PDA

View Full Version : BP Predictions


Lip Man 1
10-16-2007, 03:22 PM
I see our 'friends' the propeller heads at Baseball Prospectus are at it again.

They made their picks in this week's Sports Illustrated for the LCS series.

Naturally they got one wrong and may blow the hole thing.

They say 'Diamondbacks in seven...'

:rolleyes:

'Red Sox in seven...'

:?:

What a bunch of clowns.

BP can't understand in their analysis how Arizona could beat the Cubs since they struck out 37% of the time against them. They also couldn't understand how Arizona could have the league's best record yet they allowed more runs then they scored.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Guess they never heard of clutch hits, good defense and a lights out bullpen. (Funny I seem to recall those traits about another team they couldn't understand a few years ago...

LOL

Lip

chisoxfanatic
10-16-2007, 03:57 PM
I love it when Baseball Prospectus is wrong! Perhaps we should have HomeFish create a diagram to illustrate the percentage of times they are actually wrong. :D:

chisoxmike
10-16-2007, 04:02 PM
**** Bp.

TDog
10-16-2007, 06:53 PM
What does BP say about Carlos Zambrano's chances in Game 4?

Oblong
10-16-2007, 07:51 PM
yeah but how often are the non propeller heads wrong too?

Bottom line is, it's why they play the game.

Lip Man 1
10-16-2007, 09:47 PM
Oblong:

Seems to me the non propeller heads don't have as much arrogance and 'know it all' certainty that the doofuses at BP and many other stat geeks have.

Just my opinion.

Lip

Flight #24
10-16-2007, 10:07 PM
Oblong:

Seems to me the non propeller heads don't have as much arrogance and 'know it all' certainty that the doofuses at BP and many other stat geeks have.

Just my opinion.

Lip

Shows what you know and how completely wrong you can be!!!!

The plural of doofus is doofi. (the rest you got right!)

The Cubs will come back to win the series given enough games to wash out "random chance". Just you wait.

Oblong
10-17-2007, 07:54 AM
Oblong:

Seems to me the non propeller heads don't have as much arrogance and 'know it all' certainty that the doofuses at BP and many other stat geeks have.

Just my opinion.

Lip

maybe, but then again calling them things like propeller heads and stat geeks doesn't help the cause either. I am right down the middle on this type of argument. I see good and bad things on both sides of the philosphy.

ma-gaga
10-17-2007, 11:41 AM
I see our 'friends' the propeller heads at Baseball Prospectus are at it again.
...
What a bunch of clowns.


Wow. They made a prediction, and got it wrong.

What a bunch of Morons... (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93265&page=2)

C'mon. BP does what everyone else in the world does. They make guesses based on what they are seeing, plus they try to use what the data is telling them. Somehow some 'expert' like John Kruk or Tom Verducci has more clout than these guys because they don't??!??

Besides, the four teams... er... three teams left plus Arizona have been already dubbed "Moneyball 2.0" teams. And I'm sure that this management style is going to grow. ... So quite clearly BP is controlling the baseball universe. You all should get on the BP bandwagon before it's too late.

:cool:

FedEx227
10-17-2007, 12:10 PM
maybe, but then again calling them things like propeller heads and stat geeks doesn't help the cause either. I am right down the middle on this type of argument. I see good and bad things on both sides of the philosphy.

I'm the same way, I read most of the BP books, but love the scouting aspect of baseball as well.

The thing I really see which is what I think a lot of people that don't like stat-geeks, is predicting the game shouldn't be done with stats. You can't predict anything with stats.

Stats are best used as analysis, pre-season, post-season, etc. Stats can't tell you that the Rockies were going to play out of their mind baseball in the last 4 weeks of the season. Stats also don't tell you that Arizona had some very lucky games and went on a good run led by some nice pitching and timely hitting.

I love the statistical side of baseball, but I would never use it to predict a person's season, predict a matchup, etc.

Oblong
10-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Right. And anybody who tries that is not using them correctly. Sample Size is the #1 criteria. Any MLB player who's been in the league for 2 years has had a great couple of weeks at some point in their career.

The benefit of using statistics is that they strip any biases out, provide a fuller picture when the human eye cannot do that, and can be used to analyze years worth of data. But if you are talking about a short time period then all they can do is guide you but I wouldn't place any bets based on them.

But they cannot tell you how well a guy turns a double play, if he gets good breaks on balls, if he can foul off tough pitches, what his pickoff move is like, if he's mechanically unsound and due for an injury, etc. etc. etc.

Great care also needs to be done when using complicated stats like Total Runs Above Average. Every stat has it's drawbacks and those have to be kept in mind when looking at them.

A true statistician doesn't create stats to prove a point. They figure out the best way to measure things and let the results speak for themselves. If the results look too wacky then you examine the theory behind it and look for anything that might have been missed.

But it can be very helpful in learning more about the game when discussing the theory behind what to use.

Lip Man 1
10-17-2007, 02:29 PM
Gang:

You're missing the bigger picture. People like BP are ADAMENT that THEY ARE RIGHT. No team can 'possibly' win if it doesn't work in their system and they are shocked and dismayed (a la White Sox 05, Diamondbacks 07) when teams do.

IT SIMPLY CAN'T BE RIGHT! MY COMPUTER SAID SO!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Lip

Oblong
10-17-2007, 02:44 PM
and the other side is just as adamant that they are right. After all, how good can these guys be if they "never played the game" and are using "a machine" to figure things out. The talking heads at ESPN like Kruk and Morgan always rip on stat geeks yet those two are always wrong and never admit it. Morgan will just sit there in silence or offer up such wisdom, with a straight face, as "Those pitches might be 99 or 100 mph, but they are not 101"

Point is, it works both ways.

AZChiSoxFan
10-17-2007, 04:09 PM
Oblong:

Seems to me the non propeller heads don't have as much arrogance and 'know it all' certainty that the doofuses at BP and many other stat geeks have.

Just my opinion.

Lip

I share your opinion. Us "non-propeller heads" will freely admit that there are different approaches to the game and different philosophies that work at different times.

The fine folks over at BP act like they invented the game a few years back and that their way is the only way to play the game. The results of the WS in 2002, 2003 and 2005 were all just flukes. :rolleyes:

AZChiSoxFan
10-17-2007, 04:11 PM
I see our 'friends' the propeller heads at Baseball Prospectus are at it again.

They made their picks in this week's Sports Illustrated for the LCS series.

Naturally they got one wrong and may blow the hole thing.

They say 'Diamondbacks in seven...'

:rolleyes:

'Red Sox in seven...'

:?:

What a bunch of clowns.

BP can't understand in their analysis how Arizona could beat the Cubs since they struck out 37% of the time against them. They also couldn't understand how Arizona could have the league's best record yet they allowed more runs then they scored.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Guess they never heard of clutch hits, good defense and a lights out bullpen. (Funny I seem to recall those traits about another team they couldn't understand a few years ago...

LOL

Lip

As of right now, the D-backs have a 89.6578921% chance of winning the 2007 NLDS vs. the scrubs.

:rolling:

AZChiSoxFan
10-17-2007, 04:16 PM
I see good and bad things on both sides of the philosphy.

You've made our point for us though Oblong. You are a normal person. That's why you can see different philosophies that work out well. The folks over at BP are convinced there is only one way to play the game. The frustrating part (besides the complete arrogance) is that anytime the results come out different than their theory, they just label it a fluke and move on. No matter how many "flukes" happen, the theory remains the same.

AZChiSoxFan
10-17-2007, 04:21 PM
Wow. They made a prediction, and got it wrong.

What a bunch of Morons... (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93265&page=2)

C'mon. BP does what everyone else in the world does. They make guesses based on what they are seeing, plus they try to use what the data is telling them. Somehow some 'expert' like John Kruk or Tom Verducci has more clout than these guys because they don't??!??



:rolleyes:

The difference (for the 100th time) is that I've heard Kruk and Verducci admit when they were wrong. Wow, what a concept! Admit you were wrong or that your theory was incorrect without simply calling it a fluke.

Plus, unlike the pocket protector wearing crowd, Kruk has actually held a bat in his hand at some point in his life.

AZChiSoxFan
10-17-2007, 04:23 PM
Gang:

You're missing the bigger picture. People like BP are ADAMENT that THEY ARE RIGHT. No team can 'possibly' win if it doesn't work in their system and they are shocked and dismayed (a la White Sox 05, Diamondbacks 07) when teams do.

IT SIMPLY CAN'T BE RIGHT! MY COMPUTER SAID SO!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Lip

Thanks Lip. In my few years here at WSI, this might be all time favorite post!!

churlish
10-17-2007, 04:28 PM
You've made our point for us though Oblong. You are a normal person. That's why you can see different philosophies that work out well. The folks over at BP are convinced there is only one way to play the game. The frustrating part (besides the complete arrogance) is that anytime the results come over different than their theory, they just label it a fluke and move on. No matter how many "flukes" happen, the theory remains the same.

Stats can be useful, but they can be very misleading.

I think football is a little bit easier example. Mike Brown has never put up elite numbers. His stats aren't great, but the Bears defense reaches another level when he is on the field. A statistician (let's say FP) would probably write a huge report saying how Mike Brown is "overrated" but anyone who knows anything about football knows that he is probably the most valuable person on the Bears defense.

Tragg
10-17-2007, 05:55 PM
The problem with BP isn't their theories. Everyone has ideas. The problem is that when their theories prove clearly flawed, they don't adjust the theory: instead, they adjust the facts and engage in revisionism or attribute the entire outcome to "luck".

They engage in dishonest analysis.

FedEx227
10-17-2007, 06:04 PM
The problem with BP isn't their theories. Everyone has ideas. The problem is that when their theories prove clearly flawed, they don't adjust the theory: instead, they adjust the facts and engage in revisionism or attribute the entire outcome to "luck".

They engage in dishonest analysis.

That's something that always irks me about BP over other stat guys. Guys like Bill James will admit when they are wrong and adjust and change things. Tango does the same thing too. BP won't adjust but instead say what happened was wrong and VORP is right.

And from a guy who loves baseball stats and uses them very frequently it really irks me that they don't give out formulas. They flat out will not give out a formula for VORP. How the hell are you suppose to use it then? If only one office in the world can figure out the stat then it becomes worthless in my mind, because people can't test theories, re-work it, etc. Even more so, how do you know it's right?

If I can't test out that Hafner did indeed have a 67 VORP then what's the point... I could say right here that Ryan Sweeney had a 9389 TYURKURIK4 and all the other Sox outfielders only had 4541 TYURKURIK4 and under, thus Sweeney is the best OF option for the Sox. But I won't tell you how I got TYURKURIK4, but just know that it's good. That's stupid. I'd much rather try out something like Win Shares where you can see the formula, test it out, add your own things, etc.

That's why I usually defend BP, but people should know I hate them just as much as you probably do... but stat-geeks and BP are two very different things. I consider myself a baseball stat-geek but I certainly can tell the difference between LUCK and a very good bullpen and timely hitting.

Oblong
10-17-2007, 06:04 PM
I agree on the "luck" concept. I had a heated debate with someone based on the pythagorean W-L theory. I think it's a neat theory and incredibly useful but I won't go so far as to say those teams that deviate, like the Diamondbacks, are lucky. Their performance just didn't conform to it. There's lots of legitimate reasons why it happens. Nothing is airtight and it cheapens the performance to call success luck. It's not supposed to be systematic. If something works 90% of the time you don't throw it out when you get the 10% outcome.

Dave Dombrowski was asked a few years ago about the whole stats. vs scouts argument and he said it's best to use both. Stats represent infomration and you should have as much of it as you can and use it the best way you can. But you should trust your scouts and finding the right scouts is just as important. When it comes to the final decision he'll go with his scouts and staff because that's what they're there for.

Tragg
10-17-2007, 07:18 PM
I agree on the "luck" concept. I had a heated debate with someone based on the pythagorean W-L theory.
Just a minute ago I said I didn't care about theories.

Well here's one I do.
Phythagoean W/L is margin of victory: nothing more and nothing less. MOV is LEAST probative of what really happened in baseball, compared to football or most sports.
It's an absurd, lazy statistic. Absolultely lazy.

spiffie
10-17-2007, 09:10 PM
Just a minute ago I said I didn't care about theories.

Well here's one I do.
Phythagoean W/L is margin of victory: nothing more and nothing less. MOV is LEAST probative of what really happened in baseball, compared to football or most sports.
It's an absurd, lazy statistic. Absolultely lazy.
I think the Pythagorean record, and more importantly the things that deviate from it significantly can be useful as ways of seeing what parts of a team are crucial. To some degree it really is just another way of saying things that are common baseball sense. But look at teams that outperform their Pythag. They tend to be teams with solid defense, good starting pitching, and rock solid bullpens. If you're building a team, and you have to put your limited resources somewhere, you're probably better off getting a couple damn good bullpen arms than most any other thing. As a measure of "how many games you should win" I think its bunk. But as a way of seeing what teams make the most (or the least) of the runs they score, I think it is an interesting point of discussion.

ma-gaga
10-17-2007, 09:27 PM
:rolleyes:

Plus, unlike the pocket protector wearing crowd, Kruk has actually held a bat in his hand at some point in his life.

A statistician (let's say FP) would probably write a huge report saying how Mike Brown is "overrated"

You two just validated every really bad 'anti-BP' stereotype.

John Kruk is a better analyst because he held a bat. Brilliant.

And the second example is really really bad. It has absolutely no basis in reality and is something that you've completely made up.

Look, you can make an argument that they've made asses of themselves in the past and I won't argue. But this entire thread is a complete and utter bull**** attack on BP and you have no idea what they actually said because Lip doesn't know how to link to an online article, or this article doesn't exist online, and the only thing that you are "arguing" is your somewhat mis-informed preconceptions and Lip's description of the article.

Lip Man 1
10-17-2007, 10:01 PM
Ma Gaga

The story is on pages 41 and 43 of the Sporting News with the Rockies Jeff Francis on the cover. Feel free to read it yourself.

Daver in the past has had a pretty good explanation about all this. If he's in the area perhaps he'll elaborate.

My beef with these know it all's is this...baseball can't be measured on a computer because a computer can't accurately (or inaccurately) measure heart, guts, injuries and fluke things (like say the weather) that all influence and effect the outcome of a 162 game season.

Yet in many cases these savants who 'grace' us with their VORP's and OBP's act like they and they alone dictate how the game will be played and what the results will be.

Trust me, what Frank Thomas hits against right handed pitchers with six or less letters in their last name on every other Tuesday under a full moon have ZERO relevance to the game and how it's played. These people have gone beyond rationality with their meaningless stats that seemingly only they can understand. (I have this mental image of a 35 year old sitting in front of his computer in his mother's basement slobbering in anticipation of 'discovering' still ANOTHER useless stat.)



Lip

Tragg
10-17-2007, 10:50 PM
I think the Pythagorean record, and more importantly the things that deviate from it significantly can be useful as ways of seeing what parts of a team are crucial. To some degree it really is just another way of saying things that are common baseball sense. But look at teams that outperform their Pythag. .That's why it's a weak stat. It's inaccurate. It ignores or, to use their parlance, undervalues things that win baseball games like pitching and defense (and BP's theories on pitching are weak, on defense they are embarassingly bad; offensively I think they're interesting). Starting pitching and defense aren't going to win many 15-6 games. Winning games that way is how you stack up pythagorean wins.
i.e. it's a stupid stat.

I admire good statistical analysis, founded on solid statistical science and mathematics. Pythagorean wins is a lazy, mathematically flawed statistic.

TDog
10-18-2007, 01:22 AM
That's why it's a weak stat. It's inaccurate. It ignores or, to use their parlance, undervalues things that win baseball games like pitching and defense (and BP's theories on pitching are weak, on defense they are embarassingly bad; offensively I think they're interesting). Starting pitching and defense aren't going to win many 15-6 games. Winning games that way is how you stack up pythagorean wins.
i.e. it's a stupid stat.

I admire good statistical analysis, founded on solid statistical science and mathematics. Pythagorean wins is a lazy, mathematically flawed statistic.

Precisely. When I was 12, the White Sox lost a lot of one-run games. Because the summer I turned 13, the White Sox ended up losing 106 games, the few White Sox fans there were used to believe that losing games by one run were an indication that they weren't so bad. (I've heard announcers talking about how their team is in every game, as if that makes last place not count.) I read in The Sporting News midseason that the Tigers we about a dozen games over .500 in one-run games. That's not very good, I thought. I was a kid and hadn't figured out that good teams win most of their close games. BP sometimes reminds me of 12-year-old math whizzes tying to apply their academic knowledge to a game they don't understand.

Pythagorean win totals are meaningless and arbitrary in isolation. I am more impressed by a team like the Diamondbacks who finished with a run differential that shows they know how to win close games.

Lip Man 1
10-18-2007, 11:26 AM
Well I think the Twins completely blew up that pythagorian theory three years in a row when BP consistently kept saying they couldn't possibly be winning as many games as they did, let alone win the division...

Yet "somehow" they did.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
10-18-2007, 11:56 AM
John Kruk is a better analyst because he held a bat. Brilliant.



I knew this would be misunderstood. I'm not here to hold up Kruk as the be-all-end-all of analysts. My point was simply that sometimes I wonder if the Mensa's over at BP ever actully watch baseball games or just simulate them on their computers.

Here's to Lip and Tragg for making much better points in this thread than I did. :gulp:

AZChiSoxFan
10-18-2007, 11:57 AM
The problem with BP isn't their theories. Everyone has ideas. The problem is that when their theories prove clearly flawed, they don't adjust the theory: instead, they adjust the facts and engage in revisionism or attribute the entire outcome to "luck".

They engage in dishonest analysis.

Beautiful!!

AZChiSoxFan
10-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Trust me, what Frank Thomas hits against right handed pitchers with six or less letters in their last name on every other Tuesday under a full moon have ZERO relevance to the game and how it's played. These people have gone beyond rationality with their meaningless stats that seemingly only they can understand. (I have this mental image of a 35 year old sitting in front of his computer in his mother's basement slobbering in anticipation of 'discovering' still ANOTHER useless stat.)




CLASSIC!!!!

LOL!!!

SABRSox
10-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Oblong:

Seems to me the non propeller heads don't have as much arrogance and 'know it all' certainty that the doofuses at BP and many other stat geeks have.

Just my opinion.

Lip

Ha! The anti "propeller heads" are worse than the "propeller heads" themselves.

Oblong
10-18-2007, 12:17 PM
Well I think the Twins completely blew up that pythagorian theory three years in a row when BP consistently kept saying they couldn't possibly be winning as many games as they did, let alone win the division...

Yet "somehow" they did.

Lip

Somehow I don't think this is actually what they said. Yes, teams deviate from the theory and those with good or bad bullpens are the most likely culprits. It's not a mystery.

Again, my original point holds true. There is arrogance, as evidenced in this thread, on both sides.

Unless a person can watch every inning and every game and have a photographic memory, then numbers have to be used. Then the challenge becomes, what numbers to use and how to use them. Relying on ESPN highlights gets you Roberto Alomar Gold Gloves.

chaerulez
10-18-2007, 12:49 PM
Somehow I don't think this is actually what they said. Yes, teams deviate from the theory and those with good or bad bullpens are the most likely culprits. It's not a mystery.

Again, my original point holds true. There is arrogance, as evidenced in this thread, on both sides.

Unless a person can watch every inning and every game and have a photographic memory, then numbers have to be used. Then the challenge becomes, what numbers to use and how to use them. Relying on ESPN highlights gets you Roberto Alomar Gold Gloves.

Right, you can't rely on just stats but you can't ignore them either. Stats that were recently introduced have proven that Derek Jeter is a below average fielder. Yet he somehow has Gold Gloves. If these stats exists in the 80's they probably would've exposed players such as Ryne Sandberg. OBP is important too. Hitting .300 isn't that impressive if you barely draw a walk and your OBP is .310. Hitting .280 and having a .360 OBP likely means you are a better hitter. With that said, like with all sports there is a luck factor and the fact that anything can happen in the game. Such as the St. Louis Cardinals that were able to win it all last year, beating two teams that were clearly better on paper on the way. This applies to all sports. The miracle on ice, Appl. State beating Michigan, the Patriots beating the Rams, Chaminade beating Virgina. You can't use stats or a computer model to predict a season, playoff series, etc. Well you can, but you can't say it's gospel like BP does. A prediction is that, just a prediction. Ask ESPN how those go when they predicted the NFC Championship Game last year.

Oblong
10-18-2007, 12:57 PM
What often happens is, BP or a "propeller head" will say something like "This is going to happen 92.52345% of the time". Then when something falls into that 7.47655% everybody jumps on them as dorks.

It's like blackjack theory. THe best theories work well over time. But if you tried to apply it in one evening of playing and were hoping to make some money just that one time, then don't be surprised when it doesn't happen. It doesn't mean the theory is unsound.

These projections are not meant to be used in a single game or series. It's just an application of tools for informational purposes. I highly doubt anybody there is giving any thought to why AZ beat the Cubs because everybody knows that anything can happen in a 5 game series.

TDog
10-18-2007, 02:27 PM
... I highly doubt anybody there is giving any thought to why AZ beat the Cubs because everybody knows that anything can happen in a 5 game series.

Anything CAN happen in a five game series. For example, I saw the possibility that the Cubs could win one game to make it a four-game series. But I didn't see any way the Cubs were going to beat Arizona Diamondbacks in this year's NLDS. I posted as much before the series began.

I didn't crunch statistical numbers to reach that conclusion. I just followed baseball.

If short series are so unpredictable because they are short series, maybe the people at BP should flip coins. They might have more success.

Oblong
10-18-2007, 02:37 PM
but what does it matter how they reach their conclusions?

AZChiSoxFan
10-18-2007, 03:40 PM
What often happens is, BP or a "propeller head" will say something like "This is going to happen 92.52345% of the time". Then when something falls into that 7.47655% everybody jumps on them as dorks.


Do you mean like when the Sox had already clinched the div in '05 and even then they still only said the Sox had a 94.988913184867454131354154644% chance of winning the div?

Lip Man 1
10-18-2007, 03:44 PM
It matters when they pontificate how great their theories are and why everyone needs to be using their approach.

Look they screw up, a lot... A REAL LOT. All I'm asking for like Tragg says, is to ADMIT you blew it.

That's it.

Don't right away act like 'how dare those White Sox blow our theories to hell. How dare those Twins...or Diamondbacks.'

Joe Sheehan is an arrogant moron who if memory serves tried to post here a few times. Needless to say he wasn't well received.

And the biggest reason for that was his 'attitude' and the attitude of his ilk.

Stats aren't the be all and end all that some of these folks make it out to be. I mean they only played baseball for 85 years or so before these numbers (that few can understand) suddenly became SO important.

My God how did those 'rubes' back in the 40's, 50's and 60's survive???

:rolleyes:

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
10-18-2007, 03:45 PM
These projections are not meant to be used in a single game or series. It's just an application of tools for informational purposes. I highly doubt anybody there is giving any thought to why AZ beat the Cubs because everybody knows that anything can happen in a 5 game series.

Ahhh, the old Billy Beane cry. I love it. Anything that happens in the postseason is pure chance. Oak goes to the playoffs all these years with nothing to show for it, so naturally the cry is essentially that "the postseason is all about luck." :rolleyes:

I wish I could work for BP. Make up any theory you want (mine would the DFGNGSAFOGFDGNGFGFDGLG factor), then when it doesn't work, spout out some BS about it being a fluke.

Oblong
10-18-2007, 05:00 PM
or you can just make stuff up about heart, intangibles, guts, etc. You know, those things that are another word for talent that doesn't exist.

Yes, a short series can be luck or flukes. There are things required for success over the long season can not be as important in a 5 or 7 game series, especially in today's playoff environment where there's so many off days.

The blackjack analogy still stands. You might get a hunch on 17 and a hand or two but if you do that long enough you will lose.

The funny thing is, I see just as much attitude and arrogance from your side of things. It's strictly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Daver
10-18-2007, 05:26 PM
The funny thing is, I see just as much attitude and arrogance from your side of things. It's strictly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


No it isn't.

I will admit when I predict something dead wrong, I picked the Phillies to win it all this year, I was wrong.

The fine folks at BP will not only not admit they are wrong, they will produce a set of numbers that they say prove that the outcome was wrong. That is arrogance personified.


Joe Sheehan and the rest of his proppellerhead crew can kiss my redneck ass.

Lip Man 1
10-18-2007, 06:46 PM
Once again Daver has a way of putting things into perspective!

Well done!

:smile:

Lip

Oblong
10-18-2007, 06:54 PM
Ahhh, the old Billy Beane cry. I love it. Anything that happens in the postseason is pure chance. Oak goes to the playoffs all these years with nothing to show for it, so naturally the cry is essentially that "the postseason is all about luck." :rolleyes:

I wish I could work for BP. Make up any theory you want (mine would the DFGNGSAFOGFDGNGFGFDGLG factor), then when it doesn't work, spout out some BS about it being a fluke.

Do you believe that every team that wins a post season series is a better team than who they beat? It's an honest question, not trying to be rhetorical.

But I'm done with this topic becaus I don't want to stick up for them anymore. The stat side people do a lot of things that I don't like and I don't want to give the impression that I'm one of them. There's a lot of people, on both sides, who refuse to admit they were wrong and try to come up with other reasons to justify their wrongness. It's a game and things happen that we can't predict.

As for myself, before the post season started I had the Angels beating the Padres. Then when they didn't get in, I had the Angels beating the Phillies. 3 teams and not one win.

The Immigrant
10-18-2007, 07:26 PM
Any White Sox fans inclined to defend the arrogant jagbags at BP should read this open letter by Will Carroll and note that he only added the post-script after the letter was already published: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=554. It is beyond me why Carroll and the rest of his nerdery playmates are so fixated on the White Sox.

TommyJohn
10-18-2007, 08:12 PM
Any White Sox fans inclined to defend the arrogant jagbags at BP should read this open letter by Will Carroll and note that he only added the post-script after the letter was already published: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=554. It is beyond me why Carroll and the rest of his nerdery playmates are so fixated on the White Sox.

Now THAT is arrogance personified. They were dead wrong in 2005 and heard about it. Now that they nailed it in 2007 they want to rub everyone's face in it? And guessing that the 72-90 record on the head? THAT was a fluke. That was pure luck. Get the hell over yourselves.

P.S. Anyone who is offended at the insults Lip has been hurling at them needs to read that. I used to think he was a little over-the-top with what he said. I don't any longer.

FarWestChicago
10-18-2007, 09:37 PM
The benefit of using statistics is that they strip any biases out...
A true statistician doesn't create stats to prove a point. They figure out the best way to measure things and let the results speak for themselves...You realize you have just posted the exact opposite of what BP does and stands for? They abuse statistics, invent statistics to support their personal biases. That is the whole problem.

rdivaldi
10-19-2007, 10:29 AM
When BP is wrong they love to use the word "luck", I think we all know that. There have been so many ridiculous stats and theories over there, I've lost count. Anyone remember "pitcher abuse points"?

chisox77
10-19-2007, 07:23 PM
I know it makes for good discussion, but whether it's BP, ESPN, WGN, or whatever, does it really matter what these people think about the White Sox?

:rolleyes:

pierzynski07
10-19-2007, 10:30 PM
I know it makes for good discussion, but whether it's BP, ESPN, WGN, or whatever, does it really matter what these people think about the White Sox?

:rolleyes:
I think I can speak for everyone in this board (or at least the WTS folder) and say YES!

rdivaldi
10-20-2007, 08:15 AM
I know it makes for good discussion, but whether it's BP, ESPN, WGN, or whatever, does it really matter what these people think about the White Sox?

:rolleyes:

Actually it does matter for one big reason, $$$. Whether we like it or not, the national media affects how we are perceived by the general population. Negative stories create negative feelings which equals less fans through the gates. Until MLB has a salary cap I will continue to harp on journalists/bloggers.

Oblong
10-20-2007, 09:13 AM
BP definately gives those who prefer a statistical approach a bad name. Their approach is all wrong. One of the reasons it's favorable to use stats over visual observation is that it should remove emotion and biases, which we all have. But they just throw it right back in all the time. I totally understand the resentment towards them specifically but remember, they may be the most prevalent proponent of that philosphy but they are not the only ones nor are they the best ones.

FarWestChicago
10-20-2007, 09:23 AM
BP definately gives those who prefer a statistical approach a bad name. Their approach is all wrong. One of the reasons it's favorable to use stats over visual observation is that it should remove emotion and biases, which we all have. But they just throw it right back in all the time. I totally understand the resentment towards them specifically but remember, they may be the most prevalent proponent of that philosphy but they are not the only ones nor are they the best ones.This is true. I like statistics and always found Bill James interesting. The BP guys are just a bunch of losers who would have gotten stuffed in lockers or garbage cans (or even received dirty swirlies) in high school. They might "write" about baseball, but they've never even gotten to second base. :redneck

Lip Man 1
10-20-2007, 11:24 AM
With less then six letters in his last name!

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2007, 11:39 AM
Haaaaaaaa not even hyperbolic criticism in the least. Classic Lip.

wassagstdu
10-20-2007, 01:10 PM
So BP predicted the Sox would finish 72-90 and they finished 72-90. Based on an aging lineup they probably did take into account the likelihood of some injuries. So the team essentially performed according to their stats. They won in 2005 because they had something in addition to their stats. Is that really different from what we all know from watching the teams?

Was the "something" that was missing in 2007 luck? Some think it was good luck that AJ didn't take the K for granted and ran to first (and Crede followed with a double), that Uribe caught that foul, and that the Sox got four consecutive complete games in the ALCS. Bad luck that the Cubs collapsed after Bartman got in the way. Baseball fans know differently.

Oblong
10-20-2007, 01:31 PM
luck is when you get the outcome that you don't prefer.

AZChiSoxFan
10-22-2007, 12:59 PM
Any White Sox fans inclined to defend the arrogant jagbags at BP should read this open letter by Will Carroll and note that he only added the post-script after the letter was already published: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=554. It is beyond me why Carroll and the rest of his nerdery playmates are so fixated on the White Sox.

What a bunch of tools.

AZChiSoxFan
10-22-2007, 01:05 PM
The funny thing is, I see just as much attitude and arrogance from your side of things. It's strictly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

No Oblong, it's not that simple. I prefer a style of play that the Angels utilize and that Ozzie at least gives lip service to. However, I have never stated that the Earl Weaver style doesn't work (Yes, it's true, Earl Weaver and others played this way before the geeks at BP claimed to have invented it). Two different methods of play that both work. However, the fine folks over at BP would tell you that the Earl Weaver method is in fact the only method that will win games (again, despite the fact that they claim to have invented this style of play that Weaver utilized years before they were born). What happened with the Angels in 2002, the fish in 2003 and the Sox in 2005 were all just flukes.

Oblong
10-22-2007, 01:34 PM
when did they claim to invent it?

FedEx227
10-22-2007, 01:40 PM
when did they claim to invent it?

The argument is worthless. The "We hate stat-geeks" crowd never actually reads anything BP puts out, they just make wild claims about it.

I've heard BP countless times give credit to Earl Weaver for being the first to utilize the method, I believe they even have a whole chapter about it in Baseball Between the Numbers.

And they never said 03 for the Marlins was a fluke, again they have a chapter in Baseball Between the Numbers that says the Marlins might be more genius then we see in their methods of rebuilding and the subsequent talent they assemble in those years.

With that all being said, I'm not a BP-proponent in the least. Will Carroll is a moron and I hate PECOTA. But don't throw all the others that work there and the people who enjoy the statistical side of baseball under the bus without having some evidence to back up your wild claims that BP claims to have inveted Earl Weaver's style of baseball which they have attributed to him countless times.

Oblong
10-22-2007, 01:59 PM
They also credit Branch Rickey as being the real father of sabermetrics.

I think a distinction needs to be made between "stat guys" and specific people at a specific publication. For every Sheehan spouting nonsense on one side there's a Joe Morgan spouting nonsense on the other. That doesn't mean the whole lot is full of idiots.

Daver
10-22-2007, 07:09 PM
The argument is worthless. The "We hate stat-geeks" crowd never actually reads anything BP puts out, they just make wild claims about it.


You would be dead wrong, I pay for a yearly subscription to BP , mostly for the amusement factor, articles by Will Carroll on the importance of pitch counts when he has never pitched an inning in his life tend to amuse me to no end. Perhaps I am just easily amused.

FarWestChicago
10-22-2007, 07:33 PM
I've heard BP countless times give credit to Earl Weaver for being the first to utilize the method, I believe they even have a whole chapter about it in Baseball Between the Numbers. :fobbgod:

Liars!! I invented Weaver ball!!

A. Cavatica
10-22-2007, 07:54 PM
This is true. I like statistics and always found Bill James interesting. The BP guys are just a bunch of losers who would have gotten stuffed in lockers or garbage cans (or even received dirty swirlies) in high school. They might "write" about baseball, but they've never even gotten to second base. :redneck

West, I agree 100%. And I think their 72-90 prediction was pretty damn lucky, but still -- they called the shot. Nobody else did.

HerzogVon
10-23-2007, 06:14 AM
BP, huh? I can only guess...

Which of these comes the closest?
a. Batting Practice
b. Blood pressure
c. British Petroleum
d. Bi-polar
e. ( speaking of bi-polar ) Ban Piersal?

What's that old expression again? Oh, yeah: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Got that from a Dr. Runkle, head of the Carroll College Psychology Dept. back in the late 60s. { Taking no sides in this argument; just a naif who never heard of BP. }

HerzogVon
10-23-2007, 06:22 AM
Please ignore my previous post. ( Not that you don't already do that. )

Sorry, Lip. ( Should have gone back to the top of the thread. Damn toothache! )