PDA

View Full Version : Not exactly Ozzie Ball in OAK


LuvSox
04-14-2006, 10:11 AM
To be on Macha's base stealer list a player must have a 75% success rate. Not exactly the element of surprise.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6114/news

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 10:21 AM
To be on Macha's base stealer list a player must have a 75% success rate. Not exactly the element of surprise.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6114/newsSo if we use lifetime numbers, Paul Konerko would be on the list (80%) while Tadahito Iguchi would not (71%). Makes sense to me.

batmanZoSo
04-14-2006, 10:39 AM
3B Eric Chavez, OF Mark Kotsay and C Jason Kendall are currently the only three players that have the green light. Macha's requirement is that the player must have a 75 percent steal success rate.

Announce to the world that you have only three players who are allowed to steal a base and even give their names. It's such smart baseball. I wonder why Oakland never gets past the first round. :?:

Luke
04-14-2006, 10:45 AM
This is the same organization that feels defense doesn't matter as long as a player has a high enough OBP...after all defense doesn't win games in October

Flight #24
04-14-2006, 10:46 AM
Announce to the world that you have only three players who are allowed to steal a base and even give their names. It's such smart baseball. I wonder why Oakland never gets past the first round. :?:
:fobbgod:
"Also, the only 3 guys allowed to throw changeups on a 2-1 count are Zito, Harden, and Street. And only Frank Thomas is allowed to swing away on a 3-0 count!

FEAR ME AND BOW DOWN!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

downstairs
04-14-2006, 11:05 AM
To be on Macha's base stealer list a player must have a 75% success rate. Not exactly the element of surprise.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6114/news

I am actually a bit of a FOBB... but this is the downfall of using numbers to run the game. Anyone can do the same math you're doing, and figure out what you're going to do.

Luck is a major factor in any winning team (especially in short-series playoffs.) And luck only comes when you aggressively but intelligently roll the dice.

The 2005 White Sox were a very lucky team (more talent than luck- but lots of luck). They were lucky BECAUSE they tried to be.

The A's will never try to be lucky, and thus will never be.

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 11:17 AM
I am actually a bit of a FOBB... but this is the downfall of using numbers to run the game. Anyone can do the same math you're doing, and figure out what you're going to do.

Luck is a major factor in any winning team (especially in short-series playoffs.) And luck only comes when you aggressively but intelligently roll the dice.

The 2005 White Sox were a very lucky team (more talent than luck- but lots of luck). They were lucky BECAUSE they tried to be.

The A's will never try to be lucky, and thus will never be.I don't buy the "White Sox were lucky" argument. Weren't the Astros lucky when Jason Lane's game 3 double was ruled a HR? If that was a Sox player, all you would have heard about is that they won because a bad call went their way. Bad calls go both ways. Good teams take advantage of them.

mccoydp
04-14-2006, 11:23 AM
All of this is just another reason to keep despising the A's.

PaulDrake
04-14-2006, 11:33 AM
So if we use lifetime numbers, Paul Konerko would be on the list (80%) while Tadahito Iguchi would not (71%). Makes sense to me. That's why I find the whole Billy Beane and friends philosophy to be anal beyond redemption. These folks need to get over themselves.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-14-2006, 11:37 AM
While you don't want players to run around like a chicken with their head cut off (Ozzie Guillen for example with his 61% career rate (169 SB, 108 CS)), the only way to determine if a player is capable of stealing is letting him run (if he has the speed or letting a slow guy run when the opposition is asleep) with follow up work for players with speed who continue to make outs on the basepaths. This "work" aspect of the equation is something the A's would rather not pursue which is why they have not advanced in the playoffs since LaRussa's famous steroid bash brothers took the field. :cool:

I am actually a bit of a FOBB... but this is the downfall of using numbers to run the game. Anyone can do the same math you're doing, and figure out what you're going to do.

Luck is a major factor in any winning team (especially in short-series playoffs.) And luck only comes when you aggressively but intelligently roll the dice.

The 2005 White Sox were a very lucky team (more talent than luck- but lots of luck). They were lucky BECAUSE they tried to be.

The A's will never try to be lucky, and thus will never be.

Luck is the residue of design. Branch Rickey

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/rickey_branch.htm

chaerulez
04-14-2006, 11:41 AM
It does say the list is for GREEN LIGHT players. Meaning those players don't have to receive a steal signal, and have the freedome to take off whenever they want. So, it does make sense. You only want your most successful/smartest base stealers to make the judgement on when they should take off.

Dan Mega
04-14-2006, 11:46 AM
The question is, when will Baseball Prospectus hail this as the next great and innovative move by Billy Beane in baseball?

BP will start saying things like "Tadahito got 2 steals this week with a lifetime average of 70%. Since his stats don't fit into our flawless formulas, he was lucky to get those steals."

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 11:46 AM
It does say the list is for GREEN LIGHT players. Meaning those players don't have to receive a steal signal, and have the freedome to take off whenever they want. So, it does make sense. You only want your most successful/smartest base stealers to make the judgement on when they should take off.So Paul Konerko (80%) is a successful base stealer and should have a green light?:?:

This is a direct application of BP's stupid base stealing "analysis". They compared the average runs scored with a runner on second with the average runs scored with a runner on first and computed the average success rate required to make it a net positive. It's a classic example of why idiots shouldn't attempt statistical analysis. I'm not going to waste the bandwidth explaining again why it's BS.

SBSoxFan
04-14-2006, 11:49 AM
I'm not going to waste the bandwidth explaining again why it's BS.
Does it go something like: "people use statistics much like a drunk uses a lamppost ... for support rather than illumination." ?

PaulDrake
04-14-2006, 11:53 AM
The question is, when will Baseball Prospectus hail this as the next great and innovative move by Billy Beane in baseball?

BP will start saying things like "Tadahito got 2 steals this week with a lifetime average of 70%. Since his stats don't fit into our flawless formulas, he was lucky to get those steals." They'll say something like there's only a 70% chance he really stole them.

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Does it go something like: "people use statistics much like a drunk uses a lamppost ... for support rather than illumination." ?Not in this case. I think they actually did the analysis with an open mind and then drew the conclusion. The problem is, if the analysis is flawed, so must be the conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

downstairs
04-14-2006, 05:44 PM
I don't buy the "White Sox were lucky" argument. Weren't the Astros lucky when Jason Lane's game 3 double was ruled a HR? If that was a Sox player, all you would have heard about is that they won because a bad call went their way. Bad calls go both ways. Good teams take advantage of them.

That's not really what I meant by luck. I don't even consider "bad calls going your way" luck.

A Billy Beane follows what the numbers tell him to do, and never strays. The A's will never be all that lucky.

Having a 45% base stealer take second in a critical part of the game is statistically dumb, but if it works- its luck. And it then becomes "smart." That type of luck is critical to winning, and a good manager has to be able to roll the dice and make stuff like that happen.

The White Sox *WERE* lucky in 2005 more often than not, and more than any other team. Cora sending people he shouldn't have and having it pay off. Risky squeeze bunts working. Etc. Etc.

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 06:35 PM
That's not really what I meant by luck. I don't even consider "bad calls going your way" luck.

A Billy Beane follows what the numbers tell him to do, and never strays. The A's will never be all that lucky.

Having a 45% base stealer take second in a critical part of the game is statistically dumb, but if it works- its luck. And it then becomes "smart." That type of luck is critical to winning, and a good manager has to be able to roll the dice and make stuff like that happen.

The White Sox *WERE* lucky in 2005 more often than not, and more than any other team. Cora sending people he shouldn't have and having it pay off. Risky squeeze bunts working. Etc. Etc.I still don't agree. Cora sending people is not luck. It's just being aggressive. He's also going to get more players thrown out (or have you forgotten the "Fire Cora" threads?), but that's part of the equation.

If I can paraphrase what I think you're trying to say it's that being aggressive pays off, and that teams that never get thrown out on the basepaths are not helping themselves, because they're also missing lots of opportunities to grab an extra base. But it's not luck.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-14-2006, 06:37 PM
The White Sox *WERE* lucky in 2005 more often than not, and more than any other team. Cora sending people he shouldn't have and having it pay off. Risky squeeze bunts working. Etc. Etc.

Why was Cora wrong in sending the runners if he was successful? Isn't that the supposed goal of statistical analysis to determine what the optimal strategy is?

When the one poster cut and pasted BP's reply to the email stating he would not renew his subscription, the response stated the method BP uses to determine MLB's "power rankings" are flawed yet the author and BP continue to defend and use the flawed system (and the writer writes a column each week based on the results of the flawed system). To make matters worse, they openly ridicule those who object to their flawed system. Whether you are discussing power rankings or base stealing strategy or just about anything else BP covers, the end result is a flawed predictive model and analytical analysis.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=69287&highlight=Jay+Jaffe

I also think that the preseason ranking which provoked such ire -- a ranking that is a function of our forecasting systems, not of my personal tastes, by the way -- underestimates them for some of the same reasons last year's system did.

Fool me once (initial subscription based on a "flawed" recommendation of the product) shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.