White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #316  
Old 07-18-2018, 01:02 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 15,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
I appreciate your position, but if front offices are not considering it one of the major metrics anymore, maybe we should think about changing, too.
I'm not so sure that that's the case, I'm 99.9% sure I've read a Ken Rosenthal article talking about Harper where some unnamed executive said something along the lines of a .214 batting average is always a red flag, which would suggest they pay attention to it.

I'd imagine, and I have no way of knowing this, I THINK that there isn't a single or even group of metrics that front offices look at, I think they look at the whole picture and then compare those stats to what their scouts are seeing.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
  #317  
Old 07-18-2018, 03:02 PM
Foulke You Foulke You is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 10,164
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyJohn View Post
Didnít Levine or someone write a Schwarber article in which he did compare him to Babe Ruth in terms of his power?.
Yes he did. If you have the stomach to make it through this. Here it is:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/02...inues-to-grow/


Fun fact: I once got into a Twitter debate with Tribune writer Teddy Greenstein who tried to DENY that the media openly compared Schwarber to Babe Ruth. I produced this slobbering Bruce Levine article as one of the many examples backing my claim.
__________________
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." -George Carlin
  #318  
Old 07-18-2018, 03:34 PM
TommyJohn TommyJohn is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,787
Blog Entries: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foulke You View Post
Yes he did. If you have the stomach to make it through this. Here it is:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/02...inues-to-grow/


Fun fact: I once got into a Twitter debate with Tribune writer Teddy Greenstein who tried to DENY that the media openly compared Schwarber to Babe Ruth. I produced this slobbering Bruce Levine article as one of the many examples backing my claim.
Awesome
  #319  
Old 07-18-2018, 06:50 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc
Harper is not the best case to demonstrate that strikeouts don’t matter, since his decline in production can be directly attributed to his decline in contact rate. Furthermore, he has shown in the past that he can produce these kind of power numbers without striking out so much, meaning it can’t be said that he is striking out more in an attempt to maintain his power numbers. In other words, some of those strikeouts were HRs, doubles, triples, and yes precious singles (#OBP, #Advancing Runners, #RBI Opportunities, #Much Better Than Making An Out, And Even Better Than a Walk (duh!)) in previous seasons.
No one said anything about strikeouts. The fact that Harper’s strikeout percentage is up (24.6, 3.7% higher than his career average) plays no part in an analysis based on BABIP. The point is that a .226 BABIP suggests that his .214 overall average is due for a pretty sizable increase in the second half. In fact, such a low BABIP suggests that the increase in strikeouts is a relatively minor factor in his regression; the problem is not so much the increased lack of contact as it is the horrible results he is getting on the contact he does make.

Lowering Harper’s strikeouts from his current 102 down to 86, which is in line with his career norms, we would end up with about 15 more balls in play (1 of the 16 non-strikeouts likely would leave the park). With a BABIP of .226, only 3, maybe 4, of those 15 balls in play would be hits. His overall average would climb from .214 to .226 or .229 as a result, still a far cry from his historical outputs.

Besides, the increased strikeouts have been accompanied by an even higher increase in walks (18.8%, 4.4% higher than his career average), which means that a return to career norms in BABIP likely would result in even better overall out avoidance despite the uptick in strikeouts.

In other words, if I have to choose between a .380-ish OBP player who strikes out 25% of the time or a .350-ish OBP player who strikes out only 20% (or 15%, or any %) of the time, I’m going to take the extra non-outs over the extra “pretty” outs 100 times out of 100. You should, too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and letís fight tomorrow.

Last edited by Mohoney; 07-18-2018 at 07:08 PM.
  #320  
Old 07-18-2018, 09:31 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,959
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
I appreciate your position, but if front offices are not considering it one of the major metrics anymore, maybe we should think about changing, too.

Mr. Galileo, we appreciate your position regarding a heliocentric universe but the rest of the world believes in a geocentric universe. Please cease in promoting your position in public. Maybe you should think about changing your position too.


Group think: not always a good thing.
__________________
ďThere were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. Georgeís great strength was he didnít overcoach. Thereís no place for panic on the mound.Ē - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger ďArms and the man,Ē Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
  #321  
Old 07-18-2018, 09:41 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Mr. Galileo, we appreciate your position regarding a heliocentric universe but the rest of the world believes in a geocentric universe. Please cease in promoting your position in public. Maybe you should think about changing your position too.


Group think: not always a good thing.
I canít be the only one here who is overwhelmed by the irony in this post.
  #322  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:07 PM
TommyJohn TommyJohn is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,787
Blog Entries: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Mr. Galileo, we appreciate your position regarding a heliocentric universe but the rest of the world believes in a geocentric universe. Please cease in promoting your position in public. Maybe you should think about changing your position too.


Group think: not always a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
I canít be the only one here who is overwhelmed by the irony in this post.
Huh?
  #323  
Old 07-18-2018, 11:52 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyJohn
Huh?
Galileo used empirical evidence to make informed decisions that directly contradicted long-held conventions in astronomy. If anything, Sabermetrics adherents should be the ones compared to Galileo, not the other way around.
  #324  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:33 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 33,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Group think: not always a good thing.


Well done!
  #325  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:40 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 33,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Galileo used empirical evidence to make informed decisions that directly contradicted long-held conventions in astronomy. If anything, Sabermetrics adherents should be the ones compared to Galileo, not the other way around.
Except Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. The ones who are being "persecuted" today are the folks who don't adhere to the "stat based/mathematical" way to play the game.

Many, not all, but many of the stat folks come across as arrogant, know- it- all's (or think they know it all) with nothing but derision to anyone who don't buy into their "religion." Many won't even stoop to listening to anyone's else's point of view because they are so convinced of their "righteousness."

Many, not all, will spend hours upon hours combing historical data bases, looking up stats, printing out spreadsheets to "prove" that they are "right" over the most mundane, obscure stat...things like what Mike Trout hits against left handed pitchers in the 6th inning or later in home games on Tuesday nights with the temperature above 76 degrees. And they swear that's important! (LOL)

That not baseball... that's somebody who needs some serious help

If it can't be filed, indexed, checked, rechecked, collated, compared, sorted or put on a graph it has no place in baseball! None! By God!

Sorry Mahoney, I respect your passion (fanaticism?) and I'm not trying to attack you personally. I've run into far to many of the ilk I described earlier in this post. They need a big dose of humility / reality in my opinion.

Last edited by Lip Man 1; 07-19-2018 at 12:54 AM.
  #326  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:33 AM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 6,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Except Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. The ones who are being "persecuted" today are the folks who don't adhere to the "stat based/mathematical" way to play the game.

Many, not all, but many of the stat folks come across as arrogant, know- it- all's (or think they know it all) with nothing but derision to anyone who don't buy into their "religion." Many won't even stoop to listening to anyone's else's point of view because they are so convinced of their "righteousness."

Many, not all, will spend hours upon hours combing historical data bases, looking up stats, printing out spreadsheets to "prove" that they are "right" over the most mundane, obscure stat...things like what Mike Trout hits against left handed pitchers in the 6th inning or later in home games on Tuesday nights with the temperature above 76 degrees. And they swear that's important! (LOL)

That not baseball... that's somebody who needs some serious help

If it can't be filed, indexed, checked, rechecked, collated, compared, sorted or put on a graph it has no place in baseball! None! By God!

Sorry Mahoney, I respect your passion (fanaticism?) and I'm not trying to attack you personally. I've run into far to many of the ilk I described earlier in this post. They need a big dose of humility / reality in my opinion.

For me, we just need more baseball fans. If they come to the game or derive enjoyment of the game through sabermetrics, hitting behind the runner, a big scoreboard, grindiness, the diamond sock patch, their fantasy baseball team, bobbleheads, the ability to lay down a bunt or any other reason -- it's all good. It's a great game. All are welcome. Except obnoxious Cubs fans.
__________________
2018 Attendance Record: 5-7
All time Sox Attendance Tracker:

277-241.
  #327  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:39 AM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Galileo used empirical evidence to make informed decisions that directly contradicted long-held conventions in astronomy. If anything, Sabermetrics adherents should be the ones compared to Galileo, not the other way around.
Don't you dare bring all that fancy math and science around here! It's only groupthink.

The irony is truly magnetic. I love the healthy debate but the moment that the opinions (and empirical evidence!!!) that's actually being used by the executives and players that actually do the professional baseball that we are fans of is dismissed as "groupthink" is the moment the debate's not worth having. Like trying to push the bloody rock of Gibraltar.

I mean seriously guys, we might be die-hard fans and all that but these guys have played and watched ten times more baseball than we ever will. Not saying that means they're wrong, but when they ALL start to pick up on the same thing, I'd say their judgment is probably a lot more informed by reality than our nostalgic memory of the Go-Go Sox.
  #328  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:48 AM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Many, not all, but many of the stat folks come across as arrogant, know- it- all's (or think they know it all) with nothing but derision to anyone who don't buy into their "religion." Many won't even stoop to listening to anyone's else's point of view because they are so convinced of their "righteousness."

Many, not all, will spend hours upon hours combing historical data bases, looking up stats, printing out spreadsheets to "prove" that they are "right" over the most mundane, obscure stat...things like what Mike Trout hits against left handed pitchers in the 6th inning or later in home games on Tuesday nights with the temperature above 76 degrees. And they swear that's important! (LOL)

That not baseball... that's somebody who needs some serious help

If it can't be filed, indexed, checked, rechecked, collated, compared, sorted or put on a graph it has no place in baseball! None! By God!


Sorry Mahoney, I respect your passion (fanaticism?) and I'm not trying to attack you personally. I've run into far to many of the ilk I described earlier in this post. They need a big dose of humility / reality in my opinion.
Lip, you are astoundingly excellent at constructing straw men. Tell me how your bolded paragraph is any less condescending than what you claim is coming from our side of the debate? You're a step a way from the "they're just computer geeks living in Mom's basement" argument. I spent four years playing decently competitive college baseball in the not so distant past, and I choose to subscribe to these ideas because I think they make sense given all the baseball that I watch and have played, not because I think that numbers are the end-all be-all of anything. Please, check yourself. Nobody is attacking you or your experience with baseball, and none of us knows more than the other so stop acting like the side of the debate you disagree with doesn't actually know what's "important" about it.
  #329  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:19 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 8,679
Default

A biologist, a chemist, and a statistician are out hunting. The biologist shoots at a deer and misses 5ft to the left, the chemist takes a shot and misses 5ft to the right, the statistician yells "We got 'em!"
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." ó George Orwell
  #330  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:19 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 33,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzh View Post
Lip, you are astoundingly excellent at constructing straw men. Tell me how your bolded paragraph is any less condescending than what you claim is coming from our side of the debate?
MZH: I thought it was time to meet out something to the "other" side for a change.

And my comment is not so far fetched, I've seen (and so have you) some of the most obtuse, nonsensical, immaterial "facts" spit out by some of the stat folks that have little to no bearing on the game...none... and yet some, again not all, think they are as important as the Constitution.

I'll never forget the drama regarding their prediction for the Sox in 2005 by BP and then when Sox fans called them out on it in droves as the season progressed and they won it all, the reply from the editor (and I think it was posted here) was so arrogant, dismissive of Sox fans it bordered on a "hissy fit". He refused to even acknowledge that BP completely ****ed up their prediction.

That's probably the single defining moment when I started to form my opinion of those who think that everything can be categorized, defined and graphed and that you need a degree in advanced math to understand what the hell they are talking about. Plus their arrogance is failing to understand that you simply can't measure the intangibles which often impact a season as much if not more than all the advanced metrics in the world.

I think there is a place in baseball for statistical research. I also think the "fanatics" need a big dose of humility. They are not the "be-all / end all."

Just my opinion that I've been wanting to get off my chest for some time. If any of the "stat-folks" are offended, my apologies. But I'd also suggest giving some consideration to my comments and perhaps change some things.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.