The all inclusive "2015 Predictions" thread

[Palodios]

If I had to rate it:

 

Stats>performance on Xbox>number of twitter followers>professional scouts>college scouts>HS coaches>little league coaches>any animal picking an object on tv to determine who the winner is>talksox posters whether included in other categories or not

 

I remember making a player evaluation based on twitter followers once, it didn't go so well. Excellent otherwise.

[mvp 78]

I remember making a player evaluation based on twitter followers once, it didn't go so well. Excellent otherwise.

 

You have to adjust for the bot accounts and anything with an egg avatar.

[seabeachfred]

Where are those new era cyber types? I don't see them.

 

My God, there all over the place here in California and you only have to peruse the Padre, Dodger, Giant and Angel boards to get a real whiff. I also have to think that you would have them in the East as well. I guess there isn't that much of it in the DR and for that I think you can be glad. What I think about that is that this new sabermetrics has created a corps of fans who suddenly believe the are experts in the game---not all and maybe not even a majority, but to me if you're baseball savvy it is an evolving process where you learn something new year by year and grow with the sport. But that's me.

[User Name]

My God, there all over the place here in California and you only have to peruse the Padre, Dodger, Giant and Angel boards to get a real whiff. I also have to think that you would have them in the East as well. I guess there isn't that much of it in the DR and for that I think you can be glad. What I think about that is that this new sabermetrics has created a corps of fans who suddenly believe the are experts in the game---not all and maybe not even a majority, but to me if you're baseball savvy it is an evolving process where you learn something new year by year and grow with the sport. But that's me.

 

There are a lot of Sabr-inclined people here, but ironically, most of them are scouts. I don't know a lot of statistically inclined people (here or otherwise) that behave the way you describe. I'll take your word for it, however, as I don't live in California.

[Kimmi]

My favorite quote (iirc) came from John Hollinger, the Memphis NBA VP and former ESPN basketball writer ... He sees it more as "guys who love the sport so much they're willing to do the boring math to try to figure out what happened"

 

 

I like that quote. That said, with me, the math is not boring. My two favorite topics: baseball and math.

[Kimmi]

What do you consider a traditionalist to be? There may be some who are more traditional than you might be but I can't see any posters dispelling the use of available data to some extent.

 

 

A traditionalist is someone who continues to believe conventional wisdom despite the fact that the stats say otherwise. Believing that clutch exists or believing the idea that good teams know how to win the close games are two such examples. Conventional wisdom regarding lineups and base stealing are other examples. In other words, traditionalists may say that stats are important or useful, but in their eyes, the stats are only important or useful to the extent that they do not contradict what they already believe.

[Kimmi]

fred, this is wrong. You are wrong. Most of the prominent statistical data proponents do nothing but rave about the value of scouting and advocate for the mixture of both in order to gain effective insight into performance valuation of prediction.

 

Almost all of the proponents for statistical analysis on here (or anywhere for that matter) say the same thing: Combining both approaches is what works best, but nothing is foolproof. You are suffering from a case of selective reading here.

 

 

Absolute truth here.

[iortiz]

A traditionalist is someone who continues to believe conventional wisdom despite the fact that the stats say otherwise. Believing that clutch exists or believing the idea that good teams know how to win the close games are two such examples. Conventional wisdom regarding lineups and base stealing are other examples. In other words, traditionalists may say that stats are important or useful, but in their eyes, the stats are only important or useful to the extent that they do not contradict what they already believe.

Stats are a great point to start, then your eyes, experience, intuition, expirience or whatever you want a call it is your best ally when you try to predict the result of a game when it is already started.

Edited March 5, 2015 by iortiz

[Kimmi]

Well I thought that's what I said---that there is room for both. I have found, though, that there some of the new era saber types who don't give much slack to those so-called "older" methods of evaluation. I hope we're both on the same page now.

 

 

Well, it depends on what "older" methods of evaluation you're talking about. If it's 'Wins' for pitchers, for instance, then you're right. Saber types are not going to give much slack to that method of evaluation because quite frankly, it stinks.

[sk7326]

I like that quote. That said, with me, the math is not boring. My two favorite topics: baseball and math.

 

me neither (and neither him clearly) - but it's a pithy expression

[sk7326]

Stats are a great point to start, then your eyes, experience, intuition, expirience or however you want a call it is your best ally when you try to predict the result of a game when it is already started.

 

they complement each other. And let's be real here - stats tell you what happened, and perhaps why it happened. Turning into actionable stuff on the field is tough - and that is what baseball lifers are for. It's what separates managers in this day and age.

[Kimmi]

Stats are a great point to start, then your eyes, experience, intuition, expirience or however you want a call it is your best ally when you try to predict the result of a game when it is already started.

 

 

I disagree. Your eyes will lie to you. I don't care how good of a scout anyone is, or how much experience he/she has. Your eyes will lie to you. And bias is a huge factor in what your eyes tell you.

[iortiz]

I disagree. Your eyes will lie to you. I don't care how good of a scout anyone is, or how much experience he/she has. Your eyes will lie to you. And bias is a huge factor in what your eyes tell you.

 

 

 

If stats told you everything, everyone would win at bettings.

 

I'm with sk here, you need both.

[Kimmi]

If stats told you everything, everyone would win at bettings.

 

I'm with sk here, you need both.

 

 

I have never said that stats tell you everything, or that scouting is not important, or that you don't need both. I have never said anything even remotely close to that. I'm just saying that I find it frustrating when people continue to believe something that has been proven false by stats because they know what their eyes see.

[iortiz]

I have never said that stats tell you everything, or that scouting is not important, or that you don't need both. I have never said anything even remotely close to that. I'm just saying that I find it frustrating when people continue to believe something that has been proven false by stats because they know what their eyes see.

Well, you disagreed with what I said, Or which part did you disagree?

 

Also, people continue to believe something that has been proven false by stats because they know what their eyes see? Like what Kim?

[User Name]

The fact that you need both is what literally everyone who supports stats has been saying all along iortiz. Learn to goddamn read.

[iortiz]

The fact that you need both is what literally everyone who supports stats has been saying all along iortiz. Learn to goddamn read.

 

Did she or didn't she disagree with what I said? Use your common sense Gallo.

[Kimmi]

Did she or didn't she disagree with what I said? Use your common sense Gallo.

 

 

I disagreed with the part where you said your eyes are your best ally.

[User Name]

iortiz talking about common sense. The irony is palpable.

[iortiz]

I disagreed with the part where you said your eyes are your best ally.

 

Oh that. Well they are when you bet, mostly when you bet when a game is already started. When it is already started your eyes are your best ally. As sk said, stats only will show what happened, reason why I said that they are a great point to start.

Edited March 5, 2015 by iortiz

[iortiz]

iortiz talking about common sense. The irony is palpable.

 

Don't you have another cliche, Gallo?

[Spudboy]

Oh that. Well they are when you bet, mostly when you bet when a game is already started. When it is already started your eyes are your best ally. As sk said, stats only will show what happened, reason why I said that they are a great point to start.

 

Ugh.

 

Stats can also help one predict future performance. Please note that I said "help".

 

If not, no one would bother with them.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Spudboy

[User Name]

Ugh.

 

Stats can also help one predict the future performance. Please note that I said "help".

 

If not, no one would bother with them.

 

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

[Spudboy]

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

 

Not if you have a desire to learn and to understand your world.

[Spudboy]

Now, of course, there are some cases where stats may not be totally reliable in predicting future performance.

 

One obvious example is Xander Boegarts ability to hit with RISP.

 

Rather than conclude that XB is a "choker" after half a season of at bats, I prefer to look at his career arc and read between the lines, so to speak.

 

The Kid has hit well up to the 2014 MLB season.

 

But most importantly, he was a 21 year old playing about two levels above his age.

 

I just assume that the kid is still learning his craft.

 

I think that he stunk ( for the most part ) at SS last year. And I believe that he will probably switch positions in the future because of body size and maturation.

 

It has never occurred to me that he will never be a good defensive player at some point.

[cp176]

A traditionalist is someone who continues to believe conventional wisdom despite the fact that the stats say otherwise. Believing that clutch exists or believing the idea that good teams know how to win the close games are two such examples. Conventional wisdom regarding lineups and base stealing are other examples. In other words, traditionalists may say that stats are important or useful, but in their eyes, the stats are only important or useful to the extent that they do not contradict what they already believe.

 

 

I'm not sure I like the concept of the labelling. How about someone who has has strong values? traditionalist? I do not believe that people's lives as well as beliefs can or should be categorized? My first question when I am hit with a label is who is doing the labelling? It's ok if you do not believe that there are such things as clutch hitters or that there are teams in all athletic realms that win so much that it becomes habit forming. If you believe you can do something strongly enough, I might take a chance on you regardless of what the stats say. You present some great arguments many of which I already agree with. Regardless of luck, when you take the intangibles out of the game that sometimes go against what you call the stats, the game is missing something. There are elements at play in the hearts and minds of athletes that you cannot measure.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's an example of where stats can be of little help: what impact would moving to Boston have on Cole Hamels's numbers? How much does that 4.54 ERA against AL teams mean? Would Hamels be 'uncomfortable' in Boston?

[User Name]

Here's an example of where stats can be of little help: what impact would moving to Boston have on Cole Hamels's numbers? How much does that 4.54 ERA against AL teams mean? Would Hamels be 'uncomfortable' in Boston?

 

You can adjust for park and league factors. You can't adjust for spotlight choking, but you gotta consider where he's coming from.

[Bellhorn04]

You can adjust for park and league factors. You can't adjust for spotlight choking, but you gotta consider where he's coming from.

 

You're concerned about his interleague numbers, though, right?

[User Name]

You're concerned about his interleague numbers, though, right?

 

That's what I meant for adjusting to park and league factors. I don't think it's the mental aspect that'd do him in the AL. Then again, one has to admit that the AL East isn't the offensive powerhouse it used to be, but it's miles ahead of the NL East.