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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report