2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[iortiz]

hahahahah E1, are u defending Lackey now? C'mon man!

 

You don't even need to look at stats in order to make a call. He is terrible. IMO he is done!

[a700hitter]

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".

I didn't make any claim about any statistic being better than any other stat, so I don't know what you are disputing. I am just saying that there is no single stat that I look at to determine a player's value.

[example1]

hahahahah E1, are u defending Lackey now? C'mon man!

 

You don't even need to look at stats in order to make a call. He is terrible. IMO he is done!

 

 

If you had read any of my posts you already read that I agree with you. I'm not "defending" Lackey. I'm pointing out that him being "terrible" and "done" are different from him being the worst in the league. There could be 30 pitchers in the league that are "terrible" and "done" but that doesn't make them the worst in the league.

 

It makes me sick to even play devil's advocate here, believe me.

[a700hitter]

 

If you had read any of my posts you already read that I agree with you. I'm not "defending" Lackey. I'm pointing out that him being "terrible" and "done" are different from him being the worst in the league. There could be 30 pitchers in the league that are "terrible" and "done" but that doesn't make them the worst in the league.

 

It makes me sick to even play devil's advocate here, believe me.

There is no definitive measure of worst. He is certainly among the worst. All the stats indicate that. No stat definitively proves that he is or isn't the worst. He did have the worst ERA and that's a pretty bad distinction that puts him in a class of the worst pitchers. If his WAR sucks less than some other poor schlub, it doesn't mean that he was a better pitcher than the other schlub. It just means that he had a better WAR.

[iortiz]

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.

 

You were who said that "RBI are not strongly correlated with runs." and i said that it is not true. I already showed you.

 

Sorry E1, I already made my point. I don't want to disrespect you but I can't find more elements in order to show, what I already tried showed you.

 

and it is not what I was talking about either.

[iortiz]

 

If you had read any of my posts you already read that I agree with you. I'm not "defending" Lackey. I'm pointing out that him being "terrible" and "done" are different from him being the worst in the league. There could be 30 pitchers in the league that are "terrible" and "done" but that doesn't make them the worst in the league.

 

It makes me sick to even play devil's advocate here, believe me.

 

sorry man! my bad!

 

but .... do you think that he is the worst pitcher in 2011? IMO, he is.

[FredLynn]

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.

 

When you are allowing nearly 3/4 of a run per nine innings more than #144, thats a lot of ground to make up. ERA is very basic: earned runs allowed per nine innings. If the function of a pitcher is to NOT allow runs, which it is, then ERA condemns Lackey to last place. Even Wakefield was better. Although 40% of his runners scored, he allowed fewer runners to reach base, and in the end, allowed fewer runs per nine innings. The more runs a pitcher allows, the less the chance of a "W" showing up.

[example1]

You were who said that "RBI are not strongly correlated with runs." and i said that it is not true. I already showed you.

 

Sorry E1, I already made my point. I don't want to disrespect you but I can't find more elements in order to show, what I already tried showed you.

 

and it is not what I was talking about either.

 

RBI are correlated with having scored runs. They are not at all predictive of scoring runs in the future.

 

If David Ortiz has 101 RBI this year and goes to Seattle next year, Seattle would be wrong to value RBI as the strongest indicator of how he will fit into their lineup.

 

You are reading "correlated with producing runs" differently than how I (and ORS, I susped) are talking about it.

 

It is probably more complex than it is worth getting into here, but it is at the very foundation of how teams construct themselves these days and it is beyond dispute. No self-respecting GM or owner would look at RBIs by an individual player as the best measure of that player's value, and all teams rate a players offensive value as that players ability to create runs.

 

They may look at total runs scored as a good indicator of the past strength of the team, but they aren't going to use RBI the way you are talking about it.

 

Your use of RBI is self-referential and, as ORS said, it basically describes itself. My question still stands: why not just use runs? If you are trying to show how many runs a team scored, just use runs. There's no need to use RBI for what you are talking about.

 

I appreciate your intention to not disrespect me, and I don't feel disrespected. I'm not worried about being wrong here.

 

To me this is akin to someone arguing that the Earth is flat because when they put a ball down the ball doesn't naturally roll this way or that, as it would if one theorized that the Earth were a sphere. The Earth is a sphere (or close to it) even if it appears flat.

 

RBI's don't correlate strongly with player value, and player value is strongly based on the ability to create runs. I'm not twisting things, I'm stating a fairly complex fact that is backed up again and again in almost all literature about baseball post-1990.

 

Your chart shows that teams that scored the most runs also had the most RBI. That is intuitive. It is very different from saying that the players who are most valuable are the ones who have the most RBI.

[example1]

When you are allowing nearly 3/4 of a run per nine innings more than #144' date=' thats a lot of ground to make up. ERA is very basic: earned runs allowed per nine innings. If the function of a pitcher is to NOT allow runs, which it is, then ERA condemns Lackey to last place. Even Wakefield was better. Although 40% of his runners scored, he allowed fewer runners to reach base, and in the end, allowed fewer runs per nine innings. The more runs a pitcher allows, the less the chance of a "W" showing up.[/quote']

 

Don't completely disagree. However, is it really fair to compare a pitcher who faces the Yankees and Rays and Blue Jays over and over again to a pitcher who faces the Cubs and Pirates etc?

 

In theory, there should be some accomodation for pitchers who pitch in pitchers parks and pitchers who have the luxary of facing s***** lineups every night.

 

There's a reason you don't list pitchers who were getting shelled in single-A baseball as the worst pitcher... because they faced different competition.

 

Advanced statistics try to neutralize a lot of that stuff and it is absolutely the better way of looking at players.

 

AGAIN, though, Lackey was horrible, terrible, unwatchable, unworthy of being on the mound, many other things...

[iortiz]

There is no definitive measure of worst. He is certainly among the worst. All the stats indicate that. No stat definitively proves that he is or isn't the worst. He did have the worst ERA and that's a pretty bad distinction that puts him in a class of the worst pitchers. If his WAR sucks less than some other poor schlub' date=' it doesn't mean that he was a better pitcher than the other schlub. It just means that he had a better WAR.[/quote']

 

yup, but considering how much he is making among those poor shlub I'd give him that distinction.

[a700hitter]

yup' date=' but considering how much he is making among those poor shlub I'd give him that distinction. [/quote']Yes, that would really tilt the decision in favor of Lackey being the worst.

[iortiz]

RBI are correlated with having scored runs. They are not at all predictive of scoring runs in the future.

 

If David Ortiz has 101 RBI this year and goes to Seattle next year, Seattle would be wrong to value RBI as the strongest indicator of how he will fit into their lineup.

 

You are reading "correlated with producing runs" differently than how I (and ORS, I susped) are talking about it.

 

It is probably more complex than it is worth getting into here, but it is at the very foundation of how teams construct themselves these days and it is beyond dispute. No self-respecting GM or owner would look at RBIs by an individual player as the best measure of that player's value, and all teams rate a players offensive value as that players ability to create runs.

 

They may look at total runs scored as a good indicator of the past strength of the team, but they aren't going to use RBI the way you are talking about it.

 

Your use of RBI is self-referential and, as ORS said, it basically describes itself. My question still stands: why not just use runs? If you are trying to show how many runs a team scored, just use runs. There's no need to use RBI for what you are talking about.

 

I appreciate your intention to not disrespect me, and I don't feel disrespected. I'm not worried about being wrong here.

 

To me this is akin to someone arguing that the Earth is flat because when they put a ball down the ball doesn't naturally roll this way or that, as it would if one theorized that the Earth were a sphere. The Earth is a sphere (or close to it) even if it appears flat.

 

RBI's don't correlate strongly with player value, and player value is strongly based on the ability to create runs. I'm not twisting things, I'm stating a fairly complex fact that is backed up again and again in almost all literature about baseball post-1990.

 

Your chart shows that teams that scored the most runs also had the most RBI. That is intuitive. It is very different from saying that the players who are most valuable are the ones who have the most RBI.

 

again, Who is talking about player value?. Show me where I'm talking about player value.

[FredLynn]

RBI's don't correlate strongly with player value

 

Maybe not, but I like a player who can drive in runs nonetheless. In that regard, Drew was an abject failure with the Red Sox.

There is something to be said for a guy who can come up with a base hit with a runner in scoring position vs a guy who cannot do it.

[FredLynn]

Don't completely disagree. However, is it really fair to compare a pitcher who faces the Yankees and Rays and Blue Jays over and over again to a pitcher who faces the Cubs and Pirates etc?

 

In theory, there should be some accomodation for pitchers who pitch in pitchers parks and pitchers who have the luxary of facing s***** lineups every night.

 

There's a reason you don't list pitchers who were getting shelled in single-A baseball as the worst pitcher... because they faced different competition.

 

Advanced statistics try to neutralize a lot of that stuff and it is absolutely the better way of looking at players.

 

AGAIN, though, Lackey was horrible, terrible, unwatchable, unworthy of being on the mound, many other things...

 

I understand what you are saying. But if you look at how the teams shaked out in runs scored in the AL, for example, the best teams were from all over the place. Yes, the Red Sox and Yankees were 1 and 2, but the Rays and Orioles were just 7 and 8. Better than other divisions, but not markedly so. Besides, if a pitcher is really good, he should be able to get outs no matter who he is facing or where he is facing them.

I agree with you that other measurements give a more complete picture of performance, but if I had to choose one metric for pitchers, its ERA, and Lackey was SO far behind there that he could not possibly make it up no matter what other measurements you use.

BTW: did you represent OJ Simpson too?

[iortiz]

RBI's don't correlate strongly with player value

 

Maybe not, but I like a player who can drive in runs nonetheless. In that regard, Drew was an abject failure with the Red Sox.

There is something to be said for a guy who can come up with a base hit with a runner in scoring position vs a guy who cannot do it.

 

E1 is trying to to say that I said that; and I didn't even talk about this

 

I said that RBI correlates better with runs scored by a team than OPS/SLG/OBP. that's all.

[FredLynn]

E1 is trying to to say that I said that; and I didn't even talk about this

 

I said that RBI correlates better with runs scored by a team than OPS/SLG/OBP. that's all.

 

Thats pretty hard to deny since such a high percentage of team runs are driven in. There are only a few ways a run can score without an RBI being issued to someone. And Ortiz was right there this year to complain about one such case, interrupting a Francona press conference. No offense to your namesake...........

[example1]

again' date=' Who is talking about player value?. Show me where I'm talking about player value.[/quote']

 

I assumed you were talking about player value when you were talking about a single best stat and how stats correlate with the main goal of offense in baseball: scoring runs. If you were just talking about stats that you like then I'm sorry, I misunderstood. (EDIT: ORS used the word value and you responded with talking about scoring runs and RBI)

 

As for the charts you cited above, the premise of that whole argument was faulty. Here's where they came from (which I'm sure you already know, but forgot to cite):

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/does-ops-correlate-better-to-runs-scored-than-rbi.html

 

This guy is in a discussion about the correlation between RBI and Runs Scored and how RBI have a stronger correlation vs. other measures like OBP. I'm not sure if you read the pages and pages of comments underneith the post. The argument is poorly flawed and there are dozens and dozens of people arguing with him convincingly.

 

Anyway, this is a tired discussion. There's nothing wrong with you loving RBI as a stat. I'm sorry that this has gone on so long.

 

Baseball is fun. :thumbsup:

[example1]

Besides' date=' if a pitcher is really good, he should be able to get outs no matter who he is facing or where he is facing them.[/quote']

 

Do you reallly believe this?

 

Really?

 

You think Felix Hernandez gets outs as easily against good hitters as he does against bad hitters? Is being a "good hitter" different from being a "bad hitter" by luck alone?

 

Think of the most extreme example: Barry Bonds about 7 years ago. Do you really think that a pitcher having to face a teamful of Barry Bonds should be able to get outs as easily as a pitcher having to face a teamful of Marco Scutaros?

 

Good offenses are much harder to pitch against than bad offenses. That's one of the most obvious things in the game, no matter how good a pitcher is. Yes, a good pitcher might be able to get outs against either, but to assume that the difference will have no or only insignificant differences on their outcomes is much too simplistic.

[iortiz]

I assumed you were talking about player value when you were talking about a single best stat and how stats correlate with the main goal of offense in baseball: scoring runs. If you were just talking about stats that you like then I'm sorry, I misunderstood. (EDIT: ORS used the word value and you responded with talking about scoring runs and RBI)

 

As for the charts you cited above, the premise of that whole argument was faulty. Here's where they came from (which I'm sure you already know, but forgot to cite):

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/does-ops-correlate-better-to-runs-scored-than-rbi.html

 

This guy is in a discussion about the correlation between RBI and Runs Scored and how RBI have a stronger correlation vs. other measures like OBP. I'm not sure if you read the pages and pages of comments underneith the post. The argument is poorly flawed and there are dozens and dozens of people arguing with him convincingly.

 

Anyway, this is a tired discussion. There's nothing wrong with you loving RBI as a stat. I'm sorry that this has gone on so long.

 

Baseball is fun. :thumbsup:

 

I think that I don't explain myself well .

 

Sure, I like RBI, OBP, OPS, etc. ... but BA is what I like the most since it isolates and rates one of the most incredible and toughest abilities in baseball and in all sports (to hit).

 

But that's me!

[example1]

I think that I don't explain myself well .

 

Sure, I like RBI, OBP, OPS, etc. ... but BA is what I like the most since it isolates and rates one of the most incredible and toughest abilities in baseball and in all sports (to hit).

 

But that's me!

 

Fair enough man. I realize you are typing in a second language (or, at least, I think I've figured that out!). You do amazingly with that. Seriously. You explain yourself very, very well!

[FredLynn]

Do you reallly believe this?

 

Really?

 

You think Felix Hernandez gets outs as easily against good hitters as he does against bad hitters? Is being a "good hitter" different from being a "bad hitter" by luck alone?

 

Think of the most extreme example: Barry Bonds about 7 years ago. Do you really think that a pitcher having to face a teamful of Barry Bonds should be able to get outs as easily as a pitcher having to face a teamful of Marco Scutaros?

 

Good offenses are much harder to pitch against than bad offenses. That's one of the most obvious things in the game, no matter how good a pitcher is. Yes, a good pitcher might be able to get outs against either, but to assume that the difference will have no or only insignificant differences on their outcomes is much too simplistic.

 

Felix Hernandez has a career ERA of 3.24. He gets good hitters out and he gets bad hitters out better than other pitchers on average. Of course good hitters will be more challenging for him. The good hitters are not limited to the Red Sox and the Yankees. The Rangers have a few good hitters too, and the Mariners played them what-18 times? I am not saying that there are no other important metrics to measure the effectiveness of a pitcher; just that ERA is the single best way to do so.

[iortiz]

Fair enough man. I realize you are typing in a second language (or' date=' at least, I think I've figured that out!). You do amazingly with that. Seriously. You explain yourself very, very well! [/quote']

 

Thanks man! :thumbsup:

 

Yes, Spanish is my first language, I'm trying to improve my English around here a little bit. Sometimes, I wish to say a lot more things but sometimes the language is a barrier to me so... I have to cite some pages in order to be accurate and save time at dictionary

[jung]

Well not to defend pumpsie who I am sure can defend himself he may just be referring to the well accepted baseball axiom that good pitching will beat good hitting every time. Basically that says it is far easier for a good pitcher to make a team full of Barry Bonds look like a team full of Marco Scutaro's than it is for a team full of Barry Bond's to make Cliff Lee look like John Lackey.

 

I think we have all seen games where a pitcher that is on makes even good hitters look pretty feeble. The better hitter's additional patience or better hand to eye co-ordination does not seem to buy him very much when facing a pitcher that is really on his game on a particular day.

 

I think what really distinguishes good hitters from bad or not so good hitters is that when a pitcher makes a mistake to a good hitter, it is very often at least a base hit and more often than not extra bases whereas the less capable hitter misses the mistake pitch fouling it off or hitting it feebly becoming an out instead of a base runner.

 

When we get to playoff games you see the heightened awareness and focus of the hitters making pitchers pay even more dearly for mistakes as the good hitter takes the mistake pitch and deposits it into the stands instead of just getting a base hit. But even in the playoffs while that heightened awareness on the part of the hitter may make pitchers pay more for their mistakes there is only a marginal difference in the hitters ability to hit the pitcher's pitch. He may get his bat on the ball but ends up hitting it feebly or on occasion drops it into the field in a place where no fielder can get to it.

[FredLynn]

Thanks man! :thumbsup:

 

Yes, Spanish is my first language, I'm trying to improve my English here. Sometimes, I wish to say a lot more things but sometimes the language is a barrier to me so... I have to cite some pages in order to be accurate and save time at dictionary

 

Your English is far better than my Spanish.

But I am working on that problem.

[iortiz]

Your English is far better than my Spanish.

But I am working on that problem.

 

Anytime, I can help you with your Spanish my friend. I think that I'm pretty good at it.

[FredLynn]

Anytime' date=' I can help you with your Spanish my friend. I think that I'm pretty good at it. [/quote']

 

I am sure you are.

I am visiting Cancun in December, Dominican Republic in Jan, and Cozumel in July. Hopefully I will get some practice there.

[iortiz]

I am sure you are.

I am visiting Cancun in December, Dominican Republic in Jan, and Cozumel in July. Hopefully I will get some practice there.

 

I envy you man!

 

Got a lot of friends in Cancun! I love El Caribe Mexicano! Have fun! :thumbsup:

[example1]

Felix Hernandez has a career ERA of 3.24. He gets good hitters out and he gets bad hitters out better than other pitchers on average. Of course good hitters will be more challenging for him. The good hitters are not limited to the Red Sox and the Yankees. The Rangers have a few good hitters too' date=' and the Mariners played them what-18 times? I am not saying that there are no other important metrics to measure the effectiveness of a pitcher; just that ERA is the single best way to do so.[/quote']

 

Good hitters are not limited to the red sox, this is true. However the sox and yanks ate consistently among the best offensive clubs in baseball. It seems odd to me that people would highlight the payroll argument to explain why expectations are rightly higher for the sox and Yankees but then argue that it really all equals out in the end... As if having a huge payroll advantage doesn't result in having better players that the average team. Weird.

 

ERA isn't the best way to measure the effectiveness of a pitcher. It is too heavily influenced by factors outside of a pitchers control, like the quality of fielding, the ballparks, the opponents, and other factors with high variability

like BABIP.

 

I'm really not just making this stuff up either. There are reasons why books have been written, complicated measures created, and the majority of FOs converted to a better way of evaluating performance. Even if ERA is only influenced by luck for 10% of it's results, wouldn't you want to fix that 10%?

 

Even ERA+ takes more into account that just ERA. DIPS controls for things largely out of a pitchers control and gives credit where it is due. WHIP gives you a good idea of how many runners a pitcher allowed and can be a hint to indicated pitchers who were unlucky (high ERA with a low WHIP$ and those benefiting from luck and other factors (high WHIP, low ERA).

 

As with iOrtiz of course it isn't my place to tell you what you should like, so if you like ERA then go for it!

 

 

I can't be the only person on this board who has been converted to thinking of the game this way... The research is too clear to reduce this complicated game to simple stats invented 100+ years ago.

[a700hitter]

Goodness, we are bore out of our minds. Get this World Series over with and get on with the business of fixing the Red Sox.

[ORS]

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

I think you are missing the point. In this discussion about stats, we aren't trying to confirm our opinions about the players, rather we are trying to confirm our evaluations of the stats as value measures themselves. You can certainly see the value in wanting lean heavier on stats that place the players in a ranking that coincides with our opinions, right? Extending that point forward, our opinions are not infallible, so once we've determined a level of trust with a measure, we can use it to help us correct any bias (which is never completely removed from human opinion) that may occur in our evaluaitons. This is the point of using stats for player evaluation.

 

If you would, and in an attempt to extend the point into an example, please list your Top 10 active offensive players over whatever timeframe you like (2011 season, last 3 years, career, etc). I'll put a chart together that lists the Top 10 (of qualified players) in the following measures: Linear Weights, WAR (batting only), VORP, OPS, OBP, SLG, BA, RBI. Please indicate actual rank (1,2,3,4,etc), and not just the top 10.

 

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, using career/composite numbers will be messy. Make your list the Top 10 offensive players from the 2011 season.