Magnetic Curses

I find the value that the newer statistics provide is when they show some of the traditional thoughts about baseball to be incorrect. Some of the standard examples: - 6'1", 220 lb Kevin Youkilis is a more valuable leadoff man than Juan Pierre - Unless a runner has a high success rate (I think the breakeven is near 70%), attempting stolen bases does not increase a team's expected runs scored - Randy Johnson did not deserve a 5.00 ERA last year - Albert Pujols, even though he was injured for part of the season, was a more valuable player than Ryan Howard last year It's also one of the main reasons that newer statistics are disdained by some. It's hard for Joe Morgan to believe that Kevin Youkilis is a better leadoff man when the prevailing thought has been that a leadoff hitter should be a fast, slappy hitter. How do you even know if someone even has a 70% steal rate if you don't steal? if you don't steal, then you don't need to worry about it because you aren't hurting the team by running into outs time and again. pierre is a particular poor baserunner, for all the credit he gets for "making things happen" on the basepaths.

the thing that gets me is that they didn't even need to give him "fair market value" as he was never on the market. they had a closed negotiation going on, lovie was never a free agent. the bears proved to be more than fair.

I don't even think Virigina knows what year it is. I'm convinced someone else within the organization is having an influence on football operations(i.e keeping Michael locked down stairs). Possibly the McKenna's? It's Angelo, and Phillips. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? The Bears haven't been cheap, as goony says, since McCaskey stepped back and Angelo was given full-time GM control. It's old news. Repeating it over & over doesn't make it new. Who fired Mike McCaskey? It wasn't Virginia I can tell you that. Someone forced that move. iirc, it WAS virginia.

wow, those are some fairly optimistic numbers. i wish they'd predict OBP/SLG/OPS, it would make their system a little more realistic, as the stats they give aren't very useful in prognosticating--unless they've predicted numbers like they've predicted for the cubs, in which case we'll score a ton of runs.

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer. i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story. That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said. fair enough. now admit that i'm right about everything. :D You are right about anything that you agreed with me on. Fair enough!? not.......even........close.

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer. i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story. That's how I read it and I agree with what you just said. fair enough. now admit that i'm right about everything. :D

i'd assume that someone would take that to mean that numbers catch important aspects of the game that are generally hidden from the casual observer. i don't know how that means that they tell the whole story.

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win. Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it. Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen? i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance. Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics? You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels? Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline. I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't. never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on. That is what you wrote and that's what I've been discussing. and that means that i said that numbers tell the whole story? quite a leap, there.

everything is equal over 162 games, most teams carry 11-12 pitchers and the problem of pitchers getting tired is a season long struggle, not a one-game issue.

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win. Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it. Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen? i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance. Where did Sully advocate maknig decisions solely thru metrics? You're debating something entirely different from the point. What if the alcoholic pitcher got off the sauce and sucked? or didn't change his performance levels? Stats are going to provide you with a better big picture than solely looking at the human element of character, or whatever. No one is saying that random events aren't going to alter a trendline. People are saying that you need stats to accurately track the trendline. I agree but sully said stats tell the whole story and I said they didn't. never did i say that. i said that they tell a more accurate story.

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is? I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think OBP is actually more predictive of runs scored. I think someone on this board calculated it a while back, that if you look at OPS, OBP, and SLG, OBP ends up being the best predictor of the three in runs scored. I don't remember enough of my stats classes to calculate it myself. Anyone else remember that thread? OBP is more important, but SLG is important as well. there is a weight, as i mentioned.

i think ordonez was using steroids, unfortunately for the cubs, they didn't work for him.

i agree that OBP is the single most useful conventional offensive statistic, no doubt.

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win. Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it. Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen? i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It does and it doesn't. It has something to do with unknown variables and trends and how you would react if you were a GM in that instance. using your logic, if i see a relatively ineffective pitcher have an effective outing, he should be counted on to be effective throughout the season. you don't acquire and use a bad player if you think there's an off-chance that he could be good on a particular day. "well, novoa has an 8 run era in his last 10 outings, lou, what do you think?" "ah, he's due." that's bad management. that's micromanagement. a good GM or manager will put the best players on the field, not bad players that they feel have a chance to be good on a particular game.

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win. Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it. Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen? What are you talking about? That's not a variable that happens during a game. Alright I'll go to a game situation then even though that scenerio helps my case. Maddux gets a comebacker in the pitching hand in the 3rd inning after allowing 3 runs and 5 hits and he has to leave the game. Now, Novoa comes in and throws 5 innings of 1 hit baseball and Dempster comes in the 9th to preserve a 5-3 win. What do your stats say about that? Do they tell me if Maddux will pitch in his next turn? Will he be as effective as he would be if he didn't get hit? Why did Novoa pitch well when he's struggled all year? Maddux always pitches late farther into the game, what stat says he got hit in the hand? as has been said, stats are not meant to be accurate predictors from game to game, i wish you'd at least see the argument here. you're not acting as if you've read these posts through. btw, the stats show that maddux will take himself out if he feels he has no shot at throwing effectively. furthermore, the stats will reflect that he was ineffective if he continued to make starts at less than 100%, but that's not at all what we're talking about. consequently, the stats inextricably show that maddux is on the decline and will probably not be pitching effectively much next season. the stats will also show that novoa was ineffective over the course of a season if he was ineffective. there's nothing saying that he will be ineffective from appearance to appearance, just that he has a better chance to be ineffective based on his past statistics and that if he is used consistently as a key part of the bullpen, he will be more ineffective than effective.

last time i checked, perry is a different person from clines while rothschild is the same person as rothschild. he may have a doppelganger, but i doubt it.

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win. Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it. Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen? i'm sorry CCF, but this is almost not worth responding to. this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

CCF, the point is that stats don't tell you who will each game from day to day, they show you who has the best chance for long term success. if you look at a team's full stats from game 1 to 162, you can generally tell why they were or why they weren't successfull. this has nothing to do with bunting or baserunning or playing proper "fundamental baseball". mostly it will have to do at what rate they made outs at the plate and what rate they made outs on the mound. if you look at a bad team having a good game, it's easy to get the wrong impression. if yoiu look at a good team having a bad game it's the same way. it's all in looking for virtually invisible trends.

the last longer one.

immortalized before lock.

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games. But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win? What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should". What's the difference between best chance and should? the way you're using "should" implies the absolute. Should isn't an absolute, even in that statement. look and answer my last post to you in the discussion we were having. and, btw, you were using "should" as a synonym for "will".

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games. But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win? What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should". What's the difference between best chance and should? the way you're using "should" implies the absolute.

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games. But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win? If you don't like that, say the Cubs and Cards are tied for first going into the last game of the season. The Cards are playing the Pirates who have the worst record in baseball. The Cubs are playing the Phillies who have the best record. The Cubs win and the Cards lose. Why? your stats told me that the percentages would be the other way around. sully, I just don't see how you can look at numbers as being absolutes like you do. Yes, they help and give you the best possible of chance of something happening but one of the beauty things of sports is that other factors can happen. A bad call. Remember that call by the ump in the playoffs last year with that fathom strike 3? Did a stat tell me that was going to happen then? someone who understands stats also understands that luck is a huge part of the game. over 162 games, the luck will, most of the time, even out. over a 7 game series, it usually doesn't and while the better team has an advantage, the advantage become much smaller. stats do not tell you who will win every game, which is why you have bad teams beating good teams. numbers are not absolute from game to game, but the best teams generally stand tall at the end of the regular season. it's a huge victory for statheads that the cardinals won the series last year, it proves that a 7 game playoff system is a virtual crapshoot in which luck doesn't have the time to even out, if you will.

if dempster can't close, then i don't want him anywhere in the pen. he'll need to be shipped somewhere and have most of his contract absorbed.

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.