The Great Brian Anderson Debacle

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Ok... whatever.

 

By the way, Bill James was an accountant... who is now fabulously rich because baseball people finally decided that his stupid numbers really matter.

 

Baseball as a whole has lagged waaaaaaaaay behind other industries in learning how to appropriately use statistics to improve their business. Like living in the freakin' dark ages type of behind... kicking and screaming to avoid change and progress that is routinely being applied by other successful businesses. Most fans have been right there with them, confused by numbers, and longing for the good old days when numbers didn't matter. Sorry. That cat is out of the bag.

 

You prefer to continue to think the world is flat? Be my guest.

Stats have been used in baseball for a very, very, very long time - well before Bill James even busted his first nut thinking of new ways to turn them into pudding.

 

I have to ask you, what in the hell does a knowledge of pythagorean win blah blah blah have to do with being a better baseball executive? It only muddies waters. Why aren't you scoring more runs? Why are you allowing so many runs? Hmm, I know! Let's look at pythagorean bulls*** theory! Ahh, yes, here's my answer!!!

[NorthSideSox72]

Huh? Wait I f***ed up. What I'm trying to say is that the inconsistency of the offense throws off our run differential. That we put up a lot of double digit games but then get shut out a lot, or held to 1 or 2 runs even when the pitching matchup favors us.

Yeah, it just works the other way. If you do this in two games:

 

Win 10-2

Lose 2-1

 

Your run differential is +7, or +3.5 per game. That would result in a really good final record, according to pythag. But in reality, if you do the above two games over and over, you are just a .500 team, thus UNDERperforming the expectations of pythag.

 

If on the other hand, you do this:

 

Win 2-1

Lose 10-2

 

You are -3.5 per game, and pythag will say you should be a crappy team. But if you do this as a pattern you will be at .500, and BEAT expectations.

 

So in conclusion, if your theory is that the way the Sox play makes them look like overperformers, then it is because we are doing the latter example, not the former.

 

[Dick Allen]

Yeah, it just works the other way. If you do this in two games:

 

Win 10-2

Lose 2-1

 

Your run differential is +7, or +3.5 per game. That would result in a really good final record, according to pythag. But in reality, if you do the above two games over and over, you are just a .500 team, thus UNDERperforming the expectations of pythag.

 

If on the other hand, you do this:

 

Win 2-1

Lose 10-2

 

You are -3.5 per game, and pythag will say you should be a crappy team. But if you do this as a pattern you will be at .500, and BEAT expectations.

 

So in conclusion, if your theory is that the way the Sox play makes them look like overperformers, then it is because we are doing the latter example, not the former.

won 17-3, lost 20-1 -5 run differential but 1-1. I think it really hard to judge a manager by how he does vs. that theory because every game is different. I really wonder what the total game differential would be if you took the team that the supposed top manager had and replaced him with who is perceived to be the worst. It probably wouldn't be all that much if anything. You're pretty much as good as your players. Most of the guys at the top of the list have managed some bad teams with bad results. Give Ozzie Guillen Erstad leading off with Andy Gonzalez in the line-up and a gas can for a bullpen, he'll lose 90 games. Give him legit players and a lights out bullpen he can win it all. The same goes with everyone on the list really. Obviously everyone will have guys they prefer. I'm not an Ozzie guy, but Tony LaRussa managing the Sox isn't going to make them win 100 games. The results would probably be about the same. One thing Ozzie does better than most is protect his bullpen.

[ILMOU]

Yeah, it just works the other way. If you do this in two games:

 

Win 10-2

Lose 2-1

 

Your run differential is +7, or +3.5 per game. That would result in a really good final record, according to pythag. But in reality, if you do the above two games over and over, you are just a .500 team, thus UNDERperforming the expectations of pythag.

 

If on the other hand, you do this:

 

Win 2-1

Lose 10-2

 

You are -3.5 per game, and pythag will say you should be a crappy team. But if you do this as a pattern you will be at .500, and BEAT expectations.

 

So in conclusion, if your theory is that the way the Sox play makes them look like overperformers, then it is because we are doing the latter example, not the former.

 

I'm not going to get into this whole hornets nest with you guys on the Pythag thing, but a think a huge amount of this depends on the relative crappiness of middle relief, an area that many or most teams skimp on.

 

When a team is down, say 5-2 in the sixth inning, and they need to replace the starter, it's not going to be with their best bullpen guy. A 5-2 deficit frequently becomes a 10-2 deficit in a blink of an eye. This is one of the big things that can skew Pythag, making you look worse than you really are, in a game you're probably going to lose anyway. It should even out over 162 games, as you should beat up on the other team's middle relief in the opposite situation. However, if you have a good back end of the bullpen (protecting small leads) coupled with super-crappy middle relief (this is not uncommon), then the Pythag numbers can be deceptive, especially if you have more of a small-ball offense (team designed to win games 4-2) as we did in '05.

[scenario]

Stats have been used in baseball for a very, very, very long time - well before Bill James even busted his first nut thinking of new ways to turn them into pudding.

 

Baseball has used statistics for a very long time. Badly. That is the point of the whole sabermetric 'thing'.

 

 

I have to ask you, what in the hell does a knowledge of pythagorean win blah blah blah have to do with being a better baseball executive? It only muddies waters. Why aren't you scoring more runs? Why are you allowing so many runs? Hmm, I know! Let's look at pythagorean bulls*** theory! Ahh, yes, here's my answer!!!

 

Yikes. You are the king of the straw man argument aren't you?

 

Bottom line is that good executives use good numbers to make good decisions. Bad numbers lead to bad decisions. Very simple. And for a long time baseball executives were using bad numbers to make decisions. Sabermetrics has advanced the science of baseball decision-making. That is not an opinion. That is a well-established fact.

 

But, you can make up all the 'unique' arguments you want to try and disprove that if it will make your feel better...

Edited June 4, 2009 by scenario

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not going to get into this whole hornets nest with you guys on the Pythag thing, but a think a huge amount of this depends on the relative crappiness of middle relief, an area that many or most teams skimp on.

 

When a team is down, say 5-2 in the sixth inning, and they need to replace the starter, it's not going to be with their best bullpen guy. A 5-2 deficit frequently becomes a 10-2 deficit in a blink of an eye. This is one of the big things that can skew Pythag, making you look worse than you really are, in a game you're probably going to lose anyway. It should even out over 162 games, as you should beat up on the other team's middle relief in the opposite situation. However, if you have a good back end of the bullpen (protecting small leads) coupled with super-crappy middle relief (this is not uncommon), then the Pythag numbers can be deceptive, especially if you have more of a small-ball offense (team designed to win games 4-2) as we did in '05.

For the record, I am actually not saying that pythag is some great way to measure a manager's success. I was just clarifying for lostfan, but also I had brought it up before when Big Hurt was screaming to the rafters that no one was providing any evidence supporting Ozzie being a good manager. Just wanted to throw in there a piece of evidence.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Baseball has used statistics for a very long time. Badly. That is the point of the whole sabermetric 'thing'.

 

 

 

 

Yikes. You are the king of the straw man argument aren't you?

 

Bottom line is that good executives use good numbers to make good decisions. Bad numbers lead to bad decisions. Very simple. And for a long time baseball executives were using bad numbers to make decisions. Sabermetrics has advanced the science of baseball decision-making. That is not an opinion. That is a well-established fact.

 

But, you can make up all the 'unique' arguments you want to try and disprove that if it will make your feel better...

Now you're putting this one stat under a whole umbrella of sabermetrical protection by association. We're not talking about a large number of anonymous stats which the game - in your opinion, not fact - is better for. You try to call me out on a straw man because you can't even respond to the question. Again, how does pythagorean win total help anyone solve anything? Not even actual records - much less totally meaningless ones - help anyone solve anything, because you have to look at the reasons for each win or loss to decide what your weaknesses are. The figure itself tells nothing. I mean, do you even know what a straw man is? You were defending the pythagorean win total as not only an important figure, but also as a reasonable evaluation tool. I tell you that is idiotic and explain exactly why, then you call a straw man? What?

 

But instead of actually explaining why pythagorean wins are so important to a baseball exec, you'll probably respond with some kind of insult, and I'm guessing the reason will be because you feel that an attack on the legitimacy of one worthless statistic is also an attack upon your religion as a whole, so you'll get offended.

 

BTW it is your *opinion* that Bill James has done sooooo much for baseball. It may be a fact that his philosophies and recommendations have been used, and it may be a fact that some people have attributed success to them, but it is an opinion that his methods are better than any others. Tell me, are hitters today better than they were 10-20+ years ago? What about pitchers? And if so, how exactly does this relate to Bill James and not to more baseball academies, better sports medicine, alterations to the game itself, expansion, improved technology, a more profitable game, etc.? You sit there and say everyone was making all these bad decisions before, in a whole other era, but then everything changed for the better once Bill James came around. This is exactly the problem with you people: you believe one thing and you won't admit that it's just your own view. It's some great formula that can't be f***ed with. You make your assertion, knowing it cannot be proven, and you play it off as fact.

 

Tell me, did Bill James bring us Carlos Quentin or Gavin Floyd? Or was that a lot more scouting, with a look at minor league stats as a form of reassurance? What were these good numbers that brought us these players here recently but wouldn't have brought them in the past?

 

And please, what is a "good number" versus a "bad number?" Why am I not able to appropriately judge a pitcher simply off of his stuff, his peripheral stats, park/playing conditions, and strength of opposition? Why do I need pythagorean wins and win shares and so on? And why are all these numbers revolutionary?

 

If scouting has improved because stats have improved, then I believe it is because of better technology, more man power, greater funding, and easier access to information. I don't believe it has anything to do with adding a bunch of numbers together.

[fathom]

Can we just change this thread to "Brian Anderson is a debacle"?

[TitoMB345]

Can we just change this thread to "Brian Anderson is a debacle"?

 

I second this notion.

[Harry Chappas]

Can we just change this thread to "Brian Anderson is a debacle"?

 

It has taken 4 years but I now must confess......he sucks.

[scenario]

You sit there and say everyone was making all these bad decisions before, in a whole other era, but then everything changed for the better once Bill James came around. This is exactly the problem with you people: you believe one thing and you won't admit that it's just your own view. It's some great formula that can't be f***ed with. You make your assertion, knowing it cannot be proven, and you play it off as fact.

 

Tell me, did Bill James bring us Carlos Quentin or Gavin Floyd? Or was that a lot more scouting, with a look at minor league stats as a form of reassurance? What were these good numbers that brought us these players here recently but wouldn't have brought them in the past?

 

And please, what is a "good number" versus a "bad number?" Why am I not able to appropriately judge a pitcher simply off of his stuff, his peripheral stats, park/playing conditions, and strength of opposition? Why do I need pythagorean wins and win shares and so on? And why are all these numbers revolutionary?

 

If scouting has improved because stats have improved, then I believe it is because of better technology, more man power, greater funding, and easier access to information. I don't believe it has anything to do with adding a bunch of numbers together.

 

Yikes. Stop. The problem is that you don't know what you don't know.

 

There are lots of good books that cover the topics of how the business of baseball and baseball measurements have changed over the last 25 years. Start there.

 

 

 

 

[SI1020]

Yikes. Stop. The problem is that you don't know what you don't know.

 

There are lots of good books that cover the topics of how the business of baseball and baseball measurements have changed over the last 25 years. Start there.

No, the problem is that some of us do know. We just don't fall for it hook, line and sinker and even worse refuse to deify Bill James.

 

[The Ginger Kid]

i love it when you guys analyze

[greg775]

Brian at times looks like he has a clue.

But it's pretty apparent he needs to try it with some other team. He needs to go.

It would have been nice, considering his defense, to play him every inning this season and see what his batting average would be when all is said and done.

I'm thinking about .205, but who the hell knows?

[Balta1701]

I love how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy Brian Anderson has become.

 

Brian Anderson seems to only hit when he's given regular playing time.

 

Whenever Brian Anderson is treated as a platoon player or taken out of the lineup, Brian Anderson stops hitting.

 

Brian Anderson gets a few days off because someone thinks he's got a better matchup.

 

Brian Anderson stops hitting

 

Brian Anderson is treated as a platoon player or worse.

 

Ergo, Brian Anderson always sucks.

[caulfield12]

Now you're putting this one stat under a whole umbrella of sabermetrical protection by association. We're not talking about a large number of anonymous stats which the game - in your opinion, not fact - is better for. You try to call me out on a straw man because you can't even respond to the question. Again, how does pythagorean win total help anyone solve anything? Not even actual records - much less totally meaningless ones - help anyone solve anything, because you have to look at the reasons for each win or loss to decide what your weaknesses are. The figure itself tells nothing. I mean, do you even know what a straw man is? You were defending the pythagorean win total as not only an important figure, but also as a reasonable evaluation tool. I tell you that is idiotic and explain exactly why, then you call a straw man? What?

 

But instead of actually explaining why pythagorean wins are so important to a baseball exec, you'll probably respond with some kind of insult, and I'm guessing the reason will be because you feel that an attack on the legitimacy of one worthless statistic is also an attack upon your religion as a whole, so you'll get offended.

 

BTW it is your *opinion* that Bill James has done sooooo much for baseball. It may be a fact that his philosophies and recommendations have been used, and it may be a fact that some people have attributed success to them, but it is an opinion that his methods are better than any others. Tell me, are hitters today better than they were 10-20+ years ago? What about pitchers? And if so, how exactly does this relate to Bill James and not to more baseball academies, better sports medicine, alterations to the game itself, expansion, improved technology, a more profitable game, etc.? You sit there and say everyone was making all these bad decisions before, in a whole other era, but then everything changed for the better once Bill James came around. This is exactly the problem with you people: you believe one thing and you won't admit that it's just your own view. It's some great formula that can't be f***ed with. You make your assertion, knowing it cannot be proven, and you play it off as fact.

 

Tell me, did Bill James bring us Carlos Quentin or Gavin Floyd? Or was that a lot more scouting, with a look at minor league stats as a form of reassurance? What were these good numbers that brought us these players here recently but wouldn't have brought them in the past?

 

And please, what is a "good number" versus a "bad number?" Why am I not able to appropriately judge a pitcher simply off of his stuff, his peripheral stats, park/playing conditions, and strength of opposition? Why do I need pythagorean wins and win shares and so on? And why are all these numbers revolutionary?

 

If scouting has improved because stats have improved, then I believe it is because of better technology, more man power, greater funding, and easier access to information. I don't believe it has anything to do with adding a bunch of numbers together.

 

 

Guillen and Gardenhire have always been near the top in this category, with Wedge lagging far behind.

 

The problem with this whole idea is the White Sox offense is so darned inconsistent, but when your team, for instance, is playing .500 or around that mark and you're in the bottom 5 of the majors in the RS/RA differential, that says something positive (I think) for the manager.

 

What would be more accurate would be to look at winning 1 run and 2 run and 3 run games, but that's LARGELY a function of the bullpen...and Guillen was a genius in 2005 because Cotts, Politte and Hermanson pitched so far over their heads.

 

The problem with the White Sox is that EVEN if you went along with the argument we have the best bullpen in the American League, our starting rotation and line-up has so many holes in it that NO manager could make up for that lack of talent. As Ozzie and Leyland always say, give them great players and they'll make the manager look a whole lot better.

 

If you look at all our deficiences (fundamentals/execution, baserunning, defense, speed, OPS, OBP, etc.), it really is pretty amazing we're only 4 1/2 games back as poorly as we've played. A lot of our ability to really compete seems predicated on Quentin actually looking like a reasonable facsimile of the player he was last season, AND showing the aptitude for staying healthy. Not crossing my fingers on that one, any more than I am on Colon or Richard being consistent in any way, shape or form for the next 4 months. Same thing with Contreras.