PDA

View Full Version : BP on the Sox: Triple Play and Transaction Analysis


jeremyb1
03-23-2004, 03:16 PM
http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2695

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2697#CHA

joecrede
03-23-2004, 03:53 PM
I like BP for their statistical analysis, but more often than not lately I've noticed that when they do an opinion piece like the one on Guillen, their biasness shows through. I guarantee you if Billy Beane made the comment that they took Guillen apart for it wouldn't be worthy of an article. Guillen used Koch in a non-save situation yesterday so should we expect a retraction from BP?

SoxxoS
03-23-2004, 03:56 PM
BP is starting to get on my nerves.

Stick to the stats, guys.

kittle42
03-23-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
their biasness shows through.

Biasness?

jabrch
03-23-2004, 04:22 PM
Depodesta will crash and burn in LA. Ricardi will never win anything in Toronto and Beane will never win anything in Oakland. They all took jobs with crappy franchises and have built in excuses for failure. Beane even turned down a job with Boston - because there he'd be expected to win the WS without having excuses. As long as he stays in Oakland, he can use money as an excuse.

The bottom line is I am tired of computers and calculators and all that crap being used IN PLACE OF common sense. BP, Moneyball, Beane and co., are all responsible for propogation of this **** and it is tiring.

You win games on the field of play - not in your calculator. I love fantasy baseball, but IT ISN'T REAL. You don't build a team by maximizing any singe cell in a spreadsheet except for wins. There are too many factors in a win to isolate any of them out in a meaningful manner.

DEATH TO STATHEADS!

DEATH TO BP!

DEATH DEATH DEATH!

joecrede
03-23-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
Biasness?

I've been on Nyquil for the past 20 hours or so. No excuse, but worthy of some compassion, right? :)

Man Soo Lee
03-23-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Guillen used Koch in a non-save situation yesterday so should we expect a retraction from BP?

Koch has yet to appear in a save situation once this spring, but I guess even "objective" analysts don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

maurice
03-23-2004, 05:33 PM
Notwithstanding the fact that Beane turned down the Boston job, the Red Sox franchise is run by statheads. I doubt this fact somehow caused Boston (and Oakland) to win 95+ games but miss the WS. I expect that LA and Toronto will do much better under current management. Toronto already improved by eight wins between 2002 and 2003.

Dadawg_77
03-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Notwithstanding the fact that Beane turned down the Boston job, the Red Sox franchise is run by statheads. I doubt this fact somehow caused Boston (and Oakland) to win 95+ games but miss the WS. I expect that LA and Toronto will do much better under current management. Toronto already improved by eight wins between 2002 and 2003.

Plus they have New York and Boston to deal with. If the Jays were in the Central, the Sox, Twins, Royals wouldn't have a shot to compete as the Jays would walk away with it.

Dadawg_77
03-23-2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
Koch has yet to appear in a save situation once this spring, but I guess even "objective" analysts don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

They used a quote from the tribune on the game to make a more general point. Closers are a complete waste of resources. The theory is, you want your best reliever in the highest leverage situation. While protecting a three run lead in the ninth is a save opp., it isn't high leverage and replacement level pitcher can get the job done.

Man Soo Lee
03-23-2004, 06:15 PM
I agree with the general point about closers, but if BP wants to argue that Ozzie is in over his head because of the way he's used Koch then the facts should fit their argument. They don't.

Ozzie isn't directly quoted in the Tribune passage and the fact that Koch hasn't pitched the ninth inning this spring suggests that save situations haven't been a priority.

It's a straw man, but I guess Ozzie must be dumb because he didn't take many walks as a player.

jeremyb1
03-23-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
I agree with the general point about closers, but if BP wants to argue that Ozzie is in over his head because of the way he's used Koch then the facts should fit their argument. They don't.

Ozzie isn't directly quoted in the Tribune passage and the fact that Koch hasn't pitched the ninth inning this spring suggests that save situations haven't been a priority.

It's a straw man, but I guess Ozzie must be dumb because he didn't take many walks as a player.

Well if the Trib is misrepresenting Ozzie, that isn't BP's fault. The statement from the Tribune is quite clear.

Man Soo Lee
03-24-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well if the Trib is misrepresenting Ozzie, that isn't BP's fault. The statement from the Tribune is quite clear.

True, but if BP is going to criticize Ozzie's managing based on the quote, shouldn't they check to see what he's actually done?

Koch and Marte have made ten appearances this spring. Koch has not pitched a 9th inning. Marte has once, in a tie game. That's zero save situations for the two likely closers.

Jeremy, if I took a quote where you said Adkins won't be any good and wrote an article about how you never have any faith in young pitchers, would that be fair?

jeremyb1
03-24-2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
True, but if BP is going to criticize Ozzie's managing based on the quote, shouldn't they check to see what he's actually done?

Koch and Marte have made ten appearances this spring. Koch has not pitched a 9th inning. Marte has once, in a tie game. That's zero save situations for the two likely closers.

Jeremy, if I took a quote where you said Adkins won't be any good and wrote an article about how you never have any faith in young pitchers, would that be fair?

Well, the problem with your reasoning here is you are assuming that for the Tribune's quote to be accurate, Koch would have had to have pitched in the 9th. Ozzie could have held Koch out of the game to attempt to get him in a save situation then realized the opportunity would not present itself and put him in the game anyways. The issue isn't whether Koch pitched in a save situation, its what Ozzie's intent to pitch him in save situations only in the spring indicates about his ability to manage. Therefore, when Koch has pitched in games has no bearing on the conversation in my opinion. The arguments in the article aren't applicable only in the instance that the Trib completely misrepresented Ozzie and he did not at any point attempt to wait for a save situation to bring in Koch.

As I said in the previous post, the Trib's quote speaks very strongly toward's Ozzie's intent in the situation. It clearly indicates that Ozzie made a comment that he wanted to wait for a save situation to bring in Koch if possible. If Ozzie did not make that statement and did not feel that way, the Trib horribly misrepresented him and the blame should be directed there. The Trib is considered a reputable news source so its not BP's duty in my opinion to police them and somehow try to evaluate the veracity of all their claims.

You're analogy isn't applicable because you're discussing the generalizing of a statement of opinion and not the application of a statement of fact.

joecrede
03-24-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
The issue isn't whether Koch pitched in a save situation, its what Ozzie's intent to pitch him in save situations only in the spring indicates about his ability to manage.

That was his intent for that particular game not for the entire spring. The article was wildly speculative and conveniently fit BP's preconceived opinion of Guillen's managerial abilities.

jeremyb1
03-25-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
That was his intent for that particular game not for the entire spring. The article was wildly speculative and conveniently fit BP's preconceived opinion of Guillen's managerial abilities.

Howso? I completely disagree. The entire article was based on article which can safely be inferred from Ozzie's one decision which is 1) he's placing too much emphasis on spring training 2) he places too much emphasis on the idea of a set closer pitching the 9th inning. Where's the speculation? I don't really agree on BP having a preconcieved notion of Ozzie as a player. The '04 book's section on the Sox features a section explaining the lack of correlation between a player's career and his success as a manager.

joecrede
03-25-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Howso? I completely disagree. The entire article was based on article which can safely be inferred from Ozzie's one decision which is 1) he's placing too much emphasis on spring training 2) he places too much emphasis on the idea of a set closer pitching the 9th inning. Where's the speculation?

BP, the kings of sample size, and the auther is forming an opinion on one decision? What's worse is his decision to save Koch to pitch in a save situation runs contrary to how Guillen has used him all spring up to that point.

jeremyb1
03-25-2004, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
BP, the kings of sample size, and the auther is forming an opinion on one decision? What's worse is his decision to save Koch to pitch in a save situation runs contrary to how Guillen has used him all spring up to that point.

Sample size is completely different in situations such as baseball performance which features a lot of ups and downs and a great deal of luck. Ozzie's decision is completely inexplicable if he doesn't believe in the importance of closers pitching the 9th inning and overemphasizing spring training. Now if BP generalized about his entire managerial career based on one decision that'd be an example of poor sample size but that's not the case. They're just talking about the poor reasoning guiding one decision.

joecrede
03-25-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Sample size is completely different in situations such as baseball performance which features a lot of ups and downs and a great deal of luck. Ozzie's decision is completely inexplicable if he doesn't believe in the importance of closers pitching the 9th inning and overemphasizing spring training. Now if BP generalized about his entire managerial career based on one decision that'd be an example of poor sample size but that's not the case. They're just talking about the poor reasoning guiding one decision.

"That's Really Stupid, Even for You: Are we still wondering whether Ozzie Guillen's in over his head?

This is not a generalization?

jeremyb1
03-25-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
This is not a generalization?

Fine. I don't really disagree with the phrasing there but ussually the title doesn't feature the meat of the article. The article in general is about the one comment and extrapolating that one comment to Ozzie's overall aptitude as a manager. That's left up to the reader to discern more than anything else.

Also, as I said in my last post I think you can generalize more from one decision than one at bat. There's no misunderstanding Ozzie or what can be inferred from his comment. There's no luck or chance. His comment clearly revealed his motives for the move and therefore a lot of his mindset as a manger. If Kerry or Bush are revealed to have cheated on their taxes people are going to infer a lot from that because it is something that is done intentionally and speaks towards character and personality. It is not the same as baseball performances where intent (doing well) does not always equal positive results because of the nature of the game.

joecrede
03-25-2004, 09:31 PM
One can disagree with the "closer" strategy employed by many managers, but it's not like the "bullpen by committee" has proven to be any better. Ask the Red Sox. Guillen is not doomed to fail simply because he employs this strategy as the author leads you to believe.

Also, if Guillen used Koch solely in save situations during spring training at the expense of pitching the requisite number of innings (whatever that number is) in order to get ready for the season then I could buy that Guillen has over emphasized spring training. That is clearly not the case though based on the fact that he has been used in more non-save situations.

jeremyb1
03-25-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
One can disagree with the "closer" strategy employed by many managers, but it's not like the "bullpen by committee" has proven to be any better. Ask the Red Sox. Guillen is not doomed to fail simply because he employs this strategy as the author leads you to believe.

Also, if Guillen used Koch solely in save situations during spring training at the expense of pitching the requisite number of innings (whatever that number is) in order to get ready for the season then I could buy that Guillen has over emphasized spring training. That is clearly not the case though based on the fact that he has been used in more non-save situations.

I agree it's not that bad since Guillen hasn't insisted on using Koch exclusively in save situations. But I don't like the ideas which motivated going to the effort of using him in a save situation at all.

As far as closers, BP doesn't necessarily advocate a closer by committee. They advocate the use of an ace reliever. The idea is that no inning is more important than any other inning so you'd be better off brining in your closer in the 8th inning in a one run game against the top of the lineup instead of using him in the 9th against lesser hitters. If you use him in the 8th and he keeps it a one right game, your team might score in the bottom of the 8th.

The idea of a closer is motivated almost entirely by the notion that pitching the 9th inning is far more important and difficult than the 7th or the 8th and that is not true. Its placing way too much emphasis on the bulldog "closer mentality" that allows pitchers to bear down and retire hitters in the most crucuial inning. Aren't hitters trying to tie or win the game in the 7th and 8th inning of a close game?

kempsted
03-26-2004, 12:45 AM
Lighten up guys. The point is not even about a decision but an attitute. BP has correctly critzied Guillen for taking spring training too seriously. Weather he did or did not save Koch the fact that he thought it is troublesome. BP also points out Koch is not a good pitcher and Marte is one of the best relievers in the game. So they are not really criticizing the decision just the idiotic way that Ozzie seems to over and over again act like winning in Spring training is important. It isn't.

kempsted
03-26-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Depodesta will crash and burn in LA. Ricardi will never win anything in Toronto and Beane will never win anything in Oakland. They all took jobs with crappy franchises and have built in excuses for failure. Beane even turned down a job with Boston - because there he'd be expected to win the WS without having excuses. As long as he stays in Oakland, he can use money as an excuse.

The bottom line is I am tired of computers and calculators and all that crap being used IN PLACE OF common sense. BP, Moneyball, Beane and co., are all responsible for propogation of this **** and it is tiring.

You win games on the field of play - not in your calculator. I love fantasy baseball, but IT ISN'T REAL. You don't build a team by maximizing any singe cell in a spreadsheet except for wins. There are too many factors in a win to isolate any of them out in a meaningful manner.

DEATH TO STATHEADS!

DEATH TO BP!

DEATH DEATH DEATH!

Very intelligent. As with most of the people who criticized statheads you have obviously never read BP.

As to your specific points - What do you mean Beane will never win anything? The A's have won 4 straight division titles. The Blue Jays have made huge improvements since Ricardi took over.

Your characterization of BP is a straw man. It isn't based on anything they have said.

Man Soo Lee
03-26-2004, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Chicago Tribune
"Loaiza said he felt fine and actually asked to pitch another inning. Guillen almost lifted him in the fourth, but only Billy Koch was throwing and Guillen didn't want to bring him into a non-save situation,".

If Ozzie intended to use Koch in a save situation, why was he up and throwing in the fourth? Why would Ozzie be concerned with putting Koch in a save situation on this day when he's made no effort to do so before or since?

Originally posted by kempsted
So they are not really criticizing the decision just the idiotic way that Ozzie seems to over and over again act like winning in Spring training is important.

Can you give me some examples? It seems to me that it's been a pretty typical spring training. When Ozzie has been critical, it's been about attitude not performance.

joecrede
03-26-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
If Ozzie intended to use Koch in a save situation, why was he up and throwing in the fourth? Why would Ozzie be concerned with putting Koch in a save situation on this day when he's made no effort to do so before or since?

Excellent pick up. Makes me believe that the writer's opinion on why Koch didn't enter the game was just that, his opinion. It might have been based on something the writer heard Guillen say previously, which explains why it was not a direct quote.

Can you give me some examples? It seems to me that it's been a pretty typical spring training. When Ozzie has been critical, it's been about attitude not performance.

I think the "Ozzie is taking spring training too seriously" theory is just bizarre. Gload, Dransfeldt, and Uribe have more AB's than Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, and Crede. 19-year-old Ryan Sweeney has 28 AB's while Thomas and Ordonez have 35 and 37 respectively.

joecrede
03-26-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
BP also points out Koch is not a good pitcher and Marte is one of the best relievers in the game.

BP must've burned the statistical midnight oil to bring us that one. :D:

jabrch
03-26-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
Very intelligent. As with most of the people who criticized statheads you have obviously never read BP.

As to your specific points - What do you mean Beane will never win anything? The A's have won 4 straight division titles. The Blue Jays have made huge improvements since Ricardi took over.

Your characterization of BP is a straw man. It isn't based on anything they have said.

Kemp - I have read BP - and I still believe that secondary statistics and models are good for very little. The best baseball people are still baseball people - not computers, MBAs and calculators.

Beane has done nicely with a limited budget - but if he cared to test to see if he could win it all - he would have gone to Boston where he'd have had a budget. As far as Ricardi, I don't think any of the core players on that team were brought in by him. I may be wrong - but I think they were all in the system before Ricardi.

Talent evaluation is not about calculators and spreadsheets.

joecrede
03-26-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I agree it's not that bad since Guillen hasn't insisted on using Koch exclusively in save situations. But I don't like the ideas which motivated going to the effort of using him in a save situation at all.

As far as closers, BP doesn't necessarily advocate a closer by committee. They advocate the use of an ace reliever. The idea is that no inning is more important than any other inning so you'd be better off brining in your closer in the 8th inning in a one run game against the top of the lineup instead of using him in the 9th against lesser hitters. If you use him in the 8th and he keeps it a one right game, your team might score in the bottom of the 8th.

The idea of a closer is motivated almost entirely by the notion that pitching the 9th inning is far more important and difficult than the 7th or the 8th and that is not true. Its placing way too much emphasis on the bulldog "closer mentality" that allows pitchers to bear down and retire hitters in the most crucuial inning. Aren't hitters trying to tie or win the game in the 7th and 8th inning of a close game?

While I don't entirely disagree with BP's opinion regarding use of a bullpen, I don't discount the idea of having set roles for your relievers. During a long season I think it helps the reliever's and the team's psyche when the manager "has a plan" to win the game. Starter goes 6-7, set-up man 7-8, closer 9. Reliever's roles can change during the season, but I think it has to be because of performance and not on a manager's whim because the first game they lose when the manager uses his "closer" in an unorthodox way, the players will start to question the manager's ability and that's never a good thing.

joecrede
03-26-2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Talent evaluation is not about calculators and spreadsheets.

Performance is measured better by calculators and spreadsheets than by scouts though.

jabrch
03-26-2004, 12:40 PM
Joe, are you talking about historical or projected?

joecrede
03-26-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Joe, are you talking about historical or projected?

"Talent" shouldn't supercede performance when it comes to judging a player's ability to play the game. Sure, you'll get burned on a player once in a while, but it's the best way to put together a team, IMO. Actually, an offense moreso than a pitching staff because injuries have a greater effect on pitchers performance than they do hitters.

kempsted
03-28-2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Kemp - I have read BP - and I still believe that secondary statistics and models are good for very little. The best baseball people are still baseball people - not computers, MBAs and calculators.

Beane has done nicely with a limited budget - but if he cared to test to see if he could win it all - he would have gone to Boston where he'd have had a budget. As far as Ricardi, I don't think any of the core players on that team were brought in by him. I may be wrong - but I think they were all in the system before Ricardi.

Talent evaluation is not about calculators and spreadsheets.

This is exactly why I said you have never read BP - you are not arguing against BP when you say these kinds of things.

You are fooling yourself is you think Baseball People TM do not use statistics in their evaluations. They do it all the time. The problem is they use the wrong statistics and faulty analysis sometimes. You see the 20 game winner with a 4.50 Era (like Storm Davis years back) get big free agent contracts because of those 20 wins. You see real baseball people saying things like they want to pick up Shefield because of his high batting average with runners in scoring position. You see real baseball people say they put someone in because they hit so and so better even though there are only have 8 AB spread over 2 years. You hear baseball people tell of how much better so and so hits in September and yet the record doesn't show that at all.

All of this stat head stuff is just trying to apply reasoning to baseball. If you prefer your baseball talk without reasoning - good for you. But to discredit people because they dare to challenge baseball people is just stupid.

Again I can tell you never read BP and perhaps just read Moneyball from your comments. Throughout this years BP you will see them say "Well PECOTA has them as such and such - but I think they will do better than that because...." You will also see them go with what the scouts say. They are just not as brainless as the Baseball America people who go gaga over athletic skill that never translates.

Hangar18
03-28-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
True, but if BP is going to criticize Ozzie's managing based on the quote, shouldn't they check to see what he's actually done?

Koch and Marte have made ten appearances this spring. Koch has not pitched a 9th inning. Marte has once, in a tie game. That's zero save situations for the two likely closers.

Jeremy, if I took a quote where you said Adkins won't be any good and wrote an article about how you never have any faith in young pitchers, would that be fair?

Excellent Post ...........

As for the "article", totally sounds like something Kiley would write

jeremyb1
03-28-2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
This is exactly why I said you have never read BP - you are not arguing against BP when you say these kinds of things.

You are fooling yourself is you think Baseball People TM do not use statistics in their evaluations. They do it all the time. The problem is they use the wrong statistics and faulty analysis sometimes.

Outstanding post. You make a great point that so much of it is not stats vs. scouting but proven statistics versus traditional stats. A lot of the difference is simply the use of OBP instead of AVG, SLG instead of HR, dispelling the notion of "clutch hitting", ERA vs. wins, and so on down the line. A lot of traditional baseball people use statistics without the knowledge of how to use stats which is extremely irresponsible in my opinion. You can take any Jr. College Stats course and learn about the importance of consistent results and sample size. How GMs given extreme responsibility and huge salaries get away with using meaningless, mathematically unsound statistics is beyond me.