Just have talent. Health, talent, and luck win it all more often than not.

Craig Grebeck
10-27-2009, 04:23 AM
I am just expressing my opinion like you are expressing yours. Am I not entitled to do that without being called stupid? I didn't say I'd base my talent evaluation off anything. I am just saying there is an x factor and when a player has that he has something that stats can't quantify.

I didn't start posting here to be called stupid and I won't be taking part anymore.
I wasn't calling you stupid. I said it would be stupid for a general manager to try to build around negligible skills like "clutchness" rather than just getting good players.

Balfanman
10-27-2009, 08:42 AM
Can't we all just get along?

I think that there is a mix between stats and eyes, and that neither one is infallible. I don't believe that there is a "measure" for clutchness either, but I do believe that it exists and that players and coaches have an idea of who is clutch and who isn't. Some people just "freeze up" and don't perform very well at different amounts of pressure. Sometimes you can just see it on the face of the players that tense up when the have a certain situation placed before them.

Some people, for example, will tense up if they find out that they have to talk before a group of people. Consequently they don't "perform" very well. There are some players who in a pressure situation tense up and don't swing the bat as they would in a non pressure situation.

cws05champ
10-27-2009, 10:38 AM
This was another award based on player voting. Interestingly enough, Bailey wasn't mentioned among the rookies Beckham beat out. It quite possibly could be that Bailey didn't make as big an impression around the league as he did among among the people blown away by his stats.

But as someone who doesn't drinks beer and has never sipped a beer at a baseball game, my opinions may be suspect.
It's probably because a lot of players just haven't seen Bailey. He only faces 3-4 batters per game maybe every other day or every 3rd day. Beckham played virtually everyday getting 4-5 AB's...getting more exposure and played well.


Side note to the current discussion: Why does every thread that has stats introduced turn into a stat head vs scout pissing match. This happens almost every thread.

Can't you all just agree that Stats are a tool to help evaluate, one of many tools...not the be all end all. The stat guys aren't 100% right, the Scout side guys aren't 100% right....it's somewhere in the gray middle. That's not a sexy answer but that's the truth.

Craig Grebeck
10-27-2009, 11:01 AM
It's probably because a lot of players just haven't seen Bailey. He only faces 3-4 batters per game maybe every other day or every 3rd day. Beckham played virtually everyday getting 4-5 AB's...getting more exposure and played well.


Side note to the current discussion: Why does every thread that has stats introduced turn into a stat head vs scout pissing match. This happens almost every thread.

Can't you all just agree that Stats are a tool to help evaluate, one of many tools...not the be all end all. The stat guys aren't 100% right, the Scout side guys aren't 100% right....it's somewhere in the gray middle. That's not a sexy answer but that's the truth.
And it's what a lot of people say when their views are challenged and sums up my views on the matter. This is pretty much what happens everytime:

1. Poster uses FIP, wOBA, BABIP, etc. in talent evaluation.
2. Another poster calls him/her out.
3. Posters pile on -- many using made up acronyms for EXTREME COMEDIC EFFECT!
4. Lip says scouts don't need an advanced microwave metaphysics degree from MIT to tell you what a good ballplayer is.
5. Someone makes a reasonable point.
6. Thread dies.

Nellie_Fox
10-27-2009, 11:33 AM
1. I have no idea what FIP or wOBA even stand for. People throw those acronyms out there with no explanation at all and expect us to know what they're talking about.

2. Somebody used stats to support the idea that Nick Swisher is worth $17 million a year. That is just so crazy that it makes many of us just shut down to the idea that these statistics are at all meaningful. If your statistics tell you that Swisher is a $17 million player, your statistics are full of ****.

asindc
10-27-2009, 12:04 PM
And it's what a lot of people say when their views are challenged and sums up my views on the matter. This is pretty much what happens everytime:

1. Poster uses FIP, wOBA, BABIP, etc. in talent evaluation.
2. Another poster calls him/her out.
3. Posters pile on -- many using made up acronyms for EXTREME COMEDIC EFFECT!
4. Lip says scouts don't need an advanced microwave metaphysics degree from MIT to tell you what a good ballplayer is.
5. Someone makes a reasonable point.
6. Thread dies.

I agree with this. I have said all along that in today's game, statistics and scouting are interrelated. I have observed, though, that there are a few posters (not just here at WSI, but on most baseball forums I've read) on either extreme that stubbornly debates this with minimal acknowledgment that the other side has made valid points.

1. I have no idea what FIP or wOBA even stand for. People throw those acronyms out there with no explanation at all and expect us to know what they're talking about.

2. Somebody used stats to support the idea that Nick Swisher is worth $17 million a year. That is just so crazy that it makes many of us just shut down to the idea that these statistics are at all meaningful. If your statistics tell you that Swisher is a $17 million player, your statistics are full of ****.

I also agree with this. Maybe if the stats proponents explained what certain "new" statistics are and why they have relevance in discussing any particular player, fewer people would dismiss whatever point was being made. I also reacted with skepticism to the "$17 million value" mentioned for Swisher, and not just because I don't like the way he plays the game. Maybe if that calculation/stat could be explained further, some of us might understand how that dollar figure can be reasonably associated with a player of Swisher's caliber.

Moses_Scurry
10-27-2009, 12:05 PM
I LOVE that this board has an equal balance of stat guys and scout guys! It makes the treads so interesting and much more educational, actually. I must confess that I lurk the cubbie board (NSBB) mostly for comedic value when they are playing poorly, and they are much, much, much more skewed toward the stat-head side. Try making any kind of comment about somebody's RBI numbers over there, and you'll be buried under mountains of sarcastic comments. The board is unanimous in the desire to keep Milton Bradley just because of his high OBP!

I learn so much more seeing the debates (not withstanding the occasional sniping comments) between evenly balanced sides, and I tend to agree with a lot of things both sides claim.

In short, never give up on your beliefs, no matter which side you fall on!! It only helps the conversations.

[Edit] I must admit that I fall more on Lip's side than the opposite. I hate it when people scoff at pitcher wins as a "team stat". I prefer the simple STATs that have been used since baseball's beginnings, and I'm too old and busy to go researching all of the new ones.

TDog
10-27-2009, 12:09 PM
It's probably because a lot of players just haven't seen Bailey. He only faces 3-4 batters per game maybe every other day or every 3rd day. Beckham played virtually everyday getting 4-5 AB's...getting more exposure and played well. ....

That was a major reason why Bailey didn't impress me as a candidate for the award. And I made that point pages ago. There were entire weeks in August and September when Bailey faced only three of four hitters.

And really, I should have suggested that perhaps Bailey didn't impress other players as a candidate for rookie of the year. I never said he didn't have a strong rookie season, just that there are other players, even other pitchers who are more deserving of the award, and two awards based on votes from people who played against American League rookies have Beckham coming out on top.

But who knows how the writers have voted.

Moses_Scurry
10-27-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't feel that closers should ever be in the major awards discussions unless it is a really down year for everybody else. Way too many cases of lightning in the bottle.

I know that the ROY award is for the guy with the best season, but I feel like future potential should come into it somehow. How many closers completely fall off the map after 1 or 2 good years?

I just don't like the closer position in general, I guess.

Lip Man 1
10-27-2009, 12:36 PM
Nellie:

VERY well said.

Excuse me, I've got to go now and try to think up a stat that will tell me what Gordon Beckham hit on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, at home, under a full moon, against left handed pitchers, in the 7th inning or later who have eight letters or less in their last name. Oh and for good measure have two 'i's' in said name.

After all it's vitally important to know that!

Then when I figure it out I'll post a four page explanation here at WSI with graphs (have to have those you know!) diagrams, charts and probability equations so that no one else in the baseball universe will have the temerity to doubt how smart I am!

:D:

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-27-2009, 12:58 PM
1. I have no idea what FIP or wOBA even stand for. People throw those acronyms out there with no explanation at all and expect us to know what they're talking about.

Fair enough. FIP stands for fielding independent pitching, and was invented by Tom Tango. Here's the definition and equation from The Hardball Times:

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded. FIP was invented by Tangotiger.

FIP is as bare-bones as sabermetrics get, considering that a pitcher can also have a direct effect on batted ball rates. A pitcher with an effective offspeed pitch who induces weak contact and doesn't strike out a ton of batters (see: Mark Buehrle and his amazing change-up) will be underestimated by FIP -- but that's when you have to change your analysis and understand the fact that Mark is just a different kind of pitcher. FIP is skewed towards power pitchers, but it is still a handy tool in estimating if a pitcher is due for regression.

A lot of time and effort went into the equation developed by Tango, and the numbers aren't arbitrary. The weights given to the variables are based on tons and tons of research.

Here is a fairly in-depth explanation of wOBA. (http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml) I've pulled the most important part:

From the preceding section, we know the run values of each event. For example, we know that the run value of the HR is 1.4 runs above average, and 1.7 runs above the run value of the out. In rate measures, like OBP, the value of the out in the numerator is zero. If we recast the run values of the most common events relative to the out (rather than relative to the result of an average plate appearance), we get the following:

HR 1.70, 3B 1.37, 2B 1.08, 1B 0.77, NIBB 0.62.

Those numbers are the values of each of our events (again, relative to an out, which now has a value of zero). If we apply these weights to the statistics of a league-average hitter, and divide by plate appearances, we end up with a rate of almost 0.300. This is a fairly convenient number for an average, but we can do better. Since we like OBP as a measure of a batter’s effectiveness, let’s scale our new statistic so that the resulting values are similar to OBP values. It turns out that, if we add 15% to this 0.300 figure, we get the league-average OBP. Therefore, we will add 15% to the weights of each event and define our new statistic as follows:

(0.72xNIBB + 0.75xHBP + 0.90x1B + 0.92xRBOE + 1.24x2B + 1.56x3B + 1.95xHR) / PA
Again, these numbers aren't arbitrary. Tango researched run/hit values extensively before developing this. wOBA just gives you a pretty decent understanding of a player's offensive ability. There are other, more advanced statistics that take other skills into account -- but wOBA is just a more advanced, well thought out version of OPS.

2. Somebody used stats to support the idea that Nick Swisher is worth $17 million a year. That is just so crazy that it makes many of us just shut down to the idea that these statistics are at all meaningful. If your statistics tell you that Swisher is a $17 million player, your statistics are full of ****.
I'm not one for dollar valuation systems. I think they're pretty much pointless and don't serve any purpose. But they have nothing to do with FIP or wOBA. They are a completely different animal.

Excuse me, I've got to go now and try to think up a stat that will tell me what Gordon Beckham hit on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, at home, under a full moon, against left handed pitchers, in the 7th inning or later who have eight letters or less in their last name. Oh and for good measure have two 'i's' in said name.
Lip, you continue to discredit statistics without offering anything other than derisive comments (from which I can tell you don't even attempt to understand something you hate so passionately) and rants about Baseball Prospectus (who, contrary to popular belief, do not represent everyone who uses statistics in their analyses).

eriqjaffe
10-27-2009, 01:07 PM
Excuse me, I've got to go now and try to think up a stat that will tell me what Gordon Beckham hit on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, at home, under a full moon, against left handed pitchers, in the 7th inning or later who have eight letters or less in their last name. Oh and for good measure have two 'i's' in said name.They already have that, it's called "Batting Average."

khan
10-27-2009, 01:53 PM
Lip, you continue to discredit statistics without offering anything other than derisive comments (from which I can tell you don't even attempt to understand something you hate so passionately) and rants about Baseball Prospectus (who, contrary to popular belief, do not represent everyone who uses statistics in their analyses).

People tend to get set in their ways as they age. Lip's a smart guy, but making a weak attempt to mock something that one makes no attempt to understand is silly, at best.

As others have said, statistical analysis are a tool, inasmuch as observational analysis are a tool in understanding the game. They actually help each other, and help the individual enjoy and appreciate the game better.

Nellie_Fox
10-27-2009, 03:17 PM
From the preceding section, we know the run values of each event. For example, we know that the run value of the HR is 1.4 runs above average, and 1.7 runs above the run value of the out. In rate measures, like OBP, the value of the out in the numerator is zero. If we recast the run values of the most common events relative to the out (rather than relative to the result of an average plate appearance), we get the following:

HR 1.70, 3B 1.37, 2B 1.08, 1B 0.77, NIBB 0.62.

Those numbers are the values of each of our events (again, relative to an out, which now has a value of zero). If we apply these weights to the statistics of a league-average hitter, and divide by plate appearances, we end up with a rate of almost 0.300. This is a fairly convenient number for an average, but we can do better. Since we like OBP as a measure of a batter’s effectiveness, let’s scale our new statistic so that the resulting values are similar to OBP values. It turns out that, if we add 15% to this 0.300 figure, we get the league-average OBP. Therefore, we will add 15% to the weights of each event and define our new statistic as follows:

(0.72xNIBB + 0.75xHBP + 0.90x1B + 0.92xRBOE + 1.24x2B + 1.56x3B + 1.95xHR) / PAThat just gives me a headache (and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so it's not like I fear statistical applications) and I still have no idea what it's measuring. Nor does it tell me what wOBA stands for.

In the social sciences, there are many instances of trying to quantify things that just don't lend themselves to quantification, and I see some of these newer metrics as being like that. For example, trying to take fielding out of the consideration of how someone pitches (in FIP, as I believe I understand it now) by only counting home runs, walks (minus intentional walks) and hit by pitches is, to me, a forced metric that ignores way too many other things that are beyond the control of the defense. It's just like the arguments we get on here as to whether outfielder A would have gotten to a ball that outfielder B let fall in for a double. This can never be determined for certain. Apparently, because they can't figure out a way to quantify it, they just ignore it.

doublem23
10-27-2009, 06:21 PM
Excuse me, I've got to go now and try to think up a stat that will tell me what Gordon Beckham hit on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, at home, under a full moon, against left handed pitchers, in the 7th inning or later who have eight letters or less in their last name. Oh and for good measure have two 'i's' in said name.


That's not a new stat, that's just called a split.

doublem23
10-27-2009, 06:22 PM
That just gives me a headache (and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so it's not like I fear statistical applications) and I still have no idea what it's measuring. Nor does it tell me what wOBA stands for.

FWIW, I like baseball stats, but I think wOBA is bull****.

Lip Man 1
10-27-2009, 07:35 PM
Khan:

Again I do think stats have a place in the game. It's the fanatics and know it all's that drive me up the wall and BP is the biggest arrogant bunch of them all. They are even worse than some posters who have to take four pages with graphs to explain something that may or may not be flawed to promote their point of view.

Stats (and ratings) can be made to say any damn thing you want them to.

The best thing stats are good for (other than filling the back of a baseball card) is to help you decide on role players, bench players, back-up's...a star is a star is a star...I don't need FIP and PIF and WHIP and FOBA to tell me that.

And yes my example was completely over the top...no question, just like some of these made up, non relevant, indecipherable ones that claim that Nick Swisher is worth 17 million a season. :o:

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-27-2009, 07:59 PM
That just gives me a headache (and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so it's not like I fear statistical applications) and I still have no idea what it's measuring. Nor does it tell me what wOBA stands for.

In the social sciences, there are many instances of trying to quantify things that just don't lend themselves to quantification, and I see some of these newer metrics as being like that. For example, trying to take fielding out of the consideration of how someone pitches (in FIP, as I believe I understand it now) by only counting home runs, walks (minus intentional walks) and hit by pitches is, to me, a forced metric that ignores way too many other things that are beyond the control of the defense. It's just like the arguments we get on here as to whether outfielder A would have gotten to a ball that outfielder B let fall in for a double. This can never be determined for certain. Apparently, because they can't figure out a way to quantify it, they just ignore it.
1. It's measuring offensive output.
2. You are assuming that FIP is seen by those who use it as a singular, all-powerful metric -- but that's not the case. It's a piece of the talent evaluation puzzle. Sure, that statistic ignores defense because its purpose is to measure how good a pitcher is at doing three things: missing bats, throwing strikes and preventing home runs. That's all it sets out to do and the developer/user of FIP isn't ignoring defense because they can't quantify it, they are just interested in how good a pitcher is at those three things.

FWIW, I like baseball stats, but I think wOBA is bull****.

Why's that? I am by no means wedded to it, but it sure beats using OPS.

Again I do think stats have a place in the game. It's the fanatics and know it all's that drive me up the wall and BP is the biggest arrogant bunch of them all. They are even worse than some posters who have to take four pages with graphs to explain something that may or may not be flawed to promote their point of view.
Lip, seriously: no one is talking about BP but you. No one is bringing them up. They have no place in this thread.

Daver
10-27-2009, 08:16 PM
1. It's measuring offensive output.


Is it? How do you accurately measure anything that has the possibility of human error involved in it?

If a number is not accurate, it is basically worthless.

Craig Grebeck
10-27-2009, 08:24 PM
Is it? How do you accurately measure anything that has the possibility of human error involved in it?

If a number is not accurate, it is basically worthless.
Ugh. It is an attempt at measuring offensive output. I never said it was accurate -- I don't think any baseball statistic is 100% accurate or true or anything, I just think it is more comprehensive than similar statistics.

Daver
10-27-2009, 08:32 PM
Ugh. It is an attempt at measuring offensive output. I never said it was accurate -- I don't think any baseball statistic is 100% accurate or true or anything, I just think it is more comprehensive than similar statistics.

So you are basically saying it is mental masturbation, a waste of time with an unquantifiable result?

Why bother then?

TDog
10-27-2009, 09:12 PM
Ugh. It is an attempt at measuring offensive output. I never said it was accurate -- I don't think any baseball statistic is 100% accurate or true or anything, I just think it is more comprehensive than similar statistics.

Are traditional stats inaccurate? Did Harold Baines not drive in 93 runs for every 162 games he played over 22 seasons? Did Ted Williams not get 344 hits for every 1,000 at bats in his career? Did Henry Aaron not hit 755 home runs?

You can argue what the stats mean and don't mean. You can argue that some stats that aren't as accurate mean more. But it comes down to trying to use the stats to tell you things that can't be derived by statistical analysis.

Baseball, with its geometric and mathematical perfection, lends itself to statistics. It is so clearly defined that it can be captured in a box score. And now you have computers keeping track. What did Ed Herrmann do on the night of July 17, 1970? Danged if it isn't right there on the Internet. He grounded out to end the first and singled, homered and laid down a sacrifice bunt before he grounded out with the bases loaded to end the one-run loss. Plug his night into the computer, plug all the other days and nights of everyone else into a computer, and you can break it all down into statistics that tell you how it all happened, better, you may believe, than the people who played it.

You can look for some grand unification equation to explain baseball. But you won't find it because baseball is a human game with innumerable variables.

Lip Man 1
10-27-2009, 11:12 PM
Let me make sure I understand this point of view...a stat may not be accurate, but yet there are people who insist that statistics are a reliable method to build a team around and possibly predict what said teams future may be. And they are willing to defend this position?

OK..... :?:

These are the same folks who seem to think scouting and direct observation is the wrong way to go about doing things....yet basing a philosophy around possibly inaccurate statistics is.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 03:44 AM
So you are basically saying it is mental masturbation, a waste of time with an unquantifiable result?

Why bother then?
Hey, if you want to put words in my mouth and say the same tired, cliched, grumpy nonsense you usually do about statistics, be my guest. Accuracy isn't the right term in this instance. The statistic is "accurate" in that time and work went into measuring the values for each outcome at the plate and turning it into a workable equation, the product of which is an "accurate" reflection of what the equation sought out to do -- assign values to outcomes and scale the product to an OBP-like number.

I think it's effectiveness or utility is what is in question, and that's something that's worth arguing -- just not with someone who will call it mental masturbation and move on without giving any sort of analysis. As I said before, I'm not wedded to wOBA, I just believe in being open-minded about statistics. Silly me.
Are traditional stats inaccurate? Did Harold Baines not drive in 93 runs for every 162 games he played over 22 seasons? Did Ted Williams not get 344 hits for every 1,000 at bats in his career? Did Henry Aaron not hit 755 home runs?
I should have known better. I'm not talking about counting statistics, as those aren't really measures of anything worthwhile and I don't put any stock in them on their own. I guess I should have added the word meaningful.

You can look for some grand unification equation to explain baseball. But you won't find it because baseball is a human game with innumerable variables.
And once again, if you actually read what I've said in this thread I don't believe there's a single equation to explain the game, nor do I believe anyone's seeking one. No **** it's a human game. No **** there are innumerable variables. Those two facts don't stop statistics from playing a significant role in talent evaluation.

Let me make sure I understand this point of view...a stat may not be accurate, but yet there are people who insist that statistics are a reliable method to build a team around and possibly predict what said teams future may be. And they are willing to defend this position?
This is the dumbest semantics argument I think I've ever seen. Yes, I am willing to defend the position -- as soon as you are willing to defend yours by responding to my points we can have a meaningful discussion.

These are the same folks who seem to think scouting and direct observation is the wrong way to go about doing things....yet basing a philosophy around possibly inaccurate statistics is.

So you're just not even reading this thread, are you? I'll recap it for you:

And often times this information can be combined with other information (scouting, batted ball rates, pitch f/x, etc.) to give management an idea of a player's probability for success in the future.

You know that no one is arguing that statistics are all anyone needs to project future performance, right?

Scouting without statistics is no better way to run a franchise than statistics without scouting. They each need one another.


Yep, there's no way you're reading this.

Balfanman
10-28-2009, 08:21 AM
Mr Grebeck;
I'm not necessarily a "stats" guy myself, I think that I can honestly see both sides of the coin. I do want to thank you for your honest explainations and for breaking them down for people to understand. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with all of them, but I for one appreciate all of your effort. - Thank you.

doublem23
10-28-2009, 08:55 AM
Why's that? I am by no means wedded to it, but it sure beats using OPS.

I'm wary of wOBA because of the hard coefficients it assigns certain events. I just don't like declaring that a a HR (1.7) is always 250x more important than a single (.7), especially if you're trying to use wOBA across different eras of the game or even across different defensive positions. 20 HR would have been good, but pretty commonplace in 2009, but 20 HR in 1909 would have made you a superstar.

Personally, I am a bigger fan of OBP+, SLG+, and OPS+.

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 10:41 AM
I'm wary of wOBA because of the hard coefficients it assigns certain events. I just don't like declaring that a a HR (1.7) is always 250x more important than a single (.7), especially if you're trying to use wOBA across different eras of the game or even across different defensive positions. 20 HR would have been good, but pretty commonplace in 2009, but 20 HR in 1909 would have made you a superstar.

Personally, I am a bigger fan of OBP+, SLG+, and OPS+.
Understandable. Not all statistics should be used for the same purposes, and some of them are more about revisionist comparisons than others (like the ones you listed, and even wOBA). I would never try to use wOBA as a tool of prediction, and I don't know anyone who would. Like I said, I'm not wedded to it. I appreciate your input.

If we're talking about using statistics (combined with scouting) to project the future, I'm all about batted ball rates, trends, and measures of plate discipline (like p/pa or BB/K ratios).

khan
10-28-2009, 12:19 PM
Khan:

Again I do think stats have a place in the game. It's the fanatics and know it all's that drive me up the wall and BP is the biggest arrogant bunch of them all. They are even worse than some posters who have to take four pages with graphs to explain something that may or may not be flawed to promote their point of view.
Lip,

Then why do you seemingly have a need to post something as silly as you did earlier? It makes you seem like the geezing geezer who is paranoid that the world is changing around him, and that the "good old days" are always better than the present. Whether we like it or not, the world changes and the game evolves. Statistical analysis is but one way that the game has done so.


Stats (and ratings) can be made to say any damn thing you want them to.
Sure. And as the "science" of statistical analysis of baseball evolves, a better understanding of what is useful and what is not will come to the forefront.


The best thing stats are good for (other than filling the back of a baseball card) is to help you decide on role players, bench players, back-up's...a star is a star is a star...I don't need FIP and PIF and WHIP and FOBA to tell me that.
That's one man's opinion. I also see stats as being useful in determining which players will help our SOX, and which ones won't. It helps us understand which contracts are efficient, and which ones are obese. It helps us place a valuation on under-appreciated attributes.

It also helps us discriminate between useful metrics and less-useful metrics for players. [i.e. ERA for a middle reliever that inheirits runners vs. Walks + Hits/Innings Pitched.]

And yes my example was completely over the top...no question, just like some of these made up, non relevant, indecipherable ones [I]that claim that Nick Swisher is worth 17 million a season. :o:

Lip
Fair enough. I agree that not every stat is useful. I agree that some of the folks @ BP are over the top. But I simply found it to be below an intelligent baseball observer like yourself to make a silly statement like that.

TDog
10-28-2009, 12:55 PM
...

And once again, if you actually read what I've said in this thread I don't believe there's a single equation to explain the game, nor do I believe anyone's seeking one. No **** it's a human game. No **** there are innumerable variables. Those two facts don't stop statistics from playing a significant role in talent evaluation. ...

But they may or may not be predictive. The traditional stats are more likely to be predictive with more players than the newer stats. But even if you know a player is going to hit 30 home runs a year, drive in 100 or hit .300 (batting average being more predictive for most players than on-base percentage, especially considering the players with consistently high on-base percentages have consistently high batting averages as well), the hits and runs could come at the wrong time, considering that even the best hitters fail more than they succeed.

What it comes down to is that stats can be fun, but they do not predict wins. Even if you build a winner based on some new metrics, you will go back and find you had a couple of 100-RBI guys in your lineup, and one is probably your MVP. Stats are in the past tense. Gordon Beckham's (he is the subject of this thread, after all) rookie stats tell you nothing about his future. Obviously, there was something he had in addition to his stats that inspired two player polls for his league's rookie of the year honor. Players don't need to analyze statistics, and I doubt many devote any time to it.

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 01:15 PM
(batting average being more predictive for most players than on-base percentage, especially considering the players with consistently high on-base percentages have consistently high batting averages as well)
Not between the years 1871 and 2003:

Let us start with accuracy. Accuracy is traditionally measured in one of two ways--by correlation, and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) against runs scored. Correlation is a statistical tool that measures how closely one set of numbers tracks a second set. It is measured from negative-one (-1) to positive-one (1); negative scores mean that when one number goes down, the other number tends to go up; positive scores mean that both sets rise and fall together. The closer you get to either end, the more perfect the relationship is, while a score close to zero means that knowing the first number tells you squat about the second number. You'll sometimes see people use r-squared instead, but that is essentially the same thing (mathematicians use "r" to stand for correlation). RMSE is just a fancy way to say how much you missed by, on average--it's a form of standard deviation. Statistics that have better correlation (closer to +1 or -1) usually have lower RMSEs as well.

Consider the following table of fairly traditional statistics.


Correl RMSE
Batting Average .828 39.52
On-base Percentage .866 34.16
Slugging Percentage .890 31.56

This shows how well the statistics have done for every team in history, from 1871 to 2003. In each case, I have compared the statistic relative to the league (team batting average divided by league batting average, for instance) to the relative run rate (team runs per plate appearance, divided by the league RPPA). Batting average has, truthfully, a very good correlation...it is just that on-base percentage is even better, and slugging percentage is better still. Combine the last two elements into OPS and the results get better still:

Correl RMSE
On-base plus slugging .922 25.54

Link (Warning, it may take you to BP)
(http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596)Even if you build a winner based on some new metrics, you will go back and find you had a couple of 100-RBI guys in your lineup, and one is probably your MVP.
Good players on good teams tend to rack up RBI -- does that mean that we should evaluate a player's talent level based on that? Absolutely not.

What it comes down to is that stats can be fun, but they do not predict wins.
What it comes down to is I have no idea who is disputing this. I'm saying statistics have a place in talent evaluation, I've never in my life said that they predict wins. I don't know anyone who has.

Do people try to predict wins with them? Yes. Does that mean they believe their predictions are infallible? No.

Gordon Beckham's (he is the subject of this thread, after all) rookie stats tell you nothing about his future.
Disagree.

Players don't need to analyze statistics, and I doubt many devote any time to it.
Brian Bannister does a great deal of studying and analyzing. I doubt he would have ever made it without his research.

Here's Branch Rickey's (a real rabble-rousing MIT nerd) take on baseball statistics. (http://books.google.com/books?id=9FMEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Lip Man 1
10-28-2009, 01:30 PM
Khan:

In a nutshell I was making a point...just as over the top as some of the posters on this board who feel every point brought up in a discussion has to be nuanced to death with pages of 'documentation,' stats, graphs mathematical formula and dissected line by line to death.

The point that some others though brought up, which I expounded upon at the top of this page, bears repeating. One of the biggest statistical boosters himself said that stats may not be completely accurate.

Yet those people will fight to the death insisting that's a better way to build a team and makes estimates on how they will do the next season yet run down the idea that personal observation and talking to prospects (known as scouting) is inaccurate and a thing of the past.

A strange way to look at things in my opinion.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 01:57 PM
Khan:

In a nutshell I was making a point...just as over the top as some of the posters on this board who feel every point brought up in a discussion has to be nuanced to death with pages of 'documentation,' stats, graphs mathematical formula and dissected line by line to death.

The point that some others though brought up, which I expounded upon at the top of this page, bears repeating. One of the biggest statistical boosters himself said that stats may not be completely accurate.

Yet those people will fight to the death insisting that's a better way to build a team and makes estimates on how they will do the next season yet run down the idea that personal observation and talking to prospects (known as scouting) is inaccurate and a thing of the past.

A strange way to look at things in my opinion.

Lip
Yeah, that would be strange if it was at all what I've said in this thread. Apparently the broad brush you are painting with is making it difficult for you to see the 3-4 posts in this thread in which I said scouting has a place in talent evaluation and that statistics must be paired with scouting, and vice versa.

TDog
10-28-2009, 02:22 PM
Compare the rookie stats of Ryne Sandberg and Mike Caruso and predict who has the better future. Watch them play, and you probably came up with a different conclusion. This year, Alexei Ramirez' batting average dropped and his on-base percentage went up. His rookie stats didn't indicate that would happen.

Statistical analysis is predictive only for some players, and different stats are predictive for different players. When their careers are done, you will know which stats have been predictive. When a player's career is done, you will know which year was his career year. In the case of Jerome Walton, and quite a few others in the history of baseball, it was his rookie year.

Statistics are a lot of fun, but they are in the past tense.

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 02:36 PM
Compare the rookie stats of Ryne Sandberg and Mike Caruso and predict who has the better future. Watch them play, and you probably came up with a different conclusion.
As I've said seemingly one hundred thousand times in this thread, it takes a combination of statistics and scouting to tell you anything about a player. Simply watching them won't do. Simply looking at numbers won't do.

oeo
10-28-2009, 03:18 PM
I once was wrong about Floyd, that is correct. I stated Soriano was a plus defender in the OF which he was (not anymore) he was an abortion in the infield though.

No, he was never a good outfielder.

It also should be noted that my points about Floyd were that as long as he doesn't improve his K/BB ratio he wouldn't be the pitcher he was in 2008. Guess what changed?

That's no excuse. I made a point that he was only 25, still had time to improve. He was not another Esteban Loaiza who came out of nowhere to have a Cy Young type season.

I went back and checked and no, I never argued Reimold should win the RoY. Instead, I only stated he hit better (which again, he did). In fact until the post below, I hadn't endorsed any one person as the best pick. In fact, even in that post I suggest that I'm still torn over Anderson and Porcello.

No, Reimold did not hit better. In what respect? The differences in the stats Reimold led in were marginal at best.

And you specifically listed Andrus and Reimold as guys who had better seasons. Then threw in all the pitchers into one category who had 'solid' years.

TDog
10-28-2009, 03:20 PM
As I've said seemingly one hundred thousand times in this thread, it takes a combination of statistics and scouting to tell you anything about a player. Simply watching them won't do. Simply looking at numbers won't do.

I was mistaken, then, when I believed I read that you disagreed with my assertion that by looking at Gordon Beckham's stats you couldn't tell what kind of a year he will have in 2010.

Craig Grebeck
10-28-2009, 03:38 PM
I was mistaken, then, when I believed I read that you disagreed with my assertion that by looking at Gordon Beckham's stats you couldn't tell what kind of a year he will have in 2010.
I still disagree with your assertion. You can glean something from them. You want this to be a black and white argument. It's not.

Daver
10-28-2009, 06:19 PM
Hey, if you want to put words in my mouth and say the same tired, cliched, grumpy nonsense you usually do about statistics, be my guest. Accuracy isn't the right term in this instance. The statistic is "accurate" in that time and work went into measuring the values for each outcome at the plate and turning it into a workable equation, the product of which is an "accurate" reflection of what the equation sought out to do -- assign values to outcomes and scale the product to an OBP-like number.

I think it's effectiveness or utility is what is in question, and that's something that's worth arguing -- just not with someone who will call it mental masturbation and move on without giving any sort of analysis. As I said before, I'm not wedded to wOBA, I just believe in being open-minded about statistics. Silly me.


How can you measure anything and assign a number to it if what you are measuring is not accurate?

You can't, you are making up ways to play with numbers, hence the reference to mental masturbation

khan
10-28-2009, 06:37 PM
How can you measure anything and assign a number to it if what you are measuring is not accurate?
This already happens in baseball.

Consider the following example, when considering ERA and "errors":

Jose Contreras, pitching into the 6th inning, allows two runners on base, via the infield hit. Both batters bunted right at Josh Fields, who, although made two crappy plays, was not given an error, since the scorekeeper happens to personally like Fields.

Ozzie Guillen then takes out Contreras, and puts in Mike MacDougal. MacDougal promptly gives up a 2 run single down the right field line. MacDougal then gets a strike out, then a double play to end the inning.

On the stat sheet, Contreras' "Earned" run average will show that he gave up two "earned runs," even though:

1. The scorekeeper arbitrarily assigned infield hits to bad defensive plays by Fields.
2. MacDougal was the pitcher who gave up the decisive hit.

At the same time, MacDougal's "Earned" run average is unscathed.


There are already plenty of stats, both "new" and "traditional" that lack descriptive power and/or accuracy. Yet, they are still used and referred to with regularity. "Errors" fail to measure defensive efficiency, and "ERA" fails to describe a pitcher's effectiveness; This is particularly true for middle relievers that inheirit runners.

TDog
10-28-2009, 06:41 PM
I still disagree with your assertion. You can glean something from them. You want this to be a black and white argument. It's not.

Because baseball is more art than science.

I don't know that you would have disagreed if someone two decades ago had told you Jerome Walton had experienced a career year as a rookie or more than three decades ago that Mark Fydrich had experienced a career year as a rookie because there are a lot of stats (inaccurate as they may be) that weren't invented yet.

I was not impressed at all with Josh Fields as a rookie and made the point early and often. I don't know whether you thought he was the future for the White Sox, but so far his rookie season is his career-best.

Unfortunately, I probably started this debate when I typed (almost as a footnote to my point about Beckham) that I wasn't impressed with Andrew Bailey as a candidate for rookie of the year, and people began throwing stats at me as if to prove scientifically that Bailey was more deserving of the award. Forget that in two pols the players who played against the two of them (players used to be restricted from voting for teammates for such awards, but the rules may have changed) selected Beckham and Bailey failed to be mentioned in any of the coverage I read.

I don't care if Andrew Bailey struck out 10 fewer batters in five more innings than teammate Michael Wuertz (not eligible for the award as a Cubs cast-off). I don't care that he had a very good rookie season. Statistical analysis can't predict if Bailey will be strong next year, and, as it pertains to this award, it hasn't impressed people who play baseball for a living.

Go ahead and use your stats as you will. No argument you make has any influence on White Sox personnel moves, which is all I care about, so you're not hurting me.

Daver
10-28-2009, 06:45 PM
This already happens in baseball.


I know this, which is why I question why anyone would put any credence into compounding the human error that is already an error factor in simple stats by trying to quantify it with a multiplier factor, it is nothing more than a game of fun with numbers.

khan
10-28-2009, 06:50 PM
I know this, which is why I question why anyone would put any credence into compounding the human error that is already an error factor in simple stats by trying to quantify it with a multiplier factor, it is nothing more than a game of fun with numbers.

Fair enough. But will you also consider the usage of the "error" or "ERA" for middle relievers mental masturbation as well?


For me, I think there's a middle ground here. I think that some metrics are more accurate than others. I think some stats do a better job of describing a player and the game better than others.

Daver
10-28-2009, 07:14 PM
Fair enough. But will you also consider the useage of the "error" or "ERA" for middle relievers mental masturbation as well?


For me, I think there's a middle ground here. I think that some metrics are more accurate than others. I think some stats do a better job of describing a player and the game better than others.

I don't use ERA to judge a pitcher anyway, I don't agree with the theory used to arrive at the number.

SI1020
10-29-2009, 09:57 AM
I should have known better. I'm not talking about counting statistics, as those aren't really measures of anything worthwhile and I don't put any stock in them on their own. I guess I should have added the word meaningful.
I could not possibly disagree more. It also captures in essence the stat geek approach to baseball.

SI1020
10-29-2009, 10:08 AM
That just gives me a headache (and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so it's not like I fear statistical applications) and I still have no idea what it's measuring. Nor does it tell me what wOBA stands for.

In the social sciences, there are many instances of trying to quantify things that just don't lend themselves to quantification, and I see some of these newer metrics as being like that. For example, trying to take fielding out of the consideration of how someone pitches (in FIP, as I believe I understand it now) by only counting home runs, walks (minus intentional walks) and hit by pitches is, to me, a forced metric that ignores way too many other things that are beyond the control of the defense. It's just like the arguments we get on here as to whether outfielder A would have gotten to a ball that outfielder B let fall in for a double. This can never be determined for certain. Apparently, because they can't figure out a way to quantify it, they just ignore it. I only have an M.A. and it gave me a headache too. I even aced my statistics class, and in general like to study a variety of statistical data, particularly demographics. That being said I absolutely refuse to approach baseball or life in this manner, which I find to be painfully sterile.

khan
10-29-2009, 10:42 AM
I don't use ERA to judge a pitcher anyway, I don't agree with the theory used to arrive at the number.

To this we can agree.

I prefer Walks + Hits per Innings Pitched or On Base Percentage against. In other words, the rate at which a pitcher allows/disallows opposing batters to get on base.

[EDIT] As an aside, I find it telling that most of the posters who rail against any sort of statistical analysis are 40 years old or older. That is, in light of the "what generation are you" thread over in the Parking Lot.

Craig Grebeck
10-29-2009, 01:55 PM
I could not possibly disagree more. It also captures in essence the stat geek approach to baseball.
Care to elaborate or do you just want to label a methodology you don't subscribe to as geeky and then move on?

FielderJones
10-29-2009, 03:17 PM
As an aside, I find it telling that most of the posters who rail against any sort of statistical analysis are 40 years old or older. That is, in light of the "what generation are you" thread over in the Parking Lot.

I think most of us oldsters are railing against statistical prediction, not statistical analysis. We agree that stats are useful for telling what happened. We disagree that stats are useful for telling what's going to happen.

spawn
10-29-2009, 03:42 PM
I think most of us oldsters are railing against statistical prediction, not statistical analysis. We agree that stats are useful for telling what happened. We disagree that stats are useful for telling what's going to happen.
Well put.

khan
10-29-2009, 03:53 PM
I think most of us oldsters are railing against statistical prediction, not statistical analysis. We agree that stats are useful for telling what happened. We disagree that stats are useful for telling what's going to happen.

I think it's part of the human experience to resist change. I think that it's natural to dislike "newer" concepts, irrespective of their origins. I simply think that the older guys tend to get more set in their views, and prefer to recall how things "used to be," rather than how they are now. [Not that I'm a spring chicken, either...]

I mean, we've seen several intelligent/erudite baseball observers go over the top in their hatred of statistical analysis. i.e. Lip mocking the "shocking" concept of WHIP [which is nothing more than Walks + Hits per Innings Pitched], among others.

TDog
10-29-2009, 04:14 PM
I think most of us oldsters are railing against statistical prediction, not statistical analysis. We agree that stats are useful for telling what happened. We disagree that stats are useful for telling what's going to happen.

I've tried to make that point, but I've never made it so succinctly. Some pages back, statistics were compared to a rear-view mirror, but stats people argued against that. When Lip complains about what Baseball Prospectus does with stats, he is complaining about predictions.

If there if a generational disparity between the sides that strongly believe in statistical analysis and the side that doesn't, it might be that the older posters played a lot more baseball ask kids than they watched. Every day after school in the spring or early fall, a lot of us wold be out playing baseball. Sometimes we had the radio on listening to Sox game. When Carlos May hit an inside-the-park grand slam in 1971, we heard it on the radio, and rushed inside to watch the replay on television.

We also didn't have computer games where stats mean everything, although there was Strat-O-Matic (I think it was called). Such things may be possible reasons for the disconnect.

Craig Grebeck
10-29-2009, 05:14 PM
I really believe it is absolutely foolish to believe that teams are not using statistics to project how their players will do in the future. Yes, they scout, but statistics play a large role in predicting future performance. And they are not necessarily statistics like wOBA or FIP or anything like that -- but assuredly walk rates and batted ball rates and anything of that ilk.

Daver
10-29-2009, 05:20 PM
I really believe it is absolutely foolish to believe that teams are not using statistics to project how their players will do in the future. Yes, they scout, but statistics play a large role in predicting future performance. And they are not necessarily statistics like wOBA or FIP or anything like that -- but assuredly walk rates and batted ball rates and anything of that ilk.

There is a large difference in tracking trends and extrapolating the future using formulas based on inaccurate data gleaned from the past.

Lip Man 1
10-29-2009, 09:02 PM
T-Dog:

I was sitting in the center field bleachers the afternoon May hit that pitch off Clyde Wright.

Lip

TDog
10-30-2009, 01:08 AM
T-Dog:

I was sitting in the center field bleachers the afternoon May hit that pitch off Clyde Wright.

Lip

First inning, no score, bases loaded one out, you saw Ken Berry knock himself out after missing a diving catch attempt down the line. I feel like I saw it, although I only heard Harry Caray describe it before watching the replay. That was all Tom Bradley needed as he held the Angels to an eighth-inning run while pitching a complete game. Pitchers did that back then. (A couple of years ago, I asked Carlos about the play, and he said it was one of two inside-the-park home runs he hit. Both, I'm sure were worth the price of admission, especially if you only paid a dollar to sit in the bleachers.)

Of course, we went to games, too, when I was a kid. And we knew all the players' batting averages. In 1972, you and I were probably in the centerfield bleachers at the same time. I was standing at the base of the scoreboard when Luis Alvarado hit an inside-the-park home run one Wednesday afternoon. But if the sun was shining and we weren't at the ballpark or in school we likely were at least throwing a ball around. We would have rather been at Comiskey than playing baseball, but these days, about forty years later, I'd rather be playing baseball than be at a major league game.

As I suggested earlier, it's likely a generational thing, and I wish more people played baseball today. I believe people who played more baseball when they were young have a better feel and respect for the dynamics of the game, which defy statistical analysis as predictions of future outcomes.

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2009, 09:20 AM
I just don't like it when one of the players I like has a .300/ 20 HR/ 85 RBI year, and a stat person tears them down and degrades them because they only had a .310 OBP or their BABIP was so high that they were extremely lucky.

It seems to happen with AJ the most, yet he consistently puts up good numbers.

It seems like you can find a stat that will make a player you like look better or a player you dislike look worse.

I saw a debate over who was better between Alexei and Ryan Theriot in 2008. One guy laid out the pro-missile stats, but the other guy said "his IsoD is not so good", so Theriot is better. What the hell is IsoD??

Oblong
10-30-2009, 09:35 AM
Did Ted Williams not get 344 hits for every 1,000 at bats in his career? .

I'm not picking on you, this just reminded me of a great Joe Posnanski column where he pretends he's a blogger and inventing a new stat, called batting average. You can see just how silly the stat can be without considering the factors left out. It's a long column but the bit I'm interested in is near the top. (We aren't allowed to quote it, right?)

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/

Pos is the best sports writer today.

Craig Grebeck
10-30-2009, 09:44 AM
I just don't like it when one of the players I like has a .300/ 20 HR/ 85 RBI year, and a stat person tears them down and degrades them because they only had a .310 OBP or their BABIP was so high that they were extremely lucky.
Well a .300 hitter with a .310 OBP is extremely rare, so I don't even know if I want to wade into this hyperbole-tinged argument. But, what the hell?

I don't think it's a matter of derision or degradation, it's a matter of acknowledging the fact that luck is a major element of the game and trying to account for it. It's very difficult, but accounting for career years by examining BABIP and its relationship with batted ball rates is something every front office does (or at least something very close to it).

It seems like you can find a stat that will make a player you like look better or a player you dislike look worse.
That's the nature of baseball. There are very few flawless players. I could point to Nick Swisher's OBP and you could point to his batting average and we could go round and round in circles. It's the nature of debate.

I saw a debate over who was better between Alexei and Ryan Theriot in 2008. One guy laid out the pro-missile stats, but the other guy said "his IsoD is not so good", so Theriot is better. What the hell is IsoD??
IsoD is an extremely simplistic measure of a player's plate discipline. It is just OBP-AVG.

cws05champ
10-30-2009, 10:00 AM
Well a .300 hitter with a .310 OBP is extremely rare, so I don't even know if I want to wade into this hyperbole-tinged argument. But, what the hell?


Alexei came pretty damn close in 2008: .290 avg and a .317 OBP

Craig Grebeck
10-30-2009, 10:08 AM
Alexei came pretty damn close in 2008: .290 avg and a .317 OBP
Yeah, but that's still pretty far off. He'd have to cut his already tiny number of walks by 66%.

Players can be valuable with a .310 OBP. If there's one thing I've changed my tune about over the years it's the value of defense, and that can make or break a marginal hitter's value.

Daver
10-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Well a .300 hitter with a .310 OBP is extremely rare, so I don't even know if I want to wade into this hyperbole-tinged argument. But, what the hell?

I don't think it's a matter of derision or degradation, it's a matter of acknowledging the fact that luck is a major element of the game and trying to account for it. It's very difficult, but accounting for career years by examining BABIP and its relationship with batted ball rates is something every front office does (or at least something very close to it).


All right, what is the multiplier factor used to average out something as completely random as luck?

And for that matter, what formula is used to account for human error?

Craig Grebeck
10-30-2009, 11:15 AM
All right, what is the multiplier factor used to average out something as completely random as luck?

And for that matter, what formula is used to account for human error?
BABIP is a rather simple formula: (H-HR)/(AB-K-HR+SF) = BABIP

I have no idea what you are getting at regarding human error.

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2009, 11:31 AM
If one guy consistently hits the ball hard, he's going to have a much higher BABIP than the guy who makes a lot of weak contact. Yet, I'll be told that the weak contact guy was extremely unlucky while the hard contact guy was the benefactor of a lot of luck.

I guess it's not for me. It just sounds like a way to rationalize why a guy you like for whatever reasons should be better than he actually is.

Craig Grebeck
10-30-2009, 11:41 AM
If one guy consistently hits the ball hard, he's going to have a much higher BABIP than the guy who makes a lot of weak contact. Yet, I'll be told that the weak contact guy was extremely unlucky while the hard contact guy was the benefactor of a lot of luck.

I guess it's not for me. It just sounds like a way to rationalize why a guy you like for whatever reasons should be better than he actually is.
You wouldn't be told that. BABIP isn't just accepted at face value as an explanation, it's a tiny piece in a giant pie of analysis. You have to look at batted ball rates, scouting reports, etc.

Jim Shorts
10-30-2009, 01:47 PM
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/

Pos is the best sports writer today.

Pos is a good writer, yes. But, he does have some despise for the WSox though. I lived in KC while he was lead columnist and I would write him everytime he took a shot at the southside. 4-5 times a season. We got to the point where we would exchange emails on other topics.

He's a good guy and a great writer. But his loathe for the Sox was nothing more than jealousy, particularly of the city of Chicago in general.

DumpJerry
11-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Next Monday (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091109&content_id=7641192&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws), November 16th, we'll know who is RoY.

SoxGirl4Life
11-09-2009, 08:36 PM
Next Monday (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091109&content_id=7641192&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws), November 16th, we'll know who is RoY.

Oh, watching that clip made me miss baseball so much more. :sigh:

Hitmen77
11-16-2009, 01:05 PM
The BBWAA Rookie of the Year winners are to be announced today.

JohnnyInnsbrook
11-16-2009, 01:21 PM
Its funny, bacon already won 2 ROY awards and ESPN doesn't even mention him as a top contender.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4651324

Whatever the morning show is on xm homeplate belives Porcello to be the winner because he pitched in a play-in game :scratch:

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 01:24 PM
Its funny, bacon already won 2 ROY awards and ESPN doesn't even mention him as a top contender.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4651324

Whatever the morning show is on xm homeplate belives Porcello to be the winner because he pitched in a play-in game :scratch:

I think it'll go something like:

Porcello
Andrus
Beckham
Bailey
Niemann

My ballot would be:

Anderson
Andrus
Reimold
Beckham
Porcello

Marqhead
11-16-2009, 01:48 PM
Whatever the morning show is on xm homeplate belives Porcello to be the winner because he pitched in a play-in game :scratch:

Weren't ballots in before the play in game?

I still think Porcello wins it.

JohnnyInnsbrook
11-16-2009, 02:03 PM
Weren't ballots in before the play in game?

I still think Porcello wins it.

They weren't sure about that on the radio.

PorkChopExpress
11-16-2009, 02:05 PM
Sounds like it was Bailey followed by Andrus and then Procello. Beckham finished 5th or 6th I think. Per the awards show on mlb.com.

spawn
11-16-2009, 02:15 PM
Beckham finishes 5th (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/).

SephClone89
11-16-2009, 02:17 PM
What a joke.

Domeshot17
11-16-2009, 02:18 PM
Bailey was a deserving winner. Beckham was a longshot because he came up late, and you had to watch him everyday to really be impressed by him (kind of like Elvis Andrus, his stat line doesn't tell the whole story). Nothing wrong with an 800 ops in 100 games, just doesn't WOW you.

Atleast it went to the right guy. Porcello had a year like Beckham, solid for a rookie without the wow factor. Andrus was solid but 700 OPS is hard even with his D.

Bailey was one of the best relievers in all of baseball.

Boondock Saint
11-16-2009, 02:21 PM
Whatever. Five years from now, when Bailey's flamed out, and Beckham's an all star, he's going to laugh at all of the dumbasses that voted against him.

cws05champ
11-16-2009, 02:42 PM
It is a joke. I'm not sure if Beckham deserved it but 5th, give me a break. It tells you something that Beckham won two players ROY awards and finishes 5th in this writers voting.

GAsoxfan
11-16-2009, 02:44 PM
Whatever. Five years from now, when Bailey's flamed out, and Beckham's an all star, he's going to laugh at all of the dumbasses that voted against him.

I'm not sure what five years from now has to do with this award. This is who had the best rookie season, not which rookie is going to have the best career.

areilly
11-16-2009, 03:14 PM
Whatever. Five years from now, when Bailey's flamed out, and Beckham's an all star, he's going to laugh at all of the dumbasses that voted against him.

Why would he laugh at them? And why do you wish such bad things would happen to Bailey? And who says Beckham has a long and productive career ahead of him? The award is for rookies in 2009, not the award for wishful thinking in 2014.

I could understand if, you know, you were in fact Gordon Beckham. But you're not, so calm down. Damn.

MisterB
11-16-2009, 03:18 PM
I think the top 3 will be some combination of Porcello, Andrus and Andrew Bailey. Beckham is better than Andrus, but will only get a couple of third place votes because (just like the world in general) the BBWAA is mostly idiots.

Yep. Predictable. Though Beckham got more votes than I thought.

oeo
11-16-2009, 03:29 PM
He certainly had better than the fifth best rookie campaign, but whatever. Not mad that Bailey won it, he's the only guy that really sticks out in a league with a lot of good, but not great rookie years. However, Andrus, Porcello, and Reimold did not have better years.

thomas35forever
11-16-2009, 03:33 PM
Bailey won the award. I can live with that. How Beckham finished fifth in the voting is beyond me. He certainly deserved better, but at least he's gotten recognition elsewhere.

TDog
11-16-2009, 03:45 PM
Bailey was a deserving winner. Beckham was a longshot because he came up late, and you had to watch him everyday to really be impressed by him (kind of like Elvis Andrus, his stat line doesn't tell the whole story). Nothing wrong with an 800 ops in 100 games, just doesn't WOW you.

Atleast it went to the right guy. Porcello had a year like Beckham, solid for a rookie without the wow factor. Andrus was solid but 700 OPS is hard even with his D.

Bailey was one of the best relievers in all of baseball.

Bailey was not deserving of the award. In fact, he was the least deserving of the players who got votes. The A's promoted him heavily for it beginning in August, though, and I don't doubt that there were people who voted for him who didn't even see him pitch during the regular season because they were impressed with his stat line. I watched him pitch a lot, and I didn't believe he was in any way a special pitcher or a pitcher who had the potential to be special. (Bailey had a teammate in the bullpen who pitched fewer innings and struck out more hitters, and even had a better rate in converting save opportunities, although he wasn't a rookie.) Considering how little Bailey pitched and the fact that he was pitching for Oakland, that isn't exactly going out on a limb.

The fact that two players' votes came up with Beckham as rookie of the year with Bailey not even showing up on the radar tells you something about the nature of the BBWAA award. Of course, if Beckham hadn't gone into a slump after being moved into the No. 2 spot in the lineup, he would have won the award. His average dropped about 40 points during the last six weeks of the season.

If you don't watch people play very much, the game is easy to figure out.

TDog
11-16-2009, 03:50 PM
I'm not sure what five years from now has to do with this award. This is who had the best rookie season, not which rookie is going to have the best career.

I've talked to people who have voted for the award in the past. Some people believe the award should go to the player who had the best rookie year. Some people believe the award should go to the rookie who has demonstrated that he has the potential for the best career. Some consider both.

JermaineDye05
11-16-2009, 04:01 PM
Considering what Beckham did after being called up in JUNE (!!!!) should have at least gotten him a couple of first place votes. The fact that he got none is beyond ridiculous.

sox1970
11-16-2009, 04:11 PM
Considering what Beckham did after being called up in JUNE (!!!!) should have at least gotten him a couple of first place votes. The fact that he got none is beyond ridiculous.

There are 28 individuals that vote for the top 3. Are they all supposed to get together and decide which two are going to vote for Beckham? Neither of the Chicago writers voted for him, so obviously none of them thought he was worthy of winning it. I'd rather see him win an MVP someday anyway.

Foulke You
11-16-2009, 04:12 PM
Considering what Beckham did after being called up in JUNE (!!!!) should have at least gotten him a couple of first place votes. The fact that he got none is beyond ridiculous.
I predicted months ago that Beckham would not win the award because Sox players tend to get screwed for awards like this so I wasn't surprised by the outcome. However, I think the fact that Gordon finished only fifth in voting with ZERO first place votes is definitely beyond ridiculous as you stated. It is especially mind boggling since members of the Chicago media vote for this award too! You would think at the very least the writers who saw Gordon play all year would have voted for him. Bailey is also a terrible choice. Rick Porcello had way more impact as a rookie pitcher and pitched way more innings. He would have been a far more deserving candidate.

BringBackBlkJack
11-16-2009, 04:15 PM
Well, I hope Bacon appreciates winning the Sporting News ROY award more, considering players, not writers, voted on it. It's disappointing that he only mustered a 5th place finish, but it's not the end of the world. Maybe he can channel this into a positive force and used it to avoid the dreaded sophomore slump. Come to think of it, all of the added pressure these accolades give to a rookie to replicate their first season sometimes come with negative consequences. Players start straining themselves, lose their head, try to overproduce, etc...

Now if Captain Cheeseburger wins the Cy Young over Greinke, that would REALLY be disconcerting.

Corlose 15
11-16-2009, 04:18 PM
There's 28 individuals that vote for the top 3. Are they all supposed to get together and decide which two are going to vote for Beckham? Neither of the Chicago writers voted for him, so obviously none of them thought he was worthy of winning it. I'd rather see him win an MVP someday anyway.

I'd rather see him win a WS MVP.

Bob Roarman
11-16-2009, 05:17 PM
I don't understand the reasoning that if you're a writer in Chicago you HAVE to vote for Beckham.

Foulke You
11-16-2009, 05:27 PM
I don't understand the reasoning that if you're a writer in Chicago you HAVE to vote for Beckham.
Nobody HAS to but you would hope that they would have appreciated more what Beckham brought to the table than other writers after seeing him play so much in 2009.

JB98
11-16-2009, 06:05 PM
The players voted Beckham as the league's best rookie. The writers? Well, they are clueless. Not a single first-place vote for Beckham. Wow.

At least I don't have to think real hard about what I want to blog about today.

Huisj
11-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Bailey was not deserving of the award. In fact, he was the least deserving of the players who got votes. The A's promoted him heavily for it beginning in August, though, and I don't doubt that there were people who voted for him who didn't even see him pitch during the regular season because they were impressed with his stat line. I watched him pitch a lot, and I didn't believe he was in any way a special pitcher or a pitcher who had the potential to be special. (Bailey had a teammate in the bullpen who pitched fewer innings and struck out more hitters, and even had a better rate in converting save opportunities, although he wasn't a rookie.) Considering how little Bailey pitched and the fact that he was pitching for Oakland, that isn't exactly going out on a limb.



If you don't watch people play very much, the game is easy to figure out.

You seem to be speaking rather harshly about someone who just posted a heck of a rookie year out of the bullpen. Didn't pitch enough? 83 innings from the pen isn't enough? Wasn't special? .167 opponents BA? You're argument is that since Michael Wuertz struck out more people, Beckham should have won ROY? Hmm.

In what way was he not special that you saw? Are you saying his stuff is lousy and he was just lucky? Even if that's the case, he still produced with it this year in fairly dominating fashion. He had to do something right during those 83 innings.

soxinem1
11-16-2009, 06:08 PM
I'd rather see him win a WS MVP.

And a few Silver Slugger Awards. That will more than likely mean he helped the team win, which is the most important thing.

JB98
11-16-2009, 06:18 PM
You seem to be speaking rather harshly about someone who just posted a heck of a rookie year out of the bullpen. Didn't pitch enough? 83 innings from the pen isn't enough? Wasn't special? .174 opponents BA? You're argument is that since Michael Wuertz struck out more people, Beckham should have won ROY? Hmm.

In what way was he not special that you saw? Are you saying his stuff is lousy and he was just lucky? Even if that's the case, he still produced with it this year in fairly dominating fashion. He had to do something right during those 83 innings.

Actually, no, 83 innings isn't enough. You will never convince me that the Rookie of the Year should go to a relief pitcher. If he was that great, he'd be starting. It's pretty clear the best rookie pitcher in the league was Rick Porcello.

Huisj
11-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Actually, no, 83 innings isn't enough. You will never convince me that the Rookie of the Year should go to a relief pitcher. If he was that great, he'd be starting. It's pretty clear the best rookie pitcher in the league was Rick Porcello.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the value of relief pitching in this era of baseball then.

soxinem1
11-16-2009, 06:23 PM
The players voted Beckham as the league's best rookie. The writers? Well, they are clueless. Not a single first-place vote for Beckham. Wow.

At least I don't have to think real hard about what I want to blog about today.

Look at it this way. How many AL ROY winners have went on to long, productive careers in the past 20 years? Nearly half of them became wash-outs.

Plus, Bacon's slide the last 5-6 weeks of the season did not help.

Bailey was not a bad pick. He was better in the regular season than most closers that pitched for many of the playoff teams, except Rivera, Nathan, and Papelbon. Porcello have been okay too, but to have Andrus come in second is the ultimate joke.

Also, the players liked Beckham and the writers did not. I believe the players vote has more credibility since they see the guys live and play against them, and not keeping up with them via a box score.

JB98
11-16-2009, 06:41 PM
Look at it this way. How many AL ROY winners have went on to long, productive careers in the past 20 years? Nearly half of them became wash-outs.

Plus, Bacon's slide the last 5-6 weeks of the season did not help.

Bailey was not a bad pick. He was better in the regular season than most closers that pitched for many of the playoff teams, except Rivera, Nathan, and Papelbon. Porcello have been okay too, but to have Andrus come in second is the ultimate joke.

Also, the players liked Beckham and the writers did not. I believe the players vote has more credibility since they see the guys live and play against them, and not keeping up with them via a box score.

The main problem isn't that Beckham lost, it's that NOBODY voted him first. How is that possible when the players thought he was the best rookie?

JB98
11-16-2009, 06:42 PM
I guess we can agree to disagree on the value of relief pitching in this era of baseball then.

Everyday 3B are still more important than relief pitchers. Starting pitchers are still more important than relief pitchers, too.

If Beckham had lost to Porcello, that would be one thing. Losing to Bailey is a farce.

DumpJerry
11-16-2009, 07:10 PM
The main problem isn't that Beckham lost, it's that NOBODY voted him first. How is that possible when the players thought he was the best rookie?
It's been a long time since sports writers were known for independent thought.

Craig Grebeck
11-16-2009, 07:16 PM
The main problem isn't that Beckham lost, it's that NOBODY voted him first. How is that possible when the players thought he was the best rookie?
I don't know. I wouldn't have voted for him.

Dibbs
11-16-2009, 07:20 PM
The main problem isn't that Beckham lost, it's that NOBODY voted him first. How is that possible when the players thought he was the best rookie?

Gordon didn't deserve it, so I am not upset he didn't get any first places votes. I am a huge Gordon fan and think he will be the best player in this class of rookies. Bailey was the right choice. Nobody remembers second place anyway.

Dibbs
11-16-2009, 07:29 PM
Actually, no, 83 innings isn't enough. You will never convince me that the Rookie of the Year should go to a relief pitcher. If he was that great, he'd be starting. It's pretty clear the best rookie pitcher in the league was Rick Porcello.

Just like Mariano Rivera?

whitem0nkey
11-16-2009, 07:39 PM
are people upset because they agree he should not be rookie of the year but should be higher than 5?

because that is really silly. who was runner up of the rookie of the year, the one voted by the writers in the year 2003 with our looking it up? I bet most people dont know.

2nd how is that rookie of the year working our for geovany soto, its not that important.

this reward is not in the same class as the MVP award. only a minority of players can win it, and it basically tries to be that annoying sports fan that is like see I told you in his first year he was going to be great.

JB98
11-16-2009, 07:45 PM
Just like Mariano Rivera?

Huh? Mariano Rivera is 40 years old. What does he have to do with Rookie of the Year?

JB98
11-16-2009, 07:46 PM
Gordon didn't deserve it, so I am not upset he didn't get any first places votes. I am a huge Gordon fan and think he will be the best player in this class of rookies. Bailey was the right choice. Nobody remembers second place anyway.

Not only was Bailey the wrong choice, there were three other players besides Beckham who should have been selected ahead of him.