2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[FredLynn]

I think JT is a free agent this year after his contract as a manager for a divisional team of that Domincan Republic T-Ball League expires this year. I wonder if he'd be willing to accept a position as a #3 starter going into 2012.

 

He has already been contacted by a number of bowling leagues

[iortiz]

Actually, SLG has a higher correlation to runs scored. That doesn't account for the scaling issue you described, so .001 of OBP is still more valuable than .001 of SLG, but a higher SLG does correlate better.

 

I don't get how somebody who understands the more advanced measures can still rate BA as highly as you do. You call it "pure", which has a meaning of without flaws. That certainly does not describe BA, which is rife with flaws as it pertains to determining offensive value to the team.

 

Yup, about SLG vs OBP at higher numbers; but if you want to correlate better RS, you should look at RBI, it definitely correlates better than OPS/OBP/SLG.

 

Since, batting average:

 

1.- is a measure of a batter's success rate in achieving a hit during an at bat,

2.- has a simple intrinsic meaning between the event (hit) and the stat (number),

3.- is the raw material (that's what i meant with pure) for another advanced stats,

4.- determines the batting champ,

 

is why I like it.

 

IMO the most exiting thing to watch in a BB game is a hit, and according with sport illustrated magazine that ability is one of the most difficult executions to make in any sport (or the most if I remember well), and that primitive stat rates that incredible ability.

 

so.... if i have to choose one and only one offensive stat, I would choose BA; But that's me.

[ORS]

Yup, about SLG vs OBP at higher numbers; but if you want to correlate better RS, you should look at RBI, it definitely correlates better than OPS/OBP/SLG.

 

Since, batting average:

 

1.- is a measure of a batter's success rate in achieving a hit during an at bat,

2.- has a simple intrinsic meaning between the event (hit) and the stat (number),

3.- is the raw material (that's what i meant with pure) for another advanced stats,

4.- determines the batting champ,

 

is why I like it.

 

IMO the most exiting thing to watch in a BB game is a hit, and according with sport illustrated magazine that ability is one of the most difficult executions to make in any sport (or the most if I remember well), and that primitive stat rates that incredible ability.

 

so.... if i have to choose one and only one offensive stat, I would choose BA; But that's me.

Of course RBI correlate best to runs scored.....they are a count of .... well .... runs (that are batted in). That kind of goes without saying.

 

As for batting average....

 

1. the other stats are measures too, but what they measure adds more information (OBP accounts for non "ball in play" events and is based on the only "clock" in baseball - the number of outs, SLG accounts for the information lost by BA - which is a binary measure)

2. the other stats have a simple "intrinsic" meaning too, provided you are aware of what is being counted

3. no, it isn't raw....the counting stats are raw, all non-counting measures use the raw data, manipulate it, to produce a result, and BA is no different

4. so?

[iortiz]

Of course RBI correlate best to runs scored.....they are a count of .... well .... runs (that are batted in). That kind of goes without saying.

 

As for batting average....

 

1. the other stats are measures too, but what they measure adds more information (OBP accounts for non "ball in play" events and is based on the only "clock" in baseball - the number of outs, SLG accounts for the information lost by BA - which is a binary measure)

2. the other stats have a simple "intrinsic" meaning too, provided you are aware of what is being counted

3. no, it isn't raw....the counting stats are raw, all non-counting measures use the raw data, manipulate it, to produce a result, and BA is no different

4. so?

 

well,

 

1.- I never said the opposite.

 

2.- if this is a simple intrinsic meaning (formula) to you, you are a genius my friend. You can't correlate easily an event with that stat as u can do with BA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/5/f/b/5fbadb7ed54cc46b2c363a26608537a5.png

 

3.- sure counting stats are raw, i just meant that BA is a raw PERCENTAGE/RATE stat in order to built OBP and OPS, thats all.

 

4.-... just saying .

 

Seriously, my whole point is that I like the HIT EVENT/ABILITY isolated since the nature of its difficulty in order to be executed, that's all. I'm not saying that it is better or worse than others, each stat has a purpose and measure different abilities, and BA isolates the hit events/ability in a determined range of turns AB.

[FredLynn]

Of course RBI correlate best to runs scored.....they are a count of .... well .... runs (that are batted in). That kind of goes without saying.

 

As for batting average....

 

1. the other stats are measures too, but what they measure adds more information (OBP accounts for non "ball in play" events and is based on the only "clock" in baseball - the number of outs, SLG accounts for the information lost by BA - which is a binary measure)

2. the other stats have a simple "intrinsic" meaning too, provided you are aware of what is being counted

3. no, it isn't raw....the counting stats are raw, all non-counting measures use the raw data, manipulate it, to produce a result, and BA is no different

4. so?

 

There is no *right answer* to this question. Using BA as the single most important gauge of offensive contribution is not a position held by a lot of people, but its certainly defensible. I like OPS because it measures not only how often a guy reaches base but also how much power a guy hits with. It takes into account the fact that a single is not as valuable as a triple.

[example1]

There is no *right answer* to this question. Using BA as the single most important gauge of offensive contribution is not a position held by a lot of people' date=' but its certainly defensible. I like OPS because it measures not only how often a guy reaches base but also how much power a guy hits with. It takes into account the fact that a single is not as valuable as a triple.[/quote']

 

If we're looking for correlations with runs why not just count "runs" as the most important stat? Obviously that would be a bad measure, but why?

 

I like iOrtiz. However, I feel like it is a stretch to say that AVG as the single most important gauge of offensive contribution is defensible. A lot of things are defensible, but it doesn't make them right or even close to right.

 

Batting average is not as strongly correlated with runs.

 

RBI are not strongly correlated with runs.

 

The type of correlation we are talking about here--the thing we are trying to get at--is how much does a particular player help his team win aside from the factors that are outside of his control. A player who plays on a team with lots of high OBP guys will have more RBI opportunities than a guy on a team that lacks those players.

 

If the goal is to isolate a player's contribution (which is how valuing a player would be done) you don't want to do it in the context of a whole lot of things that are outside of that player's control.

 

There's a reason that whole baseball world has moved away from both AVG and RBI as a primary way of measuring the ultimate value of a player and moved on to much more complex ways of thinking. It isn't because everyone is wrong now, or because advanced metrics are way off base.

[FredLynn]

If we're looking for correlations with runs why not just count "runs" as the most important stat? Obviously that would be a bad measure, but why?

 

I like iOrtiz. However, I feel like it is a stretch to say that AVG as the single most important gauge of offensive contribution is defensible. A lot of things are defensible, but it doesn't make them right or even close to right.

 

Batting average is not as strongly correlated with runs.

 

RBI are not strongly correlated with runs.

 

The type of correlation we are talking about here--the thing we are trying to get at--is how much does a particular player help his team win aside from the factors that are outside of his control. A player who plays on a team with lots of high OBP guys will have more RBI opportunities than a guy on a team that lacks those players.

 

If the goal is to isolate a player's contribution (which is how valuing a player would be done) you don't want to do it in the context of a whole lot of things that are outside of that player's control.

 

There's a reason that whole baseball world has moved away from both AVG and RBI as a primary way of measuring the ultimate value of a player and moved on to much more complex ways of thinking. It isn't because everyone is wrong now, or because advanced metrics are way off base.

 

I was not agreeing with him, but I do think that BA is one of the top ways to evaluate a player. IMO not the best. But he has presented his arguement. Its defensible.

What in your opinion is the single best way to judge offensive contribution? Don't be wishy washy and tell me that we cannot isolate a single statistic. I KNOW that many stats exist. Pick one.

[iortiz]

There is no *right answer* to this question. Using BA as the single most important gauge of offensive contribution is not a position held by a lot of people' date=' but its certainly defensible. I like OPS because it measures not only how often a guy reaches base but also how much power a guy hits with. It takes into account the fact that a single is not as valuable as a triple.[/quote']

 

 

Yup, as I said, all the stats have a purpose, and you use them according your needs or interests.

 

BTW... I never put the BA as the single most important offensive stat or as the best stat correlated with runs.

 

I'm just saying that I love it since it rates and isolates one of the toughest abilities in all sports: the ability to hit. It rates the best HITTER (take it literally, a player who has the best ability to execute a hit, no get on base or execute with power, but hit). primitive? easy to count? Yes, and is why I like it too.

[iortiz]

Batting average is not as strongly correlated with runs.

 

I never said that my friend.

 

RBI are not strongly correlated with runs.

 

Really?, Check this up...

2011

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2011-chart.jpg

 

2010

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2010-chart-3.jpg

 

2009

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2009-chart.jpg

 

 

 

...And I can continue all day long

[a700hitter]

In arbitration, the stats that are the most relevant for the players agent are those that make him look the best, and you had better believe that management will be arguing different stats to lower the player's value. That's how much consensus there is regarding the best stat for proving value. Lol!

 

Sure stats are important and they are a lot of fun for fans, but there really is not stat to show if a guy plays the game the right way. I still think that #2 hitters should be able to hit the ball behind the speedy runner to get him into scoring position. I like to see a hitter be aggressive and swing at the first good pitch he sees to drive in a crucial run from 3B with less than 2 outs when an Alex Cora type is on deck-- even if he has to go a little out of the zone. With a big run on second base and two outs, I'd rather send to the plate the guy with the .300 BA who doesn't K instead of the guy with a .250 BA but with a higher OPS. Where are the stats to show me if a guy stretches a single to a double at the appropriate time or gets caught in a run down after getting a hit to make sure that a runner scores.

 

What is Vin Scully's saying about stats? They should be used in much the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post -- for support and not illumination. Stats can definitively seperate the good players from the bad, and you can use any number of stats to make the case. However, in close calls, no stat or group of stats is definitive. It makes for a good argument, but if you think you can prove yourself right, you are just kidding yourself.

[example1]

 

RBI correlate with a team scoring runs, but they don't correlate with an individual player's impact of creating runs because they do not happen independent of other factors. As ORS said, obviously they correlate with a team scoring runs. So it can tell you that a team that scored lots of runs had lots of RBI.

 

It doesn't tell you that a guy with lots of RBI is necessarily more valuable than a guy with a high AVG or a high OBP. They don't relate well to one another and the non-RBI stats correlate better with producing runs than RBI do.

[iortiz]

RBI correlate with a team scoring runs, but they don't correlate with an individual player's impact of creating runs because they do not happen independent of other factors. As ORS said, obviously they correlate with a team scoring runs. So it can tell you that a team that scored lots of runs had lots of RBI.

 

It doesn't tell you that a guy with lots of RBI is necessarily more valuable than a guy with a high AVG or a high OBP. They don't relate well to one another and the non-RBI stats correlate better with producing runs than RBI do.

 

E1, RBI corralete better with RS than the other 3. It doesn't matter how you split it.

[iortiz]

I think IOrtiz has established that stats are not the be all and end all in building a team. The Sox have the Father of Sabremetrics in it's employment' date=' but we don't have a playoff major league team and our farm system isn't the best either.[/quote']

 

True.

 

Stats are great but are not the panacea.

[example1]

E1' date=' RBI corralete better with RS than the other 3. It doesn't matter how you split it.[/quote']

 

If you're trying to determine the value of a player, RBI are not a good measurement. There are many better ones. One player who has more RBI is not necessarily better than a player with less.

 

You can spin it however you want, but you're in the 1980s on this one. Pick up a book. Look it up. There are plenty of well-articulated arguments about this. RBI are fairly arbitrary and are an old-school way of determining a player's value. Like errors for defense, batting average for offensive value and wins for pitching value.

 

Sorry. You may like it but I'm not wrong here. There's plenty of reasons to move away from RBI as a measure of a player's value.

[example1]

In arbitration, the stats that are the most relevant for the players agent are those that make him look the best, and you had better believe that management will be arguing different stats to lower the player's value. That's how much consensus there is regarding the best stat for proving value. Lol!

 

Sure stats are important and they are a lot of fun for fans, but there really is not stat to show if a guy plays the game the right way. I still think that #2 hitters should be able to hit the ball behind the speedy runner to get him into scoring position. I like to see a hitter be aggressive and swing at the first good pitch he sees to drive in a crucial run from 3B with less than 2 outs when an Alex Cora type is on deck-- even if he has to go a little out of the zone. With a big run on second base and two outs, I'd rather send to the plate the guy with the .300 BA who doesn't K instead of the guy with a .250 BA but with a higher OPS. Where are the stats to show me if a guy stretches a single to a double at the appropriate time or gets caught in a run down after getting a hit to make sure that a runner scores.

 

What is Vin Scully's saying about stats? They should be used in much the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post -- for support and not illumination. Stats can definitively seperate the good players from the bad, and you can use any number of stats to make the case. However, in close calls, no stat or group of stats is definitive. It makes for a good argument, but if you think you can prove yourself right, you are just kidding yourself.

 

Find the list of players with the best WAR over each of the past few years. Tell me that list doesn't correlate very strongly with your impression of who the best players in the league are.

 

Then find the list of RBI leaders. Does that list correlate as strongly with best players?

 

No stat covers everything, but they are getting better and better and are taking more and more facets of the game into account... including the ability to move a runner over, sacrifice when needed, draw walks, not make outs, hit for power, hit for average, field, not make errors, on and on and on.

[a700hitter]

Find the list of players with the best WAR over each of the past few years. Tell me that list doesn't correlate very strongly with your impression of who the best players in the league are.

 

Then find the list of RBI leaders. Does that list correlate as strongly with best players?

 

No stat covers everything, but they are getting better and better and are taking more and more facets of the game into account... including the ability to move a runner over, sacrifice when needed, draw walks, not make outs, hit for power, hit for average, field, not make errors, on and on and on.

I don't need to look at WAR to confirm for me who I think the top players are.

[FredLynn]

Find the list of players with the best WAR over each of the past few years. Tell me that list doesn't correlate very strongly with your impression of who the best players in the league are.

 

Then find the list of RBI leaders. Does that list correlate as strongly with best players?

 

No stat covers everything, but they are getting better and better and are taking more and more facets of the game into account... including the ability to move a runner over, sacrifice when needed, draw walks, not make outs, hit for power, hit for average, field, not make errors, on and on and on.

 

Conversely, Lackey, I believe someone wrote here, did not have the worst WAR for a SP with over 100IP, yet in my mind he was BY FAR the worst pitcher in that category. His ERA was 0.7 RPG higher than his closest "competitor".

And Vin Scully is a most sagacious man................great comment.

[example1]

Conversely' date=' Lackey, I believe someone wrote here, did not have the worst WAR for a SP with over 100IP, [b']yet in my mind [/b] he was BY FAR the worst pitcher in that category. His ERA was 0.7 RPG higher than his closest "competitor".

And Vin Scully is a most sagacious man................great comment.

 

I wrote that about his WAR.

 

"In my mind"... You don't think there's a CHANCE that you are slightly colored by having watched more of Lackey's starts than the other crappy pitchers this year?

 

I'm not contesting that he was a horrible pitcher. I'm also not contesting that he could have been the worst in the league. I'm just saying that I personally didn't watch every pitcher in the league this year and neither did you. I watched more of Lackey than most, and spent more time being disgusted by Lackey than by most other bad pitchers.

 

There's a strong chance that going solely by my opinion would tend toward me favoring or disliking people I watched more. That's all.

[example1]

I don't need to look at WAR to confirm for me who I think the top players are.

 

No, you don't, but if you were arguing that RBI were the number one stat to predict the best players in the league wouldn't you want the list of top RBI guys to at least resemble your pre-determined list of best players? It seems there should be a correlation if you're saying it is the best stat for measuring the value of an offensive player.

[FredLynn]

I wrote that about his WAR.

 

"In my mind"... You don't think there's a CHANCE that you are slightly colored by having watched more of Lackey's starts than the other crappy pitchers this year?

 

I'm not contesting that he was a horrible pitcher. I'm also not contesting that he could have been the worst in the league. I'm just saying that I personally didn't watch every pitcher in the league this year and neither did you. I watched more of Lackey than most, and spent more time being disgusted by Lackey than by most other bad pitchers.

 

There's a strong chance that going solely by my opinion would tend toward me favoring or disliking people I watched more. That's all.

 

Name one SP with over 100 IP who you can honestly say was worse than Lackey this year. Yes, I am biased, but looking at the ESPN stat charts, and seeing what he didn't do for our team, I cannot find a single guy that was really worse, and there were a lot of losers in his category. Having an ERA that much higher than his nearest competition was damning.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' you don't, but if you were arguing that RBI were the number one stat to predict the best players in the league wouldn't you want the list of top RBI guys to at least resemble your pre-determined list of best players? It seems there should be a correlation if you're saying it is the best stat for measuring the value of an offensive player.[/quote']I didn't post anything about RBI.

[example1]

I didn't post anything about RBI.

 

You don't need to post anything about RBI to answer the question.

 

Take any statistic. If it is a good statistic shouldn't it have an intuitive component to the results it produces?

 

You watch enough baseball to know that a list of those players with the best averages are not the same as the list that you would create, by mind-power alone, of the best offensive players in the league.

 

Same thing with pitcher wins. Sometimes they will match, often times they will not.

[iortiz]

If you're trying to determine the value of a player, RBI are not a good measurement. There are many better ones. One player who has more RBI is not necessarily better than a player with less.

 

You can spin it however you want, but you're in the 1980s on this one. Pick up a book. Look it up. There are plenty of well-articulated arguments about this. RBI are fairly arbitrary and are an old-school way of determining a player's value. Like errors for defense, batting average for offensive value and wins for pitching value.

 

Sorry. You may like it but I'm not wrong here. There's plenty of reasons to move away from RBI as a measure of a player's value.

 

E1, why do you like twist things? I'm just saying that RBI correlates better RS than OPS/OBP/SLG, I already showed you.

[a700hitter]

You don't need to post anything about RBI to answer the question.

 

Take any statistic. If it is a good statistic shouldn't it have an intuitive component to the results it produces?

 

You watch enough baseball to know that a list of those players with the best averages are not the same as the list that you would create, by mind-power alone, of the best offensive players in the league.

 

Same thing with pitcher wins. Sometimes they will match, often times they will not.

and WAR doesn't match either. So?

[FredLynn]

E1' date=' why do you like twist things? I'm just saying that RBI correlates better RS than OPS/OBP/SLG, I already showed you.[/quote']

 

If you value RBIs as a measure of a player's worth so highly, where does that leave JD Drew-who in his entire Sox career never exceeded 68 RBIs in a season. I find that pathetic.

[a700hitter]

If you value RBIs as a measure of a player's worth so highly' date=' where does that leave JD Drew-who in his entire Sox career never exceeded 68 RBIs in a season. I find that pathetic.[/quote']Many of us found Drew's so-called productivity to be pathetic for $14 million/year.

[iortiz]

If you value RBIs as a measure of a player's worth so highly' date=' where does that leave JD Drew-who in his entire Sox career never exceeded 68 RBIs in a season. I find that pathetic.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying anything about players' value. I'm just saying that RBI correlates better with runs scored in a team than OPS/OBP/SLG. That's all.

[example1]

Name one SP with over 100 IP who you can honestly say was worse than Lackey this year. Yes' date=' I am biased, but looking at the ESPN stat charts, and seeing what he didn't do for our team, I cannot find a single guy that was really worse, and there were a lot of losers in his category. Having an ERA that much higher than his nearest competition was damning.[/quote']

 

One could make an argument that Edinson Volquez or Bronson Arroyo were worse. Volquez walked more than 5 batters per 9, and gave up a HR on 20% of fly balls against him. He also played in a weaker division, with a pitcher batting every 9th hitter and more pitcher friendly ballparks.

 

Tim Wakefield could make a good run at the title too. He allowed something like 40% of runners against him to score.

 

I'm not actually saying that Lackey wasn't the worst pitcher in the league, I think an argument could be made either way. If it's ERA that people are using for that claim then, yes, he was the worst. If it is other things that are reliable in other areas (WAR for instance) then he wasn't.

 

He was still TERRIBLE though. I go out of my way to point that out every single time I post about him.

[example1]

and WAR doesn't match either. So?

 

I'm not hoping to convert you. You understand what I'm talking about and don't use RBI or average as the best way to measure value.

 

WAR doesn't correlate to everything, but it does a better job than Wins or Average. That's the "so".

[example1]

E1' date=' why do you like twist things? I'm just saying that RBI correlates better RS than OPS/OBP/SLG, I already showed you.[/quote']

 

Twist things? I'm not twisting anything.

 

If you're talking about using RBI to determine the past value of a team rather than to predict future performance or player value that's a different discussion. However, why not just use runs?

 

I will posit that Runs Scored correlates most strongly with Runs Scored. It's a stat and and they are directly related. Why use RBI if all you're trying to show is Runs Scored?

 

It's not what I'm talking about though.