Sabermetrics Versus Traditional Views

[User Name]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This is, again, a terrible interpretation of data using a laughable method.

 

You are ignoring every other factor that may have contributed to Cespedes' "impact" on either team because it helps your viewpoint, yet you dare speak of bias. Your conclusions are laughable, and the method is too.

[Bellhorn04]

Here is the definition of data an satts. Imagien that

 

It's hard to take someone seriously when they're typing too fast to spell.

 

This guy is acting more and more like a troll, probably one who's been here before.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

I'm not ignoring the data. The data shows there was a collapse. The data does not show that the cause of the collapse was Cespedes' departure. That is quite a jump you're making there.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Bellhorn is right. It's difficult to respond because you're kind of all over the place, and you ask 100 questions. It's hard to know where to start. I don't have a lot of time to post on weekdays, and there are several other posts in here that I would like to respond to. It would be helpful if you would focus on one topic at a time, and limit the questions.

[Spudboy]

The A's just went into the shitter.

 

Losing Cespedes did not help but it was hardly the root cause of the collapse.

[Kimmi]

I think you are confusing long term trends with individual moments.

 

 

I think that's the gist of it right there, and the reason why many people don't understand the relative unimportance of stolen bases.

 

As I've posted before, in the season where Henderson stole 130 bases (along with 42 times being caught), he was worth a grand total of 1.6 base stealing runs to his team over the course of the season. Some of those stolen bases were probably huge, but some of those caught stealings probably were just as huge.

 

The most precious commodity in baseball is still the out.

[Kimmi]

This is a very good read on why sabermetricians should be confronting the sabermetric skeptics, rather than just letting them believe what they've always believed. Those with more traditional views are probably not going to like it, but IMO, this guy is spot on. This is my goal in life - to stop the misinformation! LOL

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-case-for-confronting-sabermetric-skeptics/

[SoxnCycles]

This is a very good read on why sabermetricians should be confronting the sabermetric skeptics, rather than just letting them believe what they've always believed. Those with more traditional views are probably not going to like it, but IMO, this guy is spot on. This is my goal in life - to stop the misinformation! LOL

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-case-for-confronting-sabermetric-skeptics/

 

Now, now...

 

Folks with wildly misinformed opinions have feelings too!

[Bellhorn04]

This is a very good read on why sabermetricians should be confronting the sabermetric skeptics, rather than just letting them believe what they've always believed. Those with more traditional views are probably not going to like it, but IMO, this guy is spot on. This is my goal in life - to stop the misinformation! LOL

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-case-for-confronting-sabermetric-skeptics/

 

The comments following the article are also interesting. I especially liked the ones by Marc Schneider, probably because his viewpoint seems so close to mine.

[bostopz]

Kimmi -- All I have to say is -- YIKES! I'm getting lambasted by a poster for my observations calling them laughable which certainly our replies are about one or two posts away from each of us hurling insults at one another --and then inevitably of course others chime in. I'm being called a troll by another poster who somehow has tied my typos (yes I make a lot of them = I'm sorry - I try to correct them which anyone can look at a lot of my prior posts and see I have made revisions to my posts- but I also think I mentioned I was in a hurry on this thread. How my typos got tied to troll - I don't know but whatever.). In addition I'm supposedly another poster. I can tell you I'm not -- but for anyone to suggest it - it means this topic I'm not really welcome - possibly further insults would come about and hijack your thread.

 

In fact on this thread I was the one that sent you a post on the jbj thread that others could be bored of this topic that if we wanted to continue you could create another thread and I'd oblige. But now "I'm a troll."

 

Well- anyhow the point is this is your thread and I don't want to hijack it. I'll refrain from posting on your thread if you wish. It's your decision - it's your thread. You come on here with a certain expectation of fun - and you start a thread - I don't have to post. I'm not into pyssign the whole damn world off. It's not that important.

 

With all that said - whether you want me posting on this or not -- please keep in mind - probably this comment more of others-- Kimi you and I look at things completely differently. You had replied to a post of mine that YOU disagreed with nearly everything I said.-- And it's the same with me to you- which is why in part I think you specifically mentioned to me that you were creating this thread. SO it seems like I'm just being a pain in the azz with you when I disagree so often but in fact I'm not meaning to - it just happens. I know you don't take offense but I wonder if others do and they think I just want to be contrarian.

 

Final point- if we disagree as often as we do-- one point I had brought up previously is that I don't believe how you are using data draws the conclusion you say it does. For me to counter that - I have to bring in other points - as you call it- all-over-the-map --as you said to me --- There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.

 

I'm trying to show or ask or understand what you or talking about or mean. For example when you say "you are a strong believer in grit" --

I have no idea what that general comment means vs why you are or aren't a strong believer in momentum too. Which, by the way, I'm not clear if you are or aren't. None of them are quantifiable. Why does grit get edge if it does? Because you say so? Or maybe you aren't really "a strong believer/" Now I've asked you more than one question. But that is how I have to prove my points. Your use of stats in some cases that just define an area of the game that is more than just the stats you provide. There are unquantifiable factors. Using examples and then responding to other posters etc -- can't all be done with one question. If that is what you want me to do - I can't -- thus tell me you want it -- then I'll just refrain. Let someone else who believes in things like- knows they exist - like "a clutch hitter" wage "war" with you.

 

It's your call on this- I don't want to hijack your thread.

Edited April 17, 2015 by bostopz

[SoxnCycles]

Man, this isn't a post, it's a thesis!

[User Name]

My eyes hurt. You still don't make any sense. You still can't interpret data.

[cp176]

Kimmi -- All I have to say is -- YIKES! I'm getting lambasted by a poster for my observations calling them laughable which certainly our replies are about one or two posts away from each of us hurling insults at one another --and then inevitably of course others chime in. I'm being called a troll by another poster who somehow has tied my typos (yes I make a lot of them = I'm sorry - I try to correct them which anyone can look at a lot of my prior posts and see I have made revisions to my posts- but I also think I mentioned I was in a hurry on this thread. How my typos got tied to troll - I don't know but whatever.). In addition I'm supposedly another poster. I can tell you I'm not -- but for anyone to suggest it - it means this topic I'm not really welcome - possibly further insults would come about and hijack your thread.

 

In fact on this thread I was the one that sent you a post on the jbj thread that others could be bored of this topic that if we wanted to continue you could create another thread and I'd oblige. But now "I'm a troll."

 

Well- anyhow the point is this is your thread and I don't want to hijack it. I'll refrain from posting on your thread if you wish. It's your decision - it's your thread. You come on here with a certain expectation of fun - and you start a thread - I don't have to post. I'm not into pyssign the whole damn world off. It's not that important.

 

With all that said - whether you want me posting on this or not -- please keep in mind - probably this comment more of others-- Kimi you and I look at things completely differently. You had replied to a post of mine that YOU disagreed with nearly everything I said.-- And it's the same with me to you- which is why in part I think you specifically mentioned to me that you were creating this thread. SO it seems like I'm just being a pain in the azz with you when I disagree so often but in fact I'm not meaning to - it just happens. I know you don't take offense but I wonder if others do and they think I just want to be contrarian.

 

Final point- if we disagree as often as we do-- one point I had brought up previously is that I don't believe how you are using data draws the conclusion you say it does. For me to counter that - I have to bring in other points - as you call it- all-over-the-map --as you said to me --- There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.

 

I'm trying to show or ask or understand what you or talking about or mean. For example when you say "you are a strong believer in grit" --

I have no idea what that general comment means vs why you are or aren't a strong believer in momentum too. Which, by the way, I'm not clear if you are or aren't. None of them are quantifiable. Why does grit get edge if it does? Because you say so? Or maybe you aren't really "a strong believer/" Now I've asked you more than one question. But that is how I have to prove my points. Your use of stats in some cases that just define an area of the game that is more than just the stats you provide. There are unquantifiable factors. Using examples and then responding to other posters etc -- can't all be done with one question. If that is what you want me to do - I can't -- thus tell me you want it -- then I'll just refrain. Let someone else who believes in things like- knows they exist - like "a clutch hitter" wage "war" with you.

 

It's your call on this- I don't want to hijack your thread.

 

hang in there. It means they really like you.

[Spudboy]

Man, this isn't a post, it's a thesis!

 

Yeah. I gave up. A post has to be very interesting for me to spend the time to read a wall of text.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's something that came as a revelation to me recently. There was some sort of discussion about Mickey Mantle's career on the other board and I looked him up on B-R. It has often been said that Mantle hung on too long, that he was a shell at the end, etc.

 

His last year was 1968. The big tragedy was that he hit .237. But his slash line was 237/385/398 for an OPS of 782. That was the Year of the Pitcher, and his OPS+ was 143. Not that bad at all! The lowest OPS+ he had for any year from 1952 to 1968 was 137.

[a700hitter]

Here's something that came as a revelation to me recently. There was some sort of discussion about Mickey Mantle's career on the other board and I looked him up on B-R. It has often been said that Mantle hung on too long, that he was a shell at the end, etc.

 

His last year was 1968. The big tragedy was that he hit .237. But his slash line was 237/385/398 for an OPS of 782. That was the Year of the Pitcher, and his OPS+ was 143. Not that bad at all! The lowest OPS+ he had for any year from 1952 to 1968 was 137.

They say that he hung on too long, because he could barely move around. Watching him limp around the bases on his 500th home run was sad and painful to watch. He was pretty crippled at the end. He was Mickey Friggin Mantle. The other players were in awe of his talent. While his slash line was okay, he was no longer Mickey Mantle.

[Spudboy]

Yeah it was sad. I only saw him play after his knees were shot. He was still feared at the plate but mostly because of his power. The guy could not run.

 

I really wish I had seen him when he was young. He had Ellsbury type speed.

[Kimmi]

The comments following the article are also interesting. I especially liked the ones by Marc Schneider, probably because his viewpoint seems so close to mine.

 

 

I love reading the comments as much as I love reading the article, perhaps even more. To me, it's baseball porn. ;-)

 

Marc Schneider had some very well thought out and well written responses to the article. He makes some great points. And I agree, the things he wrote sound like things you would say.

 

If someone wants to enjoy a game without thinking of advance analytics, I have no problem with that. The last thing I'm thinking about as I'm enjoying the excitement of a stolen base is how many runs it was worth over the course of the season. However, when it comes to discussions and debates on a baseball forum, IMO, sabermetrics are not only fair game, but they are a necessity.

 

Also, people who are in the baseball world, like announcers and tv analysts should be more educated. Too many false beliefs have been engrained into the general baseball public by announcers saying things that are simply not true.

[Kimmi]

It's your call on this- I don't want to hijack your thread.

 

 

Bostopz, I will reply to some of your questions regarding stats versus the human element as I have time to. I am not ignoring your questions, I just don't usually have a lot of time to post.

 

On the topics of whether I want you posting in "my" thread and hijacking it:

 

It's not my thread. It's a thread on the forum that anyone is free to post on. It doesn't belong to me. I have no problem with you posting in it, and even if I did, I would not be so arrogant as to tell you that you couldn't. It's not my call, but if you're asking me whether I want you to post here or not, I do want you to keep posting here. After all, I created the thread because of your suggestion.

 

I'm also not worried if the thread gets hijacked. Threads have a way of doing that, and it will get back on topic if there is enough interest in the topic to do so.

[Kimmi]

Bostopz, as I and others have mentioned, I do think it would be helpful if you shortened your posts some, and limited each post to one particular argument. For example, the first post you made in this thread jumped from the topic of stolen bases, to momentum, to whether Oakland's collapse was due to Cespedes leaving, to Mariano versus Pettitte in the HOF.

 

Just a suggestion, but perhaps making 4 separate posts, each one addressing one topic, would make it easier for others to read and easier to respond to.

[Kimmi]

Yeah it was sad. I only saw him play after his knees were shot. He was still feared at the plate but mostly because of his power. The guy could not run.

 

I really wish I had seen him when he was young. He had Ellsbury type speed.

 

 

I never had the good fortune of seeing him play. There are so many "legends" that I wish I could have seen play in their primes. Good stuff.

[Spudboy]

I never had the good fortune of seeing him play. There are so many "legends" that I wish I could have seen play in their primes. Good stuff.

 

Kimmi I strongly suggest that you find a copy of Jim Bouton's Ball Four and read it if you haven't already. I am sure that you will love it.

 

To me, it is a "must read" for a big time baseball fan.

 

That is all!

[seabeachfred]

They say that he hung on too long, because he could barely move around. Watching him limp around the bases on his 500th home run was sad and painful to watch. He was pretty crippled at the end. He was Mickey Friggin Mantle. The other players were in awe of his talent. While his slash line was okay, he was no longer Mickey Mantle.

 

I saw Mantle many times, both out here in California when the Angels were created in '61 and in the early 50's when I lived in Queens. He was just getting his bearings then but when he hit a ball square it looked like a rocket. I still remember his granny in the 5th game of the '53 WS off of Russ Meyer of Brooklyn. It turned the game around and led to another Yankee WS Title-----DAMN IT!!!!! Back then he was definitely second to Duke Snider as a CF and Willie Mays who returned from the Army to the Giants in '54 and led them to the title. By '56 Mantle was first in New York.

[mvp 78]

All I know is Mantle generally played at 6 BAR (beers above replacement). He could have at least waited until after the game like Yaz.

[bostopz]

From Kimmi: 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.

 

From Kimmi: I do think it would be helpful if you shortened your posts some, and limited each post to one particular argument. For example, the first post you made in this thread jumped from the topic of stolen bases, to momentum, to whether Oakland's collapse was due to Cespedes leaving, to Mariano versus Pettitte in the HOF.

 

Yes Kimmi I did reference quite a few. But you have to understand my pov vs. yours. [i]When the stats disagree vs the eyes[/i]- in an argument-- you just reference the stats. My counter-argument is there are other factors other than stats. You and many others may say “of course there are” yet if I were to say for example- there are other factors that makes base stealing important in some manner- you and others would dismiss it and say - “well then, show me the stats.” So in one breath you say you’re a strong believer in non-quantifiable elements but then it never really “means anything.” SO when I reply I have to use multiple examples to keep it going. You don’t because you’re basically holding your hat to the one stat. I have to show as a counter-argument something like “grit” means something or the stats you identify mean little. I have to use more examples.

 

In my post that you refer to - the stolen bases, to the momentum, to Oakland’s collapse regarding Cespedes leaving and Rivera are all related to in some manner to your initial statement of when the stats and the eyes disagree, they either relate to stats that don’t tell the story or non-quantifiable points that relate to something more than “just the stats.” And if someone can show me different- great – “I’m all ears.” But these all go together- even if you have an issue with one I don’t believe you can knockout all.

 

I know you didn't say this - but for others - This time I used MSFT WORD so hopefully I caught all the typos.

Edited April 18, 2015 by bostopz

[Spudboy]

All I know is Mantle generally played at 6 BAR (beers above replacement). He could have at least waited until after the game like Yaz.

 

He was a known drunk and talked about it before his death. I don't hold it against him.

[a700hitter]

He was a known drunk and talked about it before his death. I don't hold it against him.

When he was drunk and crippled, Mantle was still better than everyone else. Yaz liked his beer, but I don't remember too many stories about drunk bar hopping like Mantle.

[Bellhorn04]

When he was drunk and crippled, Mantle was still better than everyone else. Yaz liked his beer, but I don't remember too many stories about drunk bar hopping like Mantle.

 

Just an unbelievable talent. Very sad that he died so young.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi I strongly suggest that you find a copy of Jim Bouton's Ball Four and read it if you haven't already. I am sure that you will love it.

 

To me, it is a "must read" for a big time baseball fan.

 

That is all!

 

Spud, I will look for that book, and put it on my list for my summer reading. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Kimmi]

I'm trying to show or ask or understand what you or talking about or mean. For example when you say "you are a strong believer in grit" --

 

I have no idea what that general comment means vs why you are or aren't a strong believer in momentum too. Which, by the way, I'm not clear if you are or aren't. None of them are quantifiable. Why does grit get edge if it does? Because you say so? Or maybe you aren't really "a strong believer/" Now I've asked you more than one question. But that is how I have to prove my points. Your use of stats in some cases that just define an area of the game that is more than just the stats you provide. There are unquantifiable factors.

 

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.