Sabermetrics Versus Traditional Views

[Kimmi]

Another area where the human element comes into play is with the players' personal lives. If a player had a really sick child, for instance, would that affect his performance? I believe so. It's difficult for anyone to perform his job at the top level when there are personal issues that you are dealing with. Again, I have no stats to back that up, but I also have no stats to disprove that.

 

If someone showed me some stats to disprove either my opinion on this or my belief in "grit", then I would have to seriously rethink my opinions.

[Kimmi]

With the idea that a speedy baserunner disrupts the defense and gives the batter an advantage, I wholeheartedly believed that to be true until I saw the data that shows otherwise. You can't really quantify what is going on in a pitcher's mind as far as how much he is being disrupted, but you can quantify how well the batters at the plate perform when there is a speedy runner on first base. And those stats show that a batter does worse with speedy runner on first base versus a non-disruptive runner on first base. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[Palodios]

Another area where the human element comes into play is with the players' personal lives. If a player had a really sick child, for instance, would that affect his performance? I believe so. It's difficult for anyone to perform his job at the top level when there are personal issues that you are dealing with. Again, I have no stats to back that up, but I also have no stats to disprove that.

 

The two recent examples I can think of are Jason's Varitek's ugly divorce, and Pedroia's brother pedophilia trial. Both seemed to affect numbers at the time, but there isn't nearly as much of a correlation as we might expect.

[Bellhorn04]

There is a difference when you talk about momentum. Momentum does exist. A team that has won 8 games in a row has momentum. However, the numbers have shown that there is no predictive value to momentum. In other words, saying a team will carry momentum into the next series is a false statement. A team that was on a hot streak is just as likely to lose the next series as it is to win, relative to its overall talent level. This fact has been quantified.

 

Earl Weaver covered this one pretty nicely when someone asked him about the momentum factor. 'Momentum? Momentum is the next day's starting pitcher.'

[Kimmi]

The two recent examples I can think of are Jason's Varitek's ugly divorce, and Pedroia's brother pedophilia trial. Both seemed to affect numbers at the time, but there isn't nearly as much of a correlation as we might expect.

 

I assume that personal matters affect some more than others, but it could very well be that most players have the ability to not let it affect their play. I wonder how often a player who is going through a slump is dealing with a personal issue that we know nothing about. Maybe what we often think is just a normal baseball slump is something that can be attributed to the player going through a rough patch in his personal life, maybe not.

[Kimmi]

Earl Weaver covered this one pretty nicely when someone asked him about the momentum factor. 'Momentum? Momentum is the next day's starting pitcher.'

 

Earl Weaver was apparently well ahead of his time, as someone here has mentioned before. Momentum can and does turn on a dime.

[bostopz]

As I've posted before, I do strongly believe that there are human elements to the game that can't be quantified. I believe there is such a thing as "grit". IMO, a perfect example is Pedroia. How many critics have doubted him througout his entire career because of his size? I believe that part of what makes him as successful as he is is his grit, or confidence, or detemination, whatever you want to call it.

 

Do I have stats to prove that? No. OTOH, has anyone shown me any stats to disprove that? No. So this is my opinion based on just my belief that "grit" does exist. If someone told me that grit has nothing to do with Pedroia's success, I would disagree, but I would not be able to say that they are wrong on that topic.

 

There is a difference when you talk about momentum. Momentum does exist. A team that has won 8 games in a row has momentum. However, the numbers have shown that there is no predictive value to momentum. In other words, saying a team will carry momentum into the next series is a false statement. A team that was on a hot streak is just as likely to lose the next series as it is to win, relative to its overall talent level. This fact has been quantified.

 

1--- Who says Pedroia has more grit than any other player? Where are the stats to back up who has more grit? You had said any player that comes into MLB has proven they can handle pressure. So who is to say not every single one of those players have some grit that was needed in order to handle the pressure? Their grit may have come from their tough childhood but they show it differently, correct? So who has the most grit and who has the least and how can we define "grit" to have any real meaning? Isn't it possible that we toss out grit and just say Pedroia is a really good player just as many do with "clutch?"

 

2--- Can you tell me when momentum begins to exist? What definition is used to define momentum in terms of baseball? ---You don't have to answer this about clutch --> The same people that try to define "clutch?" --You don't have to answer this --> but Did you know when I argued a while back with a metrics geek about Clutch he tried to suggest in order to be "clutch" you had to hit better than what was your normal average. he said that to some extent. SO by this person's definition if a guy was a .500 hitter but batted .490 late in tight games he wouldn't be considered "clutch."

Edited April 19, 2015 by bostopz

[Spudboy]

My head hurts.

[Kimmi]

1--- Who says Pedroia has more grit than any other player? Where are the stats to back up who has more grit? You had said any player that comes into MLB has proven they can handle pressure. So who is to say not every single one of those players have some grit that was needed in order to handle the pressure? Their grit may have come from their tough childhood but they show it differently, correct? So who has the most grit and who has the least and how can we define "grit" to have any real meaning? Isn't it possible that we toss out grit and just say Pedroia is a really good player just as many do with "clutch?"

 

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I said that I have no stats to back up anything about Pedroia's grit. It's just my opinion. There are also no stats to disprove my opinion. All of the things you have posted might be true, but until you can prove your point of view with stats, it's simply your opinion against mine, and I'm going to stick with mine, because that's what I believe based on what I've seen and heard.

[User Name]

1--- Who says Pedroia has more grit than any other player? Where are the stats to back up who has more grit? You had said any player that comes into MLB has proven they can handle pressure. So who is to say not every single one of those players have some grit that was needed in order to handle the pressure? Their grit may have come from their tough childhood but they show it differently, correct? So who has the most grit and who has the least and how can we define "grit" to have any real meaning? Isn't it possible that we toss out grit and just say Pedroia is a really good player just as many do with "clutch?"

 

You can't expect people to take you seriously and not assume you're just trolling if you're not even reading the posts you are responding to.

[bostopz]

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I said that I have no stats to back up anything about Pedroia's grit. It's just my opinion. There are also no stats to disprove my opinion. All of the things you have posted might be true, but until you can prove your point of view with stats, it's simply your opinion against mine, and I'm going to stick with mine, because that's what I believe based on what I've seen and heard.

 

What I've been driving at here from the start of your thread is that you (anyone) really can't prove nearly as much you think from the stats you or others provide. Because you can't measure things like "grit or "momentum." You speak of being a "strong believer" in "grit" for example. But you are no more a "strong believer" than just a "random passing believer." If I'm wrong then tell me what is real difference between being "a strong believer" or being a "a miniscule believer?" You just know it exists.

 

However on some level you know momentum exists but you can't define when it exists. So if you don't know when it starts to exist who are you or any statistician to minimize the impact if someone else believes it has more impact? It's just as non-measurable as your "grit." At least I didn't see it from your reply that you have a defined measurement as to when momentum starts to exist. . So if someone were to say "because of Pedroia's grit, he has impacted a lot of games," you can't dispute it any more than you can dispute "because of Ellsbury's prowess of base-stealing, he has contributed to momentum which has impacted many games."

[bostopz]

You can't expect people to take you seriously and not assume you're just trolling if you're not even reading the posts you are responding to.

 

Gotta love how the name calling comes from such a classy poster as yourself. Please keep up throwing out the insults.

[User Name]

Gotta love how the name calling comes from such a classy poster as yourself. Please keep up throwing out the insults.

 

You really really really can't read can you?

 

I did not call you a troll. I said you can't expect people to think you are not a troll if you don't read the posts you are responding to. Just like you didn't read the post I just made, but merely picked out the word troll and rolled with it. Take your time and read the posts you are responding to, so you don't make an ass out of yourself.

[SoxnCycles]

You really really really can't read can you?

 

I did not call you a troll. I said you can't expect people to think you are not a troll if you don't read the posts you are responding to. Just like you didn't read the post I just made, but merely picked out the word troll and rolled with it. Take your time and read the posts you are responding to, so you don't make an ass out of yourself.

 

Too late...

[a700hitter]

The two recent examples I can think of are Jason's Varitek's ugly divorce, and Pedroia's brother pedophilia trial. Both seemed to affect numbers at the time, but there isn't nearly as much of a correlation as we might expect.

Another example was J.D. Drew's 2007 season. His son had some rare conditionand the treatment involved was very painful and I believe that the kid was in a body cast of sorts for an extended period. Drew's numbers were off for the year -- that is my recollection.

[sk7326]

Earl Weaver covered this one pretty nicely when someone asked him about the momentum factor. 'Momentum? Momentum is the next day's starting pitcher.'

 

In some ways it is a shame that Weaver's best known for his, umm ... theatrical ejections. Because for modern baseball tactical minds, there was probably nobody better. He might not have won as many championships as others - but in a way it's like Bobby Cox. Getting your team to the rodeo as often as he did says at least as much as rings.

[a700hitter]

In some ways it is a shame that Weaver's best known for his, umm ... theatrical ejections. Because for modern baseball tactical minds, there was probably nobody better. He might not have won as many championships as others - but in a way it's like Bobby Cox. Getting your team to the rodeo as often as he did says at least as much as rings.

THe most Classic Weaver ejection was caught on mic when the ump told him that Weaver would be remembered for blowing World Series. Weaver went nuts. Great viewing.

[a700hitter]

Weaver had a philosophy, but no great tactics. He alwasy had a superior pitching staff that finished what they started most of the time and a lineuo full of power hitters together with the best fielding SS and CF (they were all-time great fielders). Weaver was a better motivator than a tactician. For all of his love hate relationship with Palmer, he motivated Palmer to greatness.

[sk7326]

Weaver had a philosophy, but no great tactics. He alwasy had a superior pitching staff that finished what they started most of the time and a lineuo full of power hitters together with the best fielding SS and CF (they were all-time great fielders). Weaver was a better motivator than a tactician. For all of his love hate relationship with Palmer, he motivated Palmer to greatness.

 

The tactics are undersold ...

 

Among the earlier guys to look at splits, matchups vs pitchers (some SSS issues there, but nobody's perfect), developing young pitchers through middle relief. His views on the four man rotation might (with significant workload alteration) make more sense now than ever. A lot of those "Weaver on Strategy" insights were ahead of their time.

[a700hitter]

The tactics are undersold ...

 

Among the earlier guys to look at splits, matchups vs pitchers (some SSS issues there, but nobody's perfect), developing young pitchers through middle relief. His views on the four man rotation might (with significant workload alteration) make more sense now than ever. A lot of those "Weaver on Strategy" insights were ahead of their time.

His tactics at the time were not in anyway revolutionary in the American League that didn't bunt, play small ball or run. It was known as the old white players league. Probably moe than half of the AL managers managed the same way as Weaver at that time. The National league had the better younger players with more tools so they ran a lot more. They were the more talented league -- better pitching, better fielding, more speed. That is why they won more of the World Series back then and almost every single All Star game. Weaver didn't lose World Series because the post season was a crapshoot. He lost because the NL counterparts were better. The Mets didn't have the Orioles hitting, but they had Seaver, Koosman and Gentry (who was better than Nolan Ryan who was in their bullpen). That 1969 season was the one year where Weaver might have lost with the better team. Gil Hodges managed Weaver's pants off in that Series.

[sk7326]

His tactics at the time were not in anyway revolutionary in the American League that didn't bunt, play small ball or run. It was known as the old white players league. Probably moe than half of the AL managers managed the same way as Weaver at that time. The National league had the better younger players with more tools so they ran a lot more. They were the more talented league -- better pitching, better fielding, more speed. That is why they won more of the World Series back then and almost every single All Star game. Weaver didn't lose World Series because the post season was a crapshoot. He lost because the NL counterparts were better. The Mets didn't have the Orioles hitting, but they had Seaver, Koosman and Gentry (who was better than Nolan Ryan who was in their bullpen). That 1969 season was the one year where Weaver might have lost with the better team. Gil Hodges managed Weaver's pants off in that Series.

 

The NL had more WS wins than the AL over Weaver's 15 year career by the whopping score of 8 to 7 ...

[User Name]

The NL had more WS wins than the AL over Weaver's 15 year career by the whopping score of 8 to 7 ...

 

a700 won't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[a700hitter]

The NL had more WS wins than the AL over Weaver's 15 year career by the whopping score of 8 to 7 ...

The NL won 9 AL 7. Of the 7 AL victories, the A's Dynasty and the Bronx Zoo accounted for 5 of the 7. I don't think there was much dispute that the NL was the better league at the time, and Dick Williams was probably the best AL manager of that era.

[sk7326]

The NL won 9 AL 7. Of the 7 AL victories, the A's Dynasty and the Bronx Zoo accounted for 5 of the 7. I don't think there was much dispute that the NL was the better league at the time, and Dick Williams was probably the best AL manager of that era.

 

BTW: I am not necessarily putting a ton on the manager's door - we know that managing matters a lot - but more in the "stuff we don't see" areas. (after all, both the A's and Yankees repeated titles after managerial changes in the 70s)

 

But Baltimore created a very large window of opportunity during Weaver's time which few teams were able to sustain. It is kind of funny that Weaver and Bobby Cox are basically exact parallels in this sort of respect. An extraordinary run of consistent excellence - with a title but felt like there should have been more.

 

Dick Williams was a great manager - but also like Billy Martin had a fairly limited shelf life. (fortunately not the creep Billy Martin was of course) From the evidence, Williams was not a great program builder - but great if you had a short window of opportunity.

[Kimmi]

So if someone were to say "because of Pedroia's grit, he has impacted a lot of games," you can't dispute it any more than you can dispute "because of Ellsbury's prowess of base-stealing, he has contributed to momentum which has impacted many games."

 

You are arguing points that I am not making.

 

I didn't say that Pedroia's grit has impacted a lot of games. I said that I think Pedroia is as good as he is largely because of his grit. I strongly believe that. There are not stats to prove or disprove that. It is just my opinion. It is a strong opinion. I don't even know what your question about being a miniscule believer versus a strong believer has to do with anything, and how you are concluding I'm a miniscule believer.

 

As far as the base stealing goes, my argument has nothing to do with Ellsbury contributing momentum that has impacted games. My argument is that a hitter at the plate does not have an advantage when there is a speedy base runner on first versus when there is a non speedy runner on base. That argument has nothing to do with momentum or grit or any of those other "unquantifiable" qualities that you are talking about. Showing that batters do worse when speedy runners are on first than they do when non speedy runners are on first is quantifiable, and the evidence has been presented.

[Kimmi]

However on some level you know momentum exists but you can't define when it exists. So if you don't know when it starts to exist who are you or any statistician to minimize the impact if someone else believes it has more impact? It's just as non-measurable as your "grit." At least I didn't see it from your reply that you have a defined measurement as to when momentum starts to exist. . So if someone were to say "because of Pedroia's grit, he has impacted a lot of games," you can't dispute it any more than you can dispute "because of Ellsbury's prowess of base-stealing, he has contributed to momentum which has impacted many games."

 

 

Momentum can be looked at in different ways, and it has been by statisticians. They have looked at momentum in terms of teams on hot streaks carrying that into the postseason. They have looked at it in terms of a team gaining momentum late in a game to earn a come from behind win and how that momentum carries into the next day's game. They have looked at it in terms of a team making a huge game changing play (either offensively or defensively), and how that carries into the remainder of the game.

 

It doesn't matter how momentum is defined. Momentum does not have predictive value.

[Kimmi]

Another example was J.D. Drew's 2007 season. His son had some rare conditionand the treatment involved was very painful and I believe that the kid was in a body cast of sorts for an extended period. Drew's numbers were off for the year -- that is my recollection.

 

This was actually the very example I was thinking about when I typed that post. I remember a lot of Drew bashers that year (and every year) despite the fact that he might have been struggling due to very real family issues.

[a700hitter]

This was actually the very example I was thinking about when I typed that post. I remember a lot of Drew bashers that year (and every year) despite the fact that he might have been struggling due to very real family issues.

Yes, he was getting bashed. When the story about his kid came out, a lot of the bashing stopped. His performance definitely suffered, as he must have been going through a personal hell. Drew was one of the more robotic players in the game. Fundamentally, his game was perfect and he never showed emotion, but no one is a robot, not even Drew.

[Spudboy]

He was still paid more than he was worth regardless of what fangraphs had to say.

[Bellhorn04]

He was still paid more than he was worth regardless of what fangraphs had to say.

 

If it was a 4 year contract it would have been reasonable value. The fifth year they got absolute zero from him.