PDA

View Full Version : diamond mind team efficiency analysis


jeremyb1
12-11-2002, 01:13 PM
great analysis of last season. the article indicates that based on pathagorean records and offensive and deffensive efficiency the sox should've had a better record than the twins last season and that these variables are likely to even out this upcoming season. here's one quote:

It's interesting to note that the White Sox were a match for the Twins in production even though Minnesota ran away with the division. For all the talk about the Twins superior pitching and defense and the problems the White Sox had in those areas, Chicago gave up only 50 more TBW, roughly one base every three games.

here's the link: http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/1209/1474095.html

Lip Man 1
12-11-2002, 01:31 PM
As Mark Twain said..."you have lies, damn lies and statistics."

Or as Charlie Brown told Lucy..."tell your statistics to shut up."

Being in TV for a number of years I know that "ratings numbers" can be made to show anything anybody wants to. (i.e. we're #1 in the time slot from 6 to 7 pm every other Tuesday in even numbered months among one legged men 25 - 40...)

The bottom line is wins and losses... period.

You can't quantify heart, guts, team work and the ability to do "the little things" (a la the 1990 White Sox) that enable teams to win games.

The Twins simply do all that better (and for all we know may have a better field manager...)

Lip

kermittheefrog
12-11-2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As Mark Twain said..."you have lies, damn lies and statistics."

Or as Charlie Brown told Lucy..."tell your statistics to shut up."

Being in TV for a number of years I know that "ratings numbers" can be made to show anything anybody wants to. (i.e. we're #1 in the time slot from 6 to 7 pm every other Tuesday in even numbered months among one legged men 25 - 40...)

The bottom line is wins and losses... period.

You can't quantify heart, guts, team work and the ability to do "the little things" (a la the 1990 White Sox) that enable teams to win games.

The Twins simply do all that better (and for all we know may have a better field manager...)

Lip

Translation: If I don't get it, it obviously is meaningless.

Dadawg_77
12-11-2002, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As Mark Twain said..."you have lies, damn lies and statistics."

Or as Charlie Brown told Lucy..."tell your statistics to shut up."

Being in TV for a number of years I know that "ratings numbers" can be made to show anything anybody wants to. (i.e. we're #1 in the time slot from 6 to 7 pm every other Tuesday in even numbered months among one legged men 25 - 40...)

The bottom line is wins and losses... period.

You can't quantify heart, guts, team work and the ability to do "the little things" (a la the 1990 White Sox) that enable teams to win games.

The Twins simply do all that better (and for all we know may have a better field manager...)

Lip

There is a difference between how a media outlet uses stats and a person looking at baseball in some cases. I don't really know, but I don't think the author of the column has any personal biases which could shape the statical analysis. A media outlet has a bias to show a better pitcher of itself to sell ad space. Thus they will tailor the stats that they use to their needs. The stats don't lie, they are number which represent factually what happen in the past. The interpretation of the stats can be wrong, whether it is just a mistake or a intensionally mislead. You can see some examples in how people can read this thread. The statistical analysis that was done does not say whether the Twins record will fall or the Sox's record will get better. What is says is "it is highly probable that the Twins record will be closer to what they are expected to win based on the Pythagorean winning percentage this year then last year where they significant difference between PWP and WP.

RichH55
12-11-2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As Mark Twain said..."you have lies, damn lies and statistics."

Or as Charlie Brown told Lucy..."tell your statistics to shut up."

Being in TV for a number of years I know that "ratings numbers" can be made to show anything anybody wants to. (i.e. we're #1 in the time slot from 6 to 7 pm every other Tuesday in even numbered months among one legged men 25 - 40...)

The bottom line is wins and losses... period.

You can't quantify heart, guts, team work and the ability to do "the little things" (a la the 1990 White Sox) that enable teams to win games.

The Twins simply do all that better (and for all we know may have a better field manager...)

Lip


THe point was that the Twins could be in store for a decent dropoff while the White Sox could be in store for a decent gain...thereinby making it a race in the central........We shall see how this year pans out, but I think without contraction hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damacles...the Twins might be in store for a little let down

ma-gaga
12-11-2002, 06:55 PM
THe point was that the Twins could be in store for a decent dropoff while the White Sox could be in store for a decent gain...thereinby making it a race in the central........

Swords aside, I concur. But it's amazing what happens when a manager knows how to correctly use a bullpen...

:jerry
tinker tinker [looks up] huh?
Where's my boy?!? Where's my boy!!!

:hitless
papa, I'm in Milwaukee, drinking beer!

:jerry
tinker tinker.... my boy my poor boy...

Lip Man 1
12-11-2002, 11:52 PM
And of course I'm sure the "pathagorean records" accurately predicted the 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox winning 94 games, the 91 Braves and Twins BOTH going from "worst to first" and the 2002 Angels winning the title didn't it?

Numbers are fine as a general overview of what MIGHT happen, and if you love playing those fantasy games but it can't take into account injuries, bizarre bounces, and like I said previously... heart, guts and brains.

Don't wet your pants Kermit, I wasn't attacking you or your love affair with numbers. I was simply pointing out that all the numbers in the world can't hit an exploding slider, play a game with a bad wrist or with the flu or pitch through a bad arm.

Sometimes it sounds like people are talking about what writer Issac Asimov used as a central theme in his "Foundation" books, the ability to predict what is going to happen based on numbers and on studying how humanity reacts.

Of course Asimov was a science fiction writer.

Lip

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Swords aside, I concur. But it's amazing what happens when a manager knows how to correctly use a bullpen...

:jerry
tinker tinker [looks up] huh?
Where's my boy?!? Where's my boy!!!

:hitless
papa, I'm in Milwaukee, drinking beer!

:jerry
tinker tinker.... my boy my poor boy...

You have to be a Sox fan to post crap like that... :D:

kermittheefrog
12-12-2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
And of course I'm sure the "pathagorean records" accurately predicted the 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox winning 94 games, the 91 Braves and Twins BOTH going from "worst to first" and the 2002 Angels winning the title didn't it?

Numbers are fine as a general overview of what MIGHT happen, and if you love playing those fantasy games but it can't take into account injuries, bizarre bounces, and like I said previously... heart, guts and brains.

Don't wet your pants Kermit, I wasn't attacking you or your love affair with numbers. I was simply pointing out that all the numbers in the world can't hit an exploding slider, play a game with a bad wrist or with the flu or pitch through a bad arm.

Sometimes it sounds like people are talking about what writer Issac Asimov used as a central theme in his "Foundation" books, the ability to predict what is going to happen based on numbers and on studying how humanity reacts.

Of course Asimov was a science fiction writer.

Lip

Will anyone who likes Lip please step forward.

Jjav829
12-12-2002, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Will anyone who likes Lip please step forward.

I am not necessarily stepping forward, but I actually agree with Lip here.

voodoochile
12-12-2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Will anyone who likes Lip please step forward.

VC Takes one step forward, but I'm a moderator, so my opinion will probably be dismissed...

voodoochile
12-12-2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
I am not stepping forward, but I actually agree with Lip here.

Lip is giving anecdotal evidence for why you cannot always prove what will happen with statistics. He is correct, but even his anomolies are explained by statistics. Being outside 3 standard deviations from the norm for example means there is less than 1% chance of the observed outcome happening, but it doesn't mean it never happens.

I don't understand the nuts and bolts about what the statheads are talking about, but I don't think they are saying it is set in stone and I do understand the results they are talking about. The stats are saying that based on the underlying stats of last season, the Twins outperformed the expected result and the Sox underperformed the expected results. Given a purely statistical outlook, that trend should even out this year leading to a tighter race. It isn't that hard to understand and no one has said "this will definitely happen," only that it PROBABLY will happen.

kermittheefrog
12-12-2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Lip is giving anecdotal evidence for why you cannot always prove what will happen with statistics. He is correct, but even his anomolies are explained by statistics. Being outside 3 standard deviations from the norm for example means there is less than 1% chance of the observed outcome happening, but it doesn't mean it never happens.

I don't understand the nuts and bolts about what the statheads are talking about, but I don't think they are saying it is set in stone and I do understand the results they are talking about. The stats are saying that based on the underlying stats of last season, the Twins outperformed the expected result and the Sox underperformed the expected results. Given a purely statistical outlook, that trend should even out this year leading to a tighter race. It isn't that hard to understand and no one has said "this will definitely happen," only that it PROBABLY will happen.

What pisses me off is when guys like Lip say stats are useless because they don't care enough about the stats to know what they mean. It's easy to say stats lie if you don't have a clue what the stats you look at are saying.

jeremyb1
12-12-2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
And of course I'm sure the "pathagorean records" accurately predicted the 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox winning 94 games, the 91 Braves and Twins BOTH going from "worst to first" and the 2002 Angels winning the title didn't it?


you're missing the point. the general idea behind the pathagorean standings is that they measure luck and intangibles which are likely to change from season to season. the point is not to predict the amount of games the twins will win next season. the point is to analyze the twins performance last season to determine how much their performance next season is likely to deviate from this season. if you looked at the 69 mets, the 90 sox, or this years angles you wouldn't have been able to predict their luck ahead of time but you wouldn't have been able to discount the possibility of a lucky season ahead of time since none of them were lucky the season before.

ma-gaga
12-12-2002, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
What pisses me off is when guys like Lip say stats are useless because they don't care enough about the stats to know what they mean. It's easy to say stats lie if you don't have a clue what the stats you look at are saying.

My favorite argument is that stat-heads don't truly enjoy baseball games because they are trying to figure out the updated OPS+ all the time.

I like Lip. I agree with about 5% of the crap that he says, but I like him.

That being said. BP did a study on this a year or so ago. They were trying to determine what was "luck" as they defined it. I think they figured that managing had a LITTLE to do with it, but they had a very limited set of data points to work with. I think "luck" is a series of circumstances, and if JM can figure out a way to use a bullpen effectively and win some 1 run games, the WSox are going to be very dangerous.

The Twins showed an awesome bullpen last year. But I remember that the same group was one of the worst in 2001. Did they get a LOT better, or was it luck? Whatever, they'll come back to earth a little this year. However, I can't imagine the Twins starting pitching being any worse than it was last year. In that Lipman is correct.

If the Sox bolster their rotation, they have a shot at the division. If not; hello 900 runs scored, goodbye 850 runs against. Luck or not, I believe in Pyth and a 0.526 winning percentage. Let Lip believe in 'heart' and 'desire'. In the end they are to him as OPS is to 'statheads'.

Besides, you aren't going to change his mind. He's just as stubborn as you. :D:

Vsahajpal
12-12-2002, 03:22 AM
Stats are a very valuable resource, no question. They certainly help in regards to evaluating personnel, which is obviously vital.
But why exactly are the Pythag. Standings significant? They aren't. Who cares?


It goes without saying that wins and losses are the most important things to consider when judging a team's performance. They are, after all, what the game is all about and what determines who gets to keep playing until there's only one winner left.

He should've stopped there.

jortafan
12-12-2002, 09:22 AM
In defense of the Lip,
The significant amount of reporting he has done just for the pieces he has written for this very website have been more informative and helped me understand more about baseball than any of this drivel.
I don't need a computer analysis to tell me that the White Sox, both in '01 and '02, had sufficient talent to win their weak, pitiful division (winning a pennant is a different question). I already knew that it was those unmeasurable aspects such as heart and guts that the Sox lacked in the clutch, which is the reason Cleveland got one more division title and an otherwise mediocre Twins team can now be taken seriously.
I can understand occasionally wondering about 'what might have been.' But to take it to this level is actually pathetic. It reeks of the same whining tone that I always hear from Boston Red Sox fans, who seem to think that if this were a just world, THEY would be the team with the 26 world titles who gets to walk all over the rest of the American League. Their whining gets so bad that I actually root for the Yankees when they play.
In short, I'd like to think we have a little more class, BECAUSE we stay grounded in reality, instead of complaining that we deserved the '02 division title, even though we played like dog poop during the middle of the season.

hold2dibber
12-12-2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
In defense of the Lip,
The significant amount of reporting he has done just for the pieces he has written for this very website have been more informative and helped me understand more about baseball than any of this drivel.
I don't need a computer analysis to tell me that the White Sox, both in '01 and '02, had sufficient talent to win their weak, pitiful division (winning a pennant is a different question). I already knew that it was those unmeasurable aspects such as heart and guts that the Sox lacked in the clutch, which is the reason Cleveland got one more division title and an otherwise mediocre Twins team can now be taken seriously.
I can understand occasionally wondering about 'what might have been.' But to take it to this level is actually pathetic. It reeks of the same whining tone that I always hear from Boston Red Sox fans, who seem to think that if this were a just world, THEY would be the team with the 26 world titles who gets to walk all over the rest of the American League. Their whining gets so bad that I actually root for the Yankees when they play.
In short, I'd like to think we have a little more class, BECAUSE we stay grounded in reality, instead of complaining that we deserved the '02 division title, even though we played like dog poop during the middle of the season.

No one was suggesting that the Sox deserved the '02 title. The point is, there is reason to believe that the difference between the Sox and the Twins was not so great. Just like the '00 Sox, the '02 Twins won in part because of intangibles (heart, desire, luck, whatever). But they also won because they got career years out of everyone in their bullpen (just like the Sox got career years out of everyone in their rotation in '00). There is reason to believe that the Twins will suffer a drop off in '03, just like the Sox did in '01.

On the other hand, let's all remember that the Sox team that played the bulk of '01 and generated the bulk of the '01 stats is scattered to the winds and we have guys like Jimenez, Crede, Olivo, Harris and maybe even Borchard who are going to take the place of MJ, Durham, Lofton, and Alomar, so who the hell knows.