Sabermetrics Versus Traditional Views

[User Name]

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

 

Everyone is paid more than they are worth. It's the nature of baseball economics. What's your point?

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I always thought Drew got a bum rap. He didn't live up to many people's expectations offensively, but he was better than most people gave him credit for. I think a lot of people didn't like him because he didn't show enough emotion on the field. They mistook his lack of displayed emotion for lack of caring/enjoyment of the game.

 

At any rate, I can't imagine having to be away from a child when he/she is that ill. As much as I like stats, I understand that the players are human and that they will be affected by outside factors.

 

On a similar note, I think this is why the team played so poorly under Bobby V. As professional as we'd like them to be, it's hard to play for a manager that you don't trust or respect.

[Kimmi]

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

 

I agree with Bellhorn here. Except for the contract being one year too long, he was worth his contract. As I said before, he might not have performed up to task offensively in terms of HRs and RBIs, but he contributed in other ways.

 

Also, the market for corner outfielders was rich when Drew was given his contract.

[Kimmi]

Stat geeks everywhere are rejoicing. MLB showcased Statcast in a game last night.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/119234412/statcast-technology-debut-2015-cardinals-nationals-mlb-network

 

Statcast will do for defense and baserunning what PITCH/fx did for pitch framing and blocking pitches.

 

Exciting times!

[bostopz]

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.

 

I'm arguing points that you ignoring. How can Pedroia's grit mean anything if it isn't impacting a lot of games? Especially from someone stating they are a strong believer in grit. The way I see it- you say you are a strong believer but when I bring up his grit has impacted a lot of games, you back off. To me you're straddling the fence.

 

And please don't take this personal-- my issue with you and similar metrics geeks is that you seem to tell us that you are a strong believer in other things other than metrics but then when someone like me says base-stealing is important (in the manner you and I spoke) -- and imo you can use momentum from a guy like Ellsbury ((who was something like 58-4 (steals vs caught)) - you go back to saying "just the stats please." To me, when you say things like this, you are no more a "strong believer" in non-metrics things than an antheist is with their belief in God. Basically non-existent.

 

Thus if you won't acknowledge Pedroia's grit doesn't impact a lot of games, I don't see how you can mention that you are a "strong believer" in grit.

 

Momentum (one of many things) in an inning is achievable by base-stealing or the threat of base-stealing. If you agree momentum exists - then isn't base-stealing and the threat a possible catalyst?

Edited April 25, 2015 by bostopz

[Kimmi]

I'm arguing points that you ignoring. How can Pedroia's grit mean anything if it isn't impacting a lot of games? Especially from someone stating they are a strong believer in grit. The way I see it- you say you are a strong believer but when I bring up his grit has impacted a lot of games, you back off. To me you're straddling the fence.

 

And please don't take this personal-- my issue with you and similar metrics geeks is that you seem to tell us that you are a strong believer in other things other than metrics but then when someone like me says base-stealing is important (in the manner you and I spoke) -- and imo you can use momentum from a guy like Ellsbury ((who was something like 58-4 (steals vs caught)) - you go back to saying "just the stats please." To me, when you say things like this, you are no more a "strong believer" in non-metrics things than an antheist is with their belief in God. Basically non-existent.

 

Thus if you won't acknowledge Pedroia's grit doesn't impact a lot of games, I don't see how you can mention that you are a "strong believer" in grit.

 

Momentum (one of many things) in an inning is achievable by base-stealing or the threat of base-stealing. If you agree momentum exists - then isn't base-stealing and the threat a possible catalyst?

 

 

My statement was that Pedrioa is as successful as he is because of his grit, not that his grit impacted many games. I don't see it as the same thing, but if you do, then fine. I have no problem with that. Show me some stats that prove or give evidence to the contrary, and I will have to reconsider my statement. Until then, I will hold firm in my belief that Pedroia's grit is a big part of the player that he is.

 

I am a strong believer in both stats and the human element. I don't think the two things have to be mutually exclusive, as it seems you are trying to make them. I think there are some things that can't be quanitified by stats. However, when the stats show evidence against something that I believed, I have had to rethink my position. If there is no evidence one way or another, then I will believe what I believe.

 

As far as base stealing being a possible catalyst for momentum, I agree. I never said otherwise.

[bostopz]

As far as base stealing being a possible catalyst for momentum, I agree. I never said otherwise.

 

Wait a minute! I thought this was the basis of our disagreement?

 

Suppose you had a catcher that all but wipes out that kind of momentum? Isn't that a high value?

[Kimmi]

Wait a minute! I thought this was the basis of our disagreement?

 

Suppose you had a catcher that all but wipes out that kind of momentum? Isn't that a high value?

 

No, it's not the basis of our disagreement. That's why I said that you are arguing points that I am not making.

 

Two things that I have said about base stealing:

 

1. Stolen bases are overrated.

 

2. A hitter does not have an advantage with a base stealer on first base, ie., base stealers do not "disrupt" the defense and give the hitter an advantage.

[bostopz]

No, it's not the basis of our disagreement. That's why I said that you are arguing points that I am not making.

 

Two things that I have said about base stealing:

 

1. Stolen bases are overrated.

 

2. A hitter does not have an advantage with a base stealer on first base, ie., base stealers do not "disrupt" the defense and give the hitter an advantage.

 

No--- it still is.

 

Base stealing is not overrated. As you even agreed base-stealing can be a catalyst to provide momentum. Momentum breeds confidence. Thus base-stealing can be catalyst to momentum thus I don't see how that makes base-stealing over-rated.

[Kimmi]

No--- it still is.

 

Base stealing is not overrated. As you even agreed base-stealing can be a catalyst to provide momentum. Momentum breeds confidence. Thus base-stealing can be catalyst to momentum thus I don't see how that makes base-stealing over-rated.

 

A stolen base can be a catalyst for a momentum swing in a single game, as was the case for Roberts' stolen base. Momentum may or may not carry on past that game. It has no predictive value. A stolen base can be huge in any single game, but over the course of the season, or on average, they are overrated.

[User Name]

The momentum argument is weak. It's not quantifiable, it's not tangible, and it doesn't affect more than a game at a time if it even exists. Ask Earl Weaver about it why don't you?

[Kimmi]

The momentum argument is weak. It's not quantifiable, it's not tangible, and it doesn't affect more than a game at a time if it even exists. Ask Earl Weaver about it why don't you?

 

Sometimes momentum doesn't even affect more than an inning at a time. Last night's game is a perfect example. The Sox grabbed the momentum in the top of the 10 with with Xander's HR, and Baltimore grabbed it right back with Jones' triple.

 

Will that momentum carry Baltimore in today's game? Your guess is as good as mine.

[bostopz]

A stolen base can be a catalyst for a momentum swing in a single game, as was the case for Roberts' stolen base. Momentum may or may not carry on past that game. It has no predictive value. A stolen base can be huge in any single game, but over the course of the season, or on average, they are overrated.

 

Momentum can last for more than a single game - you just said so yourself. A guy like Ellsbury who stole 58 bases with only 4 steals then add up Victorino's stolen bases and Pedroia's you will have games that carry over. Once you acknowledge the carry over exists -- it impacts all teams throughout either the league or the division. Because you can't define the carry over doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that you don't know. That doesn't make it overrated. It just means metrics is ill-equipped to figure it out.

 

I think you are wrong how you look at things. For example, Perdroia's grit is part of who he is. He has it. None of us needs metrics to tell us so. So his grit does impact many games because that is what he is - how he plays. That type of play rubs off on others. IMO you pretend to use the word but don't really use it. As you've said before all players have handled pressure in order to get to the majors. IMO that means all players have had to have grit. I don't agree with your assertion in some aspects but I'm baffled how you throw words around like "pressure" grit" and confidence" and just don't seem to back them up with anything. They're "hollow." I have no idea still from you what "a strong believer in grit" is by metric geeks vs "normal grit."

 

Bottomline is you seem to think I erroneously tie in momentum and grit and confidence and clutch while I think you erroneously separate them. When momentum begins you don't know when it begins any more than I do just as we don't know if Pedroia has any more grit than most of the other players in baseball. We can't prove it. Just because you make up a stat momentum doesn't mean the stat is gospel. It can't be measured just as base-stealing can't be measured the way you are trying to do.

 

The Kansas City Royals stole 7 bases - coming form behind to beat the A's. IMO in part the stolen bases contributed to that momentum which contributed to confidence just as games during the season can do the same thing thus it can be the difference form making the playoffs or being eliminated in the playoffs. And somehow that is overrated? . All sabermetrics geeks could do is pretend to use season averages. Tell that to the Angels and Orioles that stolen bases and momentum is overrated. Using a league "average" for defining stolen bases as important or unimportant is a misuse of the data. For teams that can run, to shut them down can be a make or break season. To put them in the same category as a team that rarely steals and uses base-stealing as a weapon is wrong.

 

If you had to play the Sox of 2013, or the old rays teams 19 times or the Royals team 19 times, you have a mediocre catcher's arm -- that stolen bases -- makes or breaks your season. The metric becomes irrelevant in that division vs another that doesn't use it. Just as the momentum for Sox in 1st championship year was built through the stolen bases. That momentum carried over to two series.

Edited April 26, 2015 by bostopz

[Kimmi]

Stolen bases are overrated because over the course of the season, they just do not add that much run value to the team's overall offense. That statement is supported by data. As far as stolen bases having a big impact on a single game, that is true. But so do the caught stealings. No one tends to remember the momentum killing caught stealing, because it's not as obvious. That erases the big impact of a stolen base from a previous game.

 

Momentum can last several games, or it can last as little as a 1/2 inning. The point is that it has no predictive value. It doesn't matter how long it lasts. Momentum does not give that team a better chance to win the that game, the next game, or the next series.

 

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles with this. You don't want to believe me when I say I'm a strong believer in something, that's okay. But I'm not going to continue debating with you about it.

[User Name]

Momentum can last for more than a single game - you just said so yourself. A guy like Ellsbury who stole 58 bases with only 4 steals then add up Victorino's stolen bases and Pedroia's you will have games that carry over. Once you acknowledge the carry over exists -- it impacts all teams throughout either the league or the division. Because you can't define the carry over doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that you don't know. That doesn't make it overrated. It just means metrics is ill-equipped to figure it out.

 

I think you are wrong how you look at things. For example, Perdroia's grit is part of who he is. He has it. None of us needs metrics to tell us so. So his grit does impact many games because that is what he is - how he plays. That type of play rubs off on others. IMO you pretend to use the word but don't really use it. As you've said before all players have handled pressure in order to get to the majors. IMO that means all players have had to have grit. I don't agree with your assertion in some aspects but I'm baffled how you throw words around like "pressure" grit" and confidence" and just don't seem to back them up with anything. They're "hollow." I have no idea still from you what "a strong believer in grit" is by metric geeks vs "normal grit."

 

Bottomline is you seem to think I erroneously tie in momentum and grit and confidence and clutch while I think you erroneously separate them. When momentum begins you don't know when it begins any more than I do just as we don't know if Pedroia has any more grit than most of the other players in baseball. We can't prove it. Just because you make up a stat momentum doesn't mean the stat is gospel. It can't be measured just as base-stealing can't be measured the way you are trying to do.

 

The Kansas City Royals stole 7 bases - coming form behind to beat the A's. IMO in part the stolen bases contributed to that momentum which contributed to confidence just as games during the season can do the same thing thus it can be the difference form making the playoffs or being eliminated in the playoffs. And somehow that is overrated? . All sabermetrics geeks could do is pretend to use season averages. Tell that to the Angels and Orioles that stolen bases and momentum is overrated. Using a league "average" for defining stolen bases as important or unimportant is a misuse of the data. For teams that can run, to shut them down can be a make or break season. To put them in the same category as a team that rarely steals and uses base-stealing as a weapon is wrong.

 

If you had to play the Sox of 2013, or the old rays teams 19 times or the Royals team 19 times, you have a mediocre catcher's arm -- that stolen bases -- makes or breaks your season. The metric becomes irrelevant in that division vs another that doesn't use it. Just as the momentum for Sox in 1st championship year was built through the stolen bases. That momentum carried over to two series.

 

What the hell are you even talking about? Literally nothing you're saying here makes sense.

[Bigemu23]

I won't even get into whatever discussion bostopz is talking about, far too much text for me to read in one sitting.

 

Speaking of stats vs. traditional thinking. Does anyone else hate Harold Reynolds for how close minded he is with his baseball analysis. He still places Brandon Philips in his top 10 second basemen for the sole fact that he hits lots of RBIs. The other memorable instances would have to be him saying that diving head first into first base can get the runner there faster, or his whole take on the argument of batting your best hitter second instead of third or forth.

[SoxnCycles]

I won't even get into whatever discussion bostopz is talking about, far too much text for me to read in one sitting.

 

Speaking of stats vs. traditional thinking. Does anyone else hate Harold Reynolds for how close minded he is with his baseball analysis. He still places Brandon Philips in his top 10 second basemen for the sole fact that he hits lots of RBIs. The other memorable instances would have to be him saying that diving head first into first base can get the runner there faster, or his whole take on the argument of batting your best hitter second instead of third or forth.

 

Yeah, it's amazing that someone who played 11 years in the majors could still be so backwards in their understanding of parts of the game.

 

I can't help but think of Carl Everett and his opinion on dinosaurs. LOL

[Kimmi]

While batting order does not matter nearly as much as many people think it does, your best hitters should be batting in the #1, #4, and #2 spots. The number 3 hitter comes to bat so often with 2 outs and no runners on that it's kind of a waste to put your best or 2nd best hitter in that spot.

[Kimmi]

Last night's game was a perfect example of how randomness or luck is a bigger factor in the outcome of one run games than talent is. Three bad breaks, Pedey being doubled off on Papi's hard hit liner, the fan interference, and Napoli's ground rule double like cost the Sox that game. These random instances are present throughout every game, though they are usually less obvious.

[a700hitter]

My philosophy of a good batting order bunches your best hitters at the top of the order and I prefer that my best hitter always get an AB in the first inning. I hate lineups that stick a guy in the top of the order that is not one of the team' s top hitters -- to extend the order. That is not productive IMO -- breaking up the good hitters.

[Bigemu23]

Also another good discussion is bullpen usage and leverage. When to use your most dominant relievers. If your best reliever is your closer, should the manager use them in the seventh when the team is up by one run and there are 2 men on and only one out? Or risk losing the lead and not using your best relief option at all.

 

There was a pretty good read about it over on Draysbay. I'll try to find it when I have time later tonight.

[bostopz]

Stolen bases are overrated because over the course of the season, they just do not add that much run value to the team's overall offense. That statement is supported by data. As far as stolen bases having a big impact on a single game, that is true. But so do the caught stealings. No one tends to remember the momentum killing caught stealing, because it's not as obvious. That erases the big impact of a stolen base from a previous game.

 

Momentum can last several games, or it can last as little as a 1/2 inning. The point is that it has no predictive value. It doesn't matter how long it lasts. Momentum does not give that team a better chance to win the that game, the next game, or the next series.

 

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles with this. You don't want to believe me when I say I'm a strong believer in something, that's okay. But I'm not going to continue debating with you about it.

 

Yes they (the stolen bases) do. You're just using a statistic that isn't well-suited to draw the conclusion you want.

 

Just as you say things like no longer arguing- the same comes from me. Just as I stated on my past posts - I brought out the dictionary to define the word "clutch" to some stat geek an he said to me "lol you are using a dictionary." Yeah - I'm using what the word means.

 

In this case you think I'm being difficult / ignorant whatever- while I'm shaking my head saying you and the stat geeks ignore grit and momentum etc or you become just like the stat geek I once argued with - you change meaning of words (in this case identify momentum or clutch or "playing under pressure" or confidence or grit) in your own terms to fit your argument of total love for stats. That's okay- just consider when you sometimes bring up on other threads how metrics is so telling vs the tradionalists-- more than likely the tradionalist doesn't buy the way you are using the stats that basically sum up your own individual opinion.

 

The stat geek for example with stolen bases thinks they can measure a game or two by using their own definition of what momentum is (or clutch_ etc. There is no universal stat to measure if momentum builds up confidence which then helps a team win 110 of 11 games. IMO stolen bases lends a hand ot that. The Yankees this year are a perfect example. One game when Yanks were struggling with their bats - they executed a hit and run with Ellsbury going to 2nd, Garner this a weak ground ball to short that winds up going to left field. Yanks get a big inning win the game I believe.

 

A short tiem later in 9th inning Gardner comes in as pinch runner I bleeive steals 2nd. A-Rod gets basehit to center Yanks win.

 

They've built momentum. Players become more confident. While many of that know "clutch hitters exist" also know their other factors their than hard-boiled stats. We don't need someone making up their own definition of the word and pretending THAT should be the universal definition. The Yanks now have been doing pretty well- built on momentum - and some f it has to do with the early base-stealing examples I've given - because obviously those wins would have bred confidence. I don't need a metrics geek to tell me about confidence, clutch or momentum -- I know it exists.

 

Thanks for this - you're a classy person kimmi -- I seem to have gotten you frustrated but I understand -- and usually it would be that way with a disagreement of traditonalist vs sabermetrics. I won't reply to your thread any longer.

[Kimmi]

My philosophy of a good batting order bunches your best hitters at the top of the order and I prefer that my best hitter always get an AB in the first inning. I hate lineups that stick a guy in the top of the order that is not one of the team' s top hitters -- to extend the order. That is not productive IMO -- breaking up the good hitters.

 

Your best hitters should be at the top order, basically in descending order of OBP, with some consideration of putting your sluggers in the 4 and 5 spots. However, batting order really makes so little difference that dropping a guy down 2 spots because he is struggling or because of matchups is more or less pointless. What is more beneficial for a manager to do is to alternate R-L-R-L so that the opposing manager can't use a LOOGY for 2 consecutive batters.

[Kimmi]

Also another good discussion is bullpen usage and leverage. When to use your most dominant relievers. If your best reliever is your closer, should the manager use them in the seventh when the team is up by one run and there are 2 men on and only one out? Or risk losing the lead and not using your best relief option at all.

 

There was a pretty good read about it over on Draysbay. I'll try to find it when I have time later tonight.

 

I think that a closer should be used in the 7th or 8th, if that is where a true save situation arises. Games are often won or lost in those innings, and saving the closer for the 9th becomes a moot point. That said, relievers tend to be superstitious creatures of habit. I'm guessing some of them would be less effective if their "routine" is disrupted.

[Kimmi]

Bostopz, you can continue replying to whatever thread you want. I don't mind your replies. I honestly just don't know how to respond to some of your posts. You are arguing points that I am not making, and you are insisting that I don't really believe something that I've said I strongly believe in. There's no sense in trying to debate those things.

[Kimmi]

Another interesting topic for debate is the idea of protection in a lineup. Players certainly seem to think it exists.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-does-lineup-protection-exist/

 

However, the idea of "lineup protection" is another one that is largely a myth. While evidence does exist that pitchers will pitch differently to a batter that is "protected", evidence does not exist to suggest that it does the batter any good. If line up protection does exist, it would be from the batters hitting in front of someone, not from the batters hitting behind him.

[Kimmi]

I was reading an article about how the analytics department of the Yankees kept pushing for the Yankees to sign Chris Young. His slash line looked horrible with the Mets, but the analytics guys saw something in his peripheral stats that suggested that he would rebound. Good call.

[Northern Star]

Question for the New Stats people (because I can't spell saberwhatsname).

 

Over the course of a full season, does playing the righty/lefty matchup with your starting lineup vs that day's starter really make much of a significant difference to run production?

[Bellhorn04]

Question for the New Stats people (because I can't spell saberwhatsname).

 

Over the course of a full season, does playing the righty/lefty matchup with your starting lineup vs that day's starter really make much of a significant difference to run production?

 

I'll throw in something from a layman's perspective. You have to look at the splits of the platoon hitters, such as Moreland and Pearce. See how much difference there is. Sometimes the platooning doesn't pay off because hitters have 'reverse splits', but sometimes the differences are large.

[moonslav59]

I'll throw in something from a layman's perspective. You have to look at the splits of the platoon hitters, such as Moreland and Pearce. See how much difference there is. Sometimes the platooning doesn't pay off because hitters have 'reverse splits', but sometimes the differences are large.

 

Yes, and when they are large, I like the idea of platooning or juggling the line-up, at least a little bit.

 

On Pearce vs Moreland, Pearce has actually done better vs RHPs for a pretty large recent sample size but not career.

 

2016-2018

 

OPS vs RHPs

.789 Pearce

.760 Moreland

 

OPS vs LHPs

.902 Pearce

.723 Moreland

 

I thin, sometimes, people are blinded by the massive splits by Pearce and forget to notice that he's actually pretty good vs RHPs.

 

Moreland has closed his gap over the years, but .723 is still too low for the 1B position.

 

Another interesting Sox player is Holt. He actually has hit LHPs slightly better than RHPs (.706 to.702 career), but I occasionally hear posters talk about not playing Holt vs lefties.