Jacque Jones a +25 CF?

[Hosak8]

These really aren't that revolutionary, yet they are monumentally better than "old school" stats at evaluating individual, non-team, -park, -league-based stats? What could possibly be irrelevant about that!? Joe Morgan makes me hate things.

 

You said it. Some metrics are intended to evaluate individuals discounting team, park, and league based factors. That would be fine, if baseball were played in a vacuum. However, since games are played by teams, in parks, and in leagues, I don't see the validity of metrics that attempt to remove actual factors from their overall results.

 

Just doesn't make much sense.

 

And, the age old argument that stats like W/L are not accurate stats, is flimsy. Can bad pitchers win 20 games? Sure. Do they win 200+? Not very often. Do poor relievers save 40 games? Sometimes. Do they notch 300 saves in their careers? No. Do bad hitters produce a .315 season from time to time? Yes. Do hey bat .315 for a career? No. Age old, accepted stats tend to balance out over time. Thus the reason why I think some metrics are ridiculous. They are mathematical formulas intended for a vacuum.. not a baseball field.

[Derwood]

i'm too tired to even start with this

[SouthSideRyan]

What's the cutoff? What makes a metric like W-L and Batting Average okay? Do those stats not measure things in a vacuum? Are team wins and losses the only thing we should talk about and thusly, everyone on winning team = good, everyone on losing team = bad?

[Derwood]

What's the cutoff? What makes a metric like W-L and Batting Average okay? Do those stats not measure things in a vacuum? Are team wins and losses the only thing we should talk about and thusly, everyone on winning team = good, everyone on losing team = bad?

 

clearly

[Rob]

You said it. Some metrics are intended to evaluate individuals discounting team, park, and league based factors. That would be fine, if baseball were played in a vacuum. However, since games are played by teams, in parks, and in leagues, I don't see the validity of metrics that attempt to remove actual factors from their overall results.

 

You're missing the meaning. The idea isn't to be removing those factors, it's to be able to properly see how much they help or hurt players. Wouldn't it be real nice if a GM knew what taking a player like Dante Bichette out of Coors Field would do before signing him to a nice contract? Or how about what would happen if you took Chan Ho Park out of Dodger Stadium and put him in Arlington?

 

We already know which players are good and bad. Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez are good no matter what numbers you're trying to use. Neifi Perez and Jose Macias aren't. The metrics are more designed at trying to separate those guys in the middle of the pack, where ballparks and other things the players have no control over can make a much bigger difference.

 

And, the age old argument that stats like W/L are not accurate stats, is flimsy. Can bad pitchers win 20 games? Sure. Do they win 200+? Not very often. Do poor relievers save 40 games? Sometimes. Do they notch 300 saves in their careers? No. Do bad hitters produce a .315 season from time to time? Yes. Do hey bat .315 for a career? No. Age old, accepted stats tend to balance out over time. Thus the reason why I think some metrics are ridiculous. They are mathematical formulas intended for a vacuum.. not a baseball field.

 

Ok, let's run with this.

 

Jamie Moyer has 230 career wins. Sandy Koufax had 165. Now I'm not going to insult you and try to say that your logic would mean that Moyer is a better pitcher than Koufax. I know you wouldn't buy that. But you know Koufax is a better pitcher because you look past just the wins. You take a look at the ERA, you take a look at the difference in games pitched.

 

That's all these metrics are doing. They're grabbing all the pertinent information and putting them into nicer numbers. They certainly aren't ridiculous. They're just how you separate guys like Juan Pierre (career .301 batting average and not a very useful player) from Joe Cronin (career .301 batting average and an extremely useful player).

 

What is it you "old school" guys like to talk about? The "little things"? Well the little things like ballparks, league scoring environment, etc... all add up to be pretty important when valuing a player correctly. It's how you know Yaz was fantastic in 1968, and how you know Three Finger Brown isn't exactly Pedro Martinez, despite the 2.06 career ERA to Pedro's 2.80.

 

I think it's time to start giving a little more credit to these metrics than you currently do.

[CuseCubFan69]

You said it. Some metrics are intended to evaluate individuals discounting team, park, and league based factors. That would be fine, if baseball were played in a vacuum. However, since games are played by teams, in parks, and in leagues, I don't see the validity of metrics that attempt to remove actual factors from their overall results.

 

You're missing the meaning. The idea isn't to be removing those factors, it's to be able to properly see how much they help or hurt players. Wouldn't it be real nice if a GM knew what taking a player like Dante Bichette out of Coors Field would do before signing him to a nice contract? Or how about what would happen if you took Chan Ho Park out of Dodger Stadium and put him in Arlington?

 

We already know which players are good and bad. Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez are good no matter what numbers you're trying to use. Neifi Perez and Jose Macias aren't. The metrics are more designed at trying to separate those guys in the middle of the pack, where ballparks and other things the players have no control over can make a much bigger difference.

 

And, the age old argument that stats like W/L are not accurate stats, is flimsy. Can bad pitchers win 20 games? Sure. Do they win 200+? Not very often. Do poor relievers save 40 games? Sometimes. Do they notch 300 saves in their careers? No. Do bad hitters produce a .315 season from time to time? Yes. Do hey bat .315 for a career? No. Age old, accepted stats tend to balance out over time. Thus the reason why I think some metrics are ridiculous. They are mathematical formulas intended for a vacuum.. not a baseball field.

 

Ok, let's run with this.

 

Jamie Moyer has 230 career wins. Sandy Koufax had 165. Now I'm not going to insult you and try to say that your logic would mean that Moyer is a better pitcher than Koufax. I know you wouldn't buy that. But you know Koufax is a better pitcher because you look past just the wins. You take a look at the ERA, you take a look at the difference in games pitched.

 

That's all these metrics are doing. They're grabbing all the pertinent information and putting them into nicer numbers. They certainly aren't ridiculous. They're just how you separate guys like Juan Pierre (career .301 batting average and not a very useful player) from Joe Cronin (career .301 batting average and an extremely useful player).

 

What is it you "old school" guys like to talk about? The "little things"? Well the little things like ballparks, league scoring environment, etc... all add up to be pretty important when valuing a player correctly. It's how you know Yaz was fantastic in 1968, and how you know Three Finger Brown isn't exactly Pedro Martinez, despite the 2.06 career ERA to Pedro's 2.80.

 

I think it's time to start giving a little more credit to these metrics than you currently do.

 

I think he's including those "old Time" stats and not getting rid of them, that's his point. I see nothing wrong with using all the resources available.

[Hosak8]

You said it. Some metrics are intended to evaluate individuals discounting team, park, and league based factors. That would be fine, if baseball were played in a vacuum. However, since games are played by teams, in parks, and in leagues, I don't see the validity of metrics that attempt to remove actual factors from their overall results.

 

You're missing the meaning. The idea isn't to be removing those factors, it's to be able to properly see how much they help or hurt players. Wouldn't it be real nice if a GM knew what taking a player like Dante Bichette out of Coors Field would do before signing him to a nice contract? Or how about what would happen if you took Chan Ho Park out of Dodger Stadium and put him in Arlington?

 

We already know which players are good and bad. Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez are good no matter what numbers you're trying to use. Neifi Perez and Jose Macias aren't. The metrics are more designed at trying to separate those guys in the middle of the pack, where ballparks and other things the players have no control over can make a much bigger difference.

 

And, the age old argument that stats like W/L are not accurate stats, is flimsy. Can bad pitchers win 20 games? Sure. Do they win 200+? Not very often. Do poor relievers save 40 games? Sometimes. Do they notch 300 saves in their careers? No. Do bad hitters produce a .315 season from time to time? Yes. Do hey bat .315 for a career? No. Age old, accepted stats tend to balance out over time. Thus the reason why I think some metrics are ridiculous. They are mathematical formulas intended for a vacuum.. not a baseball field.

 

Ok, let's run with this.

 

Jamie Moyer has 230 career wins. Sandy Koufax had 165. Now I'm not going to insult you and try to say that your logic would mean that Moyer is a better pitcher than Koufax. I know you wouldn't buy that. But you know Koufax is a better pitcher because you look past just the wins. You take a look at the ERA, you take a look at the difference in games pitched.

 

That's all these metrics are doing. They're grabbing all the pertinent information and putting them into nicer numbers. They certainly aren't ridiculous. They're just how you separate guys like Juan Pierre (career .301 batting average and not a very useful player) from Joe Cronin (career .301 batting average and an extremely useful player).

 

What is it you "old school" guys like to talk about? The "little things"? Well the little things like ballparks, league scoring environment, etc... all add up to be pretty important when valuing a player correctly. It's how you know Yaz was fantastic in 1968, and how you know Three Finger Brown isn't exactly Pedro Martinez, despite the 2.06 career ERA to Pedro's 2.80.

 

I think it's time to start giving a little more credit to these metrics than you currently do.

 

I agree that GM's should look at certain metrics that remove factors specific to their situation. However, what good does it do for us to remove those factors for current Cubs? Removing things like park factors from current players is irrelevant. They play half their games at Wrigley field, so why attempt to remove park factors from their metrics? Why discount RBI's? Aren't RBI's dependent upon the lineup in which you play? If so, it's relevant. NOw, if you played last season on a team where you hit 4th, and your top 3 hitters in the order had ridiculous OBP's, that would definitely skew those numbers. If you were the GM of a team looking at that free agent, you would want to know that about him. BUT, when that player remains on your team, in your lineup, with those same 3 guys batting in front of him, why do you dismiss his RBI numbers as something meaningless?

 

Dante Bichette is a perfect example. He benefited from playing at Mile High Stadium. But, as long as he played half of his games there, he was a valuable player. There are metrics that would dismiss "park factors", making him appear to be a less valuable player. However, because he played at Mile High, he WAS valuable, period. My bottom line is this:

 

Certain metrics, that seek to isolate REAL BASEBALL FACTORS, are less relevant, in my opinion, than other stats, like RBI (I use RBI because it was pointed out earlier). Many- not all, but many- metrics are intended to tell you how good an individual is, independent of factors that are a real part of the game. Chan Ho Park is not as good a piutcher in Texas as he was LA. Duh. But, as long as he was in LA, metrics that indicated that truth were irrelevant.

 

That's my point in all this. All metrics aren't bad. However, simply dismissing old time stats, and belittling those who still account for them (as is the widespread mentality around here) is ridiculous.

[Hosak8]

I think he's including those "old Time" stats and not getting rid of them, that's his point. I see nothing wrong with using all the resources available.

 

Exactly.

 

It's funny. I was in the NSBB League this past season, and metrics (or new-age stats) were heavily favored there, to my dismay. In our scoring, a player got more points for getting ground ball outs than he did winning games. The logic was that "teams win games, and you should not get points for a guy winning a game in which he gave up 11 runs, simply because his team scored 12." If every game were won that way, I might agree with that logic. And, if a guy gives up 11 runs, the other stats that make up the scoring formula would indicate the poor performance, and relegate the points that siad player got for winning to obscurity.

 

No single statistic or metric, when viewed by itself, is relevant or meaningful. The only way for any stat to be relevant is for it to be seen in context of all the other stats that make up the game. I think we can all agree on that.

[Warpticon]

speaking of mockery, can anybody explain why pwople who disagree wit advanced baseball statistics seem largely incapable of doing so without suggesting sabr supporters didn't play, never watch games, couldn't get picked in a pickup game, live in their mom's basement, can.t get a date, stay home on friday night, etc.?

[SouthSideRyan]

So how does +/- not rate a player based on his current situation with the club?

[Hosak8]

So how does +/- not rate a player based on his current situation with the club?

 

I realize that me making this statement in this particular thread looks like I have issues with this specific conversation, which I do not. Jacque Jones IS more valuable in CF than in RF.

 

My issue is much more general, which I should have stated.

[haltz]

speaking of mockery, can anybody explain why pwople who disagree wit advanced baseball statistics seem largely incapable of doing so without suggesting sabr supporters didn't play, never watch games, couldn't get picked in a pickup game, live in their mom's basement, can.t get a date, stay home on friday night, etc.?

It makes people uncomfortable when they don't understand something. A common defense mechanism is to make fun of it, or the people that support the idea. It's easier than taking the time to learn about something. This example probably couldn't be further from the truth, but whatever. It shouldn't matter either way.

[CuseCubFan69]

speaking of mockery, can anybody explain why pwople who disagree wit advanced baseball statistics seem largely incapable of doing so without suggesting sabr supporters didn't play, never watch games, couldn't get picked in a pickup game, live in their mom's basement, can.t get a date, stay home on friday night, etc.?

 

 

MOM.....MEATLOAF!

[sethuel1]

speaking of mockery, can anybody explain why pwople who disagree wit advanced baseball statistics seem largely incapable of doing so without suggesting sabr supporters didn't play, never watch games, couldn't get picked in a pickup game, live in their mom's basement, can.t get a date, stay home on friday night, etc.?

 

 

MOM.....MEATLOAF!

you're missing a word after MEATLOAF