General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[Banedon]

FWIW, it appears they're using bWAR.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

maybe they're using eWAR

[squally1313]

Boston Outfield, Cubs Infield, Dodgers Starters, Posey, Ortiz, Indians Bullpen

 

94.4%, 68.6 WAR, win the WS.

 

Edit: Boost up to 98.2% when you switch in the Cubs starters, so I assume that's the best option there. Haven't figured out 100% yet though.

[UMFan83]

Boston Outfield, Cubs Infield, Dodgers Starters, Posey, Ortiz, Indians Bullpen

 

94.4%, 68.6 WAR, win the WS.

 

Edit: Boost up to 98.2% when you switch in the Cubs starters, so I assume that's the best option there. Haven't figured out 100% yet though.

 

I just did that exact config (Boston OF, Cubs IF, Cubs Starters, Posey, Ortiz, Indians Pen and got 100%

 

100.0%

YOUR SCORE

71.7

WAR TOTAL

Your team will sweep the World Series!

Congratulations! You built the best possible 2016 playoff team -- at least in pixels. There's a reason they play the games, as they say, but your team is so good it's clearly bound for October glory. Your prize: a Fall Classic sweep.

[Rob]

Yeah. I got 100% on my first try.

 

OF - Red Sox

IF - Cubs

C - Posey

DH - Ortiz

SP - Cubs

RP - Indians

[Aaron_Kennelly]

If you do all Cubs with Boston OF and Boston DH, you get this

 

85.4%

YOUR SCORE

63.7

WAR TOTAL

Your team will reach Game 7 of the World Series.

You've built a really good squad. Not a great one, mind you, but a really good one. Enough to win the World Series? It'll have to go the distance.

 

That's cool, because that's literally what Theo built.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://deadspin.com/idiots-argue-modern-ballplayers-are-fat-in-stupid-usa-t-1787398801

 

Two professors and the CEO of a weight-loss company published an op-ed in USA Today—based on their recently published research letter—arguing that the vast majority of baseball players are too fat, and that they “owe it to themselves and to the children who look up to them as role models” to get in shape. It is a load of horseshit, and everybody involved—the authors, the journal that published the research letter, and USA Today—should be ashamed of themselves.

 

The op-ed makes two main points. The first is that in the last 25 years there has been a drastic change in the body composition of baseball players—70 percent of today’s players are overweight and 10 percent are obese, according to the authors—and the second is that, for the sake of both their own health and that of the greater public to which they are role models, baseball players have a duty to lose weight.

 

The first point is scientific hogwash; the second is disingenuous concern-trolling.

 

What the authors only barely mention, in passing, is that medical professionals overwhelmingly agree that BMI tells you very little about whether someone is healthy or not. About the only real value of BMI is as an easy-to-use screening tool to identify people who may be obese. Because it simply uses weight—which is made up of fat, but also muscle, bones, tissue, and fluids—it isn’t a useful measure of anything for people who are normal or overweight. As our sister site Lifehacker shows visually, people with the exact same BMI can have radically different body compositions, and thus have radically different health statuses.

 

Worse yet, it is widely known that BMI is specifically terrible at classifying athletes. As the CDC notes, “muscular individuals, or highly-trained athletes, may have a high BMI because of increased muscle mass,” not because they actually have excess fat. NPR helpfully demonstrated earlier this year that, according to BMI, every member of the Denver Broncos was overweight or obese. Some of the lineman may actually be obese—albeit extremely athletic and healthy, calling into question the usefulness of the term—but not a single running back, wide receiver, corner back, or safety, had a normal weight?

 

From its thoroughly unsound methods, the op-ed then leaps to even worse explanations for the phenomenon it purportedly describes. The researchers offer two hypotheses for why ballplayers are fatter than before: It might be due to steroid use, or due to “advances in sport science and nutrition” leading to “improved training practices.”

 

Basically Deadspin was WAY too kind in their dismantling of this nonsense. This deserves a royal FJM-ing.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

For some reason this was the line that took me from "lol these idiots" to "okay now I'm mad"

 

They even have the gall to compare the importance of their research—a three-page, less-than-500-word research letter that cites six sources, fewer than I’ve cited here—to the research that uncovered the concussion problem in football.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2016-national-league-gold-gloves-by-the-numbers/

 

Fangraphs' "by the numbers" Gold Glovers. They added in BP's fielding runs above average (FRAA) this year. I've looked into FRAA before and thought it sucked. Badly. But now I will never even look at it again. They have Jason Heyward as a negative defender in right field. What!?

 

Anyway, Rizzo and Heyward win the Gold Glove, according to this method. Baez comes in at second for second base (in fewer than 400 innings... lol). Addison is second at short. And KB is third at third.

[weis21]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2016-national-league-gold-gloves-by-the-numbers/

 

Fangraphs' "by the numbers" Gold Glovers. They added in BP's fielding runs above average (FRAA) this year. I've looked into FRAA before and thought it sucked. Badly. But now I will never even look at it again. They have Jason Heyward as a negative defender in right field. What!?

 

Anyway, Rizzo and Heyward win the Gold Glove, according to this method. Baez comes in at second for second base (in fewer than 400 innings... lol). Addison is second at short. And KB is third at third.

 

Under the Heyward blurb:

 

Also, now seems like a good time to do a quick Cubs update. They have the most deserving candidate at first base. They have the runner-up at second, the runner-up at short, the third-place finisher at third, the most deserving candidate at right, and, if Miguel Montero had caught just a few more innings, they would’ve had the third-place finisher at catcher, too. Yep. Cubs defense: still good.

[Thrilho]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2016-national-league-gold-gloves-by-the-numbers/

 

Fangraphs' "by the numbers" Gold Glovers. They added in BP's fielding runs above average (FRAA) this year. I've looked into FRAA before and thought it sucked. Badly. But now I will never even look at it again. They have Jason Heyward as a negative defender in right field. What!?

 

Anyway, Rizzo and Heyward win the Gold Glove, according to this method. Baez comes in at second for second base (in fewer than 400 innings... lol). Addison is second at short. And KB is third at third.

 

 

Curious is the placement of Joey Votto below, who grades out as having not only as the National League’s worst defensive season by a first baseman, but the worst across MLB. Votto has a reputation as a stronger defender that’s always been backed by the metrics, and he certainly didn’t show any signs of physical decline at the plate this year, yet for whatever reason, his defensive ratings have suddenly plummeted. It’s difficult what to make of such a sudden and drastic one-year decline, but it’s certainly something to monitor moving forward.

 

Isn't this the spot where they should be telling us how their defensive metrics work? Joey Votto drops from 6 DRS to -14 while his fielding percentage goes from .993 to .994. Seems like the dude handing out gold gloves at FG should be jumping at a chance to explain that.

[David]

http://deadspin.com/idiots-argue-modern-ballplayers-are-fat-in-stupid-usa-t-1787398801

 

Two professors and the CEO of a weight-loss company published an op-ed in USA Today—based on their recently published research letter—arguing that the vast majority of baseball players are too fat, and that they “owe it to themselves and to the children who look up to them as role models” to get in shape. It is a load of horsefeathers, and everybody involved—the authors, the journal that published the research letter, and USA Today—should be ashamed of themselves.

 

The op-ed makes two main points. The first is that in the last 25 years there has been a drastic change in the body composition of baseball players—70 percent of today’s players are overweight and 10 percent are obese, according to the authors—and the second is that, for the sake of both their own health and that of the greater public to which they are role models, baseball players have a duty to lose weight.

 

The first point is scientific hogwash; the second is disingenuous concern-trolling.

 

What the authors only barely mention, in passing, is that medical professionals overwhelmingly agree that BMI tells you very little about whether someone is healthy or not. About the only real value of BMI is as an easy-to-use screening tool to identify people who may be obese. Because it simply uses weight—which is made up of fat, but also muscle, bones, tissue, and fluids—it isn’t a useful measure of anything for people who are normal or overweight. As our sister site Lifehacker shows visually, people with the exact same BMI can have radically different body compositions, and thus have radically different health statuses.

 

Worse yet, it is widely known that BMI is specifically terrible at classifying athletes. As the CDC notes, “muscular individuals, or highly-trained athletes, may have a high BMI because of increased muscle mass,” not because they actually have excess fat. NPR helpfully demonstrated earlier this year that, according to BMI, every member of the Denver Broncos was overweight or obese. Some of the lineman may actually be obese—albeit extremely athletic and healthy, calling into question the usefulness of the term—but not a single running back, wide receiver, corner back, or safety, had a normal weight?

 

From its thoroughly unsound methods, the op-ed then leaps to even worse explanations for the phenomenon it purportedly describes. The researchers offer two hypotheses for why ballplayers are fatter than before: It might be due to steroid use, or due to “advances in sport science and nutrition” leading to “improved training practices.”

 

Basically Deadspin was WAY too kind in their dismantling of this nonsense. This deserves a royal FJM-ing.

 

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://deadspin.com/idiots-argue-modern-ballplayers-are-fat-in-stupid-usa-t-1787398801

 

Two professors and the CEO of a weight-loss company published an op-ed in USA Today—based on their recently published research letter—arguing that the vast majority of baseball players are too fat, and that they “owe it to themselves and to the children who look up to them as role models” to get in shape. It is a load of horsefeathers, and everybody involved—the authors, the journal that published the research letter, and USA Today—should be ashamed of themselves.

 

The op-ed makes two main points. The first is that in the last 25 years there has been a drastic change in the body composition of baseball players—70 percent of today’s players are overweight and 10 percent are obese, according to the authors—and the second is that, for the sake of both their own health and that of the greater public to which they are role models, baseball players have a duty to lose weight.

 

The first point is scientific hogwash; the second is disingenuous concern-trolling.

 

What the authors only barely mention, in passing, is that medical professionals overwhelmingly agree that BMI tells you very little about whether someone is healthy or not. About the only real value of BMI is as an easy-to-use screening tool to identify people who may be obese. Because it simply uses weight—which is made up of fat, but also muscle, bones, tissue, and fluids—it isn’t a useful measure of anything for people who are normal or overweight. As our sister site Lifehacker shows visually, people with the exact same BMI can have radically different body compositions, and thus have radically different health statuses.

 

Worse yet, it is widely known that BMI is specifically terrible at classifying athletes. As the CDC notes, “muscular individuals, or highly-trained athletes, may have a high BMI because of increased muscle mass,” not because they actually have excess fat. NPR helpfully demonstrated earlier this year that, according to BMI, every member of the Denver Broncos was overweight or obese. Some of the lineman may actually be obese—albeit extremely athletic and healthy, calling into question the usefulness of the term—but not a single running back, wide receiver, corner back, or safety, had a normal weight?

 

From its thoroughly unsound methods, the op-ed then leaps to even worse explanations for the phenomenon it purportedly describes. The researchers offer two hypotheses for why ballplayers are fatter than before: It might be due to steroid use, or due to “advances in sport science and nutrition” leading to “improved training practices.”

 

Basically Deadspin was WAY too kind in their dismantling of this nonsense. This deserves a royal FJM-ing.

 

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrKateWolin/status/783468126826618884[/tweet]

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Andy]

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

[David]

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

 

I mean, it's flawed as it is, but when you specifically use it to judge professional athletes it's literally the worst possible use of it. I'm not sure you could come up with a worse application if you tried.

[Cubswin11]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

That's incredible, but pretty much confirms what guys like Law would say/joke about their FO, Amaro is horsefeathering idiot. The bigger problem (but advantage to us) is there probably still are guys in FO that are in decision making positions that don't see a problem with having no analytic dept. or budget.

[Derwood]

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

 

6'4" 210 isn't ridiculously skinny. I work with a guy who is 6'3" 170

[Aaron_Kennelly]

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

 

6'4" 210 isn't ridiculously skinny. I work with a guy who is 6'3" 170

 

[jersey cubs fan]

They based it on BMI? LMFAO How incredibly stupid.

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

 

6'4" 210 isn't ridiculously skinny. I work with a guy who is 6'3" 170

6'4' 205-210 is very skinny for a human who has participated in any type of physical activity related to sports.

[Derwood]

Seriously. I'm actually fat now, but back when I was a ridiculously skinny 205-210 pounds, at 6'4", BMI had me as overweight. That's the last time I paid attention to that number.

 

6'4" 210 isn't ridiculously skinny. I work with a guy who is 6'3" 170

6'4' 205-210 is very skinny for a human who has participated in any type of physical activity related to sports.

 

Michael Phelps is 6'4", 195 and I wouldn't call him "ridiculously skinny"

[Banedon]

 

6'4" 210 isn't ridiculously skinny. I work with a guy who is 6'3" 170

6'4' 205-210 is very skinny for a human who has participated in any type of physical activity related to sports.

 

Michael Phelps is 6'4", 195 and I wouldn't call him "ridiculously skinny"

 

Michael Phelps is a proportional freakshow and shouldn't be used for comparison to other humans.

[Derwood]

AJ Green - 6'4" 210

Jorge Soler - 6'4" 215

Russell Westbrook- 6'3" 210

 

Yes, these guys are elite athletes, but I wouldn't call any of them skinny, much less "ridiculously" skinny

[David]

I'm with Derwood here. Guy I work with is 6'4" without much muscle tone and he likes to stay around 195-200. He's far from looking gangly or anything. Not that 210 is fat or anything, but based on that anecdote, unless you have some decent muscle on you, 210 is probably a smidge overweight. Definitely not ridiculously skinny.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm with Derwood here. Guy I work with is 6'4" without much muscle tone and he likes to stay around 195-200. He's far from looking gangly or anything. Not that 210 is fat or anything, but based on that anecdote, unless you have some decent muscle on you, 210 is probably a smidge overweight. Definitely not ridiculously skinny.

I would assume that was some narrow shouldered rail boy.

 

I was 6'2" 217 entering senior year of high school and nowhere near overweight.