If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   If you look at ESPN's MLB player hitting statistics from 2012, the column furthest to the right is the Sabermetrics stat WAR (wins above replacement). But for the 2013 season, WHAR WAR?   (espn.go.com) divider line 141
    More: Strange, ESPN, wars, sabermetrics, Major League Baseball, Adrian Beltre, Ben Zobrist, Edwin Encarnacion, statistics  
•       •       •

1199 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Apr 2013 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-08 10:43:29 AM
I'm guessing it's the same reason why Baseball-reference doesn't yet display 2013 WAR numbers on their player pages.  The baseline for 'replacement player' gets adjusted each year, and no reliable data exist yet for parks that have made significant changes (Citi and Safeco).

See also:
Vinny Castilla was roughly replacement level (+0.5 offensive WAR) when hitting .275/.331/.478 with 33 HR in 1999 Coors.
Andre Ethier was a nice (+3.3 offensive WAR) offensive boost to the Dodgers in 2012, hitting .284/.351/.460 with 20 HR.
All-Name-All-Star Heinie Groh was the best hitter in the NL (+5.3 offensive WAR) in 1919, hitting .310/.392/.431 with a career-high 5 HR, in some gigantic stadium you've never heard of.
 
2013-04-08 10:54:01 AM
I'm pretty sure everyone is still at or near 0.0 on WAR.  Assuming Trout matched his WAR from last year, he'd only have a WAR of 0.4 right now.  Cano at 0.3.

It's pretty useless information.
 
2013-04-08 11:12:51 AM
This would be even funnier if it had been greenlit last week, ya know, before they had any of the "W"s in "WAR"
 
2013-04-08 11:12:56 AM
www.therichest.org

Here war.
 
2013-04-08 11:22:50 AM

GAT_00: I'm pretty sure everyone is still at or near 0.0 on WAR.  Assuming Trout matched his WAR from last year, he'd only have a WAR of 0.4 right now.  Cano at 0.3.  It's pretty useless information.


Fangraphs has Chris Davis at +0.6 despite a sizable and well-deserved deduction for defense.  All he needs to do is keep slugging 1.136, and he'll have a heck of a year!
 
2013-04-08 11:30:09 AM
It's a tad early.
 
2013-04-08 11:35:21 AM

chimp_ninja: Vinny Castilla was roughly replacement level (+0.5 offensive WAR) when hitting .275/.331/.478 with 33 HR in 1999 Coors.


How about Dante Bichette's 1999 season? Fangraphs calls it the best-worst season of all-time. They gave him -2.1 WAR despite hitting .298/34/133 because of that ridiculous stadium and his atrocious defense.
 
2013-04-08 11:36:00 AM
Meh, what is it good for?

/GOOD GAWD Y'ALL!
 
2013-04-08 11:46:39 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it
 
2013-04-08 11:48:51 AM

homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it


I agree Trout should have won, but the award is "Most Valuable Player" - when it gets changed to "Player with the best offensive metrics" you and I can start arguing with everyone from Detroit.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:29 AM

zarberg: I agree Trout should have won, but the award is "Most Valuable Player" - when it gets changed to "Player with the best offensive metrics" you and I can start arguing with everyone from Detroit.


To be fair, Trout's case is basically: Mildly better hitter, excellent defender, plays a premier position, and it probably the best baserunner in baseball until Billy Hamilton gets called up.  His offensive metrics are the tip of the iceberg.

Cabrera's case is basically:
1) I played on an inferior team, but thanks to being in the AL central, our 88 wins puts us in the playoffs, whereas the Angels' 89 wins leaves them on the golf course.
2) I had more RBI than a guy who hit leadoff every single time he played.
 
2013-04-08 12:02:13 PM

homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it


I was looking back through the years.  ESPN had Trout at 10.7 last year.  Bonds was in the 11's during his 70-HR seasons.  I think Pedro Martinez got in the 12's his 20-4 season.  Now, if you want to talk about non-PED-assisted, then you have to cross off those Bonds seasons.  Pujols, ARod and Sosa also made double-digits.
 
2013-04-08 12:03:39 PM

GAT_00: I'm pretty sure everyone is still at or near 0.0 on WAR.  Assuming Trout matched his WAR from last year, he'd only have a WAR of 0.4 right now.  Cano at 0.3.

It's pretty useless information.


MLB.com has the elimination number under the standing sections.  Elimination number is like a "magic number" in reverse.

Right now, Pittsburgh will be eliminated from winning the division by a combination of 154 wins by Cincinnati and loses by Pittsburgh.
 
2013-04-08 12:04:22 PM
Todd Helton had a WAR of 0.0 ... so if you want to see what a NL replacement play looks like .. there you go.

See, I think for WAR then should find the biggest name that is at 0.0 and change the name based on that. So, it 2012 it was WAR but: WATODDHELTON.
 
2013-04-08 12:05:01 PM
Baseball Reference.com's highest single-season WARs of all time

Highest in the modern era is Dwight Gooden's 1985 season.
 
2013-04-08 12:08:00 PM

SlothB77: homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it

I was looking back through the years.  ESPN had Trout at 10.7 last year.  Bonds was in the 11's during his 70-HR seasons.  I think Pedro Martinez got in the 12's his 20-4 season.  Now, if you want to talk about non-PED-assisted, then you have to cross off those Bonds seasons.  Pujols, ARod and Sosa also made double-digits.


I will only cross off "non-PED-assisted" players if you cross off Babe Ruth altogether for never playing against black people.

/every era has a problem
 
2013-04-08 12:09:24 PM
By the way, how long has ESPN had the Sabermetrics tab on their baseball player stats page?  I don't remember seeing it last year.  Kudos to them for providing this information.  Yahoo! Sports doesn't have it.  CNN/SI doesn't have it.
 
2013-04-08 12:14:06 PM
You know people, I really had work to do today. But, no, now I have to post in both a WAR thread AND a Pete Rose thread. Great.

chimp_ninja: Cabrera's case is basically:


You forgot "He didn't make a lot of errors, so that automatically means he's a good fielder."

SlothB77: By the way, how long has ESPN had the Sabermetrics tab on their baseball player stats page?


Couple of years. I still don't understand why the first thing is batting average, though.
 
2013-04-08 12:25:28 PM

DeWayne Mann: Couple of years. I still don't understand why the first thing is batting average, though.


they probably put that in there so everyone else didn't think they were losing their marbles.  Kind of like a 'You Are Here' arrow on a map.  Yes, the RC27 of 12.50 is for the same Ben Zobrist that is batting .429.  That funny looking number for that funny looking stat you've never seen before is correct and means something.
 
2013-04-08 12:27:33 PM
i285.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 12:29:45 PM

DeWayne Mann: You know people, I really had work to do today. But, no, now I have to post in both a WAR thread AND a Pete Rose thread. Great.

chimp_ninja: Cabrera's case is basically:

You forgot "He didn't make a lot of errors, so that automatically means he's a good fielder."

SlothB77: By the way, how long has ESPN had the Sabermetrics tab on their baseball player stats page?

Couple of years. <b>I still don't understand why the first thing is batting average, though.</b>


I'm sure we could just throw it on the pile of "thing you don't know".
 
2013-04-08 12:32:17 PM

SlothB77: DeWayne Mann: Couple of years. I still don't understand why the first thing is batting average, though.

they probably put that in there so everyone else didn't think they were losing their marbles.  Kind of like a 'You Are Here' arrow on a map.  Yes, the RC27 of 12.50 is for the same Ben Zobrist that is batting .429.  That funny looking number for that funny looking stat you've never seen before is correct and means something.


They could at LEAST do OBP.

JohnnyCanuck: I'm sure we could just throw it on the pile of "thing you don't know".


I like how you think this is an insult.
 
2013-04-08 12:33:15 PM

SlothB77: By the way, how long has ESPN had the Sabermetrics tab on their baseball player stats page?  I don't remember seeing it last year.  Kudos to them for providing this information.  Yahoo! Sports doesn't have it.  CNN/SI doesn't have it.


I really want to see them add shutdowns/meltdowns.

For those not aware, that's a Fangraphs stat. Shutdowns and meltdowns are based on the team's win probability when a reliever enters a game. If when they leave the probability has risen by at least 6%, they get a shutdown. If it's fallen by 6%, they get a meltdown. Why 6%? That's the point at which a shutdown is about as valuable as a save. They're handed out as often; just that more than one pitcher can get one per game and it gives the middle relievers something to shoot for. (Meltdowns are not as common, though they happen, even to good pitchers. Mariano Rivera leads all-time with 547 shutdowns, but he also has 113 meltdowns. Kent Tekulve has the most meltdowns with 226, measured against 362 shutdowns.)

In addition, shutdowns devalue the gimme save. You know the one. The time when the team's three runs up in the 9th with 6-7-8 coming up and the closer struts out to some generic heavy-metal rock before doing what the BP coach could probably have done. If the win probability is already above 94%, the 6% you need to gain to get a shutdown simply isn't there. Though you can get a meltdown if you somehow implode enough to lose the game or get yanked with the outcome suddenly in danger thanks to you.

The tops in shutdowns last season:
47- Jim Johnson, Orioles (3 meltdowns)
41- Aroldis Chapman, Reds (6 meltdowns)
37- Craig Kimbrel, Braves (4 meltdowns)
37- Vinnie Pestano, Indians (6 meltdowns)
37- Grant Balfour, Athletics (7 meltdowns)
37- Ryan Cook, Athletics (7 meltdowns)

Tops in meltdowns:
19- Matt Belisle, Rockies (30 shutdowns)
17- Phil Coke, Tigers (14 shutdowns)
17- Nate Jones, White Sox (18 shutdowns)
17- Boone Logan, Yankees (19 shutdowns)
16- Jeremy Affeldt, Giants (18 shutdowns)
16- Rex Brothers, Rockies (24 shutdowns)

At this stage of the season, three people have three meltdowns each: Chad Durbin of the Phillies, and Burke Badenhop and John Axford of the Brewers. Aroldis Chapman is alone in the lead with four shutdowns.
 
2013-04-08 12:38:29 PM

DeWayne Mann: SlothB77: DeWayne Mann: Couple of years. I still don't understand why the first thing is batting average, though.

they probably put that in there so everyone else didn't think they were losing their marbles.  Kind of like a 'You Are Here' arrow on a map.  Yes, the RC27 of 12.50 is for the same Ben Zobrist that is batting .429.  That funny looking number for that funny looking stat you've never seen before is correct and means something.

They could at LEAST do OBP.

JohnnyCanuck: I'm sure we could just throw it on the pile of "thing you don't know".

I like how you think this is an insult.



I was wavering between that and "Things you don't understand". Both would be apt...but I stand by my choice.
 
2013-04-08 12:48:59 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I was wavering between that and "Things you don't understand". Both would be apt...but I stand by my choice.


"He who knows most, knows best how little he knows."
 
2013-04-08 12:51:17 PM

Gosling: SlothB77: By the way, how long has ESPN had the Sabermetrics tab on their baseball player stats page?  I don't remember seeing it last year.  Kudos to them for providing this information.  Yahoo! Sports doesn't have it.  CNN/SI doesn't have it.

I really want to see them add shutdowns/meltdowns.

For those not aware, that's a Fangraphs stat. Shutdowns and meltdowns are based on the team's win probability when a reliever enters a game. If when they leave the probability has risen by at least 6%, they get a shutdown. If it's fallen by 6%, they get a meltdown. Why 6%? That's the point at which a shutdown is about as valuable as a save. They're handed out as often; just that more than one pitcher can get one per game and it gives the middle relievers something to shoot for. (Meltdowns are not as common, though they happen, even to good pitchers. Mariano Rivera leads all-time with 547 shutdowns, but he also has 113 meltdowns. Kent Tekulve has the most meltdowns with 226, measured against 362 shutdowns.)

In addition, shutdowns devalue the gimme save. You know the one. The time when the team's three runs up in the 9th with 6-7-8 coming up and the closer struts out to some generic heavy-metal rock before doing what the BP coach could probably have done. If the win probability is already above 94%, the 6% you need to gain to get a shutdown simply isn't there. Though you can get a meltdown if you somehow implode enough to lose the game or get yanked with the outcome suddenly in danger thanks to you.

The tops in shutdowns last season:
47- Jim Johnson, Orioles (3 meltdowns)
41- Aroldis Chapman, Reds (6 meltdowns)
37- Craig Kimbrel, Braves (4 meltdowns)
37- Vinnie Pestano, Indians (6 meltdowns)
37- Grant Balfour, Athletics (7 meltdowns)
37- Ryan Cook, Athletics (7 meltdowns)

Tops in meltdowns:
19- Matt Belisle, Rockies (30 shutdowns)
17- Phil Coke, Tigers (14 shutdowns)
17- Nate Jones, White Sox (18 shutdowns)
17- Boone Logan, Yankees (19 shutdowns)
16- Jeremy Affeldt, Giants (18 shutdowns)
16- Rex Brothers, Rockies (24 shutdowns)

At this stage of the season, three people have three meltdowns each: Chad Durbin of the Phillies, and Burke Badenhop and John Axford of the Brewers. Aroldis Chapman is alone in the lead with four shutdowns.


Thanks, that was cool. Now if people would stop using holds as a stat.... And I do kind of like inherited runners stranded. To me the coolest thing is to see your best reliever go in during the six, bases loaded and no outs and strand everybody. Some of the stat is bs luck but you can see trends of who steps up their game or who is "built" for that situation
 
2013-04-08 01:00:04 PM

GAT_00: I'm pretty sure everyone is still at or near 0.0 on WAR.  Assuming Trout matched his WAR from last year, he'd only have a WAR of 0.4 right now.  Cano at 0.3.

It's pretty useless information.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

War, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

dallylamma: Meh, what is it good for?

/GOOD GAWD Y'ALL!


/dammit; still posting mine
 
2013-04-08 01:04:16 PM
This is why baseball sucks. Because of people who actually follow and care about worthless made-up statistics like this.
 
2013-04-08 01:04:53 PM

skrame: GAT_00: I'm pretty sure everyone is still at or near 0.0 on WAR.  Assuming Trout matched his WAR from last year, he'd only have a WAR of 0.4 right now.  Cano at 0.3.

It's pretty useless information.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 344x146]

War, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

dallylamma: Meh, what is it good for?

/GOOD GAWD Y'ALL!

/dammit; still posting mine


DON'T YOU NEVER TOUCH A BLACK MAN'S RADIO!
 
2013-04-08 01:11:17 PM

doubled99: This is why baseball sucks. Because of people who actually follow and care about worthless made-up statistics like this.


I would've gone with "This is the reason baseball sucks - the math behind the sport is actually far more interesting than the game itself."
 
2013-04-08 01:12:21 PM

Gosling: Kent Tekulve


Wow. There's a guy I haven't thought of in YEARS. The definition of "that dude who can just eat innings, so we'll keep him around."
 
2013-04-08 01:14:22 PM

chimp_ninja: zarberg: I agree Trout should have won, but the award is "Most Valuable Player" - when it gets changed to "Player with the best offensive metrics" you and I can start arguing with everyone from Detroit.

To be fair, Trout's case is basically: Mildly better hitter, excellent defender, plays a premier position, and it probably the best baserunner in baseball until Billy Hamilton gets called up.  His offensive metrics are the tip of the iceberg.

Cabrera's case is basically:
1) I played on an inferior team, but thanks to being in the AL central, our 88 wins puts us in the playoffs, whereas the Angels' 89 wins leaves them on the golf course.
2) I had more RBI than a guy who hit leadoff every single time he played.


Maybe if you actually read the bazillion post threads instead of attacking strawmen, you wouldn't be trolling your way to the 73rd version of the same thread.

The arguments for Trout: running and defense matter as much as offense.

The arguments for Cabrerra: Situation matters and position players are hitters first.
 
2013-04-08 01:15:49 PM
It's because the Astros have such a negative overall WAR that they are seen more peace-loving hippy commune than baseball team.
 
2013-04-08 01:26:41 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: I was wavering between that and "Things you don't understand". Both would be apt...but I stand by my choice.

"He who knows most, knows best how little he knows."


I like how you think this is an insult.

\seriously, tho...your quote is what I have been saying to you from the get go. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around.
\\or validated to see just how oblivious you are
 
2013-04-08 01:32:30 PM
But what about the
i0.kym-cdn.com
stat?
 
2013-04-08 01:32:34 PM

meanmutton: The arguments for Trout: running and defense matter as much as offense.


Trout was also the better offensive player, unless for some bizarre reason you don't consider "running" part of the offense.

The arguments for Cabrerra: Situation matters and position players are hitters first.

1) Trout was an equally good hitter.
2) What does "situation matters" mean?  Trout's team won more games.  He can't control not being in a division where the frickin' White Sox are the only competition.
3) Why does defense suddenly not count?  You don't think Posey's defense played a role in winning the MVP over Ryan Braun?
 
2013-04-08 01:35:42 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I like how you think this is an insult.


I do?

JohnnyCanuck: \seriously, tho...your quote is what I have been saying to you from the get go. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around.
\\or validated to see just how oblivious you are


No, you've just failed to actually read what I say 80% of the time. I've never claimed that I know everything; just that I've studied this stuff way, way more than the average person. I learn more about baseball just about every day, but there's still a lot more to go.

chimp_ninja: What does "situation matters" mean?


I think it's the claim that Cabrera was more clutch or whatever.

Which ignores Trout's significant WPA advantage.
 
2013-04-08 01:38:04 PM

zarberg: Baseball Reference.com's highest single-season WARs of all time

Highest in the modern era is Dwight Gooden's 1985 season.


As awesome as Gooden was that year, it doesn't impress me as much as the Keefe or Radbourn oldey-timey seasons.

+20 WAR in a league with 112-game seasons.  The secret is throwing 73 complete games that year.
 
2013-04-08 01:48:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: I like how you think this is an insult.

I do?

JohnnyCanuck: \seriously, tho...your quote is what I have been saying to you from the get go. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around.
\\or validated to see just how oblivious you are

No, you've just failed to actually read what I say 80% of the time. I've never claimed that I know everything; just that I've studied this stuff way, way more than the average person. I learn more about baseball just about every day, but there's still a lot more to go.

chimp_ninja: What does "situation matters" mean?

I think it's the claim that Cabrera was more clutch or whatever.

Which ignores Trout's significant WPA advantage.


So fricken racist
 
2013-04-08 01:51:33 PM

thecpt: DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: I like how you think this is an insult.

I do?

JohnnyCanuck: \seriously, tho...your quote is what I have been saying to you from the get go. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around.
\\or validated to see just how oblivious you are

No, you've just failed to actually read what I say 80% of the time. I've never claimed that I know everything; just that I've studied this stuff way, way more than the average person. I learn more about baseball just about every day, but there's still a lot more to go.

chimp_ninja: What does "situation matters" mean?

I think it's the claim that Cabrera was more clutch or whatever.

Which ignores Trout's significant WPA advantage.

So fricken racist


That's pretty much the most racist thing anyone has ever said.
 
2013-04-08 01:58:45 PM

DeWayne Mann: That's pretty much the most racist thing anyone has ever said.


You're the one that brought up Trout's White Person Advantage over Latino Infielder (WPA/LI) of 6.0.
 
2013-04-08 02:00:30 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: \seriously, tho...your quote is what I have been saying to you from the get go. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around.
\\or validated to see just how oblivious you are

No, you've just failed to actually read what I say 80% of the time. I've never claimed that I know everything; just that I've studied this stuff way, way more than the average person. I learn more about baseball just about every day, but there's still a lot more to go.


Agreed! You can learn a lot from those with a contrasting opinion. Don't just discount it. There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

\I don't READ what say 100% of the time.
\\I DO read what you write any time I respond to it
 
2013-04-08 02:05:03 PM

chimp_ninja: DeWayne Mann: That's pretty much the most racist thing anyone has ever said.

You're the one that brought up Trout's White Person Advantage over Latino Infielder (WPA/LI) of 6.0.


Look, just because you hate the game of baseball, that doesn't mean everyone else has to.

JohnnyCanuck: Agreed! You can learn a lot from those with a contrasting opinion. Don't just discount it.


As I have said multiple times when people disagree with me:

If someone has facts and research to back up what they say, I would love to read it.

Except on extremely rare occasions, NO ONE EVER DOES.

So what, exactly, can I learn from those people? I don't really care what their little league coach said.
 
2013-04-08 02:10:00 PM
So, the short answer to this is that my initial thought- "sample size is still too small"- was right?
 
2013-04-08 02:12:01 PM

homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it



philcokesbrain.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-08 02:12:20 PM

JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.


What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?
 
2013-04-08 02:16:15 PM

Gonz: So, the short answer to this is that my initial thought- "sample size is still too small"- was right?


Yeah, I don't even think the defensive component will be calculated for another week or two. UZR just came out with their results today or yesterday, and I seem to remember them generally being ahead of DRS.
 
2013-04-08 02:17:20 PM

Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?


We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.
 
2013-04-08 02:19:23 PM

DeWayne Mann: As I have said multiple times when people disagree with me:

If someone has facts and research to back up what they say, I would love to read it.

Except on extremely rare occasions, NO ONE EVER DOES.

So what, exactly, can I learn from those people? I don't really care what their little league coach said.


It's because athletes, or people in general, cannot be completely reduced to a number.
What you are saying is that you have a lot to learn...but you're not willing to learn from anyone who opinions are not in line with yours. So you will learn nothing.
 
2013-04-08 02:19:41 PM

TigersorHawksorBoth: homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it


[philcokesbrain.files.wordpress.com image 600x585]


Psssst - Trout led in other stats, too. But I don't blame you for ignoring crazy, new age stuff like "stolen bases"
 
2013-04-08 02:23:02 PM

chimp_ninja: "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


I'd like to see this stat.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:41 PM

chimp_ninja: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


No no no no no.

We have to get rid of ALL STATS ENTIRELY. I'll prove it to you:

JohnnyCanuck: It's because athletes, or people in general, cannot be completely reduced to a number.


JohnnyCanuck: but you're not willing to learn from anyone who opinions are not in line with yours


No, again, I'm not willing to "learn" from anyone incapable of backing up what they're saying.

Colin Wyers of Baseball Prospectus has opinions that are not in line with my own. He does a lot of research to back up what he says. I learn a lot from him.

JohnnyCanuck of Fark.com has opinions that are not in line with my own. He mostly just says nonsense about things like "statistical stars" and fails to make any sort of coherent point. I learn nothing from him.

See the difference?
 
2013-04-08 02:26:01 PM
...isn't miggy also a statistical star?
 
2013-04-08 02:26:34 PM

thecpt: ...isn't miggy also a statistical star?


NO
 
2013-04-08 02:31:41 PM

Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?


I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.
 
2013-04-08 02:36:16 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?"  Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star?  Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot?  IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.


A) What does "raise your game" mean? Everyone has a 162 game schedule in the regular season. If you can't play the full 162, maybe it's time to talk with your manager about sitting every 5th day.

B) It's called adjusting. If you can't adjust to people adjusting to you, you're not going to make it in MLB.
 
2013-04-08 02:38:14 PM
"If you look at ESPN's MLB player hitting statistics from 2012..."

I think it's cute subby assumes I use espn for my research.
 
2013-04-08 02:39:28 PM

chimp_ninja: We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.


GPR. Percentage of Game Played the Right Way.
 
2013-04-08 02:39:37 PM

TigersorHawksorBoth: homarjr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trout have one of the best WARs in MLB history last year?

I heard top 10. I could easily look this up, but I'd rather someone from Detroit get all pissy about it.

/Trout should've won and you all know it


[philcokesbrain.files.wordpress.com image 600x585]


WAR isn't actually one stat.  It is a composite of multiple stats - a derivation of OBA, UZR, and the position.
 
2013-04-08 02:41:22 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?" Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star? Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot? IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.


Trout had a .900 OPS in September. He didn't vanish down the stretch.
 
2013-04-08 02:41:48 PM

JohnnyCanuck: How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because


See, I love this. Mike Trout "faded."

Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct.

If he had hit that well ALL SEASON, he would've had the 7th best OPS in the AL. And he still would've been an amazing fielder & baserunner.

So basically, you think he played TOO well. Great.
 
2013-04-08 02:42:30 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: JohnnyCanuck: There is a lot to be said about the statistical star who shiats the bed when the pressure is on, for example.

What exactly is a "statistical star?" Is hitting 326 with 30 hr in 139 games, as a 20 year old, not just a star? Do we have to go around modifying that because sabermetric folks like him a lot? IS 49 steals and 5 times caught suddenly bad because fancy numbers like it?

I wasn't really talking to you...but if you insist...

How about the guy with great numbers who fades down the stretch run because, A- Games DO start to become more meaningful and his opponents were able to raise their game, B- Opponents had more data to work with and learned how to approach him.

Numbers do not tell the entire tale.

Trout had a .900 OPS in September. He didn't vanish down the stretch.


Oooooh, so close to an awesome simulpost.
 
2013-04-08 02:43:04 PM

DeWayne Mann: No, again, I'm not willing to "learn" from anyone incapable of backing up what they're saying.

Colin Wyers of Baseball Prospectus has opinions that are not in line with my own. He does a lot of research to back up what he says. I learn a lot from him.

JohnnyCanuck of Fark.com has opinions that are not in line with my own. He mostly just says nonsense about things like "statistical stars" and fails to make any sort of coherent point. I learn nothing from him.


You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!
 
2013-04-08 02:43:44 PM

DeWayne Mann: So basically, you think he played TOO well. Great.


To be fair, I think that as well. But I'm a Rangers fan, so I could be a bit biased.
 
2013-04-08 02:44:30 PM

JohnnyCanuck: You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!


I'm gonna frame this post on my mom's basement fridge.
 
2013-04-08 02:45:55 PM
I didn't say anything about Trout fading. I was being hypothetical.

You guys have to stop reading into things what you want to get out of it. That's the whole problem.
 
2013-04-08 02:47:10 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I didn't say anything about Trout fading. I was being hypothetical.

You guys have to stop reading into things what you want to get out of it. That's the whole problem.


Right. In a discussion largely about Trout, you just happened to use a common and fallacious argument often used against Trout.

But you weren't talking about Trout.

Got it.
 
2013-04-08 02:47:24 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: You are absolutely clueless.

\to back that up....you have no clues. Show me your clues!

Do you notice how every time you interact with someone it ends up with you trying to belittle them? Classic defense mech. Go back and cower in your corner where you belong. The only person here who knows just how much a clueless flunky you are other than me, is YOU!

I'm gonna frame this post on my mom's basement fridge.


Please do! I'll autograph it for you if you promise to read it every day.
 
2013-04-08 02:48:50 PM
Calculation
There is no clearly established formula for WAR.



Sounds legit.
 
2013-04-08 02:50:00 PM
Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch
 
2013-04-08 02:52:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct


What did Cabrera hit during that stretch?
 
2013-04-08 02:53:32 PM

tricycleracer: Calculation
There is no clearly established formula for WAR.


Sounds legit.


That's a really, really bad way of putting it.

There are 3 competing formulas, and the general pieces of each one are known. Some of the nitty gritty calculations aren't available to the public, but for the most part there's nothing really hidden.
 
2013-04-08 02:54:43 PM

MugzyBrown: DeWayne Mann: Except he still hit .289/.400/.500 in Sept/Oct

What did Cabrera hit during that stretch?


Higher. ~1000OPS, though I'm too lazy to go back and check for sure.

But I don't think anyone ever claimed Cabrera "faded", so....
 
2013-04-08 03:02:09 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch


Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?
 
2013-04-08 03:04:53 PM

Rex_Banner: Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Cabrera didn't play terrible defense. As we learned back in the original threads, he was an above average defender at the hardest position on the field to play.
Racist.
 
2013-04-08 03:08:48 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?

Cabrera didn't play terrible defense. As we learned back in the original threads, he was an above average defender at the hardest position on the field to play.
Racist.


Which is why it was clear he wasn't talking about Cabrera. He was talking about Seattle Slew.

/speciesist
 
2013-04-08 03:10:14 PM

IAmRight: chimp_ninja: "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.

I'd like to see this stat.


It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.

Gosling: chimp_ninja: We should invent stats like HOG-P (Hustle Over Gritty Player), "Calm Eyes Index", and "% of 110% Given" to confuse them.

GPR. Percentage of Game Played the Right Way.


Exactly.  I hate when Mike Trout runs directly to third after hitting the ball.  He should learn from Miguel Cabrera.  That guy plays the game the right way.

JohnnyCanuck: It's because athletes, or people in general, cannot be completely reduced to a number.


Except that we know who leaves it ALL on the field.  The difference is obvious between that guy and Bryce Harper, who I have it on good authority sometimes leaves 3% on the field, and I've heard is a mean guy.  Put that in your computer and smoke it, calculator-faced book learners.

It's better when two people just yell "My opinion is better!" until one gets tired.  Then you really know who the true competitor is.
 
2013-04-08 03:11:28 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch

Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Yaz?

He actually got marginally better as his career progressed, but he had a bit of an iron glove when he first came up.
 
2013-04-08 03:12:50 PM

chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein). Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.


Actually, I think I learned in the Upton thread that it's possible to be negative.

chimp_ninja: It's better when two people just yell "My opinion is better!" until one gets tired.


Or bored.

Especially bored.
 
2013-04-08 03:14:29 PM

chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.


I'm excited for the next Eckstein, except grittier and with more heart. Let's see a 120% on the 110% scale!

Perhaps we should rename this stat after Eckstein for now, however,

GRit Above David Eckstein - GRADE

Seems really good for discussions.
 
2013-04-08 03:19:36 PM

Rex_Banner: JohnnyCanuck: Geeze man...is EVERYTHING about Trout with you people. I did not mention that name till just recently.
The guy is a great player...probably top 5 in the game.

\Top 5...that should get your panties in a bunch

Ok - sorry I jumped to conclusions there. But answer me this: If, in this thread, I started talking about a triple crown winner who played terrible defense, you (and others) wouldn't assume that I was referring to Cabrera?


Not by stating terrible defense, no. I would not know who you were talking about.

 

chimp_ninja: who I have it on good authority sometimes leaves 3% on the field


The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.

I feel bad you guys will never understand that. I'm trying to help...REALLY!

\not really

\the heart of sport...you morons should be able to take that one and run with it
\what about "tag"? did any of you guys even get to play that at any time in your life?
 
2013-04-08 03:20:41 PM

IAmRight: chimp_ninja: It's on a triangular scale from 0 (Mike Trout) to 100 (Derek Jeter) to 110 (David Eckstein).  Science will tell you that you can't give 110% effort, let alone 110% of 110%, but there's no science that studies the human heart.

I'm excited for the next Eckstein, except grittier and with more heart. Let's see a 120% on the 110% scale!

Perhaps we should rename this stat after Eckstein for now, however,

GRit Above David Eckstein - GRADE

Seems really good for discussions.


How would you rate Joe McEwing on GRADE?

We should have a relief pitcher rating for folks like Jesse Orosco called LOL - Lefty on Lefty
 
2013-04-08 03:25:27 PM
By the way, to get things slightly back on topic:

There was a post on Tango's blog a few weeks ago comparing WAR to Gross Domestic Product. The two are actually really similar.

GDP is often used as a way to represent a country's economy using a single value.

There are 3 ways to calculate GDP, and they don't always turn out equal.

The general GDP formulas are known, but the actual nitty gritty calcuations are rather vague and inaccessible to the public.

So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?
 
2013-04-08 03:27:53 PM
DeWayne Mann:So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?

I already troll the politics tab. It's far worse than the Sports tab ever will be.
 
2013-04-08 03:28:42 PM

JohnnyCanuck: The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.


Duh.  You're trying to force into language what can only be felt in the soul.  Your reductionist "words" made up of "letters" is what ruined sports decades ago when they were pure.  (Words lead to letters lead to ASCII leads to numbers leads to four-corner days leads to educated evil leads to hide from debate.)  Until you can formulate all knowledge as interpretive dance, you're too simple-minded to even be in the conversation.

By the way, my chakra said that Miguel Cabrera couldn't even Tiptoeing Gazelle his way out of a copper energy bracelet, so Mike Trout is automatically MVP and third basemen have to go be fat in another sport starting in 2014.
 
2013-04-08 03:30:52 PM

zarberg: DeWayne Mann:So basically what I'm saying is....who wants to help me go troll the business & politics tabs?

I already troll the politics tab. It's far worse than the Sports tab ever will be.


Sometimes, accidentally, I click on the Politics tab. And then I think I'm on the main tab for some reason, so I'll click on something that looks interesting.

It never ends well.

Other times I accidentally click on the Business tab. Then I wonder why there haven't been any new articles posted for 3 weeks.

chimp_ninja: JohnnyCanuck: The problem there, chump, is that you feel the need to quantify everything. The heart of sport is what you can not quantify.

Duh.  You're trying to force into language what can only be felt in the soul.  Your reductionist "words" made up of "letters" is what ruined sports decades ago when they were pure.  (Words lead to letters lead to ASCII leads to numbers leads to four-corner days leads to educated evil leads to hide from debate.)  Until you can formulate all knowledge as interpretive dance, you're too simple-minded to even be in the conversation.

By the way, my chakra said that Miguel Cabrera couldn't even Tiptoeing Gazelle his way out of a copper energy bracelet, so Mike Trout is automatically MVP and third basemen have to go be fat in another sport starting in 2014.


I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.
 
2013-04-08 03:32:28 PM
I would say that baseball can't be reduced down to raw stats, but the arguments thus far have been underwhelming.  Being good "down the stretch" or a "clutch hitter" or "fading late in the season" are all things that would be very easily reduced to statisitics, in fact, in order to come to any of those conclusions I don't know how you would do it *without* stats.  On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.

Things like team leadership, clubhouse presence, experience (and willingness/ability to share wisdom from it), and reliability all matter and have an effect on the game as a whole, but due to the difficulty in connecting all the miniscule impacts of complex cause/effect relationships, these things are almost impossible to quntify statistically.  You might be able to prove one guy had a beneficial impact, and use various stats to back it up, but it wouldn't be translateable 1:1 to another persons scenario, so the exact same variety of stats wouldn't have the same utility.

To use an (over)simplified comparison, it is sort of a forest/trees situation.  If you get too bogged down in saying only things like leaf size and trunk width define the health of a forest you won't be able to account for some of the larger-scale effects of geography and weather, while vice-versa if you think that a healthy forest can only be defined by being in a tropical environment with a certain annual rainfall, you will miss out on the specific varieties of tree that can flourish and create a very healthy biome in on an arid mountain.

How this impacts the MVP choice?  Probably not a lot.  It is a big debate.  Many people will never be swayed either way.  Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?  As long as it is a choice made by a pool of people based on their opinions, I don't see how the subjectivity will ever be removed, nor do I ultimately believe it should.  Stats provide obvious winners and clear distinctions and are tremendously valuable tools (as long as the input data is good) but for things like Most Valuable Player, there will always be debate about what "Valuable" even means, so getting panties in a bind over it seems silly to me.
 
2013-04-08 03:32:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.


Once you accept that everything is equal and no one is better than anyone else, you will understand how to elect a proper Most Valuable Player, the way God and JohnnyCanuck intended it.
 
2013-04-08 03:37:03 PM
For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So seriously...who in here wants to participate in something athletic? Tag?....Lawn Darts?...anything at all?

\jumping jacks?
 
2013-04-08 03:38:01 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.


Typically, the argument runs something like this (and I'm oversimplifying a little here):

"I know what batting average is, because I can easily see it on the field: how often the player gets a hit. But I can't easily see something like wOBA on the field.

Therefore, batting average is an acceptable stat, but wOBA is not."

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:
Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?

In theory, I suppose.

In practice, no. Several HOF voters, for instance, haven't actually covered baseball since the 1980s. There's no requirement for the voters to attempt to educate themselves about the game itself, which is why we end up with things like Michael Young getting an MVP vote because the voter is friends with him and thinks he's a good "leader."
 
2013-04-08 03:39:00 PM

JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.


So, baseball players then.
 
2013-04-08 03:41:53 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: I would say that baseball can't be reduced down to raw stats, but the arguments thus far have been underwhelming.  Being good "down the stretch" or a "clutch hitter" or "fading late in the season" are all things that would be very easily reduced to statisitics, in fact, in order to come to any of those conclusions I don't know how you would do it *without* stats.  On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.

Things like team leadership, clubhouse presence, experience (and willingness/ability to share wisdom from it), and reliability all matter and have an effect on the game as a whole, but due to the difficulty in connecting all the miniscule impacts of complex cause/effect relationships, these things are almost impossible to quntify statistically.  You might be able to prove one guy had a beneficial impact, and use various stats to back it up, but it wouldn't be translateable 1:1 to another persons scenario, so the exact same variety of stats wouldn't have the same utility.

To use an (over)simplified comparison, it is sort of a forest/trees situation.  If you get too bogged down in saying only things like leaf size and trunk width define the health of a forest you won't be able to account for some of the larger-scale effects of geography and weather, while vice-versa if you think that a healthy forest can only be defined by being in a tropical environment with a certain annual rainfall, you will miss out on the specific varieties of tree that can flourish and create a very healthy biome in on an arid mountain.

How this impacts the MVP choice?  Probably not a lot.  It is a big debate.  Many people will never be swayed either way.  Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?  As long as it is a choice made by a pool of people based on their opinions, I don't see how the subjectivity will ever be removed, nor do I ultimately believe it should.  Stats provide obvious win ...


This is a good post.

chimp_ninja: DeWayne Mann: I learned so much from this post and its opinions which are clearly equal to my own.

Once you accept that everything is equal and no one is better than anyone else, you will understand how to elect a proper Most Valuable Player, the way God and JohnnyCanuck intended it.


That is the exact opposite of how I feel. But I would expect nothing less from someone who hasn't had anything intelligent to say thus far.
 
2013-04-08 03:42:12 PM

IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.


If that were true, I'd think those bracelets would be officially licensed by MLB.

Wait, they are?
 
2013-04-08 03:42:20 PM
It's the same reason why RPI numbers aren't given the first week of the basketball season, or that the BCS rankings aren't done until October in college football.  There needs to be more data for WAR to work.
 
2013-04-08 03:43:21 PM

IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.


The majority probably, yes. I would even go as far as to say athletes.
 
2013-04-08 03:47:03 PM
Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:25 PM

DeWayne Mann: Several HOF voters, for instance, haven't actually covered baseball since the 1980s. There's no requirement for the voters to attempt to educate themselves about the game itself, which is why we end up with things like Michael Young getting an MVP vote because the voter is friends with him and thinks he's a good "leader."


Yup.  And my understanding is that once you have a HOF vote, you have it until you die, even if you stop turning in ballots, unless you voluntarily quit the BBWAA.

The ridiculousness of MVP voting has been toned down at least a little recently, however.  In both leagues, the top 4 by WAR were the top 4 by voting, albeit in the wrong order sometimes.  Marvel at how bad the 1947 ballot was.  Come for Ted Williams getting screwed, stay for the really bizarre stuff lower, like Eddie Yoost getting 2 first-place votes, or Mark Christman getting 4 points while playing well below replacement level... the third time he received an MVP vote despite having a career WAR of ...  negative 2.0.

Some level of down-ballot stupidity still exists, however.  2012 featured Raul Ibanez getting a vote for crappy defense and a .761 OPS in a platoon role.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:39 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.


Just for fun, let's assume this is true.

I wonder what percentage of coaches & managers are former players. 99? 99.9?

Seems to suggest that coaches & managers are kind of dumb.
 
2013-04-08 03:52:36 PM

chimp_ninja: Yup. And my understanding is that once you have a HOF vote, you have it until you die, even if you stop turning in ballots, unless you voluntarily quit the BBWAA.


Yep. Cover baseball for a newspaper for 10 years, submit an application to the BBWAA, and if they select you (which they almost certainly will), you're eligible for a HOF vote for the rest of your life.
 
2013-04-08 03:53:59 PM

JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.


This is a controversial opinion and the mark of a great mind.  Everyone is laughing with you.  You are making complete sense in this thread.
 
2013-04-08 03:54:27 PM

IAmRight: I'm excited for the next Eckstein, except grittier and with more heart. Let's see a 120% on the 110% scale!


Tebow.
 
2013-04-08 03:56:49 PM

chimp_ninja: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

This is a controversial opinion and the mark of a great mind.  Everyone is laughing with you.  You are making complete sense in this thread.


Do you have any research to back this up? I'm skeptical of your claims.
 
2013-04-08 03:57:13 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.

Just for fun, let's assume this is true.

I wonder what percentage of coaches & managers are former players. 99? 99.9?

Seems to suggest that coaches & managers are kind of dumb.


Yeah...And?
You're hiding behind numbers again. Although I agree that most coaches and managers probably are not that bright beyond baseball. It just ends up getting perpetuated within the hirings.
The problem with your statement is that, sure....let's say 99% of coaches and managers are former players. Maybe they are the more intelligent ones that rose to the top. It would still be a small % of the total numbers of players.

\besides...Ozzie Guillen
 
2013-04-08 03:58:51 PM

DeWayne Mann: Yep. Cover baseball for a newspaper for 10 years, submit an application to the BBWAA, and if they select you (which they almost certainly will), you're eligible for a HOF vote for the rest of your life.


I'm almost compelled to do this so I can ensure "Deez Nuts" gets MVP votes for the rest of my life.
 
2013-04-08 03:59:53 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.

Just for fun, let's assume this is true.

I wonder what percentage of coaches & managers are former players. 99? 99.9?

Seems to suggest that coaches & managers are kind of dumb.


Do you have to be smart to be a coach or manager, or just good at dealing with people, I.E. keeping the veterans happy and figuring out the rookie's problems. I mean, who on this list would you want leading your baseball team from the dugout?

1) Billy Beane
2) Theo Epstein
3) Lou Pinella
4) Bobby Valentine
5) Joe Morgan

All pretty smart guys. Four were pro players, too, one a darn good pro player ... but I wouldn't want Joe Morgan anywhere near a pitching staff. He'd probably put the 24 year old ace out there for 9 innings and say he just needed his arm stretched out. Theo Epstein is the opposite extreme, knows tons about baseball but who knows about his skill with dealing with players in on-the-field situations.
 
2013-04-08 04:01:04 PM

JohnnyCanuck: .let's say 99% of coaches and managers are former players. Maybe they are the more intelligent ones that rose to the top


So, in your mind, "select few" means "hundreds in baseball alone."

Makes perfect sense.

IAmRight: I'm almost compelled to do this so I can ensure "Deez Nuts" gets MVP votes for the rest of my life.


Reminds me of some HOF ballots I saw.
 
2013-04-08 04:01:30 PM
After six games, the Angels are 2-4. Mike Trout is clearly not the player we thought he was. Will Middlebrooks is your 2013 MVP.
 
2013-04-08 04:05:29 PM

zarberg: DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: Only a select few (of us) can be of such high intelligence AND be an excellent athlete.

Just for fun, let's assume this is true.

I wonder what percentage of coaches & managers are former players. 99? 99.9?

Seems to suggest that coaches & managers are kind of dumb.

Do you have to be smart to be a coach or manager, or just good at dealing with people, I.E. keeping the veterans happy and figuring out the rookie's problems. I mean, who on this list would you want leading your baseball team from the dugout?

1) Billy Beane
2) Theo Epstein
3) Lou Pinella
4) Bobby Valentine
5) Joe Morgan

All pretty smart guys. Four were pro players, too, one a darn good pro player ... but I wouldn't want Joe Morgan anywhere near a pitching staff. He'd probably put the 24 year old ace out there for 9 innings and say he just needed his arm stretched out. Theo Epstein is the opposite extreme, knows tons about baseball but who knows about his skill with dealing with players in on-the-field situations.


Well, its an interesting situation. I think just about everyone (including me) agrees with you here. And yet, who gets to vote on Gold Gloves?
 
2013-04-08 04:06:04 PM

ChrisDe: After six games, the Angels are 2-4. Mike Trout is clearly not the player we thought he was. Will Middlebrooks is your 2013 MVP.


Only because Chris Davis has faded down the stretch.
 
2013-04-08 04:07:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: .let's say 99% of coaches and managers are former players. Maybe they are the more intelligent ones that rose to the top

So, in your mind, "select few" means "hundreds in baseball alone."

Makes perfect sense.

IAmRight: I'm almost compelled to do this so I can ensure "Deez Nuts" gets MVP votes for the rest of my life.

Reminds me of some HOF ballots I saw.


You forgot about perpetuation. Morons tend to hire other morons.
For example, if YOU have a job...your boss, or whoever hired you, is more than likely an idiot too.

Understand yet?
 
2013-04-08 04:08:04 PM

DeWayne Mann: ChrisDe: After six games, the Angels are 2-4. Mike Trout is clearly not the player we thought he was. Will Middlebrooks is your 2013 MVP.

Only because Chris Davis has faded down the stretch.


Yeah and harper's too young. He hasn't earned it yet
 
2013-04-08 04:09:03 PM

JohnnyCanuck: DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: .let's say 99% of coaches and managers are former players. Maybe they are the more intelligent ones that rose to the top

So, in your mind, "select few" means "hundreds in baseball alone."

Makes perfect sense.

IAmRight: I'm almost compelled to do this so I can ensure "Deez Nuts" gets MVP votes for the rest of my life.

Reminds me of some HOF ballots I saw.

You forgot about perpetuation. Morons tend to hire other morons.
For example, if YOU have a job...your boss, or whoever hired you, is more than likely an idiot too.

Understand yet?


So, in conclusion:

Coaches & Managers are dumb.

Baseball execs are dumb for hiring coaches & managers.

People who actually research the game are dumb, because they don't listen to every crazy opinion offered on the internet.

JohnnyCanuck is not dumb, because
 
2013-04-08 04:11:15 PM

DeWayne Mann: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: On-field production in baseball is so intertwined with statistics it is hard (if not impossible) to seperate the two.

Typically, the argument runs something like this (and I'm oversimplifying a little here):

"I know what batting average is, because I can easily see it on the field: how often the player gets a hit. But I can't easily see something like wOBA on the field.

Therefore, batting average is an acceptable stat, but wOBA is not."


See, I like the advanced stats even if I haven't been bothered to really learn much about them (I finally looked up "OPS" about a year and a half ago).  I loved learning baseball stats as a kid from the backs of cards, and that probably helped develop the math skills that made everything through calculus and linear algegra a breeze for me (before I learned architects aren't supposed to be good at math, grrr).  I like that people are trying to look at the sport in different ways, and finding useful comparisons.  Of course, as with any statistics, they can be massaged and cherry-picked to give essentially pre-determined results, but if you go into it "blind" wanting to make an honest comparison, what better tool do we have?  I guess maybe you could argue that there should be two classes of stats....say "Direct Stats" - those tied directly to the field like AB's, BB's, OBP and then "Analytical Stats" - the ones that have been put through an analytical process for the sake of accurate complex comparisons.  *shrugs* For me I am fine with just calling them all "stats" and using them as a useful means of comparison within the sport.  It isn't a complete guide to baseball, the universe, and everything, but they do their job and they do it well.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Ultimately isn't it decided by a vote of informed baseball experts?

In theory, I suppose.

In practice, no. Several HOF voters, for instance, haven't actually covered baseball since the 1980s. There's no requirement for the voters to attempt to educate themselves about the game itself, which is why we end up with things like Michael Young getting an MVP vote because the voter is friends with him and thinks he's a good "leader."


Hmmm...I mean...the degree to which they are informed is obviously questionable, but that is how it has always been, and how it continues.  I see it almost as a buffer...sure Michael Young gets his MVP vote, but nobody, including the guy who voted for him, really expected he would actually win, it is almost more of an abstention (if you haven't noticed by now I care little for spelling), like he couldn't decide if Trout or Miggy was better, so might as well give his friend a shout-out.  He would rather not give Trout or Miggy his vote and potentially be the tie-breaker when he himself can't decide, so he abstains and gives more weight to those who have a strong opinion either way.  This is pure 100% conjecture, maybe the guy came out and flat out said "I voted for my boy for MVP because FARK YOU, that's why!" but in a system that has always been based on a vote, one hopes you get a macro-vote similar to the micro-vote we all feel inside when asking who should have won?  There can obviously be cases made either way, and there is no definitive objective answer to who should have won it.  Was the MVP vote even close, I honestly didn't follow it that closely, but based on the public arguements, I would expect the voting was pretty close too?  Some calls are just tough, and in the end 50% of the people are going to disagree with you, but you have to choose something.  Don't want controversy with the MVP solution?  Simple, don't have an MVP anymore.  It is just icing anyways and has no bearing on the World Series or even a single game.  It may impact some contract clause bonuses and such, but if that gets a specific players nose out of joint, then maybe they can structure an incentive in a contract for being top 10 WAR in the league or lowest ERA+ or whatever other stat a player feels is a better representation of his value.

/It has been a fun read guys, I'll check it out when I am back home in a couple hours.
 
2013-04-08 04:16:21 PM

ChrisDe: After six games, the Angels are 2-4.


Whoa.  I'm not able to follow these new-fangled NUMERICAL standings.  I don't know why you think a player's quality, let alone a whole team's quality, can be reduced to a heartless spreadsheet.  The official AL West standings are:

1) Astros: Gritty.  They do the little things, which makes up for all the big things that they are historically terrible at.
2) Angels: Able to overcome Mike Trout's terrible 2012.  Good Baseball IQ.
3) Oakland: Would be higher, but hot-dogging it.  They just want it more.
4) Texas: Need to be out there playing like kids, having fun.  All of their guys are go-to guys, and infinite loops are confusing.
5) Seattle: Not showing respect for the game.
 
2013-04-08 04:18:50 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: See, I like the advanced stats even if I haven't been bothered to really learn much about them (I finally looked up "OPS" about a year and a half ago). I loved learning baseball stats as a kid from the backs of cards, and that probably helped develop the math skills that made everything through calculus and linear algegra a breeze for me (before I learned architects aren't supposed to be good at math, grrr). I like that people are trying to look at the sport in different ways, and finding useful comparisons. Of course, as with any statistics, they can be massaged and cherry-picked to give essentially pre-determined results, but if you go into it "blind" wanting to make an honest comparison, what better tool do we have? I guess maybe you could argue that there should be two classes of stats....say "Direct Stats" - those tied directly to the field like AB's, BB's, OBP and then "Analytical Stats" - the ones that have been put through an analytical process for the sake of accurate complex comparisons. *shrugs* For me I am fine with just calling them all "stats" and using them as a useful means of comparison within the sport. It isn't a complete guide to baseball, the universe, and everything, but they do their job and they do it well.


An analogy I've used for awhile is this:

Everyone knows what temperature is. You can figure it out pretty easy: just buy a thermometer, hold it up in the air, and now you know the temp.

Dew point is a bit harder to figure out. I mean, just look at the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point#Calculating_the_dew_point

But dew point is actually a lot more useful for figuring out how comfortable it is out.

Batting average and wOBA (which is sort of like OPS with a lot more adjustments) are similar. Batting average is easy to figure, but wOBA tells you a lot more.

So I'm more or less with you. Stats are stats; some are just a lot more useful.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Was the MVP vote even close, I honestly didn't follow it that closely, but based on the public arguements, I would expect the voting was pretty close too?


Actually, no. Cabrera won by quite a bit.
 
2013-04-08 04:19:48 PM

chimp_ninja: 1) Astros: Gritty. They do the little things, which makes up for all the big things that they are historically terrible at.


Um, excuse me.

Astros are clearly 5 because they strikeout all the time and therefore are NOT gritty.
 
2013-04-08 04:21:07 PM

DeWayne Mann: So I'm more or less with you. Stats are stats; some are just a lot more useful.


Just curious, what do you think of DICE as a stat?
 
2013-04-08 04:23:14 PM

zarberg: DeWayne Mann: So I'm more or less with you. Stats are stats; some are just a lot more useful.

Just curious, what do you think of DICE as a stat?


I look at DICE as proto-FIP. Useful, but I can't think of any situation when I would use it instead of FIP.
 
2013-04-08 04:43:52 PM

DeWayne Mann: So, in conclusion:

Coaches & Managers are dumb.

Baseball execs are dumb for hiring coaches & managers.

People who actually research the game are dumb, because they don't listen to every crazy opinion offered on the internet.

JohnnyCanuck is not dumb, because


I didn't say or imply any of those things. I'm not surprised that what you got out of it tho. The only thing you got right was that last part.
 
2013-04-08 04:46:56 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I didn't say or imply any of those things.


So you don't read your own posts either.

Gotcha.
 
2013-04-08 04:49:08 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: I didn't say or imply any of those things.

So you don't read your own posts either.

Gotcha.


Just cuz you can't understand them, doesn't mean I don't read them.

Wana go out in the yard and play catch?
 
2013-04-08 04:51:23 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Just cuz you can't understand them, doesn't mean I don't read them.


If you're claiming that

JohnnyCanuck: Although I agree that most coaches and managers probably are not that bright beyond baseball.


in no way implies

DeWayne Mann: Coaches & Managers are dumb.


then, no, I don't understand what you're saying.
 
2013-04-08 04:52:02 PM

DeWayne Mann: An analogy I've used for awhile is this:

Everyone knows what temperature is. You can figure it out pretty easy: just buy a thermometer, hold it up in the air, and now you know the temp.

Dew point is a bit harder to figure out. I mean, just look at the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point#Calculating_the_dew_point

But dew point is actually a lot more useful for figuring out how comfortable it is out.

Batting average and wOBA (which is sort of like OPS with a lot more adjustments) are similar. Batting average is easy to figure, but wOBA tells you a lot more.

So I'm more or less with you. Stats are stats; some are just a lot more useful.


I like this analogy.

I think 50 years ago, this would be an argument against wOBA.  Nowadays, it's basically just as easy for me to figure out a player's wOBA as it is to figure out his batting average-- I look it up on the Internet.  I have to know his name and have my phone or a computer handy.  Even if I want a guy's AVG, I'm not going to watch video of every game to count hits and outs.  I'm going to look it up on the Internet, and 99% of the time I'm more interested in what a more advanced metric would tell me.

The nice thing about WAR is that once you're comfortable with its meaning, it wraps up a lot of complicated information into a general measure of quality.  If a casual fans asks "Who's better?", you have an answer that doesn't include lots of caveats and nuance, at least if the players are close.  Trying to explain that Carlos Gonzalez was a lot less valuable than David Wright in 2012 would otherwise involve explaining positional adjustments, home/road splits, park factors, quality of defense, counting stats vs. rates, etc., because their "traditional" stats were largely identical:

Gonzalez: .303, 22 HR, 85 RBI, 20 SB
Wright: .306, 21 HR, 93 RBI, 15 SB

Every GM in baseball knows you'd never trade David Wright for Carlos Gonzalez.  (Straight up, not counting salary, etc.)  Wright was a 7 WAR guy who is the linchpin of his franchise.  Gonzalez was a 2 WAR guy who is a product of his environment.  But you can't see that from the 19th-century stats people like to perpetuate.
 
2013-04-08 04:56:22 PM

chimp_ninja: I like this analogy.


I originally heard it as batting average vs OBP. Actually, I thought that I had stolen it from FJM, but I just tried to find it on their site and was unable to.

I'm gonna pretend I did anyway, though. Because it's FJM.
 
2013-04-08 04:59:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: I originally heard it as batting average vs OBP. Actually, I thought that I had stolen it from FJM, but I just tried to find it on their site and was unable to.

I'm gonna pretend I did anyway, though. Because it's FJM.


Update:

I found this: http://www.baseballnation.com/2011/6/29/2250644/noaametrics

I do follow the author on twitter, so I guess maybe I got it from him....but I swear I've been using it longer than two years.
 
2013-04-08 05:16:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: JohnnyCanuck: Just cuz you can't understand them, doesn't mean I don't read them.

If you're claiming that

JohnnyCanuck: Although I agree that most coaches and managers probably are not that bright beyond baseball.

in no way implies

DeWayne Mann: Coaches & Managers are dumb.

then, no, I don't understand what you're saying.


WOW...you're supposed to be the one claiming to never make a leap in logic...yet, there you have it.

\how about a wheel barrow race then? You can pick your partner 1st and everything!
 
2013-04-08 05:25:05 PM

JohnnyCanuck: you're supposed to be the one claiming to never make a leap in logic


I didn't say or imply that.
 
2013-04-08 06:01:16 PM

JohnnyCanuck: IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.

The majority probably, yes. I would even go as far as to say athletes.


Only in baseball and chess do you get fans who say they know much MUCH more about what is important than the players do
 
2013-04-08 06:02:12 PM

mikaloyd: JohnnyCanuck: IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.

The majority probably, yes. I would even go as far as to say athletes.

Only in baseball and chess do you get fans who say they know much MUCH more about what is important than the players do


I guess in Star Wars conventions too
 
2013-04-08 06:09:39 PM

mikaloyd: mikaloyd: JohnnyCanuck: IAmRight: JohnnyCanuck: For the record...anyone who wears "energy" bracelets or anything similar is probably almost as clueless of most of the regs in here.

So, baseball players then.

The majority probably, yes. I would even go as far as to say athletes.

Only in baseball and chess do you get fans who say they know much MUCH more about what is important than the players do

I guess in Star Wars conventions too


Baseball, chess, and Star Wars.

Things that are clearly related enough that an analogy will sum up all three nicely.

/If you had to have great baseball skills to know about baseball, why are some of the best hitting/pitching coaches some of the most mediocre former players?
 
2013-04-08 06:11:38 PM

mikaloyd: Only in baseball and chess do you get fans who say they know much MUCH more about what is important than the players do


I'm not sure why you lump all players together in a group.

Some players are extremely talented, and have no reason to actually sit down and try and figure out what makes them so good. Other players HAVE to do so just to fight and stay in the majors. And there are hundreds of places between those two extremes.

So to claim that all players know more than all fans seems rather unlikely.
 
2013-04-08 08:15:56 PM
Submitting a sabermetrics thread is like an instant greenlight.  These threads always generate a lot of traffic.
 
2013-04-08 08:32:41 PM

SlothB77: Submitting a sabermetrics thread is like an instant greenlight.  These threads always generate a lot of traffic.


I think the more important thing is that it doesn't have to do with a particular team. If it was an article on, say, how the Astros are using Sabermetrics to build the team, I don't think it would get a lot of posts.

From people other than me, I mean. I'd be all over that thread.
 
2013-04-08 08:38:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: I think the more important thing is that it doesn't have to do with a particular team. If it was an article on, say, how the Astros are using Sabermetrics to build the team, I don't think it would get a lot of posts.


Wait.  The Astros have a major league what now?  I thought they got relegated to Mexican winter ball.
 
2013-04-08 08:43:11 PM

chimp_ninja: DeWayne Mann: I think the more important thing is that it doesn't have to do with a particular team. If it was an article on, say, how the Astros are using Sabermetrics to build the team, I don't think it would get a lot of posts.

Wait.  The Astros have a major league what now?  I thought they got relegated to Mexican winter ball.


I meant to build their AA team. Which used to be their AAA team, but everyone got pushed down a level.
 
2013-04-08 08:46:41 PM
Leave it to ESPN to show a Mets Phillies game and do nothing but fellate the Braves.
 
2013-04-08 08:54:48 PM

Dafatone: Leave it to ESPN to show a Mets Phillies game and do nothing but fellate the Braves.


It's kinda depressing to watch Halladay struggle like that
 
2013-04-08 09:21:58 PM

DeWayne Mann: SlothB77: Submitting a sabermetrics thread is like an instant greenlight.  These threads always generate a lot of traffic.

I think the more important thing is that it doesn't have to do with a particular team. If it was an article on, say, how the Astros are using Sabermetrics to build the team, I don't think it would get a lot of posts.

From people other than me, I mean. I'd be all over that thread.


I submitted a link to the NBA stats page when they added the +/- column to it.  Did not get a greenlight.  This?  150 comments.  God i love that baseball is back.
 
2013-04-08 09:31:02 PM

Rex_Banner: Dafatone: Leave it to ESPN to show a Mets Phillies game and do nothing but fellate the Braves.

It's kinda depressing to watch Halladay struggle like that


Depressing or awesome?

Okay, I don't wish him any actual ill will or anything, but he's a 36 year old who had arm trouble early in his career.  He's a guy who, if such a thing is possible, should be losing it around now.  And the Phillies brought in Delmon and Michael Young.

I like seeing bad decisions fail.

/I'm not saying getting Halladay was a bad move, obviously, just the end of that contract had potential to not be pretty.
 
2013-04-09 12:31:34 AM

Dafatone: Rex_Banner: Dafatone: Leave it to ESPN to show a Mets Phillies game and do nothing but fellate the Braves.

It's kinda depressing to watch Halladay struggle like that

Depressing or awesome?

Okay, I don't wish him any actual ill will or anything, but he's a 36 year old who had arm trouble early in his career.  He's a guy who, if such a thing is possible, should be losing it around now.  And the Phillies brought in Delmon and Michael Young.

I like seeing bad decisions fail.

/I'm not saying getting Halladay was a bad move, obviously, just the end of that contract had potential to not be pretty.


On the flipside, Matt Harvey has some filthy stuff.

anyone see Joe Nathan's 300th save?
 
2013-04-09 08:56:46 AM

Dafatone: Rex_Banner: Dafatone: Leave it to ESPN to show a Mets Phillies game and do nothing but fellate the Braves.

It's kinda depressing to watch Halladay struggle like that

Depressing or awesome?

Okay, I don't wish him any actual ill will or anything, but he's a 36 year old who had arm trouble early in his career.  He's a guy who, if such a thing is possible, should be losing it around now.  And the Phillies brought in Delmon and Michael Young.

I like seeing bad decisions fail.

/I'm not saying getting Halladay was a bad move, obviously, just the end of that contract had potential to not be pretty.


I was going to make a comment about the terrible decisions that the Yankees have made recently, but Vernon Wells is slugging over .700 at the moment. And that's going to last because SHUT UP YES IT IS!

zarberg: anyone see Joe Nathan's 300th save?


I saw Nathan walk Zobrist on a 3-2 pitch that was way outside and in the dirt, but then everyone left the field as if it were strike three. I guess they just didn't want to play any more.
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report