Ok but it's pretty hard to create your own original thoughts that way.

That's the point. I can either fabricate my original thought or use actual stats. Just because someone has an original opinion, doesn't mean it's good.


If my choice is a method that uses data from literally very single play of the season, or the "original" opinion of someone that I have no way of knowin how he drew his conclusions, his competency, or intelligence... Again, I'm relying on stats. In most cases stas provide a better picture than a single guy giving his opinion that is based off the plays he has seen.

So you think stats are infallible and can't be fabricated or twisted and turned into something else? That every single aspect of the game can be turned into an easy to categorize number? That nothing is left to the imagination?

Sounds like you want that to be the case rather than having to actually watch baseball.

Exactly. The good thing about statistics is that they see every game. I simply cannot do that.

I'm not going to speak for baseball stat guys because I'm not one of them. As far as football is concerned, especially college football, I watch as many games as it is possible to watch over the course of the week. That's still a pretty small percentage (maybe 10% of the plays in a given week). Even for the Big Ten, I can't see every play. I know what I see. I know what the statistics see. I try to reconcile wherever possible. When I can't, I trust the statistics, because they see more than I do. It's not my job, and frankly even if it were I don't know how much more I could do.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

That's a good way to explain it. I watch the games first and use stats to fill in the blanks. It seems some think they don't have to watch games and use stats as the be all end. It just seems too easy and kind of lazy. Why do I have to do anything when I can just let someone else do my thinking for me.

Don't you think think someone's observations, biases, and agendas can be fabricated or twisted?

Obviously, someone who watches every game and studies metrics will have a more valid opinion than someone who only looks at the stats. Personally, I find baseball boring unless you are talking about the playoffs, games with meaning, or great pitching matchups. Gimme football, hockey, basketball, and auto racing over some random 3.5 hour baseball game. But I do enjoy looking at the stats and getting a feel for who is having what type of season. Plus, stats make arguments so much better. Wish I had these kind of stats in the early 90s when we argued Jack McDowell vs Greg Maddux.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

No, and I never once said that.


I love watching baseball, but in my life, I only have time for the Cubs and sometimes the Sox. I can't make opinions on the Orioles, and I can't make opinions on how the Orioles players compare to the Cubs players. I simply can not.


So if I was going to try, what is the best way for me to do that? Obviously it's statistics. I can't call a "guy who watches a ton of baseball" every time I am interested in something. I can rely on a system that literally calculates every single play ever! Even the biggest fans simply can not see every play ever for their own team, let alone EVERY team. That's why I need stats.



If your problem is that you think stats don't tell the whole picture (which I am not even arguing) I do agree! Stats are not the be all end all. But in most conversations related to baseball, people rarely have better evidence than stats to support their position. My problem is, the majority of people (I don't know if you are included or not), say they "watch a ton of baseball" and then have opinions that can easily be mostly disputed with stats. IE, Jeter is still a good defensive shortstop.


Just notice, when the idiot callers argue with Bernstein's sabermetrics, they never have good evidence to back anything up. It's always "I've watched baseball for 72 years" and "I've been a Cubs fan since birth." That doesn't help evolve an argument, nor does it provide any value for anyone other than the fan.

I would argue that Jeter is still a good defensive player because he turns outs into outs and there's real value in that. He may not have the range to take away hits anymore but he's rarely out of position and if he gets his hands on it it's an out. That's one (of many) things I think the defensive measures undervalue.

As for Bernstein....pfft. Talk about the original unoriginal. He's like the Michael Bolton looking character in Good Will Hunting. All he does is regurgitate someone else's thoughts. I dismiss everything he says about baseball.

Why would people study baseball stats if they do not actually watch the games?

The whole reason to look at and study stats is because you are a fan of the game and enjoy seeing how things are broken down. Bucky Chris summed it up nicely.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Out of 22 qualifying shortstops, Jeter is 3rd from the worst beating only Castro and A. Cabrera when looking at UZR/150.


So I'd implore you to find me evidence to suggest he is "good" let alone close to average defensively this year. Remember, your evidence needs to be better than a system that takes in to account literally every play.

And the fact you acknowledge his range sucks now is damning. While he may do well with what he gets, his poor range means he is NOT getting to many balls that even an average SS would get to.

You need statistical analysis and traditional scouting to run a baseball team. I thought we got past the "fire bad!" phase years ago.

_________________

Yes, his UZR/150 has been slipping for years (Eye roll because of a geeky, bogus, made up statistic). On the other hand he is first in XB98/14-34 x 2th.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI

That pretty much sums up my argument.

I agree. Good argument.

What was Lou Gehrig's UZR/150?

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI

People weren't smart enough to track it back then.

You are probably right. Lou Gehrig's career began a couple of years after Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics. I am sure that the magical data involved in UZR/150 would have baffled such a simpleton. I mean, let us face facts: it is one thing to come up with theories which practically explain the workings of the universe. It is quite another to come up with magical statistics which explain fielding proficiency.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI

but the best metrics shouldn't need any tracking. The numbers should be readily available with only the need to have them entered into the equation.

When a metric takes a subjective such as, "should have gotten to that", its legitimacy is eroded for me. I say this not knowing if UZR is calculated in that manner.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Rick is definitely a stats guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

There are a lot of really good statistics especially in baseball. This includes many of the sabermetric ones.

My issue is more with statistics that add in outside influences without being able to prove why that is valid. WAR is the primary offender on this. I've still never heard a good explanation as to why it's valid to cite in any baseball discussion. I fully understand why the OPS+ between two players is a way to compare them but I've never seen that with WAR. I've also never had it explained why I should believe that "defense independent pitching" is valid.

My problem with some of these sabermetrics statistics is that it was guaranteed to have an answer regardless of how good or bad it was. There was some guy who said "I want to create a statistic that puts a value on the wins above a replacement player" and then he worked backwards to get it. How do we know it's any good to the point where it is referenced as the first piece of evidence by many people? It's like when everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. That ultimately came from some guy deciding that an answer was needed and then coming up with it. It was way off. As things moved on, we had irrefutable evidence that it was valid. Now, if I said, "prove to me that the Earth revolves around the Sun" someone could. They couldn't do that before, or the evidence would have been weak such as "look up and you see it moving!".

WAR may be completely correct, or it may be completely wrong. That's my problem with statistics like that. I haven't been convinced it's actually correct, or even most likely correct. Right now it's "just an answer", and history is filled with "just an answer" being very wrong.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

which is what I wrote in 2.5 sentences

What seems to me to be missing in the sabrmetric world is peer review. There seems to be more of a focus on developing new stats rather than best stats with very little criticism in the community.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Has Jeter's defense ever cost the Yankees anything?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

If that's the criteria, then Royce Clayton was a good SS for the Sox. He didn't cost them anything either.

_________________

except when he wasn't wearing shoes in the dugout during a game and was called on the pinch hit

Royce might be my least favorite Sox of all time

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

He also didn't help them win anything.

The point of examining stats is to gain greater understanding. For example, Juan Pierre's batting average is excellent. That cannot really be argued. It is certainly in the top percentile of all those who ever played the game and will be when he retires. But a more thorough examination shows that the mere fact that he bats for a higher average than most players is insignificant. It doesn't matter. But in their zeal to bash Jeter, many people will assign a number to him and use it to denigrate him, when in fact, said number matters as much as or less than Juan Pierre's average. The mere fact that UZR is more esoteric than BA shouldn't somehow elevate it to a higher level of importance.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Jeter don't win Championships with his defense.

_________________

That's my point. He doesn't need to. His defense is fine. Do you think the Yankees would have done better over Jeter's career by replacing him?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

His defense is below average. Which is why he's not a good SS.

Great player. Average SS.

_________________

But right here is why I'd argue about the way people use and view stats. He is a great shortstop. He's great. And he plays shortstop. Ergo, he is a great shortstop. He can't be separated from his defense. Actually, I guess he could if he were a DH, but in that case, he wouldn't be great at all.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This post... man, that's just JORR in essence right there.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

So Starlin Castro is a great SS? Alexei Ramirez is a great SS?

_________________