• 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!

Mike Trout on pace for greatest season in MLB history

Also, stop saying "read the linked studies!!1!" like they are scientific studies done by real scientists or even mathematicians. These are just made up blog boy exercises.

Their hope is that they make up a new made up stat that everyone likes and they get to move out of their aunt's basement.

Tango is currently the Senior Database Architect of Stats for MLB Advanced Media.[2]
 
Great contributions from TAB. Pay no attention to these published authors and managers of research and development for mlb teams. RJ know what he is talking about.
 
Denying outliers have statistical value is ludicrous. More accurately, you are saying, "If it doesn't prove my point, I will deny it has value."
 
Tango is currently the Senior Database Architect of Stats for MLB Advanced Media.[2]

He works for the Astros.

Neither of these things refutes the fact that he didn't go to college, or that in general, most of these advanced metrics 'experts' are unsmart people with little formal education. That's fine, but just slow your roll when quoting them like they are gospel. They are just schmucks who like numbers and baseball and who couldn't find gainful employment elsewhere.

Great contributions from TAB. Pay no attention to these published authors and managers of research and development for mlb teams. RJ know what he is talking about.

I made a Squarespace site once. Does that make me a 'published author'? Also, Wyers is just an analyst, not a manager. Four other people have his exact same position. Half of the sales and marketing department and probably a few on the grounds crew probably have better degrees.

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=hou

Look, I don't agree with RJ, but calm the eff down with your sactimoniousness that this stuff is irrefutable science. It's just neckbeards who like numbers. Which is fine, because its just baseball, the third most popular sport.
 
Neither of these things refutes the fact that he didn't go to college, or that in general, most of these advanced metrics 'experts' are unsmart people with little formal education. That's fine, but just slow your roll when quoting them like they are gospel. They are just schmucks who like numbers and baseball and who couldn't find gainful employment elsewhere.



I made a Squarespace site once. Does that make me a 'published author'? Also, Wyers is just an analyst, not a manager. Four other people have his exact same position. Half of the sales and marketing department and probably a few on the grounds crew probably have better degrees.

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=hou

Look, I don't agree with RJ, but calm the eff down with your sactimoniousness that this stuff is irrefutable science. It's just neckbeards who like numbers. Which is fine, because its just baseball, the third most popular sport.

Cool man. I couldn't find Tango's educational background, but his coauthors have multiple degrees. I don't give a fuck about Wyers, I was just at the pool with my family and found that he had done a similar study to Tango's.

Unlike you, I think people can be smart without having a formal education.

It's not that I think the science is irrefutable. I think that it is science. The studies provide a "before" data set (players that performed well over a number of PAs) and an after data set (how those same players performed after their period of relative dominance). The results were that the former data set doesn't predict the latter.

RJs is just presenting bulk data (without a before and after analysis) of players that did well against a pitcher over their career, with a selection bias problem, and claiming it supports a hypothesis that it does not support.

I'm not saying "read the studies!!!!" because I think they are gospel. I'm saying it because I know RJ hasn't read them, or at least tried to understand them.
 
RE: Bulk data -it proves the premise. I know you hate that, but it does. I've shown it from both sides and events over a 40 year period. Of course, that's not good enough for you. Some players don't regress to their mean in certain situations over long careers. This absolutely true and can't be refuted. This is irrelevant to you. You'll come up with some excuse or bloviate.

If a stat geek says something is true, you believe it as gospel regardless of evidence to the contrary.

As TAB says, you are sanctimonious and it's not just about baseball. You act in the same fashion about every subject.
 
RE: Bulk data -it proves the premise. I know you hate that, but it does. I've shown it from both sides and events over a 40 year period. Of course, that's not good enough for you. Some players don't regress to their mean in certain situations over long careers. This absolutely true and can't be refuted. This is irrelevant to you. You'll come up with some excuse or bloviate.

If a stat geek says something is true, you believe it as gospel regardless of evidence to the contrary.

As TAB says, you are sanctimonious and it's not just about baseball. You act in the same fashion about every subject.

You haven't proven anything except that some players did well against certain pitchers over the course of their career. This is not the same thing as proving that hitter vs. pitcher data has predictive value.
 
That's the most ridiculous statement ever unless you can prove that the bulk of their success happened at the beginning or the end of their career rather than on a consistent basis. Being consistent at those levels is the definition of predictive.

You simply can't admit that you are definitively wrong. And you are.
 
Someone has to fight the TrumpGumpization of everything.

Srsly tho, I think advanced metrics are valuable, but it is amazing how these cottage industries are full of otherwise non-employable people.

It's even worse w football blog boys. The clowns that run PFF are laughable.
 
There are lots of instances over the years like Manny vs. Mussina or Manny vs. Hallady. During his career, Manny hit 1 HR in every 39.5 ABs vs. Roy and hit 1 HR in about every 8 ABs against Mussina. Those numbers were consistent throughout his career.

If you don't think it would be more logical to predict that on any given AB in Manny's career that he would be more likely to a HR off of Mussina than Halladay, then you are either being intentionally obtuse or totally dishonest.
 
[Excited to see a baseball thread about Mike Trout]

[Sees that its multiple pages of RJ fighting with people about stats]

[Sadly skulks away]
 
Using 30 players, from one year, as he did Chapter 3 proves nothing except for that year. Also given that the year he chose was in the heart of the steroid era, who knows if it proves anything. Should we use 1968 as the be all and definitive year about pitching in MLB?
 
WAR sure computes fluky numbers when applied to Mike Trout, clearly showing that the stat does not have good precision. Arguing that a a position player could be having the greatest season in MLB history while leading the majors in only one offensive category for the season (times on base) doesn't reflect well on the computation. When looking at the leaders, saying Trout is having the best season this year is questionable. It does not look right.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/
The tolerance on WAR must be 33% or more.
 
WAR sure computes fluky numbers when applied to Mike Trout, clearly showing that the stat does not have good precision. Arguing that a a position player could be having the greatest season in MLB history while leading the majors in only one offensive category for the season (times on base) doesn't reflect well on the computation. When looking at the leaders, saying Trout is having the best season this year is questionable. It does not look right.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/
The tolerance on WAR must be 33% or more.[/QUOTE]

What good is a "stat"/projection if the minimum "tolerance" for error is 1/3 of the time?
 
A 5 WAR guy may be equal to a 7 WAR guy, but clearly better than the 1 WAR guy. WAR gives you an idea, but isn't definitive.

A lot of this is due to the adjustments, which remind me of the Consumer Price Index adjustments that show health care costs rise less than 2% year over year and frequently show much smaller overall CPI than almost every component in the CPI. The adjustments for Trout are undoubtedly favorable.

Season pitcher WAR leaders are similar to overall WAR leaders, as Verlander dominates almost every meaningful category on the MLB leaderboard, yet Sale is the WAR leader. So, I think Trout is getting a major park adjustment that hurts Betts, and Sale is getting major help with the same park adjustment.
 
Back
Top