Is there a baseball-specific term for luddites? Saberluddite?

meanmutton: WhyteRaven74: A good pitcher off to a rough start? Yeah, that never happens.

They can't all be Justin Verlander.

It's funny because Verlander traditionally has bad Aprils, but not this year! I get jokes!

(No, seriously, I started to write this whole big post about Verlander, and then...I get jokes, eventually.)

Sandor at the Zoo: Is there a baseball-specific term for luddites? Saberluddite?

The PC term is "traditionalist."

DeWayne Mann: The only thing worth worrying about is the fact that Lince stopped throwing the slider. He threw it 15% of the time last year, and it was arguably his second best pitch. If he's not throwing it for health reasons...that's not good.

Is he actually not throwing it? PitchFX says he's throwing it more often than ever.

Yanks_RSJ: Is he actually not throwing it? PitchFX says he's throwing it more often than ever.

He's throwing a cutter, which PitchFX is picking up a slider because it expects him to throw a slider.

DeWayne Mann: Uncle Pooky: I haven't mentioned ERA... so no, I won't go with it. My point about a pitcher's stats (specifically, the stats you mentioned) being hard to assign a value to was because of the team aspect. If the Giants, as a whole, suck when Lincecum is pitching, then all those excellent pitching stats provide nothing of merit. While they may point to a pitcher being "good," at the end of the day there's 24 other guys on the roster who also contribute to the team's record - which is the only stat that matters.

Do you really not see the problem in this paragraph?

Yeah, I don't have a hard on for a bunch of pitcher-specific statistics. I like it when my team wins. I get pissed off when they lose. I'm a fan of a team.

Rex_Banner: A really good major league pitcher who is only 28 years old doesn't suddenly get hit THAT much harder unless:

a) there is an injury that he's hiding or doesn't know about
b) it's a statistical anomaly

He's striking out a lot of guys, which really makes me think he's healthy. That leaves option B.

I'm a little more on the side of injury. His fastball velocity for the last four years:

'09 : 92.4
'10 : 91.2
'11 : 92.2
'12 : 90.3

But then again, his SwStr% is above his career average and he has a tendency for random awful stretches so this could be just nonsense that will sort itself out in a couple weeks.

homarjr: AdmirableSnackbar: DeWayne Mann: AdmirableSnackbar: while still managing to inaccurately portray certain players' worth.

That's because you're defining worth wrong. Unless you believe some people are naturally luckier than others.

WTF does that even mean? How do you know how I'm defining worth? What does luck have to do with this conversation?

My point is that I'll take most simple stats plus the "eyeball test" over most advanced stats any day in baseball. Most advanced stats are interesting anecdotes but people take them way, way too seriously when determining how good a player is (usually without watching him play).

Luck has everything to do with this conversation. FIP is "fielding independent pitching". It takes the luck out of the equation, because fielders generally do the right thing.

And the only "eyeball" test I see with Timmy is that his velocity is a little down, which means his changeup isn't as effective. This is a major problem, but it's only April and he's one of the best in the league. I think he'll correct himself sooner rather than later.

See, I'm not just talking about Lincecum here, I'm talking about the stat geekery that takes the fun out of the game. And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation. The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch. Is there an advance statistic for pitchers who shake off their catcher to throw the pitch he wants to throw instead of the pitch he should throw, getting lit up for his decision? To me, stat geeks miss the forest for the trees.

AdmirableSnackbar: See, I'm not just talking about Lincecum here, I'm talking about the stat geekery that takes the fun out of the game. And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation. The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch. Is there an advance statistic for pitchers who shake off their catcher to throw the pitch he wants to throw instead of the pitch he should throw, getting lit up for his decision? To me, stat geeks miss the forest for the trees.

Yeah, but masturbating over 'intangibles' has the utterly useless Juan Pierre leading off for the Phillies, which makes me about as angry as I can get about baseball in April. (not terribly angry).

you have pee hands: AdmirableSnackbar: See, I'm not just talking about Lincecum here, I'm talking about the stat geekery that takes the fun out of the game. And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation. The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch. Is there an advance statistic for pitchers who shake off their catcher to throw the pitch he wants to throw instead of the pitch he should throw, getting lit up for his decision? To me, stat geeks miss the forest for the trees.

Yeah, but masturbating over 'intangibles' has the utterly useless Juan Pierre leading off for the Phillies, which makes me about as angry as I can get about baseball in April. (not terribly angry).

Really? I thought it was injuries, not intangibles. Then again, Victorino being a moron and Rollins being unfit to lead off due to his desire to be a power hitter are intangibles that factor into that decision as well.

And I really don't mind Pierre leading off, I just wish it was the JP from three to five years ago and not this year's version.

DeWayne Mann: MugzyBrown: c) He's lost control of one of his pitches and is able to maximize his other pitches for some batters, but not others.

Research, please.

Wait, first you complain when someone calls you out on your bad analogy.
Then, you speculate that he's injured, with no research to indicate such.
Finally, you pull the "citiation needed" card on someone else and strike down their factual but anecdotal data when you don't even have an injury report?

Statheads are such literalistic douches I'd at least expect some consistency.

Since we're on the topic -- I like ERA. It's not a perfect stat but it's good enough, familiar, and simple to figure out while watching the game.

meanmutton: Since we're on the topic -- I like ERA. It's not a perfect stat but it's good enough, familiar, and simple to figure out while watching the game.

Oh, and WHIP versus strikeouts.

AdmirableSnackbar: And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation.

So you hate advanced stats because you don't understand advanced stats?? Sounds about right.

They don't take the fun out of the game. They make the game better and more competitive.

As for hustle and all that shiate you mentioned - look at Hanley Ramirez. One of the laziest motherfarkers in the game, but you wouldn't be able to find a team who wouldn't want him because he's a beast at the plate and on the base paths (well, maybe not last year....).

homarjr: They make the game better and more competitive.

No they don't. Stats don't make any game better or more competitive. Stats are products of the game, not functions.

AdmirableSnackbar: The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch.

This is where you lose me. Even the most nerdy sabermetric geek will absolutely marvel, as a pure fan, at the obvious "athletic" gifts of a Matt Kemp, for an example. They wouldn't even pay attention to the peripheral stats unless there was an underlying appreciation for the game at the most simplistic level to begin with. The stats come into play, because, quite frankly, in actual "discussion" with other fans about baseball,it's nice to have something else beyond mere anecdotal observation when drunkards in a bar come out with "BOY I SAW DAVE CONCEPCION PLAY AND HE WAS CLUTCHIER DEFENSIVELY THAN OZZIE SMITH" because, how the f*ck do you even (a) interpret that, or (b) counter it in any logical, intelligent way that the other person would even at least consider?

Certainly, the smell of the grass, the pop of the catcher's mitt...(enter your own Bob Costas soliloquy here)...all the that still applies and has a place in everyone's heart. The stats though come into play because they're available and handy, and I literally don't want to spend the entire night having a discussion with someone telling me a team full of Rusty Greers beats a team full of Barry Bonds because HUSTLE! WALL CRASHES! without the use of something a little more concrete like...stats.

AdmirableSnackbar: homarjr: AdmirableSnackbar: DeWayne Mann: AdmirableSnackbar:
See, I'm not just talking about Lincecum here, I'm talking about the stat geekery that takes the fun out of the game. And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation. The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch. Is there an advance statistic for pitchers who shake off their catcher to throw the pitch he wants to throw instead of the pitch he should throw, getting lit up for his decision? To me, stat geeks miss the forest for the trees.

Stats have gotten muddled because everyone thinks that they are the end all be all of how to judge whether someone is good or not right now.

The whole point was to predict how well someone would do in the future based on past performance. The ultimate example currently on the Brewers is Corey Hart. I know he will go through a 3-6 week streak where he absolutely murders the ball and a 3-6 week streak where he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. The only thing the stats can tell me is how he did in previous seasons, and how his numbers are likely to end up at the end of the year. Using them to determine how well he will be doing 2 weeks from now is dumb. Using them to say he is better than Lance Berkman right now is dumb. Saying he is on a tear right now, and will likely come back to earth at some point makes sense.

Stats are just one facet of a player, not the the whole story.

//Did Fielder trying to eat Parra in the dugout fire up the rest of the Brewers to win in 08? Or was it just stats?

homarjr: AdmirableSnackbar: And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation.

So you hate advanced stats because you don't understand advanced stats?? Sounds about right.

No, I hate them because I find them unnecessary. There's a big difference between the two.

Killer Cars: The stats though come into play because they're available and handy, and I literally don't want to spend the entire night having a discussion with someone telling me a team full of Rusty Greers beats a team full of Barry Bonds because HUSTLE! WALL CRASHES! without the use of something a little more concrete like...stats.

What kind of idiots are you hanging out with that have boring and pointless conversations like that?

jackiepaper: DeWayne Mann: Yanks_RSJ: Is he actually not throwing it? PitchFX says he's throwing it more often than ever.

He's throwing a cutter, which PitchFX is picking up a slider because it expects him to throw a slider.

Not true. He threw the slider for most of his later innings last night. Kruk called it a slider yesterday, and so have everyone discussing it this morning on KNBR.

There were reports at the end of spring training though that he was going to throw it a lot less and that seemed to be the case in his first two starts. Earlier in the thread, I said that I think he's just being cautious - he CAN throw it, but he's trying to save as much stress as he can on his arm. Make of that what you will in regards to his long term success.

Yanks_RSJ: Killer Cars: The stats though come into play because they're available and handy, and I literally don't want to spend the entire night having a discussion with someone telling me a team full of Rusty Greers beats a team full of Barry Bonds because HUSTLE! WALL CRASHES! without the use of something a little more concrete like...stats.

What kind of idiots are you hanging out with that have boring and pointless conversations like that?

The same people that thought Jeter was a better player than A-Rod.

(I always liked Jeter more than A-Rod, but A-Rod was always the better player)

Rex_Banner: The same people that thought Jeter was a better player than A-Rod.

(I always liked Jeter more than A-Rod, but A-Rod was always the better player)

But he's Captain Clutchy Intangibles!

Yanks_RSJ: What kind of idiots are you hanging out with that have boring and pointless conversations like that?

I may have laid that on a bit thick, but, from growing up in the Boston area, it wasn't unheard of to have people praise Trot Nixon because he crashed into a wall chasing a ball that landed 15 rows deep into the stands in a ten-run game in the 8th inning and land on the DL. People love that sh*t perhaps a little too much.

Yanks_RSJ: Rex_Banner: The same people that thought Jeter was a better player than A-Rod.

(I always liked Jeter more than A-Rod, but A-Rod was always the better player)

But he's Captain Clutchy Intangibles!

If he were as clutch as Bucky Dent, then maybe he'd pass A-Rod. Dent was the clutchiest clutch who ever clutched

Killer Cars: I may have laid that on a bit thick, but, from growing up in the Boston area, it wasn't unheard of to have people praise Trot Nixon because he crashed into a wall chasing a ball that landed 15 rows deep into the stands in a ten-run game in the 8th inning and land on the DL. People love that sh*t perhaps a little too much.

He led the league in uniform dirtiness and pine tar helmet residue. Plus he's white, which instantly makes him a fan favorite in Boston, unless you're JD Drew.

Rex_Banner: If he were as clutch as Bucky Dent, then maybe he'd pass A-Rod. Dent was the clutchiest clutch who ever clutched

Yeah, and look at how much he choked up on his bat! Intangiclutch!

AdmirableSnackbar: homarjr: AdmirableSnackbar: And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation.

So you hate advanced stats because you don't understand advanced stats?? Sounds about right.

No, I hate them because I find them unnecessary. There's a big difference between the two.

Trust me, no one who understands the topic thinks you understand why stats like FIP are useful. Especially when you tell us you don't know what it is.

AdmirableSnackbar: And I really don't mind Pierre leading off, I just wish it was the JP from three to five years ago and not this year's version.

Juan Pierre's batting line from 2007-2009: .294/.339/.357, good for an OPS+ of... 84. B-Ref has him as 1.3 wins over replacement... total over those three years.

You want that guy leading off? Two out of the three seasons, he didn't even manage a league-average OBP, and you can't steal first base. He hit 1 HR and only 50 doubles in those three years. He's a slightly below-average defender (good range, terrible arm, average glove) who played mostly LF during that span.

Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles. I hear Corey Patterson is available.

Yanks_RSJ: Killer Cars: I may have laid that on a bit thick, but, from growing up in the Boston area, it wasn't unheard of to have people praise Trot Nixon because he crashed into a wall chasing a ball that landed 15 rows deep into the stands in a ten-run game in the 8th inning and land on the DL. People love that sh*t perhaps a little too much.

He led the league in uniform dirtiness and pine tar helmet residue. Plus he's white, which instantly makes him a fan favorite in Boston, unless you're JD Drew.

Also, reports from WEEI are that "he played the game the right way".

He was like a kid out there, having fun and smashing his head into various pieces of the stadium.

roc6783: AdmirableSnackbar: homarjr: AdmirableSnackbar: DeWayne Mann: AdmirableSnackbar:
See, I'm not just talking about Lincecum here, I'm talking about the stat geekery that takes the fun out of the game. And since I don't know how FIP works, I'm not going to take it at face value that it takes luck out of the equation. The "eyeball" test has more to do with a player's intangibles - hustle, heady play, anticipation- which are what advanced statistics take completely out of the equation but make baseball fun to watch. Is there an advance statistic for pitchers who shake off their catcher to throw the pitch he wants to throw instead of the pitch he should throw, getting lit up for his decision? To me, stat geeks miss the forest for the trees.

Stats have gotten muddled because everyone thinks that they are the end all be all of how to judge whether someone is good or not right now.

The whole point was to predict how well someone would do in the future based on past performance. The ultimate example currently on the Brewers is Corey Hart. I know he will go through a 3-6 week streak where he absolutely murders the ball and a 3-6 week streak where he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. The only thing the stats can tell me is how he did in previous seasons, and how his numbers are likely to end up at the end of the year. Using them to determine how well he will be doing 2 weeks from now is dumb. Using them to say he is better than Lance Berkman right now is dumb. Saying he is on a tear right now, and will likely come back to earth at some point makes sense.

Stats are just one facet of a player, not the the whole story.

//Did Fielder trying to eat Parra in the dugout fire up the rest of the Brewers to win in 08? Or was it just stats?

And the funny thing is that one of the most reliable and predictable stats is walks. Not an advanced stat. You either have a good eye or you don't. Of course, this stat has everything to do with the player and nothing to do with what happens after a player acts, which is why it's more reliable.

Yanks_RSJ: What kind of idiots are you hanging out with that have boring and pointless conversations like that?

Unfortunately if you're a sports fan it's rather unavoidable, and people are social animals so I talking with others about. . . stuff.

Stats are a secondary appreciation of the game. I can appreciate the athleticism of a superstar, but there also guys like Jamie Moyer who you can only appreciate if you're a student of the game, because a single outing by a old guy with 80mph "heat" but always makes the right decisions isn't something that makes an EPSN highlight reel unless they're making "old guy" jokes.

For me at least it's not about saying who's better than who because I learned a long time ago that you can't reason with most sports fans. But I can still appreciate the game in my own way. Moyer in 2002 was either a mediocre 13-8 pitcher if you're a casual fan or AWESOMEZ if you're a Moyer/Mariners fan. I see a 3.32 ERA and 1.075 WHIP and marvel that he did it at 39 with a fastball that's slower than most people's changeups. This shiat can bore people to death, but they can DIAF for all I care. This is how I enjoy the game; I'd LOVE to discuss this sorts of stuff with like-minded people but it's just not going to happen often in the world of sports. Instead I get to hear about how Jeter is the best defensive SS in the game because he's a leader and hustles and I just have to smile and nod.

chimp_ninja: Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles

I agree with your point, but comparing someone to Peter Angelos is waaaayyyyy over the line.

Yanks_RSJ: He led the league in uniform dirtiness and pine tar helmet residue. Plus he's white, which instantly makes him a fan favorite in Boston, unless you're JD Drew.

Poor JD Drew... if he would've just worn high socks, they would've named named a street after him.

Yanks_RSJ: Yeah, and look at how much he choked up on his bat! Intangiclutch!

I tell ya, the Yankees would have had at least 30 championships by now if Dent would've been on those 2002-2008 teams

chimp_ninja: AdmirableSnackbar: And I really don't mind Pierre leading off, I just wish it was the JP from three to five years ago and not this year's version.

Juan Pierre's batting line from 2007-2009: .294/.339/.357, good for an OPS+ of... 84. B-Ref has him as 1.3 wins over replacement... total over those three years.

You want that guy leading off? Two out of the three seasons, he didn't even manage a league-average OBP, and you can't steal first base. He hit 1 HR and only 50 doubles in those three years. He's a slightly below-average defender (good range, terrible arm, average glove) who played mostly LF during that span.

Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles. I hear Corey Patterson is available.

Clearly you have limited knowledge of the Phillies. First off, those BA/OBP numbers are better than Rollins (which is what the Phils need out of the top of the order) and, if I haven't made myself clear, I have absolutely no need for OPS+ or WAR (the second of which I believe is actually less than useless). So since his numbers at the plate in a leadoff role are better than Rollins', yeah I would take it. Is it the best available player? No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

AdmirableSnackbar: Really? I thought it was injuries, not intangibles. Then again, Victorino being a moron and Rollins being unfit to lead off due to his desire to be a power hitter are intangibles that factor into that decision as well.

He fits the "leadoff hitter" mold of hustling a lot and being fast. Unfortunately he can't draw a walk, he has less power than Cliff Lee, and he's lead the league in being caught stealing 7 times. He wouldn't be playing if not for injuries but he shouldn't be playing anyway.

AdmirableSnackbar: No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

As an aside, how does a good raw athlete like Domonic Brown suck so bad in the outfield?

Rex_Banner: chimp_ninja: Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles

I agree with your point, but comparing someone to Peter Angelos is waaaayyyyy over the line.

Eh, stat geeks tend to douche it up when someone doesn't care to be as nerdy as they are.

AdmirableSnackbar: chimp_ninja: AdmirableSnackbar: And I really don't mind Pierre leading off, I just wish it was the JP from three to five years ago and not this year's version.

Juan Pierre's batting line from 2007-2009: .294/.339/.357, good for an OPS+ of... 84. B-Ref has him as 1.3 wins over replacement... total over those three years.

You want that guy leading off? Two out of the three seasons, he didn't even manage a league-average OBP, and you can't steal first base. He hit 1 HR and only 50 doubles in those three years. He's a slightly below-average defender (good range, terrible arm, average glove) who played mostly LF during that span.

Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles. I hear Corey Patterson is available.

Clearly you have limited knowledge of the Phillies. First off, those BA/OBP numbers are better than Rollins (which is what the Phils need out of the top of the order) and, if I haven't made myself clear, I have absolutely no need for OPS+ or WAR (the second of which I believe is actually less than useless). So since his numbers at the plate in a leadoff role are better than Rollins', yeah I would take it. Is it the best available player? No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

Two words: Nick Swisher

Killer Cars: AdmirableSnackbar: No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

As an aside, how does a good raw athlete like Domonic Brown suck so bad in the outfield?

There's not a stat for athleticism vs ability so it doesn't matter.

Snark aside, I have no idea. It really shouldn't be possible especially given the amount of time he's had to work on his defense in the minors.

Killer Cars: As an aside, how does a good raw athlete like Domonic Brown suck so bad in the outfield?

How did Pat Burrell spend eleven years in the majors without anyone ever telling him that you don't sprint from your heels?

Baseball is full of mysteries.

It seems like they aught to be able to hit Brown 200 fly balls a day and eventually have him figure out where they're going to land, but so far it's not working.

you have pee hands: It seems like they aught to be able to hit Brown 200 fly balls a day and eventually have him figure out where they're going to land, but so far it's not working.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if he might have some weird eyesight issue that he doesn't want to tell anyone about.

chimp_ninja: Also, reports from WEEI are that "he played the game the right way".

He was like a kid out there, having fun and smashing his head into various pieces of the stadium.

What you wouldn't hear is the only legit reason to like him (if you're a Red Sox fan) and that's the fact that he absolutely MURDERED Roger Clemens in his career to the tune of a 1.450 OPS in 48 PAs.

bhcompy: AdmirableSnackbar: chimp_ninja: AdmirableSnackbar: And I really don't mind Pierre leading off, I just wish it was the JP from three to five years ago and not this year's version.

Juan Pierre's batting line from 2007-2009: .294/.339/.357, good for an OPS+ of... 84. B-Ref has him as 1.3 wins over replacement... total over those three years.

You want that guy leading off? Two out of the three seasons, he didn't even manage a league-average OBP, and you can't steal first base. He hit 1 HR and only 50 doubles in those three years. He's a slightly below-average defender (good range, terrible arm, average glove) who played mostly LF during that span.

Congratulations, you are now qualified to own the Baltimore Orioles. I hear Corey Patterson is available.

Clearly you have limited knowledge of the Phillies. First off, those BA/OBP numbers are better than Rollins (which is what the Phils need out of the top of the order) and, if I haven't made myself clear, I have absolutely no need for OPS+ or WAR (the second of which I believe is actually less than useless). So since his numbers at the plate in a leadoff role are better than Rollins', yeah I would take it. Is it the best available player? No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

Two words: Nick Swisher

I'm not sure how those two words apply to anything I was talking about. Could you provide more words?

bhcompy: homarjr: They make the game better and more competitive.

No they don't. Stats don't make any game better or more competitive. Stats are products of the game, not functions.

Except every team, possibly including the Baltimore Orioles and other hellholes, now employs a small army of people to do detailed analytics. Ever wonder why the Rays use so many weird defensive shifts?

Here they're shifting against a right-handed Alex Rodriguez because they are reacting to his stats: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/u/images/ARod_shift.png (Fark won't take the image.)

The first baseman is playing almost halfway in between first and second base.

Here they're playing four outfielders, three infielders on the right side, and nobody on the left side of the infield against Travis Hafner:



Last year, this kind of analysis meant that while you were watching the Rays, they turned batted balls into outs at a higher rate (73.5%... most teams are around 70%) than any team in baseball. Someone in the back office is poring over this stuff, teaching the coaches how to exploit it, and the coaches make sure the players know how to execute in all the situations that matter.

So stats absolutely change what you watch on TV.

chimp_ninja: So stats absolutely change what you watch on TV.

See also: Mark Teixeira's left-handed BABIP.

chimp_ninja: Here they're playing four outfielders, three infielders on the right side, and nobody on the left side of the infield against Travis Hafner:

Bunt, big fella!

You can't hit a home run that way but your expected line against that shift has to be like .800/.800/.800 provided you can direct a bunt at all.

stoli n coke: He can always go back to acting. He was pretty good in Dazed and Confused.

Haha Ben Affleck and his friends trying to haze him, classic.

AdmirableSnackbar: I have absolutely no need for OPS+ or WAR (the second of which I believe is actually less than useless).

Except that those stats proven useful in predicting which team will win future baseball games. Recent park-adjusted OPS is excellent at predicting how many runs a team will score. You're saying these metrics are "useless" but you mean "beyond your understanding". Either that, or you define what is "useful" to a baseball team in a strange way. Perhaps you only care about who has the prettiest uniforms. OPS+ and WAR are useless for that.

After that gem of a post, you're now only qualified to run the Baltimore Orioles' AAA affiliate.

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: homarjr: They make the game better and more competitive.

No they don't. Stats don't make any game better or more competitive. Stats are products of the game, not functions.

Except every team, possibly including the Baltimore Orioles and other hellholes, now employs a small army of people to do detailed analytics. Ever wonder why the Rays use so many weird defensive shifts?

Here they're shifting against a right-handed Alex Rodriguez because they are reacting to his stats: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/u/images/ARod_shift.png (Fark won't take the image.)

The first baseman is playing almost halfway in between first and second base.

Here they're playing four outfielders, three infielders on the right side, and nobody on the left side of the infield against Travis Hafner:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

Last year, this kind of analysis meant that while you were watching the Rays, they turned batted balls into outs at a higher rate (73.5%... most teams are around 70%) than any team in baseball. Someone in the back office is poring over this stuff, teaching the coaches how to exploit it, and the coaches make sure the players know how to execute in all the situations that matter.

So stats absolutely change what you watch on TV.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to do that, why not just intentionally walk the guy? Or is Hafner just completely incapable of laying down a bunt?

you have pee hands: You can't hit a home run that way but your expected line against that shift has to be like .800/.800/.800 provided you can direct a bunt at all.

But it is Travis Hafner, so I'm sure the act of putting down a bunt will cause a stress fracture somewhere.

Sorry, had to run semi-unexpectedly.

Uncle Pooky: Yeah, I don't have a hard on for a bunch of pitcher-specific statistics. I like it when my team wins. I get pissed off when they lose. I'm a fan of a team.

And you have no desire to figure out why they might be losing?

bhcompy: Wait, first you complain when someone calls you out on your bad analogy.
Then, you speculate that he's injured, with no research to indicate such.
Finally, you pull the "citiation needed" card on someone else and strike down their factual but anecdotal data when you don't even have an injury report?

Statheads are such literalistic douches I'd at least expect some consistency.

Just so we're clear: the guy who has research backing him up isn't not allowed to make speculations, but the guy who is randomly throwing small sample size anecdotes, well, he's ok just as he is?

Gotcha.

jackiepaper: Not true. He threw the slider for most of his later innings last night. Kruk called it a slider yesterday, and so have everyone discussing it this morning on KNBR.

Sorry, that post was a bit rushed (again, had to run). He DID throw some sliders yesterday. But PitchFX has sliders making up something like 25% of his pitches this year. Even if every pitch he threw after the 3rd inning last night was a slider, that wouldn't be 25% of the year.

meanmutton: Since we're on the topic -- I like ERA. It's not a perfect stat but it's good enough, familiar, and simple to figure out while watching the game.

I had a big post about this (opening day thread? somewhere around there), but ERA really, really needs to be phased out. No matter what you're trying to do, some other stat does a much, much better job.

roc6783: Using them to determine how well he will be doing 2 weeks from now is dumb. Using them to say he is better than Lance Berkman right now is dumb. Saying he is on a tear right now, and will likely come back to earth at some point makes sense.

I think you'll find most "stats guys" agree with this right here.

Yanks_RSJ: Killer Cars: The stats though come into play because they're available and handy, and I literally don't want to spend the entire night having a discussion with someone telling me a team full of Rusty Greers beats a team full of Barry Bonds because HUSTLE! WALL CRASHES! without the use of something a little more concrete like...stats.

What kind of idiots are you hanging out with that have boring and pointless conversations like that?

Sounds like my college days. 'Cept they were Yankees fans, so it was Jeter vs guys like Hanley.

AdmirableSnackbar: the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

The most important thing about a leadoff hitter is that he comes to the plate more times than anyone else on the team.

Why do you want to give as many plate appearances as possible to someone who hits that poorly?

Killer Cars: AdmirableSnackbar: No, but I never made that argument, only that the Juan Pierre of 2007 through 2009 would be preferable as a leadoff hitter than anyone currently on the Phillies.

As an aside, how does a good raw athlete like Domonic Brown suck so bad in the outfield?

My understanding is that he takes really bad routes. That's not a function of athletic ability in the slightest.

To everyone:

I'm pretty sure I missed a few posts. Sorry. Feel free to reask any questions or whatever.