The all inclusive "2015 Predictions" thread

[Kimmi]

I just like to challenge conventional thinking. When you challenge commonly accepted notions, people get upset when they realize that many times commonly accepted wisdom is based on a foundation of quicksand. People also get upset when they are told that the commonly accepted wisdom is not a magic bullett. There is also a desire to believe that every bit of new conventional wisdom invalidates everything that went before it. I don't argue just to argue, but I also do not accept a contrary position just because some tells me that conventional wisdom says otherwise.

 

 

Well, this is exactly what the sabermetric community has done. They've challenged, and disproved, many of the conventional beliefs about baseball that have been accepted as true without any proof whatsoever. No one is saying that the new wisdom invalidates everything that went before, but it does invalidate a lot of the previously held beliefs.

[a700hitter]

Well, this is exactly what the sabermetric community has done. They've challenged, and disproved, many of the conventional beliefs about baseball that have been accepted as true without any proof whatsoever. No one is saying that the new wisdom invalidates everything that went before, but it does invalidate a lot of the previously held beliefs.

They have done it so successfully that it has become conventional wisdom in many ways. Edited February 23, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

mmm... When those anecdotal stories are well documented, they could help you build success stories hence win more customers and support your capabilities of your product/service mostly when you sale intangibles like IT or consulting services.

 

 

In baseball, anecdotal evidence is usually cherry-picked and full of bias. People are going to tend to remember the incidents that support their claim. It sounds good, but there is not much substance behind it.

[Kimmi]

I think the organization has to own the W-L records no matter what the reasons. It works the other way too, that is, they deserve full credit for the good years. I too get irritated when someone attributes 2013 to luck.

 

As with the game of baseball itself, the luck part generally evens out.

 

This ownership has been in place 13 seasons, and 3 championships has been a sensational achievement.

 

 

To a certain degree, I agree that the FO has to own the record no matter what the reasons. There is always something they could have done differently or better. However, there is a difference between a team coming in last place due to complete incompetence of the FO and a team coming in last place due to factors that could not have been realistically expected. In other words, for me, the two last place finishes do not signify an inept FO, but rather things just breaking terribly bad.

[Kimmi]

They have done it so successfully that it has become conventional wisdom in many ways.

 

 

I don't think sabermetrics can be considered conventional wisdom yet, at least as far as the general fan population. Among FOs? Yes, in some ways. However, the stat geeks are not resting on their laurels. As the game changes and technology becomes more advanced, they are continually refining and re-analyzing their data. They realize that what they found to be true in 2005 just might not be valid any longer. They are willing to question and re-investigate their own findings.

[a700hitter]

I don't think sabermetrics can be considered conventional wisdom yet, at least as far as the general fan population. Among FOs? Yes, in some ways. However, the stat geeks are not resting on their laurels. As the game changes and technology becomes more advanced, they are continually refining and re-analyzing their data. They realize that what they found to be true in 2005 just might not be valid any longer. They are willing to question and re-investigate their own findings.

Weren't we debating what FO's should do? Not what fans think.

[kreinbihl34]

I think my Dad had a fair bit of knowledge regarding metallurgy. For several years he worked for a business that did electroplating.

 

It's nice to see someone who has an idea of what I was talking about. I worked in galvanised wire for a hot minute, my speciality is rod and bar. Considering I'm pretty young I don't know if you can count my knowledge as a speciality.

[Kimmi]

Weren't we debating what FO's should do? Not what fans think.

 

 

Fine, but even if we're talking FOs, sabermetrics are not what I would consider conventional wisdom, certainly not in the way that "we need a speedy runner to bat lead off" is conventional (and false) wisdom. Saber guys are always questioning and challenging their previous findings, along with developing new analytics and technology. The field is never stagnant enough to become 'conventional'.

[sk7326]

Fine, but even if we're talking FOs, sabermetrics are not what I would consider conventional wisdom, certainly not in the way that "we need a speedy runner to bat lead off" is conventional (and false) wisdom. Saber guys are always questioning and challenging their previous findings, along with developing new analytics and technology. The field is never stagnant enough to become 'conventional'.

 

There is just more to know. Obviously when the term got popular, things like plate patience and such were the main fruit. (and if you want, you can trace back "analytics" as far back as Earl Weaver if you want to assign full credit) And the World Series had two teams who were very much dependent on that sort of research, especially in the area of defense.

 

The interesting areas now - and the stuff you read about teams working on - is batted ball analysis. That is, we take it as an article of faith that BABIP is hard to control - it's not 100%, but it's not 0 either. There is evidence of pitchers who have consistently low BABIPs, and hitters (although fewer) who have consistencies in this area. So figuring out stuff about the nature of contact and what hitters can actually do is becoming more important (especially as the game has shifted towards pitchers again). It is possible that this sort of stuff helped the case to sign Sandoval - who if nothing else is a very high contact hitter.

[User Name]

There is just more to know. Obviously when the term got popular, things like plate patience and such were the main fruit. (and if you want, you can trace back "analytics" as far back as Earl Weaver if you want to assign full credit) And the World Series had two teams who were very much dependent on that sort of research, especially in the area of defense.

 

The interesting areas now - and the stuff you read about teams working on - is batted ball analysis. That is, we take it as an article of faith that BABIP is hard to control - it's not 100%, but it's not 0 either. There is evidence of pitchers who have consistently low BABIPs, and hitters (although fewer) who have consistencies in this area. So figuring out stuff about the nature of contact and what hitters can actually do is becoming more important (especially as the game has shifted towards pitchers again). It is possible that this sort of stuff helped the case to sign Sandoval - who if nothing else is a very high contact hitter.

 

Usually the formula for BABIP control for hitters goes something like this: High contact%, big spread on spray chart, high LD%, and speed. Sandoval has three of those four things.

[Kimmi]

There is just more to know. Obviously when the term got popular, things like plate patience and such were the main fruit. (and if you want, you can trace back "analytics" as far back as Earl Weaver if you want to assign full credit) And the World Series had two teams who were very much dependent on that sort of research, especially in the area of defense.

 

The interesting areas now - and the stuff you read about teams working on - is batted ball analysis. That is, we take it as an article of faith that BABIP is hard to control - it's not 100%, but it's not 0 either. There is evidence of pitchers who have consistently low BABIPs, and hitters (although fewer) who have consistencies in this area. So figuring out stuff about the nature of contact and what hitters can actually do is becoming more important (especially as the game has shifted towards pitchers again). It is possible that this sort of stuff helped the case to sign Sandoval - who if nothing else is a very high contact hitter.

 

 

I don't claim to know or understand it all. Far from it. But I find the whole area of analytics absolutely fascinating. I remember my first post ever on a forum was about BABIP. LOL FOs have much more data at their disposal than we have. I am sure that the FO signs their players partly due to reasons about which we have no clue.

[sk7326]

This is with NBA Analytics guys, but it is a really good discussion on tools and scouting and how they fit together: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378041-nba-insider-is-it-numbers-or-talent-sorting-fact-fiction-in-nba-stats-wave

[Kimmi]

This is with NBA Analytics guys, but it is a really good discussion on tools and scouting and how they fit together: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378041-nba-insider-is-it-numbers-or-talent-sorting-fact-fiction-in-nba-stats-wave

 

 

Excellent read sk, and pretty much what the analytics supporters have been saying all along.

 

I particularly like this quote:

 

But the public debate has become wildly distorted, because some loud skeptics—Barkley, Brown and countless cranky old newspaper columnists—have promoted a thoroughly warped image of the advanced stats movement, with criticism built on a foundation of straw men, misperceptions and mythology.

 

"It's like arguing with a baby, or someone who believes the Earth is flat," Daryl Morey, the Houston Rockets general manager and advanced-stats devotee, said in describing what it is like debating the anti-analytics crowd. "It's like debating politics on Facebook."

 

[seabeachfred]

To a certain degree, I agree that the FO has to own the record no matter what the reasons. There is always something they could have done differently or better. However, there is a difference between a team coming in last place due to complete incompetence of the FO and a team coming in last place due to factors that could not have been realistically expected. In other words, for me, the two last place finishes do not signify an inept FO, but rather things just breaking terribly bad.

 

Right now you can hold to that idea and be on pretty solid ground because I lean that way too. I don't lean all the way you do since you tend to be a lot more pollyannish than I am, but I can tell you this.....if we have another one or two years like '12 and '14 in the next three or four years I think you had better revive your take on things. The mark would then be definitely on a very inept front office. Fortunately for both of us I don't think that's going to happen.

[Kimmi]

Right now you can hold to that idea and be on pretty solid ground because I lean that way too. I don't lean all the way you do since you tend to be a lot more pollyannish than I am, but I can tell you this.....if we have another one or two years like '12 and '14 in the next three or four years I think you had better revive your take on things. The mark would then be definitely on a very inept front office. Fortunately for both of us I don't think that's going to happen.

 

 

I think we'll have a pretty good idea in the first couple of months what our needs will be going into the 2nd half. I fully expect the FO to address those needs by the deadline. At this point, I think the FO has done a solid job for this year. I very much doubt we will see anything like 2012 or 2014.

[Ogden]

I just came across this article about the influence of SABERmetrics on specific teams. It's late and I haven't had time to read it yet, but I wanted to post it here so I and others can check it out later.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings#!mlb

 

The headline: In a Moneyball world, a number of teams remain slow to buy into sabermetrics

[iortiz]

Nyy all-in? Really?

[User Name]

Nyy all-in? Really?

 

If you don't think the Yankees were all in on Sabermetrics from the start, then you really don't understand what they are.

 

The Yankees were one of the first teams to create an offensive juggernaut based on the "OBP+ power" model. The fact that they spend absurd amounts of money doesn't mean they spend that money without applying advanced statistical analysis to their signings/trades. Case in point: Nick Swisher. Dude looked done, but the Yanks saw a trend of bad luck and bought, getting several seasons of great value and production from a guy that doesn't offer a "traditional" skillset.

[User Name]

Right now you can hold to that idea and be on pretty solid ground because I lean that way too. I don't lean all the way you do since you tend to be a lot more pollyannish than I am, but I can tell you this.....if we have another one or two years like '12 and '14 in the next three or four years I think you had better revive your take on things. The mark would then be definitely on a very inept front office. Fortunately for both of us I don't think that's going to happen.

 

Fred, didn't we conclude that polyanna is an insult? If you can call people "polyannish" then people should be able to call you "Negative Nellyish" without you getting up in arms about it. The best idea is to just stop it with the name-calling. Period. Why is that so hard?

[cp176]

If you don't think the Yankees were all in on Sabermetrics from the start, then you really don't understand what they are.

 

The Yankees were one of the first teams to create an offensive juggernaut based on the "OBP+ power" model. The fact that they spend absurd amounts of money doesn't mean they spend that money without applying advanced statistical analysis to their signings/trades. Case in point: Nick Swisher. Dude looked done, but the Yanks saw a trend of bad luck and bought, getting

 

 

several seasons of great value and production from a guy that doesn't offer a "traditional" skillset.

 

Don't get defensive on me. I am just trying to understand your post. Are you saying that the metrics were trending down on Swisher and that the Yankees felt that it was simply a case of bad luck that had caused the slide.

Did they kind of bet against the metric here based on something they felt that they saw or knew that no one else did?

[jacksonianmarch]

Swish was coming off a season where his BABIP was insanely low yet his BB rate and power was still good. He provided good value because we essentially gave up nothing to get him

[cp176]

Swish was coming off a season where his BABIP was insanely low yet his BB rate and power was still good. He provided good value because we essentially gave up nothing to get him

 

He sure did. I wish that he had been a member of the Red Sox at that time. Did the Yankees roll the dice on him in hopes that he would produce again?

[User Name]

Swish was coming off a season where his BABIP was insanely low yet his BB rate and power was still good. He provided good value because we essentially gave up nothing to get him

 

Exactly what advanced analytics are all about.

[User Name]

He sure did. I wish that he had been a member of the Red Sox at that time. Did the Yankees roll the dice on him in hopes that he would produce again?

 

They didn'r roll the dice. They expected him to produce through their analysis of his statistical profile.

[cp176]

They didn'r roll the dice. They expected him to produce through their analysis of his statistical profile.

 

Just trying to clarify - Swisher looked done but the Yankees felt it was due to bad luck, so they used available data that indicated that he might not be done. Is that what prompted them to sign him?

[User Name]

Just trying to clarify - Swisher looked done but the Yankees felt it was due to bad luck, so they used available data that indicated that he might not be done. Is that what prompted them to sign him?

 

Trade for him, and yes.

[cp176]

Trade for him, and yes.[/QUOT

 

Trade - I'm sorry. No one will accuse me of being thorough. Swisher's career could obviously have gone either way. The Yankees used some data, took a shot and got lucky. Maybe the odds were with them.

[User Name]

Trade for him, and yes.[/QUOT

 

Trade - I'm sorry. No one will accuse me of being thorough. Swisher's career could obviously have gone either way. The Yankees used some data, took a shot and got lucky. Maybe the odds were with them.

 

You can't just day they got lucky. That is an oversimplification that borders in the ridiculous. It also tells me you dom't actually understand the topic we are discussing (no offense), so.I'll just drop this conversation right here.

[cp176]

 

You can't just day they got lucky. That is an oversimplification that borders in the ridiculous. It also tells me you dom't actually understand the topic we are discussing (no offense), so.I'll just drop this conversation right here.

 

Oh I think that I understand the conversation just fine. I will let it drop. I certainly don't want to argue with you over anything. The use of data or whatever you would like to refer to it as is there for all and should be considered. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The Yankees used the data and got lucky. They didn't simply get lucky but I don't think that it would have been a big surprise to anyone if that scenario had not worked out the way that it did.

[cp176]

 

Oh I think that I understand the conversation just fine. I will let it drop. I certainly don't want to argue with you over anything. The use of data or whatever you would like to refer to it as is there for all and should be considered. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The Yankees used the data and got lucky. They didn't simply get lucky but I don't think that it would have been a big surprise to anyone if that scenario had not worked out the way that it did.

 

 

Note - I did not condescend- I did not suggest that anything you have said is ridiculous - nor did I imply that maybe you were not intelligent enough to understand what was being discussed. You can even have the last word.