JUSTgottaBELIEVE

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Mar 7, 2015 -> 09:33 PM) Randall Cobb back to the Packers. 4 years 40 million 17 guaranteed. Huge! Great deal

http://beta.espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/12...-nerds-too-easy If it still doesn't work it's their cover story under their MLB section

http://beta.espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/12...-nerds-too-easy Point #2 is the reason why I previously argued that Cubs' batters with high strikeout rates IS a real cause for concern. Stat nerd himself Nate Silver says that strikeout to walk ratio is one of the most predictive stats for a pitcher's win-loss record. Taking the other side of this, unless the Cubs' big strikeout guys are getting on base at a high rate via walks or high batting average, it's a real problem.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) You're talking about something completely different with your example. Mike Trout is irrelevant. I'll try to boil it down further: 1. Strikeouts do contribute to bad offense. 2. Bad offense is bad offense regardless of strikeouts. Good offense is good offense, regardless of strikeouts. 3. You can say "Kris Bryant won't be good because he'll strikeout too much." You cannot say "Kris Bryant cannot be good if strikes out a bunch." Regarding point 2, I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that high strikeout rates DO contribute to bad offense. Let me ask this because I'm sure someone on this board could quickly figure this out. How many of the top 3 scoring offenses in MLB the last 10 years have also been in the top 3 in strikeouts that same season? And yes, I can say that if Bryant strikes out a ton (at a similar rate to 2014 Baez) he CANNOT be the player everyone expects him to be. He would literally have to hit a bomb on every fifth ball he put in play to put up good numbers with a strikeout rate that high.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 09:46 AM) The problem with linear weights is that it treats all runs equal, when we all know that is not the case. The distribution of how those runs is scored is incredibly important. All else being equal, a narrower distribution will result in more consistent scoring and ultimately more wins. A lineup full of high strikeout players may score a ton of runs (if power is there), but their output of runs will have high levels of variation. A lot of their runs will come in blowouts and provide no marginal value. Total run production obviously matters, but consistent run production is far more important when it comes to wins and losses. Very good point

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball. Couldn't have said it better. It frustrates me to hell whenever this debate comes up with metrics guys because you really do need to look beyond what the numbers are saying since there are just too many variables at play to accurately quantify. Put the ball in play, put pressure on the defense, and you have a better chance of good things happening. It's really that simple. This GIDP argument is very short sighted since the variation in the top 10 leaders in GIDP are typically not that far above league average. Also, GIDP does not have a direct correlation to strikeouts. It is one factor but as I said before the type of contact a hitter makes is just as important as the percentage of strikeouts/AB. Otherwise, how else are guys like Chris Johnson and Matt Dominguez in the top 5 for GIDP in all of baseball last year?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 09:41 PM) All of that is factored into linear weights averages. All of the things you mentioned are salient points, but they can all also be counted and their impacts averaged. Further, they've run year-to-year correlations to find out which factors are consistent and which act as randomness, allowing them to assign credit to players with repeatable skills and treat players who have exhibited non-repeatable "skills" as regression candidates, both positive and negative. Anyone who doesn't understand how linear weights work in baseball statistics should refer to Tom Tango's research from the early part of the 21st century -- it forms the foundation for how sabermetrics treats offense (at the plate, not the basepaths), and I've never seen even the most ardent traditionalists even try to put together a coherent argument against it. There's a ton of stuff in sabermetrics that is shaky, but this is not one of those things. And I think if you look into it, you'll agree. It makes a ton of sense. Regarding the bolded: You're right, but no one is arguing otherwise. The whole point though is that all else ISN'T equal in the cases we're referring to. As wite and I both said: there's no doubt that strikeouts contribute negatively toward offensive output (although it's less negatively than common sense suggests because of double plays), but strikeouts are only a component of offensive output, and we can just look at offensive output as a whole. People get too caught up in one component of hitting at a time as if we can't just look at how many runs a guy produces. And you can do that with both traditional and advanced stats. I hate the RBI stat, but even if you love it, you can look at RBI and see that Mike Trout drives in a whole bunch of runs DESPITE the fact that he strikes out. The strikeouts affect that number, but why wouldn't you just judge him based on the runs he produces? The K's are baked in there. If a guy is 20% above average at the plate but strikes out a bunch, he;s still 20% above average at the plate. Using Mike Trout as the baseline for any argument is silly. He's the exception, not the rule. How many guys can strike out near his rate while still hitting near or over .300 with an OBP of around .400? I'm not going to spend time looking it up but my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find many. In defense of the previous poster, I DO believe the high strikeout rates of a few of the Cubs' prospects is a real concern. I think far too many posters on this forum too quickly discount this issue. Baez is going to have an awfully hard time being a productive offensive player if he's striking out 35%+ of the time even if he cranks out 30 HR. Same goes for Bryant. The question is if Bryant strikes out at an incredibly high rate is he more likely to put up numbers closer to Mike Trout or White Sox Adam Dunn? My guess is he would end up closer to the latter which would obviously be a huge disappointment for those expecting all star worthy numbers from him over the next few years.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) Yes, but runner distribution isn't predictive. So basically you can look back at a season or game and find out which hits or outs were the "biggest" and most important, but if you're talking about building a roster for the coming season, there's no reliable way to ensure that contact will come at the right times, so you have to assume that it will be the average number of times, which is baked into the linear weights values for all of the events, which comes out in total production, which brings us back to square one. So if two guys are 100 wRC+ guys, but one strikes out more, they're still equally valuable. You can look at stats like WPA and Clutch score to see which guy had the bigger impact, but the difference between those leverage related value and the context-neutral linear weights stats does not carry over from year to year. Also, it's beside the point, but a lot of the extra benefit (on average) received from contact outs versus strikeouts is negated by double plays. So the difference ends up being smaller than it intuitively seems. I don't think it is as simple as less strikeouts equals more double plays. Or vice versa, that more strikeouts means less double plays. It depends on the type of contact, runner distribution, etc. Guys like Matt Kemp and Ian Desmond struck out a lot last year but were also near the top in GIDP. On top of that I would bet that on average the guys that make consistent contact that are near the leaders in GIDP are also reaching base on error more than the big power guys that strike out a lot. How does that factor into advanced metrics? ROE is counted as an out towards BA, OBP, OPS, etc. I know the hardcore sabermetricians don't want to hear this but common sense tells you that if all else is fairly equal the guy that puts the play more often than the other guy will be more valuable to an offense. I don't think any compilation of advanced statistics can argue this point because there are too many variables to precisely quantify it. At that point when the stats cannot tell the whole story, it doesn't hurt to use a little common sense IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2015 -> 07:58 PM) Yes. Kershaw's sub-2 ERAs would probably be just a touch over 2 if he were in the AL and in a pitchers park for his home stadium. Not trying to be a smartass. I actually want to know what his splits look like. I can't seem to find that information.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2015 -> 07:45 PM) You specifically said "ranking NL teams as superior hardly makes much sense based on that alone". Based on that, I would conclude that a team with 5 Clayton Kershaws in their rotation should not be called the best staff in the league if it's in the NL. Yes, the NL is easier on pitchers, but that doesn't mean you can't rank them above any AL teams if they're a really good staff. How does a guy like Kershaw stats compare vs AL and vs NL? Is there a noticeable difference in ERA, WHIP, etc?

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 05:47 PM) Discount double choke. Well it certainly wasn't rodgers fault. He didn't play his best game but he played well enough to win esp considering the injury. Defense just completely ran out of gas and that onside kick was the game. Recover it and you win. Once seattle recovered I knew they were in huge trouble with seattle regaining all the momentum and crowd behind them. Frustrating loss when you completely dominate a team for 55 minutes and lose. I think the players were in just as much shock as it was happening to be honest. No reason you should lose that game

Didn't expect them to win but when you have a 12 point lead in 4th quarter you then expect to win. Catch the inside kick that hits you in the face and the game is over. Damn that one sucks

Complete meltdown, now this is outplaying someone and then losing

Huge choke job if they blow this

Epic fail

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 04:51 PM) I cant believe how bad Seattles offense looks Reminds me of last years super bowl. Jump on them early and completely take the other team out of their game. Seattle is not built to win by throwing the ball coming from behind.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) I can't believe the Packers are going to pull this off. Me either. I was totally ready to call it a season and just be happy with the dallas win

HUGE 3 and out

Biggest possession of the game (so far) coming up here

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 03:31 PM) The Packers got outplayed, they shouldn't have won last week, but let's not bring up that conversation again, no one wants to hear it. As long as the Colts win it all, I'll be satisfied. Thing is Cowboys got thoroughly outplayed when it mattered most...last 20 minutes of the game.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 02:58 PM) Yep. I can't root for the team that doesn't deserve to be there, and I hate Seattle. Of the 4 teams left, the Colts are the only team I don't hate. Who doesn't deserve to be there? Once again dallas fans think the dez play cost them the win as if it was guaranteed they would have held the packers on the final drive.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) It's cyclical, I remember when the Packers stunk during the late 70s and all through the 80s until you guys got Favre in the early 90s. The Bears got to the SuperBowl and a NFC title game in the last 10 years. The Bears could do much better of course, but it's not like they've been doormats every year since their last NFL title. Great start for GB I hear ya but it just so happens that in my lifetime the Bears have only made it to one SB which they lost while the packers have been to 3 which they have won 2 (and have had a number of really good chances of getting there in most seasons under Favre and rodgers with the rare exception of a few down years). I guess I'm spoiled

Couldn't have asked for a better start. Well maybe if they would have punched it in on the first two drives but beggars can't be choosers

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 02:34 PM) So do the Bears, not recently though, yet Packer fans still chant "the Bears still suck". Did you root fo the Bears in the 06 SuperBowl? Yes, not a manning fan at all. Bears haven't won a super bowl in 30 years and haven't had sustained success since mid 80s. That's a long time

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 18, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) Like Packers fans are any better. Unless the other team has a bunch of felons and thugs, rooting for the Packers as a Bears fan is pretty much a no-no. At least green bay has a history of success unlike seattle to back them up