Baseball Analysis 101: Top 5 Things that need to go

[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

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

What? I'M intolerable? So because you make some statement about things "balancing out" in a data set and I ask you to back it up I'm intolerable?

Who backs up casual statements on a casual messege board with piles of statistics? If you don't agree with my blatantly obvious statement, fine, say so and move on.

Where do you get this notion that what you're trying to prove is blatantly obvious? Just because you remember something happening once at some point in time does not make it regular, significant and obvious.

No, "I dont remember something happening once at some point in time", I see guys take tough luck losses and get cheap wins every day during the baseball season. It is regular. I shouldnt need to do research to back that up.

It would be like saying, "gee, a couple of times per game, you see guys lose HR's by a few feet foul", and you coming back with "You can't say something like that without quantifying it with data. And please define what a couple means."

Sometimes talking to you is like talking to the computer in War Games, after it turns on Matthew Broderick and gets all snotty and sarcastic.

So now it's MY job to prove what YOU said right or wrong? Get real. No fucking wonder no one from a merged site stays here for more than a week or two, morons like you are running rampant. Jesus.

You challenged my statement. You cant prove it wrong any more than I can prove it right, which is the point i'm trying to make to you. It's pretty arrogant to expect everyone to back up points with data in an environment like this.

I mean, if you dont think there is a semblence of balance between harl luck L's and cheap W's, I dont know what else I can say to you.

 

[DJ Fog]

I'll go back to sucking at MW2, you go back to sucking at life.

Nerd.

 

[Bomberooski]

I'll go back to sucking at MW2, you go back to sucking at life.

Nerd.

Haven't followed this thread. Don't even know who maddog is talking to but it popped up on iSpy and this post made me laugh

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

OK Lefty, 5 minutes of Google search produced this:

-From 1984-1991 (first link I clicked), the winning percentage of starting pitchers who had a quality start was .674. If we define a "hard luck loss" as losing when recording a QS, that's roughly 33% of QS = L.

-Using the same years, the winning percentage of pitchers who did not have a quality start was .311. So roughly 31% of non-quality starts resulted in a W--"cheap wins".

So...33% of good starts resulted in a "hard luck loss", while 31% of bad starts resulted in a "cheap win". I would say that pretty much backs up the balance i'm talking about.

Now if you wish to challenge the sample size, please note that from 1957-2006 the winning percentage of pitchers who had QS was .675--.001 off from the 1984-1991 sample above.

Here are the links:

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/GehringerC/QualityStarts.pdf


Now please find the "Thanks" button located at the bottom of all of my posts regarding this matter, click them, and then kindly lick my balls.

Thanks.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I WILL give you a thank you for that post. Thank you both for the link to the cool article and for proving me wrong. Now was that so hard? Was queening out over me asking you to back up your statement (doing so apparently took only five minutes, right?) worth it? I would have much rather you just taken the five extra minutes when I first asked you to show your work rather than what you did.

doh!

I didnt really think it would be critical to the argument to prove a statement that should be obvious to anyone who has even casually followed baseball for any number of years.

Ok, so now that we have that in hand, what was your overall point about wins and them balancing out? Do wins mean more now or something?

DOH!

Yeah, more than what you and some others think, because if one would argue that W's are helped along by factors the pitcher cant control (such as tremendous offensive production offsetting a bad start), which is alot of what i've been reading in this thread, the counter argument to that point would be that pitchers lose just as many wins in good starts by factors they cant control (bad offensive output).

So basically, a large number of wins will generally tell you that a pitcher has pitched well. Although obviously, 1998 Rick Helling or 2004 Ben Sheets will go against the grain and over/under perform themselves in the W column based on the other numbers.

While not a be all end all, you cant just toss W's out the window IMO.

 

[chazmaniandevil]

OK Lefty, 5 minutes of Google search produced this:

-From 1984-1991 (first link I clicked), the winning percentage of starting pitchers who had a quality start was .674. If we define a "hard luck loss" as losing when recording a QS, that's roughly 33% of QS = L.

-Using the same years, the winning percentage of pitchers who did not have a quality start was .311. So roughly 31% of non-quality starts resulted in a W--"cheap wins".

So...33% of good starts resulted in a "hard luck loss", while 31% of bad starts resulted in a "cheap win". I would say that pretty much backs up the balance i'm talking about.

Now if you wish to challenge the sample size, please note that from 1957-2006 the winning percentage of pitchers who had QS was .675--.001 off from the 1984-1991 sample above.

Here are the links:

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/GehringerC/QualityStarts.pdf


Now please find the "Thanks" button located at the bottom of all of my posts regarding this matter, click them, and then kindly lick my balls.

Thanks.

Player A in 2009 - 10-13, 4.03 ERA, 1.354 WHIP
Player B in 2009 - 16-9, 4.38 ERA, 1.378 WHIP
Player C in 2009 - 15-10, 4.67 ERA, 1.515 WHIP

lets go with player A, seems like he had an off year, 10 wins, 13 losses, something you see out of a poor 4 pitcher or a good 5 pitcher on good teams. but, lets look at his era and whip.

4.03 ERA, 1.354 WHIP

so maybe we misjudged, this guy has the era and whip of a solid 4 pitcher or a crappy 3 pitcher (all these guys are NL)

lets take a look at player B, seems like he had a great year, id go with 16-9 from my ace anyday of the week, but lets look at his era and whip.

4.38 ERA, 1.378 WHIP

worse in both stats than player A, yet has +10 win differential

and finally player C, has a 15-10 record, servicable for a 2 pitcher, or a very good 3, lets look at his era+whip

4.67 ERA, 1.515 WHIP

ouch, talk about the luck of the irish. make sure you dont dig deep into your pockets to resign this guy




listen warner, im not saying your wrong, i do believe that USUALLY, they balance each other out, BUT there are exceptions. this isnt an honest stat, it often lies to you. if i showed those 3 players to my friend who isnt basebally savy, 9 times out of ten theyd take B or C. just saying.

btw for all you baseball nerds who want to know
a is barry zito
b is jorge de la rosa (go ahead, talk about how hard it is to pitch at coors is fuckers)
c is derek lowe

 

[chazmaniandevil]

and i agree that you cant just toss them out

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And I agree with that, of course there are exceptions, and yes you will see deceptive W totals.

I'm not supporting W's as a top line viable stat, I just don't concede to tossing it out the window like its completely meaningless.

My point earlier in the thread of guys "pitching to the score" also has influence on things like ERA & WHIP, btw.

 

[chazmaniandevil]

i concur

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You see, it's really not that obvious at all, as it takes a lengthy and pretty in-depth article written almost 20 years ago to prove your point. If it indeed was so obvious, the article/study would not be necessary, right?

It wasnt necessary, for me.

You thought for sure I would be wrong, and called me out to validate what should have been obvious. So I dug something up.

I shouldn't need numbers to support the obvious statement that the team that hits more HR's usually wins, but based on this thread, i'm pretty sure you'd want me to back that up with a link.

A bunch of other stuff

I'm not even sure there is a massive disagreement happening here. I find the W stat slightly more useful than you do. That's basically whats happening here.