The 2010 MLB Season Thread

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yet another benefit of reading KLAW chats...

Wow, what a dumbass that guy is (the commenter, of course, not Law).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

How is it non-substantive to point out the FACT that it measures productivity, specifically the driving in of runs? Any imperfection in how it does that, any conclusions that may but shouldn't be drawn from the existence of the stat, nothing whatsoever changes that basic truth.

Anyone who denies that simple & obvious truism, as has been done more than once in this thread, has so little understanding of baseball that they're beneath contempt on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

If you fall into that category then I wish to hell you'd stay as far away from baseball as possible, you're not only embarrassing yourself but you tend to annoy the fuck out of people who actually know anything about the subject. If you've not descended to that level then feel free to assume you aren't the object of my criticism.

I'm not arguing that it's the be all & end all of measurements, I'm not sure I've seen anyone here even come close to that, but that'd be miles better than people so impressed by their own pseudo-intellectual next-great-thing stat-of-the-week that they flatly deny such an indisputable fact in order to try to make their new toy seem more important or to simply make themselves feel better about their pathetic state.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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.

The false assumption that the stat geeks (that's an affectionate term) have is that every stat is inteded to evaluate someone's individual performance to the team as purely as possible. Stats can have a much more casual purpose.

I understand what a pitcher Win/Loss record means. I don't think a pitcher on the Yankees is necessarily better than a pitcher on the Royals just because that Yankees pitcher has more wins. Still, I find Wins a useful stat. It lets me know a rough idea of all kinds of things very quickly. If I was a GM, I'd understand and utilize every spreadsheet and new stat theory I could, but since I'm not - Wins are fine. Same with RBIs. It tells me a lot about a player's role on the team, how good a hitter he is. I can even understand this relative to the team's success. 100 RBIs for the Royals is more impressive than 100 RBIs on the Yankees. Exactly how much better - I don't care.

[lungs]

The non-nerd stuff is good at describing what has happened and the nerd stuff is better at describing what MAY happen.

I don't see why there continues to be such a huge disconnect.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The false assumption that the stat geeks (that's an affectionate term) have is that every stat is inteded to evaluate someone's individual performance to the team as purely as possible. Stats can have a much more casual purpose.

I understand what a pitcher Win/Loss record means. I don't think a pitcher on the Yankees is necessarily better than a pitcher on the Royals just because that Yankees pitcher has more wins. Still, I find Wins a useful stat. It lets me know a rough idea of all kinds of things very quickly. If I was a GM, I'd understand and utilize every spreadsheet and new stat theory I could, but since I'm not - Wins are fine. Same with RBIs. It tells me a lot about a player's role on the team, how good a hitter he is. I can even understand this relative to the team's success. 100 RBIs for the Royals is more impressive than 100 RBIs on the Yankees. Exactly how much better - I don't care.

Right, but if you're going for "casual purpose" as opposed to sabremetrics, you don't need to run through every spreadsheet and stat theory. You can just look at ERA.

At least BA and RBI actually measure what they say. However, Wins/Losses have so many arbitrary measures that make it just a completely random statistic.

And stating that the guy with alot of wins on the Royals is better than the guy with alot of wins on the Yankees is way too simplistic, because the Royals just might happen to randomly score more runs when that guy pitches. It's much easier to just look at ERA (preferably ERA+) than making assumptions based on the team the guy plays for.

[Butter]

It's not that I don't think the new stats are useless, it's just that I can't frickin' remember what half of them are for, or what other stats go into their measurements, or what the formulas are. Stat overload!

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Right, but if you're going for "casual purpose" as opposed to sabremetrics, you don't need to run through every spreadsheet and stat theory. You can just look at ERA.

At least BA and RBI actually measure what they say. However, Wins/Losses have so many arbitrary measures that make it just a completely random statistic.

And stating that the guy with alot of wins on the Royals is better than the guy with alot of wins on the Yankees is way too simplistic, because the Royals just might happen to randomly score more runs when that guy pitches. It's much easier to just look at ERA (preferably ERA+) than making assumptions based on the team the guy plays for.

The ERA is an excellent casual stat too, but it works best with the W/L record (at least for starting pitchers). ERA alone doesn't tell me anything about how long a guy has been with the team that season, how long he usually lasts in game, or how good the team is.

If I see that one pitcher is 11-8 with a 4.75 ERA, and the opposing pitcher is 1-2 with a 3.25 ERA, that's a decent enough snapshot of what's going on with those starting pitchers. An established, but mediocre pitcher v. a relative uknown.

W/L doesn't work at all for comparing starting pitchers, but they do tell you a little about the pitcher and his team.

[larrymcg421]

If you just want the basics for the new stats, then OPS+ for hitters and ERA+ for pitchers will suffice. There are other stats that go a little deeper into different areas, but both of these are better than the traditional stats.

[korme]

I officially hate Colin Cowherd for his stance against Votto.

Paraphrasing: "Look, if the manager, the players, and fans didn't vote him in, he's not an All-Star."

Uhh maybe it's because he plays in a small market on a team that's been used to losing until this year. He's the fuckin NL OPS leader. I hate you Cowherd! I hate you!

[ISiddiqui]

Cowherd is a complete mental midget.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by korme

I officially hate Colin Cowherd for his stance against Votto.

Paraphrasing: "Look, if the manager, the players, and fans didn't vote him in, he's not an All-Star."

Uhh maybe it's because he plays in a small market on a team that's been used to losing until this year. He's the fuckin NL OPS leader. I hate you Cowherd! I hate you!

Why is anyone listening to Cowherd when Dan Patrick is on at the same time?

[k0ruptr]

I enjoy them both, A lot of times I enjoy listening to Cowherds rants and raves, for the comedy factor.

[dawgfan]

Not that I'm trying to defend Cowherd in particular, but aren't we all aware that sports radio hosts are intentionally controversial as a means of driving up ratings? I doubt Cowherd really believes everything he says on the radio...

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Not that I'm trying to defend Cowherd in particular, but aren't we all aware that sports radio hosts are intentionally controversial as a means of driving up ratings? I doubt Cowherd really believes everything he says on the radio...

While he may or may not believe what he shills, he has proven effective in coming off like a know-it-all ass.

[Butter]

Nee-haw, Votto got it.

[Lathum]

I like Cowherd. He was totally off about Joey Votto and I think after a while even he knew it and was intentionally being an ass about it.

[Atocep]

The next time he says something I agree with will be the first.

[Atocep]

But he was a frequent target of FJM (RIP ). So I did enjoy that.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why is anyone listening to Cowherd when Dan Patrick is on at the same time?

This.


Cowherd is an idiot...in the fall I will turn him on to listen to some college football talk, my record is 5 minutes before I turn him off.

[Scoobz0202]

Joey votto first at bat against the Phillies?

Home run.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Joey votto first at bat against the Phillies?

Home run.

If he didn't give the Phillies bench the middle finger as he rounded the bases he'll never be a star.

[korme]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why is anyone listening to Cowherd when Dan Patrick is on at the same time?

....Sportsnation... on the television. I don't listen to my sports talk on the radio, sorry bud.

[Lathum]

I listen to him in the morning on ESPNU. If DP was on TV I would listen to him.

[rowech]

For those with Direct TV, Dan Patrick is on TV. Channel 101, 9-noon.

[Lathum]

ESPN reporting the Yankees on the verge of trading for Cliff Lee. As much as I love baseball this makes me a little ill.

[molson]

Most teams could have afforded Lee for the rest of this season. The Yankees just always seem to be a step ahead of everyone else.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

From what I understand they'll be giving up Montero, so you can't really argue they don't deserve him.

[DeToxRox]

Truthfully, I'd say other teams should be happy. It seemed inevitable they would sign him in the off season, but now if this happens they lose Montero at the very minimum.

[JPhillips]

I'm hoping the Reds can land Haren. Lee would have been nice to have and the two picks next year would have helped make up for the lost prospects, but Haren is signed for two more years at a reasonable rate and has had terrible luck with BABIP. Adding he and Volquez for the second half would be a major upgrade for the rotation.

[Ksyrup]

Montero is a great prospect, but one that was destined to be traded because at this point, he's not a real catching prospect and the Yanks already have Teixeira locked in at 1B and a bunch of aging vets who will have to share DH for the next 5 years. So there was no place for him.

I just can't believe what a royal fuck-up Ruben Amaro is. There was really no need to trade Lee, and even if it was necessary, he got pennies on the dollar for a full year of Lee compared to what the Mariners are going to get for 3 months of Lee. I just don't get it. If he deals Jayson Worth for Javier Vazquez, I'll lose it. Sign Howard to a massively over-valued contract that doesn't kick in for 2 years and give 3 years to Raul Ibanez, but you don't keep Lee because the farm system will be depleted? Dude is clueless.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm hoping the Reds can land Haren. Lee would have been nice to have and the two picks next year would have helped make up for the lost prospects, but Haren is signed for two more years at a reasonable rate and has had terrible luck with BABIP. Adding he and Volquez for the second half would be a major upgrade for the rotation.

Haren is someone I am intrigued with as the Tigers have been scouting him. But every single year his numbers take sharp drops after the ASB which incredibly concerning to me. I am not sure what the hell happens to him, but it's a scary trend.

[Logan]

The Yankees have a major advantage over every other team in their negotiations, which is probably why they'll end up with Lee. There's going to no negotiating window to sign an extension, and Lee has already said he'll be a free agent no matter where he gets traded. So all other teams are hesitant to part with their top prospects for a guaranteed rental, knowing that they'll be bidding against the Yankees in the offseason. The Yankees can look at it more as a trade of Montero plus whoever for a few months of Lee plus very likely 5-6 more years of Lee.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm hoping the Reds can land Haren. Lee would have been nice to have and the two picks next year would have helped make up for the lost prospects, but Haren is signed for two more years at a reasonable rate and has had terrible luck with BABIP. Adding he and Volquez for the second half would be a major upgrade for the rotation.

I love Haren...have for years but there's a noticeable increase in his homeruns allowed this year and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take that and put it into GABP.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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



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.

The idea of you calling someone arrogant is fucking hilarious. And heck, parent's basement has to be better than inbred-hicks who have no capacity to learn and measure what contributes to success (we can play the ad hominem game for a while). What matters is the factors that contribute to scoring runs, and measuring who has done the most to do that - RBI is a shitty fucking measure for that. And do you understand the absolute fucking absurdity of complaining about "made-up stats" - what the hell do you think RBI is? The 8th commandment?

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
Cliff Lee to the Yanks sounds like a near done deal. Either way, a great swap for Jack Z - he gave the Phillies a bunch of crap, and will come out of it with significantly better prospects (Montero is the rumor).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The idea of you calling someone arrogant is fucking hilarious. And heck, parent's basement has to be better than inbred-hicks who have no capacity to learn and measure what contributes to success (we can play the ad hominem game for a while). What matters is the factors that contribute to scoring runs, and measuring who has done the most to do that - RBI is a shitty fucking measure for that. And do you understand the absolute fucking absurdity of complaining about "made-up stats" - what the hell do you think RBI is? The 8th commandment?

It's a measurement of an actual event, just like any of the new alphabet soup.

But I'm not denying that those measure something, unlike the hexagonal earth contingent who seem to believe that they invented baseball, mathematics, and the cure for cancer. That's the unbearable arrogance that leaves me wishing they were the next material stuffed down a leaky pipeline in the gulf. They might not stop it up but all the hot air could float the oil right off into space.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How is it non-substantive to point out the FACT that it measures productivity, specifically the driving in of runs? Any imperfection in how it does that, any conclusions that may but shouldn't be drawn from the existence of the stat, nothing whatsoever changes that basic truth.

Anyone who denies that simple & obvious truism, as has been done more than once in this thread, has so little understanding of baseball that they're beneath contempt on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

If you fall into that category then I wish to hell you'd stay as far away from baseball as possible, you're not only embarrassing yourself but you tend to annoy the fuck out of people who actually know anything about the subject. If you've not descended to that level then feel free to assume you aren't the object of my criticism.

I'm not arguing that it's the be all & end all of measurements, I'm not sure I've seen anyone here even come close to that, but that'd be miles better than people so impressed by their own pseudo-intellectual next-great-thing stat-of-the-week that they flatly deny such an indisputable fact in order to try to make their new toy seem more important or to simply make themselves feel better about their pathetic state.

I was referring to your Buzz Bissinger-like portrayal of SABR folks that seemed to be the meat of your argument, as opposed to what the actual argument should have been about. Try a simple reasoned argument for once, instead of building your argument around as many insults as you can get into one paragraph. Your posts read like a 90 year old guy typing out his "take" for the Jim Rome show.

The stat measures what it measures. The conclusions drawn from the stat about the worth of the player is what we are talking about here. If you think 100 RBI = "productive, valuable player," then frankly I'm at a loss.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But I'm not denying that those measure something, unlike the hexagonal earth contingent who seem to believe that they invented baseball, mathematics, and the cure for cancer. That's the unbearable arrogance that leaves me wishing they were the next material stuffed down a leaky pipeline in the gulf. They might not stop it up but all the hot air could float the oil right off into space.

Yeah Jon, we should stop trying to learn and improve our understanding of things. Horse and buggies for all! Damn those basement dwellers and their infernal combustion engines!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

unlike the hexagonal earth contingent who seem to believe that they invented baseball, mathematics, and the cure for cancer. That's the unbearable arrogance that leaves me wishing they were the next material stuffed down a leaky pipeline in the gulf. They might not stop it up but all the hot air could float the oil right off into space.

This is nothing but hyperbole that has nothing to do with the substance of what's being discussed. You've gone from arguing a point to arguing against the people who are making the counter-point. Bravo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is nothing but hyperbole that has nothing to do with the substance of what's being discussed. You've gone from arguing a point to arguing against the people who are making the counter-point. Bravo.

There's actually two discussions here I believe.

One involves the unbelievably absurd attempt to deny that RBI tracks something and my complete lack of willingness to pussyfoot around calling out any SOB dumb enough try it. And make no mistake, anyone who tries to do that deserves a hell of a lot worse than me calling them out as idiots, but sadly I don't have ability to remove their internet access nor remove their tongues & fingers to inhibit their ability to inflict such stupidity on the rest of the world.

The other involves various baseball statistics and their overall value.

The two things just happen to overlap.

[dawgfan]

The RBI stat does measure something. The worth of it as a measure however is vastly less than the importance given to it by many. And it's only because of the rise of advanced statistical analysis over the last 30 years that there are also many out there that realize RBI as a stat doesn't hold a lot of meaningful value.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by rowech

I love Haren...have for years but there's a noticeable increase in his homeruns allowed this year and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take that and put it into GABP.

Eric Milton flashback.

[stevew]

With Romine in AA, the Yankees can easily trade Montero here. Having catching depth is always a plus.

I meant to start a Bad GM Decision Mt. Rushmore at some point. I think the Phillies dealing Cliff Lee would have to be a contender. Especially if it's this century.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The RBI stat does measure something. The worth of it as a measure however is vastly less than the importance given to it by many. And it's only because of the rise of advanced statistical analysis over the last 30 years that there are also many out there that realize RBI as a stat doesn't hold a lot of meaningful value.

Exactly. Isn't that what I just posted, and Jon completely glossed over it?

The stat measures the number of runners a batter drives in. It's just a stat, like innings pitched, hits allowed, stolen bases, etc. What that stat means in the context of assumptions about a player's skills or the player's worth is really the only discussion here.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

I love Haren...have for years but there's a noticeable increase in his homeruns allowed this year and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take that and put it into GABP.

His flyball percentage is trending upward over the last couple of years, but he's also walking fewer guys. His HR/FB percentage is the highest it's been in his career, but that's considered something that pitchers have very little control over.

All in all, Haren doesn't strike me as a guy that is trending downward precipitously, but there are a few signals that are worth keeping an eye on - his increasing flyball rate and his fastball velocity starting to dip slightly.

He's probably not quite the ace we thought he was in his first couple of seasons with Arizona, but he still looks like a very good pitcher.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. Isn't that what I just posted, and Jon completely glossed over it?

The stat measures the number of runners a batter drives in. It's just a stat, like innings pitched, hits allowed, stolen bases, etc. What that stat means in the context of assumptions about a player's skills or the player's worth is really the only discussion here.

GEEK!

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. Isn't that what I just posted, and Jon completely glossed over it?

The stat measures the number of runners a batter drives in. It's just a stat, like innings pitched, hits allowed, stolen bases, etc. What that stat means in the context of assumptions about a player's skills or the player's worth is really the only discussion here.

It still baffles me that nobody has started to crank out RBI% which would be some sort of vlaue that representes how often, compared to league average, a player knocks in runs with the various base/out combinations. Add 'em all up to get how good above league average the guy is when it comes to knocking in runs. Not perfect by any means but I still can't believe nobody has at least thrown it out there.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. Isn't that what I just posted, and Jon completely glossed over it?

The stat measures the number of runners a batter drives in. It's just a stat, like innings pitched, hits allowed, stolen bases, etc. What that stat means in the context of assumptions about a player's skills or the player's worth is really the only discussion here.

Well, we're part of that arrogant bunch that strive for better ways of measuring performance and predicting future performance.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rowech

It still baffles me that nobody has started to crank out RBI% which would be some sort of vlaue that representes how often, compared to league average, a player knocks in runs with the various base/out combinations. Add 'em all up to get how good above league average the guy is when it comes to knocking in runs. Not perfect by any means but I still can't believe nobody has at least thrown it out there.

Agreed. At least that would be a stat that is moderately useful in the context of RBIs. Using RBIs as a counting stat is pretty worthless. As a rate stat, at least you can use it as a comparative tool.

HOWEVER - from there, it would be only be useful as a tool going-forward if, upon study, it was determined that some players have an ability to knock in a higher percentage of runs than others. If there is no skill to it (similar to "clutch hitting"), then it's really only useful in evaluating the past, as opposed to making assumptions about the future.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If there is no skill to it (similar to "clutch hitting"), then it's really only useful in evaluating the past, as opposed to making assumptions about the future.

I think there's value in both. Projecting forward is obviously very important for front office execs in building their organizations, but I think it's also important to recognize what has happened and celebrate that.