Sabermetrics Versus Traditional Views

[bostopz]

On the topic of momentum, it has been shown that momentum has no predictive value. In other words, a team can have all the momentum in the world going for them, but whether that momentum continues the next game or the next inning is really a 50-50 shot. A team with momentum is just as likely to lose the next game as they are to win it.

I asked you if you think players can build off of momentum. Prior to that you said you were a strong believer in the human element of the game. Are you a believer in momentum? The Yankee game is on (I should shut it off but freidn here likes Yanks!!) but the Yank announcer said same thing last night the Sox-Yanks announcer(s) said. Yanks got a run and they said the Yank pitcher needed a shut down inning. So as even the announcers said it last night with Red Sox, and you said you are a strong believer in the human element, thus I'll ask again or clarify what you just posted to me now- can players build off of momentum? Yes or no? I think you said "yes they can." Am I right in that assumption?

And a further point --secondly-- do you have data to show momentum is 50-50? You specifially you used 50-50.

There is no evidence if it is 55-45? 58-42? 52-48? And if you believe as strongly as you say about the human element, why do you dismiss momentum vs grit? How do you define grit and how does sabermterics define grit? Did you say on the other thread that players that make it in pro ball had a ton of pressure trying to make it - so it means once they get in they can handle any pressure? Does this mean all the players have grit too? They'd have to have grit to make it considering all the pressure they were under, wouldn't they? I don't understand how you can separate a player "with grit" and determine their grit has any more value than momentum other than "your say-so." There is no evidence to suggest teams with more grit win any more or less than teams that build momentum, is there? If momentum can't be shown to win, how can grit? Thus why are you believing in grit and not momentum? What justification is there of "confidence" vs "grit" vs "momentum" - -- none are proven data points in how to measure wins are there? You don't know player a is more confident than player b, do you?

So what if I were to say to you you're wrong -- that grit and confidence are just as much crap as any other human element such as momentum because it can't be proven through the data? Can you prove my statement wrong with data?

[bostopz]

Well, I don't think you can blame Oakland's "collapse" on the trade of Cespedes. It's easy to do because of the timing, but there could be any number of reasons for it. Honestly, I didn't follow the A's closely enough to exactly what happened.

The data shows that once Cespedes left they collapsed, doesn't it? You said you go with the data. Here is what you said:

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

The evidence shows once he left they collapsed. Yet in this case you are not applying the data, right? You have made a decision to disregard the data, correct? You call it "timing." Maybe the"data" shows a drop, Maybe their hitting did improve - I really don't know but I believe it didn't. I believe the data would show a decline in runs scored.

[bostopz]

Oakland fell apart due to a team wide slump - some of it might have been regression. Cespedes was a .300 OBP guy, which while the power is nice, that's generally a guy not doing his job. Offensive value is pretty straightforward - outs are bad, everything else is better. Occasionally outs are ok, but those are cases where the second run doesn't matter.

As far as Rivera goes - he is the greatest 1-inning closer of all time. The way the gig has evolved over time, he is the best at the current version of it. Now do I think the gig which Rich Gossage or Mike Marshall had in days of yore was fundamentally more challenging? Yes. But that is a non-issue here. Rivera's brilliance proves his brilliance, not the general level of the gig. Joel Hanrahan and Fernando Rodney explain more about modern closing as a gig than Rivera or 2013 Uehara do.

Are you saying it was all just ONE BIG COINCDENCE that when Cespedes left, the rest of the team just happened to go in ONE BIG SLUMP???

I hope you aren't saying that.

And are you also trying to say Cespedes was a below average offensive player?

[bostopz]

Oakland fell apart due to a team wide slump - some of it might have been regression. Cespedes was a .300 OBP guy, which while the power is nice, that's generally a guy not doing his job. Offensive value is pretty straightforward - outs are bad, everything else is better. Occasionally outs are ok, but those are cases where the second run doesn't matter.

As far as Rivera goes - he is the greatest 1-inning closer of all time. The way the gig has evolved over time, he is the best at the current version of it. Now do I think the gig which Rich Gossage or Mike Marshall had in days of yore was fundamentally more challenging? Yes. But that is a non-issue here. Rivera's brilliance proves his brilliance, not the general level of the gig. Joel Hanrahan and Fernando Rodney explain more about modern closing as a gig than Rivera or 2013 Uehara do.

And sky - I love ya dude. But you talk about avoiding the question regarding Pettit vs Rivera, you certainly did it. Just wow! Where is Pettit even mentioned in your reply to me or any starter for that manner? I was asking the value of Pettit vs Rivera. I have no idea why you are mentioning Hanrahan and Rodney etc. How is any of that related to Pettit?

[Bellhorn04]

Rivera is more deserving of being in the HOF than Pettitte because Rivera was the best at his position.

[bostopz]

Rivera is more deserving of being in the HOF than Pettitte because Rivera was the best at his position.

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

[Bellhorn04]

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

No offense, but you can't expect anyone to be able to respond to a post that has that many questions in it.

[User Name?]

The data shows that once Cespedes left they collapsed, doesn't it? You said you go with the data. Here is what you said:

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

The evidence shows once he left they collapsed. Yet in this case you are not applying the data, right? You have made a decision to disregard the data, correct? You call it "timing." Maybe the"data" shows a drop, Maybe their hitting did improve - I really don't know but I believe it didn't. I believe the data would show a decline in runs scored.

No, that's not what the data shows. That's what you interpret because it proves your point. The data shows a team-wide slump.

Also, love this thread.

[User Name?]

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

[bostopz]

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

C'mon you think I'm going to believe you? We've been on opposite sides and you're bias has shown itself. When Kimmi makes a post she didn't have to prove but I did. Sure buddy.

[bostopz]

No offense, but you can't expect anyone to be able to respond to a post that has that many questions in it.

Just as Kimmi did - she choose to respond to what she wanted to and broke it into segemts. I'll choose to respond what I want to - and so and so on and so. . . Can't touch everything.

[bostopz]

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

So answer the question for once in your life. Who is more deserving Rivera or Pettit? If you say Rivera is more deserving because he was the best - then what about pinch hitters?

How many Yankee fans do you know that will tell you they would rather have had Pettit? I live closer to New York and I'm surrounded by Yankee fans. I listen to the NY radio station and never have I heard someone try to explain who is greater/better Pettit or Rivera and they choose Pettit. And just to let you know -- when one player leaves and everyone goes into slump and he joins another team and they begin to hit better that is considered data. Here is the definition of data an satts. Imagien that - there is this little thing called a dictionary that you could look up their meanings:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data?s=t

a body of facts; information

TWO times Cespedes left. One time he left the etam he left - fell APART. Got it?
The other team he joined - began to hit better. Got it?

Those are considered data and stats.

The definition of stats is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statistics




the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.


It's all one big miracle!!! The guy leaves and his team miracuosuly tanks and he joins another team and they hit better -- yet it's all one big miracle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sk7326]

And sky - I love ya dude. But you talk about avoiding the question regarding Pettit vs Rivera, you certainly did it. Just wow! Where is Pettit even mentioned in your reply to me or any starter for that manner? I was asking the value of Pettit vs Rivera. I have no idea why you are mentioning Hanrahan and Rodney etc. How is any of that related to Pettit?

I would put Rivera in ahead of Pettitte because of the role thing - not that closer is a more important job than starting (it isn't), but that Rivera was better at it than Pettitte and the thing which writers use to pimp Pettitte's cause (the playoff starts) is a function of being on a really good team for a very long time.

[sk7326]

Are you saying it was all just ONE BIG COINCDENCE that when Cespedes left, the rest of the team just happened to go in ONE BIG SLUMP???

I hope you aren't saying that.

And are you also trying to say Cespedes was a below average offensive player?

1) Yes
2) More like average than below average. The power makes up for the inability to get on-base, but just barely. Now he was good in 2012 - so either that was a fluke or that player can be coaxed out by the right situation.

[User Name?]

C'mon you think I'm going to believe you? We've been on opposite sides and you're bias has shown itself. When Kimmi makes a post she didn't have to prove but I did. Sure buddy.

This is a terrible cop-out. Also, the only thing you're proven is that you can't interpret data. Anecdotal evidence is not data, conflating subjects is not correct interpretation data, using subjective criteria is not correct interpretation of data. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.