MLB Thread: 2013

Off Topic
21

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Here is where I got my data from. As you can see, the list is very different from what FanGraphs has come up with.

See, based on where the statistic is measured it can be different. Are you trying to tell me that that is immaterial to the stat’s usefulness? [/quote]

Look at the methodology, decide if you agree with how it’s calculated. Generally, most agree that fangraphs WAR is the most accurate in portraying a player’s worth.

I don’t know why team WAR isn’t very accurate.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

And I completely understand that the longer a player plays he will accumulate more wins above replacement. I fail to see how that means anything in Rolen’s or Thome’s case, though. Rolen was a really good player for just a few years and he’s rarely played an injury-free season in his entire career. Thome has played forever as well, but for WARs purposes he has played 25% less than most players his age since he did nothing but DH the second half of his career and defensive statistics are taken into account when accumulating WAR.[/quote]

He still played over 2000 games and there are only 5 other active players to have done so. It mostly just paints a picture of this point in history. If you look at all time, He’s not even in the top 50.

22

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Here is where I got my data from. As you can see, the list is very different from what FanGraphs has come up with.

See, based on where the statistic is measured it can be different. Are you trying to tell me that that is immaterial to the stat’s usefulness? [/quote]

Look at the methodology, decide if you agree with how it’s calculated. Generally, most agree that fangraphs WAR is the most accurate in portraying a player’s worth.

I don’t know why team WAR isn’t very accurate.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

And I completely understand that the longer a player plays he will accumulate more wins above replacement. I fail to see how that means anything in Rolen’s or Thome’s case, though. Rolen was a really good player for just a few years and he’s rarely played an injury-free season in his entire career. Thome has played forever as well, but for WARs purposes he has played 25% less than most players his age since he did nothing but DH the second half of his career and defensive statistics are taken into account when accumulating WAR.[/quote]

He still played over 2000 games and there are only 5 other active players to have done so. It mostly just paints a picture of this point in history. If you look at all time, He’s not even in the top 50.
[/quote]

If you don’t know why it isn’t very accurate perhaps the legitimacy of the statistic needs to be reexamined. What would you suspect is the reason for this discrepancy? I don’t ask because I want to harass you into admitting an obvious misplacement of trust in the statistic. I have recently become a bit more interested in statistics in general and their place in baseball so consider your input to be help in my journey down the path of sabermetrics.

23

I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

24

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

[/quote]

How about a team’s record in one-run ballgames combined with its total run differential between itself and its opponents? I have no clue how it would actually pan out, but I suspect that if you were to look at those two stats you would find that the teams at the top of both are generally the upper-echelon teams from year to year.

The reason I mention one-run games is because, quite frankly, it’s the little things (the bunting, the good base running, situational hitting, throwing strikes, etc., etc.) that largely make the difference in those games. As we all know, entire seasons can come down to a handful of close games that went the opponent’s way back in April and May.

25

Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.

26

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.[/quote]
They would be lucky to get third in the division.

27

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.[/quote]
They would be lucky to get third in the division.[/quote]

All the way.

28

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.[/quote]
They would be lucky to get third in the division.[/quote]

All the way.[/quote]
Totally!!

29

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.[/quote]
They would be lucky to get third in the division.[/quote]

All the way.[/quote]

Wanna put an avatar on it?

30

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Diamondbacks are going to win the Ship.[/quote]
They would be lucky to get third in the division.[/quote]

All the way.[/quote]

The odds in Vegas have them at 50 to 1 to win it all. I’ll give you those odds in an avatar bet. They win, I sport some fucked up avatar of your choice for 50 straight months. They fail to win the Series and you sport one of my choice for one month. Do we have a bet?

31

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

[/quote]

How about a team’s record in one-run ballgames combined with its total run differential between itself and its opponents? I have no clue how it would actually pan out, but I suspect that if you were to look at those two stats you would find that the teams at the top of both are generally the upper-echelon teams from year to year.

The reason I mention one-run games is because, quite frankly, it’s the little things (the bunting, the good base running, situational hitting, throwing strikes, etc., etc.) that largely make the difference in those games. As we all know, entire seasons can come down to a handful of close games that went the opponent’s way back in April and May.[/quote]

Would have to look at each case individually, a sweeping statement won’t work here.

Just to point out Baltimore had a negative run differential last year and made the post season

32

DB: why not just read moneyball?

33

[quote]therajraj wrote:
DB: why not just read moneyball?[/quote]

I have read it. The thing is, the general premise is that the old-school way of evaluating talent was insufficient for a team like the A’s, who are hamstrung by their revenue.

I get it, but here’s the thing. The players who largely turned the A’s into legitimate contenders every year were the ones scouted and drafted by the old-school scouts. Giambi, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Tejada, etc. were all drafted by the sort of guys that the book (and to a larger extent, the movie) denigrates.

The other thing about that book is that I feel it points to OBP WAY too much as a portender of success. That statistic doesn’t have the same value across the board. A player with a high OBP doesn’t mean shit if he’s hitting 4th or 5th. His job is to get hits and hit for power, not get on base. The guys in front of him are supposed to do that, not him. Like the prologue to the movie said, the bottom line is that when a good team faces off against another good team (as in the playoffs), it isn’t the sort of shit that sabermetricians value that will make the difference for the most part. It’s the team that executes the fundamentals better that wins, hence the Giants winning two of the last three Series against supposedly superior teams.

It’s not the guy who draws the leadoff walk that makes the difference; it’s the guy who doesn’t walk the leadoff hitter or the guy who gets the runner over to second or hits the cutoff man and doesn’t allow a runner to take the extra base and so on. That sort of thing isn’t quantified as much by sabermetricians and it’s that sort of thing that the old-school guys notice that a stats guy who didn’t play the game doesn’t notice. Those types don’t see the whole game as it plays out as much. They don’t see the forest for the trees.

34

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

[/quote]

How about a team’s record in one-run ballgames combined with its total run differential between itself and its opponents? I have no clue how it would actually pan out, but I suspect that if you were to look at those two stats you would find that the teams at the top of both are generally the upper-echelon teams from year to year.

The reason I mention one-run games is because, quite frankly, it’s the little things (the bunting, the good base running, situational hitting, throwing strikes, etc., etc.) that largely make the difference in those games. As we all know, entire seasons can come down to a handful of close games that went the opponent’s way back in April and May.[/quote]

Would have to look at each case individually, a sweeping statement won’t work here.

Just to point out Baltimore had a negative run differential last year and made the post season
[/quote]

I know that. Which is why I also think records in one-run games is a big indicator of success as well. Baltimore, if I recall correctly, had an amazing record in those scenarios. I think another indicator is how frequently a team plays in one-run games as well, regardless of how they do in them. Pressure builds calluses against more pressure.

35

Obp is a better version of batting avg because it takes into account hits and walks.

What exactly does a player with power but obp look like? -Adam Dunn

36

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

[/quote]

How about a team’s record in one-run ballgames combined with its total run differential between itself and its opponents? I have no clue how it would actually pan out, but I suspect that if you were to look at those two stats you would find that the teams at the top of both are generally the upper-echelon teams from year to year.

The reason I mention one-run games is because, quite frankly, it’s the little things (the bunting, the good base running, situational hitting, throwing strikes, etc., etc.) that largely make the difference in those games. As we all know, entire seasons can come down to a handful of close games that went the opponent’s way back in April and May.[/quote]

Would have to look at each case individually, a sweeping statement won’t work here.

Just to point out Baltimore had a negative run differential last year and made the post season
[/quote]

I know that. Which is why I also think records in one-run games is a big indicator of success as well. Baltimore, if I recall correctly, had an amazing record in those scenarios. I think another indicator is how frequently a team plays in one-run games as well, regardless of how they do in them. Pressure builds calluses against more pressure.[/quote]

This sounds very circular to me.

Wins are a good predictor of wins?

37

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t know I really haven’t thought about it until you asked me.

I don’t look at a whole lot of team stats. I think runs scored/team is pretty decent indicator of team offense.

[/quote]

How about a team’s record in one-run ballgames combined with its total run differential between itself and its opponents? I have no clue how it would actually pan out, but I suspect that if you were to look at those two stats you would find that the teams at the top of both are generally the upper-echelon teams from year to year.

The reason I mention one-run games is because, quite frankly, it’s the little things (the bunting, the good base running, situational hitting, throwing strikes, etc., etc.) that largely make the difference in those games. As we all know, entire seasons can come down to a handful of close games that went the opponent’s way back in April and May.[/quote]

Would have to look at each case individually, a sweeping statement won’t work here.

Just to point out Baltimore had a negative run differential last year and made the post season
[/quote]

I know that. Which is why I also think records in one-run games is a big indicator of success as well. Baltimore, if I recall correctly, had an amazing record in those scenarios. I think another indicator is how frequently a team plays in one-run games as well, regardless of how they do in them. Pressure builds calluses against more pressure.[/quote]

This sounds very circular to me.

Wins are a good predictor of wins?[/quote]

No, I just think a better way to gauge how good a team is, statistically-speaking and without taking into account their actual record, is how they perform in certain situations. What teams advance runners the best? What teams make productive outs? What teams don’t put the first batter of the inning on base often? What teams hit the cutoff man? What teams take the extra base when it’s there for the taking? What teams don’t give away extra bases? Etc, etc.

Rather than individually tally all these sorts of things, I think that the teams that do those things well generally fare better than most in one-run games and also find themselves in one-run games more often because they can at least keep the games closer this way. So their record in one-run games might be a pretty good indicator of how they’ll fare when they get into the playoffs. Might being the key word.

38

Would be interested in this thread’s regulars’ ranks of top-5 pitching staffs going into the season. or top-10 or whatever…

39

I think the Rockies are up near the top…

40

[quote]chillain wrote:
Would be interested in this thread’s regulars’ ranks of top-5 pitching staffs going into the season. or top-10 or whatever…

[/quote]

From #1 to #10

Nationals
Giants
Devil Rays
Phillies (assuming Halladay is healthy)
Dodgers
Reds
Athletics
Tigers
Diamondbacks
Blue Jays