2012-2013 MLB Offseason Thread: Go forth to the 2013 MLB Thread

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

The problem with the sabermetric group is that they grab onto something and proclaim it THE only thing that matters. There is more to baseball than numbers. Yes, I love the numbers when reflecting on seasons but they do not tell the whole picture and they definitely do NOT predict any future success.

It's no different than the alarming trend that occured where NFL teams over-valued combine performance over the "eye test". That is how players like Mike Mamula ended up as high draft picks.

So what is predictive? Or are all players an equal crapshoot every year?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

The problem with the sabermetric group is that they grab onto something and proclaim it THE only thing that matters. There is more to baseball than numbers. Yes, I love the numbers when reflecting on seasons but they do not tell the whole picture and they definitely do NOT predict any future success.

It's no different than the alarming trend that occured where NFL teams over-valued combine performance over the "eye test". That is how players like Mike Mamula ended up as high draft picks.

I would say this is actually the biggest breakthrough with sabermetrics is the predictive ability it gives us.

What a player did last year can be debated I suppose in how you want to spin numbers but as for what they will do going forward I think sabermetrics will do more for you than any traditional stats can possibly dream of.

[jbergey22]

Looking back I wonder if anyone would have expected Trout to be a 10+ WAR player this year and with the addition of Pujols and have the Angels not make the playoffs. Their Pythagorean W-L was almost right in line with their actual W-L. I guess without Trout the Angels were a 74-78 win club. Odd with all of that talent.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Looking back I wonder if anyone would have expected Trout to be a 10+ WAR player this year and with the addition of Pujols and have the Angels not make the playoffs. Their Pythagorean W-L was almost right in line with their actual W-L. I guess without Trout the Angels were a 74-78 win club. Odd with all of that talent.

Ya, it's weird because in other sports that are more difficult to analyze with statistics, you have more assumed validity of human-based storylines like the "Ewing theory." There's obviously more interaction between players in a basketball game so those human dynamics are much more pronounced, but I don't think we can rule them out as mattering in baseball in some situations as well. I think if you had the chance to replay the Angels season without Trout, they'd almost definitely be worse every time, but I wonder if there would be any psychological aspects at play that would result in changing performance for any other players. Because ya, if the Angles were a 74-78 win team without Trout, than the 2012 PECOTA and CAIRO projections (which didn't include Trout's monster year) were WAY off (they had the Angels as around a 91-92 win team).

[IlliniCub]

I'm liking the future of my Cubs, I think for the first time in my lifetime we have a "baseballman" in control

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I would say this is actually the biggest breakthrough with sabermetrics is the predictive ability it gives us.

What a player did last year can be debated I suppose in how you want to spin numbers but as for what they will do going forward I think sabermetrics will do more for you than any traditional stats can possibly dream of.

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

And the best indicator of this is a mustache, players with mustaches are winners.

[frnk55]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I can tell you this much, I'd rather have a team of 9 Mike Trouts than 9 Miguel Cabreras any day. And I think Miguel Cabrera is an amazing ball player.

I echo you're comment but I lost respect for Cabrera not meeting with the media twice during the playoffs. The dude pouted like a little kid.

[IlliniCub]

How can FOFC not favor Trout?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

You know which ones have mental toughness by looking at them?

Whats the outlook on Matt Barkley in regards to "mental toughness" and "desire to help a team win"? You seem to have a unique skill if you can read this stuff by looking at a player.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, it's weird because in other sports that are more difficult to analyze with statistics, you have more assumed validity of human-based storylines like the "Ewing theory." There's obviously more interaction between players in a basketball game so those human dynamics are much more pronounced, but I don't think we can rule them out as mattering in baseball in some situations as well. I think if you had the chance to replay the Angels season without Trout, they'd almost definitely be worse every time, but I wonder if there would be any psychological aspects at play that would result in changing performance for any other players. Because ya, if the Angles were a 74-78 win team without Trout, than the 2012 PECOTA and CAIRO projections (which didn't include Trout's monster year) were WAY off (they had the Angels as around a 91-92 win team).

Yeah, this situation is a tricky one and one impossible to prove. It could be the "Ewing effect" or it could be sample size or it could be some unknown other factor. We can only debate if it really exists. I would tend to think so in some capacity as team chemistry is a factor that is often overlooked but I think most of us can be certain it exists.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

I disagree though. There are stats which are leading indicators to increased / lowered performance in future years. It's never 100%, I think a small change in a player's swing can affect everything, but stats do paint SOME sort of picture.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

This is why I picked Miguel Cairo 1.1 in my fantasy league. That guy has mental toughness and a desire to help the team win.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

Really? Wow you are so far lost it's not even worth trying to explain anything further. Live in your world of make believe.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stats, no matter how you spin them, only tell what HAS happened. They never tell what WILL happen. You can tell more about what COULD happen by looking at the players. Knowing which ones have that mental toughness and desire to help a team win along with the skill. No stats can show that.

EagleFan, I think what you are missing is that the entire point of "sabermetrics" or advanced stats or whatever you want to call them, is that the entire point is to figure out which statistics ARE predictive. That's done by eliminating the noise created by having 24 other players on your roster. Every stat has a lot of noise. But some stats have much more than others. RBI's have a lot of noise. RBI's do not predict a damn thing.

So "stat geeks" have attempted to come up with ways to eliminate that noise, to better describe the skills a player has. A players skill DOES predict something, which you obviously agree with. If we can come up with statistics that are much better indicators of actual talent, they actually can be used as predictive measures. Is there still a whole lot of other variables? Hell yes. To think a players mental fortitude is irrelevant is asinine. But to say that it's the only thing that matters when moving forward is equally so.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You know which ones have mental toughness by looking at them?

Whats the outlook on Matt Barkley in regards to "mental toughness" and "desire to help a team win"? You seem to have a unique skill if you can read this stuff by looking at a player.

Looking at pictures, Barkley does not have a mustache, so he must be lacking in mental toughness. In fact, I am not even sure he could grow one, so definitely looking like a bust of a pick.

[Crapshoot]

Remember guys, the entire field of statistics has no predictive value. At all. So EagleFan has decreed, and the entire science can go determine "mental toughness" instead!

[Vince, Pt. II]

To illustrate why batting average is flawed:

Player A: 40/100, 40 1B.
Player B: 40/100, 10 HR, 5 3B, 15 2B, 10 1B.

According to batting average, there is zero difference between those two players.

[miked]

Once again, batting average is not flawed, it is a stat. One to be given appropriate weight. Nobody looks at the .340 hitter who walked 20 times with 10 HR and thinks he is better than the .320 hitter with 75 BB and 30 HR. But the stat isn't flawed. Discounting it as a relevant stat in the triple crown is silly, it's highly relevant, but in context.

[Danny]

USC losing 0-17 and Barkley is 2-6 with a pick. The mustache factor strikes again.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Really? Wow you are so far lost it's not even worth trying to explain anything further. Live in your world of make believe.

bhlah blah blah... fuck you...

It's pretty simple. Stats of what HAS happened have no bearing on what WILL happen. No matter how you spin them or how obnoxious of a sabermetrics geek you want to be.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Danny

USC losing 0-17 and Barkley is 2-6 with a pick. The mustache factor strikes again.

Crap, the mustache.... Shave Nick Shave!!!!!

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

bhlah blah blah... fuck you...

It's pretty simple. Stats of what HAS happened have no bearing on what WILL happen. No matter how you spin them or how obnoxious of a sabermetrics geek you want to be.

Gosh, I hope you are trolling.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by miked

Once again, batting average is not flawed, it is a stat. One to be given appropriate weight. Nobody looks at the .340 hitter who walked 20 times with 10 HR and thinks he is better than the .320 hitter with 75 BB and 30 HR. But the stat isn't flawed. Discounting it as a relevant stat in the triple crown is silly, it's highly relevant, but in context.

First off, the bolded part I disagree with completely. I think there are plenty of people who still think that the .340 guy is a "better hitter" than the .320 guy.

What can you tell about a hitter from his batting average alone? Not too terribly much. Let's look at three hitters, for example, by batting average alone (they all played approximately a full season):

Player A - .204
Player B - .287
Player C - .321

If you were forced to evaluate those three hitters, A probably wouldn't make your team and C is clearly the best of the bunch. Here's the same three players and their slugging percentage:

Player A - .536
Player B - .508
Player C - .416

And finally, on base plus slugging:

Player A - .892
Player B - .877
Player C - .775

Your three players are Adam Dunn (Player A), Dan Uggla (Player B) and Omar Infante (Player C). These stats are from 2010.

When statistics exist that give us a much more accurate representation of a player's ability, why do we still rely on statistics that need a whole lot of context to actually tell us how good a player is?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

To illustrate why batting average is flawed:

Player A: 40/100, 40 1B.
Player B: 40/100, 10 HR, 5 3B, 15 2B, 10 1B.

According to batting average, there is zero difference between those two players.

If batting average is the only stat a person ever looks at, I guess. OPS is flawed too if you only look at that and nothing else

Player A: 1.8923, 14 at bats.
Player B: 1.1052, 500 at bats.

According to OPS, Player A is WAY better than player B. Unless you look at context. Which every stat requires.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by molson

If batting average is the only stat a person ever looks at, I guess. OPS is flawed too if you only look at that and nothing else

Player A: 1.8923, 14 at bats.
Player B: 1.1052, 500 at bats.

According to OPS, Player A is WAY better than player B. Unless you look at context. Which every stat requires.

Except in my example, you were given the ABs ("they all played approximately a full season") and still didn't know how good each of the players was. OPS and SLG are much better indicators of hitting talent than batting average. Do you disagree?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Except in my example, you were given the ABs ("they all played approximately a full season") and still didn't know how good each of the players was. OPS and SLG are much better indicators of hitting talent than batting average. Do you disagree?

That's my point, you added a different stat for context. Sure, my example is extreme, but so is your assumption that there's a fan out there who has never heard of home runs and is just evaluating people strictly by batting avg.

I mean, since I was 3 years old I've understood that a .330 hitter with 0 home runs is not the same as a .330 hitter with 40 home runs.

I agree that OPS and SLG are better indicators than Avg alone (if anyone ever used average alone for some reason). Avg has a nice simplicity to it though, as a % of 100. I can tell the difference between a .240 hitter who doesn't walk at all and a .240 hitter that walks a lot, and I understand the latter is more valuable. Before people talked about OPS, we were aware of these things. We also were aware that some hitters struck out too much and others grounded into too many double plays and others had great speed, etc.

That's where one of the divides is in all this to me, I don't think the more hostile sabermetric guys understand that we always took this stuff in context. We undertand what a Win is for a pitcher, and that those Wins are much easier to get on good teams than bad teams. We understood what an RBI was. We understood that a guy hitting leadoff wouldn't have as many RBIs as a cleanup guy even if he was a similar hitter. RBI is also a storyline stat. In that if a guy hits 5 doubles in a game with the bases empty and never scores, that's great for him, but it wasn't a huge part of the story of the game. If another guy hit 2 doubles in a game and drove in 5 runs - honest to god, I understand that he didn't have as good a game as 5 double guy, but in the story of THAT game, he's the bigger story, and that's what those 5 RBIs represents. Someone here made that distinction once, and I thought they were on the right track - the traditional stats, especially pitcher wins and RBIs, are more about what happened in a game, whereas the more advanced stats try to predict the future and isolate individual players' performance in a game. Sometimes, I just want to see what happened in a game - who had the RBIs, who was the winning pitcher. And I also understand why people want to consider the accumulation of those game accomplishments as part of the criteria for awards and such. Kind of like how I understand how a player who played for a great team in huge games and had great moments is a better HOF candidate to some than a guy who had exactly the same performance but played for last place teams and made no dent whatsoever on baseball history. You can reasonably disagree that those types of storyline accomplishments should be considered, I just get annoyed when people insult your intelligence and assume you don't know what an RBI is (and that you "hate math") is if you look at baseball in that way.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Gosh, I hope you are trolling.

No, I think he really believes this stuff. Apparently data is a bad thing; we should only judge on grit.


Edit: fair point by Danny. Toned it down.

[Danny]

Edit as well. Back on topic, but I do side with the statistics side of things, but if someone asked me if I would rather have arod or jeter the last 15 years, I might take JEter

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by molson

That's where one of the divides is in all this to me, I don't think the more hostile sabermetric guys understand that we always took this stuff in context. We undertand what a Win is for a pitcher, and that those Wins are much easier to get on good teams than bad teams. We understood what an RBI was. We understood that a guy hitting leadoff wouldn't have as many RBIs as a cleanup guy even if he was a similar hitter. RBI is also a storyline stat. In that if a guy hits 5 doubles in a game with the bases empty and never scores, that's great for him, but it wasn't a huge part of the story of the game. If another guy hit 2 doubles in a game and drove in 5 runs - honest to god, I understand that he didn't have as good a game as 5 double guy, but in the story of THAT game, he's the bigger story, and that's what those 5 RBIs represents. Someone here made that distinction once, and I thought they were on the right track - the traditional stats, especially pitcher wins and RBIs, are more about what happened in a game, whereas the more advanced stats try to predict the future and isolate individual players' performance in a game. Sometimes, I just want to see what happened in a game - who had the RBIs, who was the winning pitcher. And I also understand why people want to consider the accumulation of those game accomplishments as part of the criteria for awards and such. Kind of like how I understand how a player who played for a great team in huge games and had great moments is a better HOF candidate to some than a guy who had exactly the same performance but played for last place teams and made no dent whatsoever on baseball history. You can reasonably disagree that those types of storyline accomplishments should be considered, I just get annoyed when people insult your intelligence and assume you don't know what an RBI is (and that you "hate math") is if you look at baseball in that way.

Well said!

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by molson

That's my point, you added a different stat for context. Sure, my example is extreme, but so is your assumption that there's a fan out there who has never heard of home runs and is just evaluating people strictly by batting avg.

I mean, since I was 3 years old I've understood that a .330 hitter with 0 home runs is not the same as a .330 hitter with 40 home runs.

I agree that OPS and SLG are better indicators than Avg alone (if anyone ever used average alone for some reason). Avg has a nice simplicity to it though, as a % of 100. I can tell the difference between a .240 hitter who doesn't walk at all and a .240 hitter that walks a lot, and I understand the latter is more valuable. Before people talked about OPS, we were aware of these things. We also were aware that some hitters struck out too much and others grounded into too many double plays and others had great speed, etc.

That's where one of the divides is in all this to me, I don't think the more hostile sabermetric guys understand that we always took this stuff in context. We undertand what a Win is for a pitcher, and that those Wins are much easier to get on good teams than bad teams. We understood what an RBI was. We understood that a guy hitting leadoff wouldn't have as many RBIs as a cleanup guy even if he was a similar hitter. RBI is also a storyline stat. In that if a guy hits 5 doubles in a game with the bases empty and never scores, that's great for him, but it wasn't a huge part of the story of the game. If another guy hit 2 doubles in a game and drove in 5 runs - honest to god, I understand that he didn't have as good a game as 5 double guy, but in the story of THAT game, he's the bigger story, and that's what those 5 RBIs represents. Someone here made that distinction once, and I thought they were on the right track - the traditional stats, especially pitcher wins and RBIs, are more about what happened in a game, whereas the more advanced stats try to predict the future and isolate individual players' performance in a game. Sometimes, I just want to see what happened in a game - who had the RBIs, who was the winning pitcher. And I also understand why people want to consider the accumulation of those game accomplishments as part of the criteria for awards and such. Kind of like how I understand how a player who played for a great team in huge games and had great moments is a better HOF candidate to some than a guy who had exactly the same performance but played for last place teams and made no dent whatsoever on baseball history. You can reasonably disagree that those types of storyline accomplishments should be considered, I just get annoyed when people insult your intelligence and assume you don't know what an RBI is (and that you "hate math") is if you look at baseball in that way.

I agree with Sweed, that was well reasoned and well spoken.

The problem I see with it is that yes, the guy with 5 doubles had a better hitting day than the guy with 2 doubles. The guy with 2 doubles just got "lucky" in that there were people on base when he hit his doubles. Did the guy with 5 RBIs have a bigger impact on that one game? Hell yes he did. But the other guy was a better baseball player that day. What are the point of awards? To recognize the better baseball players. I don't want to discount the 5 RBI guy completely, because damn it, the game is about scoring runs. But I have a real hard time penalizing the 5 double guy because none of his teammates got on base. I also have a hard time telling that guy with 5 RBI that the guy who had (almost) no impact on the final score of the game did better than he did.

I think it's pretty obvious that there won't be a clean, happy answer that will unite the peoples. But like someone said earlier in the thread - why would we want to? This is getting people to talk about baseball during football season, and that's never a bad thing (as much as I like football).

[Vince, Pt. II]

Dola - I would caution though that the "we were aware of these things" in reference to a .240 guy who doesn't take a walk versus a .240 guy who does is probably not as widespread as you think. Us "stat geeks" aren't targeting the intelligent people who still like traditional stats. We mostly dislike the fact that the casual fan is still force fed batting average and RBIs as awesome, clear cut indicators of someone's talent.

[Young Drachma]

Jays-Marlins deal confirmed.

[stevew]

It's not like Bud is ever going to do anything. He's flaccid.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by stevew

It's not like Bud is ever going to do anything. He's flaccid.

Let's see how you're doing when you're 78.

[stevew]

He should have been booted from his position of power 10-12 years ago.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

As a Jays fan, I'm excited by this rumored trade. If I was a Marlins fan, I'd want Soria's head.

What did he ever do to you?



Also, I suppose not posting for a couple of weeks makes the thread title a bit out of date.

SI

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

bhlah blah blah... fuck you...

It's pretty simple. Stats of what HAS happened have no bearing on what WILL happen. No matter how you spin them or how obnoxious of a sabermetrics geek you want to be.

Keep creationism out of it, this is a baseball thread...

[sterlingice]

Did I capture the last 4 pages accurately?

VS.

SI

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What did he ever do to you?



Also, I suppose not posting for a couple of weeks makes the thread title a bit out of date.

SI

lol oops! Typo.

[tucker rocky]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Jays-Marlins deal confirmed.

I guess Jeffrey Loria and Jeff Ireland, are in competition on who'll make their respective teams the worst in the Miami area.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

bhlah blah blah... fuck you...

It's pretty simple. Stats of what HAS happened have no bearing on what WILL happen. No matter how you spin them or how obnoxious of a sabermetrics geek you want to be.

Look I understand part of your point. Josh Hamilton could go on a binge and never hit a home run ever again, but that doesn't discount sabermetrics and attempting to quantify what could happen in the future.

I'm glad my boss only keeps be around because I look like a good worker.

[sterlingice]

Bah. Guthrie resigns with KC for 3/$25. Add that to 1/$12 for Santana and its $37M worth of Magic Beans for all!

SI

[Subby]

You can replace Simpsons Grandpa with Mitch Albom and it would be a little more accurate.

[Young Drachma]

Jays hire Gibbons for a 2nd go round. Most of the smart Jays bloggers support the move. I'm fine with it, even if it seems strange. GM has been on point all off-season, so I trust the move and we'll just see how it goes. If nothing else, at least he'll come cheap and we know he wants to be in T-Dot.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

It's pretty simple. Stats of what HAS happened have no bearing on what WILL happen. No matter how you spin them or how obnoxious of a sabermetrics geek you want to be.

Don't people across a wide swath of industries use stats to predict performance? Surely this isn't solely the province of sabremetricians.

You are looking at this from a binary perspective. I think that's the wrong approach. Since no one can forecast the future, the best we can do is to use mathematical probability based on existing data to give us a better understanding of what we can reasonably expect. The goal being to get as close to 100% certainty as possible. I don't see the issue with that.

[Toddzilla]

Stats of what HAS happened indeed do not tell what WILL happen, but they say everything about what MAY happen.

Once a player displays a skill, he owns that skill. Period. Once Brady Anderson hit 50+ homers, he became a potential 50 HR player. Did that mean he WOULD DEFINITLEY hit 50 HR again, no, but it does mean he COULD.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Bah. Guthrie resigns with KC for 3/$25. Add that to 1/$12 for Santana and its $37M worth of Magic Beans for all!

SI

LOL, Wow. 20 million a year for two of the worst starting pitchers in baseball.

Ive never understood this philosophy. Paying millions for players with limited upside when you more than likely have minor league players that will get paid league minumum that can do pretty much the same.

[sterlingice]

Royals sign Jeremy Guthrie to three-year deal for $25 million (poll) - KansasCity.com

Don't forget this gem: "Moore conceded any further impact additions will require a corresponding move to clear payroll, which suggests it is more likely to come through a trade rather than another free-agent signing."

So, yes, the owner is cheap so he won't even have a $70M payroll ($68M currently) when pocketing an estimated $20-$30M. Meanwhile, his GM just spent half of what Anibal Sanchez is going to get on crap.

Again, the offseason blueprint was easy: overbid to get Sanchez. Then go for one of the "lesser" guys like Marcum, McCarthy, or Jackson on 3 year deal, one of the older guys who falls through the cracks on a 2 or 1 year deal, or trade for Haren not Santana and roll the dice on his health. But if that money was never on the table, then why even bother.

Now there's talk that they want to add another starter through trades. Great, so you take an offense that was in the bottom half of the league but has room to grow and trade it for a young, unproven pitcher. Lovely: you trade one of your few assets that is giving you excess value over contract (Gordon, Butler) or one of the young talents you need to improve to improve the offense (Moustakas, Hosmer, Myers) to get pitching. Stupid. Just stupid.

SI