MLB - 2006 Season!

[Arrian]

Dude, a lot more changed on that team than Pods for Lee!!

The pitching, man. They pitched their asses off, which is why they were so much better.

Pods has value. I've said this. He is a pretty good leadoff hitter, a good defender (I think), and a good baserunner.

You deride stats and yet you make reference to Pods seeing lots of pitchers per at-bat. That can be measured statistically. If I showed you that Pods actually doesn't see more pitchers per at-bat than Pierre does, would that impact your thinking? I wonder. I doubt that's the case, though.

For the record: Pods has seen 4.29 pitches per PA this year.

Pierre has seen 3.56. That's a pretty big difference. Measurable, via statistics.

Damon has seen 3.89, by the way.

Back to the issue of the White Sox improvement from ~.500 to WS Champs...

Runs Scored, 2004: 865
Runs Scored, 2005: 741

Look at that carefully. Yet they improved. Why? Because they got better at PREVENTING runs. Lee is a better *hitter* than Pods. Pods, I imagine, is a far better defender. But in the end what mattered most was the pitching improvement.

Runs allowed, 2004: 831
Runs allowed, 2005: 645

edit: defensive improvement counts towards this too, so having a real good defensive LF (Pods last year) helped improve their runs allowed.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

By the way, the WS are playing great again this year thanks, in part (only in part) to Jim Thome, who is... a slugger! A stat-head fave! Oh noes!

Score lots more runs than you allow, and you will win lots of games. How exactly you do this isn't actually all that important.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dude, a lot more changed on that team than Pods for Lee!!

And the sky is blue...

thank you CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

You deride stats

no, I said (not in so many words) IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, stats need to be thrown out the window


As for the rest of your post... I would say this. You are mostly looking at the White Sox numbers over the course of the entire season... 162 games. That is a lot of games, dude. This may come to a shock to you, but each game is played ONE AT A TIME. Some games are won 11-1, some games are won 4-3.

Looking at averages over the course of the season is pretty useless when it comes to analyzing how a team is winning INDIVIDUAL GAMES and judging the value of a certain player as it pertains to how he helped the team win those games.

Maybe it's because I watched so many White Sox games last year and saw the contributions Pods made...

But the stats don't reflect everything.

That's why... sometimes... you have to put the numbers aside and you have to actually WATCH THE GAMES!

Try doing it sometime... it might change the way you think about baseball.

(sorry for capping certain words, it was done for emphasis )

[Imran Siddiqui]

And then you get crap like annointing injured players with Holy Water.

Wait... WHAT?

Looking at averages over the course of the season is pretty useless when it comes to analyzing how a team is winning INDIVIDUAL GAMES and judging the value of a certain player as it pertains to how he helped the team win those games.

That's why you look at WinEx (ie, change in Win Expectancy [probability of winning a game] based on what a player does in his plate appearance based on inning, runners on base, and end result - created by Baseball Prospectus).

Though the averages are important even when looking at individual games. The averages show that the White Sox last year relied on pitching and defense to win.. and they did. And indeed it is a lot of games, but the more games, the more accurage averages are... that's the point of them.

Watching the game does nothing because some yahoos think Derek Jeter is a great SS because they've WATCHED THE GAMES and stats can't show how good he is if you WATCH THE GAMES. And they repeat that until they are blue in the face. Even if you say you've watched the games and saw Jeter had limited range, they say you are looking at the wrong stuff. Pah, nonsense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is for LoA:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sprog0530,0,6890705.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

Clemens signs with Astros

So, what was all that about Clemens coming back to Boston?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Wait... WHAT?

Last year, Dusty Baker revealed that, even though he isn't Catholic (but his wife is) he goes around dripping Holy Water on his injured players.

It was a big story here in Chicago. Dusty the Shaman.

That's why you look at WinEx (ie, change in Win Expectancy [probability of winning a game] based on what a player does in his plate appearance based on inning, runners on base, and end result - created by Baseball Prospectus).

That's a nice tool for fans, but you will not see hardly anyone in baseball using such a thing. You see... statistics are a reference tool. They don't predict the future. Players are human beings, Imran. They have abilities, like being able to run, pitch, hit a ball, etc... Piling up a lot of statistics over the course of a player's career has absolutely zero bearing on what a player will do on a particular at bat. It is PURE CHANCE/COINCIDENCE that this rating is happens to simulate what happens on the field. This is the disconnect that occurs between the stat-heads and the people that have played the game. I have the benefit of understand the numbers and the game as it's played on the field. I balance the numbers with the game on the field. You and Arrian rely on numbers too much. That's your problem.

Though the averages are important even when looking at individual games. The averages show that the White Sox last year relied on pitching and defense to win.. and they did. And indeed it is a lot of games, but the more games, the more accurage averages are... that's the point of them.

Their pitching kept them in a position to win games. Baseball is a balance. Half is pitching, half is offense. Pods was important to their offense because he gave them a spark to the offense... an ability to manufacture runs and win a lot of games they wouldn't have been able to win with Carlos Lee in the lineup. The White Sox won because they were a COMPLETE TEAM. Not just pitching and defense.

Watching the game does nothing because some yahoos think Derek Jeter is a great SS because they've WATCHED THE GAMES and stats can't show how good he is if you WATCH THE GAMES. And they repeat that until they are blue in the face. Even if you say you've watched the games and saw Jeter had limited range, they say you are looking at the wrong stuff. Pah, nonsense.

There is so much you don't understand... even about statistics... so much about a player's stats are influenced about so many things... the players around him, fluke plays, the weather, slumps, a nagging injury. Stats are notoriously deceptive. To rely on them the way you and Arrian do is a mistake.

Maybe you guys will see this one day. But I doubt it. I can only hope to help you guys see the light.

If you enjoy watching and "understanding" baseball the way you do, fine. But I hate to see people going about things the wrong way. That's all.

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time. My suggestion... go get some tickets to a lot of games. Watch the games up close. Study the players... pretend you are a scout. Don't pay attention to the numbers.

I guarantee you that you will start to notice a lot of things about baseball that you aren't seeing right now.

Numbers are not useless... I think you are under the impression that this is what I believe. They need to be balanced with what baseball really is... a bunch of people playing a game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you will not see hardly anyone in baseball using such a thing

Because they are idiots . But I disagree with you. I bet most people in baseball DO use such stats. They won't tell you about it, of course, but look at even Tony LaRussa. He's the farthest thing from the sabermatrician, but he's got stats on cards up the ass (as "3 Nights in August" shows).

It isn't pure chance or coincidence that the stats do a decent (but not great) job of prediction. That's what probabilities are for. Hell, that's what most math is for! Just because you don't understand math or probabilities doesn't mean it's voodoo or 'just chance' .

You can keep on claiming it is all chance while baseball execs are continually adopting the stat revolution to help them out.

Their pitching kept them in a position to win games. Baseball is a balance. Half is pitching, half is offense. Pods was important to their offense because he gave them a spark to the offense... an ability to manufacture runs and win a lot of games they wouldn't have been able to win with Carlos Lee in the lineup. The White Sox won because they were a COMPLETE TEAM. Not just pitching and defense.

And some teams have stronger pitching than hitting or vice versa. Only the most biased of fan would consider the White Sox to be 'balanced'. They were 9th in the American League in runs scored (out of 14 teams) and 1st in runs allowed. That's not a balance, unless you are just WATCHING and that leads to biased accounts in your head.

so much about a player's stats are influenced about so many things... the players around him, fluke plays, the weather, slumps, a nagging injury.

Which is why you take averages over periods of time. Which is why you isolate bad performances compared to a player's mean. Just because you don't understand statistics or mathematics doesn't mean everyone doesn't .

pretend you are a scout. Don't pay attention to the numbers.

So you can be a biased observer of the game without any objective fact to back up claims . No thanks. And plenty of scouts today use numbers and statistics. They are the ones keeping score in the ballparks and crunch the numbers when they get back home.

Numbers are not useless... I think you are under the impression that this is what I believe.

Actually I don't think it is an impression at all, but fact. You do believe numbers are useless, because every attempt to try to explain something incredibly obvious with them (like the White Sox last year relied mostly on pitching and defense) is responded to with "WATCH THE GAMES" BS (and even when we say we do, as I'm sure Arrian watches a lot of baseball as do I, you'll probably say we need to watch 'harder' or some ****). Sorry, you can't fool us. You don't want to be seen as a troglodyte, so you say you think numbers are useful, but you don't walk the walk.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because they are idiots . But I disagree with you. I bet most people in baseball DO use such stats. They won't tell you about it, of course, but look at even Tony LaRussa. He's the farthest thing from the sabermatrician, but he's got stats on cards up the ass (as "3 Nights in August" shows).

And LaRussa hasn't won a World Series since the other Bush was president.

It isn't pure chance or coincidence that the stats do a decent (but not great) job of prediction. That's what probabilities are for. Hell, that's what most math is for! Just because you don't understand math or probabilities doesn't mean it's voodoo or 'just chance'

Actually... that's precisely what it is... chance. Do you know what APBA baseball is? It's a baseball card game (and PC game) that can accurately simulate baseball statistics and entire seasons. Bill James even has an encyclopedia that works with it. It's fun, I've played APBA since I was 8 years old. I have opened up the game, seen how the code works. I understand math and probabilities a hell of a lot better than you do.

You can keep on claiming it is all chance while baseball execs are continually adopting the stat revolution to help them out.

To help them... yes. But they aren't abandoning everything they know about baseball and adopting numbers as an ideology because they understand that the game isn't played by computers. It's played by human beings.

And some teams have stronger pitching than hitting or vice versa. Only the most biased of fan would consider the White Sox to be 'balanced'. They were 9th in the American League in runs scored (out of 14 teams) and 1st in runs allowed. That's not a balance, unless you are just WATCHING and that leads to biased accounts in your head.

You think looking at the rankings of the teams matters? If the White Sox scored 50 more runs, they are 4th in the AL in runs scored. You claim to be a numbers guy, but you can't even read statistics right.

The three top AL teams last year were NY, BOS, and TEX... the teams 4-11 ranked in runs scored were seperated by only 70 runs. So perhaps you shouldn't put too much emphasis on such rankings.

As for ERA, the Sox were tied with Cleveland for first at 3.61... Minnesota was ranked 5th at 3.71... so there is not much difference between 1 and 5.

So considering the White Sox could just have easily been ranked 4th in runs scored and 5th in ERA, YEAH, I'D SAY THEY WERE A BALANCED TEAM!

But then again, I know how to objectively look at statistics... I don't just look at rankings and jump to a conclusion. I analyze the numbers and come up with an intelligent conclusion. Something you obviously can't do.

Which is why you take averages over periods of time. Which is why you isolate bad performances compared to a player's mean. Just because you don't understand statistics or mathematics doesn't mean everyone doesn't

I think I've just proven that I understand statistics... and you don't.

Next!

So you can be a biased observer of the game without any objective fact to back up claims . No thanks. And plenty of scouts today use numbers and statistics. They are the ones keeping score in the ballparks and crunch the numbers when they get back home.

Yes... they use the numbers and statistics as a tool. They don't rely on them completely... which is why they still go to the games. If numbers are all you need, why does anyone need to go to the games in order to scout a player?

Actually I don't think it is an impression at all, but fact. You do believe numbers are useless, because every attempt to try to explain something incredibly obvious with them (like the White Sox last year relied mostly on pitching and defense) is responded to with "WATCH THE GAMES" BS (and even when we say we do, as I'm sure Arrian watches a lot of baseball as do I, you'll probably say we need to watch 'harder' or some ****). Sorry, you can't fool us. You don't want to be seen as a troglodyte, so you say you think numbers are useful, but you don't walk the walk.

Actually... I've made my position quite clear. I use numbers as a tool as part of my balanced process of objective sports analysis. I don't let my love for a team get in the way of my conclusions... nor any other biases. If I see a player sucking... I say he is sucking. Why would I paint a rosy picture of something?

I don't care what you think of me... call me a "troglodyte" or whatever. If that's what you think I am, it only further illustrates your inability to effectively analyze and observe. Your insults don't affect me... they just prove, in yet another way, how wrong you are.

Any time you want to get PWNED again, let me know. This has been fun.

I'll give you some advice Imran... if you don't want to embarass yourself, don't argue with someone who has an IQ about 50 points higher than yours.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is for LoA:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sprog0530,0,6890705.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

Clemens signs with Astros

So, what was all that about Clemens coming back to Boston?

hmm, according to espn, they jumped the gun a bit. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2463566

Would be a huge boost to the stros, but if he sticks to his "only pitch at home", then they result will not be as great as they need. Their road record is abysmal. To lose 5/7 to the nats and pyrats is just pathetic.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

this ones for you imran

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/

seems you jumped el gun.

[asleepathewheel]

[Imran Siddiqui]

First of all, Sava is a liar

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

Anyway,

LaRussa hasn't won a World Series since the other Bush was president.

LaRussa is an example of the 'old school' manager. Others, like Torre use stats to a greater extent.

that's precisely what it is... chance.

Probability is not just 'chance'. It is the chance of a certain outcome occuring. Hence, a pretty damned good predictive tool.

But they aren't abandoning everything they know about baseball and adopting numbers as an ideology because they understand that the game isn't played by computers.

And who exactly is calling for abandoning everything? We are simply calling for abandoning the stupid stuff that managers think matters (such as assigning a positive value to the stolen bases of a player who steals bases at a 60% success rate or less).

If the White Sox scored 50 more runs, they are 4th in the AL in runs scored.

Uh... yeah. What, you think 50 runs is some tiny number?

4.57 runs per game is a decent deal less than 4.88 runs per game over the course of a season. Just because you don't understand mathematics doesn't mean you have to display your ignorance.

Btw, I hope you realize that if you add or subtract 50 runs from just about any team they can be 'balanced'.

As for ERA, the Sox were tied with Cleveland for first at 3.61... Minnesota was ranked 5th at 3.71... so there is not much difference between 1 and 5.

0.10 earned runs over a 162 game season is a decent amountl of difference. Just because it looks small to you and you don't understand mathematics doesn't mean you have to display your ignorance.

Adding the Pythagoran runs of the White Sox, the Sox overachieved by 8 wins, which means in addition to the great pitching they had, they were blessed with a combo of good luck and good managing (as to how much is attributed to what, that's unknown, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Guillen).

Furthermore, if we look at the ERA+ and OPS+ of all the individual players we see something interesting. All the starting pitchers of the White Sox had an OPS+ OVER 100 (which is average pitcher) aside from Orlando Hernandez. All the top 6 pitchers in bullpen had an OPS+ over 100, and THREE relief pitchers (Hermanson, Cotts, Politte) had over 200.

Lets go to the offense. Of all the starters, only THREE had over 100 OPS+, ie, only 3 were above average hitters (Konerko, Iguchi, and Dye). The others were below average.

Tell me again... how exactly was this team balanced aside from your tiny brain's biased accounts?

I use numbers as a tool as part of my balanced process of objective sports analysis.

BULLLLLSHIIIT!

You SAY you use numbers as a tool for balanced look at the game, but in reality you don't. Any number that contradicts your preconcieved notions is tossed out because it isn't what you WATCHED.

So you can bleat all you want, but you only care for numbers when they already back your biased view on things. Sorry, we've already seen past you.

[asleepathewheel]

Despite his team winning the WS last year, I'd rather have LaRussa as my manager than Guillen. He needs more than one decent season before he hits the top of the list with LaRussa, Torre, and Cox. I'd probably take him 4th after those.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Torre was pretty mediocre with any other team outside the Yankees... He does handle the personalities in the Yankee clubhouse pretty well, but the Yankees of the late 90s may have been the perfect team to manage. Those were the selfless Yanks, remember.

[asleepathewheel]

I'm a cards fan, I know how bad Torre can be with the wrong pieces. Though I'm sure the same could be said for any manager.