Sox hitting??

[harmony]

I agree. And the condescension implied in that sentence is exactly what ticks off a lot of old-schoolers about the 'new metrics'.

Keith Law's condescending attitude gives sabermetrics a bad name. Law's pompousness obscures his otherwise valid data.

 

I have a theory about the resistance to advanced baseball metrics, which often challenge conventional wisdom.

 

For many of us, that conventional baseball wisdom was passed down to us by our fathers. Any challenge to that wisdom can be interpreted, at least subconsciously, as an insult to our father. Hence, the sometimes emotional reaction.

 

At least that's my theory ...

 

On the other hand, my father, who died in 1988, likely would have welcomed advanced baseball metrics because he remained interested in learning until the day he died.

[moonslav59]

A higher than normal rate of errors can certainly have an impact on defensive WAR.

. But, it is not the major factor in determining defensive WAR

[Maxbialystock]

. But, it is not the major factor in determining defensive WAR

 

What is? Range?

[Maxbialystock]

I like the way this guy looks at it.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/5/11/8577943/baseball-clutch-hitting-visualized

 

RISP is huge, that's why its always in the Boxscore. I would bet that the team that wins this stat, at the end of the day wins 70% of the games.

 

Here's a stat I invented which holds up pretty well in seeing why one team won and the other lost.

 

Believe it or not, the winning team has a higher percentage of K's vs. BB's than the losing team. After I wrote that, I checked last night's game's box score. We had 11 K's and 2 BB's, and the Phillies has 8 K's and 3 BB's. Hence we won.

[Spudboy]

I agree. And the condescension implied in that sentence is exactly what ticks off a lot of old-schoolers about the 'new metrics'.

 

Yup. Further it implies that those old timers do not have the ability to understand metrics. That is really dumb.

[Spudboy]

People who still use Flg% to rank defenders are just plain wrong. Sorry, but it's true.

 

Oh.

 

Let me ask you this. Do you need advanced defensive metrics to tell you that Pablow does not have range? Do those metrics tell you more than his five errors? His Fld% percentage is the one stat that in this case would be enough to surmise that he is defensively deficient.

 

Whatever.

[dgalehouse]

A business might want to hire an Industrial Engineer. The I.E. might even give them a few good ideas for efficiency. But you don't want the I.E. running the place. Leave that to the Operations people. The same with sabermetrics. You can learn something from it , but don't let it take over operations. The analytic devotees get carried away with it. When they start telling you that home runs are overrated, stolen bases are overrated, closers are overrated, etc. , they want to reinvent the game. Few , if any , players, coaches or managers would agree with that thinking. Take what you can from sabermetrics , but don't go crazy with it. This is still a sport. It is not calculus. Have fun and enjoy it. Edited June 13, 2017 by dgalehouse

[Bellhorn04]

Oh.

 

Let me ask you this. Do you need advanced defensive metrics to tell you that Pablow does not have range? Do those metrics tell you more than his five errors? His Fld% percentage is the one stat that in this case would be enough to surmise that he is defensively deficient.

 

Whatever.

 

With Pablo you can use eye test, fielding % or advanced metrics and in all cases it comes out Suck.

[Kimmi]

I recommend the book Smart Baseball* by sanctimonious ESPN senior baseball writer Keith Law.

 

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062490223/smart-baseball

 

This evening I read the chapter titled "Bulfinch's Baseball Mythology: Clutch Hitters, Lineup Protection, and Other Things That Don't Exist."

 

* subtitled The Story Behind the Old Stats That Are Ruining the Game, the New Ones That Are Running It, and the Right Way to Think About Baseball

 

Let me know how the book is Harmony. It sounds good, but I'm not sure there is anything new in there that wasn't in The Book or in Baseball Between the Numbers - Why Everything You Know About The Game Is Wrong.

 

I can tell by the title of the chapter you mentioned in this post that this is my kind of reading.

[Kimmi]

I don't agree that there is a wrong way with looking at stats. If people want to talk about pitching wins, batting average and how great save totals are, more power to them. Whether you agree with someone or not, there is no "wrong way" to look at baseball if you are enjoying it.

 

There is no right or wrong way to enjoy baseball or to enjoy stats.

 

However, IMO, there is a wrong way to evaluate players. For instance, someone claiming that King Felix didn't deserve the Cy Young Award in 2010 because he only had 13 wins against 12 losses would be wrong.

[Kimmi]

I agree. And the condescension implied in that sentence is exactly what ticks off a lot of old-schoolers about the 'new metrics'.

 

Personally, I find most of the 'old schoolers' to be far more condescending.

[Kimmi]

I never said it had no value, but when people use it as the only or most important defensive stat, it is flat out wrong.

 

 

I agree with you Moon.

[Kimmi]

Keith Law's condescending attitude gives sabermetrics a bad name. Law's pompousness obscures his otherwise valid data.

 

I have a theory about the resistance to advanced baseball metrics, which often challenge conventional wisdom.

 

For many of us, that conventional baseball wisdom was passed down to us by our fathers. Any challenge to that wisdom can be interpreted, at least subconsciously, as an insult to our father. Hence, the sometimes emotional reaction.

 

At least that's my theory ...

 

On the other hand, my father, who died in 1988, likely would have welcomed advanced baseball metrics because he remained interested in learning until the day he died.

 

My father is about as old school as it gets. Talking to him about advanced metrics is like talking to a brick wall, and I say that with the utmost respect and love to my father. Therefore, I would have to discount your theory.

[moonslav59]

What is? Range?

 

Range is more important than errors, but of course if someone making 50 errors at SS is compared to someone making 10, his range is going to have to be a lot better to overcome the ErrR factor.

 

When you look at fangraph's fielding factors, the RngR factor always has a larger number range, so it appears to have a much bigger impact on defensive WAR.

 

UZR/150 certainly values the amount of plays made within your zone and on the fringes very very highly. Making errors or not making them seems secondary.

 

I've always maintained that several SSs make 50-80 or more plays a season than average or slightly below average SSs. Clearly, that more than makes up for the possibility that one of those SSs might make 10-25 more errors than those compared to.

[Kimmi]

A business might want to hire an Industrial Engineer. The I.E. might even give them a few good ideas for efficiency. But you don't want the I.E. running the place. Leave that to the Operations people. The same with sabermetrics. You can learn something from it , but don't let it take over operations. The analytic devotees get carried away with it. When they start telling you that home runs are overrated, stolen bases are overrated, closers are overrated, etc. , they want to reinvent the game. Few , if any , players, coaches or managers would agree with that thinking. Take what you can from sabermetrics , but don't go crazy with it. This is still a sport. It is not calculus. Have fun and enjoy it.

 

Why is there an insinuation that stat geeks are not having fun with and enjoying baseball?

 

Also, calculus is amazingly fun.

 

IMO, the baseball ops people are hiring more and more advance stat people because they are looking for any kind of edge. Baseball ops are the ones that are driving the sabermetric revolution.

[Bellhorn04]

Personally, I find most of the 'old schoolers' to be far more condescending.

 

I think it goes both ways.

 

Keith Law is not the only metrics expert who makes statements like 'everything you thought you knew about baseball is wrong'. That automatically creates resistance in the person who's being addressed. As harmony put it, it's a sanctimonious way of talking.

[moonslav59]

Why is there an insinuation that stat geeks are not having fun with and enjoying baseball?

 

I dealt with those attitudes at "that other site", and never understood why so many think that those interested in stats and numbers not only can't "enjoy the game", but can never "understand the human element" involved with the game. It didn't matter that I played the game (and others) for many many years.

 

There might be nothing I enjoy more than watching the Sox win championships.

 

The numbers are secondary.

 

By the way, poor counseling at high school helped lead me to not take Calculus (and Chemistry) in HS, so when I got to the University of Notre Dame and chose Geology as my major, I nearly flunked freshman Calculus (and Chemisrty) first semester. I switched to Political Science by the start of semester two.

 

I'm fascinated by math & science, but I'm no whiz at either.

 

[dgalehouse]

I dealt with those attitudes at "that other site", and never understood why so many think that those interested in stats and numbers not only can't "enjoy the game", but can never "understand the human element" involved with the game. It didn't matter that I played the game (and others) for many many years.

 

There might be nothing I enjoy more than watching the Sox win championships.

 

The numbers are secondary.

 

By the way, poor counseling at high school helped lead me to not take Calculus (and Chemistry) in HS, so when I got to the University of Notre Dame and chose Geology as my major, I nearly flunked freshman Calculus (and Chemisrty) first semester. I switched to Political Science by the start of semester two.

 

I'm fascinated by math & science, but I'm no whiz at either.

 

So , you are a "Domer "? I knew there was something about you that I liked.

[oldtimer]

I dealt with those attitudes at "that other site", and never understood why so many think that those interested in stats and numbers not only can't "enjoy the game", but can never "understand the human element" involved with the game. It didn't matter that I played the game (and others) for many many years.

 

There might be nothing I enjoy more than watching the Sox win championships.

 

The numbers are secondary.

 

By the way, poor counseling at high school helped lead me to not take Calculus (and Chemistry) in HS, so when I got to the University of Notre Dame and chose Geology as my major, I nearly flunked freshman Calculus (and Chemisrty) first semester. I switched to Political Science by the start of semester two.

 

I'm fascinated by math & science, but I'm no whiz at either.

 

 

I was an engineering manager for one of the largest US corporations and became a chief engineer for my last working years. My wife taught mathematics in college and specifically probability and statistics. So what? I am also one of the older contributors and like to see human qualities in our players. Sometimes, it get so thick here, maybe we should just give a players statistics and not use their names.

 

Baseball is a game of many variables and attempts to boil it all down to a few simple stats doesn't do it justice for me.

[S5Dewey]

I think it goes both ways.

 

Keith Law is not the only metrics expert who makes statements like 'everything you thought you knew about baseball is wrong'. That automatically creates resistance in the person who's being addressed. As harmony put it, it's a sanctimonious way of talking.

 

Ya. For me things like that are right up there with such and such "aren't as important as most people think they are" on the sanctimonious scale.

Edited June 14, 2017 by S5Dewey

[moonslav59]

So , you are a "Domer "? I knew there was something about you that I liked.

 

Thanks.

 

Class of '81.

 

 

I was a Freshman the year Joe Monatana (started the seasonas the 3rd string QB) led us to the national championship vs Earl Campbell and the Texas Longhorns.

 

Our star-studded basketball team, led by - or should I say dragged down by- Digger Phelps went to the final 4 the same year. We also lost to Danny Ainge and Brigham Young. Here are some of the players that played while I was there:

 

Bill Lambeer

Kelly Tripuka

Orlando Woolridge

Tracy Jackson

Bill Hanzlik

John Paxson

Joe Kleine

Dave Batton

Stan Wilcox

Duck Williams

Rich Branning

Brude Flowers

 

 

I played inter-hall football, basketball and baseball while there. It was highly competitive. I played some pick-up B-ball at the Rock with Orlando Woolridge, Silk Wilcox and some football players like Jerome heavens and Luther Bradley.

 

"Those were the days."

[moonslav59]

Baseball is a game of many variables and attempts to boil it all down to a few simple stats doesn't do it justice for me.

 

Looking at numbers doesn't take away from the game I love so much.

[dgalehouse]

Thanks.

 

Class of '81.

 

 

I was a Freshman the year Joe Monatana (started the seasonas the 3rd string QB) led us to the national championship vs Earl Campbell and the Texas Longhorns.

 

Our star-studded basketball team, led by - or should I say dragged down by- Digger Phelps went to the final 4 the same year. We also lost to Danny Ainge and Brigham Young. Here are some of the players that played while I was there:

 

Bill Lambeer

Kelly Tripuka

Orlando Woolridge

Tracy Jackson

Bill Hanzlik

John Paxson

Joe Kleine

Dave Batton

Stan Wilcox

Duck Williams

Rich Branning

Brude Flowers

 

 

I played inter-hall football, basketball and baseball while there. It was highly competitive. I played some pick-up B-ball at the Rock with Orlando Woolridge, Silk Wilcox and some football players like Jerome heavens and Luther Bradley.

 

"Those were the days."

 

Impressive list. Kelly Tripucka's dad , Frank , was a star quarterback for the Irish, circa late forties.

[moonslav59]

Impressive list. Kelly Tripucka's dad , Frank , was a star quarterback for the Irish, circa late forties.

 

Yes indeed.

 

My Dad was a domer, too....class of '49.

[harmony]

Thanks.

 

Class of '81.

 

 

I was a Freshman the year Joe Monatana (started the seasonas the 3rd string QB) led us to the national championship vs Earl Campbell and the Texas Longhorns.

 

Our star-studded basketball team, led by - or should I say dragged down by- Digger Phelps went to the final 4 the same year. We also lost to Danny Ainge and Brigham Young. Here are some of the players that played while I was there:

 

Bill Lambeer

Kelly Tripuka

Orlando Woolridge

Tracy Jackson

Bill Hanzlik

John Paxson

Joe Kleine

Dave Batton

Stan Wilcox

Duck Williams

Rich Branning

Brude Flowers

 

 

I played inter-hall football, basketball and baseball while there. It was highly competitive. I played some pick-up B-ball at the Rock with Orlando Woolridge, Silk Wilcox and some football players like Jerome heavens and Luther Bradley.

 

"Those were the days."

I was in attendance in 1980 when the Missouri Tigers knocked the Irish out of March Madness with an 87-84 second-round overtime win in Lincoln, Nebraska:

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1980-03-09-missouri.html

 

The game was filled with players who went on to NBA careers.

 

In the other second-round game at Lincoln that day, eventual 1980 national champ Louisville also needed an overtime to topple Kansas State 71-69:

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1980-03-09-kansas-state.html

Edited June 14, 2017 by harmony

[moonslav59]

I was in attendance in 1980 when the Missouri Tigers knocked the Irish out of March Madness with an 87-84 second-round overtime win in Lincoln, Nebraska:

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1980-03-09-missouri.html

 

The game was filled with players who went on to NBA careers.

 

I remember that game (from TV).

 

I still blame Digger for never getting us farther.

 

We had a stacked team.

 

[cp176]

I have been called an old schooler. I don't think of myself as one actually though. The impression that I have gotten from many of the discussions here is that if you are not accepting of all things data related then you must be old school with outdated ideas. That in my way of looking at things is saying that if you don't agree with someone elses perspective on issues totally then you are wrong. I have never looked at things this way. Normally there are many ways to looks at any issue. No compromise doesn't work for me. In today's world. I think that wanting to compromise might mean that you are outdated. Right or wrong with no in between. I still pretty much believe that the majority of people who actually play the game are form the "old school" way of looking at baseball in general. That works for me.

[greenwell]

The report said Pedroia's walk off hit the other game was the second of his career. I've thought for a while that Pedroia is not a clutch hitter, but this seems absurdly low. Does anyone know how to find out a normal number of walk off hits for a player?

[illinoisredsox]

Why is there an insinuation that stat geeks are not having fun with and enjoying baseball?

 

Also, calculus is amazingly fun.

 

IMO, the baseball ops people are hiring more and more advance stat people because they are looking for any kind of edge. Baseball ops are the ones that are driving the sabermetric revolution.

 

Calc was okay (well, semesters 1, 2 and 4 were okay) but I liked Differential Equations better.

[Bellhorn04]

The report said Pedroia's walk off hit the other game was the second of his career. I've thought for a while that Pedroia is not a clutch hitter, but this seems absurdly low. Does anyone know how to find out a normal number of walk off hits for a player?

 

Personally I think all this 'walk off' stuff is pretty stupid. For one thing, you can only 'walk off' if you're playing at home.

 

I think the actual expression originated from Eck, but he was talking about the pitcher who gave up the winning hit making the sad and lonely walk off the mound.