Dunn's Future

[cabiness42]

For NL teams, it makes a bit more sense because pitchers are terrible at hitting. For the Rangers, their manager is Ron Washington, who is a f***ing moron but gets the most out of his guys.

 

I just checked and only 8 of the Mets' 18 Sac Bunts were from pitchers, as opposed to 19 of Miami's 25 Sac Bunts coming from pitchers.

[Eminor3rd]

Interesting that the Mets and Rangers are supposed to be highly analytical organizations but both are in the top 6 in MLB in Sac Bunts. Disdain for the sac bunt is one of the calling cards of analytics.

 

Sabermetrics doesn't hate sacrifice bunts, it hates moves that reduce the likelihood that a team will score a run. Most managers tend to sacrifice bunt in situations where the extra out hurts them more than the runner advancing helps.

[caulfield12]

I just checked and only 8 of the Mets' 18 Sac Bunts were from pitchers, as opposed to 19 of Miami's 25 Sac Bunts coming from pitchers.

 

 

Eric Young is a very good bunter, and Tejada's (SS) not far behind. That's 5 right there. Then you have 2 from Recker, a catcher who bats down in the order and isn't very potent offensively but can at least get a bunt down and move runners a base at a time.

[Dick Allen]

You should use the advanced metrics, but if that's all you use, you will be in trouble. xFIP says Gavin Floyd was a better pitcher for the White Sox than Mark Buehrle. Is there really anyone who would rather have had Gavin on the mound in a must win game than Buehrle?

[caulfield12]

For NL teams, it makes a bit more sense because pitchers are terrible at hitting. For the Rangers, their manager is Ron Washington, who is a f***ing moron but gets the most out of his guys.

 

 

Martin accounts for 5 of those and Andrus 3.

 

That's their game...just like for Adam "Lenny Dykstra Jr Minus the Financial Fraud & Mismanagement" Eaton.

 

 

With Arencibia being so terrible, Nelson Cruz gone, Beltre and Profar injured, they've had to scuffle more for runs than at any point in recent memory...not to mention all their pitching injuries, every run counts.

 

And the Rangers aren't playing as many games on the fastest diamond in the big leagues because the summer weather hasn't quite hit Texas yet. Playing in colder/spring weather, when the ball's not jumping like it does in Arlington or USCF, causes managers to have to adjust tactics a bit.

[caulfield12]

You should use the advanced metrics, but if that's all you use, you will be in trouble. xFIP says Gavin Floyd was a better pitcher for the White Sox than Mark Buehrle. Is there really anyone who would rather have had Gavin on the mound in a must win game than Buehrle?

 

 

Only in 2008, especially the first half.

 

Those are the same numbers that would suggest Javy V. was always a better pitcher than his sub .500 record constantly indicated. One case where wins and losses for a starting pitcher do actually mean something.

 

Just like you don't need to shine the light of sabremetrics to see how good Tanaka has been so far out of the gate, or Cueto, or Scherzer (all, until their most recent starts).

Edited May 22, 2014 by caulfield12

[witesoxfan]

You should use the advanced metrics, but if that's all you use, you will be in trouble. xFIP says Gavin Floyd was a better pitcher for the White Sox than Mark Buehrle. Is there really anyone who would rather have had Gavin on the mound in a must win game than Buehrle?

 

I have never met nor talked to nor read a single person who used solely sabermetric statistics.

[cabiness42]

Sabermetrics doesn't hate sacrifice bunts, it hates moves that reduce the likelihood that a team will score a run. Most managers tend to sacrifice bunt in situations where the extra out hurts them more than the runner advancing helps.

 

Right, but unless you are sacrificing a runner from 2nd to 3rd with 0 outs or you have a pitcher or an equally bad hitter at the plate, sacrificing almost always reduces your run expectancy.

[Eminor3rd]

You should use the advanced metrics, but if that's all you use, you will be in trouble. xFIP says Gavin Floyd was a better pitcher for the White Sox than Mark Buehrle. Is there really anyone who would rather have had Gavin on the mound in a must win game than Buehrle?

 

Using xFIP to measure overall pitcher quality is like using a ruler to measure your weight. You're going to get all kinds of weird conclusions if you use the wrong tools to answer your questions.

[Marty34]

Using xFIP to measure overall pitcher quality is like using a ruler to measure your weight. You're going to get all kinds of weird conclusions if you use the wrong tools to answer your questions.

 

That explains Alex Anthopoulis. With a dash of bad luck thrown in.

[Marty34]

I have never met nor talked to nor read a single person who used solely sabermetric statistics.

 

It's all opinion, yet the Sabre crowd will pull out an advanced metric like it's some kind of trump in an argument. It's bad luck when the metric doesn't predict future performance. I get a laugh out of the disdain shown for toolsy outfielders from the Sabre crowd, I guess bad luck doesn't cut it for the scouts that recommend the ones that flop.

[witesoxfan]

It's all opinion, yet the Sabre crowd will pull out an advanced metric like it's some kind of trump in an argument. It's bad luck when the metric doesn't predict future performance. I get a laugh out of the disdain shown for toolsy outfielders from the Sabre crowd, I guess bad luck doesn't cut it for the scouts that recommend the ones that flop.

 

Disdain shown for toolsy outfielders? You mean how they agreed that Andrew McCutchen was the NL MVP last year and that Mike Trout has been robbed 2 years in a row all the while baseball "traditionalists" have awarded a 1B the award 2 years in a row?

 

Frankly, you're making s*** up as you go and you're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

Edited May 22, 2014 by witesoxfan

[cabiness42]

It's all opinion, yet the Sabre crowd will pull out an advanced metric like it's some kind of trump in an argument. It's bad luck when the metric doesn't predict future performance. I get a laugh out of the disdain shown for toolsy outfielders from the Sabre crowd, I guess bad luck doesn't cut it for the scouts that recommend the ones that flop.

 

Well, people misuse advanced metrics just like people misuse traditional stats. The biggest misuse of advanced metrics is accepting them as an absolute, as in saying somebody with a 7.0 WAR in a season was clearly better than somebody with a 6.7 WAR. While the advanced metrics are much better, they still don't have a perfectly linear correlation to wins (or even runs). They are still approximations of value, albeit much better ones. As for projection systems, they all are based on normal distributions which expect 2/3 of the results to vary by as much as a full standard deviation. If you get way beyond a full standard deviation, then yes, it is justified to suggest luck might be involved. It also helps to look at what is driving the variance. An extremely high BABIP is more likely signaling luck (Flowers), whereas an increased walk rate is more likely to suggest genuine improvement from the player (Viciedo).

 

Also, I don't think anybody is putting a lot of stock in advanced metrics when it comes to scouting. You are scouting college and high school players and there is no accepted way to translate their stats the way we can translate major league, and to a lesser extent minor league stats. Now, scouts who have a foundation in advanced metrics will be looking for different things when scouting than "traditional" scouts, and as such will likely have a higher success rate, but there is still a very large error rate in scouting. Regardless of your evaluation method you are never going to hit on every draft pick.

[Marty34]

Disdain shown for toolsy outfielders? You mean how they agreed that Andrew McCutchen was the NL MVP last year and that Mike Trout has been robbed 2 years in a row all the while baseball "traditionalists" have awarded a 1B the award 2 years in a row?

 

Frankly, you're making s*** up as you go and you're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

 

Small sample size!!!

[witesoxfan]

Small sample size!!!

 

Instead of spouting off meaningless interjections, give examples of outfielders advanced metrics doesn't like.

[Marty34]

Instead of spouting off meaningless interjections, give examples of outfielders advanced metrics doesn't like.

 

When advanced metrics likes them they stop being toolsy outfielders,

[witesoxfan]

When advanced metrics likes them they stop being toolsy outfielders,

 

Again, stop making meaningless, vague statements and come up with concrete examples. Until you do that, you are doing nothing but trolling.

[southsider2k5]

Again, stop making meaningless, vague statements and come up with concrete examples. Until you do that, you are doing nothing but trolling.

 

The last time I saw beating like this...

[Dick Allen]

Again, stop making meaningless, vague statements and come up with concrete examples. Until you do that, you are doing nothing but trolling.

The Saber guys told us Carlos Gomez sucked. They told us Dayan Viciedo was pretty much a lost cause. They told us Alexei Ramirez wasn't going to be worth his contract moving forward.

 

The fact is like Hickory posted earlier, a 7.0 WAR player isn't necessarily better than a 6.7 WAR player. Yet, if someone is considered anit-saber, that fact will always be used as proof that the person who thinks the 6.7 player is better is just wrong.

 

There are going to be misses both good and bad with whatever you use.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

The Saber guys told us Carlos Gomez sucked. They told us Dayan Viciedo was pretty much a lost cause. They told us Alexei Ramirez wasn't going to be worth his contract moving forward.

 

The fact is like Hickory posted earlier, a 7.0 WAR player isn't necessarily better than a 6.7 WAR player. Yet, if someone is considered anit-saber, that fact will always be used as proof that the person who thinks the 6.7 player is better is just wrong.

 

There are going to be misses both good and bad with whatever you use.

 

Carlos Gomez DID suck. He was good defensively and s*** with the bat. He's turned it around pretty well. Nobody said Viciedo is a lost cause. Eminor didn't like him, but nobody ever wrote him off. If you are trying to convince me that he was good the last 2 years, you better start digging. Nobody has ever said that Alexei Ramirez's contract would not be worth his production, and if they did, they're allowed to make mistakes and rescind or change those thoughts. This is America.

 

I'm surely not going to say that "so and so 7.0 WAR player" is absolutely, positiviely better than "so and so 6.7 WAR player." It's a case by case thing. I will almost always say a guy who puts up a 7.0 WAR is better than a 5.0 WAR.

[Eminor3rd]

I didn't like Viciedo, and I'm still not convinced he's going to remain good, and it has nothing to do with sabermetrics. It has everything to do with "approach." Is that Hawk enough for you? lol

 

Marty is babbling like a toddler that knows words but not sentences. Holy s***, lol. Are you drunk this early, Marty?

[Dick Allen]

I didn't like Viciedo, and I'm still not convinced he's going to remain good, and it has nothing to do with sabermetrics. It has everything to do with "approach." Is that Hawk enough for you? lol

 

Marty is babbling like a toddler that knows words but not sentences. Holy s***, lol. Are you drunk this early, Marty?

would you consider O swing % an advanced metric? For a guy who says you didn't like Viciedo and it had nothing to do with sabermetrics, it is funny you have mentioned his O swing % as something that showed he was what he was. In fact, earlier this season, you mentioned the same metric or maybe a similar one, and then said he may be turning a corner.

 

So if your Viciedo hate has nothing to do with sabermetrics, why use sabermetrics to try to tell us he sucks ?

 

There is a guy that sits next to me in the stands that tells him he sucks every time he comes to the plate. I doubt it has anything to do with O swing %.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

Well, people misuse advanced metrics just like people misuse traditional stats. The biggest misuse of advanced metrics is accepting them as an absolute, as in saying somebody with a 7.0 WAR in a season was clearly better than somebody with a 6.7 WAR.

 

I disagree with this. I think the biggest misuse of advanced metrics is misapplying them. Their accuracy is what makes them good in the first place -- but with accuracy comes precision, and with precision comes a reduction in breadth. As long as people like Dick Allen run around trumpeting blanket misuse like "well if WAR is right then why can't I add WAR up and get team wins?" and "WELL if DIPS makes sense how come Gavin Floyd has a better xFIP than Mark Buerhle?", the perception that there are two bizarro, mutually exclusive versions of baseball reality warring with one another will continue to thrive.

 

I think part of the problem is branding/naming. The word "wins," for example, has at least three distinct meanings among mainstream stats, new and old. It isn't difficult to see why this stuff can be very unclear to those who haven't spent a decent amount of time reading up on all of it.

 

While the advanced metrics are much better, they still don't have a perfectly linear correlation to wins (or even runs). They are still approximations of value, albeit much better ones. As for projection systems, they all are based on normal distributions which expect 2/3 of the results to vary by as much as a full standard deviation. If you get way beyond a full standard deviation, then yes, it is justified to suggest luck might be involved. It also helps to look at what is driving the variance. An extremely high BABIP is more likely signaling luck (Flowers), whereas an increased walk rate is more likely to suggest genuine improvement from the player (Viciedo).

 

Yeah, I think this has a lot to do with a general misunderstanding of linear weights and the corresponding difference between context-neutral and context-dependent statistics. These stats simply don't measure the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. When a sabr-y guy cries about RBIs, it's because he has a statistic that answers the current question better than RBIs, not because he has a better version of the RBI.

 

Also, I don't think anybody is putting a lot of stock in advanced metrics when it comes to scouting. You are scouting college and high school players and there is no accepted way to translate their stats the way we can translate major league, and to a lesser extent minor league stats. Now, scouts who have a foundation in advanced metrics will be looking for different things when scouting than "traditional" scouts, and as such will likely have a higher success rate, but there is still a very large error rate in scouting. Regardless of your evaluation method you are never going to hit on every draft pick.

 

Indeed. All of our most advanced offensive metrics are useful only because they have a clear and distinct frame of reference. When you're talking about varying levels of competition, you can throw frame of reference out the window. If sabermetrics has contributed to scouting, it's because it has helped identify and quantify the most valuable contributions that can be made at the ML level, thus allowing scouts to prioritize certain types of skills or tools. As for measuring and predicting development though, there's not much there.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

would you consider O swing % an advanced metric? For a guy who says you didn't like Viciedo and it had nothing to do with sabermetrics, it is funny you have mentioned his O swing % as something that showed he was what he was. In fact, earlier this season, you mentioned the same metric or maybe a similar one, and then said he may be turning a corner.

 

So if your Viciedo hate has nothing to do with sabermetrics, why use sabermetrics to try to tell us he sucks ?

 

There is a guy that sits next to me in the stands that tells him he sucks every time he comes to the plate. I doubt it has anything to do with O swing %.

 

No, I guess I don't consider O Swing% an advanced metric. It's just someone counting the number of times a guy swings at pitches out of the zone. Has that not been something obviously relevant for like 70+ years?

[Balta1701]

No, I guess I don't consider O Swing% an advanced metric. It's just someone counting the number of times a guy swings at pitches out of the zone. Has that not been something obviously relevant for like 70+ years?

No. Without modern pitch tracking it's literally impossible to come up with that metric because prior to that there was no record of whether or not a pitch was out of the zone if a guy swung.