Slugging or On Base Fueled OPS?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So are you just going to ignore my last post because it would hurt your argument?

 

w/ RISP

 

Sosa: 43 BB in 183 PA's

Olerud: 46 BB in 176 PA's

[imb]

So are you just going to ignore my last post because it would hurt your argument?

 

I don't think this is something that you really want to be arguing.

 

EDIT

Of course TT beats me to it.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Bunts Lick Butts

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Removed bad math, correct numbers appear a few posts up.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

this goes on the assumption that the other players would maintain their exact same numbers (w/RISP, for example) with the added number of opportunities afforded by Olerud's higher OBP. You can't assume that. Perhaps Mark Grace goes 0-fer in his additional opportunities. we'll never know.

 

your argument is equivalent to someone saying "had grossman not fumbled the ball in the 3rd quarter, the Bears would have won." untrue. when you change one factor in a game/team, you have to assume that everything else changes

 

So therefore, all players are equally good because it is counterfactual to argue that another player would have done better or worse in the same situations.

[Mizzou]

So are you just going to ignore my last post because it would hurt your argument?

 

w/ RISP

 

Sosa: 43 BB in 183 PA's

Olerud: 46 BB in 176 PA's

Okay, so taking that into consideration and just looking at their at bats (not plate appearances), what percentage of runners did Sammy drive in? Maybe I'm wrong here, and if so then fine, but I don't see any point in adding the times when the players walked into the equation.

[OleMissCub]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

 

Would you have the guy who made 474 outs or the guy who made 382 outs.

[OleMissCub]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

 

Would you have the guy who made 474 outs or the guy who made 382 outs.

 

If the guy with 474 outs contributed more than the guy with 382, then I'd go with the former.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

 

Otherwise, it is sort of like saying you'd take the pitcher who gave up the fewest runs total, regardless of how many innings he pitched.

 

If the guy with 474 outs contributed more than the guy with 382, then I'd go with the former.

 

But that's sort of entirely the point? Did he contribute enough more to make up for the extra outs.

 

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

[OleMissCub]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

[sethuel1]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

caveman

[OleMissCub]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

caveman

 

http://www.returningblog.com/caveman.jpg

[sethuel1]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

caveman

 

http://www.returningblog.com/caveman.jpg

looks like da meat hook

[imb]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

 

This is how baseball people stay ignorant.

[OleMissCub]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

 

This is how baseball people stay ignorant.

 

me Tarzan and you Jerk

[Derwood]

my actual point in arguing at all is that statistics tell you what DID happen, and inform what MAY happen in the future or what MIGHT have happened had you switched players around on past teams. Key words: May and Might. Meph talks in absolutes, which is what i'm arguing against.

 

the beauty of baseball, to me, is that it doesn't always fall strictly along the statistically predictable lines. The team that only gets 3 baserunners can beat the one that gets 12. Neifi Perez can hit a grand slam against the Cardinals. whatever.

 

statistics are extremely useful, but to argue them as ironclad absolutes is what drives me crazy

[Hairyducked Idiot]

my actual point in arguing at all is that statistics tell you what DID happen, and inform what MAY happen in the future or what MIGHT have happened had you switched players around on past teams. Key words: May and Might. Meph talks in absolutes, which is what i'm arguing against.

 

the beauty of baseball, to me, is that it doesn't always fall strictly along the statistically predictable lines. The team that only gets 3 baserunners can beat the one that gets 12. Neifi Perez can hit a grand slam against the Cardinals. whatever.

 

statistics are extremely useful, but to argue them as ironclad absolutes is what drives me crazy

 

That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is.

[Derwood]

my actual point in arguing at all is that statistics tell you what DID happen, and inform what MAY happen in the future or what MIGHT have happened had you switched players around on past teams. Key words: May and Might. Meph talks in absolutes, which is what i'm arguing against.

 

the beauty of baseball, to me, is that it doesn't always fall strictly along the statistically predictable lines. The team that only gets 3 baserunners can beat the one that gets 12. Neifi Perez can hit a grand slam against the Cardinals. whatever.

 

statistics are extremely useful, but to argue them as ironclad absolutes is what drives me crazy

 

That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is.

 

if it's inherently counterfactual, then why do you preach it like it's irrefutable fact?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

my actual point in arguing at all is that statistics tell you what DID happen, and inform what MAY happen in the future or what MIGHT have happened had you switched players around on past teams. Key words: May and Might. Meph talks in absolutes, which is what i'm arguing against.

 

the beauty of baseball, to me, is that it doesn't always fall strictly along the statistically predictable lines. The team that only gets 3 baserunners can beat the one that gets 12. Neifi Perez can hit a grand slam against the Cardinals. whatever.

 

statistics are extremely useful, but to argue them as ironclad absolutes is what drives me crazy

 

That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is.

 

if it's inherently counterfactual, then why do you preach it like it's irrefutable fact?

 

Because the difference between:

 

"Olerud was more valuable than Sosa"

 

and

 

"Given a reasonable assumption that variance due to outside influences would have been negligible, Olerud's performance implied that he would probably have had more value to his team than Sosa's if the player's had switched spots."

 

is purely semantic, and it is asinine to expect everyone to list all the implied cavaets whenever they talk stats.

[imb]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

 

This is how baseball people stay ignorant.

 

me Tarzan and you Jerk

 

"I know that all the statistical evidence points in the opposite direction, but I'll go with Sosa because he had a lot of the numbers that I'm comfortable with."

[OleMissCub]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

 

This is how baseball people stay ignorant.

 

me Tarzan and you Jerk

 

"I know that all the statistical evidence points in the opposite direction, but I'll go with Sosa because he had a lot of the numbers that I'm comfortable with."

 

So if Olerud was put in Sosa's place that year, Olerud would have contributed the equivalent of 158 RBI's and 134 runs scored to the Cubs' campaign?

[imb]

Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

 

That's a fine point and you might have me there, but I'd still take Sosa.

 

This is how baseball people stay ignorant.

 

me Tarzan and you Jerk

 

"I know that all the statistical evidence points in the opposite direction, but I'll go with Sosa because he had a lot of the numbers that I'm comfortable with."

 

So if Olerud was put in Sosa's place that year, Olerud would have contributed the equivalent of 158 RBI's and 134 runs scored to the Cubs' campaign?

 

I'm pretty confident that his presence in the lineup that season would have been worth more runs than Sammy's.

[Mephistopheles]

I'd take 98 Sosa over 98 Olerud

 

I sure wouldn't.

 

Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics?

 

I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season.

 

Would you have the guy who made 474 outs or the guy who made 382 outs.

 

If the guy with 474 outs contributed more than the guy with 382, then I'd go with the former.

 

Youd still be wrong. If the guy with 474 outs contributed more than the guy with 382 PLUS the teams use of the other 90 outs, then you could take Sosa. Quite frankly that isn't all that likely.

[OleMissCub]

 

I'm pretty confident that his presence in the lineup that season would have been worth more runs than Sammy's.

 

How would Olerud have made up the difference in runs and runs batted in? He had less hits and less extra base hits than Sosa did that year. So that means that the 20 more walks that he had over Sosa would have made up that difference in contribution?

 

Who would have driven Olerud in? Henry Rodriguez? Gary Gaetti?

[Mephistopheles]

 

I'm pretty confident that his presence in the lineup that season would have been worth more runs than Sammy's.

 

How would Olerud have made up the difference in runs and runs batted in? He had less hits and less extra base hits than Sosa did that year. So that means that the 20 more walks that he had over Sosa would have made up that difference in contribution?

 

Who would have driven Olerud in? Henry Rodriguez? Gary Gaetti?

 

thats where the 90 or so outs come into play. 90 outs = 30 innings. A terrible offense with crap would use those innings to score 15 or so more runs. There'd also be more runners on (HIM) so there are some more runs. Even the complete dropoff of Sosa's RBIs to his RBIs would be less thanks to guys behind him knocking in some of the runs sosa did. Not to mention that whole RBI + R idea of contribution is flawed. It's more like RBI + R - HR.

 

as one can imagine, RBIs are incredibly stupid and you should be embarrassed to use them. Right now I am embarrassed that I post at a place where they are even brought up in legitimate discussion.