Bay vs. Holliday

[rhet]

"Watch the games" = Typical response when it has been proven you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

And you have watched nearly nothing of Holliday.

 

So watch the games before making those statements, amirite?

 

 

Call me wrong. That's your opinion.

But I have no reason to lie about it.

That's the kind of accusation that ends discussions.

[rhet]

Lol' date=' I wouldn't lie over something so trivial. Regardless, I don't think you can watch them if you don't have an MLB.TV subscription.[/quote']

 

I know that. I just wanted to see them again.

[Dipre]

Call me wrong. That's your opinion.

But I have no reason to lie about it.

That's the kind of accusation that ends discussions.

 

No.

 

I said you have watched Holliday play a minimal number of times. I.e: the NLDS.

 

Your insistence on that particular game coupled with your reluctance to at least "recall" any other example of the "Hot dogging" you say happens "all the time" on any other game leads me to that guess, and if you don't dispute it (which you seem unable to do) then it would appear i am correct.

[yankees228]

No.

 

I said you have watched Holliday play a minimal number of times. I.e: the NLDS.

 

Your insistence on that particular game coupled with your reluctance to at least "recall" any other example of the "Hot dogging" you say happens "all the time" on any other game leads me to that guess, and if you don't dispute it (which you seem unable to do) then it would appear i am correct.

 

On top of that, he stated that Holliday hot dogged on other plays during the NLDS, and that was proven to be incorrect.

 

Rhet, you have to understand that your argument holds very little water, especially after your examples were invalid.

[Gom]

Watchezz teh gameezzz.

 

Is there anything more trite than this statement in arguments amongst baseball fans?

 

People who rely solely on statistical analysis scoff at those that watch the games, but the best analysis in my opinion uses both the human eye as well as raw data. To ignore one without the other shows a lack of intelligence and understanding when it comes to baseball. Before anyone debates this, ask yourself why EVERY team in the playoffs sends out advance scouts to watch their opponents and potential opponents. If raw statistical data is the only relevant information, why bother?

[yankees228]

I don't think anyone is saying that there should not be a mixture of both, but telling someone to watch the games tends to be a dismissal of concrete, statistical evidence.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

People who rely solely on statistical analysis scoff at those that watch the games' date=' but the best analysis in my opinion uses both the human eye as well as raw data. To ignore one without the other shows a lack of intelligence and understanding when it comes to baseball. Before anyone debates this, ask yourself why EVERY team in the playoffs sends out advance scouts to watch their opponents and potential opponents. If raw statistical data is the only relevant information, why bother?[/quote']

Baseball stats tell you all you really need to know. Since its the one sport where each player's exact contributions can be judged, due to having a consistent number of opportunities and no chance of getting robbed by your teammates.

[yankees228]

Baseball stats tell you all you really need to know. Since its the one sport where each player's exact contributions can be judged' date=' due to having a consistent number of opportunities and no chance of getting robbed by your teammates.[/quote']

 

This I disagree with, especially when it comes to defense and smaller sample sizes.

[Dipre]

Defense in baseball is impossible to analyze using stats alone.

[ORS]

I don't think anyone is saying that there should not be a mixture of both' date=' but telling someone to watch the games tends to be a dismissal of concrete, statistical evidence.[/quote']

This. I'm not saying there's no value in observational data. I do have a problem when people try and say their observations invalidate the statistical record, especially when personal bias results in a subjective observation so frequently.

[Gom]

This. I'm not saying there's no value in observational data. I do have a problem when people try and say their observations invalidate the statistical record' date=' especially when personal bias results in a subjective observation so frequently.[/quote']

 

Come on, ORS. Half of the statistical data that people spout is incomplete. Don't play stupid, old friend. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Sometimes, the data spouted falls in the realm of statistical error due to statistical variation and/or sample size. Look, I went to about 40 games this year. Jeter looked slightly better to his left, but that could have been nothing more than me wanting to believe so. However, with Tex at first, the fielders on the Yankee infield were more relaxed, made more accurate throws, and he saved Jeter at least 5 errors this year.

 

All the defensive matrices say that Jeter had an unbelievable turnaround defensively, but honestly...I didn't SEE it.

 

The reason why I say I saw it is it is next to impossible to judge a players break on a ball on TV.

 

Also, I'm not surprised Hughes got bombed in the playoffs. His numbers told you he was awesome. However, I don't remember a luckier pitcher on the Yankees staff than Hughes. He threw hard, and that allowed him to get away with mistakes. I can tell you once or twice an at bat, the catcher would set up down and away and he'd throw a fastball up and in, and get a strike [or strikeout]. You can't see that at the game, but you can see it on TV. Stats analysis would tell you that he made a great pitch, got a strike, etc...but it wasn't what he wanted to do.

 

These are the kinds of things that statistics haven't evolved enough to tell us...among many others.

[Cocos Disciples]

Come on, ORS. Half of the statistical data that people spout is incomplete. Don't play stupid, old friend. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Sometimes, the data spouted falls in the realm of statistical error due to statistical variation and/or sample size. Look, I went to about 40 games this year. Jeter looked slightly better to his left, but that could have been nothing more than me wanting to believe so. However, with Tex at first, the fielders on the Yankee infield were more relaxed, made more accurate throws, and he saved Jeter at least 5 errors this year.

 

All the defensive matrices say that Jeter had an unbelievable turnaround defensively, but honestly...I didn't SEE it.

 

The reason why I say I saw it is it is next to impossible to judge a players break on a ball on TV.

 

Also, I'm not surprised Hughes got bombed in the playoffs. His numbers told you he was awesome. However, I don't remember a luckier pitcher on the Yankees staff than Hughes. He threw hard, and that allowed him to get away with mistakes. I can tell you once or twice an at bat, the catcher would set up down and away and he'd throw a fastball up and in, and get a strike [or strikeout]. You can't see that at the game, but you can see it on TV. Stats analysis would tell you that he made a great pitch, got a strike, etc...but it wasn't what he wanted to do.

 

These are the kinds of things that statistics haven't evolved enough to tell us...among many others.

 

This is where the mixture that y228 was talking about comes into play. You're right, if you only looked at statistics, you wouldn't get the whole picture in that scenario. Of course there's nobody that only studies statistics and doesn't watch any games--if you're a baseball fan, you watch baseball.

 

I've said this before, but there are different levels of fandom. You can be a perfectly "good" fan if you just watch the games, and you would have a solid understanding of baseball. Statistics, in my opinion, make that understanding deeper. There's room for both.

[ORS]

This is where the mixture that y228 was talking about comes into play. You're right' date=' if you only looked at statistics, you wouldn't get the whole picture in that scenario. Of course there's nobody that [i']only[/i] studies statistics and doesn't watch any games--if you're a baseball fan, you watch baseball.

 

I've said this before, but there are different levels of fandom. You can be a perfectly "good" fan if you just watch the games, and you would have a solid understanding of baseball. Statistics, in my opinion, make that understanding deeper. There's room for both.

Agreed.

 

Plus, it's not like the stats, at least the ones in this case, defensive stats, are devoid of observational data. UZR is a play by play stat. They review each chance by each fielder, note where the player is positioned before the pitch, note how hard the ball was hit, and then award/deduct points from the player's total based on how often that play is made by an average fielder. It is watching the games. It's watching them with the focus solely on what it is attempting to measure. I'll agree, there is some subjectivity there, but I have more faith that the people contributing to the metric have more focus on what they are attempting to measure than the guy chugging beers in the bleachers.

 

So, in the end, when this stat says Jeter had a better year than previous years, I'll trust it, because I'll eat my shoe before I believe Gom had the same focus, not to mention that he recorded his observations and conducted a tally at the end of the season.

[Dojji]

I use stats primarily because I know I can't tell good baseball from bad by looking.

[Gom]

Agreed.

 

Plus, it's not like the stats, at least the ones in this case, defensive stats, are devoid of observational data. UZR is a play by play stat. They review each chance by each fielder, note where the player is positioned before the pitch, note how hard the ball was hit, and then award/deduct points from the player's total based on how often that play is made by an average fielder. It is watching the games. It's watching them with the focus solely on what it is attempting to measure. I'll agree, there is some subjectivity there, but I have more faith that the people contributing to the metric have more focus on what they are attempting to measure than the guy chugging beers in the bleachers.

 

So, in the end, when this stat says Jeter had a better year than previous years, I'll trust it, because I'll eat my shoe before I believe Gom had the same focus, not to mention that he recorded his observations and conducted a tally at the end of the season.

Oh ORS...I thought you had the sense to stay out of this one, lol...

 

From what I see on Fangraphs, UZR was only kept since 2002. So...Jeter, who in my opinion, was an average to possibly above average shortstop on ground balls, and probably the best shortstop in the game on balls in the air, had a terrible UZR/150 for every year from it's inception. Articles were written, people killed him all the time for his defense..who was his firstbaseman? Giambi. Now, the Yankees get someone who is acknowledged as one of the best fielding firstbasemen, and what happens? He miraculously, in his mid-30's, mind you, when it is acknowledged he's lost a step in the field and on the bases, has a career year defensively. It's not even close. That crowd about how terrible Jeter was defensively? Not a f***ing peep. Silence....

 

Coincidence? Did he really get better? A remarkable turnaround in his mid-30s? Get real.

 

By the way, this same stat you preach...listed Teixeira, who pretty much everyone touts as one of the best defensive firstbasemen in the game, as -4.1. The guy won the Gold Glove, and there isn't anyone I know that wouldn't list him in the top five firstbasemen in all of baseball defensively. You'll take one of the most flawed statistical models I've ever seen in baseball. I'll take my eyes in the bleachers over that. Sorry.

 

Gotcha buddy. Thanks for clearing that one up.

[ORS]

I never said it wasn't flawed. It's flaws are well known and acknowledged by the guy who created the stat. Speaking of flaws, do you not see the massive flaw in your primary reasoning as to why he had a better year this year?

 

You are creditting his improvement to Teixeira saving him from errors. The UZR is broken down into a Range and Error component. His Error component did improve when Giambi became the regular DH (this improvement occurred before Teixeira was on the team). However his range component improved this year. He reportedly spent the entire offseason working primarily on improving his range. According to the metric, he did just that. He also stole 30 bases this year, a massive improvment from the previous two years, which lends additional credence to improved foot speed from his training.

 

You aren't reading the components of the stat correctly, which isn't surprising. Therefore, you don't get anything meaningful from it due to your skull density.

[example1]

You aren't reading the components of the stat correctly' date=' which isn't surprising. Therefore, you don't get anything meaningful from it due to your skull density.[/quote']

 

Gom is showing that he pretty consistently talks a good game but he acknowledges that he doesn't actually research what he's talking about. We should expect that half of it is garbage. It is our job, apparently, to figure out what is and isn't garbage. Too bad he can't just do it himself and save the rest of us from having to read his poorly thought-out positions.

[Spudboy]

I just have not been able to find a good explanation of how UZR data is acquired. I've looked. I've listened.

I still don't understand exactly how the components of this metric are gleaned.

 

Maybe ORS could help me to have a better understanding?

[drock]

please resign BAY not holliday ..... he cant hit in the AL .. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ?

[yankees228]

I just have not been able to find a good explanation of how UZR data is acquired. I've looked. I've listened.

I still don't understand exactly how the components of this metric are gleaned.

 

Maybe ORS could help me to have a better understanding?

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-21_0/

[Dipre]

please resign BAY not holliday ..... he cant hit in the AL .. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ?

 

Hey adam.

[drock]

who are you ?

[Dipre]

who are you ?

 

You ARE adam aren't you? :lol::lol:

[drock]

I would like to see Bay back . I dont think Holliday can make it in AL . But he can prove me wrong I hope lol . he's just going to command so much money .. I dont know what to think .

[drock]

sorry guys

[Dipre]

Ya its me but dont tell dont wana get banned wana start fresh

 

Edit that, champ.

[ORS]

Gom is showing that he pretty consistently talks a good game but he acknowledges that he doesn't actually research what he's talking about. We should expect that half of it is garbage. It is our job' date=' apparently, to figure out what is and isn't garbage. Too bad he can't just do it himself and save the rest of us from having to read his poorly thought-out positions.[/quote']

I wouldn't even classify them as "thought" out. Thought implies time spent thinking, and what we get appears to be the superficial stuff you get off the top of the head. The immediate response, with no analysis toward merit.

[drock]

how did you remember me its been so long i miss this place

[Spudboy]

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-21_0/

 

Thanks y228.

[drock]

I see GOM is still up in here... holy shiat ...