2010-11 Hot Stove League Thread - Grienke is a Baller

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. Votto and Pujols were basically even in terms of SABR stats, with Votto being better than Pujols in some and vice versa. What swayed it so convincingly, IMO, was that the concept of "Most Valuable" tends to take (for some people) the success of the team into account.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

They are an indication of performance, and if you look at the right ones, you can also get a good indication of ability.

What dawgfan said. I made the leap in logic from what they ARE to what I like to use them as. Obviously, they are simply an indication of performance. I like to use them to help me determine whether or not a guy is any good. Since I don't watch as much baseball as I'd like to, when I'm looking at Joe Blow from the American League pretty much all I have to go on is statistics. If I'm thinking about the Giants, I can go with what I've watched/heard. Statistics in both cases help me determine how good a player actually is. In the case of the player I haven't watched, I get the entire picture from statistics. From guys on the team that I follow, I can see whether or not they are actually performing as well as or as poorly as I feel like they are from watching them.

Since Wins and Losses for a pitcher have very little bearing on said pitcher's ability, they are hugely unimportant to me, to the point that I feel like I would lose next to nothing if I were to never hear of the statistics ever again.

[Vince, Pt. II]

And as someone who has been arguing on the side of King Felix and the "SABR crowd" around here, let me be the first to say that I think that the Votto / Pujols example is the only tolerable example of "Most Valuable" taking into consideration a winning team. I still don't like it - but I think that in the case of two players with incredibly similar numbers/ability, something as little as that can make the difference.

Likewise, if two pitchers are incredibly close in terms of statistics, and one pitcher is 19-8 and the other is 15-10, I believe I would have very little problem if the 19-8 guy got the award.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The fact that you believe this shows that we're just never going to agree. There is no "answer" statistic. Each gives you a picture of how a player did in one aspect of the game. It is using the totality of looking at everything that should give you a good picture of how a guy's season was. Felix's was pretty far in front of the competition - this was much more muddled. As pointed out before, Votto actually beat Pujols out in many advanced statistics. Personally I liked Votto for the award but Pujols was deserving as well.

Not to mention - ONCE AGAIN - that no one had to point to "SABR stats" to clearly demonstrate Felix was the best pitcher this year.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

What dawgfan said. I made the leap in logic from what they ARE to what I like to use them as. Obviously, they are simply an indication of performance. I like to use them to help me determine whether or not a guy is any good. Since I don't watch as much baseball as I'd like to, when I'm looking at Joe Blow from the American League pretty much all I have to go on is statistics. If I'm thinking about the Giants, I can go with what I've watched/heard. Statistics in both cases help me determine how good a player actually is. In the case of the player I haven't watched, I get the entire picture from statistics. From guys on the team that I follow, I can see whether or not they are actually performing as well as or as poorly as I feel like they are from watching them.

Since Wins and Losses for a pitcher have very little bearing on said pitcher's ability, they are hugely unimportant to me, to the point that I feel like I would lose next to nothing if I were to never hear of the statistics ever again.

I don't think there's a disagreement that any stat is an indicator of performance. It's what that stat says about the player's ability that is the point of contention. Yes, RBIs measure how many runs a player drove in. Batting average is a measure of hitting ability. The issue is when someone looks at a player's RBI total and thinks it tells you something about the player. RBIs are a by-product of a player's value and a ton of external things a player can't control - as are wins. Batting average is a fine stat - until someone looks at a .300 hitter (Juan Pierre) and thinks the average makes him more valuable than a .250 hitter (Nick Swisher). And there are plenty of people - baseball people - who still think a Juan Pierre-type is more valuable than a Nick Swisher-type. That's the sole issue.

[Vince, Pt. II]

That's what I was trying to say, just in a roundabout way. I'm not doing a good job of expressing myself today, I guess this work issue is really bogging me down.

Fact: Statistics are an indication of past performance.

Opinion: Statistics, when used properly, can be a good indication of player ability.

Opinion: The Win/Loss statistic for pitchers has an extremely low correlation with said pitcher's ability, and therefore is meaningless to me.

[molson]

I think every SABR bully should read this Bill James article at least once a year to help them keep things in perspective:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...aqmanIRcf1m94Q

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Please, point out the posts that are SABR-BULLYING.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

SABR bully ... perspective

Perspective, indeed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Please, point out the posts that are SABR-BULLYING.

How about I just run an air-right simulation about how that arrogance would apply to another message board?

Bullying is perhaps a strong word at least for the last few page here, but it's prevalent, beyond FOFC. Here, it's more of an arrogance and condescending attitude about anyone who wants to have any view beyond THE SABR VIEW. Just my opinion.

How often do we hear people mocked for using the dirty word "clutch"?

You guys talk about Joe Morgan like he raped your kids.

[Logan]

I'll paypal molson $10 if he can find one example. If not, I want $1 from him.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

You guys talk about Joe Morgan like he raped your kids.

And you seem to be incapable of separating what people say and what you want them to say in order to make your argument.

I guess we all have our faults.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'll paypal molson $10 if he can find one example. If not, I want $1 from him.

An example of what, you guys bullying someone who brings up clutch, for example? You claim that's never happened?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

How about I just run an air-right simulation about how that arrogance would apply to another message board?

Bullying is perhaps a strong word at least for the last few page here, but it's prevalent, beyond FOFC. Here, it's more of an arrogance and condescending attitude about anyone who wants to have any view beyond THE SABR VIEW. Just my opinion.

How often do we hear people mocked for using the dirty word "clutch"?

You guys talk about Joe Morgan like he raped your kids.

Joe Morgan's a pedophile?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

And you seem to be incapable of separating what people say and what you want them to say in order to make your argument.

I guess we all have our faults.

Or, he saw one example somewhere (anywhere) of someone going over the top in their defense/promotion of SABR, ergo, everyone who views things from a SABR point of view is exactly the same as that person. He's provided plenty of other examples on this board of his line of thinking this way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Or, he saw one example somewhere (anywhere) of someone going over the top in their defense/promotion of SABR, ergo, everyone who views things from a SABR point of view is exactly the same as that person. He's provided plenty of other examples on this board of his line of thinking this way.

Christ, lighten up.

I'm talking about SABR-bullies and I even threw in a smiley face. I'm not calling anyone out personally or individually.

While we're challenging each other to FOFC scavenger hunts, how about you bring a list of all the times I post, uncategorically, that any group of people is exactly the same

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

An example of what, you guys bullying someone who brings up clutch, for example? You claim that's never happened?

Don't know what group you're trying to put me into, I'm just someone who is amazed at the continuous shit you've been spewing in this thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Don't know what group you're trying to put me into, I'm just someone who is amazed at the continuous shit you've been spewing in this thread.

Like what? I'm not putting you in any group, you want me to track something down and I was requesting parameters.

I believe "SABR bullying" is a phenomenon, and others don't. Fine. I haven't included ANYONE specifically in the group. All people who reference baseball stats are not bullies. But some of them are. I do think it's amusing even when the non-bullies FREAK the fuck out over Joe Morgan and some other dinosaur reporter.

You guys are sensitive.

I think it was an interesting Bill James article. I read Bill James. Quite a bit. I think some people take it a little too far sometimes, both in terms of attitude, and in statements of theories as proven facts.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

While we're challenging each other to FOFC scavenger hunts, how about you bring a list of all the times I post, uncategorically, that any group of people is exactly the same

That is a little difficult to do when you go back and edit your posts 9 out of every 10 times.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

That is a little difficult to do when you go back and edit your posts 9 out of every 10 times.

What's your problem with me all of the sudden? I'm re-reading my posts here to see if I was out of line in some way but I'm just not seeing it. I apologize for offending you or anyone else anyway.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Like what?

See: that massive anti-SABR generalizing post a few pages back. Find it if you'd like.

I'm not putting you in any group

Really? "You guys" isn't putting someone in a group?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Really? "You guys" isn't putting someone in a group?

I don't even know you've ever posted on this before. Why is this upsetting you so much?

I'm not including in in "you guys", I don't even know who you are or why you're here. I'm just remembering Ksyrup's tirade on Joe Morgan, someone else's a few pages back on that dinosaur journalist who wrote that upsetting article about wins, and recalling other similar rants.

I just looked at one post on the previous page and saw this:

"Granted. But stubborn like people who believe in evolution arguing with a bunch of creationists *runs*"

Fun, not mean-spirited, but it clearly sums up the general view I'm talking about. This is the tone of the discussion pretty much every time this comes up. The people who see value in traditional statistics are generally equated with creationists. When I respond with "bully", I'm really not accusing you of beating up children, it's meant to be a little more light hearted than that.

Chief Rum made the same point I'm making earlier in the thread, but I guess he was able to do it in a more gentle, humane way. Ah well. I will admit defeat and back away slowly.

Seriously though, read that Bill James article, just ignore what I said about "bullies"

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't even know you've ever posted on this before. Why is this upsetting you so much?

I'm not including in in "you guys", I don't even know who you are or why you're here. I'm just remembering Ksyrup's tirade on Joe Morgan, someone else's a few pages back on that dinosaur journalist who wrote that upsetting article about wins, and recalling other similar rants.

I just looked at one post on the previous page and saw this:

"Granted. But stubborn like people who believe in evolution arguing with a bunch of creationists *runs*"

Fun, not mean-spirited, but it clearly sums up the general view I'm talking about. This is the tone of the discussion pretty much every time this comes up. The people who see value in traditional statistics are generally equated with creationists. When I respond with "bully", I'm really not accusing you of beating up children, it's meant to be a little more light hearted than that.

Chief Rum made the same point I'm making earlier in the thread, but I guess he was able to do it in a more gentle, humane way. Ah well. I will admit defeat and back away slowly.

Seriously though, read that Bill James article, just ignore what I said about "bullies"

It goes both ways, you just want to call out the SABER-minded people because you're on the other side of the argument.

The popular thing to do now when a discussion starts to take a turn to statistical analysis is attack the "group" instead of actually taking part in the discussion. For examples you can look at your recent posts here and Chief Rum's posts from a couple pages back.

This entire argument actually started because of a discussion that didn't even involve Sabermetric stats. The people arguing in favor Felix winning the Cy Young were grouped by you and Chief Rum as the Saber crowd and now the Saber-bullying accusations follow.

There are Sabermetric fans out there that don't understand how to use the numbers or the limitations of the numbers. I don't think anyone would argue that. However, people that don't like statistical analysis tend to attack the entire concept based on these people and group both the good and the bad into that group.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I guess it's easy to appear 'stubborn' when no argument to the other side is actually presented.

And I read the James piece - what did it have to do with anything we were discussing? Is anyone so stridently stating their opinion and leaving out the possibility of being wrong? And why do you assume that because James says jump people who disagree with you should say how high?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This entire argument actually started because of a discussion that didn't even involve Sabermetric stats. The people arguing in favor Felix winning the Cy Young were grouped by you and Chief Rum as the Saber crowd and now the Saber-bullying accusations follow.

I am in this group. I have never used nor looked into Sabermetric stats, but I know that Felix was deserving of the CY over anyone else in the AL. This does not mean that I am for/against Sabermetric stats.

Just wondering how this thread grew so nasty....

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The fact that you believe this shows that we're just never going to agree. There is no "answer" statistic. Each gives you a picture of how a player did in one aspect of the game. It is using the totality of looking at everything that should give you a good picture of how a guy's season was. Felix's was pretty far in front of the competition - this was much more muddled. As pointed out before, Votto actually beat Pujols out in many advanced statistics. Personally I liked Votto for the award but Pujols was deserving as well.

Votto was better in a lot of the hitting stats but if you include defense Pujols seemed like the better option. I agree that it was close but Id guess that SABR people would be more in favor of Pujols.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

You guys talk about Joe Morgan like he raped your kids.

No, Joe Morgan rapes people's ears, whole different thing.

Even as an ardent traditionalist I understand that part of it

[stevew]

Zach Duke is going to be pitching elsewhere next year. Thank the lord. He was a guy that always looked acceptable in advanced metrics. But IMO his BAIBP was so high cause his stuff was cheesy meatballs.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This entire argument actually started because of a discussion that didn't even involve Sabermetric stats. The people arguing in favor Felix winning the Cy Young were grouped by you and Chief Rum as the Saber crowd and now the Saber-bullying accusations follow.

Actually, my accusations toward SABR-minded individuals in this thread was not Felix-specific, but a general observation about such individuals and the way they like to argue these things. Also, you should perhaps note that I myself am one such person who was in favor of Felix winning the Cy Young award.

And as the target many times of such a crowd, I can attest to the fact there are SABR bullies in this forum. And, no, I won't go into an exhaustive search to find such posts. I don't really need to to know they happened.

[RedKingGold]

In this thread, let's have less nerdism about statsbullying, WARP, and other stupid stuff in posts and more trade rumors and speculated free agent signings, pleaz k thanx.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

In this thread, let's have less nerdism about statsbullying, WARP, and other stupid stuff in posts and more trade rumors and speculated free agent signings, pleaz k thanx.

Fine. Chipper Jones says his rehab is coming along fine & that he'll start his off-season hitting routine a couple of weeks earlier than usual this year (usually it's January, this year he'll start in early/mid December). He's also going to be the presenter for Jason Aldean at the CMT Artist of the Year awards next month.
Chipper on knee rehab, Uggla, his new manager and…CMT? | Atlanta Braves

Better?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

You guys talk about Joe Morgan like he raped your kids.

Raping their minds, maybe.

And FWIW, I've read that James article, of course. Since I don't totally discount the idea/relevance of intangibles in sports, "I would now argue that it may exist at some fairly low level" is pretty consistent with my feelings on the subject. And relevant to this discussion, it in no way comes close to making up for the difference between Felix and CC.

And what he is NOT saying, is that one can make an entire career based on "grit" and "determination" and "pitching to the score" (Jack Morris). Even if he has this intangible quality to him, it was hardly noticeable over the course of his career, and he owes more to his durability, talent, and pitching for high-scoring teams for his career than any intangibles that he brought to the table.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

First domino to fall, VMart to Detroit, 4/50.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Mixed emotions on this. 4 years a lot for a guy who really should be 1B/DHing, but the money is not too bad and he's a great hitter (for a C) and a great guy to root for. Sox do get the best non-protected pick.

[jbergey22]

Tigers love to follow Yankee trends. Throwing money at players past their prime. The unfortunate thing for the Tigers is they dont have the budget to buy themselves out of these mistakes like the Yankees do.

Athough 4/50 seems like less than I would have guessed he would have gotten.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Tigers love to follow Yankee trends. Throwing money at players past their prime. The unfortunate thing for the Tigers is they dont have the budget to buy themselves out of these mistakes like the Yankees do.

VMart is only 31. How is that "past his prime"?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

VMart is only 31. How is that "past his prime"?

Prime years for baseball players are in the 25-27, 26-28 range depending on who you talk to or what report you read. 32 which he will be opening day is well into the typical decline stages of most players. Also, typically catchers have the shortest careers other than pitchers so hes probably a further along into his decline than say an outfielder would be.

Steroids threw a curveball a these reports for awhile but now that they are trying to eliminate them Id expect these trends to be similiar to what they once were.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Huff resigns with Giants, 2/22 with a team option on a 3rd. Betting that last year wasn't the outlier.

[Logan]

I'll back up jberg on that one.

[RomaGoth]

Yankees won't offer arbitration to Jeter. Fine with me, there is no way in hell he is worth $20-23 million/year.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Prime years for baseball players are in the 25-27, 26-28 range depending on who you talk to or what report you read. 32 which he will be opening day is well into the typical decline stages of most players. Also, typically catchers have the shortest careers other than pitchers so hes probably a further along into his decline than say an outfielder would be.

Steroids threw a curveball a these reports for awhile but now that they are trying to eliminate them Id expect these trends to be similiar to what they once were.

What you are saying is probably true. I think this is a good deal for the Tigers though, VMart hit .302 last year and if he can come close to that this year the Tigers will be improved.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Yankees won't offer arbitration to Jeter. Fine with me, there is no way in hell he is worth $20-23 million/year.

I think he'll still end up with something in the 4 year $80 million range.

As for VMart, he was able to take advantage of Fenway pretty well. I'm interested to see if that covered up some decline. The years and money aren't bad at all though if he's able to continue catching 100+ games per year.

[molson]

I should be rooting for the Yankees to overpay for Jeter but it would somehow be the highlight of the offseason for me if he ends up with the A's or something with a huge paycut.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Huff resigns with Giants, 2/22 with a team option on a 3rd. Betting that last year wasn't the outlier.

$11M per year...so much for being able to spend any cash in attempts to obtain Crawford.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, Joe Morgan rapes people's ears, whole different thing.

Even as an ardent traditionalist I understand that part of it

Hear, Hear! I never thought I'd find someone defending Joe Morgan, regardless of how they felt about SABR stats!!

[DeToxRox]

Now the Tigers will do something even more retarded and probably sign Adam Dunn so in 2 years we can have Dunn/V-Mart/Miggy for two positions: 1B/DH.

We still need another bat. I don't particularly want Worth when you figure it'll come at the price of probably 6 years and 100 mil. Crawford would be ideal but no way we lure him from Anaheim (most likely)

Just don't think this is enough to put us over the hump in the Central. I know why they did it, and it isn't even an unreasonable contract I suppose, but how they follow this up is what truly scares me.

[cartman]

Josh Hamilton wins the AL MVP.

Surprising to see that as traditionally awful as the Rangers have been, this is the 6th time a Ranger has won the award.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

What you are saying is probably true. I think this is a good deal for the Tigers though, VMart hit .302 last year and if he can come close to that this year the Tigers will be improved.

I dont think its a terrible move. I just dont know that they are close enough that this is a move that puts them over the top. If he isnt going to put them over the top he is just blocking the way for a younger/cheaper player.


Are they going to be able to still fill their other needs? Weak pen, starting pitching depth, shortstop. They just seem to be getting older each year and not really better.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I dont think its a terrible move. I just dont know that they are close enough that this is a move that puts them over the top. If he isnt going to put them over the top he is just blocking the way for a younger/cheaper player.


Are they going to be able to still fill their other needs? Weak pen, starting pitching depth, shortstop. They just seem to be getting older each year and not really better.

Their pen has a ton of young guys in it but it still should be league average at worst this year. The rotation is a glaring issue though. Verlander and Scherzer are a damn solid 1-2 but people expecting a huge jump from Porcello are going to be disappointed. I love Rick but he's a ground ball pitcher and we probably have the worst defensive infield in baseball. Even if he comes around, our 4 starter is Phil Coke who hasn't started since the Minors and who fucking knows about our #5.

At this point it seems likely we'll spend more. I think we'll go after Crawford and Worth. Obviously we can't sign both but we'll try. When that fails, we'll either panic and do something dumb like sign Adam Dunn to play LF or we'll bring Magglio back to play RF for a year.

We most likely won't win the Central but probably will end up a shade over .500.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

We most likely won't win the Central but probably will end up a shade over .500.

Thats about what I was thinking. The AL Central doesnt really have a team that will be able to improve themselves a whole lot unless its the Indians or Royals. The White Sox are similiar in a lot of ways to the Tigers in that they dont want to go through the whole rebuilding process so they keep trying the stopgap approach. The Twins are financially restricted after giving Mauer that huge contract so they have likely topped out as well.

It will probably be the Twins and the Tigers or White Sox competing at the top of the division like it seems to be every year.