Sabermetrics Versus Traditional Views

[Kimmi]

I started this thread so that those of you who are tired of this debate or think it's a waste of time can just ignore it. Of course, that opens the very real possibility that I might be talking to myself here. LOL

 

I think that we are all in agreement that both are important. I haven't heard a single stat geek say that scouting (aka eyes) isn't important. Likewise, I haven't heard a single traditionalist (not on this site anyway) say that stats are not important.

 

I think the debate arises when the stats and the eyes disagree. Which one is correct in those situations? Well, I think you know what my answer to that question is, at least the majority of the time.

 

While I will defend my stats 'til I'm blue in the face, I understand that stats can't tell the whole story. I also am a strong believer in the human element side of the game, things like heart, grit, confidence, etc.

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy baserunner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

[bostopz]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum?

 

A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance?

 

I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player?

 

Thanks for the thread..

Edited April 13, 2015 by bostopz

[Bellhorn04]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

I believe that the statement you bolded refers only to the number of additional runs produced by the hitters who were at bat when Ellsbury was on base.

 

Here are some other numbers that may interest you. These are FanGraphs RAR -Runs Above Replacement- numbers for 2013.

 

Ellsbury

Batting +9.1

Baserunning +10.5

Fielding +10.0

Positional +2.0

League +2.8

Replacement +18.2

Total RAR 52.5

Total WAR 5.7

 

Ortiz

Batting +35.3

Baserunning -8.3

Fielding -1.2

Positional -14.3

League +2.6

Replacement +17.1

Total RAR 31.2

Total WAR 3.4

 

As you can see, the total difference between Ellsbury and Ortiz as baserunners that year was about 19 runs.

[sk7326]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum?

 

A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance?

 

I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player?

 

Thanks for the thread..

 

I think you are confusing long term trends with individual moments. The moments matter - especially the playoffs which is a small size crapshoot - but that does not deny that the effect of stolen bases is small in general.

 

Now baseball prospectus has done some studies - on run expectancy given a situation. A small extract is here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1657937

 

So suppose Betts hits a leadoff single. The Red Sox go from a .4552 runs expected to .8182. So the offensive expectation nearly doubles just by a guy getting on base. This is not an amazing revalation. But now, the guy is at first, what if he swipes second.

 

With 0 out. Runs go from .8182 to 1.0393 ... +0.2211

With 1 out. From .4782 to .6235 ... +.1453

With 2 out. From .1946 to .2901 ... +.0955

 

What if he gets caught?

 

With 0 out. From .8182 to .2394 ... -.5788

With 1 out. From .4782 to .0864 ... -.3918

With 2 out. From .1946 to .0000 ... -.1946

 

Already you can see the penalties for getting caught way way way outweigh the benefits of the steal. (I'm focusing on the 1st to 2nd case since it is the most common. Steals of 3rd have increased upside and downside. Double steals have some risk reduction.

 

So, with 0 outs, a good base stealer (let's say 17 steals out of 20) ... add 2.02 runs to the cause

With 1 out ... add 1.29 runs

With 2 out ... add 1.04 runs

 

Average them out and you get 1.45 runs per season, and since steals are less likely with 0 out, that is lower than that.

 

Now - the case of Roberts is one of the cases where little baseball matter - when you don't care about the second run.

[bostopz]

I believe that the statement you bolded refers only to the number of additional runs produced by the hitters who were at bat when Ellsbury was on base.

 

Here are some other numbers that may interest you. These are FanGraphs RAR -Runs Above Replacement- numbers for 2013.

 

Ellsbury

Batting +9.1

Baserunning +10.5

Fielding +10.0

Positional +2.0

League +2.8

Replacement +18.2

Total RAR 52.5

Total WAR 5.7

 

Ortiz

Batting +35.3

Baserunning -8.3

Fielding -1.2

Positional -14.3

League +2.6

Replacement +17.1

Total RAR 31.2

Total WAR 3.4

 

As you can see, the total difference between Ellsbury and Ortiz as baserunners that year was about 19 runs.

 

I got to run to work shortly. Usually I am never on around this time. But -- if in this case Red Sox had a running team in 2013. The combination of Ellsbury, Victorino and even Pedroia on that team They sole 90 bases and got picked off just 12 times. So while getting caught hurts 12 times - the 90 steals as team is pretty big overall, isn't it? I'd think they would have some real strong numbers, wouldn't they? SO now as a running game, its's not just 19 runs. It's much more, right? And heck- we didn't have that good of a 5 hitter in 2015 either.

 

I'm aksign some of these questions, I don't know. And I am eager to hear from kimmi on the bunch of questions I had asked her.

 

And does fangraph account for when they played together? Or just an aggregate? DOes it account for when we go against "2013 Tampa Bay Pitching" or "Houston Astro 2013 pitching?"

 

Thanks!!!

[bostopz]

I think you are confusing long term trends with individual moments. The moments matter - especially the playoffs which is a small size crapshoot - but that does not deny that the effect of stolen bases is small in general.

 

Now baseball prospectus has done some studies - on run expectancy given a situation. A small extract is here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1657937

 

So suppose Betts hits a leadoff single. The Red Sox go from a .4552 runs expected to .8182. So the offensive expectation nearly doubles just by a guy getting on base. This is not an amazing revalation. But now, the guy is at first, what if he swipes second.

 

With 0 out. Runs go from .8182 to 1.0393 ... +0.2211

With 1 out. From .4782 to .6235 ... +.1453

With 2 out. From .1946 to .2901 ... +.0955

 

What if he gets caught?

 

With 0 out. From .8182 to .2394 ... -.5788

With 1 out. From .4782 to .0864 ... -.3918

With 2 out. From .1946 to .0000 ... -.1946

 

Already you can see the penalties for getting caught way way way outweigh the benefits of the steal. (I'm focusing on the 1st to 2nd case since it is the most common. Steals of 3rd have increased upside and downside. Double steals have some risk reduction.

 

So, with 0 outs, a good base stealer (let's say 17 steals out of 20) ... add 2.02 runs to the cause

With 1 out ... add 1.29 runs

With 2 out ... add 1.04 runs

 

Average them out and you get 1.45 runs per season, and since steals are less likely with 0 out, that is lower than that.

 

Now - the case of Roberts is one of the cases where little baseball matter - when you don't care about the second run.

 

Maybe kimmi can correct me if I'm wrong. But what got our conversation started was Vasquez and the cs%. So we had three base -stealers, thus I wouldn't classify this as "moments." So the Red SOx as team were stealing throughout the season. Other teams that swipe an occasional bases is one thing, isn't it? If you are playing the Red Sox 19 times, you have 19 games to worry about stolen bases. But anyhow, regarding Ellsbury bellhorn said difference is 19 runs. And when Ellsbury was stealing his 52 bases, how many did he steal in ties, 1 run games etc? Are there stats showing when he was making those steals in the 7th, and separately the 8th inning and separately the 9th inning and the batting averages/obp of thereafter when Ellbsury gets on base?

 

And the 19 that Bellhorn mentioned- that could eb the difference between making the playoffs and getting knocked out, right?

 

And the Red Sox overall % of their big 3 for steals was pretty darn impressive was it not? I'd be interested to know how many items they got cs or stole in a 4 run game or tie game or losing by 1 etc. Because mathematically that would make a difference, right? If you get caught when you are 3 runs ahead vs 1 run behind or tied etc? Thus many of the 12 steals maybe they were run games and it hurt a lot. Or maybe it was the other way around. Do we know that?

 

I'm in manufacturing. Say we have 20 end items on contract needed ot produce. All 20 end items have 100 parts contained in them. Each of the 20 end items winds up I received 99 of each but missing one part of each. A report will show me I have 99% availability. OFC another report will show me I have 0 delivered because I need all 100 to make the part. But my point is, I'm not sure "averages" apply here for base-stealing. Its the accumulation moments throughut the season that can kill you.

Edited April 13, 2015 by bostopz

[bostopz]

I think you are confusing long term trends with individual moments. The moments matter - especially the playoffs which is a small size crapshoot - but that does not deny that the effect of stolen bases is small in general.

 

Now baseball prospectus has done some studies - on run expectancy given a situation. A small extract is here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1657937

 

So suppose Betts hits a leadoff single. The Red Sox go from a .4552 runs expected to .8182. So the offensive expectation nearly doubles just by a guy getting on base. This is not an amazing revalation. But now, the guy is at first, what if he swipes second.

 

With 0 out. Runs go from .8182 to 1.0393 ... +0.2211

With 1 out. From .4782 to .6235 ... +.1453

With 2 out. From .1946 to .2901 ... +.0955

 

What if he gets caught?

 

With 0 out. From .8182 to .2394 ... -.5788

With 1 out. From .4782 to .0864 ... -.3918

With 2 out. From .1946 to .0000 ... -.1946

 

Already you can see the penalties for getting caught way way way outweigh the benefits of the steal. (I'm focusing on the 1st to 2nd case since it is the most common. Steals of 3rd have increased upside and downside. Double steals have some risk reduction.

 

So, with 0 outs, a good base stealer (let's say 17 steals out of 20) ... add 2.02 runs to the cause

With 1 out ... add 1.29 runs

With 2 out ... add 1.04 runs

 

Average them out and you get 1.45 runs per season, and since steals are less likely with 0 out, that is lower than that.

 

Now - the case of Roberts is one of the cases where little baseball matter - when you don't care about the second run.

 

dup

Edited April 13, 2015 by bostopz

[seabeachfred]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum?

 

A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance?

 

I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player?

 

Thanks for the thread..

 

 

Good posts on this....glad it's a separate thread where those of us who are interested can put their full minds to work on it. I can take this from a different angle for a moment. While a good leadoff man can disrupt a pitcher who fears he might run on him----Buchholz being a perfect example of such fear---it can also work negatively on the second batter in the lineup though. He could get panicky worrying about protecting the runner and spend a lot of his time worrying about whether the guy will run, whether he should swing....everything but concentrating on the pitcher. That is why it is of paramount importance that when you have a speedy leadoff man like Mookie or Jacoby, you better have a veteran poised and cool No. 2 batter who knows how to work the count and, if necessary, hit in that No. 2 position. In my years of coaching I found finding such a No. 2 man was a challenge but when I had a good one he was worth his weight in gold.

[sk7326]

BTW: I do find funny - that views generally espoused by Earl Weaver is somehow "other" than traditional.

[Kimmi]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

 

The 1.3 runs is what a "disruptive" runner gained due to the disruption he caused the defense, or the advantage that he gave to the hitter behind him. Two other studies showed that the a disruptive runner actually hurts the hitter behind him at the plate. In other words, the idea that a speedy runner gives his offense an advantage by disrupting the defense is false. The speedy runner actually disrupts the hitter behind him more than he disrupts the defense.

[Kimmi]

Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum?

 

 

On the topic of momentum, it has been shown that momentum has no predictive value. In other words, a team can have all the momentum in the world going for them, but whether that momentum continues the next game or the next inning is really a 50-50 shot. A team with momentum is just as likely to lose the next game as they are to win it.

[Kimmi]

A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance?

 

 

Well, I don't think you can blame Oakland's "collapse" on the trade of Cespedes. It's easy to do because of the timing, but there could be any number of reasons for it. Honestly, I didn't follow the A's closely enough to exactly what happened.

[Kimmi]

I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player?

 

 

Starters, in general, are worth far more than relievers are. It's much harder to replace a starting pitcher than it is a relief pitcher. Also, relief pitchers obviously don't pitch as many innings as most starters.

 

That said, in determing HOF worthiness, I don't think it's fair to compare a starting pitcher to a relief pitcher. I think you have to judge a relief pitcher on his merits in his specific role, and compare him to other relief pitchers. In their respective roles, Rivera is arguably the best all time, while Pettite was good but nowhere near one of the best, so I think Rivera is more deserving of being in the HOF.

[Kimmi]

I believe that the statement you bolded refers only to the number of additional runs produced by the hitters who were at bat when Ellsbury was on base.

 

Here are some other numbers that may interest you. These are FanGraphs RAR -Runs Above Replacement- numbers for 2013.

 

Ellsbury

Batting +9.1

Baserunning +10.5

Fielding +10.0

Positional +2.0

League +2.8

Replacement +18.2

Total RAR 52.5

Total WAR 5.7

 

Ortiz

Batting +35.3

Baserunning -8.3

Fielding -1.2

Positional -14.3

League +2.6

Replacement +17.1

Total RAR 31.2

Total WAR 3.4

 

As you can see, the total difference between Ellsbury and Ortiz as baserunners that year was about 19 runs.

 

 

Bell, there are a few different baserunning stats at Fangraphs. The one you quoted, BsR, is the number of runs a player is worth on the bases, and includes things like taking an extra base, avoiding a double play, not running into an out, and scoring on sac flies, in addition to stolen bases and caught stealing.

 

There is another stat for the number of runs a player is worth for only stolen bases and caught stealing. It is called wSB. In 2013, Ellsbury was worth +8.3 in stolen base runs and Ortiz was worth +.3 runs. So, for all of his 52 stolen bases, he was worth 8 runs more than Papi. It's not nothing, but it's not as much as most people think it is.

[sk7326]

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run?

 

Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum?

 

A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance?

 

I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player?

 

Thanks for the thread..

 

Oakland fell apart due to a team wide slump - some of it might have been regression. Cespedes was a .300 OBP guy, which while the power is nice, that's generally a guy not doing his job. Offensive value is pretty straightforward - outs are bad, everything else is better. Occasionally outs are ok, but those are cases where the second run doesn't matter.

 

As far as Rivera goes - he is the greatest 1-inning closer of all time. The way the gig has evolved over time, he is the best at the current version of it. Now do I think the gig which Rich Gossage or Mike Marshall had in days of yore was fundamentally more challenging? Yes. But that is a non-issue here. Rivera's brilliance proves his brilliance, not the general level of the gig. Joel Hanrahan and Fernando Rodney explain more about modern closing as a gig than Rivera or 2013 Uehara do.

[bostopz]

On the topic of momentum, it has been shown that momentum has no predictive value. In other words, a team can have all the momentum in the world going for them, but whether that momentum continues the next game or the next inning is really a 50-50 shot. A team with momentum is just as likely to lose the next game as they are to win it.

 

I asked you if you think players can build off of momentum. Prior to that you said you were a strong believer in the human element of the game. Are you a believer in momentum? The Yankee game is on (I should shut it off but freidn here likes Yanks!!) but the Yank announcer said same thing last night the Sox-Yanks announcer(s) said. Yanks got a run and they said the Yank pitcher needed a shut down inning. So as even the announcers said it last night with Red Sox, and you said you are a strong believer in the human element, thus I'll ask again or clarify what you just posted to me now- can players build off of momentum? Yes or no? I think you said "yes they can." Am I right in that assumption?

 

And a further point --secondly-- do you have data to show momentum is 50-50? You specifially you used 50-50.

 

There is no evidence if it is 55-45? 58-42? 52-48? And if you believe as strongly as you say about the human element, why do you dismiss momentum vs grit? How do you define grit and how does sabermterics define grit? Did you say on the other thread that players that make it in pro ball had a ton of pressure trying to make it - so it means once they get in they can handle any pressure? Does this mean all the players have grit too? They'd have to have grit to make it considering all the pressure they were under, wouldn't they? I don't understand how you can separate a player "with grit" and determine their grit has any more value than momentum other than "your say-so." There is no evidence to suggest teams with more grit win any more or less than teams that build momentum, is there? If momentum can't be shown to win, how can grit? Thus why are you believing in grit and not momentum? What justification is there of "confidence" vs "grit" vs "momentum" - -- none are proven data points in how to measure wins are there? You don't know player a is more confident than player b, do you?

 

So what if I were to say to you you're wrong -- that grit and confidence are just as much crap as any other human element such as momentum because it can't be proven through the data? Can you prove my statement wrong with data?

[bostopz]

Well, I don't think you can blame Oakland's "collapse" on the trade of Cespedes. It's easy to do because of the timing, but there could be any number of reasons for it. Honestly, I didn't follow the A's closely enough to exactly what happened.

 

The data shows that once Cespedes left they collapsed, doesn't it? You said you go with the data. Here is what you said:

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

 

The evidence shows once he left they collapsed. Yet in this case you are not applying the data, right? You have made a decision to disregard the data, correct? You call it "timing." Maybe the"data" shows a drop, Maybe their hitting did improve - I really don't know but I believe it didn't. I believe the data would show a decline in runs scored.

Edited April 14, 2015 by bostopz

[bostopz]

Oakland fell apart due to a team wide slump - some of it might have been regression. Cespedes was a .300 OBP guy, which while the power is nice, that's generally a guy not doing his job. Offensive value is pretty straightforward - outs are bad, everything else is better. Occasionally outs are ok, but those are cases where the second run doesn't matter.

 

As far as Rivera goes - he is the greatest 1-inning closer of all time. The way the gig has evolved over time, he is the best at the current version of it. Now do I think the gig which Rich Gossage or Mike Marshall had in days of yore was fundamentally more challenging? Yes. But that is a non-issue here. Rivera's brilliance proves his brilliance, not the general level of the gig. Joel Hanrahan and Fernando Rodney explain more about modern closing as a gig than Rivera or 2013 Uehara do.

 

Are you saying it was all just ONE BIG COINCDENCE that when Cespedes left, the rest of the team just happened to go in ONE BIG SLUMP???

 

I hope you aren't saying that.

 

And are you also trying to say Cespedes was a below average offensive player?

[bostopz]

Oakland fell apart due to a team wide slump - some of it might have been regression. Cespedes was a .300 OBP guy, which while the power is nice, that's generally a guy not doing his job. Offensive value is pretty straightforward - outs are bad, everything else is better. Occasionally outs are ok, but those are cases where the second run doesn't matter.

 

As far as Rivera goes - he is the greatest 1-inning closer of all time. The way the gig has evolved over time, he is the best at the current version of it. Now do I think the gig which Rich Gossage or Mike Marshall had in days of yore was fundamentally more challenging? Yes. But that is a non-issue here. Rivera's brilliance proves his brilliance, not the general level of the gig. Joel Hanrahan and Fernando Rodney explain more about modern closing as a gig than Rivera or 2013 Uehara do.

 

And sky - I love ya dude. But you talk about avoiding the question regarding Pettit vs Rivera, you certainly did it. Just wow! Where is Pettit even mentioned in your reply to me or any starter for that manner? I was asking the value of Pettit vs Rivera. I have no idea why you are mentioning Hanrahan and Rodney etc. How is any of that related to Pettit?

[Bellhorn04]

Rivera is more deserving of being in the HOF than Pettitte because Rivera was the best at his position.

[bostopz]

Rivera is more deserving of being in the HOF than Pettitte because Rivera was the best at his position.

 

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

 

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

 

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

 

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

 

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

[Bellhorn04]

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

 

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

 

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

 

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

 

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

 

No offense, but you can't expect anyone to be able to respond to a post that has that many questions in it.

[User Name]

The data shows that once Cespedes left they collapsed, doesn't it? You said you go with the data. Here is what you said:

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

 

The evidence shows once he left they collapsed. Yet in this case you are not applying the data, right? You have made a decision to disregard the data, correct? You call it "timing." Maybe the"data" shows a drop, Maybe their hitting did improve - I really don't know but I believe it didn't. I believe the data would show a decline in runs scored.

 

No, that's not what the data shows. That's what you interpret because it proves your point. The data shows a team-wide slump.

 

Also, love this thread.

[User Name]

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics.

 

If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner?

 

What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following:

 

That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence.

 

IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different?

 

It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

 

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

 

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

[bostopz]

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

 

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

 

C'mon you think I'm going to believe you? We've been on opposite sides and you're bias has shown itself. When Kimmi makes a post she didn't have to prove but I did. Sure buddy.

[bostopz]

No offense, but you can't expect anyone to be able to respond to a post that has that many questions in it.

 

Just as Kimmi did - she choose to respond to what she wanted to and broke it into segemts. I'll choose to respond what I want to - and so and so on and so. . . Can't touch everything.

[bostopz]

Your interpretation of the data in this case is terrible. Furthermore, HOF enshrinement is entirely subjective and should not be used as a basis to judge anything.

 

You are trying to prove fire is bad by nuking an island. It's all over the place and not actually effective at proving your point.

 

So answer the question for once in your life. Who is more deserving Rivera or Pettit? If you say Rivera is more deserving because he was the best - then what about pinch hitters?

 

How many Yankee fans do you know that will tell you they would rather have had Pettit? I live closer to New York and I'm surrounded by Yankee fans. I listen to the NY radio station and never have I heard someone try to explain who is greater/better Pettit or Rivera and they choose Pettit. And just to let you know -- when one player leaves and everyone goes into slump and he joins another team and they begin to hit better that is considered data. Here is the definition of data an satts. Imagien that - there is this little thing called a dictionary that you could look up their meanings:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data?s=t

 

a body of facts; information

 

TWO times Cespedes left. One time he left the etam he left - fell APART. Got it?

The other team he joined - began to hit better. Got it?

 

Those are considered data and stats.

 

The definition of stats is:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statistics

 

 

 

 

the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.

 

 

It's all one big miracle!!! The guy leaves and his team miracuosuly tanks and he joins another team and they hit better -- yet it's all one big miracle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sk7326]

And sky - I love ya dude. But you talk about avoiding the question regarding Pettit vs Rivera, you certainly did it. Just wow! Where is Pettit even mentioned in your reply to me or any starter for that manner? I was asking the value of Pettit vs Rivera. I have no idea why you are mentioning Hanrahan and Rodney etc. How is any of that related to Pettit?

 

I would put Rivera in ahead of Pettitte because of the role thing - not that closer is a more important job than starting (it isn't), but that Rivera was better at it than Pettitte and the thing which writers use to pimp Pettitte's cause (the playoff starts) is a function of being on a really good team for a very long time.

[sk7326]

Are you saying it was all just ONE BIG COINCDENCE that when Cespedes left, the rest of the team just happened to go in ONE BIG SLUMP???

 

I hope you aren't saying that.

 

And are you also trying to say Cespedes was a below average offensive player?

 

1) Yes

2) More like average than below average. The power makes up for the inability to get on-base, but just barely. Now he was good in 2012 - so either that was a fluke or that player can be coaxed out by the right situation.

[User Name]

C'mon you think I'm going to believe you? We've been on opposite sides and you're bias has shown itself. When Kimmi makes a post she didn't have to prove but I did. Sure buddy.

 

This is a terrible cop-out. Also, the only thing you're proven is that you can't interpret data. Anecdotal evidence is not data, conflating subjects is not correct interpretation data, using subjective criteria is not correct interpretation of data. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.