notin

Right. I was nit-picking. Not the guy who tried to turn the defense of “old school vs new school” stats into a debate about a misapplied quote. This post may contain sarcasm…

Ok fine, but explain how I attacked its veracity. And you didn’t provide the link until after I provided the quote’s origin…

A resurrected version of WAPM has JBJ hitting .268/.335/.414 with 13 HRs in 500 PA. Even I am having a little doubt there. At least on the BA…

And the worst thing is to correct. “Well, Timmy, that actually wasn’t a hit because they got the guy out at second.” “But I hit the ball and got on base. That’s good, right?” “No, see, because you made an out and that didn’t help us. In fact it hurt us.” “You’re a big meanie and my name isn’t Timmy. It’s Caleb!”

To me, it depends on the cost of Manaea. The Padres have a deep, deep farm even after some of their trading binges. If we had to give up, say, Nick Yorke, I'd have passed, too. Jarren Duran? I pack his bags myself. But Oakland so far has appeared to want quantity over quality...

Clay Buchholz should have been called "The Cable Company." Because he will get that next pitch out to you any time between 5 minutes from now and the following August...

Really? Ask a 10 year old bis BA. Ask him how many hits he got. If you're going to use this as an example, bear in mind that for a lot of kids, grounding out to SS counts as a "hit" simpy because they hit the ball. And certainly none of these kids consider whether or not it was an error on that horrible Little League "throw" to first base, And adults get weird when they try to apply MLB stats and logic to kids' games. When my daughter hit her first home run in softball, I told her uncle how it went down. "She ripped a line drive between the right fielder and certer fielder and it kept going." He actually kept calling it an "inside the park home run" and acted like it was a cheaper version of a home run. ("So it was just an inside the park home run." How can it be an "inside the park" home run when you play on a park district field with no fences?!?! There's no "park" to hit it out of! And he kept repeatedly defending this label on her home run. WTF? She hit her second home run two at bats later and ripped it clear over the left fielder's head, but, hey, it didn;t clear the non-existant fence, so I guess that was one of those cheap inside-the-park home runs. too...

Also I didn’t “attack the veracity” of the James’ quote. I provided the citation. I added the footnote and put it in the bibliography. You were a teacher, right? (For some reason I think you were, but maybe it’s someone else.). Would you look at a citation and source as an “attack on the veracity? Heck, it’s closer to being a stamp of authentication…

It’s not a “dust up”. It’s a friendly debate. Not like I’ve been tossing names around at you But with that quote, first time you used it I pointed out the origin which does really change the meaning. Context matters. First time I thought “he might not know. But you keep insisting on using it like it was James’ own words. Now if you like the quote, it’s not hard to say “as Bill James once said on The Simpsons,” but you don’t. Probably because it does potentially alter the impact and meaning. However, it would increase your credibility…

One thing I do HATE about B-R is how unforgiving it is on searches. Type in “Mike Wacha” and it looks at you like “Who? Did he play baseball? Never heard of him.” Type in “Michael Wacha” and suddenly it’s “Here you go. Was that so hard? Why didn’t you just say Michael Wacha in the first place?”

B-R has its advantages in many, many other ways. Want to know how a player did over the last 3 years? On B-R, it’s a breeze. It’s fun. On Fangraphs? Total nightmare. B-R’s interactive feature on game logs are incredible, too. They must have some serious copyright protection because I can’t think of any reason no one else has added their features…

All of baseball is “some guy’s opinion”. Strikes. Balls. Outs. Hits. And for a long time, fair and foul. We even have myths we believe as fans, like “tie goes to the runner” or “the runner is safe when the catcher drops the ball.” Sure many umpires use these guidelines, but do so by choice. The rulebook effectively states “you’re out when the ump says you’re out.” End of rule…

I live in Chicago, where “six rings” is the reason EVERYONE agrees Jordan is the GOAT. Of course, the argument changes rapidly when I start talking about “11 rings”…

Who? MLBTR has no names yet. Best I can do is compare FV values on Fangraphs to see who the best Sox equivalent is. It' probably someone better than Hamilton...

This might be a little more accepted if you were not the exact reverse. Not like you have expressed any acceptance of the sabermetric stats...

EXactly. fWAR is based on FIP. not sure about bWAR, but it uses something. THe problem with FIP is it typically favors pitchers with any or multiple of high K rates, low BB rates or low home run rates. (Porcello was often at least good for low BB rates and had some good low HR rate seasons. I actually like FIP as it simple DIPS, but I am not so sure it should be the basis for WAR...

As I reply to myself here. The interesting thing is the best counter argument against WAR is the calculations (which both sites now publish). There is a lot of interpretation and, frankly, behind-the-scenes-voodoo many people either don’t understand or simply don’t wish to pursue. So this debate about “how too many just use WAR as a fact and you can’t debate them” is the exact debate to counter them. Myself, I admit, I can’t defend the calculations of WAR. I just see similar flaws in every other stat that people actually do think are based on concrete evidence. Is WAR flawed? Very likely. But don’t tell me BA, ERA, RBIs, etc. are not…

It only ends them because it makes one party stop talking. Heck the difference between bWAR and fWAR is debatable. Personally, I like bWAR better but the problem is Fangraphs has just made fWAR so much more accessible and user-friendly on their site.

I do find it funny that a lot of these older fans idolize Bob Gibson for never wanting to come out (largely due to his surly disposition, which he gets admired for for some odd reason. And then we deride today’s starters for only going through the e lineup twice. Do we extend this admonishment of reduced roles to other sports? Is Tom Brady really the GOAT? I mean, good ol’ Sammie Baugh played QB and CB and returned kicks!! He never left the field. In fact he once lead the NFL in TD passes and interceptions (as a CB!) and I believe return yards. Is Tom Brady “soft” because he doesn’t play like Sammie Baugh? (These are all facts about Baugh. Not extreme possibilities to make a point. He really did this stuff.)

They take the time because they have found enjoyment in new statistical interpretations. And while you might not like those arguments, no one presents them as fact. Harmony frequently uses Steamer projections, for example. Personally, I am not a fan so I counter with something else - sometimes my own (which seem to like JBJ at the plate a helluva lot more than any other system). That’s sometimes how these discussions go. And there’s nothing wrong with that…

That’s how you enjoy it and that’s fine. Others have taken a different approach more recently. They’re not wrong for doing so..

But your entire argument is that these new school stats are “flawed assumptions” and the old school ones are concrete fact. But are they? Aren’t there a ton of assumptions built into batting average? Like that hitters face equal pitching? Or hit into equal defense? Or play in parks with equal effect? And in front of official scorers with equal interpretations? And that, due to the large sample size, all of this equals out and creates a level playing field? And sure, BA is a nice, simple consistent, easy-to-understand formula. Except it isn’t. And it hasn’t even always been calculated the same way. One thing that will always bug me about BA is sac flies are not at bats. I get why sac bunts are not, but sac flies. Well, from 1908 to 1931, they didn’t. Sac flies were at bats. In 1939, they were not at bats again. But from 1940 to 1954 hitters were suddenly charged with an at bat on a run scoring fly ball. This latter stretch shows the impact, as it has a major overlap with the career of Ted Williams. If Williams played under the same rules as players before him, his legendary .406 in 1941 would have been .419. Williams also lost the 1949 triple crown because slap-hitting George Kell hit .0002 better. While I don’t have sac fly data for 1949, it’s not the most ridiculous assumption that Mr. Production Comes From Hitting The Ball In The Air had more than enough sac flies to win another triple crown. And this same logic goes for a lot more old school stats. But we use them because 1) they’re relatable and 2) we always have. But none of that means there aren’t assumptions built in and they are perfect…

You mean like people who insist on comparing defensive skills solely with eye test? Just because someone uses advanced metrics in a discussion doesn’t mean they’re passing it off as fact.

And the gist of this latest rant is “metrics are not meant for fans and you people are ruining it for me.” No thought for whether anyone else enjoys them, I guess…

He does that a lot, like when he doesn’t care about prospects until they reach Boston, but he does care about draft picks…