PS: The bunt is not efficient thing...tell me it's not because a base for an out is a wash. You realize numbers don't take into account WHICH base and what follows right?
Amen to that brother. In fast pitch softball the sac bunt is a needed weapon as most games are low scoring affairs where we play for a run.
DGF, not directed as a baseball lesson towards you at all. More of a general speaking against the overstating of certain events I've always encountered. That stuff is all geared toward MLB level of play, and I used the little league example to polarize the contact effect. All the things I've researched/wathced etc... doesn't apply to high school, college etc.. Those are different games, and a different set of criteria are needed. As you say, you kind of pick them up on the fly, like most GOOD coaches tend to, and are usually correct in their on the fly moves.
WHERE I AM COMING FROM...
I always say that somebody's playing ability, or coaching ability doesn't change what the true value of a strikeout is, or a sac bunt is in MLB...that is why I used that Joe Morgan example to say that they make very many errors and assumptions. It doesn't change the value of SB, or the dreadful CS. An analytical mind is a skill much like any other skill, some are good at it, some are not. A good player has certain skills but that doesn't automatically equate to others. Lets face it, some players are downright stupid.
SITUATIONS: Yes, even in MLB the situation directly affects the value of everything, and that is actually my biggest area of study, and where I differ from most of the stat geeks, as they are called. They also take the average of all events and then just assign the average event to each player etc.... Well, that misses a big part of the picture, and I use to fight tooth and nail with those guys about it, because I know situational baseball impacts a game.
That being said, usually the average of all events paints a pretty accurate picture because over time most regress towards the average, and it evens out, but not totally and that has to be accounted for. Just look at Eddie Murray and his MEN ON HITTING, and it paints a much different picture than what the Sabermatricians paint. AND IN MESSAGE BOARD STUFF, GNERALIZING GETS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE TRUTH SO IT IS BETTER TO USE THAN TO HAVE TO WRITE A BOOK(not yelling with caps, just emphasizing as this is getting long).
PLAY BY PLAY FACT: when the play by play results of EVERY SINGLE GAME(not shouting, just emphasizing the magnitude) is studied you get a very clear picture of what happens, and the cause/effect of every event. You can see exactly how many times a contact out moved a runner over, exactly how many times a strikeout really hurts in run scoring, how many times a single ACTUALLY leads to runs, how many times a sac bunt leads to a run(compared to a non sac bunt in the same situation). A sac bunt is played for one run. If every single sac bunt is studied and you measure how many times it leads to a run, and how many times it doesn't you get a clear picture of that. Then you can compare it to all the times where a sac bunt is not used in those situatins and see how many times it leads to a run. You will see that it barely is better to sac bunt JUST FOR ONE RUN, and when it IS NOT used you often get more than one run. There are variables as in who is pitching/batting/hurt/struggling etc..., but again that is generally stating. I know there are Don Zimmer type things that spit inthe face of some of those strategies.
There is so much stuff here that has been done, that it takes the mystery out of a lot of things we took for granted at one time.
POST SEASON HR: Boy, going by memory, if I recall home runs and run scoring rates in the post season aren't much different then when compared to the regular season. Heck, you saw first hand this year as the supposed small ball White Sox generated their offense on the virtue of the Home Run. Their offense produced runs by Home Runs in the regular season and more so in the post season. If you or anyone knew of a way, besides intentiionally walkiing a guy, to reduce the rate of Home RUns in MLB then you can make millions. The stuff pitchers use to do before this era doesn't work now for various reasons, and the stuff below MLB doesn't work either. Try pitching to the large part of the park? They hit it out there anyway. Try inducing a ground ball? That pitch is called a ball. Try nibbling? Its called a ball, and now your down 2-0. Jam them? They muscle it out. Pitch too inside? You get thrown out of the game. The only way a pitcher in MLB can reduce the effect of a home run is by being better at what he does than the batter is at what he does.
AFTER THE FACT: The play by play is done after the fact, but so are the on the fly decisions(they are just going by recall of experience of what happened before, and it becomes more second nature. It is still based on what has happened before). I already wrote about the play by play above. Sorry.
MY RESUME: I was an excellent player in HS and college, and I actually blossomed more in my late 20's/early 30's as a hitter when I continued to play. I pitched on a bad arm through and after college, but still showed some flashes afterwords. There are many people better at baseball than me, I wish that weren't true, but it is. But I also spent a lot of time analyzing the MLB game, and the results. All of my findings are the result of what actually happened, and has very little theory. I never read a BIll James book in my life. I've gone through some of his findings, but thats it. My desire for truth set me on a path to correct the common misconceptiosn and overstating of MLB. Yes, it is mostly used to describe what already happened, and to analyze what already happened, but that is the most fun part of fandom anyway.
However, I also used it as a predictive measure and parlayed that into money winnings. Yes, Fantasy was an avenue for that. Fantasy was an easy offshoot of what I already knew. I used my stuff in the fantasy world to win some good money. GM's in baseball make mistakes all the time, and to me a lot of them are obvioius. I went on record last year about Beltre, and I was amazed how he was looked at by GM's and fans. I used my predictive abilities(based on the relevant information) to peg the coming out parties of many starting pitchers, and it won me some dough. I am amazed on how pitchers get evaluated and signed based on WON LOSS record, only to see that WON LOSS record revert to normalty when they don't have the same variables that allowed them to achieve that record. People masturbated towards Rick Helling when he won 20 games. I just shake my head at some of the things people come up with or make judgements on, GM's and players included! When I said, "thats where I come in," thats what I meant.
DGF, ever since I've been on here, I've respected the meaning of your words, whether in this forum of the sportscards one. You didn't even have to say you were a good coach etc...your words carried a lot of weight already. My writings are sometimes more tirades than looking for a response.
As for Kingman/Henderson, goood god no. Even if their value is the exact same via different avenues(Henderson's bad year values of course), I'd still take Henderson too because you could leverage more situations in your favor with good decisions, kind of like you were saying. I just felt you overstated how you could neutralize a HR in MLB, as if it was simple.
<< <i>I'd still take Henderson too because you could leverage more situations in your favor with good decisions, kind of like you were saying. >>
This is ALL I was saying from the beginning. The thread was about Henderson. He is so unique, numbers can only begin to tell his story. He's gotta be the only player pushing 50 that could make a real contribution to a team this September.
I love the "some players are downright stupid" comment. Now, enjoy this...
Last year I had a runner get picked on a hit & run play...
Now, that's bad enough. But this kid goes from kangaroo court to the federal pen by doing the following: he first breaks to the inside grass (as he was taught--nice job, but that's where this ends) and closes the lane fror the left-handed first baseman. The ball, predictably, hits him in the back pocket. He then inexplicably stops, looks, starts toward second again, falls down and is tagged out. It basically summed up our spring season. Lots of talent and no instincts to make good things happen or take advantage of soft clubs. We played with everybody last year. Not because we couldn't pile on runs, sometimes we just wouldn't. When you play with teams you ought to smoke, it's funny, but you almost always lose. That's something emotional that numbers don't pick up. The energy a team gets from a single player or being able to stay with a team that is superior. ..or the emotional scar of the occasional bone-head play
DGF, that kind of sounds like the Cubs baserunning, except they would just get caught in no-man's land and stare at the sky.
I always say that the best overall measurements for MLB evaluation gets you there somewhere in the 90% area close to truth. I recognize that the things you are talking about do account for something, and there is always an element of unknown. People just someties overblow it.
Comments
Amen to that brother. In fast pitch softball the sac bunt is a needed weapon as most games are low scoring affairs where we play for a run.
Steve
WHERE I AM COMING FROM...
I always say that somebody's playing ability, or coaching ability doesn't change what the true value of a strikeout is, or a sac bunt is in MLB...that is why I used that Joe Morgan example to say that they make very many errors and assumptions. It doesn't change the value of SB, or the dreadful CS. An analytical mind is a skill much like any other skill, some are good at it, some are not. A good player has certain skills but that doesn't automatically equate to others. Lets face it, some players are downright stupid.
SITUATIONS: Yes, even in MLB the situation directly affects the value of everything, and that is actually my biggest area of study, and where I differ from most of the stat geeks, as they are called. They also take the average of all events and then just assign the average event to each player etc.... Well, that misses a big part of the picture, and I use to fight tooth and nail with those guys about it, because I know situational baseball impacts a game.
That being said, usually the average of all events paints a pretty accurate picture because over time most regress towards the average, and it evens out, but not totally and that has to be accounted for. Just look at Eddie Murray and his MEN ON HITTING, and it paints a much different picture than what the Sabermatricians paint. AND IN MESSAGE BOARD STUFF, GNERALIZING GETS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE TRUTH SO IT IS BETTER TO USE THAN TO HAVE TO WRITE A BOOK(not yelling with caps, just emphasizing as this is getting long).
PLAY BY PLAY FACT: when the play by play results of EVERY SINGLE GAME(not shouting, just emphasizing the magnitude) is studied you get a very clear picture of what happens, and the cause/effect of every event. You can see exactly how many times a contact out moved a runner over, exactly how many times a strikeout really hurts in run scoring, how many times a single ACTUALLY leads to runs, how many times a sac bunt leads to a run(compared to a non sac bunt in the same situation). A sac bunt is played for one run. If every single sac bunt is studied and you measure how many times it leads to a run, and how many times it doesn't you get a clear picture of that. Then you can compare it to all the times where a sac bunt is not used in those situatins and see how many times it leads to a run. You will see that it barely is better to sac bunt JUST FOR ONE RUN, and when it IS NOT used you often get more than one run. There are variables as in who is pitching/batting/hurt/struggling etc..., but again that is generally stating. I know there are Don Zimmer type things that spit inthe face of some of those strategies.
There is so much stuff here that has been done, that it takes the mystery out of a lot of things we took for granted at one time.
POST SEASON HR: Boy, going by memory, if I recall home runs and run scoring rates in the post season aren't much different then when compared to the regular season. Heck, you saw first hand this year as the supposed small ball White Sox generated their offense on the virtue of the Home Run. Their offense produced runs by Home Runs in the regular season and more so in the post season. If you or anyone knew of a way, besides intentiionally walkiing a guy, to reduce the rate of Home RUns in MLB then you can make millions. The stuff pitchers use to do before this era doesn't work now for various reasons, and the stuff below MLB doesn't work either. Try pitching to the large part of the park? They hit it out there anyway. Try inducing a ground ball? That pitch is called a ball. Try nibbling? Its called a ball, and now your down 2-0. Jam them? They muscle it out. Pitch too inside? You get thrown out of the game. The only way a pitcher in MLB can reduce the effect of a home run is by being better at what he does than the batter is at what he does.
AFTER THE FACT: The play by play is done after the fact, but so are the on the fly decisions(they are just going by recall of experience of what happened before, and it becomes more second nature. It is still based on what has happened before). I already wrote about the play by play above. Sorry.
MY RESUME: I was an excellent player in HS and college, and I actually blossomed more in my late 20's/early 30's as a hitter when I continued to play. I pitched on a bad arm through and after college, but still showed some flashes afterwords. There are many people better at baseball than me, I wish that weren't true, but it is. But I also spent a lot of time analyzing the MLB game, and the results. All of my findings are the result of what actually happened, and has very little theory. I never read a BIll James book in my life. I've gone through some of his findings, but thats it. My desire for truth set me on a path to correct the common misconceptiosn and overstating of MLB. Yes, it is mostly used to describe what already happened, and to analyze what already happened, but that is the most fun part of fandom anyway.
However, I also used it as a predictive measure and parlayed that into money winnings. Yes, Fantasy was an avenue for that. Fantasy was an easy offshoot of what I already knew. I used my stuff in the fantasy world to win some good money. GM's in baseball make mistakes all the time, and to me a lot of them are obvioius. I went on record last year about Beltre, and I was amazed how he was looked at by GM's and fans. I used my predictive abilities(based on the relevant information) to peg the coming out parties of many starting pitchers, and it won me some dough. I am amazed on how pitchers get evaluated and signed based on WON LOSS record, only to see that WON LOSS record revert to normalty when they don't have the same variables that allowed them to achieve that record. People masturbated towards Rick Helling when he won 20 games. I just shake my head at some of the things people come up with or make judgements on, GM's and players included! When I said, "thats where I come in," thats what I meant.
DGF, ever since I've been on here, I've respected the meaning of your words, whether in this forum of the sportscards one. You didn't even have to say you were a good coach etc...your words carried a lot of weight already. My writings are sometimes more tirades than looking for a response.
As for Kingman/Henderson, goood god no. Even if their value is the exact same via different avenues(Henderson's bad year values of course), I'd still take Henderson too because you could leverage more situations in your favor with good decisions, kind of like you were saying. I just felt you overstated how you could neutralize a HR in MLB, as if it was simple.
<< <i>I'd still take Henderson too because you could leverage more situations in your favor with good decisions, kind of like you were saying. >>
This is ALL I was saying from the beginning. The thread was about Henderson. He is so unique, numbers can only begin to tell his story.
He's gotta be the only player pushing 50 that could make a real contribution to a team this September.
I love the "some players are downright stupid" comment. Now, enjoy this...
Last year I had a runner get picked on a hit & run play...
Now, that's bad enough. But this kid goes from kangaroo court to the federal pen by doing the following: he first breaks to the inside grass (as he was taught--nice job, but that's where this ends) and closes the lane fror the left-handed first baseman. The ball, predictably, hits him in the back pocket. He then inexplicably stops, looks, starts toward second again, falls down and is tagged out. It basically summed up our spring season. Lots of talent and no instincts to make good things happen or take advantage of soft clubs. We played with everybody last year. Not because we couldn't pile on runs, sometimes we just wouldn't. When you play with teams you ought to smoke, it's funny, but you almost always lose. That's something emotional that numbers don't pick up. The energy a team gets from a single player or being able to stay with a team that is superior. ..or the emotional scar of the occasional bone-head play
dgf
I always say that the best overall measurements for MLB evaluation gets you there somewhere in the 90% area close to truth. I recognize that the things you are talking about do account for something, and there is always an element of unknown. People just someties overblow it.