Murray Chass, Baseball Dinosaur

[goonys evil twin]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

What are you talking about? That's not a variable that happens during a game.

[Magnetic Curses]

CCF, the point is that stats don't tell you who will each game from day to day, they show you who has the best chance for long term success.

 

if you look at a team's full stats from game 1 to 162, you can generally tell why they were or why they weren't successfull. this has nothing to do with bunting or baserunning or playing proper "fundamental baseball". mostly it will have to do at what rate they made outs at the plate and what rate they made outs on the mound.

 

if you look at a bad team having a good game, it's easy to get the wrong impression. if yoiu look at a good team having a bad game it's the same way.

 

it's all in looking for virtually invisible trends.

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

What are you talking about? That's not a variable that happens during a game.

 

Alright I'll go to a game situation then even though that scenerio helps my case.

 

Maddux gets a comebacker in the pitching hand in the 3rd inning after allowing 3 runs and 5 hits and he has to leave the game. Now, Novoa comes in and throws 5 innings of 1 hit baseball and Dempster comes in the 9th to preserve a 5-3 win. What do your stats say about that? Do they tell me if Maddux will pitch in his next turn? Will he be as effective as he would be if he didn't get hit? Why did Novoa pitch well when he's struggled all year? Maddux always pitches late farther into the game, what stat says he got hit in the hand?

[CuseCubFan69]

CCF, the point is that stats don't tell you who will each game from day to day, they show you who has the best chance for long term success.

 

if you look at a team's full stats from game 1 to 162, you can generally tell why they were or why they weren't successfull. this has nothing to do with bunting or baserunning or playing proper "fundamental baseball". mostly it will have to do at what rate they made outs at the plate and what rate they made outs on the mound.

 

if you look at a bad team having a good game, it's easy to get the wrong impression. if yoiu look at a good team having a bad game it's the same way.

 

it's all in looking for virtually invisible trends.

 

Invisable trends? What is an example of that sully?

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

What are you talking about? That's not a variable that happens during a game.

 

Alright I'll go to a game situation then even though that scenerio helps my case.

 

Maddux gets a comebacker in the pitching hand in the 3rd inning after allowing 3 runs and 5 hits and he has to leave the game. Now, Novoa comes in and throws 5 innings of 1 hit baseball and Dempster comes in the 9th to preserve a 5-3 win. What do your stats say about that? Do they tell me if Maddux will pitch in his next turn? Will he be as effective as he would be if he didn't get hit? Why did Novoa pitch well when he's struggled all year? Maddux always pitches late farther into the game, what stat says he got hit in the hand?

 

as has been said, stats are not meant to be accurate predictors from game to game, i wish you'd at least see the argument here. you're not acting as if you've read these posts through.

 

btw, the stats show that maddux will take himself out if he feels he has no shot at throwing effectively. furthermore, the stats will reflect that he was ineffective if he continued to make starts at less than 100%, but that's not at all what we're talking about. consequently, the stats inextricably show that maddux is on the decline and will probably not be pitching effectively much next season.

 

the stats will also show that novoa was ineffective over the course of a season if he was ineffective. there's nothing saying that he will be ineffective from appearance to appearance, just that he has a better chance to be ineffective based on his past statistics and that if he is used consistently as a key part of the bullpen, he will be more ineffective than effective.

[USSoccer]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics?

 

You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels?

 

Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline.

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

using your logic, if i see a relatively ineffective pitcher have an effective outing, he should be counted on to be effective throughout the season.

 

you don't acquire and use a bad player if you think there's an off-chance that he could be good on a particular day.

 

"well, novoa has an 8 run era in his last 10 outings, lou, what do you think?"

 

"ah, he's due."

 

that's bad management. that's micromanagement. a good GM or manager will put the best players on the field, not bad players that they feel have a chance to be good on a particular game.

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics?

 

You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels?

 

Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline.

 

I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't.

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

using your logic, if i see a relatively ineffective pitcher have an effective outing, he should be counted on to be effective throughout the season.

 

you don't acquire and use a bad player if you think there's an off-chance that he could be good on a particular day.

 

"well, novoa has an 8 run era in his last 10 outings, lou, what do you think?"

 

"ah, he's due."

 

that's bad management. that's micromanagement. a good GM or manager will put the best players on the field, not bad players that they feel have a chance to be good on a particular game.

 

And you're talking as if everything is equal. Who knows who in the pen is tired. Who knows who is available that can possibly give the Cubs 4 innings to rest the pen.

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics?

 

You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels?

 

Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline.

 

I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't.

 

never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story.

[Magnetic Curses]

And you're talking as if everything is equal. Who knows who in the pen is tired. Who knows who is available that can possibly give the Cubs 4 innings to rest the pen.

 

everything is equal over 162 games, most teams carry 11-12 pitchers and the problem of pitchers getting tired is a season long struggle, not a one-game issue.

[Outshined_One]

Nobody is their stat line.

 

We've all seen hitters and pitchers perform above and beyond their potential (and well below it, I'll add). While we have stats like BABIP to help us determine how lucky a player is in a given year and the likelihood that the player will suffer a correction in his production, nothing is a given. Most statistics tend to cluster around a certain area, but you will always have outliers.

 

Cuse, what you are looking at is something which can inherently be tied into human aspects of the game. I have no doubts that a player's own life can affect the way he plays a game. It won't necessarily have an effect, but, in various instances things beyond performance, you might see things alter a player's performance and ceiling.

 

You see this in the minor leagues especially. Let's say a first baseman down in Peoria (Low A) hits .250/.310/.370 with 10 HRs over the course of a season, with nothing looking too out of whack in terms of K/BB, BABIP, and various splits. No one would bat an eye at those numbers. Frankly, for a first baseman at that low of a level, that is a pretty bad line.

 

However, let's start adding variables on top of that stat line. The first baseman was actually 19 that season, with a lanky and thin frame. He showed a tremendous work ethic and enough athleticism to have plus defense at 1B. Moreover, the Midwest League was dominated by pitching that season, with a number of top prospects emerging and performing.

 

All of a sudden, that stat line does not look so bad. Disappointing, yes, but not to the point of making a team likely to see the guy as minor league filler. If he showed up to camp the next season with a frame filled out with lithe muscle following an intense offseason workout regimen where he watched countless hours of tape and made a second home at the batting cages to get a better eye for breaking balls, I would definitely expect him to improve on that line.

 

So, in that respect, I understand what you are getting at.

 

However, statistics have inherent in them the notion of probability. They have predictive power, there is no doubt in anyone's mind about that. Neifi Perez's stat line has sucked for his entire career and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it will continue to suck. When you have guys that bad, it will show.

 

However, that predictive power can vary quite a bit in some cases. Carlos Zambrano is one of the best example on this team regarding this. We have a mountain of statistical data that strengthens arguments that he will either suffer an injury or have his performance decline this year (thank you Dusty F. Baker). He has some trends which are worrying from a statistical standpoint (increased walk rate).

 

Yet, Zambrano is unusual. It could well be that he was able to withstand those countless 120+ pitch outings and will still be able to maintain his stuff. He might be one of the Top 5 pitchers in the NL this year for all we know. He most certainly has what it takes to get there, but we can't predict if something will happen using these statistics. All we have are probabilities, some of which are stronger than others. In Zambrano's case, it's hard to accurately pinpoint what is the strength of the probability of his decline.

 

Hopefully this explained some things and didn't confuse people any further. :D

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics?

 

You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels?

 

Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline.

 

I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't.

 

never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story.

 

numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

That is what you wrote and that's what I've been discussing.

[CuseCubFan69]

Nobody is their stat line.

 

We've all seen hitters and pitchers perform above and beyond their potential (and well below it, I'll add). While we have stats like BABIP to help us determine how lucky a player is in a given year and the likelihood that the player will suffer a correction in his production, nothing is a given. Most statistics tend to cluster around a certain area, but you will always have outliers.

 

Cuse, what you are looking at is something which can inherently be tied into human aspects of the game. I have no doubts that a player's own life can affect the way he plays a game. It won't necessarily have an effect, but, in various instances things beyond performance, you might see things alter a player's performance and ceiling.

 

You see this in the minor leagues especially. Let's say a first baseman down in Peoria (Low A) hits .250/.310/.370 with 10 HRs over the course of a season, with nothing looking too out of whack in terms of K/BB, BABIP, and various splits. No one would bat an eye at those numbers. Frankly, for a first baseman at that low of a level, that is a pretty bad line.

 

However, let's start adding variables on top of that stat line. The first baseman was actually 19 that season, with a lanky and thin frame. He showed a tremendous work ethic and enough athleticism to have plus defense at 1B. Moreover, the Midwest League was dominated by pitching that season, with a number of top prospects emerging and performing.

 

All of a sudden, that stat line does not look so bad. Disappointing, yes, but not to the point of making a team likely to see the guy as minor league filler. If he showed up to camp the next season with a frame filled out with lithe muscle following an intense offseason workout regimen where he watched countless hours of tape and made a second home at the batting cages to get a better eye for breaking balls, I would definitely expect him to improve on that line.

 

So, in that respect, I understand what you are getting at.

 

However, statistics have inherent in them the notion of probability. They have predictive power, there is no doubt in anyone's mind about that. Neifi Perez's stat line has sucked for his entire career and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it will continue to suck. When you have guys that bad, it will show.

 

However, that predictive power can vary quite a bit in some cases. Carlos Zambrano is one of the best example on this team regarding this. We have a mountain of statistical data that strengthens arguments that he will either suffer an injury or have his performance decline this year (thank you Dusty F. Baker). He has some trends which are worrying from a statistical standpoint (increased walk rate).

 

Yet, Zambrano is unusual. It could well be that he was able to withstand those countless 120+ pitch outings and will still be able to maintain his stuff. He might be one of the Top 5 pitchers in the NL this year for all we know. He most certainly has what it takes to get there, but we can't predict if something will happen using these statistics. All we have are probabilities, some of which are stronger than others. In Zambrano's case, it's hard to accurately pinpoint what is the strength of the probability of his decline.

 

Hopefully this explained some things and didn't confuse people any further. :D

 

This is why it isn't a flat line thing and what I've been getting at. Stats do not tell the whole story. They help with what you have mentioned and I think they serve a lot of purproses. What's funny is that it seems that I talk about this and then I'm accused of disliking them for some reason and of never wanting to use them because I argue about (for) the intangibles. It isn't an either or thing and for some reason that's what it seems to get to.

[Soul]

Because after all is said and done, there is no accounting for Steve Trout. :(

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?

 

i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance.

 

Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics?

 

You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels?

 

Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline.

 

I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't.

 

never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story.

 

numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

That is what you wrote and that's what I've been discussing.

 

and that means that i said that numbers tell the whole story?

 

quite a leap, there.

[A New Era]

I don't enjoy the game as much now, because you guys are always trying to cram stats down my throat! 8-)

 

VORP? ERA+? Please. Pass me a hotdog.

[CuseCubFan69]

I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't.

 

never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story.

 

numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

That is what you wrote and that's what I've been discussing.

 

and that means that i said that numbers tell the whole story?

 

quite a leap, there.

 

Maybe I did. Please tell me what you meant by it then.

[Magnetic Curses]

Maybe I did. Please tell me what you meant by it then.

 

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer.

 

i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story.

[CuseCubFan69]

Maybe I did. Please tell me what you meant by it then.

 

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer.

 

i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story.

 

That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said.

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't enjoy the game as much now, because you guys are always trying to cram stats down my throat! 8-)

 

VORP? ERA+? Please. Pass me a hotdog.

 

Come on, ERA+? It's just ERA with park effects accounted for. Not understanding a stat like that is just laziness.

[Magnetic Curses]

Maybe I did. Please tell me what you meant by it then.

 

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer.

 

i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story.

 

That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said.

 

fair enough. now admit that i'm right about everything. :D

[CuseCubFan69]

Maybe I did. Please tell me what you meant by it then.

 

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer.

 

i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story.

 

That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said.

 

fair enough. now admit that i'm right about everything. :D

 

You are right about anything that you agreed with me on. Fair enough!?