Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB - 2009 Regular Season Thread!!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I wonder sometimes at the value of OPS+ for comparing certain kinds of hitters; specifically, hitters asked to hit the home run, as opposed to hitters asked to get on base. In theory that's what OPS is for (and OPS+), but can you just add them up together... I don't know. To some extent you ask the big boppers to bop, because it gets the people around them better pitches (ie, the Bonds effect); now, Bonds had a fine (great, even) OPS+ iirc, so it's not a problem in his case, but what about the 30-40 HR hitter who doesn't take walks, and so has a .320 OBP (with a .550 SLG, say, for a .870 OPS) (.300 BA) He's asked to not take walks, and so his OBP drops... and his SLG probably doesn't increase by as much as the drop in OBP.

    Not that I'm saying it's definitely relevant in the Hawk's case, but it could be, and in general it probably is to some extent. OPS and OPS+ are statistics that are tailored with a particular opinion of what is important, which may well fail to include the value of certain players; solely using statistics to define something is a trap you can fall into all too easily.
    <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
    I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

    Comment


    • #47
      Dawson was definitely a plus fielder before his wheels went bad. Still adequate late in his career, and had an absolute cannon for an arm.
      Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
      RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by snoopy369 View Post
        I wonder sometimes at the value of OPS+ for comparing certain kinds of hitters; specifically, hitters asked to hit the home run, as opposed to hitters asked to get on base. In theory that's what OPS is for (and OPS+), but can you just add them up together... I don't know. To some extent you ask the big boppers to bop, because it gets the people around them better pitches (ie, the Bonds effect); now, Bonds had a fine (great, even) OPS+ iirc, so it's not a problem in his case, but what about the 30-40 HR hitter who doesn't take walks, and so has a .320 OBP (with a .550 SLG, say, for a .870 OPS) (.300 BA) He's asked to not take walks, and so his OBP drops... and his SLG probably doesn't increase by as much as the drop in OBP.

        Not that I'm saying it's definitely relevant in the Hawk's case, but it could be, and in general it probably is to some extent. OPS and OPS+ are statistics that are tailored with a particular opinion of what is important, which may well fail to include the value of certain players; solely using statistics to define something is a trap you can fall into all too easily.
        The answer is: It doesn't matter what they are asked to do, it matters how much value they had. If they mistakenly believe that they walking is bad, well the player has less value. Before Babe Ruth came along, lots of players didn't like to swing for the fences. It all gets judged in terms of how much they are actually worth.

        Actually, I'd argue, that's the primary benefit sabermetrics has gotten us. It has taken us away from this silly subjective ideas about how a player should play (don't take walks!!), and replaced them with proofs of what actually does improve the team's chances of winning a game.

        And it isn't necessarily a "particular opinion of what is important". It is what is most correlated with scoring runs, which, along with not getting out, is the whole point of the offensive part of the game.

        OPS+ is actually probably not the best measure to use because it UNDERvalues OBP. OBP probably should be rated higher because it has a greater correlation with run scoring. Some believe OBP should be weighed 1.5 times more than SLG for an OPS+ measure to better match what is important in scoring runs. There are also measures like Run Probability Added and Win Probability Added, but they, as well, consider getting on base to be the most important basis.
        Last edited by Imran Siddiqui; January 24, 2009, 01:49.
        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

        Comment


        • #49
          This is interesting:

          While the Ben Sheets market continues to be quiet, this evening we can more forcefully eliminate another team from the …


          Steve Melewski ends with a comment about Baltimore's lack of interest in the potential staff ace. Melewski estimates that signing Sheets may require a two-year offer at $8MM per; he also mentions Sheets' six DL stints. Considering these two factors, Melewski writes, "unless the club has a radical change of heart, they are just not going to take that chance."
          Anyone still want to defend the Sheets will get more than $10 mil a year? If teams are balking at $8 mil a year, I doubt he'll get more than $10m.
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
            The answer is: It doesn't matter what they are asked to do, it matters how much value they had. If they mistakenly believe that they walking is bad, well the player has less value. Before Babe Ruth came along, lots of players didn't like to swing for the fences. It all gets judged in terms of how much they are actually worth.

            Actually, I'd argue, that's the primary benefit sabermetrics has gotten us. It has taken us away from this silly subjective ideas about how a player should play (don't take walks!!), and replaced them with proofs of what actually does improve the team's chances of winning a game.

            And it isn't necessarily a "particular opinion of what is important". It is what is most correlated with scoring runs, which, along with not getting out, is the whole point of the offensive part of the game.
            Imran, you are proving my point: you have a particular opinion of what is important, and you feel that it is "The Way". I never had you down as the religious type...

            Statistics are only as valuable as the person who interprets them, and ALWAYS have a bias. I should know; I process them for a living. Sabremetrics certainly has significantly benefited baseball analysis, as well as the game itself, for essentially the reason you put forth; it provides a way to see what effect players have on the game.

            However, it has its limitations; and perhaps first among those is that it does not measure everything. There are perfectly valid reasons to have a player on your team who is asked to swing for the fences rather than taking walks; I'm not saying to swing at crappy pitches, but the fact that the pitcher is aware he is going to try to make contact affects how the pitcher pitches to other players on the team. Sabremetrics doesn't effectively measure that, just as it doesn't measure a player's effort or intelligence directly (and only somewhat indirectly). Further, sabremetrics do require some human input (in creating the tools); they are only as accurate as the measurements that go into them, and those measurements are not all-encompassing, as hard as the various folks who make them try to make them. Decisions are made, by a person or group thereof, and those decisions affect the results, for better (usually) or for worse.

            I certainly believe that statistics generally are a far better method of analyzing player performance than any other we have; on the sabremetrics bandwagon you will find me not all that far behind you. I believe, though, that you cannot simply believe statistics are the end all and be all, and that they can never miss anything. I think there are ways in which they are useful, many ways certainly, but there are times where they are not as useful, and it is important to know which is which.
            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
              This is interesting:
              Anyone still want to defend the Sheets will get more than $10 mil a year? If teams are balking at $8 mil a year, I doubt he'll get more than $10m.
              While it's not looking great, there's still an outside chance. Things can change quickly. I have no choice but to stand by it for now.

              It's not over till the weight-challanged lady sings.

              And anyone that says that Dawson wasn't even average as an outfielder, never watched him play until the last couple of years. And even then his arm and experience made up a lot for his reduced range.
              It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
              RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

              Comment


              • #52
                you have a particular opinion of what is important
                Never really heard that what is the best correlation to scoring runs to be simply "a particular opinion of what is important", but maybe you are playing a different sport than baseball .

                You can always "miss" things, but trying to devalue a statistical measure with subjectives is never a compelling case.

                There are perfectly valid reasons to have a player on your team who is asked to swing for the fences rather than taking walks
                And the point is that even if there are, that reduces his value.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #53
                  ...by your chosen standard.
                  Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
                  RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    By the chosen standard that is more closely correlated with scoring runs than his .

                    Just simply saying that pitchers may pitch different to the person or that it may benefit other players without any backing simply doesn't sway me in the slightest.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Your chosen standard is "correlates more closely with scoring runs on average". It is not "definitely means the team scores more runs". You seem to lose sight of that sometimes.
                      <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                      I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Because there is no standards that "definitely" does anything. If you can show me something that can show that, then I'll follow you there. But until then, I'll go with what correlates better with the main goal of the offense.

                        Don't tell me that a subjective measure is better to follow (or is/should be responsible for altering) than the statistics that correlate to runs scored.

                        You mentioned religion before: I'm asking for proof (of some kind), while you're asking me to have faith.
                        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          To elaborate, if Dawson was someone who was asked to hit the longball and avoid walks, in order for him to be Hall of Fame material from the outfield, we'd expect him to be really good in SLG%, right? We can agree on that?

                          His career SLG was 0.482. That's 166th all time. That's not all that high. It is a bit lower than Fred Lynn's career SLG (0.484). Lynn also had a higher OBP (0.360 to 0.323), and a higher OPS+ (129 to 119). They basically started at the same time (mid 70s) and Dawson played a few more seasons (21 seasons to Lynn's 17). And won the same number of MVP's. Dawson had a HR every 5.99 games, while Lynn had one every 6.43 games (in a quick and dirty games/HR measure).

                          I'm sure Lynn was also asked to hit the ball hard (based on his SLG). But Lynn really doesn't get much play for the Hall. Why is Dawson more deserving of Lynn.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            No, I'm saying that "perhaps a particular measure does not as effectively measure (x) as it is claimed to, because it fails to include (y) effect." I'm not asking for any faith whatsoever Simply suggesting that the measure is not perfect (as they never are). You throw around the statistics as if they explain everything, and imply that if we cannot conclusively prove that they do NOT explain everything, then they do. I can't conclusively prove God doesn't exist, either...
                            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by snoopy369 View Post
                              No, I'm saying that "perhaps a particular measure does not as effectively measure (x) as it is claimed to, because it fails to include (y) effect." I'm not asking for any faith whatsoever Simply suggesting that the measure is not perfect (as they never are). You throw around the statistics as if they explain everything, and imply that if we cannot conclusively prove that they do NOT explain everything, then they do. I can't conclusively prove God doesn't exist, either...
                              That somewhat sounds like an argument for accepting Intelligent Design because Evolution doesn't explain everything .

                              Statistical analysis is the best measure we have to judge players. If you believe it fails to include a certain effect, the course of action should be to find out how to include that effect in an objective analysis. If it cannot be converted from a subjective to an objective analysis, I'd argue that it should simply not be considered. Because subjective analyses cannot be proven and so using them to judge players introduces even more flawed measures. At the very least, objective measures have less flaws because they treat every player the same and most of them are open for your perusal (though you may sometimes have to purchase a book to see the mechanics behind it... like Win Shares).
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
                                To elaborate, if Dawson was someone who was asked to hit the longball and avoid walks, in order for him to be Hall of Fame material from the outfield, we'd expect him to be really good in SLG%, right? We can agree on that?

                                His career SLG was 0.482. That's 166th all time. That's not all that high. It is a bit lower than Fred Lynn's career SLG (0.484). Lynn also had a higher OBP (0.360 to 0.323), and a higher OPS+ (129 to 119). They basically started at the same time (mid 70s) and Dawson played a few more seasons (21 seasons to Lynn's 17). And won the same number of MVP's. Dawson had a HR every 5.99 games, while Lynn had one every 6.43 games (in a quick and dirty games/HR measure).

                                I'm sure Lynn was also asked to hit the ball hard (based on his SLG). But Lynn really doesn't get much play for the Hall. Why is Dawson more deserving of Lynn.
                                I'm not going to argue that - Lynn probably should be in the hall. It's pointless to list the people who statistically should be in the hall; there are a boat load of them.

                                However, I would suggest that you remember one thing. It is called the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Good Statistical Performances". Andre Dawson should certainly be in the Hall of Fame, because of his fame. You may feel free to argue whether he is statistically a top player all you want - he (clearly) is not in the top echelon and may or may not be in the range needed for HOF induction. He also, though, clearly is still quite famous. Derrick Jeter is a HOF lock, too, even though his statistics aren't necessarily at the top of the line, and so was Ozzie Smith. Are you going to tell me the Wizard of Oz shouldn't have been a first ballot HoF'er?
                                <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                                I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X