asindc

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) White sox got ranked 23 yet the cubs 13. Don't see it. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...18-through-13-2 So basically he says the Sox will only be 4 games better than last season even with no unforeseen injuries. Hmm.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) Charles' argument doesn't hold a lot of water. He gave examples like the current Spurs, 90s Bulls, and 00s Lakers as arguments against analytics. Charles, those teams had efficient star players. That's why they won. That's how you win in basketball. Morey takes it a bit too far since all he wants are guys who either shoot 3s, draw fouls, or hit layups, but if you want to win, you need players who can do that in basketball. Shooting long 2 point shots isn't efficient and teams who rely on that type of game aren't successful. I see two points to Barkley's argument: 1) Advanced metrics are not needed at all to identify efficient star players; and 2) advanced metrics cannot be used to identify which efficient star players will work well with each other. On point one, I agree only to a point. Advanced metrics can be used in conjunction with scouting to identify efficient basketball players, but... on point two, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I said earlier that advanced metrics are more useful in baseball than basketball. The plays in basketball are fluid in nature and cannot be isolated to the extent that plays are in baseball (pitcher vs. batter, batter vs. fielder, base runner vs. pitcher/catcher, etc.). If a shooting guard plays with a crappy point guard, his numbers won't look as good as they probably would with an average point guard. A hitter cannot make any claims as to his teammates possibly dragging his performance down.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 11, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) Lol no it's not. It's a completely defensible choice. Castro is a much better hitter and is way younger/less likely to fall off a cliff this year. The choice is basically a wash. I think it's a close call but I'm picking Ramirez until Castro proves he can play better than Alexei. So far, he hasn't.

I think Barkley's view is more valid when it come to basketball, as opposed to baseball. I'm mostly agnostic when it comes to sabrmetrics, as I think it is a valuable tool in baseball to enhance traditional scouting but I don't like over-reliance on it. I think it is much less valuable in basketball, especially the NBA in which talent reigns supreme and rarely does a team without enough elite talent win a championship. In other words, it is easier to identify the talent needed to win in the NBA than it is in MLB, especially when it comes to pitching, and even more so when it comes to younger players. To paraphrase Barkley, no one needed to crunch any numbers to see that acquiring Dwight Howard, James Harden, and Trevor Ariza the way they did was to Houston's advantage, so it is pointless to cite the numbers in evaluating Houston's GM's performance is this regard.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) I think that giving a list of 3 or 4 names is missing the fact that there are 10 or 15 guys doing that same kind of stuff right now, yeah. There aren't 10-15 current pitchers that are as good as Pedro, Clemons, and Johan in his prime.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 08:30 PM) There's also good evidence that umpires are calling a larger strike zone these days. Anyway, yes, if you compiled a list of top 10 pitchers in 2005 and top 10 pitchers in 2014, you'd find that both lists had ten people on it. I fully agree, there were the same number of top 10 pitchers. There were even the same number of top 20 pitchers, top 30 pitchers, and top 40 pitchers. My point is - if you put them all in the same pool, most of the top 10 pitchers would be from the recent year. The top 10 right now >>> the top 10 in 2005 if they were put one against another. If you are basing your comparison of the top ten lists on stats, how are you accounting for the 2005 pitchers having had to face (for at least some of their careers) roided hitters? Also, as was asked earlier, how is it that Ks are better for pitchers than any other kind of out, but neutral for hitters? That question is never answered.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:12 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. Exactly. Just hit the f***ing ball for goodness sake. You'll have a much better chance of something good happening.

.325, 41, 121, .410 OBP.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 10:41 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. On that point: Has there been any player that has GIDP more than he has struck out in any given season?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 02:33 PM) I think the combination of never getting any rest and pitchers doing different things with him in the 2nd half really wore down his power numbers. If Robin doesn't try to kill him again this year (and conveniently we have a DH who also plays 1b!) I think there's a good chance he snaps out something like a mix of the two halves - higher average than the first half but maybe similar power levels. I think he hits 40 this year, barring injury. How many games should he have played?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 5, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) Just don't let the Rangers anywhere near a phone No joke. Hope no one has told them.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Feb 5, 2015 -> 04:24 PM) Reminds me of the LTP.. Borch could crush if he got a hold of one.. problem was he seldom did. Same difference as post above.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 5, 2015 -> 04:08 PM) This whole "but Viciedo has 20 homer power" thing is a quintessential example of how NOT to use statistics. He's a substantially below average hitter no matter how he arrives at his level of "productivity." Adding homers at the expense of overall production would be ludicrously stupid. It would be like eating dandelions instead of steak because the dandelions have more vitamin C. I laughed at the dandelion-steak analogy. It's on point.

I'm not as high on Shields as some others here seem to be. At his best he was a #2.5-#3 starter and is 33 years old. He wants solid #2-#1.5 starter money. I'll pass.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 3, 2015 -> 09:53 PM) nathan sucks jeez forget sabermetrics just watch him pitch 4 or 5 times in a row. Tigers fans hate him. True that. If anyone's calculator tells them otherwise, they should get a new calculator, because the one they have is broken.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) The problem with the White Sox system before was not that they traded away good prospects and therefore had none left, they traded away except for one or two exceptions, guys that turned out to be not so great, but they still had no one any good in the system. Hopefully the guys they have now are different. Prospects are BS for the most part, and some guys all of us really like now will be considered garbage in a year or two. I wasn't exactly a KW supporter, but by dealing prospects that didn't amount to much, he wound up with a lot more value than if he had let them develop into what they would ultimately become in the White Sox system. The sin wasn't trading prospects away. Completely agree.

I loved what we did in 04-05 (especially the Pods signing [love speed!] and the JD signing [he had always been one of my favs]), but this season seems a bit more special in that we made trades but gave up no one or nothing that was not expendable. I think this Hahn guy has the hang of it...

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 2, 2015 -> 04:54 PM) Things I disagree with..... Alexei is better than Castro. This isn't a "future value" discussion, this is based on 2015. Castro IS a better offensive profile, and Alexei IS a better defender, but one aspect he forgot to include is baserunning. Alexei always grades out as one of the best baserunning SS in baseball. Castro grades out as one of the worst, mostly to his laziness and admiring flyballs that don't leave the park. If those other 2 categories wash out, Alexei takes the edge for baserunning. I mean, the guy is 10 years older and he swiping 2-3x as many bags as Castro. Q is better than Arrieta. The guy did it for "most" of 1 season in the big leagues. We've seen plenty of pitchers have flukey years as a young pitcher. Not saying Arrieta is no good, but I'll bet on the track record of Q versus Arrieta. The bullpen argument he doesn't even complete. He mentions the Sox got Robertson but "The rest of the crew returns". If that's true, how do we also then add Zach Duke, one of the best LRP in baseball last year, and Dan Jennings? When it's all said and done, we could have more than half our bullpen revamped over last year. Not saying the Sox bullpen is better, but come on, the guy didn't even lay out the facts here. These are the two major flaws in the article to me, Arrieta over Q and not even mentioned (or realizing?) that the Sox now have Duke and Jennings. Yeah, the author either didn't do his homework or is being a bit disingenuous.