Cubs after Anibal Sanchez? (Signs with Tiger 5/$80mil)

[Sammy Sofa]

Nope.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Alright then. Carry on.

[Rob]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

[mul21]

Oversimplified example: Guy hits 4 3 run homers in one game and you win 12-2 that day. He goes 0-4 the next three day and you lose those games something like 4-2.

 

Guy hits 1 3 run homer in 4 consecutive games and contributing to you winning 3 and losing 1. Which do you want?

[SouthSideRyan]

Oversimplified example: Guy hits 4 3 run homers in one game and you win 12-2 that day. He goes 0-4 the next three day and you lose those games something like 4-2.

 

Guy hits 1 3 run homer in 4 consecutive games and contributing to you winning 3 and losing 1. Which do you want?

 

Unfortunate for that team that they didn't win 12-11 when he hit the home runs, and 2-1 when he didn't

[Rob]

Oversimplified example: Guy hits 4 3 run homers in one game and you win 12-2 that day. He goes 0-4 the next three day and you lose those games something like 4-2.

 

Guy hits 1 3 run homer in 4 consecutive games and contributing to you winning 3 and losing 1. Which do you want?

 

What if the opposing team scored six runs every game and the rest of your team didn't do anything to help?

 

Maybe he won you one game when your team otherwise would have lost all four.

[neely crenshaw]

we are simply trying to "project" which team is better. if we compare Lahair's first half vs what Rizzo's might have for a full season, the stats are stats...

for the record it's not as cut and dried as you think..

LaHair (apr) .390 .472 .781 1.251 5 hrs rizzo (1st month) .321 .367 .571. .938 8 hrs (Lahair better)

may .250 .350 .443 . 793 5 hrs - 2nd month .252 .310 .345 .655 2 hrs (Lahair better)

june .230 .285 .400 .685 3 hrs - 3rd month .290 .354 .491 .845 5 hrs (Rizzo better)

 

i think you may be figuring in the feeling of the rest of the season in thinking about lahair . he had a great month but his May is better than rizzo's August, and outside of average pretty similar to his(rizzo) 3rd month. the main difference in slugging is rizzo had 3 more doubles(7-4). Rizzo also did this in month full of september call ups....

i'd call that a wash overall

(LA).284 .364 .526 .890 vs ®.285 .342 .463 .805

so if we presume doubling of rizzo 2nd half stats, vs lahair's first half stats, i just don't see where there is a huge difference in production at least when you talk about winning more games simply based on this difference. Rizzo actually had more of a drop in power stats after his first month than lahair.

It would be nice to think we have a huge upgrade at first, but it just isn't the case on paper simply because Lahair was pretty good for that first half, 2nd half not so much

Edited December 17, 2012 by neely crenshaw

[Formerly Snayke]

Oversimplified example: Guy hits 4 3 run homers in one game and you win 12-2 that day. He goes 0-4 the next three day and you lose those games something like 4-2.

 

Guy hits 1 3 run homer in 4 consecutive games and contributing to you winning 3 and losing 1. Which do you want?

 

Like you say, this is oversimplified, mostly because it happens in a four-game sample.

[SABR Gamer]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

Edited December 17, 2012 by New York Cubs Fan

[SABR Gamer]

we are simply trying to "project" which team is better. if we compare Lahair's first half vs what Rizzo's might have for a full season, the stats are stats...

for the record it's not as cut and dried as you think..

LaHair (apr) .390 .472 .781 1.251 5 hrs rizzo (1st month) .321 .367 .571. .938 8 hrs (Lahair better)

may .250 .350 .443 . 793 5 hrs - 2nd month .252 .310 .345 .655 2 hrs (Lahair better)

june .230 .285 .400 .685 3 hrs - 3rd month .290 .354 .491 .845 5 hrs (Rizzo better)

 

i think you may be figuring in the feeling of the rest of the season in thinking about lahair . he had a great month but his May is better than rizzo's August, and outside of average pretty similar to his 3rd month. the main difference in slugging is rizzo had 3 more doubles(7-4). Rizzo also did this in month full of september call ups....

so if we presume doubling of rizzo 2nd half stats, vs lahair's first half stats, i just don't see where there is a huge difference in production at least when you talk about winning more games simply based on this difference. Rizzo actually had more of a drop in power stats after his first month than lahair.

It would be nice to think we have a huge upgrade at first, but it just isn't the case on paper

 

In what way is .285/.400 similar to .354/.491...?

 

No.

[Rob]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

 

People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

 

People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

 

Well, yeah, who was saying you should or could build a team of only the hypothetically consistent Rizzo vs. someone streakier like Soriano? This tangent was born out of the idea of whether Rizzo's projected output would be more valuable than 6 weeks of great/good LaHair, and I think it's safe to choose the former. We're talking an extreme and extremely limited type of "streak" here.

[neely crenshaw]

well. it isn't but then no one said it was. What I simply said was that Lahair's 2nd month(and 2nd best month) was not much different to Rizzo's 3rd month (and 2nd best month). I simply tried to compare each player's 2nd best statistical month to show that there is not a huge difference in stats.

[Sammy Sofa]

we are simply trying to "project" which team is better. if we compare Lahair's first half vs what Rizzo's might have for a full season, the stats are stats...

for the record it's not as cut and dried as you think..

LaHair (apr) .390 .472 .781 1.251 5 hrs rizzo (1st month) .321 .367 .571. .938 8 hrs (Lahair better)

may .250 .350 .443 . 793 5 hrs - 2nd month .252 .310 .345 .655 2 hrs (Lahair better)

june .230 .285 .400 .685 3 hrs - 3rd month .290 .354 .491 .845 5 hrs (Rizzo better)

 

i think you may be figuring in the feeling of the rest of the season in thinking about lahair . he had a great month but his May is better than rizzo's August, and outside of average pretty similar to his(rizzo) 3rd month. the main difference in slugging is rizzo had 3 more doubles(7-4). Rizzo also did this in month full of september call ups....

i'd call that a wash overall

(LA).284 .364 .526 .890 vs ®.285 .342 .463 .805

so if we presume doubling of rizzo 2nd half stats, vs lahair's first half stats, i just don't see where there is a huge difference in production at least when you talk about winning more games simply based on this difference. Rizzo actually had more of a drop in power stats after his first month than lahair.

It would be nice to think we have a huge upgrade at first, but it just isn't the case on paper simply because Lahair was pretty good for that first half, 2nd half not so much

 

If only there were ways to actually determine which player brought more value to the Cubs last year than just declaring them to be a "wash"...

[neely crenshaw]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

 

People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

I think this is very true when you factor in the horrid offense we had. Having an awesome section can do more as far as winning more games as a bad team.

[SABR Gamer]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

 

People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

 

Well, yeah, who was saying you should or could build a team of only the hypothetically consistent Rizzo vs. someone streakier like Soriano? This tangent was born out of the idea of whether Rizzo's projected output would be more valuable than 6 weeks of great/good LaHair, and I think it's safe to choose the former. We're talking an extreme and extremely limited type of "streak" here.

 

I think he's getting at the fact that you were wrong for saying that "consistent > inconsistent" is basically a known fact and that you would be crazy to think otherwise.

Edited December 17, 2012 by New York Cubs Fan

[SABR Gamer]

well. it isn't but then no one said it was. What I simply said was that Lahair's 2nd month(and 2nd best month) was not much different to Rizzo's 3rd month (and 2nd best month). I simply tried to compare each player's 2nd best statistical month to show that there is not a huge difference in stats.

 

My bad, I misread then. I thought you were comparing both of their third months. It still isn't that close.

Edited December 17, 2012 by New York Cubs Fan

[Sammy Sofa]

well. it isn't but then no one said it was. What I simply said was that Lahair's 2nd month(and 2nd best month) was not much different to Rizzo's 3rd month (and 2nd best month). I simply tried to compare each player's 2nd best statistical month to show that there is not a huge difference in stats.

 

Rizzo's second month was much, much better than LaHair's second month.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm almost certain that I've seen that study. If memory serves, the results were exactly what you'd expect.

 

On the whole, the consistent team had the same average win rate as the inconsistent-but-equally-talented team. The inconsistent team had a far wider variety of outcomes (both good and bad) to get there though.

 

This.

 

Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player.

 

People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said.

 

Well, yeah, who was saying you should or could build a team of only the hypothetically consistent Rizzo vs. someone streakier like Soriano? This tangent was born out of the idea of whether Rizzo's projected output would be more valuable than 6 weeks of great/good LaHair, and I think it's safe to choose the former. We're talking an extreme and extremely limited type of "streak" here.

 

I think he's getting at the fact that you were wrong for saying that "consistent > inconsistent" is basically a known fact and that you would be crazy to think otherwise.

 

You can make an argument for either approach. I prefer the former, especially in this particular example.

[neely crenshaw]

tell me which one did then Nuts?

the argument is this...

in judging this team for next season, and next season only. Based on stats given..not conjecture as to who will improve.

Is the team better with a full season of Rizzo, which would basically be .285 30 hrs, .342, 463, .805

vs one that was basically .285 28 hrs 355(split the differences) .490 .845...because those are the stats that our first baseman put up last season. Unless you know exactly when Rizzo is going to hit next season, I don't know how you do anything but look at the stats as a whole.

are we better with rizzo long term. absolutely but if we are trying to judge if the team is better on the field now over last year, you can't simply say we're better with a whole year of rizzo because lahair matched his stats in his first half (even if he'll never do it again) and you can't dismiss what he actually did.

I can buy that because of lahair swoon in june, we should be better that month but how many more wins does that translate too, and with lahairs first 2 months, how many more wins is that?

[Sammy Sofa]

I honestly am having trouble reading that post and I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to be defending LaHair? Attacking people's projections of Rizzo being likely to surpass LaHair's value/production from 2011? Again, you're talking about a guy who managed a whopping 0.1 WAR vs. a guy who is projected to give the Cubs a 4-5 WAR value. I'd pick Rizzo every time over LaHair and not even think about it twice.

[Cubswin11]

tell me which one did then Nuts?

the argument is this...

in judging this team for next season, and next season only. Based on stats given..not conjecture as to who will improve.

Is the team better with a full season of Rizzo, which would basically be .285 30 hrs, .342, 463, .805

vs one that was basically .285 28 hrs 355(split the differences) .490 .845...because those are the stats that our first baseman put up last season. Unless you know exactly when Rizzo is going to hit next season, I don't know how you do anything but look at the stats as a whole.

are we better with rizzo long term. absolutely but if we are trying to judge if the team is better on the field now over last year, you can't simply say we're better with a whole year of rizzo because lahair matched his stats in his first half (even if he'll never do it again) and you can't dismiss what he actually did.

I can buy that because of lahair swoon in june, we should be better that month but how many more wins does that translate too, and with lahairs first 2 months, how many more wins is that?

Did DaBum or HCCF teach you how to write and structure a sentence? Not that I'm attacking you, but why is your spacing so off, for a lack of better terms? Makes it really hard to follow.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Cubswin11

[neely crenshaw]

it wasn't that small a streak. It was a month of great, and another solid (better than Rizzo's 2nd month) so I don't know how it projects to a hugely better performance from our first baseman. LaHair never match those stats but the fact is he had those two months AND if you want to project that cubs are better at firstbase this season vs last (not long term) then 2013 rizzo must put up better stats than the first basemen did last year.

in short double Rizzo's stats for half a season (87 games actually) vs Lahair's April,May and June plus Rizzo's July,August and September.

Now I know it isn't what you want to hear but the 2012 stats are slightly better than doubling Rizzo's totals.

[neely crenshaw]

tell me which one did then Nuts?

the argument is this...

in judging this team for next season, and next season only. Based on stats given..not conjecture as to who will improve.

Is the team better with a full season of Rizzo, which would basically be .285 30 hrs, .342, 463, .805

vs one that was basically .285 28 hrs 355(split the differences) .490 .845...because those are the stats that our first baseman put up last season. Unless you know exactly when Rizzo is going to hit next season, I don't know how you do anything but look at the stats as a whole.

are we better with rizzo long term. absolutely but if we are trying to judge if the team is better on the field now over last year, you can't simply say we're better with a whole year of rizzo because lahair matched his stats in his first half (even if he'll never do it again) and you can't dismiss what he actually did.

I can buy that because of lahair swoon in june, we should be better that month but how many more wins does that translate too, and with lahairs first 2 months, how many more wins is that?

Did DaBum or HCCF teach you how to write and structure a sentence?

 

I did not know it was a graded assignment. Perhaps that is your best argument in this case.

[Sammy Sofa]

I honestly have no clue whether I "want" to hear that or not; I don't understand what you're saying.