Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) And this response isn't trying to rekindle trouble? No, I'm just defending myself against you having just accused me of trolling. What am I supposed to say?

As far as the actual topic goes, I think Jake really nailed it in his last paragraph. Basically, pitcher wins are loosely correlated with good pitching, so much so that there are dozens of "outliers" every year where the stat is essentially lying to us about the one thing it's supposed to do, which is tell us who was the most valuable pitcher. No one disputes that it correlated better with performance in the past, but the game changes, and it really just doesn't work at all anymore. So that's why people are trying to find better ways to measure it. I don't understand why people get upset about that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 06:30 AM) Yes, but if a closer gets lit up once or twice, his ERA isn't going to be pretty. As for WHIP, ironically the guy who led the AL in that category this season, also led the AL in wins.i really think this thread was started to start trouble, but I would think andy sabr guy and Hawk when listing their top 20 pitchers would have a very similar list. Come on man, I just saw something I thought was interesting related to White Sox players. It's the freakin offseason. I would have put it in a catch-all if there was one. I'm not an internet troll. Next time I'll just post again in the BASHING DE AZA thread.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 05:27 PM) Peavy's the last guy I'm expecting to say what he said. Yeah, me too! I figured it would be something like, "Man I gotta say all that matters is a win. A good ol' W. Whatever I gotta do to grind out a win, even if it lands me in a hospital, I will do. If my team doesn't hit for me, I gotta put the fire in them to grind up and hit more. Wins are everything and nothing else will ever matter."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) Daryl Van Schouwen ‏@CST_soxvan 29m OF prospect Brandon Jacobs, acquired in Matt Thornton trade, was an Arizona Fall League Player of Week nominee. Hit 2 HRs. I have a weird feeling he's going to be the one to push Viciedo out of LF in like 2015.

I swear I'm not trying to start a rehash of an unpopular debate on pitcher wins, though I'm aware it may happen, but it's the offseason and I thought this was interesting coming from the mouth of Jake Peavy, who has a reputation for being a gritty old schooler: Part of an article asking players about which stats that should be used to evaluate pitchers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-vie...itchers-part-2/ Also, from Tyler Flowers:

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) No, but the idea that players can improve their base stealing technique with age is not a novel concept. Yeah, after all, Paul Konerko reached his career high in SB, 2, at age 33

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/10/free...riel-abreu.html

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis. Yeah, runs are runs. But that Tigers have a bunch of hitters with skills that it's difficult to acquire without paying a premium. If we know we can't afford to do what they're doing, we gotta find a cheaper way. And high efficiency aggression on the basepaths might be the most cost-effective way to do it. The problem is that part of high-efficiency baserunning is the ability to get on base at a high clip. And OBP is definitely at a premium in today's run environment.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) You're awesome I remember reading an article in the BP book from about 8 years ago that cited that and talked about run expectancy from 1B and I recognized right away that the number was likely to fluctuate. It does actually make sense to invest in base stealers right now because the marginal value of a single run has increased. If you can steal 150 bases as a team at a 70% clip, you are talking about adding between 25-30 runs, which could add 2-4 win to your total. That is a hell of an article. Bradley Woodrum has done some good work lately. Looking at it by team is really cool.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) The rule of thumb with this is 75%, but I would guess that this percentage has gone down in recent years. It's harder for a runner on 1B to score than it was 10 years ago and I would guess that that percentage has gone down at a greater clip than scoring a run with a runner on 2B (because while it's harder to get just 1 hit, it's even harder to actually string together 2 hits). I'm guessing De Aza was basically a break even, if not slightly productive, base stealer this year. Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-changin...ing-calculus-2/ This cites the 2012 league-wide figure at 66%. This article also agrees with your explanation of the number dropping as run environment decreases.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) Was I talking to you? J4L doesn't watch the games. I took that as the cliche "SABR nerds would rather play the game on paper than watch games." I was probably being over-sensitive. I'm sorry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) 71.4% is high efficiency? Now you are just reaching for stuff. No, no I'm not. That's a widely known standard for the breaking point between providing net positive value with baserunning and net negative. That's one of those pop stats that was even featured in Moneyball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) By showing me that they are flawed, and perpetually being fixed, yet can't have missed this one particular standard. Well, everything's flawed. Physics is currently VERY flawed with all we're discovering about quantum behavior, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get out of the way when big, heavy things are moving toward you. As humans, it behooves us to act upon the best information we have at the time, while always searching for better information. Look, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong in your suspicions, I'm just saying that until you can find some evidence for your suspicions, it's a lot less likely you're right than what the current evidence is showing us. To say that his 5ish extra baserunning errors were enough to outweigh an entire season of high stolen base efficiency and taking extra bases on singles, changing it from a vaguely positive season to among the worst in history is a BOLD claim, and if you want people to take that claim seriously, you should provide some substantial evidence to support it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I just dont think that is really the argument. Of course you would pinch run him right there. I think the argument is pretty much "Is De Aza a good baserunner?" I say no. I watched him all season make one bonehead mistake after another, and not learn from it. There may be a statistic that says he is a positive on the basepaths, but it is really hard to agree with that after watching him this past season. But I think that's the point -- there's still value there. Those of us arguing in favor aren't saying that ADA is an elite baserunner, we're just pointing out that his positives mathematically outweigh his negatives. He can both be a mentally poor baserunner and still provide substantial baserunning value. This is important because the context of the argument is that ADA's poor baserunning is something that must be replaced with high priority, and the results just don't line up with that notion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) As opposed to you flat out telling me that these statistics are so accurate, that people have to meet annually to fix them, but that there can't be any bias or error in the statistics related to something that they aren't quantifying correct? Please. I don't understand what you're arguing here. You made an attack on the credibility of the numbers I was referring to, and I attempted to demonstrate credibility for them.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) We value base running mistakes differently. "Sigh" I was sighing at your bulls*** "SOME OF US STILL LIKE TO WATCH GAMES" line.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 08:04 AM) Jesus Christ. Some of us still like watching the games. I'm with SS2K. After watching ADA run the bases all year, I can't call him a positive on the base paths. He made too many decisions that I couldn't believe a major leaguer was making. I wouldn't just dump him because he can hit and he's the best thing we have, but I'm not sure I want his influence on a rebuilding team either. sigh

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 07:50 PM) Your version of "read up on stuff" isn't helping. It keeps bouncing back and forth between different points and then swearing that I am misunderstanding them when I call them out. It essentially turns into this thing where you can't have any eye test at all, despite the obvious fault here of crediting De Aza as a positive influence through his base running last year. The common denominator is faulty if it is rewarding De Aza for his performance last year. This is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. You start with a conclusion, then try to find something that supports it. When you find nothing, instead of considering changing your conclusion, you just say everyone else is wrong. All I've been doing is pointing out that these numbers DO take all the things into consideration that you have assumed they don't. The fact that you keep asserting different missing things that actually ARE factored in tells me you still haven't tried to actually understand it. Because if you did, you'd know about them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 07:10 PM) As for the linear weights argument, it's pretty much just math, guys. It's used because it's math, and math works. And for De Aza, he's NOT a good runner of the bases, as that phrase or skill is commonly understood to mean. But he's still fast! And those two things are not mutually exclusive. A runner can be of average speed or even slow but still be a good base runner. A runner can have blazing speed but still be a terrible base runner. But when you add up the speed ability and the technique/baseball IQ, you can still have someone that creates value as a runner but still not be a particular good "runner of the bases" as we commonly understand the phrase. Yes, this

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) With all due respect, so what. If it isn't deemed valuable by baseball teams, what value does it really have? Tell me that teams are using it, then I will agree with your statements about "widely accepted" etc. People with no connection to the game don't really matter as much as the teams making the actual decisions. If teams aren't using these specific stats, it tells me they think other measures have more value. But they do! lol That's what I'm trying to say. Most of the innovators of linear weights-based statistics in the early 2000's are or have been employed by Major League teams. Tom Tango. Paul Depodesta. Russel Carleton. Voros McCracken. Dayn Perry. Dan Szymborski. Alex Anthopolous. All of these guys were working and/or consulting for teams when they were BUILDING their advanced metrics departments. When you interview the former guys they all say something along the lines of, "yeah everyone has their own constants, but it's all based around the same types of math." Why don't you just read up on some of it and make an informed decision? I don't understand the reluctance to learn about stuff. I mean I respect your opinions, it just doesn't mean much for you to dismiss something without giving it a chance. Linear weights like changed the way I looked at player valuation. It's so exciting how much sense it makes and how cool it is to be able to find a common denominator for comparing guys.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) I don't honestly care what baseball fans think. I care if the organizations think it is worthy, and then you actually have hit your standard of "widely accepted" and "state of the art". If not, their opinions aren't any more widely accepted than the "eye test " group out there in baseball today. If the Sox felt those numbers were an accurate representation of De Aza's true value, there wouldn't be rumblings of them looking to upgrade his spot. Right, because there couldn't possibly be any other reason that would want to trade him other than they think he's totally garbage. And the newspaper media has NEVER made something up for an article, because they are never ever fed inaccurate or partially accurate information from sources inside baseball. Everything they say is totally true and always happens. I'm not talking about fans. Fans are you and me. When you say, "any stat that says ADA is good at baserunning is flawed, period," THAT'S fans talking. These are professionals who make a living by analyzing baseball, and dozens of them get picked off to be consultants and analysts for baseball teams. These are people that pioneered and invented the stats that have birthed the latest publicly available versions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Show me where this is "widely accepted" and "state of the art". How many franchises use this number for anything of substance, such as game planning and utilization of their base running strategies. Who knows? Franchises don't tell anyone what they use. But linear weights metrics are the basis of the research done by tons of analysts that have been hired by teams over the years, from FG guys like Matt Swartz (Orioles) to BP scouts like Kevin Goldstein (Astros). There are no less than three conferences per year led by organizations like the Society for American Baseball Research and Baseball America where these statistics are unveiled, discussed, and scrutinized. Dave Cameron and several FanGraphs staff are at the forefront of much of this. Their particular set of constants and formulae are among the most popular in existence, and are particularly useful in relation to Baseball References formulae because FG prioritizes accuracy over completeness whereas BR does the opposite, giving us a wide palette of different angles from which to reference in a field that is difficult to predict. I'm not challenging your opinion, I'm challenging you to take a look at this stuff before you form your opinion. It's fine if you ultimately don't agree with it, but at least try to make sense of it before you decide it's BS.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 03:42 PM) If the stat states that De Aza was a good baserunner, it makes no sense in reality. Period. According to what? Make an argument for it. It isn't good enough for you to just say "because I think so." Show me why the widely accepted state-of-the-art measurement is wrong. By the way, I'm not being rhetorical. People are always questioning these things with reasoned arguments, and it drives them to constantly improve the stats.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) I'm against ones that make no sense in reality. Yet you clearly have no idea how it works, because you keep accusing it of not taking factors into consideration that it DOES take into consideration. How can you be against something you don't know about? How do you know it makes no sense in reality?