2011-12 MLB Offseason Thread: Tigers are really stupid

[ISiddiqui]

I hate to say I told you so to those who thought Halladay was clearly above every other pitcher in the NL.

[DanGarion]

I've been saying Kershaw was going to get in since early September. Every week I went to play strat-o-matic I was happy to know I had the future Cy Young award winner.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I DEMAND THE xoWARxoxo, FLAP, AND HoGws NUMBERS TO KNOW IF THE VOTES WERE RIGHT

EDIT TO ADD: I MEAN VOTERS

[lungs]

A shame I can no longer like Dale Sveum now that he is the Cubs manager. He was my choice for Brewers manager when they hired Ron Roenicke.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

But how can someone be "lucky" over the course of a whole season? I can understand a game. I can understand a series of games. But, if luck is random, how many pitches/innings/starts do you need to eliminate it?

Several hundred at least. It doesn't really take that many hits to drop in that were just a few feet away from being outs to make a significant difference in results over the course of a season.

Can a pitcher have a "lucky" career? If their stats appear HoF-worthy, could you make a case against them saying they were just "lucky"?

If a pitcher has pitched several seasons worth, that's enough time for results to "normalize" in terms of variables that are outside of their direct control, so no - the chances of seeing good luck (or bad luck) play a significant role over the course of a normal career is close to nil.

Which is to say - what's more likely, that Verlander was *a lot* more lucky over 34 starts, or that the reasoning behind declaring this to just be luck and not performance based is flawed?

So you're arguing against the mountain of data that supports DIPS theory?

What you're suggesting is that Verlander changed something in his approach this year that led to fewer hits on balls in play. Look at his career numbers, and you'll see his .236 BABIP against is quite a bit lower than anything he's posted previously. Now, to the extent that a pitcher can control line drives given up (and there's debate on that topic), this year was tied for the lowest of his career. But the other year he gave up 17.7% line drives, his BABIP was .296, or very close to "normal".

Here's another thing for you to consider - check out Pedro Martinez's career:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx...200&position=P

I think everyone can agree that from 1997-2003, he was consistently awesome, and pitching at a level that's arguably as good as any pitcher in MLB history. He was very consistent in the areas of K%, BB% and GB%. But look at the wildly varying BABIP against. Look in particular at his '99, '00 & '01 seasons. They were all dominating seasons by him, but look at how his BABIP bounced from .323 to .236 and back up to .307. You really think there was something under his control that changed in those three seasons? I don't. You think team defense can explain that wild variation? Not completely IMO. That leaves luck, or random chance, or whatever you want to call it.

Given the volume of data supporting DIPS theory, I think the burden of proof is now on your view to dispute it.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I DEMAND THE xoWARxoxo, FLAP, AND HoGws NUMBERS TO KNOW IF THE VOTES WERE RIGHT

EDIT TO ADD: I MEAN VOTERS

My favorite stat is xFAPFAPFAP

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Actually just looking to get educated rather than suggest anything. Thanks for the insight.

I would have thought that a full season's worth of data would weed out a lot of the luck, but your point about a small amount of noise in a season swinging some stats relatively radically is well taken. Weird to think that it would cause such BABIP swings, but I suppose it makes sense.

Any suggestion on a good link to something that discusses the mountain of DIPS data?

[MrBug708]

Congrats to Kershaw on winning the Cy Young award!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I'll never get into a debate with someone to compare players on different teams again, that's for sure.

Ya, the "barroom baseball discussion" is definitely dead. I understand the value of the statistics, and if I were a GM or scout I'd master all of them and be a super stat-freak. But it does make everything a lot less fun from a more casual fan perspective. I've fine with W/L, .Avg, RBI (you just have to be careful not to say those things out loud in the wrong crowd). I just want a relatively quick glance at what a guy has done this season, or over his career, or in the game I'm watching. I understand exactly how a W is calculated, I understand why it's not a great measurement of how good a guy is....Same with RBIs. But you can't say terms like that out loud, even when discussing things casually, without being viewed as a retard.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Actually just looking to get educated rather than suggest anything. Thanks for the insight.

I would have thought that a full season's worth of data would weed out a lot of the luck, but your point about a small amount of noise in a season swinging some stats relatively radically is well taken. Weird to think that it would cause such BABIP swings, but I suppose it makes sense.

Any suggestion on a good link to something that discusses the mountain of DIPS data?

Unfortunately a lot of it is behind pay walls and subscriptions, but here are a few interesting reads on the subject:

This one is from 2005, but it's an excellent update to the original McCracken theory and I think a good summary of where the theory still stands:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...look-at-dips1/

Another good update from 2007:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...covering-dips/

A good case example of the wild variations that you can see from year to year with a particular pitcher:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...d-dips-theory/

Some good links here:
http://www.sports-reference.com/stat...s/dips-theory/

[Ksyrup]

To supplement the DIPS stuff, I found this to be a very interesting read, just released a few days ago:

Baseball Prospectus | Spinning Yarn: Who Controls How Hard the Ball is Hit?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, the "barroom baseball discussion" is definitely dead. I understand the value of the statistics, and if I were a GM or scout I'd master all of them and be a super stat-freak. But it does make everything a lot less fun from a more casual fan perspective. I've fine with W/L, .Avg, RBI (you just have to be careful not to say those things out loud in the wrong crowd). I just want a relatively quick glance at what a guy has done this season, or over his career, or in the game I'm watching. I understand exactly how a W is calculated, I understand why it's not a great measurement of how good a guy is....Same with RBIs. But you can't say terms like that out loud, even when discussing things casually, without being viewed as a retard.

You know, I really hate this attitude. I debate baseball with friends all the time, and I love the game - this tired attitude from people that knowledge ruins discussion is just beyond absurd. The "casual" fan is a misnomer. I think knowledge helps the debate, and I enjoy it - its not like we have a perfect window into the future, and no one pretends we do.

[Ksyrup]

Totally agree. The idea that people should be willfully blind to information or have to dumb down the talk for it to be enjoyable is a crazy notion.

I still look at the old stats as much as anyone - heck, I played so much Strat-O-Matic growing up that i still have a fair number of players' 1982 stats burned into my brain from staring at the cards so much. But when discussing what's happening, or what happened, I don't think I need to be limited to arguing a point based on information I know is sketchy at best to illustrate my point. It's thinking like that that makes Ryan Howard or Juan Gonzalez an MVP solely based on the number of RBIs they have, if we continue to restrict our discussions to the lowest common denominator counting stats as proof/justification.

[jbergey22]

Its like anything else. You have to know who you are having the debate with and adjust accordingly. Blindly thinking everyone knows what every sabermetric stat is and basing your entire argument off of that kind of makes it a one sided argument IMO.

I have friends/family that will never care about many sabermetric stats. I dont think I need to force my opinion on them if they dont care about it. I can either choose to discuss what they know and have a discussion that way or completely write them off because they are fools that dont know what DIPS is. I choose the former approach.

In my conversations saying something like "Well Kershaw pitches in a pitchers park and Halladay pitches in a hitters park" so I think Halladay is probably better tends to work better with people that dont look at fangraphs over telling them "Halladay had a WAR that was almost 1 game higher so hes the better pitcher, End of Discussion."

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

To supplement the DIPS stuff, I found this to be a very interesting read, just released a few days ago:

Baseball Prospectus | Spinning Yarn: Who Controls How Hard the Ball is Hit?

Thanks for the links guys. This article gets at what bothers me about the certainty of some of this stuff. I think that SABR people, when they can't explain something, ascribe it to luck far too quickly when there are probably other significant factors at play that just have you to be discovered. He shows there that while the batter has more control over how hard a ball is hit, the pitcher has control over it too.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Thanks for the links guys. This article gets at what bothers me about the certainty of some of this stuff. I think that SABR people, when they can't explain something, ascribe it to luck far too quickly when there are probably other significant factors at play that just have you to be discovered. He shows there that while the batter has more control over how hard a ball is hit, the pitcher has control over it too.

That is interesting after actually having read it.

Mariano Rivera(along with Greg Maddux) were two of the most commonly brought up pitchers in the DIPS debate. Interesting to see Rivera #1 on that list.

And yes I argued at one time that I thought pitchers like Maddux/Rivera appeared the have more control over the situation than other pitchers and was either told "you're stupid, years of data back this up, check out this link with 8000 games" soon after it was "the theory has been written now that pitchers do have limited control over the situation." After more research they are concluding that Maddux/Rivera probably do have more control than they were given credit for which some argued was the case from the very beginning.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You know, I really hate this attitude. I debate baseball with friends all the time, and I love the game - this tired attitude from people that knowledge ruins discussion is just beyond absurd. The "casual" fan is a misnomer. I think knowledge helps the debate, and I enjoy it - its not like we have a perfect window into the future, and no one pretends we do.

Knowledge doesn't ruin a discussion, and if someone is willing to share knowledge and actually teach people who don't know, that's great (if the other person is willing to listen).

What DOES ruin a discussion is being called a motherfucking idiot for not knowing what the latest sabermetric stat is, and I've been on the business end of that.

Sorry, if I want to get insulted, I'll watch a Don Rickles video.

[sterlingice]

Ah, the internet- where the best way to get an answer is to say an obviously contradictory statement just because there's always a corner of people who are typically very protective of their proprietary data will come out of the woodwork just to contradict. Another great example of this is saying "Windows will do X but why won't Linux- that's why it sucks".

SI

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

That is interesting after actually having read it.

Mariano Rivera(along with Greg Maddux) were two of the most commonly brought up pitchers in the DIPS debate. Interesting to see Rivera #1 on that list.

And yes I argued at one time that I thought pitchers like Maddux/Rivera appeared the have more control over the situation than other pitchers and was either told "you're stupid, years of data back this up, check out this link with 8000 games" soon after it was "the theory has been written now that pitchers do have limited control over the situation." After more research they are concluding that Maddux/Rivera probably do have more control than they were given credit for which some argued was the case from the very beginning.

It's true that when DIPS was first put out there, reaction was very split - some couldn't wrap their heads around the thought that pitchers had no control over balls in play going for hits, while some took it as gospel. McCracken modified his initial findings, and then Tom Tippett further showed that there was at least some level of pitcher control over those outcomes. As we get batter batted ball data, studies like the recent one above add more clarification to the matter.

But we also need to understand the variability of control over these outcomes. Rivera indeed seems to have a better than average baseline outcome on BABIP against, as his career mark is .262. But year to year, he has quite a bit of variability. Some of that would be due to variability in the quality of defenders behind him, some of it might be variability in the quality of his pitching, but a lot of it would seem to be random chance, or "luck".

And Rivera is certainly at an extreme end of the spectrum in his ability to suppress hits.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And Rivera is certainly at an extreme end of the spectrum in his ability to suppress hits.

Completely agree.

I generally assumed that DIPS theory was very reliable for 90+ percent of the pitchers.

It was the exteme guys like Rivera/Maddux/Silva/Livan that I needed a better explanation on. It didnt make any sense to me on how 2 pitchers that were constantly breaking bats and giving up weak ground balls could be considered equal to these other two guys with their 85-90 MPH straight fastballs that seemed to be giving up hard hit balls much more frequently then most MLB pitchers.

This is nice breakthrough IMO in DIPS.

[stevew]

For all the Twins fans-

Ryan Doumit is the worst defensive player that you will ever experience in your lifetime. He cannot play RF at all, so don't even speculate that he can do that on a part time basis. His big problem with playing 1b is that he is unable to catch the ball, as well as to field the position on a level above church league softball. He cannot catch, and when he does you will see the most amazing passed balls. He will not bail his pitcher out and prevent obvious wild pitches that normal little league catchers can stop. He can't throw.

And he will get injured, most likely in the most amazing ways possible. And sure enough it will be after a 25 game span where he puts up a .950 OPS.

He is pretty much the deadbeat dad of baseball players. On occasion, you will be surprised when he shows up with a trunk full of extra base hits in time for xmas. But when you really just want your dad to be around and be available to play on a semi-regular basis? He'll be in the infirmary, fucking some nurses.

Anyways, I think he's a nice guy on a personal level, so at least you'll have that. His play, on the other hand, is fugly.

[jbergey22]

He sounds like a beast Steve

[DanGarion]

Greg Halman killed allegedly by his brother. Heart goes out to the Mariners family.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Greg Halman killed allegedly by his brother. Heart goes out to the Mariners family.

Yes, saw that this morning. How horrible, and also how weird, if it's his brother who did it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Verlander wins AL MVP.

[Logan]

Awesome.

[Chief Rum]

Way to go, Verlander.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I want to call bullshit because of Pedro, and I do feel that there should be a pitcher of the year award and a hitter of the year award, but it's hard to argue he doesn't deserve it.

/ducks

[Young Drachma]

A pitcher wins MVP that's unpossible! His WARx and RATq ratings weren't HIGH ENOUGH.

[Logan]

Where'd CC finish?

[Crapshoot]

Can't complain about Verlander (I'd have given it to Bautista or Ellsbury), but the genius who gave Michael Young a first place vote is hilarious - the guy wasn't even close to being the most valuable player on his own team.

[jbergey22]

I liked Ellsbury but I suppose the Boston choke job killed his chances.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I think if Boston made it, Ellsbury likely would have won. Though it was of no fault of his own that the Red Sox choked.

Congrats to Verlander, though!

[Logan]

I'd be fine if Verlander winning led to the award being reclassified into a batter only award, as RDII mentioned, just to eliminate this part of the debate in future years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Knowledge doesn't ruin a discussion, and if someone is willing to share knowledge and actually teach people who don't know, that's great (if the other person is willing to listen).

What DOES ruin a discussion is being called a motherfucking idiot for not knowing what the latest sabermetric stat is, and I've been on the business end of that.

Sorry, if I want to get insulted, I'll watch a Don Rickles video.

Ya, and I think too often people think there's the sabermetric crowd, and the non-sabermetric crowd that doesn't know what a W is, or that an RBI is not a valid evaluation tool. The majority of us are in the middle, I'd say, we understand the limits of traditional stats, understand basic sabermetrics, but don't really care to understand the details. We still find Ws and RBis relevant because they're a simple way to tell us what happened in a game, we're not claiming they're a fool-proof evaluation tool.

And with awards, and HOF, I think it's still an open debate what those types of honors are even measuring - is it the player to played the best on the field regardless of team success, or are there other factors as well? I think that some voters would consider a HR in a 9-1 win less important than a HR in a 3-2 win. I know that difference tells us nothing about how good the player is, but I don't know if those awards are necessarily utilized for that purpose by the voters, who may care more about what happened in important games and how the story unfolded over the season - there's a bit of fiction in that kind of analysis, sure, but that's always been the case in pro sports. You can disagree and think those awards should be more "pure", but it's just snobby to assume the other side is just ignorant and doesn't understand.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

...and I do feel that there should be a pitcher of the year award and a hitter of the year award, but it's hard to argue he doesn't deserve it.

/ducks

Agreed.

[dawgfan]

I have a hard time getting worked up over any of the awards, but especially the MVP since there's such a wide range of opinions over what exactly it's supposed to be rewarding: best player? most indispensable? should be hitters-only because pitchers already have their own award?

Verlander is deserving. So were Ellsbury, Bautista, Pedroia, Sabathia, Kinsler, Cabrera and Granderson.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Can't complain about Verlander (I'd have given it to Bautista or Ellsbury), but the genius who gave Michael Young a first place vote is hilarious - the guy wasn't even close to being the most valuable player on his own team.

He didn't have the gaudy stats outside of batting average, but from a contribution standpoint, he definitely could be considered the MVP of the Rangers. He played at 1B, 2B, SS and 3B. When there were injuries to Beltre and spotty play at 1B, he stepped right in and kept things going with little dropoff. Cruz and Napoli generated the headlines during the postseason, but for the first 162 games Young was definitely the anchor of the team.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by cartman

He didn't have the gaudy stats outside of batting average, but from a contribution standpoint, he definitely could be considered the MVP of the Rangers. He played at 1B, 2B, SS and 3B. When there were injuries to Beltre and spotty play at 1B, he stepped right in and kept things going with little dropoff. Cruz and Napoli generated the headlines during the postseason, but for the first 162 games Young was definitely the anchor of the team.

3.8 WAR

Discuss.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

3.8 WAR

Discuss.

Ian Kinsler was the best player on the Rangers.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Ian Kinsler was the best player on the Rangers.

Darn.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Darn.

Kinsler had a higher WAR than Beltre or Napoli but they were injured for parts of the season. I think a case could be made for Napoli 5.6WAR/113games VS 7.7WAR/155 games.

Im really not getting the Young MVP talk either. I mean hes a fine player but Im not seeing how he could be considered most valuable. Most dependable and most diverse maybe.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm just being snarky. I know about as much about the American League as I know about the history of raisin consumption in Liechtenstein.

[ISiddiqui]

There is a stat for that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

3.8 WAR

Discuss.

What a motherfucking idiot.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Greg Halman killed allegedly by his brother. Heart goes out to the Mariners family.

What a sad way for a person to make the headlines in the news...

[Logan]

We must have different definitions of "simple".

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Logan

We must have different definitions of "simple".

You struggle to understand what a win is or what an RBI is?