Sox to Make Hard Push for Granderson

[southsider2k5]

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 years 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.

 

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.

[Rowand44]

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.

Rumblings from fans, nothing out of the organization.

 

Everyone would be fine with upgrading from De Aza, it's just not as easy to do as some people seem to believe.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Rowand44

[Balta1701]

Rumblings from fans, nothing out of the organization.

We are in a thread inspired by an article saying they would push hard for Granderson.

[Rowand44]

We are in a thread inspired by an article saying they would push hard for Granderson.

Ok sorry, rumblings from fans and mystery sources. Just making a point really that the Sox wont come out and say they use or don't use a specific stat just as they wont come out and claim they're trying to upgrade from De Aza.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[southsider2k5]

Rumblings from fans, nothing out of the organization.

 

Everyone would be fine with upgrading from De Aza, it's just not as easy to do as some people seem to believe.

 

What organization public states it is trying to dump its own players?

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

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.

[southsider2k5]

Ok sorry, rumblings from fans and mystery sources. Just making a point really that the Sox wont come out and say they use or don't use a specific stat just as they wont come out and claim they're trying to upgrade from De Aza.

 

Why else would they want to dump De Aza? His offensive output is actually pretty nice. It is absolutely because of his defensive and base running IQ.

[Rowand44]

Why else would they want to dump De Aza? His offensive output is actually pretty nice. It is absolutely because of his defensive and base running IQ.

Nobody knows if they're trying to get rid of De Aza or not.

[Dick Allen]

Nobody knows if they're trying to get rid of De Aza or not.

Steve Stone sure sounded like he knew.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[iamshack]

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.

[Eminor3rd]

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

[Marty34]

You can find numbers to show a player is worthy of keeping and you can find numbers that show a player is worthy of letting go. Sabermetrics has evolved into just as big of a racket as scouting. After all these advancements in numbers funny how the most telling statistic for a player remains age.

[elrockinMT]

What organization public states it is trying to dump its own players?

 

 

The New York Yankmees! LOL Didn't they say they wanted A-Rod gone? But, anyway, I know what you are saying. Wouldn't make any sense to have the Sox putting it out there they wanted to dump De Aza. I am not sure they want to trade him. He hasn't been all that bad

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

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.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

When you have a season that is that bad, it cancels out value. Outs on the bases kill teams and games.

[iamshack]

When you have a season that is that bad, it cancels out value. Outs on the bases kill teams and games.

I disagree...do you work with any guys that are brilliant but lazy or unmotivated? Yes, they're not reaching their maximum potential but they're still better than a lot of other guys because of their ability.

 

It just seems like you're making an incredibly arbitrary decision because he annoys you.

Edited October 15, 2013 by iamshack

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[Jordan4life_2007]

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.

 

Let it go, dude. 2k5 subscribes to twtw. Advanced stats are the best thing to ever happen to sports. I've never enjoyed baseball/basketball/football more than I have the last 5 years due to advanced statistical analysis.

[Dick Allen]

Let it go, dude. 2k5 subscribes to twtw. Advanced stats are the best thing to ever happen to sports. I've never enjoyed baseball/basketball/football more than I have the last 5 years due to advanced statistical analysis.

I don't think that is his point at all. DeAza was awful running the bases this year. If you want to say his speed made up for some of the awfulness and then compare him to Konerko, fine. Anyone would rather have DeAza running than Konerko. It doesn't take some advanced formula to see that.The fact is Konerko's baserunning is maximized. DeAza's is not. To me, dumb baserunner = bad baserunner. I understand more speed provides more value, but there is no reason DeAza should be as clueless as he is when he gets on base.

[TaylorStSox]

Let it go, dude. 2k5 subscribes to twtw. Advanced stats are the best thing to ever happen to sports. I've never enjoyed baseball/basketball/football more than I have the last 5 years due to advanced statistical analysis.

 

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.

[witesoxfan]

Christ, this argument is tired already.

 

Let's sum this up and move on:

 

De Aza - Bad baserunner but fast - overall positive value on the bases - STILL NOT GOOD PERSON WHO RUNS BASES

Konerko - SLOW AS f***

[Eminor3rd]

 

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

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

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.