I see what you did there.
It’s funny. I like threads on Straight Dope more than anywhere else. I like talking about baseball more than most other things. Yet you put the two together and I invariably end up annoyed in real life, and every time I get involved I end up kicking myself for doing so.
Shit, man. Why do you guys ask for explanations of things if you aren’t going to think about them?
I am thinking about, you have failed to convince me and obviously I have failed to convince you. Two wait street here.
I actually haven’t personally tried to convince you unless you think batting average is more important than on base percentage, but I’ve been reading.
For my part I say give me evidence that the thing you’re talking about exists and I will acknowledge it. Tell me it exists and then refuse to engage rebuttals head-on, and I will assume that you’re just holding onto an emotional preference rather than an intellectual one.
And for the record, I and all (maybe most) of the baseball fans I know also like the emotional side of it. I like when a guy I support gets 20 wins, and in my gut I feel like it’s significant when a pitcher takes a loss despite giving up only 2 earned or whatever. But I acknowledge that these are irrational responses, and I don’t try to hide my biases with a cloud of facts that I’m not really invested in. If you believe wins are more important than baserunners or runs allowed, more power to you, and good thing you’re a Yankees fan. But you are mistaken if you think you’ve provided any factual support for that belief.
You know oddly all the new-stat heads on this board tell me there is no such things as clutch, or protecting the batter or knowing how to get the win or even great post-season player and yet last year my predictions of the seasons results for all 6 divisions were probably closer than anyone. So either I am extremely lucky or maybe, just maybe the old baseball wisdom still holds enough value. Even the Red Sox with Bill James in their employ question the defensive stats when it comes to the Range Factor of Ellsbury at least.
So enjoy your ivory tower and I will continue to love and enjoy baseball in my own ignorant but time honored way.
That would be an example of being overly emotional about this, yes.
My ivory tower is made up of bricks like: a firm conviction that Robert Person had one of the greatest arsenals in major league baseball in the 90s, a perennial belief that this is the year that Vicente Padilla comes into his own and dominates, and an intense hatred of the greatest pitcher to pitch for my favorite team during my lifetime because of his attitude. I thought Tony Batista was a great player, for christ’s sakes. So respectfully, give me a break with the ivory tower bullshit.
You’re the elitist, I’m sorry to say. You’re the one looking down his nose. You’re the one staking out a position of superior intuition, of superior depth and nuance of knowledge. You’re the one who thinks he can define for everyone else what it is to understand baseball. The rest of us are just having a good time learning things and talking about them. And for what it’s worth, any one of these guys you’re arguing with, Hawkeye, Munch, and so on, could wipe the floor with you using only “old baseball wisdom.” You don’t think they’ve read the books and the old Stengel quotes and Rube Waddell fire-engine-chasing anecdotes? They just know something else, too, and you take your potshots at them because of it, because you think you’re in an ivory tower.
You mean this onewhere a grand total of 7 people made predictions (including one for the Royals)? Congrats.
What, you weren’t expecting a “small sample size” rebuttal here? And “old baseball wisdom” at least requires the knowledge (a few weeks before Opening Day) that the best catcher in the game was out with a serious injury.
How refreshing to get out of my mother’s basement. I’ll add your name with gonzo’s to the list of those totally unwilling to engage in any sort of honest discussion with an actual give and take exchange of ideas.
Well ignorance is time honored tradition, but this isn’t really the board to be proud of it.
The thing about Bill James is that he was never a brilliant statistician. What he did, better than anyone else, was ask questions objectively. Let’s say he was looking at this issue. He wouldn’t say I believe there are pitchers who can pitch to the score and look to prove it (as you continually do). He wouldn’t say pitchers can’t pitch to the score and try to prove that. What he would say was if pitchers had an ability to pitch to the score we would see evidence of it in this fashion. And then he would see what the evidence said and come to a conclusion. When you stop reaching conclusion at the beginning instead of the end, we can continue this discussion.
Oh and the point of my predictions was never to be as accurate as possible. If so I’d just use projections that I trust. I want to predict interested, unexpected things and see if I am right. Your accuracy might mean you are knowledgeable, and might mean you are lucky, but mostly it means you are boring.
In the meantime let’s discuss something more interesting. How bout the AL West which looks like a fascinating 4 team race?
First AL West is a three team race with the Rangers a long shot. It is Angels and Seattle with the A’s looking very bad.
Second to Munch, why is it the only way I can be having an honest discussion is if I agree with you? I stayed polite the entire time until you started swiping at me until after I said I had nothing more to say. Are all your honest debates as said, you and friends lecture and all must agree? I tried to change the subject but instead got attacked.
Those 3 players are extremely close. I would probably look at age as a determining factor in making a choice among them.Utley is a better stealer and base runner. Polanco is a solid fielder. There are a lot of stats ignored in that analysis.
I do agree that the stats are helpful . Having seen Polanco the last few years ,I know he moves runners along very well . He is a solid contact hitter. He does not strike out often.
I see how if everything else was was relatively equal that analysis would be beneficial. Actually it could well be a big part of the evaluating process.
Now you have to adjust SLG for ball park differences.
Circling back to this: looky here.
If I linked that correctly there should be a column titled Wlst for Wins Lost. Right next to that is Lsv, which is Losses Saved. In case they aren’t self-explanatory, the former shows how many times a pitcher left the game win-eligible but didn’t get a win; the latter how many times a pitcher was on the hook for a loss but the offense tied it up after he left the game.
Fascinating little section, that one. Lists Cheap Wins and Tough Losses, too, which is fertile ground for someone other than me to till if they’re so inclined.
edit: gonzomax, sincerely, thanks for the response.
Uh, the only “swipe” I took at you was in reaction to your delightful ivory tower comment. My “I see what you did there” was lighthearted because you used the word “win” in your post. See? Funny.
As for the only honest discussion being one I agree with is simply misplaced. If you’ll go back, you’ll see that I’m continually asking to see if what I’m saying is making sense, trying (and failing) to get feedback from you, and a frustration with you first saying you’d either come back with stats to back up what you said or concede (regarding Pettitte and his teammates) and it not happening. If you can point to where you’ve added anything objective, we can pick it up from there.
Absolutely. Just as there are when evaluating players by batting average. Actually, there one less stat ignored in that analysis when you use OBP versus batting average. Which was the point of his post.
First, I think you’re discounting Utley’s defense - he’s a fantastic fielder. Secondly, I’m not sure fielding has a whole lot to do in determining where in the batting order you put someone (this particular discussion being “which of the following would you choose to be your lead off hitter as an exercise in seeing how OBP is useful”).
Without looking at the numbers, I won’t disagree with any of these. How much weight do you put into moving baserunners along for a leadoff hitter?
I’m sure you’re right and there’s a difference. But park differences as you move from a small outfield to a larger one are mostly going to change HRs into doubles, and add a few more outs. But the real thing you’re looking for in SLG are large shifts that indicate lack of power. There’s not a lot of nuance to look for in the stat like there are in AVG or OBP.
Nope. Utley is such a superior hitter (and fielder) to the other two that it’s not even funny.
So Polanco is not a good fielder now? Two gold gloves and seasons at 2nd with zero errors.
Please tell me where I said or even implied that. I didn’t. Utley being a great fielder does not, in any way whatsoever, diminish Polanco’s defensive abilities. Holy fuck, man.
You mean the AL Central.
Nah. The Royals have like 3 good players, the Indians have no pitching, the White Sox a lackluster offense, and while the Tigers have star power, they also have holes all over the place. Now that the Twins have decided it is okay to have a middle infield that hits a bit and Liriano has another year to recover, I think they will win pretty easily.
The west, however, is much more wide open. The Angels are the incumbent, but they downgraded from Lackey to Pineiro and Figgins to Brandon Wood. I like Wood, but at some points these losses will catch up. If you go by their pyth record they only should have won ~86 games last year, and thus you would expect them to be no better than a 500 team. However, the Angels have consistently outplayed their pyth record, so perhaps they can hang on for another year.
Seattle did much better than expected last year. Normally you would expect some regression, but they Cliff Lee, Figgins, and Milton Bradley to the attack. There offense should be better, but still not good, so the question is can they be carried by pitching and defense once more.
Texas seems to be the stat projections team of choice. Most ones I’ve seen thus far have them first or at least within reach. They finally have developed some pitching, have an elite infield, and a ton of young talent developing in the majors or on the cusp of joining.
Oakland was a trendy pick last year, but it didn’t work. As it turns out if you have 5 rookies in your rotation you are going some growing pains. This year I can see them as a bit of a post-hype sleeper. There rotation is fronted by Sheets and Bret Anderson, both capable of putting up ace level performances, and taking pressure off the rest of the staff. Bailey is easily the most dominate closer in the division unless Feliz is given the role for Texas. They have a ton of depth in the outfield and corners, but are weak in the middle infield and lack stars. Still I don’t know that there offense is any worse than Seattle and there pitching might be able to match.
Looks like ex-Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi will be joining ESPN’s Baseball Tonight stating in March. Aaron Boone has already been added to the show, and possibly Nomar Garciaparra could join the cast as well.
Joel Zumaya is healthy again and the coaches claim his throws are nasty. If so, the Tigers have either a late reliever or closer . All is well.
The Tigers faded last year but they had major serious injuries and…Willis.
Regarding the earlier topic of new-school vs old-school stats, I found this BP article from ESPN play-by-play announcer Jon Sciambi thoughtful and relevant (his end-of-essay random digression about Dick Cheney aside).