Are all Sabr proponents geeks?

[caulfield12]

CircleChange11 says:

August 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

[1] You know who would appreciate these baseball metrics … NERDS … highly educated guys who went to academic colleges, and like to nerd it up. Ohlendorf and the like. Academic types that enjoy the details of a formula/scenario. You know how many of those guys are in MLB? Not many.

 

[2] I would also bet that guys tend to like sabermetric stuff when they lead in a category. Want me to speak on the wonders of FIP? Show me that I’m the best at it, and my other bad stats are due to team defense. I’m all over that. I’d bet right now, Cliff Lee really appreciates the K:BB metric. It’s probably his favorite stat. *grin*

 

[3] Not only do many major leaguers not pay attention to what we say … many of them think we have no right to say it. The whole not speaking from experience part. IMO, we’re like a homeless guy writing a book on how to make millions … in the opinion department. The value of sites like this are the extensions of the mega-research done and brought to the masses. But a lot of what is written here is just wrong opinion. If someone were to keep “individual W-L records” for the authors, what would the winning % be for each guy?

 

[4] The article (by Dave Cameron) says that Yuni (Betancourt) has the range of a wilted teen. No, Yuni has the range of a major league shortstop, which makes him what? 1 out of 10 million people to have the skill/ability? You really think any athlete is going to come and read stuff like that and give credence to some keyboard jockey's opinion?

 

[5] When Crash Davis gets a 5y/110M contract and for justification the GM states, “He has the most WAR of any catcher over the last 4 years.” THEN, Nuke will say, “Hey Annie, what’s all this WAR stuff.”

 

We drastically overestimate our influence and popularity in the mainstream. Growing, yes? Influential? No. Potential to educate lots of fans? Yes.

 

from fangraphs.com message boards

Edited August 14, 2010 by caulfield12

[Goober]

No, they are just impractical and somewhat inane

[chw42]

CircleChange11 says:

August 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

[1] You know who would appreciate these baseball metrics … NERDS … highly educated guys who went to academic colleges, and like to nerd it up. Ohlendorf and the like. Academic types that enjoy the details of a formula/scenario. You know how many of those guys are in MLB? Not many.

 

[2] I would also bet that guys tend to like sabermetric stuff when they lead in a category. Want me to speak on the wonders of FIP? Show me that I’m the best at it, and my other bad stats are due to team defense. I’m all over that. I’d bet right now, Cliff Lee really appreciates the K:BB metric. It’s probably his favorite stat. *grin*

 

[3] Not only do many major leaguers not pay attention to what we say … many of them think we have no right to say it. The whole not speaking from experience part. IMO, we’re like a homeless guy writing a book on how to make millions … in the opinion department. The value of sites like this are the extensions of the mega-research done and brought to the masses. But a lot of what is written here is just wrong opinion. If someone were to keep “individual W-L records” for the authors, what would the winning % be for each guy?

 

[4] The article (by Dave Cameron) says that Yuni (Betancourt) has the range of a wilted teen. No, Yuni has the range of a major league shortstop, which makes him what? 1 out of 10 million people to have the skill/ability? You really think any athlete is going to come and read stuff like that and give credence to some keyboard jockey's opinion?

 

[5] When Crash Davis gets a 5y/110M contract and for justification the GM states, “He has the most WAR of any catcher over the last 4 years.” THEN, Nuke will say, “Hey Annie, what’s all this WAR stuff.”

 

We drastically overestimate our influence and popularity in the mainstream. Growing, yes? Influential? No. Potential to educate lots of fans? Yes.

 

from fangraphs.com message boards

 

CircleChange is a pretty good poster over there, actually.

 

Regarding the topic at hand, I don't think everybody who likes sabermetrics or uses it is a geek. Is Zack Greinke a geek? Is Brian Bannister one? Max Scherzer? Maybe those guys are just smart to use the tools they have in front of them instead of being ignorant and arrogant. But people with higher education levels tend to understand them better because they've had to deal with numbers before.

 

Plus, it's a young vs. old thing as well. People my age, or slightly older than me tend to understand and appreciate sabermetrics more. Maybe we're just more open minded or the education of right now is better than the education of a decade or two ago. Who knows.

 

I don't know if it's fair to call numbers people "nerds". Nerds usually don't like sports, at least that's what the stereotype of a nerd is. Geek is probably a better way to describe it.

Edited August 14, 2010 by chw42

[caulfield12]

I think what started this debate was Dave Cameron writing that because he (Greinke) referenced a SABR stat once (like FIP or something like that), that it was therefore somehow logical that he was also upset with the Royals because Yuniesky Betancourt has one of the worst UZR ratings in baseball, or something like that...also, the idea that players and agents will start using these stats to criticize their FO's or speak out in the press.

 

I think that was a bit of a stretch...using statistics to back up your arguments is always helpful, but it's definitely not the be-all, end-all to debate. In fact, someone brought up how the Twins had never used any kind of SABR analysis at all until the 2010 season, their famous quote from GM Smith about "trusting their eyes" in terms of scouting.

 

In actuality, Greinke has seen Meche go down with injuries, rumors about Soria being traded, Farnsworth gone, Pods gone, Guillen gone, Ankiel gone, Callaspo gone...it's logical that his comments were more reflective of these transactions than how good Betancourt's range factor was at any given moment.

Edited August 14, 2010 by caulfield12

[DukeNukeEm]

CircleChange is a pretty good poster over there, actually.

 

Regarding the topic at hand, I don't think everybody who likes sabermetrics or uses it is a geek. Is Zack Greinke a geek? Is Brian Bannister one? Max Scherzer? Maybe those guys are just smart to use the tools they have in front of them instead of being ignorant and arrogant. But people with higher education levels tend to understand them better because they've had to deal with numbers before.

 

Plus, it's a young vs. old thing as well. People my age, or slightly older than me tend to understand and appreciate sabermetrics more. Maybe we're just more open minded or the education of right now is better than the education of a decade or two ago. Who knows.

 

I don't know if it's fair to call numbers people "nerds". Nerds usually don't like sports, at least that's what the stereotype of a nerd is. Geek is probably a better way to describe it.

This post pretty much encapsulates how condescending Sabr proponents are.

[iamshack]

My only issue with many of the more die-hard sabr proponents is that they are just as guilty as the community they criticize so much. Anything that is not quantifiable or is misquantified has no value or effect. Blind faith is placed in developing, but still flawed metrics. As ignorant as they claim old shool "baseball people" are because of their reluctance or refusal to accept sabermetrics, the hardcore sabr community often refuses or is reluctant to accept anything other than sabermetric approaches.

[chw42]

I think what started this debate was Dave Cameron writing that because he (Greinke) referenced a SABR stat once (like FIP or something like that), that it was therefore somehow logical that he was also upset with the Royals because Yuniesky Betancourt has one of the worst UZR ratings in baseball, or something like that...also, the idea that players and agents will start using these stats to criticize their FO's or speak out in the press.

 

I think that was a bit of a stretch...using statistics to back up your arguments is always helpful, but it's definitely not the be-all, end-all to debate. In fact, someone brought up how the Twins had never used any kind of SABR analysis at all until the 2010 season, their famous quote from GM Smith about "trusting their eyes" in terms of scouting.

 

In actuality, Greinke has seen Meche go down with injuries, rumors about Soria being traded, Farnsworth gone, Pods gone, Guillen gone, Ankiel gone, Callaspo gone...it's logical that his comments were more reflective of these transactions than how good Betancourt's range factor was at any given moment.

 

It was more or less him getting pissed off at their front office for not having a direction.

[chw42]

This post pretty much encapsulates how condescending Sabr proponents are.

 

Right, and now let's all go and talk about how great of a player Juan Pierre is because he is so good at sliding!

[DukeNukeEm]

Right, and now let's all go and talk about how great of a player Juan Pierre is because he is so good at sliding!

Only old, close-minded, uneducated and stupid people would ever hold that opinion. Cant blame them though, they just dont understand math.

[iamshack]

Right, and now let's all go and talk about how great of a player Juan Pierre is because he is so good at sliding!

This reminds me of Jimmy Kimmel's line in the roast of Flavor Flav - "Yes, that'll change the perceptions about you..."

[chw42]

Only old, close-minded, uneducated and stupid people would ever hold that opinion. Cant blame them though, they just dont understand math.

 

As Felix said to you in the chat, it's fine you have your own opinions, but being completely ignorant about something you keep on knocking is not cool.

[DukeNukeEm]

As Felix said to you in the chat, it's fine you have your own opinions, but being completely ignorant about something you keep on knocking is not cool.

I'm still waiting on you to explain WAR to me in your own words. You wont do it, I dont know why.

 

Make me less ignorant.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I know some Sabermetrics (Only a few though), and I wouldn't consider myself a geek at all. But even if I was, would I admit it? Eh, probably.

[chw42]

I'm still waiting on you to explain WAR to me in your own words. You wont do it, I dont know why.

 

Make me less ignorant.

 

I wish I had somebody explain WAR to me when I first came upon it...

 

http://saberlibrary.com/misc/war/

 

Basically, it takes one offensive stat (wOBA, converted into wRAA based on ballpark factors) and one defensive stat (UZR), along with a positional adjustment (not all position players are of the same value), and a constant replacement value (20 runs per 600 PAs) and adds all of those components together, which gives you a run value. Divide that by 10 and you get win shares. If you want an explanation of why it is 10 runs, read this.

 

wOBA is based on linear weights, which takes its values from playing around with run expectancy charts. The average value of a home run over all these years is 1.95 runs, so if a player hits a home run, that event is worth 1.95 runs. The bad thing about this is that it is not based on context. A three run homer in the 9th is worth the same as a solo home run in the first. However, you kind of want it that way. There are other stats that tell you about contextual performance (Win Percentage Added, for example), but WAR measures player talent, not how clutch he is. You run into those situations based on the team you play for and where you bat in the lineup, WAR does not measure that because those are things the player has no control over. For the most part, people accept that wOBA is a better stat than OPS because a: OPS counts for singles twice and b: wOBA is a more complicated calculation that takes more things into consideration.

 

UZR is a defensive metric that is calculated based on zones. The field is divided into 84 zones and each ball in play is plotted for location and type (line drive, fly ball, ground ball, fliner). Based on this data, you can find the average zone for all fielders at every position. If the ball is out of the zone, the fielder gets credit for making such a play. If a fielder makes a play in his zone, he also gets credit, but not a whole lot. However, if he misses a ball in his zone, he will get penalized. A more easy scoring system is John Dewan's +/-, where the ratings are whole integers. But in UZR, the calculations are for more complicated and harder to explain.

 

Read this about replacement level: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/w...ained-part-four

Read this about positional adjustment: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/e...lues-part-three

 

Replacement level might be hard to grasp, but positional adjustment is quite self explanatory.

 

WAR is not a contextual stat, nowhere does it base its numbers in how many walk-off hits a hitter gets. Andre Ethier's WAR is not 8 because he had 8 walk-off hits, thinking this way would be too simplistic and it would be taking away credit from the players who got on base in front of him and the pitchers who got outs for him to get to that point. It is not team dependent and it is not event dependent. So no, Mark Kotsay shouldn't get a whole win share because he got two big hits against Detroit. That'll show up in his WPA, but WAR isn't for that.

Edited August 14, 2010 by chw42

[caulfield12]

Of course, the other side of this argument is people who have little to no experience playing the game at a high level, but dismiss all statistics and refuse to discuss them with those who swear by them, lol.

 

I do agree with one sentiment expressed in the original message post.

 

That MOST people in baseball, while they have a healthy and growing respect for the new metrics, are always going to be biased in favor of the "good 'ol boy" network in baseball, and most major league front offices and coaching staffs will be filled with former players and coaches.

 

I don't think you will ever find a coaching staff using "stats geeks" in any area but the front office, because the players won't ever treat them seriously.

 

I consider Sosnick one of the few agents who has ever made it into the "inner circle" without a playing background and he had a VERY VERY difficult time, and he had the luxury of being basically a young, super rich guy who wanted to get more involved in the game....as someone with background in Sports Management (that doesn't qualify me as an expert either), I've seen most of my peers get stuck in marketing types of jobs, although a few have made it in coaching. Still, those who made it in coaching/scouting had backgrounds playing in those areas, at least at the college level.

 

Yes, there's Beane, Epstein, Daniels, Byrnes (fired), Jack Z. (he's losing his reputation already this year for building a team almost entirely based on defensive metrics), Ricciardi, DiPodesta, the young GM in Cleveland who will replace Shapiro, but of that new generation of GM's, none of them has been an unqualified success, and I would even say there's something of rebound back to the side of traditional scouting MIXED with a bit of SABR analysis.

 

It's easy to use the Red Sox as an example, but it's like Phil Jackson...we'll never know if Theo could take over the Royals or Pirates and turn those organizations around with limited budgetary resources, whether you have Bill James around or not. In fact, I think most young SABR people believe James has been passed up already by the young generation of stat geeks.

 

The other thing that's interesting is you still see VERY VERY women in baseball, or Asians (there are exceptions, because the Mariners' ownership group, Christine Ng, etc.)

Edited August 14, 2010 by caulfield12

[SoxAce]

To answer this thread... yes they are nerds, dorks, geeks, etc.. but... they are also highly respected... something you can't say about real life nerds/geeks/etc.. in schools where you can just pick on them or beat them up.. or ask to do your homework.

[chw42]

To answer this thread... yes they are nerds, dorks, geeks, etc.. but... they are also highly respected... something you can't say about real life nerds/geeks/etc.. in schools where you can just pick on them or beat them up.. or ask to do your homework.

 

At least none of that happened to me in school.

[Marky Mark]

Anyone that posts on a website everyday is a nerd. Don't be in denial. Nerds.

[chw42]

Anyone that posts on a website everyday is a nerd. Don't be in denial. Nerds.

 

I see you are going with the mentality of "you're all going down with me"

 

[GREEDY]

Anyone who watches every pitch of every (insert team name here) game is FORCED to agree with the Sabre community.

 

It is the average fan that tunes in to Sportscenter just in time to see Ryan Theriot get the game winning base hit that says: "I don't care what those dorks say about this guy, he is one clutch mother f***er".

 

When you actually watch every pitch of every game you begin to see the aspects that cannot be measured by traditional statistics.

 

Currently I am flat out obsessed with how important defense and park factors are, I can't seem to get past either aspect of the game.

[Quin]

Anyone that posts on a website everyday is a nerd. Don't be in denial. Nerds.

 

Suddenly, Facebook became a lot less cool.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Quinarvy

[shipps]

Anyone that posts on a website everyday is a nerd. Don't be in denial. Nerds.

 

Okay.

 

But I post on a website everyday and I know I am cool. A lot cooler than you are. A s*** ton cool.

[mmmmmbeeer]

It's nothing more than a study of probabilities dressed in fancy names. Much like the comprehension of probabilities allows actuaries and gamblers to successfully predict an outcome more often than those unaware of probabilities, they are still surprised when John Doe has a heart attack at age 32 or 3 aces pop up in the flop of a game of Texas HoldEm.

 

I guess my point is that I feel that Sabr has value to the game but not nearly as much as is impressed upon us by its rabid community of followers. Some of the stats are deserving of the praise while others are not even close to ready for mainstream acceptance.

[LittleHurt05]

I wish I had somebody explain WAR to me when I first came upon it...

 

http://saberlibrary.com/misc/war/

 

My only question about WAR is how the f*** does Cliff Pennington have the 18th highest WAR in the AL & Daric Barton has the 20th highest?

[witesoxfan]

My only question about WAR is how the f*** does Cliff Pennington have the 18th highest WAR in the AL & Daric Barton has the 20th highest?

 

Because they don't. Barton is at 22nd and Pennington is at 27th.

 

Beyond that, both have been good defensively this year and both have been solid offensively. Barton may not hit for much power (35 XBHs and 5 HR in 497 PAs), but he gets on base a ton, and getting on base is the biggest part of scoring runs. Cliff Pennington isn't a special player by any means, but he's OK offensively (.334 OBP and he's hit for enough power to keep his OPS over .700), good defensively, and he plays a premium defensive position. On top of that, both have played quite a bit...Pennington has played in 110 and Barton in 113 of the Athletics' 116 games. Barton has only played 3 more games than Pennington, but has 80 more plate appearances, and that difference is largely because he has hit 2nd for most of the year, whereas Pennington has hit 9th for most of the season.

 

This is all pretty much the same exact reasoning as to why Alexei Ramirez has the highest WAR on the White Sox (among offensive players), even though Alex Rios has had a great season and Paul Konerko has quite easily been the Sox best offensive player. Alexei has played phenomenal defense this year, has been a pretty good hitter (though he hasn't gotten on base much of the time), and he's played almost every game (114 of 118), and he's done it playing SS, which is a much more difficult position to find good offensive players.

 

And, because he's played as much as he has and as well as he has defensively, he's been the 3rd best SS in the entire game, even with his relatively mediocre offensive numbers.