And we wonder why SABR types are so snarky ...

[Glenbino]

Good point. People, even SABR people, want a "number" that basically measures "everything", so then they can definitively say "Nomar Garciaparra is a 4 and Derek Jeter is a 6, so Jeter is better than Garciaparra". They get upset when Pitcher wins and batter RBI don't measure 5 different things at once...they don't understand that those stats measure exactly what it says they measure...the problem always lies in the application/interpretation of such stats.

I don't see it this way at all. If anything I have an issue with the way that WAR and defensive stats have tried to boil everything to one number the way that RBI does with driving in a run.

That's why I brought BA with RISP (or RISP% if we wanna keep that shtick going) as a better evaluation of someone's ability as a hitter.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I don't see it this way at all. If anything I have an issue with the way that WAR and defensive stats have tried to boil everything to one number the way that RBI does with driving in a run.

That's why I brought BA with RISP (or RISP% if we wanna keep that shtick going) as a better evaluation of someone's ability as a hitter.

Most SABR types scoff at BARISP. Because it's not a repeatable skill.

This is another gripe I have. The only time I care if something is repeatable, is if we are talking predicting future performance. There is very little reason to cite BARISP if you are trying to project a player's future performance.

BUT, I can not dismiss something that has already occurred. If somebody hits .400 with RISP, he had a hell of a season. Some will say "pfft, who cares, hits are hits.", and that's the kind of shit that drives me nuts. Just because something isn't repeatable doesn't mean it isn't good when it's done well. That guy who hit .400 w/RISP was clutch! Deal with it.

[Senser81]

I don't see it this way at all. If anything I have an issue with the way that WAR and defensive stats have tried to boil everything to one number the way that RBI does with driving in a run.

That's why I brought BA with RISP (or RISP% if we wanna keep that shtick going) as a better evaluation of someone's ability as a hitter.

But you are now measuring two things. I see RBI as a way to measure production, I see BA with RISP as a way to measure someone's efficiency as a hitter. Neither stat is really going to give you a true measure of someone's ability as a hitter.

[Glenbino]

But you are now measuring two things. I see RBI as a way to measure production, I see BA with RISP as a way to measure someone's efficiency as a hitter. Neither stat is really going to give you a true measure of someone's ability as a hitter.

But how does that measure work for ground out RBI sac flies?

I'm not one to consider hits that result in outs to be "productive" or at least not to be lauded as some kind of individual accomplishment (RBI) because if someone didn't hit in front of them then that same ball that resulted in an out wouldn't be considered "productive".

And like I said before it also gives an unfair weight to the hitter's stat-line and ignores the ability of the baserunner.

[Glenbino]

Most SABR types scoff at BARISP. Because it's not a repeatable skill.

This is another gripe I have. The only time I care if something is repeatable, is if we are talking predicting future performance. There is very little reason to cite BARISP if you are trying to project a player's future performance.

BUT, I can not dismiss something that has already occurred. If somebody hits .400 with RISP, he had a hell of a season. Some will say "pfft, who cares, hits are hits.", and that's the kind of shit that drives me nuts. Just because something isn't repeatable doesn't mean it isn't good when it's done well. That guy who hit .400 w/RISP was clutch! Deal with it.

I'm not a SABR guy I guess...

[FirstTimer]

But how does that measure work for ground out RBI sac flies?

I'm not one to consider hits that result in outs to be "productive" or at least not to be lauded as some kind of individual accomplishment (RBI) because if someone didn't hit in front of them then that same ball that resulted in an out wouldn't be considered "productive".

And like I said before it also gives an unfair weight to the hitter's stat-line and ignores the ability of the baserunner.

But you also have countless at bats over the course of the year where a guy intentionally swings at a pitch he wouldn't, tries to lift a ball he wouldn't, tries to shoot a ball to someplace he wouldn't in order to move a runner, score a run etc that while you say "Well that out would not have been productive in a bases empty situation"..that batter is approaching the plate appearance differently and wouldn't be trying to do what he did with the bases empty.

[Glenbino]

The bottom line is that the game is full of context and short of wtaching the games or reading every individual box score you'll never know the full story (even though the box score is flawed it's still a lot more complete of a tale than you get looking at a base stat line).

If anything there need to be more stats, not less.

The problem I have is that some stats are weighted more heavily in the public sphere mostly because that's the way things have been done for over 100 years.

Both groups are right and both groups are wrong and if you're anywhere but in the middle then you'll only ever be able to tell half the story.

[Senser81]

But how does that measure work for ground out RBI sac flies?

I'm not one to consider hits that result in outs to be "productive".

But they are productive if they result in a run being scored. I'm not one to consider a 2-yard run to be productuve, but if its a 2-yard run on 3rd and goal from the 2 resulting in a TD, then its productive.

[Glenbino]

But they are productive if they result in a run being scored. I'm not one to consider a 2-yard run to be productuve, but if its a 2-yard run on 3rd and goal from the 2 resulting in a TD, then its productive.

Do we really want to open the Pandora's box of comparing situational football scenarios to situational baseball scenarios?

I don't know how a baseball team could scheme their defensive set up to prevent a sac fly or grounder the same way a football team could put 10 people in the box because of the shortened field...

[Warner2BruceTD]

But how does that measure work for ground out RBI sac flies?

I'm not one to consider hits that result in outs to be "productive" or at least not to be lauded as some kind of individual accomplishment (RBI) because if someone didn't hit in front of them then that same ball that resulted in an out wouldn't be considered "productive".

And like I said before it also gives an unfair weight to the hitter's stat-line and ignores the ability of the baserunner.

Doesn't ignore the baserunner at all, he is credited with something called a "run".

Also, you seem to think batters approach each AB the same. They don't. With a man on third and nobody out, a hitter is trying to lift a fly ball (at worst), especially with two strikes. That's why a sac fly is a good AB, not "just another fly out" like you seem to think. Same for a ground ball the opposite way that scores a run or moves a runner over. Batters are often times trying to do these things on purpose.

You are treating every out, and every hit, equally. It's these types of absolutes that I disagree with. Approach changes with each AB. Even with each pitch. With two strikes, Joey Votto chokes up on the bat like a little leaguer and tries to slap the ball the other way. Players aren't robots or video game characters who approach every situation in the same manner. Man on third, most players will tell you that it's his job to lift the ball. Will they try to drive one if they get the right pitch? Of course. But is that fly ball more valuable than a fly ball with two outs and nobody on? Of course it is, don't be dense.

[Warner2BruceTD]

But you also have countless at bats over the course of the year where a guy intentionally swings at a pitch he wouldn't, tries to lift a ball he wouldn't, tries to shoot a ball to someplace he wouldn't in order to move a runner, score a run etc that while you say "Well that out would not have been productive in a bases empty situation"..that batter is approaching the plate appearance differently and wouldn't be trying to do what he did with the bases empty.

You type faster than me.

[Senser81]

Do we really want to open the Pandora's box of comparing situational football scenarios to situational baseball scenarios?

I don't know how a baseball team could scheme their defensive set up to prevent a sac fly or grounder the same way a football team could put 10 people in the box because of the shortened field...

Most SABR people would scoff at what you just said.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Do we really want to open the Pandora's box of comparing situational football scenarios to situational baseball scenarios?

I don't know how a baseball team could scheme their defensive set up to prevent a sac fly or grounder the same way a football team could put 10 people in the box because of the shortened field...

No offense, i'm not trying to be a prick here, but this comes off pretty ignorant.

[Glenbino]

No offense, i'm not trying to be a prick here, but this comes off pretty ignorant.

Explain....





....prick.

[FirstTimer]

Do we really want to open the Pandora's box of comparing situational football scenarios to situational baseball scenarios?

I don't know how a baseball team could scheme their defensive set up to prevent a sac fly or grounder the same way a football team could put 10 people in the box because of the shortened field...

:michaelscott: