Baseball Analysis 101: Top 5 Things that need to go

[FirstTimer]

While all this is fun academic discussion to have it's all kind of pointless in the end. Each of these stats has merit. None of them should be taken as the end all be all of stats and be used alone to judge a player but used in the proper context they can tell a story and help give an analysis. Yeah they are stats that are sometimes overused by the casual fan but at the end of the day not all fans are virgin stat geeks like Lefty and most fans of the MLB are of the "casual" variety. Yes people should look deeper into the stats than they do but eliminating some stats just because some dumb fans use them as the bible is counter productive to the stat analysis driven sport that baseball is.

[FirstTimer]

Nothing you said is false, but what team is gonna average a .200 OBP for the season?

Anyway, forgetting that, would you prefer if there was an RBIs converted %? Like Player X converted 40% of his RBI opportunities while Player X only converted on 32%?

Isn't that kind of what Avg w/RISP is?

[NAHSTE]

Isn't that kind of what Avg w/RISP is?

Yeah, pretty much, lol.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Things to consider with pitcher W's...

-Alot of pitchers pitch "to the score". Spot a guy a 7 run first inning lead, and he'll groove fastballs all day and trust the gloves behind him. So what if he gives up 5 runs in 6 innings, if the team wins 13-5? That's a good start, because the idea is to pitch well enough to win, not keep your ERA+ & K/BB ratio sharp.

-If a pitcher makes enough starts, cheap wins and tough luck losses will largely balance out.

For the most part, if a pitcher racks up alot of wins, he's probably pitching pretty well. I don't think anyone really ranks pitchers by wins, it's just another number that helps tell the story.

[FedEx227]

UZR is awesome, plus this year and next we're going to start seeing the rise in laser sighted defensive analysis. Although I'm not sure the public is going to have access to the results

[Warner2BruceTD]

UZR is awesome, plus this year and next we're going to start seeing the rise in laser sighted defensive analysis. Although I'm not sure the public is going to have access to the results

Fuck my life.

Baseball Prospectus just has to be behind this.

Put away the lazers and grab a hotdog.

[FedEx227]

No, this renegade nerd-linger organization called Major League Baseball is doing it.

It's really a shame these general managers and teams want another aspect to evaluate personnel and build their teams. Grab a tin of Skoal you faggots.

[NAHSTE]

Why the insistence on jamming the word "metric" into a sentence whenever possible? Does using "metric" instead of "stat" make you seem smarter or something?

Just wondering, I've seen it used a dozen times by the 643 guys.

[FedEx227]

I mainly use them in different context. Metric I'll use when talking about one particular stat.

The OPS+ metric gives us a much better understanding...as opposed to saying the OPS+ stat gives us a much better understanding. Because really, it's a metric. OPS+ is a unit of measurement moreso than a "statistic"

I'll always say "that guy has much better stats" or "statistics show". Plus higher level baseball stats tend to get lumped into the "metric" category due to the relevancy to Sabermetrics.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Oh really, where? Show me the distributions, show me where that stuff evens out in the data-set. Inane, idle talk like that also really needs to go from baseball discussion.

Sure thing buddy, i'll head off right now with my slide rule and start my research. See you in 6 months.

And you wonder why people toss out terms like stat geek and basement nerd. Do you really need me to back up the idea that baseball sees a fair number of both cheap wins and tough luck loses with some sort of statistical analysis? I mean, anyone who watches baseball can tell you that examples of both occur every day during the season.

For every 2004 Ben Sheets, you have a 1998 Rick Helling. I cant verify that with quantitive analysis, though.

[DJ Fog]

Lefty taking his ego to an even higher level now, calling for the MLB to eliminate batting average, wins, rbis..

His worst SS pick of all time wins a gold glove and he goes fucking nuts.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Lefty taking his ego to an even higher level now, calling for the MLB to eliminate batting average, wins, rbis..

Those are all perfectly acceptable "snap shot" stats, and when you flash them on the screen when a guy comes to the plate, you get a pretty decent idea with what kind of year the guy is having.

I like the "metric" stats, but when breaking down players you need to have a healthy balance between old & new, counting stats & percentage stats, etc. Batting average has a meaning, so does OPS, so does (gasp) RBI. They all provide a piece of the puzzle.

Lefty gets too wrapped up in the sabermetric side. Subjective analysis can be fun, believe it or not.

[FedEx227]

I agree with that. I'm not for eliminating those stats from rhetoric, I'd just prefer people take into account MORE than just those stats. Yeah, they are fine from a snap shot perspective no doubt but I would hope if debating someone on Player X vs. Player Y more than RBI and AVG come up.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Cause they're morons that can't wrap their brains around higher-order analysis?

I'm sorry, I was busy playing my banjo. Say again?

If you're going to make the statement of "If a pitcher makes enough starts, cheap wins and tough luck losses will largely balance out," then yes, I think you would do well to have some sort of personal analysis or link to a study done that shows this, especially if you are going to use it in an argument against another point.

But you don't have any of that, instead what you have is an asinine sentiment that you believe to be true solely because of some anecdotal memory you have of a certain season concerning a certain pitcher X amount of years ago.

And no, I'm not saying those don't happen in the MLB, but are they statistically significant? Define a "cheap win" or a "tough luck loss", and if you are going to matter-of-factly say that the two "balance out", how could anyone even possibly be wrong in asking you to back that up?

You are intolerable sometimes.

Yes, but just because people see "it" happen on the field doesn't mean that your point about them "balancing out" 1) happens with any frequency and/or 2) is statistically significant enough to actually "balance out".

Got it, kids? Don't make statements without research to back it up, no matter how obvious the statement may be.

Then don't make blanketing statements about some facet of baseball you claim to know about that others are missing.

Prove me wrong. C'mon, Mr. Bring The Facts, show me that they don't balance out. Practice what you preach.

[FedEx227]

I hate it when you guys fight