The 2010 MLB Season Thread

[Butter]

Reds with a 3 game lead heading into Philly. Thanks, Rox!

The Phillies have made the Reds look stupid the last couple of years, but even just one win out of 4 at CBP will give the Reds a winning 11-game road trip... so I'm going into it with that level of expectation. But secretly, I'm hoping Joey Votto comes in with a personal vendetta against Charlie Manuel and the Reds can take 3 of 4 and like a 5 game lead into the break.

[Scoobz0202]

Votto sux. 0-5 the past couple days? Pfft!

[stevew]

2 of the 3 traditional triple crown categories are close to worthless.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by stevew

2 of the 3 traditional triple crown categories are close to worthless.

I think this is where the stat stuff starts to bother me. Driving in a ton of runs isn't "worthless." Hitting for a high average isn't "worthless"

Are there parts of each stat that are problematic when judging a terrific player? Yes, and most stat heads (myself included) have went over those things repeatedly. Batting average and RBI's aren't worthless statistics as long as they are put in their proper place.

Even if we decided the triple crown should really be OPS+, WAR and HR - - - - both Morneau and Cabrera are having sensational years.

[Ksyrup]

RBIs as a stat is almost entirely worthless. The main thing it measures is how good the players are that bat in front of you and how many opportunities you get to hit with runners in scoring position. Secondarily, it measures slugging/power to some degree, but that is measured more directly with other stats.

BA is less worthless, simply because it is a significant component of OBP and hitting, in and of itself, is a skill. Driving in runs is not a skill, as much as a function of RISP and hitting/slugging ability (again, measured in other, more direct and meaningful ways). But clearly, BA has its limitations, and a hitter can hit for average but be a below-average hitter. See Juan Pierre. So to the extent BA fools some people into thinking it is a be all, end all stat that proves some players have worth, I'd rather err on the side of callling it worthless.

[Danny]

Really? Do we need to turn this into a stats debate?

Triple crown is a fun statistic that happens very rarely and would be cool to see. I don't think anyone is using it as anything more than that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

RBIs as a stat is almost entirely worthless. The main thing it measures is how good the players are that bat in front of you and how many opportunities you get to hit with runners in scoring position. Secondarily, it measures slugging/power to some degree, but that is measured more directly with other stats.

Seems awfully shortsighted to completely ignore that it measures what you did with those opportunities.

It may not be an absolute measure of talent, but it does provide some measure of productivity/performance.

[stevew]

Barry Bonds got on base 60% of the fuckin time, slugged .812...and some dope winning Avg/HR/Ribbies would be more important that that?

[Butter]

I think stevew was just having more fun with us Votto-pushers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Barry Bonds got on base 60% of the fuckin time, slugged .812...and some dope winning Avg/HR/Ribbies would be more important that that?

A bat boy picking his nose would be more important than anything Bonds ever did.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I think stevew was just having more fun with us Votto-pushers.

If Votto's so goddamn good, why the fuck can't he fix the roads in Ohio.

[Butter]

Because he's Canadian. He can't figure out the conversion from kilometers to miles of road that need fixing.

[johnnyshaka]

Carlos Delgado...HoF worthy?

[lordscarlet]

3 HR for Dunn. w00t


OK, I'll go back to my corner.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Seems awfully shortsighted to completely ignore that it measures what you did with those opportunities.

It may not be an absolute measure of talent, but it does provide some measure of productivity/performance.

This is my thinking. Yes, it shows how many chances you've had with runners in scoring position. But that's not all it tells.

Carlos Gonzales leads the Rockies in RBI with 55. He has 38 RBI in 74 at bats with RISP.

The two guys hitting behind him in the order for most of the season have 20 RBI in over 80 at bats with RISP. Without even looking at the numbers, you could probably tell Carlos has a higher BA, SLG, and OPS than those other two guys. (Fowler and Helton)

If he doesn't bring in the run, the odds it happens go down significantly. RBI's aren't the end all or even in the top 10 of important batting stats, but they do show something.

As for the Pierre thing with BA Ksyrup, I think it's safe to say even 5 year olds know Pierre's BA doesn't mean he's a great player. That said, his BA is what's kept him in the big leagues over the years. He plays + defense, steals bases, good guy in the clubhouse, etc. He's not in the league now if he hits .220 (and IMHO, he deserves a spot in the league)

[Chief Rum]

Personally, I don't think we should continue to trumpet Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak.

After all, they're just hits, and those aren't as important as hits AND walks. I mean, many games, he only got one hit, the loser. And, man, a lot of singles, too.

We should give as much credit to the piss poor range of the fielders he faced. Him getting hits was completely dependent on them sucking in the field.

Worthless, I'll tell ya.

[MikeVic]

What is the record for consecutive games getting safely on base?

[Ksyrup]

A 55 year old didn't know he wasn't worth $50M+ a ffew years ago.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I hear too many people who are supposedly in the know talk about how great Pierre is because he gets a couple of hits every game.

And why would you rely on a stat that poor players can accumulate as evidence demonstrating their abilities that are measured directly by other stats? Go read Posnanski's article on Pedro Feliz. The Astros signed him because he was a "run producer" - he drove in 80+ runs on great Phillies offensive teams and he's a "winner." Sorry, those RBI totals meant nothing in the context of what an historically awful hitter Pedro Feliz is. If you looked at his RBI totals and thought you could sum up or approximate his value as a hitter, you'd be overestimating him by about 100%.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Carlos Delgado...HoF worthy?

I say no. I liked him on the Jays and he was a good power hitter, but ever since he left I just don't hear much about him, you know? Looked at his stats and I don't know, he needs like another 100HRs or something.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally, I don't think we should continue to trumpet Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak.

After all, they're just hits, and those aren't as important as hits AND walks. I mean, many games, he only got one hit, the loser. And, man, a lot of singles, too.

We should give as much credit to the piss poor range of the fielders he faced. Him getting hits was completely dependent on them sucking in the field.

Worthless, I'll tell ya.

Hitting is a skill, so there's no problem (or contradiction) in saluting his consistent ability to get a hit. If you want to take that 56-game hitting streak and tell me that because of it, it demonstrates what a great player he was during those 56 games, then I'll tell you that you are full of crap. I'd rather look at his .409 BA and 15 HRs during the streak (I don't have his OBP during the streak handy, but .409 would be a damn fine OBP even if he didn't draw one walk) as evidence that he was a valuable player during those 56 games.

[JPhillips]

Two things.

It's great that the entire team is supporting Votto. I think chemistry can be overrated, but I'd rather have a team that believes in each other than one that doesn't.

Is there anybody that looks more like a stereotypical catcher than Corky Miller?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Hitting is a skill, so there's no problem (or contradiction) in saluting his consistent ability to get a hit. If you want to take that 56-game hitting streak and tell me that because of it, it demonstrates what a great player he was during those 56 games, then I'll tell you that you are full of crap. I'd rather look at his .409 BA and 15 HRs during the streak (I don't have his OBP during the streak handy, but .409 would be a damn fine OBP even if he didn't draw one walk) as evidence that he was a valuable player during those 56 games.

It's really not a post to be broken down. Just a point of sarcasm regarding the apparently infinitely plummeting value of, you know, stuff that actually happens in games instead of on a calculator.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Peavy has a detached lat and is likely done for the year, if not longer.

OW OW OW OW OW OW OW.

/tk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It's really not a post to be broken down. Just a point of sarcasm regarding the apparently infinitely plummeting value of, you know, stuff that actually happens in games instead of on a calculator.

I know it was sarcasm. But baseball statistics have been calculated for years. The difference is that we now have the experience and technology to refine those statistics, and people who got attached to the old way of viewing baseball value refuse to accept that there's a better, more meaningful way of evaluating worth. The fact that people 100 years ago decided to award a "win" to a pitcher and a "run batted in" to a batter, when those outcomes are highly dependent upon things that are totally out of the control of those players, does not mean that they should be accepted as demonstrating value in 2010. It's just a re-evaluation of the accepted measurements of value based on what happens in a game, and whether those measurements accurately assess the importance of any individual action.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know it was sarcasm. But baseball statistics have been calculated for years. The difference is that we now have the experience and technology to refine those statistics, and people who got attached to the old way of viewing baseball value refuse to accept that there's a better, more meaningful way of evaluating worth. The fact that people 100 years ago decided to award a "win" to a pitcher and a "run batted in" to a batter, when those outcomes are highly dependent upon things that are totally out of the control of those players, does not mean that they should be accepted as demonstrating value in 2010. It's just a re-evaluation of the accepted measurements of value based on what happens in a game, and whether those measurements accurately assess the importance of any individual action.

They do demonstrate a value. You just refuse to acknowledge there is any value in them whatsoever. And besides why are you debating me? You know how I feel about your baseball opinions.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

A 55 year old didn't know he wasn't worth $50M+ a ffew years ago.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I hear too many people who are supposedly in the know talk about how great Pierre is because he gets a couple of hits every game.

And why would you rely on a stat that poor players can accumulate as evidence demonstrating their abilities that are measured directly by other stats? Go read Posnanski's article on Pedro Feliz. The Astros signed him because he was a "run producer" - he drove in 80+ runs on great Phillies offensive teams and he's a "winner." Sorry, those RBI totals meant nothing in the context of what an historically awful hitter Pedro Feliz is. If you looked at his RBI totals and thought you could sum up or approximate his value as a hitter, you'd be overestimating him by about 100%.

So you take one of the worst GM's in the game, a guy who signed Andrew Jones to a 17 million dollar a year contract the year after he gave Pierre 44 million and an Astros GM who was trying to talk up Feliz after signing him to a one year contract at about 4 million as your examples of BA and RBI being counted on too highly?

Colleti is an idiot. The second he signed Pierre, every website and the Dodger fans were blasting the signing. The Houston GM? He knows he has a garbage team. His shining move in the offseason is to sign two middle relievers and a 35 year old Feliz. he's trying to talk this up to his fan base somehow. He could have mentioned that Feliz was 3rd in range factor for third basemen last year, but I'm not sure the fans are going to give a crap about that. He tells em how great it is Feliz has driven in so many runs.

I'm sorry if I'm not going to use those two examples of a world gone wrong with BA. yes, a few people who don't understand basic statistics still think BA is critical when judging a player.

They are few and far between. I look at them the same way I look at people who say certain stats are worthless. no, they aren't. Getting base hits is a skill. It may not be the most important skill out there, but some clubs have to take what they can get. A guy who plays +defense, gets hits and doesn't screw up team chemistry? I think you can find a place for him on just about any team in the league. Only an idiot pays 10 million a year for that honor, but there is still value in the player. A lot more than what some people give them credit for.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there anybody that looks more like a stereotypical catcher than Corky Miller?

I'd vote for this man.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

They do demonstrate a value. You just refuse to acknowledge there is any value in them whatsoever. And besides why are you debating me? You know how I feel about your baseball opinions.

Huh?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Huh?

Not too sure I can be more clear there.

[McSweeny]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

What is the record for consecutive games getting safely on base?

The record is 84 straight games. Ted Williams did that in 1949. Ted Williams also set the record for reaching base safely in consecutive plate appearances with 16 in 1957.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not too sure I can be more clear there.

You really think Wins demonstrate a value? I'd agree that RBI's demonstrate some value, but Wins/Losses is one of the worst statistics in all of sports.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You really think Wins demonstrate a value? I'd agree that RBI's demonstrate some value, but Wins/Losses is one of the worst statistics in all of sports.

They demonstrate a value. Not much of one. But there is a small value to them. I don't know that I would call them one of the worst statistics of all time. It's just a statistic after all. If you're actually trying to say that the importance placed on them relative to their value with respect to the quality of the player is one of the worst ratios of all time, I would definitely agree with that.

[larrymcg421]

No, I think the statistic itself is horrible even outside of the importance placed on it. So many arbitrary qualities to it (minimum of 5 innings pitched for a starter). It actually can reward people for horrible pitching. Blow that save and watch your team score in the bottom half. Now you get the win! Leave after 8 innings without allowing a run, but your team scores in the bottom of the 9th to win 1-0, you don't get the win, but some schlub who got three outs is the winner.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not too sure I can be more clear there.

I was referring to the second part of your post. I'm not sure what history we apparently have that has pissed you off so much.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No, I think the statistic itself is horrible even outside of the importance placed on it. So many arbitrary qualities to it (minimum of 5 innings pitched for a starter). It actually can reward people for horrible pitching. Blow that save and watch your team score in the bottom half. Now you get the win! Leave after 8 innings without allowing a run, but your team scores in the bottom of the 9th to win 1-0, you don't get the win, but some schlub who got three outs is the winner.

Well, IMO, that's a big part of the reason it doesn't have much actual value. It is what it is. Not a stat that all that accurately reflects the quality of performance of the pitcher.

It only becomes a "horrible" stat, IMO, because of the value attached to it. In and of itself, it's just a stat with a very, very (very) loose connection to something positive happening on the field.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I was referring to the second part of your post. I'm not sure what history we apparently have that has pissed you off so much.

Not pissed off, mate. Your Interwebs filter is dirty. Just pointing out that I recently came to realize you don't have a single opinion about baseball that I agree with. You're like my antithesis on this subject.

I posted about it a few pages back, and you actually responded to it, so I know you read it.

[Chief Rum]

Feel free to review my post #2067 and your response #2122.

[Ksyrup]

Eh, I have terrible memory when it comes to internet stuff. I don't pay much attention to who posts what. I vaguely remember that, and I didn't link your comment today with that.

FWIW, my feeling about stats with wins and RBIs is similar to my feeling on "clutch hitting" - it's a definable stat, that's clear. I just don't think those stats demonstrate a valued skill beyond the basic information the stats conveys, based on how it is defined. And I don't know many commentators about the sport whose opinions I value who do. I'll gladly trade you Joe Morgan for Joe Sheehan.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Eh, I have terrible memory when it comes to internet stuff. I don't pay much attention to who posts what. I vaguely remember that, and I didn't link your comment today with that.

FWIW, my feeling about stats with wins and RBIs is similar to my feeling on "clutch hitting" - it's a definable stat, that's clear. I just don't think those stats demonstrate a valued skill beyond the basic information the stats conveys, based on how it is defined. And I don't know many commentators about the sport whose opinions I value who do. I'll gladly trade you Joe Morgan for Joe Sheehan.

I don't really much value them either. I am just not as saber-centered as some. And no one wants Joe Morgan!

I still think a Triple Crown is a significant achievement (the discussion at the start of this). While the strength of the actual connection of achieving it to the overall quality of the player is debatable, I still think there's a very significant correlation between a Triple Crown and the fact that anyone who succeeds to one is a very good ballplayer.

[Crapshoot]

RBI's are a ridiculously awful stat, being primarily the product of opportunity - its not actually measuring anything other than the team around him and the abililty of those around them to get on base. To assume otherwise isn't an opinion - its just flat out wrong. I'd bet that RBI has a lower correlation with actual offensive metrics (measured by RC / wOBA to be position neutral) than even BA, and significantly lower than OBP or OPS.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

While the strength of the actual connection of achieving it to the overall quality of the player is debatable, I still think there's a very significant correlation between a Triple Crown and the fact that anyone who succeeds to one is a very good ballplayer.

I don't disagree with that.

BTW, just saw this exchange on the Keith law chat:

Ryan (Hanover, PA)


Klaw, please help settle this argument. If a player drives in 100 runs, what is the proper way to say that? Is it 100 RBI's, or 100 RBI? Thanks


Klaw (1:04 PM)



The proper thing to do is to forget about RBI or runs scored entirely.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

RBI's are a ridiculously awful stat, being primarily the product of opportunity - its not actually measuring anything other than the team around him and the abililty of those around them to get on base. To assume otherwise isn't an opinion - its just flat out wrong. I'd bet that RBI has a lower correlation with actual offensive metrics (measured by RC / wOBA to be position neutral) than even BA, and significantly lower than OBP or OPS.

It wasn't an exhaustive study or anything, but Posnanski in thaat Pedro Feliz blog post detailed several teams over the past decade who added a "run producer" to their lineup to cure a supposed deficiency from the year before, and that player indeed drove in 100+ runs...and yet the teams ended up scoring fewer runs than the year before.

Now, keep in mind, we're talking about the crappy, overrated RBI men with low OBP (the Jose Guillens and Feliz's of the world). Management specifically brought them in to drive in runs to improve the offense. And the offense ended up worse, even though the new player did his job. So yeah... RBIs are really a poor stat, except as they relate to slugging ( but "there's a stat for that.")

[Chief Rum]

Ha, that's funny.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Ha, that's funny.

Keith Law is hilarious, although I'm sure those who are not SABR-inclined might not enjoy his sense of humor. But on the heels of that exchange was this one:

Drew (Boston)


No Carlos Santana buzz in the national media. Function of poor team record or because he came up in June?

Klaw (1:05 PM)



And Cleveland. No athlete who plays in Cleveland gets national press.

[Ksyrup]

Oh hell - KLAW's in rare form today!

Rob (LA)


Can you think of any - ANY - logical reason why Garret Anderson is still on the Dodgers' roster? His OPS+ is in the 20's.

Klaw (1:08 PM)



Veteran presents - he brings little trinkets to the park and hands them out to the other players before the games. I heard the Giants want to trade for Anderson and put him behind the plate so Posey can go work on catching right-handed screwballs in AAA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

its not actually measuring anything other than the team around him and the abililty of those around them to get on base.

It's measuring how many runs they drove in, which is essentially a measure of productivity that is influenced by opportunity.

To assume otherwise isn't an opinion - its just flat out wrong.

To fail to acknowledge what it does do isn't just flat out wrong, it's unbearably fucking arrogant to the point that baseball -- and quite possibly the entire planet -- would be infinitely better off without cocksucking parent's-basement-living holier than thou pricks who believe the next magically invented fucking statistic pulled out of some math major's ass is the Holy Fucking Grail.

And THAT is an inarguable fact.

[Chief Rum]

lmao... he is on a roll there.

Man, that's Crapshoot's hell right there. For the Giants to acquire GA, re-acquire Molina, sign Washburn, trade for Erstad, Eckstein and Glaus, and talk Salmon and Spiezio out of retirement.

Well, okay, Spiezio didn't retire of his own accord.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

lmao... he is on a roll there.

I was talking about Law in this quote above here, but given JIMG's colorful response interjecting itself, it seems we have a double entendre.

[Ksyrup]

Yet another benefit of reading KLAW chats...

Eric (Chicago)


Regarding Garret Anderson, it's presence, not presents like you receive for X-Mas or Birthday, KLAW you are the worst, get off ESPN.

Klaw (1:41 PM)



Priceless. I'm sure those of you with two functioning neurons will forgive me sharing this one.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

parent's-basement-living holier than thou pricks

Ah, I was waiting for the quintessentially lazy, non-substantive, and stale argument to surface on this topic. Not a surprise to see it from you.