The Great Brian Anderson Debacle

[BigSqwert]

Was there any reason given for pulling Anderson from the game yesterday?

He was literally sick of the way he has been handled by the Sox. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. He might actually be dead now.

[StrangeSox]

Thanks for the replies. It would be nice if they had some way of communicating that information at the park.

[southsider2k5]

He was dizzy or lightheaded, something like that.

 

You know, the usual for Brian.

[SI1020]

Why?

Because judging a team based on run or point differential is stupid and shortsighted IMHO. I could care less how many Pythagorean wins a team has, they don't count in the standings. At least not yet. They may someday if some stats geeks have their way. Edited June 4, 2009 by SI1020

[scenario]

Because judging a team based on run or point differential is stupid and shortsighted IMHO.

 

So, the fact that it consistently predicts correctly is stupid and shortsighted to you and a bad reason to use it.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2009 by scenario

[elrockinMT]

We shouldn't complain about Ozzie's issues with BA in any way shape or form because we might make Ozzie mad. But, I think BA has the flu and is still recuperating.

[SI1020]

So, the fact that it consistently predicts correctly is stupid and shortsighted to you and a bad reason to use it.

I'm afraid this won't have the outcome you like. I'm not a zealot for the new stats. I think it might have been better if Bill James had been an accountant or sold tacos from a road side stand. The fact that many or most teams real wins might match fairly closely their Pythagorean wins does not move me. It doesn't take into consideration short term trends and various other anomalies and outliers. In the end, I want to know how a team really did. If a team has a substantial run differential and doesn't have the corresponding wins one might expect, or the opposite, a team with lots of close game wins and more wins than the formula would indicate, I'm not going to take the knee jerk reaction. Believe me, this is only part of my dislike of the whole sabermetrics thing. It will just make you mad at me, and I'd like to stay on mostly friendly terms here. I will continue to gag every time I hear the words "Pythagorean wins." I just do not approach baseball or any other sport that way.

 

[BigSqwert]

We shouldn't complain about Ozzie's issues with BA in any way shape or form because we might make Ozzie mad.

Ozzie's reading this forum?

[southsideirish71]

I'm afraid this won't have the outcome you like. I'm not a zealot for the new stats. I think it might have been better if Bill James had been an accountant or sold tacos from a road side stand. The fact that many or most teams real wins might match fairly closely their Pythagorean wins does not move me. It doesn't take into consideration short term trends and various other anomalies and outliers. In the end, I want to know how a team really did. If a team has a substantial run differential and doesn't have the corresponding wins one might expect, or the opposite, a team with lots of close game wins and more wins than the formula would indicate, I'm not going to take the knee jerk reaction. Believe me, this is only part of my dislike of the whole sabermetrics thing. It will just make you mad at me, and I'd like to stay on mostly friendly terms here. I will continue to gag every time I hear the words "Pythagorean wins." I just do not approach baseball or any other sport that way.

 

So are you resisting the entire Digital TV thing also.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Ozzie's reading this forum?

I sometimes think he or other Sox people do, with some things they have said in the press.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

So, the fact that it consistently predicts correctly is stupid and shortsighted to you and a bad reason to use it.

It's stupid and short-sighted because it counts all runs equally and all runs allowed equally. In real baseball, losing or winning a game by 10 runs vs. winning or losing a game by 3 runs does not matter, but in that particular formula it does. It rewards teams with average pitching and inconsistent but powerful offenses (like the Indians seemingly every year) and takes away from teams with good pitching that play a lot of close games because they lack a powerful offense (seems like the Angels every year).

 

Tampa Bay has the 2nd best run differential in baseball right now but has the 16th best record and is 4th in their division instead of leading it, which apparently they should. Is that a good sign of a bad manager? Probably not.

 

You judge a manager by how a team is performing with regards to organizational expectations, as well as how he handles the game situationally and how players develop under him. If your manager is getting "extra wins" when run differential shows he shouldn't be, maybe instead of praising the guy you should ask why he keeps sending such-and-such pitcher out there or such-and-such defender out there when all the player does is contribute to your run differential negatively? Or maybe you should ask why the offense is so inconsistent or outright poor? Or perhaps your run differential is too small on the positive side and that is a reflection of a poor manager who runs himself out of innings too often?

 

In some cases the formula can come out pretty close which should be no surprise to anyone considering the parity in the league and how close (+ or -) most players are to league average. But it's still not worth anything.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I sometimes think he or other Sox people do, with some things they have said in the press.

Concerns here are probably echoed across every other Sox fan forum or blog. They even sometimes make their ways into the press, and they always get through over the radio. Sox brass do not have to do much to catch a whiff of the stink Sox fans will put up when they throw a turd out in CF.

[lostfan]

If I ever met DeWayne Wise in person I would totally act like I didn't even know Soxtalk existed - lol

[SI1020]

So are you resisting the entire Digital TV thing also.

Of course I am. I ride a horse too.

 

[TLAK]

It's stupid and short-sighted because it counts all runs equally and all runs allowed equally. In real baseball, losing or winning a game by 10 runs vs. winning or losing a game by 3 runs does not matter, but in that particular formula it does. It rewards teams with average pitching and inconsistent but powerful offenses (like the Indians seemingly every year) and takes away from teams with good pitching that play a lot of close games because they lack a powerful offense (seems like the Angels every year).

 

Tampa Bay has the 2nd best run differential in baseball right now but has the 16th best record and is 4th in their division instead of leading it, which apparently they should. Is that a good sign of a bad manager? Probably not.

 

You judge a manager by how a team is performing with regards to organizational expectations, as well as how he handles the game situationally and how players develop under him. If your manager is getting "extra wins" when run differential shows he shouldn't be, maybe instead of praising the guy you should ask why he keeps sending such-and-such pitcher out there or such-and-such defender out there when all the player does is contribute to your run differential negatively? Or maybe you should ask why the offense is so inconsistent or outright poor? Or perhaps your run differential is too small on the positive side and that is a reflection of a poor manager who runs himself out of innings too often?

 

In some cases the formula can come out pretty close which should be no surprise to anyone considering the parity in the league and how close (+ or -) most players are to league average. But it's still not worth anything.

Agree

 

Like many stats, it coorelates historically but is not predictive. It just says teams that score more runs than their opponent will tend to win more games. The larger the sample, the better the coorelation. But on any given day, the clock starts at zero and you have to watch the game to see who wins.

 

Your comment about when runs are scored is true. A couple years ago when Dewan Day and similar stars comprised the B group relievers the White Sox apparently out performed the stat, but only because they would turn a 3 run deficit into a 9 run one. The A group relievers like Thornton were never used in those games, a loss is a loss so who cares if its by 3 or 9?

 

As always, past performance does not guarentee future results.

 

[StrangeSox]

It's stupid and short-sighted because it counts all runs equally and all runs allowed equally. In real baseball, losing or winning a game by 10 runs vs. winning or losing a game by 3 runs does not matter, but in that particular formula it does. It rewards teams with average pitching and inconsistent but powerful offenses (like the Indians seemingly every year) and takes away from teams with good pitching that play a lot of close games because they lack a powerful offense (seems like the Angels every year).

 

Tampa Bay has the 2nd best run differential in baseball right now but has the 16th best record and is 4th in their division instead of leading it, which apparently they should. Is that a good sign of a bad manager? Probably not.

 

You judge a manager by how a team is performing with regards to organizational expectations, as well as how he handles the game situationally and how players develop under him. If your manager is getting "extra wins" when run differential shows he shouldn't be, maybe instead of praising the guy you should ask why he keeps sending such-and-such pitcher out there or such-and-such defender out there when all the player does is contribute to your run differential negatively? Or maybe you should ask why the offense is so inconsistent or outright poor? Or perhaps your run differential is too small on the positive side and that is a reflection of a poor manager who runs himself out of innings too often?

 

In some cases the formula can come out pretty close which should be no surprise to anyone considering the parity in the league and how close (+ or -) most players are to league average. But it's still not worth anything.

 

That's my feeling as well. Its too simple of a measure. It needs to take into account the deviations of runs scored/ allowed to be more accurate. Assigning any difference from your metric and reality to the manager is just ad hoc.

 

I have to admit that I haven't seen any information on how well it correlates to actual win totals year-to-year. It may be an accurate predictor.

Edited June 4, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I would venture to guess the reason we outperform our Pythagorean is because we tend to win games 11-4 and lose games 2-1. And if that's the case, this is not something that should be attributed to Ozzie as a reason he's a "good" (or "bad," as the case may be) manager. It's just the way the team is. Solid pitching, inconsistent offense.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would venture to guess the reason we outperform our Pythagorean is because we tend to win games 11-4 and lose games 2-1. And if that's the case, this is not something that should be attributed to Ozzie as a reason he's a "good" (or "bad," as the case may be) manager. It's just the way the team is. Solid pitching, inconsistent offense.

That would make us UNDERperform.

 

[ILMOU]

i mean, he literally said that the only reason he plays wise is because he likes him, wants him to play, and wants him to get at bats. absolutely NO baseball-related reason.

 

lol.

 

It surprises me that so many smart fans on this board can't understand why BA has been, and possibly remains in Ozzie's doghouse. To me, the answer is obvious - Situational Hitting.

 

We all know that Ozzie is not the "numbers guy" that so many of us geeks are, and would like him to be. We also know that if there's one thing that frosts Ozzie's ass, it's bad situational hitting.

 

BA, to this point in his career, has been a TERRIBLE situational hitter. When we need a sac fly, he hits a DP ground ball, when we need to advance a runner he strikes out.

 

Ozzie's not looking at his OBP, at least as much as we would like him to. But a player who fails so much in situational hitting will never be his darling.

[lostfan]

That would make us UNDERperform.

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.

[scenario]

I'm afraid this won't have the outcome you like. I'm not a zealot for the new stats. I think it might have been better if Bill James had been an accountant or sold tacos from a road side stand. The fact that many or most teams real wins might match fairly closely their Pythagorean wins does not move me. It doesn't take into consideration short term trends and various other anomalies and outliers. In the end, I want to know how a team really did. If a team has a substantial run differential and doesn't have the corresponding wins one might expect, or the opposite, a team with lots of close game wins and more wins than the formula would indicate, I'm not going to take the knee jerk reaction. Believe me, this is only part of my dislike of the whole sabermetrics thing. It will just make you mad at me, and I'd like to stay on mostly friendly terms here. I will continue to gag every time I hear the words "Pythagorean wins." I just do not approach baseball or any other sport that way.

 

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.

Edited June 4, 2009 by scenario

[ThunderBolt]

It surprises me that so many smart fans on this board can't understand why BA has been, and possibly remains in Ozzie's doghouse. To me, the answer is obvious - Situational Hitting.

Your arguement is negated by the fact that's he starting Dewayne Freaking Wise over him.

[ILMOU]

Your arguement is negated by the fact that's he starting Dewayne Freaking Wise over him.

 

Hey man, I don't like Wise on this team as anything but a 5th OF, pinch runner, if even that. I'm just stating that BA fails miserably at the one thing that Ozzie cares about most. Not saying Wise is any better.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Agree

 

Like many stats, it coorelates historically but is not predictive. It just says teams that score more runs than their opponent will tend to win more games. The larger the sample, the better the coorelation. But on any given day, the clock starts at zero and you have to watch the game to see who wins.

 

Your comment about when runs are scored is true. A couple years ago when Dewan Day and similar stars comprised the B group relievers the White Sox apparently out performed the stat, but only because they would turn a 3 run deficit into a 9 run one. The A group relievers like Thornton were never used in those games, a loss is a loss so who cares if its by 3 or 9?

 

As always, past performance does not guarentee future results.

Exactly.

 

And truthfully, a really good manager doesn't give a s*** about run differential in the first place.

 

One thing I like about Ozzie is that if we're getting it handed to us because our starter gets taken out early and the guy opposite is dealing, Ozzie will take out some key starters and plug in some bench guys to get them time and keep regulars fresh. He'll put in struggling or new relievers and give them a go, knowing full well that even if we put our best team out there and make a comeback, we're still going to lose by a couple runs. Rather than doing that he lets the game continue out of hand but in a manner that leaves us in much better shape for the following day.

 

Good managers do this all the time during a season, and runs only actually matter when they contribute to wins. I think the best way to evaluate a manager if you're just trying to use record is his team's record in 1-run and 2-run games where he's forced to make more critical decisions. And even then, you can only take that so far because if the manager doesn't have much of an offense to work with or if he has a shaky back end of the bullpen, then he's going to have trouble.

[SI1020]

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.

Your post is both arrogant and insulting. Some hot trends have merit. Others do not. If refusing to bow to the universal wisdom of Pythagorean wins and it's proof of Ozzie's superior management skills means living in the dark ages to you there is nothing I can do about it. Some of us have actually spent hours crunching some of the latest stats and come away less than impressed. So go cry in the corner or stamp your feet or whatever you feel is necessary.