Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[Gom]

For instance' date=' most of these guys who have created defensive stats will tell the reader that even a full season's worth of data is usually not enough to give an accurate depiction of the player's talent, which is why you see so much variation from year to year. Does that make it invalid? No, it just means that when you are looking at one season's worth of information, you need to temper your expectations. It's very likely that defensive performance is prone to large variation and that a single season will never provide enough data for a clear view, which would make the stat acceptable provided the user kept the limitations in mind.[/quote']

Finally, a decent post from you. Been a while. Now back to the topic. If this is the case, which I presume it is since you wouldn't have mentioned it, the metric is not all that effective. More importantly..and this isn't directed at you, seriously...STOP USING DEFENSIVE STATISTICS LIKE THEY ARE THE GOSPEL TRUTH. Wouldn't you agree that if a player has a UZR of 2.1, and another is 1.9, that it is very conceivable that the better fielder is the one with the worse "statistics"?

 

My MO is to ignore the formula. I look at it in a very scientific manner. If a formula produces a result that is not at least 70% accurate, it is irrelevant. It falls within statistical error. Let's say that my player evaluation is 75% accurate. I'm just making up numbers here. If a formula is only accurate 70% of the time, I discount it, since I have a better chance of determining the true value.

 

Gom, you aren't guilty of an instance where you believed "everything" you've read. Nobody is. If people believed everything they've read, they'd truly believe in nothing because there's something out there on both sides of every issue. However, you are guilty of deriding some for believing "something" they've read (stats), yet you are also guilty of believing "something" else, such as a transaction rumor or an editorial piece. This is hypocrisy. If you are going to soapbox against using information from outside sources, then you need to stand on an island and use only the information inside your own head. I suggest you refrain from this, because the library seems empty.

I deride people because of their lack of desire to THINK for themselves. Very few people ask themselves "Does this make sense?" If so, great? If not, why? You've been on this board longer than I have, how many times do people spout numbers without understanding them. I rest my case.

 

On a civil note, you choose to take a formula that is a work in progress. I don't. Eventually, I will jump on board when it becomes more of a finished product. This is where we differ, and I respect you for it, because you are one of the only ones here who accept a formulas limitation.

 

On an unrelated topic, I got a serious kick out of you believing that I didn't know there was not DH in the NL. Too funny.

 

As for the off-season thread...I think the mystery team for Bradley is the Yankees, dangling Cabrera. What do you think? Discuss.

[ORS]

My MO is to ignore the formula. I look at it in a very scientific manner. If a formula produces a result that is not at least 70% accurate' date=' it is irrelevant. It falls within statistical error. Let's say that my player evaluation is 75% accurate. I'm just making up numbers here. If a formula is only accurate 70% of the time, I discount it, since I have a better chance of determining the true value. [/quote']

********. The accuracy you are talking about is relative to your opinion of their fielding ability. Opinion pretty much rules out anything you do being scientific. Get over the value you place on your opinion, and then you might be in business.

 

 

On an unrelated topic, I got a serious kick out of you believing that I didn't know there was not DH in the NL. Too funny.

I never thought you didn't know the DH rule. I do think you brainfarted and suggested Philly sign him to be a DH. Once you went the way you did with it, instead of owning up to the mistake, I had fun with it.

[Gom]

********. The accuracy you are talking about is relative to your opinion of their fielding ability. Opinion pretty much rules out anything you do being scientific. Get over the value you place on your opinion' date=' and then you might be in business.[/quote']

I guess you never heard of scientific observation. If what you're saying is true, why do teams send scouts to other teams to look at their players? Is this just an outdated concept to you?

I never thought you didn't know the DH rule. I do think you brainfarted and suggested Philly sign him to be a DH. Once you went the way you did with it, instead of owning up to the mistake, I had fun with it.

 

No, I had fun with it. I personally would like to see the DH removed entirely.

[ORS]

I guess you never heard of scientific observation. If what you're saying is true' date=' why do teams send scouts to other teams to look at their players? Is this just an outdated concept to you?[/quote']

Yeah, and you document your observations over time and make comparisons to check for consistency, right?

[Gom]

Yeah' date=' and you document your observations over time and make comparisons to check for consistency, right?[/quote']

 

Do question the validity of a formula and it's application in determining the value of the formula? To answer both your question and mine, no. Yet in the players I've watched, I'm more accurate than UZR/150 when it comes to comparing players. Of this, I have ZERO doubt.

[yankees228]

You do realize that a few examples, even if you're correct, hardly proves your point...

[Gom]

You do realize that a few examples' date=' even if you're correct, hardly proves your point...[/quote']

 

You also do realize that if that a formula is show to be inaccurate nearly 50% of the time, it's useless?

[yankees228]

You also do realize that if that a formula is show to be inaccurate nearly 50% of the time' date=' it's useless?[/quote']

 

But have you shown it, or has anyone else for that matter shown it to be inaccurate 50% of the time?

[Gom]

But have you shown it' date=' or has anyone else for that matter shown it to be inaccurate 50% of the time?[/quote']

 

No. However, any formula that gets three of the seven defensive Yankees wrong this past season, including negatives for Cano and Tex, is enough for me. Unlike others here, I don't have to wade through mountains of ******** to determine that, yes, after further review, it's ********.

[Dipre]

No. However' date=' any formula that gets three of the seven defensive Yankees wrong this past season, including negatives for Cano and Tex, is enough for me. Unlike others here, I don't have to wade through mountains of ******** to determine that, yes, after further review, it's ********.[/quote']

 

The simple fact that you consider Cano an above average defender at 2nd base is a testament to the flaws in your opinion.

[bsox0407]

No. However' date=' any formula that gets three of the seven defensive Yankees wrong this past season, including negatives for Cano and Tex, is enough for me. Unlike others here, I don't have to wade through mountains of ******** to determine that, yes, after further review, it's ********.[/quote']

 

THis is why other people get paid to do the stats and decode them and You Don't.

[yankees228]

The simple fact that you consider Cano an above average defender at 2nd base is a testament to the flaws in your opinion.

 

This is actually an area where I agree with Gom. While Cano has to weed out the occasional bad decision or apparent lapse in concentration, overall, I consider him to be an above average defensive second basemen.

[bsox0407]

This is actually an area where I agree with Gom. While Cano has to weed out the occasional bad decision or apparent lapse in concentration' date=' overall, I consider him to be an above average defensive second basemen.[/quote']

 

Not the best at the Second base position in the league but he is above average but needs to help with his head and stay concentrated.

[Cocos Disciples]

Gom, I'm not saying your observations are wrong, but if you're judging UZR based on how much they agree with your subjective observations, then what's the point of even considering defensive stats? The only one that would be any good would be the one that matches up perfectly with your observations, and that point it's useless anyways.

 

For the record I think UZR is one of the better fielding metrics, which isn't saying a whole lot because fielding metrics aren't nearly as advanced as hitting or fielding. It has its faults for sure, and that includes its judgment of Teixeira. But I don't think three players on one team in one season is enough to discount the stat as a whole.

[Dipre]

This is actually an area where I agree with Gom. While Cano has to weed out the occasional bad decision or apparent lapse in concentration' date=' overall, I consider him to be an above average defensive second basemen.[/quote']

 

I don't agree with that. I think he's around league average.

[Gom]

THis is why other people get paid to do the stats and decode them and You Don't.

Ok, and they are right 100% of the time?

 

See, if anyone can't make a point without turning to fundamentally flawed equations, that's their problem.

 

Explain to me why teams have scouts, if the numbers are all you need.

 

Let me give you an example of how ridiculous you guys sound.

 

Chris Coghlan is better than Ryan Braun. Why? Coughlan his .321, and Braun hit .320. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. He's better. Who cares if you watch the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? He's better. Look at the batting averages!

 

This is where we are in defensive matrices. We aren't even advanced to the point of batting averages. Today, we have OPS, OPS+, WAR, and so on and so on. Our knowledge and understanding of the game has increased dramatically. In the 60s and 70s, teams used batting average almost exclusively to determine a player's value, with little or no value given to OBP.

 

The sheep who are braying for UZR will be eventually be shown to have been barking up the wrong tree. Why? An inability to QUESTION what you read, and to blindly follow without circumspection.

[yankees228]

You realize that you're completely putting words in a lot of people's mouths, and making a ton of assumptions about how they view these statistics...

[bsox0407]

Ok, and they are right 100% of the time?

 

See, if anyone can't make a point without turning to fundamentally flawed equations, that's their problem.

 

Explain to me why teams have scouts, if the numbers are all you need.

 

Let me give you an example of how ridiculous you guys sound.

 

Chris Coghlan is better than Ryan Braun. Why? Coughlan his .321, and Braun hit .320. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. He's better. Who cares if you watch the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? He's better. Look at the batting averages!

 

This is where we are in defensive matrices. We aren't even advanced to the point of batting averages. Today, we have OPS, OPS+, WAR, and so on and so on. Our knowledge and understanding of the game has increased dramatically. In the 60s and 70s, teams used batting average almost exclusively to determine a player's value, with little or no value given to OBP.

 

The sheep who are braying for UZR will be eventually be shown to have been barking up the wrong tree. Why? An inability to QUESTION what you read, and to blindly follow without circumspection.

 

How many times are scouts wrong over stats. Pedroia got overlooked by many even though he was really good and had good stats. they thought he looked to short to play. Looks can be deceiving.

[jacksonianmarch]

every thread turns into a Gom vs Dipre s***-show. Cmon guys, put a tampon in, take a midol and stop bitching

[Gom]

Actually, I was debating with ORS. Dipre was too busy calling himself an idiot to debate with me.

[Dipre]

I love how he calls people "Sheep". We would be sheep if we believed in the subjective fallacy that Gom spews instead of analyzing statistics and actual game-viewing experience to come up with an opinion of what a player's defensive value is. The fact that you want us to believe what your eyes see instead what our eyes and statistical analysis tells us then calling us "Sheep" for it is an enormous oxymoron. And a pretty humorous one at that.

[Dipre]

every thread turns into a Gom vs Dipre s***-show. Cmon guys' date=' put a tampon in, take a midol and stop bitching[/quote']

 

Just like not reading the stats before, i'll tell you again. Take the time to read please.

[yankees228]

I don't agree with that. I think he's around league average.

 

Fair enough. I acknowledge that the statistics side with your argument, it's just that, watching him everyday, I find him to be above average, especially when it comes to his range and his arm strength. Coupled with what I consider to be average glove work, and you have yourself an above average second basemen. Nothing more than my opinion though.

[Gom]

I love how he calls people "Sheep". We would be sheep if we believed in the subjective fallacy that Gom spews instead of analyzing statistics and actual game-viewing experience to come up with an opinion of what a player's defensive value is. The fact that you want us to believe what your eyes see instead what our eyes and statistical analysis tells us then calling us "Sheep" for it is an enormous oxymoron. And a pretty humorous one at that.

So what happens when your actual game-viewing experience is in contradiction to your statistical analysis?

[Dipre]

Fair enough. I acknowledge that the statistics side with your argument' date=' it's just that, watching him everyday, I find him to be above average, especially when it comes to his range and his arm strength. Coupled with what I consider to be average glove work, and you have yourself an above average second basemen. Nothing more than my opinion though.[/quote']

 

Average glove work + above average arm =/= Above average 2B. I've watched Cano quite a bit on both the WL and Yankee games. It's not bashing him, i'm simply combining what my eyes and the stats say. Just how i believe it's supposed to be done.

[bsox0407]

So what happens when your actual game-viewing experience is in contradiction to your statistical analysis?

 

What about when your viewing of the player is wrong and the Stats are right?

[a700hitter]

Theo is on the Hot Stove Report saying "forget about the Yankees." "We are going to do our thing." He said that they are not close to doing anything big, and that they may not do anything big. He says their goal is not to make a big splash, but to "build a healthy organization." He's calling this a "bridge season." f*** that. This sounds like Scutaro may be it for us. Screw that. IMO, they will not make the playoffs with the current squad. He estimates that the chances of a major move is less than 50/50. I didn't like anything that I just heard.

[yankees228]

The problem with Cano are exactly his mental lapses which include poor positioning in some instances and a lot of questionable decisions.

 

While I agree that he suffers from mental lapses, in the form of bad decisions from time to time (I don't want to "a lot", because I feel like he really cut down on them this year), I don't feel that it's fair to attribute poor positioning to him. We don't know how often he's positioning himself, as opposed to being positioned by the coaching staff (whether it's at the moment, or based on scouting reports that were gone over before each series), so I don't think it's fair to put that on him.

[yankees228]

Theo is on the Hot Stove Report saying "forget about the Yankees." "We are going to do our thing." He said that they are not close to doing anything big' date=' and that they may not do anything big. He says their goal is not to make a big splash, but to "build a healthy organization." He's calling this a "bridge season." f*** that. This sounds like Scutaro may be it for us. Screw that. IMO, they will not make the playoffs with the current squad. He estimates that the chances of a major move is less than 50/50. I didn't like anything that I just heard.[/quote']

 

If Bay goes elsewhere, I'd be surprised if they didn't replace his production, but I guess it's possible.

[Dipre]

While I agree that he suffers from mental lapses' date=' in the form of bad decisions from time to time (I don't want to "a lot", because I feel like he really cut down on them this year), I don't feel that it's fair to attribute poor positioning to him. We don't know how often he's positioning himself, as opposed to being positioned by the coaching staff (whether it's at the moment, or based on scouting reports that were gone over before each series), so I don't think it's fair to put that on him.[/quote']

 

I don't think you can always put it on the coaching staff either. Bottom line, if he clears his head and concentrates in the game, he's an elite two-way player at the four spot, meanwhile he's a very very good hitter and around league average defender.