Options
How about some things that stats truly can't measure the impact?
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Good afternoon.
People have often thought of my work as 100% pure stats, and feel that the stats are opinion and theory. In reality, my process is more of evidence of what actually occured, and the charting and sorting through of the evidence. It eliminates heresay and perception and focuses on reality. I don't really deal much in hypothesis, though in some major stat formulas commonly used by sabermatrician, hypothesis is part of the picture(even though they think it isn't). Enough of that though.
There are some areas in baseball that do have real game implications, but are extremely difficult to measure or put a value on.
1). How much does an inability to hit a LH or RH pitcher impact a players value? Yes, we can know by stats how a batter does vs. lefties or vs. righties to get an overall picture, but that is not what I mean. Example....
We know that Willie McCovey struggled against left handed pitchers. We know that he often sat against the best Left Handed pitchers and that that protected his percentages(example, he was benched with Koufax on the mound about 2/3 of the time, and when he played he did nothing against him). This protected his numbers every time he did that, thus his higher percentages are a tad misleading.
But again, that is not what I mean! I am talking real game implications in terms of winning and losing! How much of McCovey's crutch of hitting left handed pitchers hurt his team's chances of WINNING a baseball game? Just think of the advantage it gives the other team if they know that your best hitter struggles vs. lefties. In close games that can be used to an advantage, but nobody has any idea on how much of advantage or disadvantage it is. It can also be used during meaningful games where you can take the edge away from the opposing team's best hitter by starting a LH.
Example, if Willie McCovey has an overall OPS of .960(partly protected by sitting against tough lefites) and Eddie Murray has one of .940(faces EVERY tough pitcher every day), and you know that McCovey can be taken out of a close game by virtue of his weakness, then his .020 lead in OPS really isn't a lead! That is misleading in terms of WINNING GAMES, and winning games is really what counts.
That is an example of something where the overall stat figure of a solid formula or metric fails to capture. The guy with the higher batting figure may not necessarily be the better player to have on your team. It isn't heresay, as the evidence strongly points to this weakness in McCovey's game, AND WHENEVER A PLAYER HAS A WEAKNESS THAT GIVES THE OPPOSING TEAM A CHANCE TO TAKE HIM OUT OF BEING A FACTOR IN THE GAME, then it has to be considered when assessing a players overall value!
This is something where close/late games factor in. It can't be measured by simply looking at late inning pressure situatin numbers, as those numbers have little validity due to much noise, but in real life implications it figures prominantly in winning a baseball game.
People have often thought of my work as 100% pure stats, and feel that the stats are opinion and theory. In reality, my process is more of evidence of what actually occured, and the charting and sorting through of the evidence. It eliminates heresay and perception and focuses on reality. I don't really deal much in hypothesis, though in some major stat formulas commonly used by sabermatrician, hypothesis is part of the picture(even though they think it isn't). Enough of that though.
There are some areas in baseball that do have real game implications, but are extremely difficult to measure or put a value on.
1). How much does an inability to hit a LH or RH pitcher impact a players value? Yes, we can know by stats how a batter does vs. lefties or vs. righties to get an overall picture, but that is not what I mean. Example....
We know that Willie McCovey struggled against left handed pitchers. We know that he often sat against the best Left Handed pitchers and that that protected his percentages(example, he was benched with Koufax on the mound about 2/3 of the time, and when he played he did nothing against him). This protected his numbers every time he did that, thus his higher percentages are a tad misleading.
But again, that is not what I mean! I am talking real game implications in terms of winning and losing! How much of McCovey's crutch of hitting left handed pitchers hurt his team's chances of WINNING a baseball game? Just think of the advantage it gives the other team if they know that your best hitter struggles vs. lefties. In close games that can be used to an advantage, but nobody has any idea on how much of advantage or disadvantage it is. It can also be used during meaningful games where you can take the edge away from the opposing team's best hitter by starting a LH.
Example, if Willie McCovey has an overall OPS of .960(partly protected by sitting against tough lefites) and Eddie Murray has one of .940(faces EVERY tough pitcher every day), and you know that McCovey can be taken out of a close game by virtue of his weakness, then his .020 lead in OPS really isn't a lead! That is misleading in terms of WINNING GAMES, and winning games is really what counts.
That is an example of something where the overall stat figure of a solid formula or metric fails to capture. The guy with the higher batting figure may not necessarily be the better player to have on your team. It isn't heresay, as the evidence strongly points to this weakness in McCovey's game, AND WHENEVER A PLAYER HAS A WEAKNESS THAT GIVES THE OPPOSING TEAM A CHANCE TO TAKE HIM OUT OF BEING A FACTOR IN THE GAME, then it has to be considered when assessing a players overall value!
This is something where close/late games factor in. It can't be measured by simply looking at late inning pressure situatin numbers, as those numbers have little validity due to much noise, but in real life implications it figures prominantly in winning a baseball game.
0
Comments
How? How can a person with an extra .20 ops equate to winning more games?
Skip, stats tell a story. they never tell the whole story.
JMO
Example.................today they said Kaz Matsui had a 8 game hitting streak. The guy then chimed in that he hit 227 during thise 8 games.
And it is quite possible that in the example you give Murray's TEAM won more games then McCoveys giants, BUT what about the role of all the other guys? I miss your point.
Steve
Steve
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
An OPS or other advanced batting metric deals in how many runs it creates for a team. The number of runs created is than translated into the number of expected wins it creates. Well, in my example above, his OPS will give him an overrall number of runs created, but it isn't going to translate properly into the number of wins it creates.
The role of the other players doesn't mattter, because we are looking at the players in a neutral context. Maybe McCovey has a right handed sub on the bench where his team doesn't miss a beat, but 1), most teams wouldn't have that, and 2) If they do have a guy like that it is most likely that they have to short change another aspect of their team to cover for their superstars weakness...kind of like robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Either way, it hurts the team.
Win, hitting streaks are given more pub than they deserve. It is conceivable a guy can hit in 100 straight games and bat .240. That isn't my point. I know what you are saying about not telling the whole story if that is what you mean. That is what I have looked at when going over some of the best sabermetric measures....they do miss parts of the story. It gets you most of the way there, but it misses parts for sure.
and yes that is what i meant.
Steve
Heck, if you want a weakness check out Wade Boggs. At Fenway Park he had an OPS in the .980 range. In other parks it is in the .750 range. Yet, his intentional walk totals are almost the same. You would think some managers might figure on the road Boggs was just another hitter and pitch to him but evidently not.
Murray's career numbers went down a lot during his old man years where he had a lot of at bats, thus the drop in career OPS, and all of his splits. McCovey didn't have nearly the same amount of old man year at bats. Murray also had more VERY YOUNG at bats too.
I didn't really want to dwell on McCovey vs. Murray, but rather on McCovey over anyone with the same amount of career with a slightly lower OPS. DOes that make sense? Murray is just a close example(though his career was much longer so that muddles the percentages.
Aro, the weakness probalby was not exploited back then as much as it would have now(or should have back then). In comparing players it is fair to provide a more neutral environment. It was still exploited a bit as he did sit against Koufax often. So it was known. So basically, against your arch rival Dodgers you have your superstar on the bench? That certainly can't be helpful to you.
Aro, I don't really want to dwell on the overall inflation of his totals. The post is more directed to the game situation. Baseball being a situational game as we all know, these implications have real win or lose results. But, here are his totals...
............AVG......OB....SLG
Vs RH .277......377.....539
VS LH .248.....336.....440
If you are a manager and you see McCovey's #'s vs. LH, is he Willie McCovey or is he Dave Kingman? That is a graphic decline vs. LH, and even a little more considering he was saved against a Koufax. That would be very easy for a manager to take advantage of during a close game.
Aro, I don't have the sheet on how much his numbers should change had he faced Koufax every game. A quick rememberance was a few points just for not facing Koufax.
In '63 and '64 combined he sat out 22 games vs. left handed pitchers where he was available. He sat out 7 games against right handers where he was presumably available. So in reality, if he takes his rests at a normal proportion of LH vs. RH that is seen in MLB, then he should have only sat out one or two games vs. left handers. But even then, some guys don't rest at all, and they play vs. all tough match ups(even certain righties could be a problem too).
So basically, McCovey missed 22 games where he was pretty much a low .200's hitter with little power(as was his ability vs. left handed pitchers at that stage in his career).
The years previously he was protected EVEN MORE, but I simply don't want to check every log at this moment. To give a clue, in 1962 he had 219 at bats vs. RH, and only TEN vs. left handers...it is very evident he was protected even more in some of those earlier years.
By estimate, he probably had sat out a full season worth of games in the first part of his career, vs. left handers. Games he was available to play! Realize that he was basically a low .200's hitter with a high .380's slg% vs. lefties at that time. He was pretty bad, and he was protected as a result. Had he played every day like some other slugging first basemen, then his percentages certainly take a hit. So those high percentages you see early in his career are more of a Ken Phelps phenomenom than a Ted Williams one.
It wasn't till his absolute peak/prime where he played more often and actually became successful vs. lefties.
Didn't the Giants have a guy named Cepeda during that time as well?
I'm sure some of those games he and cepeda were platooned ?
Steve
I do like the point and the fact that you mentioned it is very tough to analyze in terms of wins and losses. I just do not see how McCovey's weakness is that much different than any other great left-handed hitters.
In the beginning of McCovey's career he was a platoon player. A lot of players start out that way. Given the usual differential in lefthanded batters hitting against lefthanded pitching what should McCovey's numbers look like?
Check out Reggie Jackson's splits:
............AVG......OB....SLG
Vs RH .269......374.....509
VS LH .249.....321.....455
or George Brett's
............AVG......OB....SLG
Vs RH .318......388.....517
VS LH .280.....331.....429
Not that much different from McCovey and we do remember that Billy Martin benched Jackson against lefthander Paul Splittorf in a deciding game five in 1977. (although I suppose you could debate the reasons - but I highly doubt he would have done that against Dennis Leonard)
Had McCovey played his whole career without platooning (or being protected) would his numbers be that much worse?
McCovey was sat so often against lefties, especially early on when he was awful against them, that given a full compliment of at bats ala Brett, McCovey's overall numbers certainly come down than what they show. Is it an astronomical difference Aro? No, not at all.
But that is looking at his overall value via full season numbers, remember, my main point is the in game situations that always arise, and how McCovey could certainly be neutralized, thus rendering has value a bit less.
Win, I understand about Cepeda(but McCovey played elsewhere too). But even if the Giants were fortunate to have a strong right half platoon, most teams are not. It is only fair to look at it in a neutral context. And in that instance it would cost the team as they would typically have to sacrafice something else on their team to have the luxury of TWO good 1B.Plus McCovey's team's always didn't have that luxury anyway.
EDITED TO ADD: An extra 550 at bats(at his rate of effectiveness) vs. left handers in the first third of Mccovey's career would drop his lifetime average from .270 to .265, and SLG% from .515 to .509. I am anticiapting that this number of at bats is too low.
Variables...would he have gotten better faster vs. lefthanders if he had all those extra at bats?? Maybe, maybe he could have gotten worse though and thrown everything out of whack. Regardless, I think that possibility is offset by the fact that he sat against the lefties that gave him the absolute toughest time. So his left handed splits are reflective of only the players he had the best chance to succeed against. Those numbers would not be at that rate with a full compliment of Koufax at bats.
SO I think it is safe to assume that had he played every single game vs. lefties, ala Eddie Murray, that he would have hit lefties at the same rate as he actually did.
That 550 extra at bats vs. lefties for his first part of his career is probably a tad too low. The end of his career he was also a platoon player. He also sat out in his prime vs. lefties. This man should have had a ton more at bats vs. lefties throughout his career. He played from 21 till he was 42 and only had 8,197 at bats. Murray played basically the same time frame and he had 11,336 at bats, because he played regardless who was pitching. He too could have not played vs. lefties from age 35 and on, and his percentages would be higher too(He struggled against them at that stage of his career). Of course McCovey's percentages are high, because he simply didn't play against the pitchers who gave him the most trouble(even in his prime, though not nearly as often). I couldn't imagine Murray sitting against a rival team like Guidry and the Yanks, as McCovey did with Koufax.
THAT ISN'T EVEN COUNTING THE IN GAME FACTOR OF HOW HE CAN BE MANAGED AGAINST IN CLOSE GAMES!
If I ever get the time, then I would really like to dig deep on this study, and see how much of an impact it truly is(as opposed to just estimating on some instances).
perfect example! How can you say he pussed out? You mean to say you know as fact that he went to the manager and begged out of those games???
cmon.
Steve
Although, I find it odd that fans can attach other intagibles like big gameness, tough, captain, etc...to other players, based purely on opinion, conjecture, and lacking in factual basis,yet when I make a similar type of assessment(though not for actual meaning) it doesn't work? If using the same simple rationale as others do, he didn't play, then therefore he was scared, a puss, weak minded, couldnt' step up when needed against a rival. Afterall, he didnt' play did he?
Maybe he should have stepped up in the managers face and showed leadership then gone out and hit a HR off of KOufax, you know, the intangibles that make the players better than they actually are ;
Thats why we stay away from those intangible comments, and stick to the facts.
Steve
Steve, did you even read the words in my above post? I though it was pretty clear.
I repeat, that is why factual reality is needed, and not that kind of garbage.
and others can be of the opinion that you are wrong. just as you can be of the opinion that they are peons and do not understand what you say.
ok?
Steve
Steve
Prove me wrong.
Steve,
I am really beginning to wonder if your reading comprehension is up to snuff. You must not read the posts well enough, or simply not understand them.
Yes skippy you are indeed right! That is if you believe in new new math. Which, by the way you present stats it is evident that you do.
Or perhaps you are talking about the song? And if that is the case then your stats are new new math by accident rather then design.
Steve
Back to the hike
I am the great Skinputzeroni!
:thumps chest:
I know stat geeks like you, Skin. Totally uncoordinated and lacks any physical abilities to play sports, so you compensate by analyzing numbers. You spend countless hours in front of your computer; importing numbers in your super-duper excel spreadsheet (cross-referenced, formulas out the wazoo, and password protected so no one can steal your secrets) while oblivious to the outside world. The bar conversations relating to sports you claim to have are in reality, just a figment of your imagination; only looking for another excuse to play with yourself. The reason you have an arrogant attitude and “know” you are always right is because there’s no one around to disagree. No friends, no family members, heck, not even an acquaintance care about what you are doing. You see the numbers (FACTS) and with your narrowed way of thinking, you ARE ALWAYS right, right? When you analyze a set of numbers and the calculations show you to be in the wrong, all of the sudden it becomes too small of a sample size, right? If a certain set of numbers doesn’t correlate with your argument, you just leave them out of your equations. I mean, you are ALWAYS RIGHT and no one is allowed to question you.
Am I getting warm?
Anytime someone boasts about being a self-proclaimed “expert” in anything, ESPECIALLY on an internet forum, normally means they ain’t jack snot. You never document where you get the calculations from, proclaim you are always right, and your OPINION is always FACT! How many other errors / miscalculations / data entry mistakes have you made, huh? Oh that’s right, YOU ARE NEVER, EVER WRONG! Any errors in the past had no implications on your argument, so you can just dismiss it. PFHT! I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you are human after all. Not only have you made numerous mistakes in the past but you will continue to in the future! If you are the all-knowing, never wrong, number EXPERT, how come you don’t get paid for your services? And I’m not talking about winning a fantasy league. The Rockets just signed a numbers guy without any GM experience, ever, and that could have been you! So Mr. Expert, how come you haven’t signed with a MLB club? Could it be because you really ain’t that good? Most likely so.
You are not the greatest thing since sliced bread. No one here takes your numbers as fact because you have never, ever produced any documentation to back up your numbers. Oh, we are supposed to take your arrogant, hardheaded word for it? Also, JUST BECAUSE YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS, IT DOESN’T MEAN YOUR OPINION IS ANY MORE FACTUAL THAN THE NEXT GUY’S, PERIOD.
And finally, because I know you are going to mention this, so let’s just get it out of the way. Since you are allegedly a baseball player and could beat anyone who calls you out, I’ll accept your challenge. YOU CAN BET ANY WAGER YOU WANT; however, I want to be paid up front 1st class round trip airfare to wherever you live, 5-star hotel accommodations, and some spending cash. You do that and I’ll be more than happy to play you in a GAME of baseball…. Or have you already forgotten that it’s just a game?
What the heck did I analyze and was found to be wrong due to sample size? Can you read? All of those post season splits are numbers I presented were based on your way of evaluating...that is using small sample sizes. I personally do not believe in them, but since you do, I wanted to make sure you didn't forget all of the other things that don't jive with your faulty beliefs. Reading is a skill.
Sources? Sources are the record of MLB. You can get almost anything you want at Baseball reference or retrosheet.
If you want a source of a published record, there are plenty of books with the more detailed studies. I'm not making this stuff up.
As for the baseball challenge, I never alleged I could beat anybody, HOWEVER, I can guarantee I am not the uncoordinated stat geek person you are claiming(because your knowledge isn't up to snuff). Yes, I would be happy to play you and prove that to you. Why on earth would I pay for you to come anywhere? You are the one seeking to find out.
OK. I will pay your airfare, but here is the bet. The bet isn't that I'm better than anybody(surely lots of players better). The bet is that I played baseball in HS, college, and afterwards, have evidence of being a good player, and that I am indeed not the uncoordinated geeky person who has never played before. How much do you want to wager? I am willing to go any price you want to bet fella. How about $10,000?? THEN, after that bet is made, I will bet you another $2,000(or more) on a contest.
You see, your perception of me and my abilities are way off.
As for my jobs? In the late 90's/early 00's I put any ideas of a future in baseball research as a job out of my head, there was simply no money in it, especially in the the book department. Sticking with teaching was a much better option. During the last few years some researchers have started getting hired, but mostly as consultants. One of them wrote THE BOOK that I mentioned for people to read.
Do you want to make arrangements for the bet? I am game.
P.S. Steve, you need to go back on your hike, I knew you couldn't stay away. You bring nothing to the table as usual. You make claims and show no evidence.
I need to go back on my hike?
My post clearly shows that i was checking in from the "hike"
As for posting the same message on 3 threads it proves that you are the zealot.
Of course the statement that I bring "nothing to to the table" is just opinion?
many here share the very same opinion about you.
You never did reply about the 2 plus 2 question you posed to me. I guess my knowing about the new new math shut you up. Thank God too as new new math is crap (like the stats you tout)
Now do everyone a favor and get on that hike yourself. Afterall I did tell you to take one too.
Back to the trail for me.
I've wasted enough of my time with you. (for now)
But I'll check in from time to time.
Steve
Explain your answer on the two plus two is five, I'm not done yet with that. Then let me know if I am accurate in saying that 9x9 is 106. Explain why or why not. Then explain if I am accurate in saying that the sun revolves around the earth. If you do bring something to the table, I am all ears on those questions. But more importantly on the following....
Then explain this...
<< No, actually it has been proven with stats.
he is hitting 115 in the first inn.
he is hitting 109 after the 7th inn
he is hitting 309 with no one on.
as of late, and in many instances when the game is on the line he has failed.
And because he is the MVP he gets more scrutiny.
not ridiculous at all.
Steve >>
Steve, this is the faulty goofy analysis I am talking about. You are using an extremely small sample that means nothing. Then I showed you some small samples to show that Jeter is not clutch either. This puts you at a crossroads. If the stuff you are saying about Arod is true, then so are the small sample sizes I put about Jeter in the postseason.
If the small sample sizes I put about Jeter are faulty and untrue, then so are the things you are saying about Arod. It can't be both ways.
That is why I posted the HOF lineup vs. the Post season 'clutch', and the Jeter Post season stuff.
P.S. Funny how the words "STATS", and "PROVEN" are used in the same sentence by you
Stown, I am awaiting arrangements on the baseball game.
<< <i>Sources? Sources are the record of MLB. You can get almost anything you want at Baseball reference or retrosheet.
If you want a source of a published record, there are plenty of books with the more detailed studies. I'm not making this stuff up. >>
Uh huh. So everyone needs to take your arrogant, pig-headed word for it. Otherwise, have to go through all of the numbers you already pulled up to check your FACTS. That's what I thought.
<< <i>As for the baseball challenge, I never alleged I could beat anybody, HOWEVER, I can guarantee I am not the uncoordinated stat geek person you are claiming(because your knowledge isn't up to snuff). Yes, I would be happy to play you and prove that to you. Why on earth would I pay for you to come anywhere? You are the one seeking to find out.
OK. I will pay your airfare, but here is the bet. The bet isn't that I'm better than anybody(surely lots of players better). The bet is that I played baseball in HS, college, and afterwards, have evidence of being a good player, and that I am indeed not the uncoordinated geeky person who has never played before. How much do you want to wager? I am willing to go any price you want to bet fella. How about $10,000?? THEN, after that bet is made, I will bet you another $2,000(or more) on a contest. >>
I don't give a rat's rear what you did in high school (Al Bundy scored 4 TDs in one game, 'ya know), 1-AAA college, or even elsewhere. Take that combined $12,000 and put it to the game as I proposed below. Otherwise, we know you throw like a little girl:
<< <i>And finally, because I know you are going to mention this, so let’s just get it out of the way. Since you are allegedly a baseball player and could beat anyone who calls you out, I’ll accept your challenge. YOU CAN BET ANY WAGER YOU WANT; however, I want to be paid up front 1st class round trip airfare to wherever you live, 5-star hotel accommodations, and some spending cash. You do that and I’ll be more than happy to play you in a GAME of baseball…. Or have you already forgotten that it’s just a game? >>
<< <i>As for my jobs? In the late 90's/early 00's I put any ideas of a future in baseball research as a job out of my head, there was simply no money in it, especially in the the book department. Sticking with teaching was a much better option. During the last few years some researchers have started getting hired, but mostly as consultants. One of them wrote THE BOOK that I mentioned for people to read. >>
Which you admitted in another thread you haven't even read. But hey, it's so sad to see a so-called expert WHO IS NEVER, EVER WRONG not get paid for being the best of the best (/sarcasm).
<< <i>Do you want to make arrangements for the bet? I am game. >>
See above.
3 entries found for expert.
ex·pert ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kspûrt)
n.
A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship.
A person who has achieved this grade.
adj. (kspûrt, k-spûrt)
Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training. See Synonyms at proficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, experienced, from Latin expertus, past participle of experr, to try. See per-3 in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
expertly adv.
expertness n.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: ex·pert
Function: noun
: a person with special or superior skill or knowledge in a particular area —see also expert witness at WITNESS
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
expert
adj : having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude; "adept in handicrafts"; "an adept juggler"; "an expert job"; "a good mechanic"; "a practiced marksman"; "a proficient engineer"; "a lesser-known but no less skillful composer"; "the effect was achieved by skillful retouching" [syn: adept, good, practiced, proficient, skillful, skilful] n : a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
He know does not care about hikes. Yet, in a previous post he had to mention that he knew I'd be back. Then when it dawned on him that (my taking a hike) had nothing to do with not posting again, he does his usual about face and now declares "Don't care about no hikes" proof that he lacks reading and comprehension skills, just like he accuses many others of.
The 2 plus 2 equals 5 was answered. More proof that you lack basic reading skills?
The other questions are stupid and not worthy of my time.
As for the re posting of my arod stats..............
since it is obvious from the way you have posted this reply in 3 or 4 threads that you were stomping the ground with your feet in a "ill show him" way, (that is if your feet even reach the floor) My answer is a simple one.
CONTEXT! Aren't you the guy that one day here cried to Koby CONTEXT!! ?? 20 times?
Well it is simple, you took what i said from a different thread and OUT OF CONTEXT you went.
Now on a more serious note, You keep saying that I say your stats are wrong. Well up until yesterday Skippy I have always tried to maintain that the info you site can be interpreted differently. But because you take any criticism as a challange, and in your mind ONLY YOU are right it now has become a tit for tat war. Perhaps you should go back and re read some of my statements (you of the high reading skills) and see.
Frankly, my first impression of you was probably correct. I remember saying to you:
This guy thinks he is smarter then he really is or something along those lines. That you did not impress me. Well it appears I was right (IMO)
Do you remember how you attempted to ridicule me in the "baseball changes yet it SEEMS to stay the same posts? For a guy that claims to be so intelligent the word "SEEMS" flew right over your head. You went so far as to claim that if what i say was true then a Tommy Bond was the equal to a Roger Clemens. How about this? Was it possible that i meant a Walter Johnson was an equal to a Roger Clemens>?
I hope now that I have answered all your silly questions. My wireless is fading and back to the trail I go.
Do me a favor and take a hike!
Steve
<< <i>::
I know stat geeks like you, Skin. Totally uncoordinated and lacks any physical abilities to play sports, so you compensate by analyzing numbers. >>
Stown, you had nowhere to go with anythig on topic, so you resort to this as your only defense to 'prove' me wrong. Being that this statement is nowhere near to be true, I proposed a wager to you to show it isn't. Either you don't say incorrect things like this and stick to the relevant topic, or you partake in the wager. You have a choice on that.
As for a pure competition wager? A good betting man bets when he finds an advantage that he knows he can take advantage of. I don't bet on black or red etc... I bet on something I know gives me a chance to win, that I can buck the odds.
If someone I don't know offers to bet a large sum on a competition, it may be a good bet, or a bad bet for me, don't know. Certainly my best days keeping going farther away, but I will allow for a competiton wager, ON TOP OF THE WAGER ABOVE. They can be of equal sums. So o.k. lets get the ball rolling.
As for the information accuracy? YES, you would have to take my word for it if I go through and check everything. The only way for you to know for sure would be to double check the info yourself. Yes, you are correct.
If I really want to double check that guys info on the Jack Morris study, I would have to do the same. Thats pretty much the way it is.
Of all the info I presented here, it has all been pretty accurate. Like I said before, maybe too harshly, but for a message board venue how many double checks would you expect? I think my past postings have been pretty accurate. I'm also sure I've had my share of typos etc.., or mistabulations. No, I'm not perfect.
If you really want full blown tabluations on these types of topics, you can find them, but they say the same thing. They have all the documentation you want. Buy THE BOOK as the first step to finding some really hard documentation. So instead of dwelling on a quickie tabulatin error, go and look at the information that is all documented and out there. I'm not hiding anything.
It all has to do with the need for objective analysis, with evidence to back it up, as opposed to heresay or opinion.
Steve, that posting is not taken out of context. You are replying to a statement... "But there are plenty questioning his ability to hit when it counts, and that is ridiculous."
You replied that "No, actually it has been proven with stats." Then used the faulty stats to show. That was an example of why I posted other faulty stats for Jeter to show that those types of numbers can shown him as not clutch too, and that if faulty stats are to be used as truth, then so should the Jeter ones.
As for interpreating stats? Only the stats that arent' valid are the ones really subject to intrepretation, like the faulty ones you(and mostly others) provided, and the faulty Jeter ones I showed(that exemplifies the folly of using them). All the other ones that are well researched, well defined, and with a boatload of evidence, are not really for interpretation. They are more a presenting of the truth.
Like the strikeouts. I belive you, and many others have overblown the value of a strikeout. It isn't interpretation when you log every strikeout instance in a 20 year span to see the actual effect. Just like it isn't interpretation to log the value of EVERY SINGLE HITTING EVENT THAT OCCURS.
IT IS interpration as to who belongs in the Hall of Fame and such. Some analysis are made for interpretation, some not. I've probably posted both types, but usually steer more towards the ones not.
I'm coming across with the "I'm only right" attitude because I have seen all the results, and many try to debunk them out of pure opinion, conjecture, or just faulty type measures. People say things all the time, and often times I simply point to the what actually occured, but they don't care, they would rather stick with their beliefs(even though it isn't what really happened)...like that Red Sox fan at Fenway with Joe Carter.
P.S. If you meant Walter Johnson in that statement, then his name should have been used. The Tommy Bond was used to exemplify a point for the people who took the numbes at face value.
EDITED TO ADD: Again, I recommend buying THE BOOK, and that should clear things up better. It will be a good read on baseball, stat person or not. Very strategy oriented, with great relevance, and it will be well written.
<< <i>
<< <i>::
I know stat geeks like you, Skin. Totally uncoordinated and lacks any physical abilities to play sports, so you compensate by analyzing numbers. >>
Stown, you had nowhere to go with anythig on topic, so you resort to this as your only defense to 'prove' me wrong. Being that this statement is nowhere near to be true, I proposed a wager to you to show it isn't. Either you don't say incorrect things like this and stick to the relevant topic, or you partake in the wager. You have a choice on that. >>
And you calling people idiots, peons, stupid, foolish, ignorant, etc have the same effect when they don't agree with your opinion.
<< <i>As for a pure competition wager? A good betting man bets when he finds an advantage that he knows he can take advantage of. I don't bet on black or red etc... I bet on something I know gives me a chance to win, that I can buck the odds.
If someone I don't know offers to bet a large sum on a competition, it may be a good bet, or a bad bet for me, don't know. Certainly my best days keeping going farther away, but I will allow for a competiton wager, ON TOP OF THE WAGER ABOVE. They can be of equal sums. So o.k. lets get the ball rolling. >>
So is that a yes or no to my proposal (again, posted below):
<< <i>And finally, because I know you are going to mention this, so let’s just get it out of the way. Since you are allegedly a baseball player and could beat anyone who calls you out, I’ll accept your challenge. YOU CAN BET ANY WAGER YOU WANT; however, I want to be paid up front 1st class round trip airfare to wherever you live, 5-star hotel accommodations, and some spending cash. You do that and I’ll be more than happy to play you in a GAME of baseball…. Or have you already forgotten that it’s just a game? >>
<< <i>As for the information accuracy? YES, you would have to take my word for it if I go through and check everything. The only way for you to know for sure would be to double check the info yourself. Yes, you are correct. >>
Then if that is the case, don't portray your opinions TO BE FACT if you don't provide documentation.
<< <i>If I really want to double check that guys info on the Jack Morris study, I would have to do the same. Thats pretty much the way it is.
Of all the info I presented here, it has all been pretty accurate. Like I said before, maybe too harshly, but for a message board venue how many double checks would you expect? I think my past postings have been pretty accurate. I'm also sure I've had my share of typos etc.., or mistabulations. No, I'm not perfect. >>
Thank you Skin. Try to keep that in mind when making harsh responses to other's opinions.
<< <i>If you really want full blown tabluations on these types of topics, you can find them, but they say the same thing. They have all the documentation you want. Buy THE BOOK as the first step to finding some really hard documentation. So instead of dwelling on a quickie tabulatin error, go and look at the information that is all documented and out there. I'm not hiding anything. >>
The next time I take a long flight, I just may pick it up.
Again, the documentation is THERE!! It is fact. You are welcome to double check anything to see, and it isn't hard to double check.
That is a recommended book!
I want to wager on the fact that I'm not what you portray. On?
If not, I will still wager a contest, but I'm certainly not fronting any airfare money. We can arrange for a contest wager. Just give me the info needed. We can make it a decathalon of diferent sports if you wish too. You pick five, and I pick five.
So yeah, it will be fun, lets do something like that.
I think most of us would like to see a dozen posts with no caps.
Anything else is boorish and condescending.
Even the apology and subsequent posts with snippets like this "Again, not to be almighty or anything, but I do recommend to buy THE BOOK that I started a thread about. It is going to be an easy read..." show that habits are hard to break.
That's a good starting point.
Sports fan bias is so prevelant it is often comical. I've met two other die hard sports fans who show little to no bias. Sports fans tend to see what they want to believe.
Philln(EVERYONE), I'll make no qualms about, I do know quite a lot about this stuff, and I come across a little condescending on the message boards. I should never do that to a real poster that isn't there just to stir up trouble. But it goes a long way if all the words written are read before responding, and in long posts that isn't always the case. If somebody replies to a post, they should at the very least read every word carefully before making a counterpoint...and that isn't always done. If not interested in readin the whole post, then they shouldn't reply. We often speak from two different languages. It is easier to debate somebody who is more knowledgeable in an area, than somebody who is not. This is not from a condescending pont of view. But if a fans misconception that has alreayd been slam dunk debunked is brought up, it is tough to debate with a person who has to go back to square one to debate that point, and then get to the relevant point.
THE BOOK. Phillyfan, it is a book that should be read by all baseball fans interested in responding to any post I have ever created. If you have responded to one of my posts, this book may be of interest, even if you disagree with what I wrote. It won't be boring even if it is stat based.
Anything else is boorish and condescending.
We have bold, italics, and underlining for emphasis. Caps are rude. Given all of your knowledge you recognize that fact. This is your personal stat which speaks volumes.
<< <i>As for my jobs? In the late 90's/early 00's I put any ideas of a future in baseball research as a job out of my head, there was simply no money in it, especially in the the book department. Sticking with teaching was a much better option. During the last few years some researchers have started getting hired, but mostly as consultants. One of them wrote THE BOOK that I mentioned for people to read. >>
What is that saying?
Those who cannot...teach.
Skip with all due respect.
1.......they are faulty in your opinion. only
2......they are indeed fact. do they prove he is not hitting when it counts lifetime? No, and I never said that they were. My reply was for this year and perhaps that is what you misunderstood? I , like you, get info from other places and was passing it on. I should have said "according to a talking head on espn" Arod this year is hitting ....and in my opinion it proves that he is not hitting when it counts. That the original poster is right (again in my opinion) that Arod should feel free to be clutch.
Hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday. I am about to douse the fire and close the tent flap now. The trail was rough today.
Steve
"No I shouldnt' call people stupid, but when they are disagreeing with fact, it gets a little hairy. Many things I present aren't opinion, but rather are fact and actualities."
Stating that Catfish Hunter had 224 career wins is a fact. No one can argue that point.
Stating that Catfish Hunter is the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame is an opinion. Not a fact.
Stating that Catfish Hunter, based on your statistical analysis, is the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame is a fact. But just do not be surprised if people do not agree with you. They may prefer a different statistical analysis.
In another thread you typed - ~"Variable #1. No QB has ever won a Super Bowl with a bottom half ranked defense, and tom brady is no different! Had Brady never had the luxury of having a top ranked defense, then he wouldn't have a single Super Bowl title, just like all the other QB's before him who weren't so fortunate."~
Apparently this statement is also fact. However, in 2001 the New England Patriots had the 24th ranked defense (at least based on yards allowed) in the National Football League and won the SuperBowl. If you are stating that defense is points allowed maybe you should evaluate pitchers on their winning percentage.
<< <i>What volumes does that speak? Making a good career choice? I already had a secure job, and a family. I knew of the immense amount of time it would take to go in the direction of baseball stuff of that nature. The rewards were very small for the vast amount of time needed to put in. So it remained a extremely part time hobby. I simply don't see the fuss. >>
Jesus Rain Man, for all of your griping about people who do not read your posts you sure do your fair share of skimming.
The "volumes" refers to your insistence on using caps. You claim, "Often times people skim long posts, but may read the caps, the highlight. I can never get the bold right, so I use the caps. " Strange that a person who claims intellectual superiority and athletic prowess cannot click a button and type into a box. We don't buy it.
Once again you insult our intelligence by telling us that we skim your long posts, do not read, and therefore you must guide us to the pertinent facts.
Your caps guide us to nothing. They are meant for emphasis and to assuage your ego.
That example you used doesn't make sense. If you are saying yards allowed may be more telling of future defensive performance, then that should be the point. The points allowed is the only thing that pertains to the final score. If they allowed 500 yards and 8 points they will win. For the purpose I was using, it made perfect sense.
Aro, in the baseball example a different statistical analysis may be used, but it isn't as valid when trying to determine the production of the individual player, that is the whole point. Can those more advanced measures be proven to be better than the common mistake laden ones? Absolutely. They already have been. Does that mean they become 100% fact, free of any plus/minus error? No. Are they light years better than the poorer methods in coming towards the truth? Absolutley. Do I have evidence? It is there for every person to see.
Why would people choose to use an inferior measurement....
The times people use the poorer method of evaluation is usually to defend their favorite(who isn't quite as good as they want them to be), fans tends to use the method that suites their favorite best. With another favorite they may use the other method(because it puts their player in better light). There is always a contradiction among a sports fan because they usually have many favorites, through many sports. The key is objectivity.
OR
They use the method they have been used to using and aren't quite familiar with better measurements, or all the facts of what actually occured and how often(this is where game logs come into play). This is what dismisses the common perception on the perceived negative value of strikeouts(opposed to contact outs) by MLB batters.
How it is applied? The results of the advanced measurements are far more telling of the true value of a player. How it is applied to one's place in history does have more subjectivity. This is more in relation to Hall of Fame of course. If somebody feels Catfish Hunter belongs in the Hall via peak dominance, that is opinion like you say. It isn't opinion if another pitcher from his time in a similar peak dominance is shown to be better via a more accurate measurement.
If it is shown that Pitcher A was responsible for x rate of runs in his peak and in his career, and another pitcher shows better in both areas(but is seen less favorably in the mistake laden measurements), then it isn't opinion on which player was better. If somebody wants to tout Pitcher A for the Hall, fine, but they would have to do the same for the other guy. If they dismiss the other guy, then it is bias creeping in, thus the need for objective, valid analysis.
Edited to add: Philly, I read Aro's post word for word. I skimmed the posts that are going towards the tit for tat and name calling stuff, yes. We got off track(me just as much to blame), with the silly name calling posts. I'm moving on from that.
Other sports have far more variables that using pure numbers to evaluate a player is tougher. It can give a good guide, but jeez look at Football! A player's performance is so tied into his teammates abilities, that it is often impossible to separate how much responsibility should be given to the player, or to his teammates for the players final numbers. This is where numbers do indeed lie! Then offensive systems also play a huge role in making a player's numbers look better than he actually is, where some other guy is in a system where it will be nearly impossible to accomplish that.
In baseball things like RBI, RUNS SCORED, and WINS all share the same fate as do the football numbers, they are very much dependant on how good your teammates are. That is why those numbers, like in football, aren't quite as telling. Luckily in baseball, there are better measures to determine a players ability, separate from what his teammates provide to his numbers. Yeah, I know it is still possible for a teammates ability to come into play, like batting order protection.
Thats not saying RBI or Wins have no purpose. Its just that other numbers serve a better purpose.
As for HOF and statistical criteria? 1) It pretty much is now. But again, it is dangerous as they tend to look at the wrong statistics! RBI is used often for MVP or HOF without regard to the teammates etc... SO they tend to use faulty stats. They are getting better though. 2). I prefer the HALL OF MERIT as opposed to the HALL OF FAME. Most of my points are designed to the Hall of Merit, and not the Hall of Fame. The hall of fame has the word FAME in it. Fame suggests something other than just pure objective value. And they have an official criteria with other factors. That is why the HOF is often bs on who gets elected or not, as subjectivity and bias comes into play. The Hall of Merit is more telling of the true value of the player.
When fans say their favorite belongs, thats fine, but it doesn't discount the fact that many others were as good or better who aren't in either.
As for baseball methods. I prefer to read a Bill James analysis where he takes into account a great number of factors as opposed to one be all and end all statistic. Just my choice.