• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

LOCK, DELETE.

Bob Ryan said:
"There’s a war going on in baseball. Did you know that? If you came of baseball age when a long game was 2:45, it was a failing of significant proportion for a starting pitcher not to go nine, all World Series games started at 1 p.m. local, and there was no such thing as a DH, you probably don’t know it."
Click to expand...

rj just came
 
My pal Bob.....
"WAR Hates Sluggers

One of the things which advanced stats should be applauded for is the extent to which they’ve decreased the fetishizing of the homerun and raised awareness of all-around contributions. Jonah Keri and Dave Dameshek debated the relative merits of Willie Stargell and Tim Raines this week, largely based on the fact they had identical career WAR totals. Dustin Pedroia has a real shot at his second MVP, despite the fact that his “traditionals” (.309 AVG, 85 R, 18 HR, 74 RBI, 25 SB) are basically the same as Melky Cabrera‘s (.303, 83, 17, 79, 17).

However, one can’t help but notice that a cross-section of the most intimidating hitters in the game are treated with relative disdain by the metric. It doesn’t like them because they play first base or left field (or DH), which aren’t scarcity positions. It doesn’t like that they are fat and slow.

While I understand that everybody would love to have Chase Utley or Troy Tulowitzki, a middle-of-the-order hitter who makes big contributions in the field and on the basepaths, as well as at the plate, the fact remains, building a lineup without a slugger (or two) is like building a mall with seven Sunglass Huts and no department stores. A few sluggers are swift, slender middle-infielders. Most of them aren’t. To paraphrase Reggie, there are lots of drinks and precious few straws. If you get left without one, no amount of Range Factor, WHIP, or baserunning acumen can save your season. Just ask the Padres, or the Mariners.

Yet, we misuse WAR to insist that it’s better to have Ian Kinsler than Miguel Cabrera or that Peter Bourjos is as valuable as Prince Fielder or Mark Teixeira.

We’ve struggled to understand and statistically represent the effect hitters have on one another. Would Nyjer Morgan be hitting .306 if he wasn’t batting directly in front of Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder? (WAR suggests, by the way, that Morgan has been more valuable on a per game basis than Fielder.) Morgan is taking free passes this season at only about half his career rate. Has he become less patient? (On the other side of things, Adrian Gonzalez‘s career OPS is fifty points higher when the pitcher is throwing from the stretch. He’s enjoyed that situation in 52% of his plate appearances in 2011.)

While I admit the difficulty of building a model that accounts for the effect a pairing like Braun/Fielder or Pujols/Holliday has on the rest of the lineup, this is one area in which I find the conventional wisdom to be irrefutable. While I applaud WAR (and other metrics) for aiding in our appreciation of defense and baserunning, it’s beyond asinine to conclude that Ellsbury is twice as valuable as Fielder. Too often WAR is used as a means of comparing oranges to apples. One of the things that makes baseball great is the diversity of the fruit basket. WAR give incredible weight to scarcity of shortstops, but no weight to the scarcity of pitcher-intimidating, strategy-altering cleanup hitters, which I see as a form of reverse discrimination.

These are not the last of the problems. WAR evaluates catching using only the ability to control the running game. There is abundant evidence that certain park factors have not been sufficiently accounted for. I’m not arguing, however, that WAR should be completely discounted. As yet, it is probably as good a singular statistic as is widely available. But, WAR is not a debate-ending statistic, especially for single seasons. Even WAR’s adherents, like Dave Cameron, generally admit the margin of error is at least 15%. When we stubbornly suggest that 0.5 WAR means anything, we are grossly exaggerating the statistic’s accuracy, even according to its creators. It remains true that any reasoned discussion of an individual’s contributions still requires analysis of the various components that go into WAR, as well as several that don’t, and, as such, subjectivity reigns.

Statistical elegance is elusive. Variables get short shrift or go unaccounted for entirely. Results yield unintended consequences. Misunderstood data is misrepresented and polemicized. In the words of Tolstoy: WAR makes fools of us all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-"
 
I apologize, but I thought it was generally understood that RJ wasn't welcome to post here, but does anyway. Shouldn't preclude me from being able to post something that made news over the weekend.
 
Really hates sluggers:

Rank Player (yrs, age) Wins Above Replacement Bats/Throws
1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 178.3 L
2. Cy Young+ (22) 160.8 R
3. Barry Bonds (22) 158.1 L
4. Walter Johnson+ (21) 157.8 R
5. Willie Mays+ (22) 150.8 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 145.0 L
7. Hank Aaron+ (23) 137.3 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 133.9 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 127.7 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 126.1 R
11. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 124.6 R
12. Stan Musial+ (22) 123.4 L
13. Ted Williams+ (19) 119.8 L
14. Eddie Collins+ (25) 118.5 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 115.9 R
16. Kid Nichols+ (15) 111.6 B
17. Alex Rodriguez (19, 36) 111.4 R
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 108.5 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 106.8 R
20. Mickey Mantle+ (18) 105.5 B
 
i didn't read the article but the anti-bunting sentiment has gone a bit too far, i think. all else equal, it's almost always a bad decision, yes. but there's the game theory element as well, where the threat of a bunt increases your likelihood of getting a basehit. so a lot of the data used to criticize sac bunts aren't necessarily going to be completely accurate -- you probably need to use some sort of markov chain shit. that said, 95% of sac bunts are still turrible decisions.
 
Torii Hunter paid Rick Porcello 50k to wear the number 48. Porcello donated it all to Sandy relief.

Common type thing?
 
not sure, but texas will keep you updated on every one of his at bats until then!
 
Since he hasn't posted yet this game, I'll say that Cosart is STRUGGLING.
 
just turned on mlb.tv at work for the first time this year, im pumped
 
Garza to the DL - Shark the opening day starter. Assumed this was likely anyway since they see him as "untouchable" and one of the future faces & hairs of the franchise.
 
So the Tigers' biggest issue early in Spring (but most likely going into the season) is going to be closer. I know the role is largely overrated. But if you're Dombrowski, and these are your options, what do you do?

1) Bruce Rondon - Having a terrible Spring so far, largely untested, has 102-3 MPH fastball, but control issues
2) Combination of guys (Coke/Dotel/Rondon/Marte) juggled - Seems like a real challenge to do this nightly, but it's possible
3) Go sign someone - Teams that are in the hunt won't trade their closer away, and teams that aren't, you have the issue of a guy who might have had 30 saves on a 70-75 win team, but will he be that same guy on a 90 win team?

I'm personally pretty conflicted. I really wanted Albuquerque/Villareal to be the closer, but I think they will be setup guys, probably for years to come. Crosby, Below, Smyly, and Downs will be long relief. That guy just doesn't exist prototypically. Could they break the closer mold this year?
 
Bronson Pinchot said:
So the Tigers' biggest issue early in Spring (but most likely going into the season) is going to be closer. I know the role is largely overrated. But if you're Dombrowski, and these are your options, what do you do?

1) Bruce Rondon - Having a terrible Spring so far, largely untested, has 102-3 MPH fastball, but control issues
2) Combination of guys (Coke/Dotel/Rondon/Marte) juggled - Seems like a real challenge to do this nightly, but it's possible
3) Go sign someone - Teams that are in the hunt won't trade their closer away, and teams that aren't, you have the issue of a guy who might have had 30 saves on a 70-75 win team, but will he be that same guy on a 90 win team?

I'm personally pretty conflicted. I really wanted Albuquerque/Villareal to be the closer, but I think they will be setup guys, probably for years to come. Crosby, Below, Smyly, and Downs will be long relief. That guy just doesn't exist prototypically. Could they break the closer mold this year?
Click to expand...

I think I'd go Albuquerque.
 
Anthony Rizzo was just signed at only $8,000 over the league minimum. HUGE STORY BREAKING.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top