The Best Sabermetric vs Non-Stat Q&A You Will Ever Read
by CalCalender on Dec 29, 2009 9:55 PM CST
Email
Print
Hat tip to anothercubsblog for linking to this debate.
Basically what you have is Tom Tango who is one of the top 5 SABR guys out today in a debate with a "traditional guy". The traditional guy asks/attacks various sabermetric staples that you see used at BCB all the time. They include UZR, WAR, FIP, how WAR assigns a dollar value to a players performance ect ect. These issues have lead to several threads around here with hundreds of heated comments back and forth. For everyone on both sides of the debate take a look at these posts and comment here if you want. I think it explains things in a very clear, concise way and should lead to a better discussion (fingers crossed) than what we have seen here in the past on these issues.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
236 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Link
to the main page posting the questions
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php
Can’t wait for the next 5
Well, I'm trying to read through it, but one thing has quickly become very clear...
…that site could stand a good usability review.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
not
alot of bells a whistles over there but you go for the writing.
by CalCalender on Dec 29, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions
the substance may be good but the jury's still out on the style
I have no idea who this Mike Silva guy is, but I was not impressed with Tango’s method of introducing him.
- I rightfully accused Mike Silva of farting his opinion on sabermetrics.
- He made his summary opinions without evidence, or in other words, bullsh!t.
- the gasbag that we’ve come to ignore and dismiss,
Don’t know and don’t care if Silva really is all that (and more), just doesn’t do much for your position if you have to resort to that kind of name-calling when you’re trying to make a point or convince others of your thinking.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
at least he didn't say pound sand.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 12:06 AM CST up reply actions
You are missing the full backstory of this
So try not to pass judgment too quickly.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:12 AM CST up reply actions
actually, even if I assume that Silva is everything Tango said he is (which is my going-in position)...
what does Tango have to gain by stooping to Silva’s level?
To wit, there have been several sub-threads in BCB lately where pairs (and sometimes trios) of users have squared off and gone at it back-n-forth like Itchy and Scratchy. These are users whose postings I would normally read and take seriously, but the bickering, name-calling, and general “I know you are, but what am I” tone really diluted whatever message they were trying to send.
Unless of course, the message was one based on providing much amusement and merriment to the rest of us reading along. In that case, they succeeded mightily.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I think Tango was establishing the backstory
But I could be wrong.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:34 AM CST up reply actions
PS - THE BOOK is awesome.
Good for any stats nerd, beginner or otherwise.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Shut up, your WRONG.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 29, 2009 11:11 PM CST up reply actions
Im' wut?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 29, 2009 11:12 PM CST up reply actions
I read it recently - in the last couple months...
…and it is very well done. I don’t even qualify as a beginner stats nerd, so it was a bit of a struggle at times. But the book did , among other things: a) Give me a renewed appreciation of appropriate sample sizes, and b) Really drive home exactly how many details a manager has to take into account during a baseball game.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
My favorite
so far has been the UZR discussion and the WAR financials. The non stat guy asked/raised all the good points and Tango did a great job explaining them.
With fangraphs taking the lead from BP as probably the most cited site because of the WAR stat understanding how they come up with their valuations is a good thing.
also, it's free...
as in beer!
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions
i started reading and will finish it later
but I do notice that, once again, it is a stat guy saying that stats are right and intangibles matter little to zilch, just well written (or so it seems so far).
and again, i am to believe a stat guy is right cuz another stat guy says so? And of course there is the usual “Protection is real, and it does exist. But, in an overall value sense, it has almost no impact.” garbage (common repy to anything that the stat guru cannot put an exact measurment on). you cannot dismiss it and just assume it levels out. Just once I wish a stat person would stop trying to dismiss such things as “minimal” or “not important” and accept reality for what it is.
again i have only read part and i will finish reading later, but this seems to be alot of the same that is forced down my throat by VEP when i give him facts that he wants to dismiss since they do not fit in with his stat sheet
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I don't see where in any of those threads intangibles are mentioned
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:10 AM CST up reply actions
But that's because you can't see intangibles
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
Unless they're...
Tangible intangibles. :-p
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
Can you prove to me that
tangible intangibles even exist?
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
I have a gut feeling...
that the evidence can.
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions
I always picture tangerines whenever someone says or writes, "Intangibles."
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
to quote another famous sabermetrician,
‘reading is fundamental’:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-around-batters (this was clearly cited as evidence for why protection is pretty meaningless)
Cubbie's problem
from what I understand, is that he doesn’t like us dismissing or minimizing the impact of stuff like protection and catcher’s ERA… correct me if I’m wrong.
I just don’t understand his objection. Speaking, not as a stats guy, but as a rational human being, if I knew of a variable, that, while it clearly existed, had been proven to have a very small effect on the outcome of whatever I was looking at, I would dismiss it as not being very important. In the case of protection, it’s very clear that it doesn’t make a big difference in terms of overall production of the players being protected. The article linked above, along with several other studies, have shown this.
So then I ask, why should we consider it? We should “accept reality for what it really is”, yes, but in the case of stuff like protection and CERA, “it” really isn’t much.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 3:24 AM CST up reply actions
to dismiss is to skew
you cannot throw out raw data and state that what was choosen to be kept will now be accurate. its not a problem, its being realistic.
and i paraphrased using the word intangibles VEP, but did quote a part of the link where, as always, it is being said that its not important enough to be used.
again VEP and others, I am not arguing with you the person, stop taking it personal, i know we do not agree on this topic, but to dismiss what you state is a valid and actual event that does take place (minimal in your eyes or not) is to skew the stats. Its not a hard concept.
And in regards to CERA, i noticed not one stat guru commented on my link in the other thread where a SABR says to use it.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
nobody
is insulting you. And lets not turn this thread into that kind of back and forth. IMHO you are misusing CERA but to each his own.
I am usign CERA as an example
of where SABRs cannot agree with each other, and I gave the links to show that. The link I gave was ignored and set aside so to speak instead of used in any conversation.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
you cannot throw out raw data and state that what was choosen to be kept will now be accurate. its not a problem, its being realistic.
Engineers do this all the time. When things like friction or tunneling effects or any other number of higher level calculations turn out to have a negligible effect, they are often ignored. And yet our cars still run and our computers still work.
The key of course is first determining that these effects won’t be a significant factor.
by redward on Dec 30, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd, as an engineer
this is absolutely the case. there are countless phenomena that we acknowledge are too difficult (meaning time-consuming and thus prohibitively expensive) to include in a model/simulation. but, as you point out, that’s ok, bc at the end of the day you have to use engineering judgement (common sense) to make a call about what factors are probably trivial. when you look at the UZR leaders every year, you can be pretty confident the model is a sound one (just as, as you point out, a computer is still stable 99% of the time). every model has its limitations —but the great thing about the scientific method is that it constantly allows you to improve your model by testing new hypotheses.
the real counterpoint here should be led by social scientists who might shed some light on the qualitative and quantitative effects of how individuals affect group behavior, etc. just bc the social dynamics of baseball teams haven’t been formally studied (or at least gained mainstream status), doesn’t mean there isn’t a wealth of existing scientific data about how other kinds of teams/groups behave and influence each other’s productivity. social phenomena have been studied for decades, so the notion that team chemistry is some kind of magic powder with mysteries yet uncovered, is hogwash. can’t put a number on MB’s negative impact? i disagree, it’s just tough to get good, unbiased data. at the end of the day, we’re not debating the existence of God…just the behavior of people; the scientific method has been applied to this problem already, it’s just a matter of who will have the balls (and expertise) to start chemistrygraphs.com.
pretty lame attempt at insulting me
using a SABR to defend another SABR when another SABR says to use something another SABR says not to is kinda a circular reference. I will use CERA as that evidence. I have posted in the chemistry thread a link to a SABR article where he explained how to use CERA in the grading system for a catcher, while other SABRs say not to use it on other links. I guess that was fundamental reading you skipped over, so you could try to insult me here instead, but good job btw with that.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Mike Silva is a notorious troll
Who wrote an article saying Sabermetrics and the guys who create stats were only doing so to make money. It stemmed from this lovely article:
http://nybaseballdigest.com/?p=18999&cpage=1#comment-24242
Listen people. Especially Cubbie-Tim. This is NOT a stats vs. non-stats debate. Read the comments, especially the ones on the bottom, of the thread I just linked to, and you will see what I mean.
No FanGraphs is free
THT is free. I spend multiple hours a week writing for THT, and all I get is a little profit sharing at the end of the year. I certainly don’t do it for money. MGL has donated all of his profits from The Book to Retrosheet, and gives UZR to FanGraphs FOR FREE.
Maybe some saber guys do it for money, but most of them don’t.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:36 AM CST up reply actions
free to the public maybe
there is money in it, dont try to deny it. just like there is money in BCB jsut that it is free to the public as well.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
and by money in this i dont mean you individually
but someone is making money on it, or it would not be out there. its not free to keep a site running, and no one is going to just throw money away to do so.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The Hardball Times sells a book
Which barely covers the costs of the website. It’s run by a retired 50+ year old who writes constantly for the site, and spends hundreds of hours a year preparing the book. The profit is very minimal at best, and anything that get’s left over is given out to the writers. FanGraphs runs on a similar motto.
There may be some money is online sabermetrics, but it is very, very little. Trust me on this one, if you want to make money, online sabermetrics is not the way to go.
And to suggest that the only reason saber guys create stats and do research is to make money is insulting and I will not stand for it.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 7:15 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
i did not suggest that
stop putting words in my mouth. I said there is money in it, and that someone is making money otherwise it would not be there and there would not be the market for it.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I really appreciate this backstory.
As a amateur learner on baseball metrics, I like context such as this. Thanks viva.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
rec'd
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
rec'd for the back story?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Recommended for explaining that for many this is a hobby and a passion and has little to do with money.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
gotcha
my concern was i was taken out of context and dont want people to take that wrong, and next we know we have another blow up and this thread goes from good discussion about the topic into chemical warfare
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I haven't even read every post in this thread, so
my rec has nothing to do with you, Tim. I want to recommend the idea that stats-geeks really do enjoy the statistical side of baseball and do a lot of their “work” simply as fans. Running statistcal analyses and building spreadsheets doesn’t take anything away from the game. Yes, you can end up with very different foci for what’s being enjoyed now by different types of fans. But it’s all baseball and more often than not, I believe, the spreadsheet side leads to greater enjoyment of the fresh-cut grass side, and vice versa, if only people don’t get so combative about it.
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
by DGU on Dec 30, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
just had a chance to look oer this link
and I can say VEP we agree about Silva. He seems like a grade A knucklehead
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
UZR
He admits there is a bias issue when faced with what he himself refers to as a “ridiculously huge” difference between BIS and STATS on Andruw Jones. There is a long list of potential biases.
He claims that “roughly speaking” you need twice the fielding data as hitting. I remember when he and his handful of pals said that the data was so coarse that it didn’t have much value outside of evaluating a career. WTF is roughly speaking?
He refers to himself as mainstream – what?
He describes UZR and his fan vote thing as completely independent systems. The participation of his polling will have an extreme bias toward his readership. That’s not close to independent. That’s basic stuff.
“Every now and then UZR misses one” he says. Yet the only thing he offers as evidence is that some people think it got Texeira wrong. Damn that’s lame.
Classic finish too. He “rejects” information from scouts in lieu of UZR and his fan polling because those are systems.
He doesn't reject information from scouts
He rejects cherrpicked quotes from reporters. That is exactly what you said. Why would you intentionally skew his words?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:16 AM CST up reply actions
THIS.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 12:20 AM CST up reply actions
oh p'shaw!
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 12:26 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not even sure i follow you
As I read his statement, he doesn’t want information from scouts unless its polled or somesuch. Its pretty irrelevant.
He's merely saying that scouts can be biased in their evaluations, just like certain metrics can be biased.
Scouts evaluations have value, just like metrics, but metrics can have the benefit of large sample sizes to be based on, while scouts can only really watch a finite number of games to form their opinions. He’s saying that scouting could be more accurate if and valuable if you “grouped” them and could get rid of the biases.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 12:32 AM CST up reply actions
this i cana agree with
and that makes sense hands down
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
He said he doesn't want to rely on quotes from reporters to get the feel of what scouts are saying
He doesn’t say scouts aren’t valuable.
You know what, why don’t you ask him and put this to rest? The threads right there, just ask whether or not he would value the opinion of a scout if he got to talk to him directly.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 12:33 AM CST up reply actions
while cherry picking how the stats are derived
by dismissing anything that cannot be given a numeric value you are cherry picking
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's not what he's saying at all
Let me repeat.
He is saying that he doesn’t trust what the reporters say about what the scouts say.
He is NOT rejecting scouts, he is rejecting the reporters take on scouts. Go to the thread and ask him RIGHT NOW before making any false statements. Ask him whether or not he would give weight to the opinion of a scout if he was to talk to him directly.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 7:17 AM CST up reply actions
i was not quoting him, or even commenting on that
I was stating that if you dismiss what you feel should be due to inability to quantify it, that is cherry picking
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
point by point reply
He admits there is a bias issue when faced with what he himself refers to as a "ridiculously huge" difference between BIS and STATS on Andruw Jones. There is a long list of potential biases.
That’s a good thing, right? It speaks to his honesty.
He claims that "roughly speaking" you need twice the fielding data as hitting. I remember when he and his handful of pals said that the data was so coarse that it didn’t have much value outside of evaluating a career. WTF is roughly speaking?
“Roughly speaking” means “about twice, but not exactly 2.0000 times as much.” Why does it matter what exactly “roughly speaking” menas? If it’s 1.6 or 2.4, the important point is that it takes a larger sample than offensive stats, but not an infinite one. And the hole career thing should be interpreted more in terms of “use a guy’s career stats over his stats from last year.”
He refers to himself as mainstream – what?
He’s about as mainstream as it gets. He sets the standard these days in terms of baseball analysis. And he’s a consultant to the Mariners, who have had the best off-season to-date in terms of the talent they’ve brought in and what they’ve paid for it.
He describes UZR and his fan vote thing as completely independent systems. The participation of his polling will have an extreme bias toward his readership. That’s not close to independent. That’s basic stuff.
Then why is it that there are disagreements between UZR and his fan scouting system? And while I’ve wondered myself how much bias there is in the surveys, any bias that is there doesn’t completely invalidate the surveys. Jacoby Elsbury is a great example that has come up around here recently. I’d love it if someone else did surveys similar to what Tango does, and posted it at a non-stats site. That would be great!
"Every now and then UZR misses one" he says. Yet the only thing he offers as evidence is that some people think it got Texeira wrong. Damn that’s lame.
Why is that lame?
Classic finish too. He "rejects" information from scouts in lieu of UZR and his fan polling because those are systems
That’s kind of the point. Even though systems will have bias in them, they’re usually going to be more consistent and correctable than an individual’s opinions. Let’s put this another way: wouldn’t you rather have the opinion of a group of scouts on a player over one scout’s opinion on that player? Of course you would. Wouldn’t you rather judge a player based on 300 games instead of on 3? Of course you would.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
this
He sets the standard these days in terms of baseball analysis. And he’s a consultant to the Mariners, who have had the best off-season to-date in terms of the talent they’ve brought in and what they’ve paid for it.
IMHO truly could be a make or break (to a degree) on SABR. If the team flops horribly, it could open more arguments against it by many.
and being a consultant to the Mariners does show that there is money in it, even if not from the magazine/book/site alone.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
But that doesn't mean people are doing it for the $$$$...
people do it because they love it. If someone offered you a job to analyze baseball, wouldn’t you accept it?
And I don’t think the Mariners performance will make or break SABR-type analysis. Most teams do it to some extent now, and those that do have been very successful. The Red Sox and Yankees both incorporate this type of thought into their decision making process, as to the Pirates, Mariners, A’s, and Cardinals.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
i never said that is the lone reason why
but that is one reason. Most do it i am sure as a hobby or obsession
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Where oh where are the Cubs on this front. :(
Damn you, Cubs! KKKKHHHAAAANNNNN!
(Actually, I have no idea if they do use new stats analysis. It just sure doesn’t seem like it).
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
I think
I read somewhere that the Cubs have a “stat guy” on staff. If they were smart they would hire Harry Pavlidis since he owns half the internet and is already a Cub fan.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I enjoy Harry's writing and analysis, and am for this
if he can also analyze young talent. Guess we need Al to start a program to hybrid the best characteristics of Harry and toonster so we can force the result to be hired.
at daver's request, Let's frontload this B**ch!
I think it would be best to just hire someone like HP...
and someone like toonster. It’s asking a lot for one person to be on top of both.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 6:57 PM CST up reply actions
I've often thought it would be good to have a three-person stat team for the Cubs.
A team leader who focuses mainly on offensive stats, a defensive specialist and a Pitch F/X guy like Harry.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
I would think the Red Sox success this decade...
…should put to bed any worries that Sabermetrics don’t – at the very least – help a baseball team.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
At the very least it helps management identify
value, both good and bad and eliminates the Rogers or Sullivan (I can never remember which) +/- system BS on evaluating talent.
at daver's request, Let's frontload this B**ch!
It's the Phil Rogers system...
and it’s full of epic fail.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions
That's not true
There are many other teams employing entire analytical front offices that are not the Mariners. Red Sox, Padres, Pirates, Cardinals, Indians, Yankees, Rays… whether or not the Mariners have success will not “make or break” the sabermetric revolution. That’s ludicrous.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, and Tango isn't even the GM or anything...
he’s just a consultant!
Still, the M’s offseason has been impressive. Throw in their nice park, reasonable ticket prices, and decent public transit to the game… and they’ll be my AL team, at least for a summer.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 9:40 PM CST up reply actions
Good stuff.
Thanks for sending that along. The links to the Yahoo primers (listed under stat saturation) are also excellent.
With regard to the UZR discussion, does anyone know why he punts so easily about Teixeira being a good defensive 1B? Is there some backstory to that that I’m not aware of? Just based off what it says, it sounds like the stats would indicate that he isn’t an outstanding fielder. Just because a bunch of people say he is, it seems like Tango is willing to concede that perhaps in limited instances UZR is wrong. Why would he concede that if that numbers don’t suggest it and the only counter-argument is a bunch of people unsystemetically eye-balling it who disagree?
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 12:52 AM CST reply actions
Probably because Teixeria is a Yankee.
That’s all I got.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 12:59 AM CST up reply actions
cant argue that
being a Yankee should be part of the equation for URZ
/sarcasm
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
because UZR
can be wrong. Something I have noticed is that with Fangraphs so accessible and their UZR reports on players easy enough for anyone to understand/link to the stat is being overused. UZR can change from year to year. A guy like Ellsbury looks HORRID in CF in 2009 but in 2008 was decent. The truth is you probably need to look at 2-3 years worth of data and average it out.
Now with Hit FX and Field FX coming down the line that is going to change everything. Stats are always evolving. A few years ago WARP or VORP was the best thing around now WAR is. UZR might be obsolete in a year or two as we get better at metrics. That doesn’t mean UZR is really really valuable, it is. It is better than any other defensive metric out there but it isn’t perfect.
I agree that as it evolves it gets better
but it can also flood the market (which was briefly touched on in the link).
couple quick question
If there are changes happening that often, does that prove that the prior “best model” was not as perfect as a SABR will represent it (such as in a thread on BCB when being questioned about it)?
Who decides what data is “minimal effect” or “levels out” so to speak? Is that different data each time based on who the SABR is or a standard piece of data?
Follow up, does a SABR believe leaving any data out truly gives the best picture, since even small data amounts can skew a stat?
Not attacking, this is just a question.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think
you have a point about the prior best models. 2 years ago WARP was the best thing out and people who attacked it were usually savaged by us SABR folk. Now we use WAR because its better.
HOWEVER, the big distinction is this- we aren’t attacking non-stat folk just for fun, its because WARP was waaayyyyyyyy better than some guy’s opinion. We moved into WAR because it has been proven to be a better measure of performance. Stat folk with move from metric to metric because our knowledge of the game isn’t stagnant. You will see SABR people vigorously defend the metrics out there because even with the flaws they are much better than any other alternative.
i think that's the point
its not to say these metrics are the best ever and will be forever be the best ever, its to say these metrics are the best we have right now to measure or evaluate the game
Just like all forms of science, you’re always trying to build on the previous work done to enhance everyone’s knowledge of what’s going on
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 9:15 AM CST up reply actions
Exactly
And as you evolve that doesn’t mean the previous best thing was garbage either.
VCR’s worked just fine but we moved to DVD’s because they were better.
like medicine its a practice not a perfection
and one thing you did hit on the head is how a SABR will savage anyone who questions it. I have asked legit questions and will be steamrolled for it by multiple SABRs which does cause more problems than good for both sides.
btw IMHO the OP link was more Q&A than debate.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
agreed
on the Q&A. Reflected in the new title.
That said, you have some responsibility for how your views are reacted to around here. I’ve seen the fights and you aren’t exactly an innocent.
Honestly, what gets SABR guys worked up is this- for years our ideas & views were ignored or laughed off. Baseball was played on the field not on a calculator ect ect was the prevailing attitude. Well, these days our math is better than anything else at valuating the game so when we present things like WAR or UZR and causal fans just shrug it off its annoying as hell.
These stats aren’t napkin math, there is a ton of effort & time put into these things. So for some Johnny Fanboy to dismiss the science behind these things in favor of his own opinion that can lead to some hot reactions. It drives me NUTS (This isn’t solely at you cubbie tim but just an insight into the sabr mindset)
i never claimed innocent and never will
i know it takes two to tango.
I dont shrug them off, never have, but I have questions about parts of it and usually a uestion gets a reply that does lead to both sides getting into a heated argument instead of a conversation (as this one has been able to avoid doing).
I have said I believe they are a great tool for a baseline, but that the parts not being quantified need to be taken into consideration. That seems quite reasonable IMHO.
above i aksed three questions, one was answered, is it possible to get an answer to the other two (repeated here just to make it easier of a flow to the thread)
1. Who decides what data is "minimal effect" or "levels out" so to speak? Is that different data each time based on who the SABR is or a standard piece of data?
2. Follow up, does a SABR believe leaving any data out truly gives the best picture, since even small data amounts can skew a stat?
these two questions will shed a lot of light to my main concerns with using SABR over “reality” (for lack of better word)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
question 2
i think there’s a difference in semantics in how you’re positioning the question.
I don’t think SABRs (note I’m not a member so wouldn’t want to speak for the group) would suggest that its not “leaving data out” as you suggest, but is instead “placing less emphasis or altogether ignoring data that has been proven to have negligible impact”
This was the idea of Catcher’s ERA argument.
If you’re arguing Catcher’s may have an impact over the results of the pitcher, you could be correct. However studies have been shown to suggest any impact they do have is negligible. So why does it matter to spend a significant amount of time discussing something that has been proven to have almost zero impact? That’s the point of the idea. It’s not to “leave out data”, its to evaluate all the data and determine which pieces of the data matter and then work from there.
In the evaluation of all the data, if a variable is found to be completely insignificant and have little to no impact, it can be discounted.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 10:09 AM CST up reply actions
the CERA
was not even what I was talking about, but what it was turned into. I was talking about chemistry between a catcher and pitcher. The CERA piece was not my point at all, and was something I had a lot less knowledge about until I researched it since i wsa being told that was my stance.
who determined it to be negligible? Not being argumentative, but curious. If a SABR says it is negligible do we just accept it at face value, and are wrong to question why?
These are the type of questions that I know frustrate a SABR, becuase they might believe I am just trying to disprove them, but its not the case, its honest curiosity. To buy into it more than I have (and i actually buy into it more than most here know or believe) I need to understand these type of things.
Sometimes I think a big part of the problem with the two sides discussing is that each side can state their case and both sides misunderstand and once it tails off into a heated exchange it is too late to back track.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
anyone have an answer by chance to question 1
or is it being researched maybe?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
my guess
is that it has to do with the variable statistically testing as “significant” for being insignificant.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
That's right...
and the other answer to this is there’s no “person that decides.” To each their own. If you’re OK with a statistic varying tremendously and being unreliable you can take UZR after 10 games. It’s all a question of how much reliability you want out of the statistic. And that’s why Tango was using terms like roughly twice the sample size for offense. Go ahead and decide how many years you think you need to evaluate a player offensively. If you want the same amount of reliability from defensive stats, double that number.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
the who decides part
was not about 10 games vs 3000 games, that is basic common sense there. i was more interested in who decides what has “minimal effect” or “levels out” so to speak?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Tim
I think the best thing for you to do is go over to Tango’s site and just ask him how he decided what gets left out and why when he came up with his metrics. He usually posts the formula and the rationale behind what he does for anyone to look at but his explanation would probably be the best anybody could give you.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions
i will, but maybe i am not wording it well
sine what i am trying to determine is if all SABR use the same data points, or if they “pick and choose” (for lack of better words) which ones they want to use.
If all use the same data points then is there a specific person who rolls out which ones are being used?
maybe this is beter worded, or maybe this too is better to send to Tango, thoughts?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
as Shawn confirmed above
statistical significance is the test that is used to determine whether things are ignored or not
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 12:11 PM CST up reply actions
the source data
can come from MLB gameday. I know there are other sources of the raw data but I’m not sure which ones Tango uses.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions
so if different SABR's
dont use the same data, how accurate is one to the other?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
FWIW
again I am just trying to get a full grip not trying to disprove, etc.
IMHO there should be a set standard that is consistant from one to the other, now how easy that would be to incorporate I do not know
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
let me try to answer/explain
If I understand your question you really want to know at what point in time is a piece of information is determined to be intangible and how. My very novice understanding is that generally a SABRmetricain will run several simulations on a set of data he may change the formula to add or subtract some type of data. If they are looking at pitching then they may run simulation that would include CERA and one that doesn’t if the results are very comparable and the data points don’t change then they may at that point say using CERA doesn’t help my equation.
In a way this is also how they migrate from WARP to WAR. Someone looks at another’s work (the formulas) and says if we now take into account this data point and this data point we are have an even clearer view of the best players. This is also why you have several matrix explaining the same thing. One guy isn’t satisfied with the results that the other formula is coming up with so they add in different values to come up with a better system.
i was asking
if all SABR used the same data, or if each picks which they want to use (say one used walks as one item, and for whatever reason another used walks, hbp, and intentional walks as three seperate pieces of data), since i would think having all SABR on the same page would be sensible.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Of course they don't all use the same data
Tango, et al, aren’t even part of the official SABR.
Sabermetrics is simply the study of baseball through objective data. All statheads don’t have the same belief about which metrics are better, and which are relevant and what not.
Everyone has different beliefs.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions
do statheads feel that clutters things up more or less?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I don't know
I’m not representative of all statheads. Each stat says different things, and it’s up to you to decide which one is best for you.
I personally find no use for OPS or OPS+ because they are basically the same thing as wOBA and wRC+, except they aren’t as accurate. OPS and OPS+ don’t include steals or cs and they will underrate guys who walks a lot.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 11:18 PM CST up reply actions
so the statheads really aren't all that different from the non-statheads
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
you bear me to it lol
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
The difference...
is that the conclusions that “stat-heads” draw can be objectively judged and either accepted, rejected, or improved upon. It’s a scientific method.
If you’re arguing with a “non stat-head” about a conclusion that they’ve reached off their whims (ie personal perceptions), there’s no basis whatsoever to evaluate their claim.
You might as well be arguing with them about how they perceive a given color.
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 31, 2009 12:07 AM CST up reply actions
They can vary, depending on the source.
Most of what you’ll see uses the MLB gameday data, because that dataset is free and publicly available. And I’m fairly certain that’s what fangraphs uses for to build their database. Usually, they’ll tell you where the data comes from when they introduce the statistic or database.
And although there are inconsistencies between datasets sometimes (like with fielding metrics), they usually don’t affect the types of conclusions you’re discussing here. Whether or not there’s a correlation between two things usually isn’t affected by the data set used, because when looking at a entire set of data those discrepancies tend to “average out” in both directions. But they matter when looking at things like individual players or certain players in certain seasons.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
FanGraphs buys data from BIS
And they use RetroSheet historically. They only use Gameday for Pitch f/x.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 6:50 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
If you’re asking how people decide what’s significant, that comes from the field of statistics, not sabrmetrics. For example, the term “significance” has a specific meaning:
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
Ellsbury UZR etc
Kind of like Soriano being the best defensive LF in the NL or so I think Drew said ( for 2008). That kind of thing along with the high UZR rating of players who I see playing bad defense lead me to be skeptical of UZR in particular.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Dec 30, 2009 9:21 AM CST up reply actions
Soriano
was quite valuable in LF before last season. ALOT of that had to do with his very high assist total. Last year saw a decline in teams testing his arm but also a decline in range. That’s what caused his defensive value to plummet.
how much of the range was due to the leg injury
and how much to age in your opinion? I think more loss of range was due to the leg injury
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
the injury
Soriano isn’t old and up until last year he was a very productive player both at the plate and in the OF.
If he can stay healthy he will be productive again in 2010 although if teams don’t give him chances for OF assists his defensive value wont be at great as it was back in 07.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 10:06 AM CST up reply actions
careful...
there is also value in holding the runners at third, and it’s included in UZR:
Didn’t see this thread until today. I pretty much do the same thing as THT. Outfielder’s get credit (plus or minus) depending on what the runners do on a hit or a fly ball out. A runner can stay put, advance, or get thrown out. So a fielder will get credit not only if he throws out more than his share of runners, but also if he keeps more than his share of runners from advancing extra bases.
I adjust for park effects, like LF at Fenway (where the assumption is that the LF’er plays close) or all fields in Coors (where the OF’ers play deep).
-MGL (see the comments of this thread)
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
note apparently park effects are also included...
The “Fenway effect” you’re seeing in the discrepancy between UZR and the FSR for Red Sox players may also be due to some rose-tinted glasses, no?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
Wait...
I read the part about park effect, but…
So, say there’s a runner on third with 1 out in a close game, late in the innings. The guy at the plate hits a shallow pop up to Soriano. He catches it and the runner holds because of how shallow it is. Soriano therefore gets credit for that? That seems silly.
There's also a correction for the placement of the ball.
So in that scenario, Soriano wouldn’t get credit because an average result would be the fielder holding at 1st. However, Juan Pierre would get dinged in that scenario if he were playing left field and the runner took off for 2nd and made it.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
I see.
So is this all subjective then, as far as what’s considered average result or what’s deep, etc? Whoever came up with this stat, does he have a team of guys that watch every single game and every single at bat? Just wondering what the cutoff for a shallow, normal, and deep fly ball would be at a particular park to keep the consistency.
It's not subjective like that.
“The entire field is broken down into 78 zones. These are the same zones you can find in the hit location diagram in the documentation section of the retrosheet website (www.retrosheet.org). Of these, UZR uses 64 of them. For infielders, only ground balls, including bunts, are looked at. Pop files caught or landing on an infield zone are excluded, as are line drives caught by an infielder or hit through the infield. For outfielders, all fair fly balls and line drives are included. None of the foul zones are used in UZR except for 3F and 3L, which are near the first and third base bags (for fair ground balls fielded in foul territory behind the bags). Catchers and pitchers are not included in UZR ratings."
-MGL
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
MGL is the guy that came up with the stat.
An (outdated) explanation is here:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/
He now included double plays and outfield arm impact in UZR, even though that explanation says they’re not included.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions
Remember, the whole point to UZR...
is to take into account where the ball is fielded. A center-fielder won’t get much credit for catching a lazy fly ball in the middle of their zone. Likewise, a right-fielder won’t get credit for holding a runner on a shallow pop fly.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
IMO,
the decline in range is due to age and the decline in his arm rating and his power numbers is due to the leg injury.
I’m doing a Maple Street Press article on Soriano this year, and I’m cautiously optimistic he’ll be a good player again in 2010.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
his range
went WAY down from 08 to 09. Are you sure thats mostly due to age? It would be hard to cover as much ground with a bum leg.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
Let me re-phrase
not all of it is due to age, but i expect a lot of it to be caused by it.
The best guess for Soriano’s fielding is probably the age-regressed UZR projections posted at BTB. IIRC, they have Soriano as a +2 UZR in LF for 2010.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions
since UZR
is best when you look at 3 years worth of data lets do this.
First, take 2006-2008 and use 09 as an outlier of sorts due to injury. Based on that you would see that Soriano is basically a slightly above average LF. He racked up crazy assist #’s from 06-07 and then teams quit testing him as much from then on.
Now 2010 will be a big year for Soriano. If he can play a league average LF his WAR will rise back to the 3-5 range we saw in his first two years as a Cub. That has value, and will go a long way to the team contending.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I'm expecting league-average fielding from him...
below average glove, average-ish to below average range, and below-average position cancelled out by an above average arm. He’ll be average to slightly below average as a fielder.
To me, the big question is whether or not he can hit HR’s again in 2010. That’s where he lost a tremendous chunk of his value in 2009.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
I think we largely agree...
but my loose use of adjectives is confusing the matter.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
I think that bat
will come back around.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
me too.
He crushed the ball in April before he banged up his knee. He looked like an MVP candidate early on last season. Small sample size warning and all, but it still gives me optimism.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions
i'm concerned about the bat
he showed some of the general signs you’ll see with aging. his BB rate jumped a little bit, but his K Rate jumped as well and the power has declined for a few straight seasons. Each of the last two seasons his XBH Rate has been around 9%, when he spent most of his career north of 10%
you can credit it to the leg injuries, but as Shawn mentioned below i don’t think you can discredit the probability of continued leg issues since he’s had them for 3 years running now
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions
you most
def can’t discount Soriano missing major time. In fact you should plan on it which is why I was more than OK with the Cubs taking on Burrell as a bench/backup. Hendry needs to sign Byrd and the organization needs to decide wheter Sam Fuld is capable of 200-300 ML AB’s from here on out. If they aren’t then the Cubs need to swing a trade or sign another OF.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
The issue is more this:
If Soriano played poorly because of his leg injury (reasonable), and if you’re expecting more injuries with age (reasonable), then you should also be prepared for continued poor production from him due to future injuries, even if the current one fully heals.
I’m optimistic he’ll be good again, but we have to consider the possibility that age and it’s associated injuries have already sapped his value.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
that's
pretty much where i stand.
I’m expecting something closer to a 2.5-3.0 WAR season, than the high 3’s up to mid 5’s we’ve seen in the past
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
That's what I'm expecting, too.
I think CC is expecting something similar.
We all may be too optimistic, though. The projection systems have him at 1.5-2 WAR, IIRC.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
I like the Spilbourghs rumor...
as well as the idea of going after Kelly Johnson.
I also like DGU’s idea of trying to make a deal for Ellsbury. He’d be a great fit on the Cubs.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions
you can
scratch Johnson. He signed with ARZ
Ellsbury would solve a lot of problems. The complication is wheter Boston’s FO overvalues the guy the way the MSM does.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
johnson got snatched up today
by the dbacks
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
Really?
You think Johnson’s that good? Better than Fontenot?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Better? Maybe not.
But I think he’s a more reliable option. I like Fontenot a lot, but I’m worried we’ll see the 2009 version instead of the 2008 one.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
I suspect that...
… if Fontenot is used properly, not overexposed with too many AB or playing out of position, he could come back to the 2008 level.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Maybe...
but the lefty side of the platoon is the side that should get more ABs. So if Fontenot needs that much protection to remain useful in a rate sense, Kelly Johnson would be more valuable as he wouldn’t need as much protection and would accrue more value in a counting sense.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 6:59 PM CST up reply actions
I also haven't seen any contract details...
so “that good” is a little subjective. But yes, I think he’s likely to be better than Fontetnot.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
1 year, $2M.
Yes, I’m fairly certain he’s that good. That’s a contract I would have liked the Cubs to have signed him to. He could be your 2nd-basemen most days, with Baker moving to a DeRosa-like utility role.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Damen Jackson and toonster both posted that idea
before I ran with it in a fanpost.
"We’re going to come back here next year healthy and do what we’re supposed to do, and we’re going to be all right. That’s not Hendry’s fault. He thought it was the right move. It didn’t work out. But at the same time, he’s the same guy that put back-to-back championship teams together." - Aramis Ramirez
OK then let's call it the:
Jackson, toonster, DGU, et al. idea.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 7:00 PM CST up reply actions
plus
if you look at how pitchers are adjusting to Soriano
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=847&position=2B/OF#pitchtype
i’m a little concerned pitchers will put two and two together again and figure out they should avoid throwing him fastballs altogether. Soriano’s other “down” year was in 2005, when pitchers threw fastballs to him less than 50% of the time
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
I think that's a little overstated.
Sure, they adjusted to him. But his performance against every single pitch type was worse in 2009. Even if you adjusted the pitch rates he saw, he’d still be a much worse player in 2009 than in previous seasons. It’s not like they’re throwing sliders 100% of the time now.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
agreed
i wasn’t suggesting its the sole reason, i just think its another amongst a decent number of reasons (age, health) to be concerned about him returning to a 3+ WAR player
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:52 AM CST up reply actions
Yup.
I think he’ll get there (3 WAR range) but i’m not very confident in that expectation.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions
well, why wouldn't they? (throw sliders 100% of the time)
or more accurately, why shouldn’t they?
The fact that they’re not doing it forces me to accept that it’s not very realistic, and of course I realize it’s a bit of an extreme example.
But why wouldn’t pitchers throw him a very high pctge of sliders and curve balls low and away? And by “very high pctge” I mean significantly higher than years past, whatever those numbers were.
The evidence strongly suggests he can’t hit those pitches, right? Why won’t pitchers overreact until Sori proves he can either hit them or at least not swing at them.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
only thing i could think
is to keep him honest so to speak
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
because
it isn’t easy to throw breaking pitches all the time. Both on the arm and in the strike zone. Soriano despite popular belief isn’t an idiot. If pitchers really started to get crazy with their %’s like that he would adjust.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions
in two words:
game theory.
In more words: you don’t want the hitter to know what pitch is coming. If Soriano knows there will be a slider (or some other breaking pitch)coming every time he approaches the plate, he’ll know to lay off the stuff on the outside part of the plate.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
FWIW, I do agree they could probably throw him more sliders...
but 100% of the time? That’s never a good strategy unless you’ve got a pitch like Rivera or Webb.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions
That's kinda where I was going with this.
Sure, if you announce it or demonstrate that you’re throwing nothing but sliders, even someone as dense as Soriano would adjust – eventually.
But I think there’s this pretty big gray zone between what they’re currently throwing him and the point at which it’d finally click in his head that he should lay off. And I just can’t figure out why pitchers don’t exploit this more. Seems like it would be to their benefit.
btw, when I said “dense” above to describe Soriano, I don’t mean stupid. Maybe stubborn would have been a better word. I just think it’s second nature with him to swing at those kind of pitches. He can’t help himself – it’s human nature. He sees this ball coming, he’s so confident in himself that he can hit it and he swings.
Maybe when he was younger, he could reach it more often than not. But as he’s gotten older, it seems that he can’t reach those outside pitches as well as he could. But he doesn’t seem to realize that.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
well
because up until last year he was a very productive player by doing things his way.
I’m sure if he really has lost some bat speed and knows he cant get to pitches he used to we will see some adjustments.
he had already falled from...
+4.5 in 2007 to -1.1 in 2008, and then fell further to -4.2 in 2009. At best, I think he’l play at his career range of +1.7, regressed for age. Given that his speed score has fallen the last few seasons (and this was occurring before the leg injury), I won’t be surprised if he shows below-average range the rest of his career.
Also, when speaking of age and injuries we should remember that these things are correlated. This isn’t likely Soriano’s last nagging leg injury. The Cubs need to protect him from injury (and Fukudome from nasty LHP) with a really good RH 4th OF.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
we need a 3rd OF first...
before getting a 4th one!
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 30, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
+1
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'm not
as big on the year to year flux for a few reasons. # 1 UZR is prone to flux anyways and # 2 we don’t have a ton of data of Soriano in LF to begin with. We basically have 3 full seasons to look at. One of those (2007) was a monster year in the OF, 2 (08, 06) were average and last year was a disaster.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
I agree with all that.
The belief in the range being age-induced just comes from my intuition that his range is likely more affected by age than his glove or his arm. I’ll admit my intuition could be wrong there.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
i tend to believe the loss of range
last season was less age and more injury.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That would also make sense.
Maybe this is a better way to put it:
I think both age and injury affected both his arm and his range. But I think if you could subtract the effects of the injury and of random variance in the data, you’d find more age-induced regression in the range performance than in the arm performance.
Again, this is just a “hunch,” and nothing more.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
I'm on board about UZR being "wrong" when looking only at a limited timeline.
But the discussion of Teixeira (if I read it correctly) was over the course of the last 3 years (and his career generally). His career numbers end up at something like +1.7 UZR150. In other words, he’s slightly better than average, but he’s not one of the top defensive 1Bs. It seemed to me that Tango was willing to grant the argument that he really was a top 1b—even though his numbers don’t suggest it—just because a bunch of people were telling him otherwise.
Perhaps relatedly, can anyone explain to me the difference between UZR and UZR150, when you’re looking at the entirety of a career? I understand the difference if looking at a limited timeline, but is one more correct to use for career stats?
Taking Teixeira again, according to FanGraphs his career UZR at 1B is +11.6. But his career UZR150 is +1.7. Can anyone explain how that works? I’m confused.
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
Some
players just have better hype men than others. Albert Pujols is hands down the best 1B in the league. Being Cub fans we know this and Bob and Len will talk about it but ESPN and the big national news people would have you believe that Texira is the greatest of all time when in reality he is good but not elite.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
ESPN is such a frustrating thing.
It’s like a regional (NorthEast) sports network masquerading as a national network.
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
and they dont hold people accountable for their in game mishaps
ahem MORGAN ahem
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
UZR150 is a rate stat,
where the total UZR (plain old “UZR”) is turned into the UZR the player would acquire over 150 games.
It’s sort of like home runs. Bonds hit 762 home runs in his career. He also hit a HR every 12.9 at bats (or 7.7 HR’s per 100 ABs). The difference is the 762 is a counting stat and the other two numbers are rate stats.
Similarly, Teixeira accumulated +11.6 UZR over the course of his career. That’s an average of +1.7 UZR/150 games.
Does that answer your question?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions
Yes!
Thanks very much! That’s makes perfect sense now. I hadn’t put two and two together, even know I knew one was a rate stat. D’oh!
by CubsWin!Oregon on Dec 30, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
No worries!
For future reference, you can click on the “quick glossary” at fangraphs to get a quick explanation.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
Viva
one question I have always had with Fangraphs is whether they set their values for a replacement player too low. What are your thoughts there?
I don't think there is a system that sets Milton Bradley's and Aaron Miles' values low enough.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
FanGraphs sets their replacement level at -2 wins from average
That’s based off of historical data or the “25th” man on each roster. Other analyst use difference values (MGL uses -18, Rally uses -25 or something), but most have it around -2 wins.
BPro had it at around -4 wins for awhile and nearly everyone agreed that was way too low.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
I *think* MGL is -18 over 150 games...
which would be -19.44 over 162. And I think Tango uses -22.50.
But that’s from memory of a thread I was reading earlier today. My memory could be wrong and the thread I remember reading could be outdated.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 7:09 PM CST up reply actions
VEP explain this please
this is where I lose my trust
to say that something has minimal impact or levels out over the season, means that there has been a study in which SABR has proven such, meaning that a number was able to be derived, or means that just based on inability to derive such a number it is being dismissed.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Ask and you shall receive
Cubbie-Tim, from having read your posts in the past, I’m sure that part of your “minimal impact” is referring to measuring clubhouse chemistry or some other construct that has not been operationally defined and quantified in a statistically valid and reliable way. There has been some study related to the influence of negative clubhouse characters to the teams performance on the field. Below is a link to an article related to the Milton Bradley fiasco of last season that was recently posted on ACB. THe article is quite informative.
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/2009-articles/december/trying-to-makes-ense-of-this-trade.html
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/09/measuring_the_i.php
So, if we assume that each player has a clubhouse contribution, with the mean centered at zero and a small standard deviation of about 0.2 wins, how much can clubhouse chemistry really affect the team’s overall performance? Multiplying the SD by the square root of 25, we see that clubhouse chemistry would have a standard deviation of 1 win, meaning that the team with the worst chemistry in baseball will lose about 2 extra games because of it, while teams with the best chemistry gain about 2 extra wins. At least, that’s the best estimate we have from looking at teams’ behavior with regard to their personnel decisions.
The true value of chemistry is probably so difficult to determine, that it cannot be ascertained directly. If teams are under or over valuing clubhouse chemistry, then theoretically a team could take advantage by assembling an all-jerk team or an all good-guy team to take advantage of the inefficiency. However, by looking at teams’ behavior, we have attempted to estimate at least what clubhouse attitude is currently valued at among major league teams. Is it valued correctly? For that, perhaps an even more subjective view is needed.
So the poorly measured construct of clubhouse chemistry appears to cost a team around 2 wins when a stat guy does his best to measure it statistically. In the bigger picture of a baseball season, I would think that injuries to key players would have a greater negative impact. But who really knows……..
thanks. that is the best answer i have been given to that question
which has been asked a few times.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Please go slow for the statistically illiterate
Where does the SD of 0.2 and multiplying it by the square root of 25 come from?
I asked about the definition of FIP a while back, and Madcow was kind enough to give me this:
From Hardball Times
"Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)3-K2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded."
What I don’t understand is where this equation actually comes from, and I’m finding that with a few of the “newer” metrics. The first part of the formula: “HR*13” Why 13? Perhaps it’s just my simple mind, but when I’m able to look at how often a batter gets on base, how many K vs. BB’s a pitcher has, how many runs he’s given up over how many innings, I’m looking at what actually happened. My impression is that with some of the stats like FIP, etc., there’s a barrier between the actual performance and the stats, with that barrier being someone’s creation of how to reach that number.
Now that I’ve said that, I realize I may be completely wrong, and the only problem is my lack of understanding, so (polite) clarification is welcome.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Here is a great primer on FIP that will explain everything to you
http://www.3-dbaseball.net/2009/10/evaluating-pitchers-with-fip-part-i.html
http://www.3-dbaseball.net/2009/10/evaluating-pitchers-with-fip-part-ii.html
by vivaelpujols on Dec 30, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions
25 = 25 man roster
Not completely certain about the 0.2 SD, but i think it just reflects the variability in the “clubhouse contrition” measure. A score of 0 (or the mean) would represent a player who was neither negative or positive to the clubhouse. Since they’re are so many data points (i.e., players), the variance in the measure should be small. The figure in the article sums the concept up nicely
in other words
As much as we harped on Bradley’s attitude if Aram, Soriano, Dempster, et al don’t get hurt and our closer doesn’t give up HR’s then we would have one more games.
Probably
If the numbers in that article are correct. Clubhouse cancer = -1.5 wins, and Bradley was worth around +1 wins in 2009 for a net wins of -0.5. The article suggests that clubhouse cancer’s must be worth significantly more wins than he costs the team by his negative attitude.
2007/2008 MB stats + MB’s negative personality = Worth it
2009 MB stats + MB’s negative personality = Not so much.
Either way, it would be fascinating to develop a valid, reliable measure of clubhouse cancerism. But, I don’t think its really feasible because it is extremely complex….
comparing hof's
the tony gywnn /tim rains comment had me laughing at this guy. Genius no i don’t think so
by LightsOutVegas on Dec 30, 2009 11:14 AM CST reply actions
see
this is the EXACT kind of comment that pisses stat folk off to no end. Tango and others have spent hours looking at the difference between Gywnn and Raines. They have a reason and fact behind their opinion. Now some random guy just laughs it off because……………………………………
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
the comment is a prime example
of what both sides do to each other, and that is usually where is starts to go from a conversation to a heated argument. and it only takes one comment from one side or the other to start the trail. so far this thread has been able to avoid such a problem and i hope it continues that way.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Fair enough.
But Tango has done significant work on showing that Raines deserves to be in the Hall. And to dismiss it out of hand like that is infuriating.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
i believe Raines shoudl be in the HOF as well
and was by no means attaching Tango on that, it was actually just pointing out the post by LightsOutVegas is the type of comment posted by one of us (not saying anyone in particular, just a general statement) that leads off the trail into a battlefield
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Sorry I thought you were saying that about
CalCalendar’s comment.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
nope, it was more of a follow up to his
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Read this site and then let us know what you think of Raines
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry go here instead:
For a comparison of Raines and Dawson, see:
http://raines30.com/c32.shtml
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions
rains/gywnn
i never said rains shouldnt be in the hof.in fact his numbers are up there with the best of em..im saying compare his stats to other lead off hitters. i wouldnt put rains rbi against bonds,so dont put gywnn in the same category as rains.
by LightsOutVegas on Dec 30, 2009 11:49 AM CST reply actions
fair enough.
But his comparison doesn’t disqualify him as a genius, especially when his work on the matter (Raines’s worthiness as a HOF’er) is one of the best examples of just how smart Tango is.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
my point and im done
look here is what i should have said from the jump.it doesnt take a genius to tell me tim rains will make the hall of fame,but to try and tell me tim rains is = to tony gywnn.That my friend takes balls and is ridiculous
by LightsOutVegas on Dec 30, 2009 12:04 PM CST reply actions
Do you know what takes balls and is ridiculous?
Going up against one of the best baseball minds alive without any argument whatsoever.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
blow it out your ass
i made my point,hes a hof without the stupid comparison to gywnn..he goes in just comparing him to other lead off hitters so shut up..great base ball mind? really..his point is stupid,and whats your argument?that everything you read is correct.
by LightsOutVegas on Dec 30, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions
You've just insulted a member of the staff here.
That, plus the profanity involved, NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Do not do this again.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But,
you can keep the monogrammed pot holder.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 2:14 PM CST up reply actions
And the cheese grater.
Lord knows SWL and I have enough of those.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Did you borrow my potato ricer?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
I did have chili last night...
but you still didn’t answer my challenge. What’s your argument? That Raines is a lead-off hitter and Gwynn wasn’t and therefore they are not comparable?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 7:03 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't put that high of a value on what he said.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 30, 2009 2:01 PM CST up reply actions
wooden nickle?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
but only if I give you a hamburger today
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
i want to thank everyone
on both sides of this discussion, all of us kept this one from becoming a battle field, which i think helped all of us to understand where we are all coming from with our feelings and opinions about this topic
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Agreed!
I was thinking of having an “open forum thread” on stats here at some point, and this thread sort of evolved into one. I still may do one after the new year returns and the “procrastinating at work posters” return.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 30, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions
i think
a post showing HOW people made the stats we commonly use would be your best bet. Pull back the curtain so to speak so that people know exactly how sabr folks get the #’s we use.
by CalCalender on Dec 30, 2009 10:05 PM CST up reply actions
or a thread on each specific one
with one put up weekly heading into ST maybe?
that way it isnt all lumped into one thread, and can also be spread out enough not to become over bearing
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Dec 30, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I would very much like to see Shawn make such a post, or series of posts.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Me too
Shawn, I think this would be a great idea, and if you need my help on any of it just ask.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 31, 2009 9:08 AM CST up reply actions
Thanks!
You’re good at this stuff – both in knowing about it and telling people about it. I’d like to do this, and if I do I’ll let you know.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 31, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
if? if? if?
waaaaa if isnt allowed lol
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I read half this thread (so far)
I’ll try to read the rest later this week. Perhaps it would be easier if Cubbie-Tim can email me all his questions like Mike Silva did. Any question at all, including not liking some of my responses to Silva.
tom~tangotiger~net
Replace the ~ as appropriate.
Tom...
… you’re welcome to post here any time.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But he's NOT yet qualified to debate BLou.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Jan 3, 2010 7:59 PM CST up reply actions
zing
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
