Chemistry

then it should be given, right? It is not a hard concept. And to give OPS alone and not give the full story (team W-L, opposing teams, etc) is not truly giving the stats.

Stats can also be twisted to however you want them to read at times. For example, take second hand smoking related deaths. The numbers are skewed, and people ignore that because it gives them the results they want. The study that produced the numbers was thrown out of court and deemed invalid, but the stats continue to come out from it annually.

you say you are correct VEP (and I am wrong) when the study given by you guys actually says that there are intangibles not to be dismissed, even if a small amount (see my post below where i give that to you) and you provide a study from 2002 that quotes information from a study from 2000, which does not agree with a study from 1999, and so on.

also, both Al and I have asked for additional stats from the stat guys who want to say they are right, and that has not been provided, so be it, why provide the information needed to prove yourself when you can cherry pick it and avoid it.

Regarding my options given by VEP

1 NO F’N WAY your own link says you are wrong

2 you said I am wrong, prove it with the proper details, OPS does not do so, and your own links provided do not prove you are

3 i admit that both tangibles and intangibles need to be considered in sports and real life, and that stat junkies refuse to accept such a reality (like the 10 year hitter we discussed where you say his 10 year career stats are not who he is, but how he played only LMFAO) and prefer to try and staemroll and gang up with bullsh*t scenarios while telling others not to use a scenario when they are debating against you about the same topic.

but I will add a fourth
I will admit that time and time again I have tried to agree to disagree and both Dartmont and VEP continue to try and challange and have avoided multiple details given to them, including the following quote from their own link

This doesn’t preclude playing a hunch, as some managers are prone to do, but there’s no way to independently establish whether the hunch was a good gamble or not. The same rational, evidence-based decisions would be made whether an undetectable ability exists or whether no ability exists. They are, for practical purposes, equivalent, even if they are theoretically distinct. I acknowledged as much in my original BP99 article:


[…] if there is a true game calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability exists that influences results on the field.

link

There is, of course, the catcher issue. Unfortunately, there’s not a
whole lot to work with here in terms of comparative data, because he had
so few postseason starts with Lopez behind the plate. Lopez only started
behind the plate four times out of Maddux’s 27 postseason starts; on two
other occasions Lopez was brought in to catch after Maddux had had a
particularly bad first inning. Here’s how the numbers look overall:


With Lopez behind the plate (only 36 IP:
—2 wins, 2 losses, 1.69 ERA, 2.17 RA, 7.96 H/9, 1.45 BB/9, 6.05 K/9,
0.24 HR/9


With other catchers behind the plate (144 IP):
—9 wins, 11 losses, 3.12 ERA, 4.36 RA, 8.60 H/9, 2.24 BB/9, 4.58 K/9
0.69 HR/9


Again, small sample caveats apply above. But what about hitting, how
much did the backup catchers weigh down the offense behind Maddux?


Lopez in Maddux games:
—4 hits and 1 BB in 15 PA (286/333/357), 1 R, 0 RBI. 1 double, no HR.
All 4 hits came in the games he started, he went 0-8 in the two games
where he was brought in after rough first innings. The team did not come
back to win either of those games.


Other catchers in Maddux games:
—14 hits and 4 BB in 66 PA (.226/.272), 4 R, 11 RBI. Don’t know SLG,
but they did manage 4 HR, so I’m guesstimating that SLG at somewhere in
the mid-high 400 range.


Lopez catching other pitchers in the postseason
—277/324/514 – 10 HR and 28 RBI in 205 AB


So, it looks like Javy never hit much when he was catching Maddux, but
he hit to his career numbers with other pitchers. Those other catchers
mostly sucked, but 4 HR in only 62 AB is good rate, it prorates to a 30
HR season. Overall the offense averaged only 2.5 runs in Javy’s starts
vs. 4.36 runs in starts with the other catchers. Again, small sample,
but interesting. Given that Lopez hit very well for the other pitchers,
  one might expect that over a larger sample with maddux he’d have done
better; but, though the backup catchers were weak on OBP, they did okay
on slugging and the overall gap isn’t as huge as one might think I’d
guess less than 100 points of OPS separates their performance from how
Javy did with everyone else. All that said, there’s no real compelling
evidence that the backup catchers helped Maddux pitch better than he
would have with Lopez behind the plate.

is that enough now VEP, or shall I continue? And before you say “this link is a small sample” it is more of a sample that just giving OPS and leaving it at that. This actually shows how both Lopez and Maddux performed lesser than career averages when paired together. Quite interesting

a two yer study of Fontenot is a too small of a sample to peg him, but a two year study can peg a catachers ability to help a pitcher, which is it then?

second, the link about Maddux tells a very black and white story, but leaves out too much details there. Who did the catchers catch again, since the talent they are playing in each game DOES SKEW the OPS+ as I explained.

And my opinion from playing does weigh in on how I feel about this, sure I have not kept that as a secret.

You contiue to try to tell me I am wrong, but cannot produce anything to prove without a shadow of a doubt. Your proof is outdated from seven years ago, and you tell me that you cannot provide the stats I ask for (which I think is ironic, since the stat would be out there).

Team chemistry does matter, so does comfort for any player when they are on the field, and a catcher-pitcher comfort zone counts.

Al also asked for additional details, and I see you skipped that 100%

you are aware that your link from 7 years ago and included information from a 9 year old posting about it found here

And even your link stats that it can affect the game, even if he only admits to a minimal amount, he admits it, yet you cannot

This doesn’t preclude playing a hunch, as some managers are prone to do, but there’s no way to independently establish whether the hunch was a good gamble or not. The same rational, evidence-based decisions would be made whether an undetectable ability exists or whether no ability exists. They are, for practical purposes, equivalent, even if they are theoretically distinct. I acknowledged as much in my original BP99 article:


[…] if there is a true game calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability exists that influences results on the field.

he says he cannot detect it, and that is based on the randoms he selected to use in the study, meaning that no one knows what he used and what he left out. It is a good read, I have read it before, and just did again, but even your own link says not to rule out what you are telling me to rule out.

There are a lot of links out there about Catchers ERA, and this is a good quote from one you ailed to offer up

The future of a game-calling measure, whether it be CERA or RPR (Run Prevention Rate) or some other formula derived from the play-by-play numbers, will still have to answer two questions:


Do the differences in game-calling measures (ie. CERA) among catchers vary from what we’d expect solely from chance or are the variations statistically significant?
Are the year-to-year game-calling measures for a catcher capable of being trended?

A catcher gains game-calling ability with time. The longer he’s in the majors the more he’s learned about his pitchers and the opposing hitters. A catcher must remember every pitch sequence to every hitter so as to avoid being predictable, a catalog that might stretch back several innings or several years. The longer he catches the more game-calling ability he possesses, which should show up in the numbers – some numbers somewhere. And that is the challenge – To identify the right numbers and assemble them in the right way.

now this one from 2008 gets more into what I originally stated, which is about the pitcher being the one in the comfort zone (this went from Maddux to the Catcher). I originally was expressing chemistry between a catcher and a pitcher, and it got spun into CERA. I guess stating that a pitcher has a comfort level and a chemistry with one catcher over another cannot be accepted as what was said, and it has not turned into all this.