brfahey

Is there anything new regarding Ofman's original report?

I think Rogers is just upset that the Cubs didn't trade Zambrano and now he doesn't know what to write about. On Patterson, maybe he was rushed. And maybe he just wasn't that good. Mediocre numbers in the minors could be a product of being rushed or a product of not being good.

Do you think this is a better move than non-tendering him? Trading him is indeed a better move than non-tendering but he would have been good as a backup OFer especially now that we all know Grissom will be our guy. Oh I agree with that. I think he would have been a good speed option off the bench as well, a la the Red Sox use of Roberts. I believe that late in the year patterson was brought into a game to pinch run and was promptly picked off first. That said it all about him last year.

As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved. Exactly, there's way too much variation for performance in 'clutch' situations to be predictive or more than an afterthought in player evaluation. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all studies to date have failed to prove "clutch" AND have failed to disprove it. James believes the methods used to determine if clutch exists were flawed. He seems open to the idea that someday there may be a study that proves clutch, but the right metric has yet to be discovered. Sorry, I was referring to noisesquared's comment below the quote, I had already read the article previously. Maybe I should have responded to noisesquared and not you. But my point is that James is not saying that study has disproved clutch, or that there's too small a sample size. He's saying it HAS NOT been disproven, and that there is not yet a metric to measure it. In essence -stretch- he's saying its an intangible. I would be curious to see, as a clutch metric, what a player's OPS over a 5 year span would be in the following condition: - the 7th inning or later of games their team is losing by 4 or less runs This would encompass a lot of scenarios not covered by 2 out RISP BA, or late inning BA. I mean, if a guy takes a wlk to lead off an inning when his team is down by 1, that's a clutch AB. If a player hits a 2 run HR with his team down by one in the bottom of the eighth with nobody out, that's still clutch. The five year span would be necessary to generate sample size, and the 4 runs would differentiate from a blowout game. I would bet the numbers would be at least slightly below career norms in most cases, with a lot more anti-clutch cases than clutch cases. I guess you'd also have to factor in that if our team is losing late in a gmes, a batter is more likely to see righty/lefty bullpen matchups and specialist setup men and closers, further decreasing the likelihood of attaining career norm type numbers. Now you are talking and realizing that not all at-bats are created equal. I would expand the sample to encompass when a team is ahead by only a run or two as well as behind. And maybe, if expanded like that, the category need not be limited to late innings. Games can turn early sometimes.

Who is mocking whom? I see you and plenty of others ridiculing people who put a lot of emphasis on objective analysis. Please point it out. I have said on here more than once that stats are important and useful but are not everything. If we can all agree on that there is no dispute.

he WATCHES the games That's right, you ought to try it sometime. Of course he watches the games. Do you think that stat oriented people hate watching baseball? That everyone who doesn't subscribe to clutch is a mathmetician that's never seen baseball before? No. I think people who mock those who watch baseball to get a feeling for a player are narrow-minded and have little respect for viewpoints other than their own.

If you don't believe there's such a thing as a clutch player, you must not watch much sports, and you clearly didn't play many either. I watch a lot of sports and have played plenty in my time and I don't believe there is a "clutch player." The numbers don't bear that out. If being "clutch" is an ability, then "clutch players" would have good numbers in "clutch" situations from year to year or at least numbers that are consistent with their career numbers. They do not. It's all in how you define clutch. Bases loaded in a 8-0 blowout is not the same as bases loaded with your team down by a run or two in the late innings. You can't lump the two at-bats into the same category. I think on this one, actual viewing of the game is required. It doesn't matter what situations you narrow it down to, situational performance varies wildly from year to year. he WATCHES the games That's right, you ought to try it sometime.

The improved morale really helped results form 2004 to 2005. If Walker hurt the team's morale, and thus hurt their chances, a less stupid GM would have chosen to stay with that gutty team guy Grudz when he had the chance instead of resigning Walker. Yep, should have kept Grudz. Too bad Hendry went the Moneyball route. :( yep, grudz really eclipsed walker with his offensive prowess. Well Grudz had 156 hits & 26 walks last year compared to Walker's 121 & 31, and superior defense should count for something. Grudz also played in 27 more games. Walker was far superior offensively last season. how?

If you don't believe there's such a thing as a clutch player, you must not watch much sports, and you clearly didn't play many either. I watch a lot of sports and have played plenty in my time and I don't believe there is a "clutch player." The numbers don't bear that out. If being "clutch" is an ability, then "clutch players" would have good numbers in "clutch" situations from year to year or at least numbers that are consistent with their career numbers. They do not. It's all in how you define clutch. Bases loaded in a 8-0 blowout is not the same as bases loaded with your team down by a run or two in the late innings. You can't lump the two at-bats into the same category. I think on this one, actual viewing of the game is required.

The improved morale really helped results form 2004 to 2005. If Walker hurt the team's morale, and thus hurt their chances, a less stupid GM would have chosen to stay with that gutty team guy Grudz when he had the chance instead of resigning Walker. Yep, should have kept Grudz. Too bad Hendry went the Moneyball route. :( That's a good one.

Amen.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life. arrogance-schmarrogance, i just find it hard to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about. I think that if you are absolutely certain you are not one of those people it's not schmarrogance. if by "one of those people" you mean an edward k-type, then i'm certain. Pardon my ignorance by I don't know what an edward-k type is. Sorry.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life. arrogance-schmarrogance, i just find it hard to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about. I think that if you are absolutely certain you are not one of those people it's not schmarrogance.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board.

Walker is a better offensive player than Soriano. His 45 point advantage in OBP is much greater than Soriano's 35-30 point SLG advantage. I know you've made that point before and you have the numbers which you believe establish and I do not want to recreate that thread but I remain steadfast in my opinion that your statement would be found incredible by most.

I understand that it is based upon numbers and that numbers are color blind. But, true or false, sabermetrics favors or values certain qualities or numbers or stats over others, doesn't it? Not too big on stealing bases but big on walks, for example. My point is is there a possibility that given what it values or on which it places positive emphasis and given what it does not value sabermetrics obviously favors a "type" of player, at least to some extent. All I have been asking is whether or not that "type" is more likely than not to be a white player.

Thanks for that response. Just two things: (1) for the third or fourth time I never said sabermetrics was racist in spirit or anlaysis. Just wondered about stuff you have attempted, thoughfully, to answer. (2) I am not sure what I said that you are not ready to concede as true. Otherwise a useeful post.

Thank you for actually taking the time to read the posts and give the matter some real thought. Like I said, I am just trying to get the lay of the land in this area.

African-American: Barry Bonds Latin American: Albert Pujols I could cite many more examples. Sabermetrics don't care about the race of the player - just raw numbers. There's a stereotype that African-American and Latin American players are too aggressive at the plate (i.e. not talking walks). Can you cite some non-superstar guys? This is not a challenge. I am just trying to see if there is any evidence to back up what I have termed as an very unscientific look. I don't understand the question. How would be citing non-superstar guys help? I guess as follows: I hear the names on non-superstar guys like Wilkerson, Giles, Todd Walker bandied around as valuable under sabermetric theories but not non-superstar player of color. I don't know if that clears it up. Again, I repeat that I am not stating that sabermetrics is racist in any way.

African-American: Barry Bonds Latin American: Albert Pujols I could cite many more examples. Sabermetrics don't care about the race of the player - just raw numbers. There's a stereotype that African-American and Latin American players are too aggressive at the plate (i.e. not talking walks). Can you cite some non-superstar guys? This is not a challenge. I am just trying to see if there is any evidence to back up what I have termed as an very unscientific look.

i don't think it has anything to do with race. I didn't say that it did. Thanks for the thoughtful repsonse.

This post is based upon a very unscientific reading of posts in this forum and other information. Many of the posters here appear to be sabermetrics fans or adherents or whatever you want to call it. My unscientific reading indicates that it almost all players that the sabermetric consider as quality players are white and players who are considered not so good tend to be African-American or Latin. Could the Sabermetrics fans point me to some players that they consider valuable who are African-American or Latin. I am sure there are some who you guys have mentioned. If the numbers are disproportionately small, what are the reasons, speaking in general terms, the games of African-American and Latin players do not appear to be valued by sabermetrics. I think it is just an interesting question/issue. I am aware that some time back, this issue was raised in an article by the late Ralph Wiley and that spurred a kind of lame response from (I think) Buster Olney. Not by any stretch of the imagination do I believe that sabermetric fans are racists or anything close. I think it is simply an interesting topic to talk about. At bototm, the greatest fear is that sabermetrics could be used not as intended but as some kind of a safe harbor for people with certain beliefs.

Williams' quotes prove once and for all that the White Sox are the Jan Brady of MLB. For Jan it was always, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia." For the White Sox, it is always "Cubs, Cubs, Cubs." Even a WS title has not changed that. They have this us against them mentality when that is not the case at all. They bitch about media coverage and favoritism toward the Cubs and the local media, particularly the sports radio portion, is almost uniformly pro-White Sox. Just look at the transformation Reinsdorf went through when they won. He went from being a money-conscious SOB whose hatred of unions led to the World Series being cancelled to a tearful guy who "deserved" the title. Give me a break. They will ride this crest for awhile, until the inevitable pitching injuries, one run losses and changed luck arrives next year. Then it will be back to 15,000 per night and Hawkeroo blaming Mariotti for everything.

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts? When anyone is called nuts. But I have banning power! :w00t: :assault: So are you serious or what? I am serious. Nobody is to be called names. But I was joking about the last part. That's fine. Just wanted to know if there were two sets of rules.