Hits Allowed

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Zeeter



What is implied here is that if we are taking what is force fed to us by idiots, then we too are idiots. So, because I choose not to get involved with sabrmetrics, yet continue to want to discuss baseball with other like-minded folks, I am "lacking somewhat."

There is nothing in this sabrmetrics that makes any stathead any better than a BA head. I like baseball just as much as anyone else, and do so without getting into all of the math. Getting back to stats, I feel that sometimes the most basic of stats is disregarded. Batting average is Very important. RBI's are very important. Wins are very important. I'm sure everything in Sabrmetrics is important, too. And if I were to be a GM, I would probably hire people who could tell me through these formulas who was a better player. But I'd also talk to coaches and scouts about how a guy is developing and other non-statistical stuff.

My point about the baseball to football transition was perhaps misunderstood. I was pointing out that a guy just wanted to talk baseball, but he was talking with a "statboy" who simply ruined the conversation. I suppose I should have suggested basketweaving as an alternative, but hindsight and all of that.

What is implied here is that you're in position to come in here and discuss what matters is RBI and BA, while we have evidence that says that is not true- only for you to then respond that the casual fan thinks so . The casual fan believes in clutch hitting and proven veteran presence, and thinks Derek Jeter is better than A-rod because he knows how to win. That makes him an idiot from my perspective- at least regarding his understanding of baseball. If you listen to an idiot and don't question what he's telling you, what exactly are you then ? (the generic you)

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by crackpott
Actually, we have to assume that because you never mentioned any other stats. If a player hit more homers, than it might affect our decision.

As for 1.4X... it was in some study. Someone explained it in another thread i mentioned it. I never knew where it came from, I just knew it was proposed and seems to be true.

I think tangotiger pegged it as 1.65- a truer measure than OPS would have OBP*1.64 + SLG...

[Spielman]

Originally posted by Zeeter
My point about the baseball to football transition was perhaps misunderstood. I was pointing out that a guy just wanted to talk baseball, but he was talking with a "statboy" who simply ruined the conversation.

No, it wasn't misunderstood. I simply chose to use it as a springboard to make a point of my own.

If wins are so unimportant, then why do the best pitchers most often have the most wins?

Because wins are the result of the quality of the _team_, and the quality of the team is affected a great deal by the quality of the starting pitcher. So naturally, good pitchers will tend to have more wins, because they make their teams better when they're on the mound. It's just not a _direct_ measure of a starter's ability because it also measures other things, like how much run support they got, how good the defense behind them was, and whether the bullpen blew it or not.

-Spielman

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by Aadik
What is implied here is that you're in position to come in here and discuss what matters is RBI and BA, while we have evidence that says that is not true- only for you to then respond that the casual fan thinks so . The casual fan believes in clutch hitting and proven veteran presence, and thinks Derek Jeter is better than A-rod because he knows how to win. That makes him an idiot from my perspective- at least regarding his understanding of baseball. If you listen to an idiot and don't question what he's telling you, what exactly are you then ? (the generic you)

First of all, anyone who thinks that Jeter is better than A-Rod is an idiot. I'll give you that. But I don't need sabrmetrics to make that determination.

Furthermore, anyone that thinks the oposite, to counter my first paragraph, may not be an idiot, but may be a Jeter fan, which is fine. Do we really need to show stat after stat about how some guy's favorite player actually sucks when compared to another?

And I do believe that RBI's and BA matter. If I've got a guy who has a lot of RBI's I'm happy. I don't need a bunch of stats to tell me that yeah, he got a lot of RBI's, but so-and-so got a few less on a worse team and is actually better. The point is that my guy got more RBI's which made his team better. Does this really make me an idiot?

And by the way, the people that we are listening to, and I assume you mean the announcers such as the aforementioned McCarver, are telling us these stats as opposed to sabrmetric stats because those are the numbers that most of us understand. It is also assumed that if you study Sabrmetrics, then you know all of the stuff he would be telling you anyway, so why bother? If he started in on these Sabrmetrics, then the vast majority of the viewing audience would say a collective "Huh? So then he's....good...right?"

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by Spielman
No, it wasn't misunderstood. I simply chose to use it as a springboard to make a point of my own.



Because wins are the result of the quality of the _team_, and the quality of the team is affected a great deal by the quality of the starting pitcher. So naturally, good pitchers will tend to have more wins, because they make their teams better when they're on the mound. It's just not a _direct_ measure of a starter's ability because it also measures other things, like how much run support they got, how good the defense behind them was, and whether the bullpen blew it or not.

-Spielman

Most baseball fans realize that Nolan Ryan, while a strikeout machine, was not as great a pitcher as his 300 wins implied (he did get to 300, right?). On the other hand, you have a pitcher who wins fifteen games on a good team with a 4.60 ERA. Most baseball fans will realize that those fifteen wins were most likely a result of good run support rather than good pitching, as even the most casual fan can estimate that a 4.60 ERA on an average team will most likely get you 8-12 wins.
So yes, wins must be taken with a grain of salt. However, that 4.60 ERA pitcher still did enough in those games not to blow it, and he should get credit for that. On the other hand, I am a big believer in the Quality Start statistic (at the risk of starting another war here). If I see a pitcher had fifteen to twenty wins with a 4.60 ERA, then I'll look at his quality starts and say whether or not he was a good pitcher, or the product of a good team.
What I'm getting at here is that sure, when you really dig deep Wins are not really that important. However, it is a good starting point, just like Batting Average is.

I may see a guy with 190 hits, and a great average because of it. This is a good place to start off. Digging deeper, I'll see that he only scored 80 runs. Why? He had a horrible OBP. He had nobody on the team to drive him in. Most of his hits were singles so he was rarely ever immediately put in scoring position.

I can get all of this stuff when digging deep into a player's stats, yet I start off by looking at hits and average. If the guy had hit .255, he's probably only got an OBP of .300 or so. I'm certainly not going to want to dig deeper into that player because my immediate opinion of him is that he sucks. That is, unless I also notice that he had 35 homers.

These "meaningless" stats are telling. They are springboards to look deeper into a player.

[holyroller]

Originally posted by Zeeter
These "meaningless" stats are telling. They are springboards to look deeper into a player.

Why not just look at the meaningful statistics in the first place?

[Henry]

I think some of us have lost perspective of "why" we were looking to sabermetrics to start with. We're not talking about enjoying the game here - we're trying to find a way for the "game" (which MUST determine things based on equations) can create more realistic players - and present that information in such a way that we can "scout" or "analyze" these players with somewhat reasonable regularity.

This isn't about who is better, or whether we enjoy the game or not - but it is about having "Joe Miller" (fictional) or "Barry Bonds" (real) perform and develop in ways that are realistic and expected.

The feeling at the current time is that too much is left up to the "dice roll" - or that decisions on development are made on stats that are not that important.

If we can apply sabermetrics to a deeper degree in how the game makes these decisions (performance and development) then we can look at a player and feel he is more "realistic" - and we can make some GM decisions that we feel comfortable about.

That isn't to say "predictable" - just "comfortable". I still want things to be varaible - good and bad - right and wrong - unexpected-no-reason-changes, but I want to know that I have a chance to make the right decisions rather than have the game change things in mid stream on a whim.

I like the way this discussion has gone. I don't think all of it can be incorporated in the game - but I do think that it will result in something better - and isn't THAT what we're doing here ?

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by holyroller
Why not just look at the meaningful statistics in the first place?

Comments like this will not get you invited to Chistmas dinner.

[dougaiton]

My favourite statistic in the whole world is the only statistic apart from goals that is kept in soccer across the world - the glorious 'cap'. It's good because:

a) its a physical thing that you can see, and thus not dispute
b) you get it for performing a clear and indisputable function (playing for your country)
c) Nobody puts any real worth in them at all across teams or timespan, because they all occur under entirely different circumstances (i.e. there are 3 central defender positions, but only one keeper, so more defenders will get caps)
d) they look nice on the mantlepiece, and can get sold off by ex-footballers to pay for liver transplants

As far as I can see, until any baseball stats perform 4, they will never match up to the mighty cap. There's a paralell somewhere here about RBIs, but I just can't spot it. Ho-hum.

[Spielman]

Originally posted by Zeeter
These "meaningless" stats are telling. They are springboards to look deeper into a player.

*sigh*

So if looking deeper into a player isn't a crime, then why reject, across the board, any methods of doing that if they come under the heading of 'Sabermetrics'?

Tom Brady is a good quarterback!

-Spielman

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Spielman
And he gets credit for those innings, because the five scoreless innings in your scenario affect his ERA, just like the disasterous first inning does. Also, those six innings pitched go into his stats so that at the end of the season you can look back and say "Sure, his ERA wasn't great, but he soaked up a lot of innings because he didn't get knocked out of the box often." Stats DO measure the things you're talking about there. Not a good example for your argument.



And we know that the other guys in the lineup aren't good RBI men how, exactly? Divination? Tea leaves? Or are we expected to make the assumption that the guy filling out the lineup card knows all, sees all and never makes a mistake? Might there not be some better ways to figure out which batters are likely to be the best RBI guys?



Whyever not? Surely you'd want to check that your RBI man is actually doing an efficient job? Or are we back to infallible tea leaves?



The fact that he would be increasing the potential damage that the next guy might do by putting another potential run on base, is of course, beside the point, right?



Maybe. And maybe you could check that by seeing how well the various RBI men are doing in actual RBI situations with runners on base. But you don't care about that.



Could happen. Of course, show me a team which is so inept that a player who gets on base 40% of the time isn't ever going to score as a result, and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

Look, the OBP thing isn't really difficult. Of COURSE OBP is going to be a more useful stat than BA. Why? Because it INCLUDES BA to begin with. Walks are good. Nobody's saying they're as good as a hit, but they're good. They increase the potential damage that the next guy in the order can do. Yes, OBP pretends that they're as useful as a homerun, which is obviously false. But BA is already pretending that a single is as valuable as a double or a HR, so that's nothing new. OBP takes BA and gives you additional useful information about BBs and HBPs.

Acting snotty towards OBP in favor of BA is like Ford saying "We make most of our money from cars and SUVs, so we're going to completely ignore how much we're bringing in from trucks and other vehicles." Sure, that other information might not be as weighty, but ignoring it would be stupid.

-Spielman

Speilman, forgot to say, this was impressive- one of the best sarcastic's destruction of an arguement in a while...

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Spielman
*sigh*

So if looking deeper into a player isn't a crime, then why reject, across the board, any methods of doing that if they come under the heading of 'Sabermetrics'?

Tom Brady is a good quarterback!

-Spielman

Hey hey- he's better than Dan Marino, cause Marino never won anything....

Seriously though, this is point I think we're all trying to make- I hate the accusation that sabrematicians aren't "Real " fans or any of that crap- we just care enough about the game to attempt to understand it at a better level. This is basically the same logic as saying scientists aren't real "Christians", because they are attempting to figure out the underlying nature of what's around them, and just as inane.

[WLight]

Zeeter, you are a completely lost cause. You disregard objective evidence and then get huffy when somebody 'suggests' that you disregard objective evidence.

But anyway, fine. Batting average and RBI are the the perfect statistics for the casual fan. That doesn't make him an idiot, just ignorant. And the 'casual fan' may prefer ignorance, as you do. You are right about that.

[Dwolfson20]

Zeeter, here is what you are missing with the RBI point.

You keep referring to a guy that has 130 RBIs (Player A) and guy that has 90 RBIs (Player B), while acknowledging that the guy with 90 might be better because he played on a much worse team and did not have runners on base for him. But you still insist that the guy with 130 produces more runs. Here is the extension to this that you haven't yet made: if you have the players switch teams, Player B will drive in more runs. It's a stat that is dependent on the team; if Player B has better run production stats than Player A, he will drive in more runs if placed on the better team.

[Spielman]

Originally posted by Aadik
Speilman, forgot to say, this was impressive- one of the best sarcastic's destruction of an arguement in a while...

Danke.

-Spielman

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by Henry
The feeling at the current time is that too much is left up to the "dice roll" - or that decisions on development are made on stats that are not that important.

If we can apply sabermetrics to a deeper degree in how the game makes these decisions (performance and development) then we can look at a player and feel he is more "realistic" - and we can make some GM decisions that we feel comfortable about.

This is exactly right, and it's the reason I'm such a big defender of sabermetrics on these boards. If I'm at a sports bar with the guys, I don't start lecturing them about the uselessness of RBIs when they say something about Garret Anderson. But if the game can model these on the actual underlying factors that work in real life, then we will have a realistic game model. Now, once that is achieved, we can all use any stats we want to measure a player's worth. If you want to use RC/27, or RBIs, or whatever - more power to you.

But we *need* to use the most scientific method possible when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the game, and sabermetrics withstands rigorous analysis better than anything else we can use. Not to say it won't get better over time - it most assuredly will. But we need to use the most accurate possible system to model players that we have available for game purposes.

I don't mean for anyone to change the way they watch baseball games - enjoy them however you like. Look..... I still like looking at RBI stats as much as the next guy. They are what I grew up with. But, we shouldn't have anything silly like an RBI rating, because that would make the game more random and less realistic.

Just my two cents.

[blackamus]

It is fairly obvious to me that RBI is a flawed (although not entirely worthless) measure of a players worth. As was stated by someone else earlier though, "no one stat can give a full measure of a player's worth". I would also say that looking at all of a player's stats put together doesn't give a full view of a player either. Bill James can claim that defense is factored into Win Shares as much as he wants. Defense, like many other aspects of the game, is simply not a quantifiable resource. I have watched countless thousands of baseball games since I have been alive; which also means I have seen many, many centerfielders. I know simply from observation that no man has the ability to run down a ball in the outfield as well as Andruw Jones. Why is it so hard to accept that simple observation of events can provide understanding?
***I'm just going to cut to my point now***
I know from my observation of the sport of baseball that a pitcher most definitely has the ability to prevent hits. Obviously the major component of that is the ability to prevent a hard hit ball. Other components of that are a pitcher's ability to pitch to his defense, ballpark, and most importantly a batter's weakness'. If it were true that a pitcher only had minimal impact on whether or not batted balls were outs it would also have to be true that a batter has minimal impact on whether or not HIS batted balls become outs or hits. Would anyone care to go out on that limb?

A previous poster stated that since mathematics are rational, one should expect mathematical results to be rational. Not true. Suppose one is solving an equation to determine what time a given event will take place. Depending on the number of variables in the equation, a related number of solutions will be given. Not all of the solutions will be rational given the context of the event. Correct?

How does this relate to the game (Out of the Park)? I don't want the game changed to reflect some new "finding" that is not necessarily valid.

ps. could the gentleman who said that fielding% is worthless please explain that to me? I'll hold off criticism of that statement until I hear your reasoning.

pps. is there really a need to quote a huge post and then add: "that was a really good post" ?

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by blackamus
If it were true that a pitcher only had minimal impact on whether or not batted balls were outs it would also have to be true that a batter has minimal impact on whether or not HIS batted balls become outs or hits. Would anyone care to go out on that limb?


ps. could the gentleman who said that fielding% is worthless please explain that to me? I'll hold off criticism of that statement until I hear your reasoning.

1. Why does that have to be true?

2. It wasn't me, but -- fielding percentage is one of the few stats that attempts to quantify plays that someone didn't make. Also, a truly great fielder will get to lots of balls that inferior fielders would have not gotten to, and thus become hits. If the great fielder gets to 200 extra balls, and makes errors on 3 of them, according to fielding percentage, he would be worse than the other fielder. This is why range factor, while still flawed, is a far superior stat.

[Spielman]

Originally posted by blackamus
If it were true that a pitcher only had minimal impact on whether or not batted balls were outs it would also have to be true that a batter has minimal impact on whether or not HIS batted balls become outs or hits.

No it bloody well wouldn't.

Jeez. That's like arguing that because I have no control over whether or not I get a parking ticket _after_ I've double parked, the meter maid on duty in the area must also have absolutely no control over whether or not I get a ticket.

-Spielman

[Gastric ReFlux]

Why is it so hard to accept that simple observation of events can provide understanding?

For years now, I have observed that the earth seems fairly well flat. Well I mean where I live it's got lots of hills and all, but it seems pretty flat. I don't notice any sort of roundness really while driving around.