My Sabermetrics Paper for School (8+ Pages)

[USSoccer]

Diffusion brings up a good point, Saber. The A's just used those statistical metrics to find market inefficency, and exploit it. The stats were a means to an end, not the end itself.

[Bergy92]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

[badgercub]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

 

First off, you must have me confused with someonelse, as I do not run a website. Secondly there is a big difference in critiquing ones grammar on a message board compared to a term paper that is going to be handed in to be graded. Like I said I wasn't trying to denigrate him it was more a critique of how little grammar is taught in school anymore. Critique the grammar in my posts if you would like, I have been out of school for close to 15 years and do not do a lot of writing in my field, I do not claim to be perfect nor do I proofread everyone of my posts. You asked for opinions/critique I gave it to you. Take it or leave it you don't have to try and personally attack me.

[Yeti]

i didnt read it terribly closely, more of a scan, so im sure i missed some things, but other posters seem to have picked it over pretty well. other than the things already mentioned by other posters, your use of the phrase "a lot"(in the paragraph on RBI and runs)is glareingly bad. NEVER use "a lot"(or any other slang for that matter) in a paper, it shows lack of vocabulary skills and laziness(not calling you lazy, when i wrote papers i often used "a lot" in rough drafts, and you see im too lazy to even use the shift key when i type) plug words like "frequently" or "often" in place of "a lot", hell maybe even break out a thesaurus.

one other thing, there is a quote by bill james that isnt offset by quotation marks.

[Yeti]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

 

First off, you must have me confused with someonelse, as I do not run a website. Secondly there is a big difference in critiquing ones grammar on a message board compared to a term paper that is going to be handed in to be graded. Like I said I wasn't trying to denigrate him it was more a critique of how little grammar is taught in school anymore. Critique the grammar in my posts if you would like, I have been out of school for close to 15 years and do not do a lot of writing in my field, I do not claim to be perfect nor do I proofread everyone of my posts. You asked for opinions/critique I gave it to you. Take it or leave it you don't have to try and personally attack me.

 

general criticism without suggestions on how to correct problems wasnt solicited and really doesnt do anything except possibly falsely bolster the critics ego by tearing down others, just seems kinda mean spirited. Saber was looking for help with his ROUGH DRAFT, seeking outside proof readers is actually quite intelligent and industrious, i think the point is, if you have nothing constructive to add then why open your trap?

 

 

maybe if you are so disgusted with the education system, you could start a thread in "rants." no need to bust on a kid who is actually putting forth the extra effort to see that his assignment is as good as he can make it before he turns it in.

[Bergy92]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

 

First off, you must have me confused with someonelse, as I do not run a website. Secondly there is a big difference in critiquing ones grammar on a message board compared to a term paper that is going to be handed in to be graded. Like I said I wasn't trying to denigrate him it was more a critique of how little grammar is taught in school anymore. Critique the grammar in my posts if you would like, I have been out of school for close to 15 years and do not do a lot of writing in my field, I do not claim to be perfect nor do I proofread everyone of my posts. You asked for opinions/critique I gave it to you. Take it or leave it you don't have to try and personally attack me.

 

general criticism without suggestions on how to correct problems wasnt solicited and really doesnt do anything except possibly falsely bolster the critics ego by tearing down others, just seems kinda mean spirited. Saber was looking for help with his ROUGH DRAFT, seeking outside proof readers is actually quite intelligent and industrious, i think the point is, if you have nothing constructive to add then why open your trap?

 

 

maybe if you are so disgusted with the education system, you could start a thread in "rants." no need to bust on a kid who is actually putting forth the extra effort to see that his assignment is as good as he can make it before he turns it in.

 

well put...

[Yeti]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

 

First off, you must have me confused with someonelse, as I do not run a website. Secondly there is a big difference in critiquing ones grammar on a message board compared to a term paper that is going to be handed in to be graded. Like I said I wasn't trying to denigrate him it was more a critique of how little grammar is taught in school anymore. Critique the grammar in my posts if you would like, I have been out of school for close to 15 years and do not do a lot of writing in my field, I do not claim to be perfect nor do I proofread everyone of my posts. You asked for opinions/critique I gave it to you. Take it or leave it you don't have to try and personally attack me.

 

general criticism without suggestions on how to correct problems wasnt solicited and really doesnt do anything except possibly falsely bolster the critics ego by tearing down others, just seems kinda mean spirited. Saber was looking for help with his ROUGH DRAFT, seeking outside proof readers is actually quite intelligent and industrious, i think the point is, if you have nothing constructive to add then why open your trap?

 

 

maybe if you are so disgusted with the education system, you could start a thread in "rants." no need to bust on a kid who is actually putting forth the extra effort to see that his assignment is as good as he can make it before he turns it in.

 

well put...

thanks, that crap kinda irked me

[badgercub]

No offense, but do they not teach english in elementary or high school anymore? I could see if you had some typos but I would be embarrassed to turn that in. Needs a lot of work.

 

Maybe I should take suggestions from you, the guy who runs the site which currently looks like this?

 

ÁÑ5'áS6‚ñ’¢DTsEF7Gc(UVW²ÂÒâòdƒt“„e£³ÃÓã)8fóu*9:HIJXYZghijvwxyz…†‡ˆ‰Š”•–—˜™š¤¥¦§¨©ª´µ¶·¸¹ºÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÔÕÖ×ØÙÚäåæçèéêôõö÷øùú

 

...

 

His site should mean nothing to you. Actually, what should mean something to you is that he criticized your grammar. Interesting though, he did use a fragment at the end of his critique. "Needs a lot of work" is not a sentence. So maybe he should double check his post before he criticizes someone for doing what he does. Therefore, take what you can from the other critiques, but ignore those who simply have nothing to say.

 

:D

 

First off, you must have me confused with someonelse, as I do not run a website. Secondly there is a big difference in critiquing ones grammar on a message board compared to a term paper that is going to be handed in to be graded. Like I said I wasn't trying to denigrate him it was more a critique of how little grammar is taught in school anymore. Critique the grammar in my posts if you would like, I have been out of school for close to 15 years and do not do a lot of writing in my field, I do not claim to be perfect nor do I proofread everyone of my posts. You asked for opinions/critique I gave it to you. Take it or leave it you don't have to try and personally attack me.

 

general criticism without suggestions on how to correct problems wasnt solicited and really doesnt do anything except possibly falsely bolster the critics ego by tearing down others, just seems kinda mean spirited. Saber was looking for help with his ROUGH DRAFT, seeking outside proof readers is actually quite intelligent and industrious, i think the point is, if you have nothing constructive to add then why open your trap?

 

 

maybe if you are so disgusted with the education system, you could start a thread in "rants." no need to bust on a kid who is actually putting forth the extra effort to see that his assignment is as good as he can make it before he turns it in.

 

Point taken. I wasn't trying to bash anyone, I guess my point was taken the wrong way. I thought the content of the article was interesting and never said anything about the effort that was put forth.

[Sabermetrician]

That's not what Moneyball is about at all. Moneyball is about coming to a fuller understanding of the game, primarily through an emphasis on relatively objective evidence, and using that knowledge to exploit market inefficiencies and so punch above one's weight. The fact that some of the players that the A's target as they go about doing that tend to be unwanted is entirely secondary.

I think you could argue either way. When the A's signed Hatteberg, there were only two teams after him (I'll have to double check that, but they were either the only one or competing with just one other).

 

 

Is it not the case that baseball statistics (with a few relatively minor exceptions: hit/error rulings, for instance) are entirely objective? And are they not evidence? If so, then you might as well be saying that sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball statistics through baseball statistics, or that sabermetrics is the study of objective evidence through objective evidence. Which you obviously should avoid saying.

 

You'd be far better off using a quoted definition of sabermetrics. Bill James' "the search for objective knowledge about baseball" perhaps.

 

I actually thought I did use the Bill James definition. Thanks for pointing that out. For whatever reason, this was an instance where I thought I had something that I actually didn't. I can completely understand how you would confuse the definition I had with the regular stats...

 

Either "only a few" or just "few".

 

Are you entirely sure that the turning point in all of this was the publication of Moneyball? I'm not saying that it isn't, but that's a pretty bold statement, that a book changed the game, and you must be aware that that's exactly what your sentence there implies.

 

I do think Moneyball had a lot to do with it, particularly with the fans. I learned so much from Moneyball and I think everyone who read it did. However, you are probably right that it's too bold, any suggestions on how I could change it, still keeping that Moneyball has helped?

 

Ditch the word profitable. Profitable references the bottom line, income relative to expenditure. That's economics. Your essay is about sabermetrics. You don't want to go into a diatribe about whether baseball teams are making more money these days, which you have to do to justify making a statement like this. You don't then want to have to prove that sabermetrics is responsible for them making more money these days, largely because that'd be just about impossible. Stick to the baseball and get rid of the word profitable.

 

And if you're getting onto dodgy ground underfoot if you're going to argue that there's been an increase in the ability of teams to compete since they adopted a more sabermetric approach because they read Moneyball. At the very least you're going to have to justify this statement. You certainly can't just leave it out there, merely referencing the success of the A's (who were successful before Moneyball, hence Moneyball being written), the Braves (who have very little to do with sabermetrics, so I've no idea why you've included them, and they were running a winning organisation long, long before Moneyball anyway) and the Red Sox (who also had the "ability to compete" well before Moneyball - the Red Sox have finished second in the division since 1998, Moneyball was published in May 2003)

 

Here's another instance that got me in trouble from the assumption of Moneyball then, I think.

 

Batting average is a counting stat? Oh, and please, statistics aren't faulty. A statistic can't be faulty. What's faulty, if anything, is either the design of it or someone's application of it.

 

Okay, so what I meant to say is that the faults in some statistics are the way they're set up, for example BA is fault because it's over at bats and not plate appearances, measures how much a person gets on base but only by hits, etc...

 

Batting average is hits divided by at-bats. If you must express at-bats as a function of plate appearances, the denominator is (PA - BB - HBP - S - SF).

 

What's S? Plate Appearances - Walks - Hit By Pitch - Sac Flies - S?

 

So what? On-base percentage doesn't measure power. Slugging percentage doesn't measure the ability of a player to steal bases. Does that mean that those statistics are flawed? Of course not. You judge a statistic against what it's designed to measure. And batting average is designed to measure how often a player gets on with a hit, and it does a great job of that.

 

Your line of argument here should be a) that how often you get on with a hit isn't all there is to being a good offensive player and b) the traditional application of batting average as a measure of how good offensively a player is thus is greviously flawed.

 

I'm not sure I agree with everything you say here. For such a long time (before OBP), batting average was the true measure of a hitter's ability, but it completely ignores some aspects of hitting which are important to a team. Maybe what I could say in the paper is batting average isn't flawed, it's the formula that leaves out some of those aspects.

 

Again, so what? On-base percentage is designed to tell you how often a player avoids making an out. It does that just fine. You seem under the impression that you need to make a decision as to a player's offensive value on the basis of just one statistic. That is not the case. So you should stop deriding statistics that aren't designed as catch-all measures for not being catch-all measures. Look at what a statistic does, not what it doesn't do. If the metric is commonly applied in such a way that doesn't fit with what it can and can't tell you, then complain about the application of it. You've got this entire bit about statistics (which sadly makes up most of your piece) backwards.

 

Same thing as above. What you're saying may be correct, but is OBP so flawless that a guy with a .350 OBP is better than one with a .340 OBP? That's not necessarily true, if the guy with the .340 OBP is getting on base by extra base hits and the one with the .350 OBP is getting on primarily by singles and walks, I'll take the .340 guy. The .340 guy is setting his team up for a greater chance to score when he does get on base.

 

The denominator is again wrong. See batting average for the correction.

 

A lousy example, though it makes the very point that I've been making all along: you don't judge a player just on his slugging percentage, or just on his average, or just on his on-base percentage. None are designed as a catch all measure. On the first day of the season, Player A hits four singles (1.000/1.000/1.000). Player B hits a home run and makes three outs (.250/.250/.1000). Anyone here want to argue that Player A and B both done equal good? Well, you're wrong, because on average Player A contributed 1.44 more runs to the cause in that game.

 

But, yes, you're right in your basic point that each total base is not created exactly equal. As such two players can have identical slugging percentages (and averages and on-bases) but have contributed different amounts to their teams by virtue of the way they amassed those total bases. Suppose Player A and Player B put up absolutely identical numbers over a season with the exception that Player A hits 30 more doubles, but Player B hits 20 more singles and 10 more home runs. Player B actually on average contributes 0.3 runs because of the difference in the way the total bases were put up. As such, slugging percentage isn't a perfect measure. But it's good enough: 0.3 runs over a season really isn't that much, and if you want a more extreme example you have to involve guys that hit 30 triples or something similarly unplausible.

 

You're right here again, but dealing with slugging percentage as an aside, that is it's fault...that every base is created unequal.

 

Meh. I know what you're trying to say, but that's completely the wrong way of saying it.

 

For example, you will never see a player with a batting average of .300 and a slugging percentage of .400

 

I see plenty of them. From 1959-2004, there were 171 instances of a player with 300 or more at-bats in the season having a .290-.310 average and a .390-.410 slugging. The most recent examples include Darin Erstad and Edgardo Alfonzo in 2004, BJ Surhoff and Sean Casey in 2003, Dan Wilson and Jose Vizcaino in 2002.

 

While 171 may seem like a lot, you have to take into consideration how many players there are in baseball each year, multiply by the number of seasons you're counting, and in the end you've got about 4 players per season doing that out of X amount of players per season.

 

However, I could make a more extreme example. .350 BA and .400 SLG? How many players have done that?

 

Also realized, I should have said rarely see.

 

Again, so what? It's not designed to. It's design is pretty sound. No-one even wrongly uses it that way. There's not much wrong with its application. In other words, there's not much wrong with slugging percentage.

 

My arguing the entire time then should be how slugging percentage (or any stat) is set up, rather than arguing why the actual stat has faults, correct?

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the only person that's refined Runs Created is Bill James.

 

Good to know.

 

How closely? Closely compared to what?

 

Player by player on a team, plugged into James's formula, and then added up to estimate how many runs the team would score vs. the actual amount they did. High correlation between the two.

 

And does a rubbish job of it. It's poorly designed, because a total base isn't worth a walk isn't worth a stolen bases isn't worth a caught stealing. Using at-bats as the denominator is contentious at best. And the statistic is completely redundant, because it doesn't tell you anything you can't tell from an AVG/OBP/SLG line. That's why you never see it used in modern day sabermetrics.

 

I never thought of it that way. I've always viewed SecA as a nice statistic for measuring power since it takes away singles.

 

That's a pretty horrid way of making that point.

 

I'm just trying to make a point that park factors have contributed to success and for those that have hit in pitcher's parks, they've been hurt. Any suggestions to rephrase it?

 

Actually, since 1998, the NL has comfortably outscored the AL every year. Obviously that's down to it having two extra teams, but it still invalidates what you've written. I know what you're trying to write, obviously, but you need to re-word.

 

That was one thing I just added yesterday due to someone else's suggestion and I didn't check my facts. I just assumed AL would score more runs than the NL. Does the average AL team score more runs than the average NL team?

 

OPS+ is a horrible statistic by the way. Cool, it adjusts for park and league average, but it's still OPS. And it's still adding two things that use different scales.

 

You can tell more about a player looking at OPS+ than OPS, though. Same with ERA+ and ERA, which isn't included in the paper.

 

Always? Please. Next you'll be telling me Billy Beane has never made a mistake in his life because of sabermetrics.

 

Ok, mostly.

 

Are you implying causation or not? I can't tell.

 

I'm implying that they got good players in return for their two pitchers, and these players did play a role in the success of the A's. So in that way, yes, but their success wasn't directly because of the players they got back in the trades.

 

Esteban Loaiza?

 

:oops:

 

You're writing this whole thing as though the reader knows nothing about baseball. So you have to tell them that Giambi used to play for Oakland. And you should mention that the A's got their draft picks for him, and that this is a policy they pursued with Ray Durham, Miguel Tejada etc as well. Then go and look up who they drafted with those picks, and what they're doing for the team now.

 

Yup, the draft picks have been suggested and it's a good idea.

 

You should probably mention that by best season of his career, you're talking about .280/.374/.433, which is extremely unremarkable for a first baseman. And you should probably also mention that Hatteberg was rubbish in two of those three extra seasons, and that he earned $6.5m for them.

 

But, if you were to weigh salary and production, Hatteberg was an excellent pickup. Did he really get $6.5 for each season, or was it a 3-yr., $6.5M contract?

 

The Braves have just about nothing to do with sabermetrics. Maybe look at the BlueJays, who pretend to under Riccardi. Or the Dodgers under DePodesta. Or would that not be one sided enough for you?

 

Maybe it would be better for me to mention the Blue Jays and Dodgers as a subpoint of the A's, as both those two guys were involved with the A's under Beane?

 

You should include a source for these kind of assertions.

 

I haven't cited any of my sources in-paper with the exception of the two Moneyball quotes. I know where they came from, and of course they'll be cited before it's done.

 

What? On? Earth? Are? You? On? About?

 

Sabermetric stats > Traditional stats is the point of the conclusion, however I do want to redo the whole conclusion and I said that in my first post.

 

Otherwise, besides spelling, punctuation and grammar etc., it's just about acceptable. If you want to improve it you need to look at your writing style, you need to back up the points that you make in much greater depth, you need to take a much much more objective viewpoint (because, ironically, your essay on the great and the good of objective evidence is currently riddled with your subjective high opinion of everything sabermetrics touches), and you should probably stop looking at sabermetrics just in terms of the statistics that it argues are more valuable when it comes to player evaluation. There's more to sabermetrics than RC27 etc.. It'd probably make for a much more interesting read that way as well. Drearily explaining one statistic after another really isn't doing much for me.

 

I knew that this would be a problem for me when I chose the topic: we're suppoed to stay away from being entirely factual, I just don't know how I can do that. I can't prove sabermetrics are effective without proving facts. I can't say how teams have used sabermetrics without first explaining what they are, which is again...facts.

 

I don't know how old you are or what the significance of this paper is, so bear that in mind.

 

17.

 

Thanks.

[Diffusion]

That's not what Moneyball is about at all. Moneyball is about coming to a fuller understanding of the game, primarily through an emphasis on relatively objective evidence, and using that knowledge to exploit market inefficiencies and so punch above one's weight. The fact that some of the players that the A's target as they go about doing that tend to be unwanted is entirely secondary.

I think you could argue either way. When the A's signed Hatteberg, there were only two teams after him (I'll have to double check that, but they were either the only one or competing with just one other).

 

But the point is that the A's don't target players because no-one else wants them, which is what you originally said.

 

Are you entirely sure that the turning point in all of this was the publication of Moneyball? I'm not saying that it isn't, but that's a pretty bold statement, that a book changed the game, and you must be aware that that's exactly what your sentence there implies.

 

I do think Moneyball had a lot to do with it, particularly with the fans. I learned so much from Moneyball and I think everyone who read it did. However, you are probably right that it's too bold, any suggestions on how I could change it, still keeping that Moneyball has helped?

 

My point isn't that it's too bold. I don't think it's impossible to back up the statement that "the publication of Moneyball changed the game", but I do think it's very difficult.

 

Rather my point is that if you say something, you have to be able to prove it, you have to back it up with evidence. You didn't do that, and as such your assertion appears to be nothing but an unsubstantied opinion. And you don't want them in your essay.

 

That doesn't mean that you should necessary cut the remark about Moneyball having changed the game. It just means that if you don't cut it, you need to devote time to backing up that statement. That might actually be a better approach in terms of the readibility of your essay - looking at the extent of the impact of sabermetrics and Moneyball as opposed to just explaining a list of statistics.

 

Batting average is a counting stat? Oh, and please, statistics aren't faulty. A statistic can't be faulty. What's faulty, if anything, is either the design of it or someone's application of it.

 

Okay, so what I meant to say is that the faults in some statistics are the way they're set up, for example BA is fault because it's over at bats and not plate appearances, measures how much a person gets on base but only by hits, etc...

 

No! What's at fault here is your interpretation of what batting average is about, not batting average or its design.

 

Batting average exists only to measure how often a hitter gets a hit. And it does a great job of that. So what's wrong with batting average? Nothing as far as I can see (though I suppose you could argue that sacrifice flies should count towards the denominator).

 

What's at fault here is your argument that batting average should exist to show something else, to show how often a player gets on-base.

 

Here's how your argument should run instead: batting average measures how often a batter gets a hit. Nothing wrong with the way that it does that. However, how often a batter gets a hit is not a particularly good measure of his effectiveness as an offensive force (there's a lot more to being a good hitter than just getting hits often - the nature of the hits, how often he avoids outs by means other than hits, how he makes his outs, and so on). The problem is (as you put it yourself lower down) batting average "was [and I'd argue still is in a lot of cases, though to a lesser extent] the true measure of a hitter's ability". Traditionalists gave and in some cases still give batting average too much weighting in their evaluations of players. The fault lies with the people that make this mistake, not with batting average itself.

 

Think of it this way: an apple is worth, what, 50 cents? If someone pays $50 for an apple, is that the apple's fault? No, of course not. The apple still does what it's supposed to do: it tastes good, it fills a hole. The fault lies with the stupid person that paid $50 for the apple. He overvalued the apple. He paid for the apple as though it was a three course meal from a top restaurant. Dumb move. It's not the apple's fault that it wasn't a three course meal from a top restaurant. It's the stupid person's.

 

Batting average is the $50 apple. Think about it. I think it's clear what I'm trying to say, and why the approach you took to batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage is wrong. You were having a go at an apple for being an apple. Also a dumb move.

 

Batting average is hits divided by at-bats. If you must express at-bats as a function of plate appearances, the denominator is (PA - BB - HBP - S - SF).

 

What's S? Plate Appearances - Walks - Hit By Pitch - Sac Flies - S?

 

Sacrifices, or sacrifice bunts, whatever you want to call it. Plate appearances minus walks minus hit by pitches minus sacrifice flies minus sacrifice bunts.

 

What you're saying may be correct, but is OBP so flawless that a guy with a .350 OBP is better than one with a .340 OBP?

 

I hope you can guess my response to this from my previous response. The point of OBP is not to tell you which player is better. It is to tell you which person avoided outs at a better rate.

 

You're right here again, but dealing with slugging percentage as an aside, that is it's fault...that every base is created unequal.

 

Yes, that every base is created unequal is a fault in the design of slugging percentage. In the long run the differences are marginal enough though.

 

While 171 may seem like a lot, you have to take into consideration how many players there are in baseball each year, multiply by the number of seasons you're counting, and in the end you've got about 4 players per season doing that out of X amount of players per season.

 

However, I could make a more extreme example. .350 BA and .400 SLG? How many players have done that?

 

Also realized, I should have said rarely see.

 

You're right that there are a lot of seasons. 9067 to be exact. That's 9067 seasons of 300 or more at-bats between 1959 and 2004.

 

But the parameters are reasonably tight. If you extend the slugging percentage parameter to .380 - .420, you're looking at 296 seasons (out of 9067).

 

Not a huge amount, but to say that it never happens, or that it rarely happens, is pretty ridiculous.

 

If your point was that it's not often you find a player with a slugging percentage 100 points higher than his average, well there were 1143 out of 9067 seasons with a slugging between 90 and 110 points higher than average. Pretty significant. If you extend it to 80 to 120 points, 2173 seasons. Very significant.

 

But I don't really know what your point was when you made that kind of statement. I don't know what you were trying to achieve by it. That's the biggest reason why you should ever reword to be a lot more specific, or get rid of it all together.

 

Again, so what? It's not designed to. It's design is pretty sound. No-one even wrongly uses it that way. There's not much wrong with its application. In other words, there's not much wrong with slugging percentage.

 

My arguing the entire time then should be how slugging percentage (or any stat) is set up, rather than arguing why the actual stat has faults, correct?

 

Your arguing really should be about how the statistics are wrongly applied, due largely to being wrongly perceived. Slugging percentage isn't a great example. Batting average is. It's perceived to be more important than it actually is, so it's overapplied in player evaluation.

 

How closely? Closely compared to what?

 

Player by player on a team, plugged into James's formula, and then added up to estimate how many runs the team would score vs. the actual amount they did. High correlation between the two.

 

You need to state that in your essay, not tell me!

 

That's a pretty horrid way of making that point.

 

I'm just trying to make a point that park factors have contributed to success and for those that have hit in pitcher's parks, they've been hurt. Any suggestions to rephrase it?

 

I've got my own essays to write! You need to write this yourself. I suppose, if you wanted to, you could take what I've written, quote it and cite me in your essay. But that's boring. And, anyway, you know what you want to say. Your point about park factors is fine. Just make sure that what you write can't be read to mean anything besides exactly what you want to say.

 

Actually, since 1998, the NL has comfortably outscored the AL every year. Obviously that's down to it having two extra teams, but it still invalidates what you've written. I know what you're trying to write, obviously, but you need to re-word.

 

That was one thing I just added yesterday due to someone else's suggestion and I didn't check my facts. I just assumed AL would score more runs than the NL. Does the average AL team score more runs than the average NL team?

 

Yes.

 

OPS+ is a horrible statistic by the way. Cool, it adjusts for park and league average, but it's still OPS. And it's still adding two things that use different scales.

 

You can tell more about a player looking at OPS+ than OPS, though. Same with ERA+ and ERA, which isn't included in the paper.

 

Sure, but why not just avoid using OPS+ and OPS? You'd be better off for it.

 

As for ERA, is there a good reason why you've not included a look at pitching metrics in this essay? It is an important part of the game. Fielding metrics too. Just wondering.

 

Are you implying causation or not? I can't tell.

 

I'm implying that they got good players in return for their two pitchers, and these players did play a role in the success of the A's. So in that way, yes, but their success wasn't directly because of the players they got back in the trades.

 

Well spell that out with what you write in your essay. Always be more specific. Don't just leave things out there blowing in the wind.

 

You should probably mention that by best season of his career, you're talking about .280/.374/.433, which is extremely unremarkable for a first baseman. And you should probably also mention that Hatteberg was rubbish in two of those three extra seasons, and that he earned $6.5m for them.

 

But, if you were to weigh salary and production, Hatteberg was an excellent pickup. Did he really get $6.5 for each season, or was it a 3-yr., $6.5M contract?

 

Sure. But you need to consider every aspect to the deal to say whether or not it's an excellent pickup. The way you'd written it, it didn't seem as though you were doing that. I don't have a problem with your conclusion, I have a problem with how you presented the evidence that led to your conclusion. It was very one-sided. Even if the counter-argument (that Hatteberg wasn't a good pickup) is unconvincing, you should still address it, even if just to dismiss it.

 

$6.5m over the 3 years, not per year.

 

The Braves have just about nothing to do with sabermetrics. Maybe look at the BlueJays, who pretend to under Riccardi. Or the Dodgers under DePodesta. Or would that not be one sided enough for you?

 

Maybe it would be better for me to mention the Blue Jays and Dodgers as a subpoint of the A's, as both those two guys were involved with the A's under Beane?

 

Well I think you should first of all really get rid of all mentions of the Braves.

 

If you want to be fair and balanced, objective even, you need to look at all the sabermetric teams, rather than just say "the Red Sox won a World Series with it, and Billy Beane is really cool", which while I'm being a bit melodramatic, is the still the thrust of your argument in favour of sabermetrics at the moment.

 

What? On? Earth? Are? You? On? About?

 

Sabermetric stats > Traditional stats is the point of the conclusion, however I do want to redo the whole conclusion and I said that in my first post.

 

Cool, no problem, but the bit about rate stats being better than counting stats is just rubbish, so make sure you get rid of that.

 

How many games a year a player plays is obviously hugely important in any evaluation of just how good he is. Games played is a counting stat. Innings pitched too. VORP is a sabermetric invention, and that's a counting stat. There are numerous other sabermetric stats with silly acronyms that are counting stats - FRAA, FRAR, BRAA, BRAR, Win Shares and so on and so on.

 

The key to effective statistical evaluation is considering both quantity and quality. You saying that you should ignore counting stats to better evaluate players is just completely and utterly wrong. It couldn't be more wrong. That's not what sabermetrics is all about.

 

we're suppoed to stay away from being entirely factual, I just don't know how I can do that. I can't prove sabermetrics are effective without proving facts. I can't say how teams have used sabermetrics without first explaining what they are, which is again...facts.

 

It depends what you want to get out of your essay. It would really help me to help you if you told me the question you set yourself to which this essay was a response. Or, if there wasn't a question, what you set out to try and say via your essay. What the goal of the essay was. And so on. Right now it's kind of hard to tell, and that's a failing of the essay. You're stuck somewhere between answering the questions "what is sabermetrics?", "why are sabermetric statistics better than traditional statistics?" and "does sabermetrics work in practice?". At the moment you're really not answering any of the three though. You'd be a lot better off concentrating on one of the three (and personally I'd go for the third, but, hey, it's entirely up to you, it's your essay) and really really answering that in a lot of detail, and getting rid of all the bits that right now are answering the other questions. Either that or you can try to answer multiple questions, but in that case the structure of your essay needs to be a lot stronger. Right now you're jumping from one question to another throughout. And it's hard to get a grasp as a result on why you've written the essay, what the essay is for. That's a problem.

 

I don't know how old you are or what the significance of this paper is, so bear that in mind.

 

17.

 

Thanks.

 

No problem.

 

I've been pretty scathingly critical in a lot of what I've written in response to your essay. Don't be disheartened by that. It's nothing personal. I just want to try and help you write the best essay possible. Cruel to be kind, you know. Probably a bit too much cruel. Sorry about that. Direct any anger at me into your essay, a motivational "I'll show him!" kind of tool.

[Blizzau]

I could be totally wrong but when you mention Moneyball shouldn't you italicize it? I though Book titles get italicized and articles in journals, magazines, etc. get quotation marks.

I actually thought books were underlined, but I was told by my teacher quotations, so I'm going with that. But I'll double check before handing it in.

 

No offense, but your teacher couldn't be more wrong. Books are always underlined. I'm suprised that Michigan - a state that relies heavily on D.O.L. to educate its students - hasn't hammered home that point more emphatically. If your teacher deducts points for underlining titles, you certainly can appeal your grade. And then tell him/her to check out an MLA/APA handbook.

[Blizzau]

That is a quote from Voros McCracken, special advisor to the Boston Red Sox, that appears Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball.”

 

You need to add the word "in" after "appears" and before "Michael." And Lewis' should be Lewis's.

Lewis' is also correct

 

If Lewis is the prural of Lewi, then yes. :wink:

 

Lewis' (and James', for that matter) is 100% correct. I'm the editor in my office. Trust me on this one.

[Blizzau]

The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete...

 

I would change this to "The evolution of Sabermetrics has helped...."

 

The "evolution" has helped. Not "Sabermetrics" have helped....

 

[/nitpick]

 

Another note about subject/verb agreement...

 

When writing a sentence like "The evolution of sabermetrics has helped...", you need to focus on evolution - and not sabermetrics - as the subject. Evolution is singular; sabermetrics is plural. Subject/verb agreement dictates that the first piece of the subject (evolution) results in a singular verb.

 

Just out of curiousity, where in Michigan do you live? I used to live there, and I also worked with high school students in and around Oakland County...

[Sabermetrician]

The evolution of Sabermetrics have helped not only small market teams compete...

 

I would change this to "The evolution of Sabermetrics has helped...."

 

The "evolution" has helped. Not "Sabermetrics" have helped....

 

[/nitpick]

 

Another note about subject/verb agreement...

 

When writing a sentence like "The evolution of sabermetrics has helped...", you need to focus on evolution - and not sabermetrics - as the subject. Evolution is singular; sabermetrics is plural. Subject/verb agreement dictates that the first piece of the subject (evolution) results in a singular verb.

 

Just out of curiousity, where in Michigan do you live? I used to live there, and I also worked with high school students in and around Oakland County...

 

Grand Rapids, IIRC Oakland is right around Detroit, which is about 3 hours from here.

[sandberg23]

I'll be glad to proof it. I love doing that. I focus more on grammar and mechanics.

 

I proofed it and made changes...check your PMs.

[Sabermetrician]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I think what I'm going to do is get rid of the stat-by-stat anaylis and just summarize them briefly and break the paper down like this...

 

Page 1 - Introduction

Page 2 - Need for Sabermetrics

Page 3 - Introduction to Sabermetrics

Page 4 - A's

Page 5 - Beane's guys - Blue Jays and...

Page 6 - Dodgers - showing how it failed

Page 7 - Indians/Red Sox

Page 8 - Where Sabermetrics will go from here

Page 9 - Conclusion

 

Anything you guys think I left out?

[Blizzau]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I think what I'm going to do is get rid of the stat-by-stat anaylis and just summarize them briefly and break the paper down like this...

 

Page 1 - Introduction

Page 2 - Need for Sabermetrics

Page 3 - Introduction to Sabermetrics

Page 4 - A's

Page 5 - Beane's guys - Blue Jays and...

Page 6 - Dodgers - showing how it failed

Page 7 - Indians/Red Sox

Page 8 - Where Sabermetrics will go from here

Page 9 - Conclusion

 

Anything you guys think I left out?

 

That sounds like a great, very well thought out outline. I really look forward to reading the final composition, and I'm sure many others here at NSBB feel the same!

[UK1679666180]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I think what I'm going to do is get rid of the stat-by-stat anaylis and just summarize them briefly and break the paper down like this...

 

Page 1 - Introduction

Page 2 - Need for Sabermetrics

Page 3 - Introduction to Sabermetrics

Page 4 - A's

Page 5 - Beane's guys - Blue Jays and...

Page 6 - Dodgers - showing how it failed

Page 7 - Indians/Red Sox

Page 8 - Where Sabermetrics will go from here

Page 9 - Conclusion

 

Anything you guys think I left out?

 

I would flip-flop Page 2 and Page 3, you have to go into this assuming the reader has no idea what Sabermetrics is.

 

I'd give the Intro before describing why it plays a role.

[JoshiQ]

I think that once you correct some of the grammar problems you have a pretty good paper. I won't say it is perfect, but it is easily a mid B paper at most colleges, and possibly a low A at others. I've become rather lazy when it comes to papers that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Once you correct the grammar, however, I would turn this in without a second thought. I graduated with a 3.6 and turned in a many of papers at the same quality if they didn't mean a whole lot to me or were not in my major.

[sandberg23]

I think your new idea/outline for the paper will make for a better paper. Once you have a rough draft of that posted, let us know and I'll definately take another look at it for you.