The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[S5Dewey]

Not at all, because A) dWAR, like its parent, is a cumulative stat, so sample size, and What if there are underlying issues with JBJ (injury? his offensive woes messing with his head?) that we can't see?

 

The point is, you're the other half of the WAR annoyance chart: It's not gospel, so it shouldn't be the main factor in the MVP discussion, but it's not so flawed as to be ridiculed by someone who doesn't understand the basics of what any of its components measure and how. Just stop.

 

Oh. I'm sorry. When you say "Just Stop" I guess everyone is supposed to ... just stop.

 

The last I knew this was a forum where someone could post anything they wanted even if YOU don't agree with it.

 

You're kind of full of yourself, aren't you?

[User Name]

Oh. I'm sorry. When you say "Just Stop" I guess everyone is supposed to ... just stop.

 

The last I knew this was a forum where someone could post anything they wanted even if YOU don't agree with it.

 

You're kind of full of yourself, aren't you?

 

Well I'm certainly not full of you.

 

And "Just stop" actually means "take 30 seconds to read how WAR works". If you don't want to, that's fine, but then you're the one who's pretty full of himself quoting stats you don't understand, but whatever bro.

[User Name]

Stay tuned for my unsubstantiated opinions regarding Structural Engineering, which I know nothing about. Also wait until I get angry for getting called out on it!

[Sox75]

Stay tuned for my unsubstantiated opinions regarding Structural Engineering, which I know nothing about. Also wait until I get angry for getting called out on it!

 

Perhaps if you weren't such an angry arrogant bastard, who can't handle opinions from guys who know baseball & have actually PLAYED THE GAME at a high level?

 

There is also this, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You tend to use a good deal of tortured statistics, often to defend what even the layman can see is just ********.

 

Other times, your stats match reality. You definitely know your stuff. Major props!!!! Seriously!

 

 

The problem, my friend, as is often the case with statisticians, is that they are arrogant picks who can't tolerate being contradicted. They falsely assume that their stats are infallible. They forget that there is major human error built into the NUMBERS they completely rely on. They forget the "garbage in - garbage out" axiom, and defend the numbers as though they are infallible.

 

Worse.... They become arrogant pricks, completely intolerant of ANY contrary opinions. They call people "*******s," simply for having the nerve to disagree with them.....

 

Time to lighten up a bit? Be a bit more tolerant of lesser men (in your mind)?

[Spudboy]

Or maybe it's time to feast on inferior intellect.

[Maxbialystock]

I missed that argument. Got a link or tell me what thread/page it's on?

 

Because as a blanket statement, I would not agree. But I'm open to proof/theories about it...

 

Just so we know what we are arguing about, here again is what I wrote earlier. I think 80% of defense is the guy on the mound. This might explain why every MLB team without exception carries 12 pitchers on their 25 man rosters. That leaves 20% for the 9 guys, including the pitcher, defending against various flies, grounders, liners, bunts, etc. Divide 20% by 9 and you get a little over 2% of the defense depends on any given defender.

 

The offense depends on the 9 guys in the lineup--100%. Divide that by 9 and you get something over 10% for each guy in the lineup.

 

So a lineup player contributes 10% to the offense and 2% to the defense, so his bat is 5 times as important as his glove. You can probably make a case that some fielders, especially very good ones, are contributing more than 2%. In JBJ's case, maybe it's 3%, but I doubt seriously it's more than 4% because outfielders don't have as many total chances as infielders and catchers have more than anyone else.

 

So best case for JBJ is that his bat is 2.5 times as important as his glove. This could explain why, season to date, he has played in the second most games of anyone on the team. Cora likes him in CF (occasionally RF, but not often).

[jad]

I don't understand the mystical religious philosophy of snake-handlers either. I don't expect to. Nor do I expect to understand fuel injection systems in my car. Nor the Tax Code. But what I do expect in all these fields, is that those who do understand them (or those who refute them) can explain the basics in ordinary language. When they cannot, or when they fume and demand that I research this from the ground up, or insist that I categorically reject the whole thing, I lose faith. (By the way, an excellent example on this matter is the presentation in Moneyball. You may or may not agree with any of it, and the theory may or may not be dated or naive, but it is explained clearly and intelligently, and can be understood even by a casual sports fan.)

[S5Dewey]

Stay tuned for my unsubstantiated opinions regarding Structural Engineering, which I know nothing about. Also wait until I get angry for getting called out on it!

 

No, the only one angry here is you. You really need to get some help for your ongoing arrogance problem.

[jacksonianmarch]

Perhaps if you weren't such an angry arrogant bastard, who can't handle opinions from guys who know baseball & have actually PLAYED THE GAME at a high level?

 

There is also this, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You tend to use a good deal of tortured statistics, often to defend what even the layman can see is just ********.

 

Other times, your stats match reality. You definitely know your stuff. Major props!!!! Seriously!

 

 

The problem, my friend, as is often the case with statisticians, is that they are arrogant picks who can't tolerate being contradicted. They falsely assume that their stats are infallible. They forget that there is major human error built into the NUMBERS they completely rely on. They forget the "garbage in - garbage out" axiom, and defend the numbers as though they are infallible.

 

Worse.... They become arrogant pricks, completely intolerant of ANY contrary opinions. They call people "*******s," simply for having the nerve to disagree with them.....

 

Time to lighten up a bit? Be a bit more tolerant of lesser men (in your mind)?

 

I played the game at a pretty high level (CWS twice) and I felt the same way initially when the stat revolution came about. But I’ve accepted that these stats have their place and have replaced the old “eye test”. I can look at a player and tell if he has big league skills, but the stats say how well or how consistent those skills are being executed. The new age stats also incorporate defense and base running, where in the past it was an afterthought. UN has an abrasive tone for sure, but he’s smart and knows the game and the stats. He just doesn’t tolerate baseless arguments

 

Also, for those looking at the Yankee prospect machine, we built this with advanced metrics. Cash forced his scouts to use exit velocities, launch angles, spin rates, etc in their scouting. Those that didn’t comply were terminated. It’s a far more objective method to scouting and it started after we drafted a lip sticked pig in Chris Smith in the early rounds out of HS and when he got to camp, he was by no means showing the skills he was billed as having. He was such a bad miss that Cash and Oppenheimer changed their philosophy to objective data

Edited May 16, 2018 by jacksonianmarch

[S5Dewey]

UN has an abrasive tone for sure, but he’s smart and knows the game and the stats. He just doesn’t tolerate baseless arguments

 

 

He may be a genius but he's got absolutely no f***ing social skills and if he wants to be heard, believed and respected he'd better start polishing those up a bit.

 

Of course, if he reads this he'll dismiss it out of hand because he's so arrogant he's certain that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

Edited May 16, 2018 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

So a lineup player contributes 10% to the offense and 2% to the defense, so his bat is 5 times as important as his glove. You can probably make a case that some fielders, especially very good ones, are contributing more than 2%. In JBJ's case, maybe it's 3%, but I doubt seriously it's more than 4% because outfielders don't have as many total chances as infielders and catchers have more than anyone else.

 

The science here is faulty though Max because it's overly simplified.

 

It's not just the number of chances, it's the difficulty of the chances and the skills that are required to make them. A center fielder often has to make a long run to catch the ball, get a fast start, take the correct route, leap, dive, extend his body etc.

 

The advanced fielding stats try to take all this stuff into account.

[notin]

Just so we know what we are arguing about, here again is what I wrote earlier. I think 80% of defense is the guy on the mound. This might explain why every MLB team without exception carries 12 pitchers on their 25 man rosters. That leaves 20% for the 9 guys, including the pitcher, defending against various flies, grounders, liners, bunts, etc. Divide 20% by 9 and you get a little over 2% of the defense depends on any given defender.

 

The offense depends on the 9 guys in the lineup--100%. Divide that by 9 and you get something over 10% for each guy in the lineup.

 

So a lineup player contributes 10% to the offense and 2% to the defense, so his bat is 5 times as important as his glove. You can probably make a case that some fielders, especially very good ones, are contributing more than 2%. In JBJ's case, maybe it's 3%, but I doubt seriously it's more than 4% because outfielders don't have as many total chances as infielders and catchers have more than anyone else.

 

So best case for JBJ is that his bat is 2.5 times as important as his glove. This could explain why, season to date, he has played in the second most games of anyone on the team. Cora likes him in CF (occasionally RF, but not often).

 

I didn't mean for you too retype the entire thing. A link or a mention of a thread would have worked for me

 

 

But more important, it's really a hypothesis built on other hypothesis and extrapolated. I can't rip it since I don't have a counter-theory, but that also doesn't make it fact...

[jacksonianmarch]

Defense does start with pitching. You could have the best defense in baseball, but if your pitchers are walking the park or allowing balls to be hit out, it isn't useful. That being said, pitching relies on the defense and a bad defense will ruin good pitching. I wouldn't say it's an 80/20 split. If it was, then you'd expect a pitcher to control the outcome 80% of the time. I don't know of a pitcher that controls 80% of their at bats (ie strikeouts or pop outs).

[notin]

Perhaps if you weren't such an angry arrogant bastard, who can't handle opinions from guys who know baseball & have actually PLAYED THE GAME at a high level?

 

There is also this, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You tend to use a good deal of tortured statistics, often to defend what even the layman can see is just ********.

 

Other times, your stats match reality. You definitely know your stuff. Major props!!!! Seriously!

 

 

The problem, my friend, as is often the case with statisticians, is that they are arrogant picks who can't tolerate being contradicted. They falsely assume that their stats are infallible. They forget that there is major human error built into the NUMBERS they completely rely on. They forget the "garbage in - garbage out" axiom, and defend the numbers as though they are infallible.

 

Worse.... They become arrogant pricks, completely intolerant of ANY contrary opinions. They call people "*******s," simply for having the nerve to disagree with them.....

 

Time to lighten up a bit? Be a bit more tolerant of lesser men (in your mind)?

 

Be fair here.

 

He wasn't disparaging someone for disagreeing with advanced statistics. He was calling someone out for disparaging statistics without understanding them. There is a very, very big difference.

 

I'm not sure why playing the game makes any difference. Plenty of people involved in MLB clearly use these advanced numbers, so high school and college play from us is really relatively insignificant.

 

And certainly no one has said sabermetric stats are infallible. But they are certainly superior to eye test testimony in many cases, especially comparative ones. And really, the traditional "back of the baseball card" stats all have their own inherent flaws, too. Batting average is one of the most misleading stats in the game, but we all use it repeatedly, including me. And I do it while knowing the inherent flaws. But I use it for the same reasons everyone else does - its very recognizable and familiar...

[illinoisredsox]

He may be a genius but he's got absolutely no f***ing social skills and if he wants to be heard, believed and respected he'd better start polishing those up a bit.

 

Of course, if he reads this he'll dismiss it out of hand because he's so arrogant he's certain that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

 

There still seems to be a few "oldtimers" (not all) who have issues with the "newbies", many of whom have been here 2 years now.

[notin]

Defense does start with pitching. You could have the best defense in baseball, but if your pitchers are walking the park or allowing balls to be hit out, it isn't useful. That being said, pitching relies on the defense and a bad defense will ruin good pitching. I wouldn't say it's an 80/20 split. If it was, then you'd expect a pitcher to control the outcome 80% of the time. I don't know of a pitcher that controls 80% of their at bats (ie strikeouts or pop outs).

 

Pitching is important to defense, but I also disagree with that split.

 

But on the other hand, I don't really have a counter-proposal to say what I think it is.

 

However, if you look at the differences between FIP and ERA, the numbers are usually similar enough that 80% becomes very tough to justify...

[Slasher9]

There still seems to be a few "oldtimers" (not all) who have issues with the "newbies", many of whom have been here 2 years now.

that's a BINGO

[S5Dewey]

Since I'm the guy who was being called out for not understanding WAR I'll respond...

 

I strongly question how many people here actually do understand WAR and how it's calculated, and how many people take WAR on blind faith.

Unless you understand each of these computations can you actually say you UNDERSTAND War?

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/calculating-war-pitchers/

 

Go ahead. Open the links. Read them, and tell me with a straight face that you understand each and every calculation.

 

Unless you can understand any and each of the calculations that go into WAR you don't truly understand it - and I certainly don't claim to. You're accepting it at face value. Until one truly understand how things are calculated they don't recognize the potential flaws in it and there are several, especially as it pertains to outfielders.

If a player plays half of his games in an expansive outfield he will get more credit for running balls down simply because there are more balls to be run down in a big outfield.

Conversely, if a player plays half of his games in a small outfield his WAR may be lower than if he played in a larger one because WAR only calculates the distance the player has to run to get to the ball. Hence it will appear the player has less range than he really does.

 

I have never completely discounted the value of WAR, I've only said that it needs to be used in conjunction with other methods of "scouting".

[illinoisredsox]

Since I'm the guy who was being called out for not understanding WAR I'll respond...

 

I strongly question how many people here actually do understand WAR and how it's calculated, and how many people take WAR on blind faith.

Unless you understand each of these computations can you actually say you UNDERSTAND War?

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/calculating-war-pitchers/

 

Go ahead. Open the links. Read them, and tell me with a straight face that you understand each and every calculation.

 

Unless you can understand any and each of the calculations that go into WAR you don't truly understand it - and I certainly don't claim to. You're accepting it at face value. Until one truly understand how things are calculated they don't recognize the potential flaws in it and there are several, especially as it pertains to outfielders.

If a player plays half of his games in an expansive outfield he will get more credit for running balls down simply because there are more balls to be run down in a big outfield.

Conversely, if a player plays half of his games in a small outfield his WAR may be lower than if he played in a larger one because WAR only calculates the distance the player has to run to get to the ball. Hence it will appear the player has less range than he really does.

 

I have never completely discounted the value of WAR, I've only said that it needs to be used in conjunction with other methods of "scouting".

 

And that's fWAR. Baseball Reference (bWAR) uses similar principles, but the methodology is a little different. And Baseball Prospectus' version (WARP) is a little different again. So the generic use of WAR is ambiguous.

[Slasher9]

JBj WAR stating he is a AAAA defensive CFer is enough for me to say WAR is f***ing stupid and anyone that blindly uses WAR........ is naïve.

[S5Dewey]

JBj WAR stating he is a AAAA defensive CFer is enough for me to say WAR is f***ing stupid and anyone that blindly uses WAR........ is naïve.

 

That may be the Crown Jewel of the whole discussion.

 

Who you gonna believe, those statistics or your own lyin' eyes?

[Slasher9]

back to the thread topic for a moment....during our hot month long start the forum was buzzing that Cora was the 2nd coming of Stengel and was being put on a pedestal because he pushed all the right buttons and the players had fire & desire. now that we have seen a few weeks of...not so great baseball....bad D, bad situational hitting, the same baserunning blunders over and over and over again....are we still all sucking at the teet of Cora?

me? I think he manages like a rookie manager that has zero head coach experience.

we have seen some head scratching decisions, some desperate moves, and many a wrong button pushed.

perhaps his players are no longer "playing hard for him"?

[S5Dewey]

JBj WAR stating he is a AAAA defensive CFer is enough for me to say WAR is f***ing stupid and anyone that blindly uses WAR........ is naïve.

 

I have to wonder how one reconciles the fact that according to WAR JBJ is a AAAA player with the fact that he's ranked in the middle of the pack for CF'ers. Doesn't that mean that half the CF'ers in MLB are AAAA or below?

[notin]

Since I'm the guy who was being called out for not understanding WAR I'll respond...

 

I strongly question how many people here actually do understand WAR and how it's calculated, and how many people take WAR on blind faith.

Unless you understand each of these computations can you actually say you UNDERSTAND War?

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/calculating-war-pitchers/

 

Go ahead. Open the links. Read them, and tell me with a straight face that you understand each and every calculation.

 

Unless you can understand any and each of the calculations that go into WAR you don't truly understand it - and I certainly don't claim to. You're accepting it at face value. Until one truly understand how things are calculated they don't recognize the potential flaws in it and there are several, especially as it pertains to outfielders.

If a player plays half of his games in an expansive outfield he will get more credit for running balls down simply because there are more balls to be run down in a big outfield.

Conversely, if a player plays half of his games in a small outfield his WAR may be lower than if he played in a larger one because WAR only calculates the distance the player has to run to get to the ball. Hence it will appear the player has less range than he really does.

 

I have never completely discounted the value of WAR, I've only said that it needs to be used in conjunction with other methods of "scouting".

 

there is a massive difference between understanding how WAR is calculated and understanding what it does. I also don't understand many of the calculations in nuclear physics, but I am willing to accept them as correct and do not deny their validity based on their complexity...

[notin]

I have to wonder how one reconciles the fact that according to WAR JBJ is a AAAA player with the fact that he's ranked in the middle of the pack for CF'ers. Doesn't that mean that half the CF'ers in MLB are AAAA or below?

 

Baseball-Reference dWAR explicitly states the replacement level they are using is the league average.

 

So they are saying this year, Bradley has been average among centerfielders. Maybe he has been this year to date. While he is a terrific defensive player, without having watched all the other centerfielders to compare him to, how do you counter that?

[notin]

That may be the Crown Jewel of the whole discussion.

 

Who you gonna believe, those statistics or your own lyin' eyes?

 

But you have already admitted you haven't seen other center fielders as much as Bradley. So how can you counter any argument that his defense is average or above or below?

[notin]

JBj WAR stating he is a AAAA defensive CFer is enough for me to say WAR is f***ing stupid and anyone that blindly uses WAR........ is naïve.

 

Actually not what his dWAR is saying...

[mvp 78]

Maybe he is a AAAA guy? To me, his d is overrated and his bat suffers from long cold spells.

[S5Dewey]

Baseball-Reference dWAR explicitly states the replacement level they are using is the league average.

 

So they are saying this year, Bradley has been average among centerfielders. Maybe he has been this year to date. While he is a terrific defensive player, without having watched all the other centerfielders to compare him to, how do you counter that?

 

I can't, except to say that I haven't seen every other RF'er this year either so maybe Mookie isn't as good out there as we think he is.

 

That's where the eye test comes in. If we're going to say that JBJ isn't as good as I think he is because I haven't seen every other CF it also has to be said that Mookie may not be as good as I think he is because I haven't seen every other RF'er either. Nor have I did I see every other 2B during Pedey's prime nor did I see Roberto Clemente play a lot of games in his prime but I still believe these two were outstanding players.

 

Many of us have seen enough players to recognize excellence when we see it. It's like what Potter Stewart said about pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

[S5Dewey]

If the only criteria we can use to rate players is statistics we may as well shut this forum down because most of what we talk about is opinion-related.