Sabermetrics

[omaha_red]

i knew i shouldn't have started this thread

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The annoying argument from the other end goes like this:

Player A vs. Player B.
Bad stats.
Good stats.
Attacks stats and people who use them in an unfunny and unoriginal way, (mother's basement, watch a game not a box score) then says something else about RBI.

What? You put a lot of words in my mouth. I never attacked anyone who used stats unless you think me saying you know less than Tony LaRussa is an attack. In that case, I just attacked everyone on the board because I think he knows more about baseball than anyone here. Sorry.

[thrill]

The annoying argument from the other end goes like this:

Player A vs. Player B.
Bad stats.
Good stats.
Attacks stats and people who use them in an unfunny and unoriginal way, (mother's basement, watch a game not a box score) then says something else about RBI.

What? You put a lot of words in my mouth. I never attacked anyone who used stats unless you think me saying you know less than Tony LaRussa is an attack. In that case, I just attacked everyone on the board because I think he knows more about baseball than anyone here. Sorry.

He didn't say you do that. You're not being attacked.

[haltz]

But, I'm not at this point going to put sabermetrics above 100+ years of baseball logic.

For the most part, advanced analysis confirms what people already knew. A lot of this isn't news to Earl Weaver, for example. Sometimes, when you look at the numbers it just isn't supported. I think that's fascinating, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If it matters, why can't statisticians find evidence for it?

Because it's just Tony, right? Have you ever heard a GM or manager say anything along the lines of "No, we don't need any protection for him. He's fine all by himself." What about Pujols? Where has his power (HR) gone?

I've heard lots of GMs and managers say things that aren't true. I've heard them say things that I'm pretty sure they know aren't true, and I've heard them contradict each other. I also know that getting better hitters into the lineup is a good thing, no matter what you want to call it.

As far as Pujols' power is concerned, it hasn't gone anywhere. New Busch is fairly tough on RH hitters, I believe. Despite that, his ISOP is just 18 pts off his career rate and his HR/FB is less than a percentage off. As far as his overall production goes, he has the HIGHEST EqA of his career.

[GatewaySnayke]

Yes, but his EqA would be even higher if he had more protection.

I never attacked anyone who used stats unless you think me saying you know less than Tony LaRussa is an attack.

That is an attack.

[lukethedrifter]

Bill James, if you believe his story, "created" sabermetrics after listening to baseball announcers say that lefties were the easiest to steal off of because the runner could see what the pitcher was doing. This didn't jibe with what he observed so he dug through box scores to analyze the data.
Jerome Holtzman created the save, if you believe his story, after some relief pitcher in the early '60's went something like 18 and 1, having a "great" season. Holtzman thought that the guy sucked to he analyzed the data to find that said pitcher had given up an enormous number of leads. So he created the save.

Sometimes conventional wisdom isn't so wise and sometimes the accepted notion of what's good needs to be vetted.

[Michael]

okay, let's all take a deep breath. I think we can all agree that both advanced stats and scouting have a place in baseball.

[Michael]

i knew i shouldn't have started this thread

No way. It's a healthy discussion.

[jim]

i don't mean to offend anyone here.. but sabermetrics just don't compute with me..
are they really important at all?

i'm quite ignorant about them.. i'll admit that..

Meh. They're alright and they have their place. But to argue based solely on stats, to me at least, is silly because you can learn a lot more about a player by WATCHING A GAME than LOOKING AT A BOX SCORE.

The best example of this, I think, is the entire notion of "protection" in a lineup. I find it hard to believe that haltz, jim, steve, etc. have greater knowledge about baseball than people that have watched thousands of games like Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre and, well, almost every manager in baseball. Although they have sabermetrics on their side, and I'm sure TLR has seen them since he is largely a stats manager, it just doesn't seem that they are correct. And, I'll go to my grave believing Albert Pujols would be a better hitter with Babe Ruth (in his prime) batting behind him than Ryan Ludwick.

Edit: I didn't mean to come off harshly with the caps on "watching a game" and "looking at a box score" sorry.

I have never stated, nor will I ever state, that I have a knowledge of the game that even approaches that of a major league manager. That does not however, mean that I don't know more about something specific. I'll give you one example of where I know more than Tony LaRussa.

The notecards. I've heard several comments from TLR himself, read about this in several books (Men at Work, 3 Nights ..) where he basis his decision of lineup construction or PH situations on a handful of AB's by a hitter against a certain pitcher. By handful, I'm saying < 75 or so. I've reread his quotes to make sure I understand the intent, and I think I do. On some occasions, he is basing decisions on the RESULTS of a statistically insignificant number of AB's. Not what he SAW in those AB's, or what a scout SAW in those AB's, but what the RESULTS were.

LaRussa is wrong, and I am right. It's not even debatable. Basing your decision on less than 75 AB's or so is just bad math. Basing your decision on what you SAW in 1 AB - different story entirely.

But that isn't saying that I know a fraction of what TLR knows in his pinky, it's just that I know he is wrong there and I am right.

[GatewaySnayke]

Also, if you say that you would never play Aaron Miles on the left side of the infield, you are right and he is wrong.