I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

Alot of folks feel that way. I'm not one of them. I like small ball. But I just can't remember the last time I saw Olivo lay down a bunt. Maybe he's just not very good at it. The guy does have 14 doubles, 3 triples, and 9 dingers. Letting him bat was the right decision, IMO. I wasn't too happy with the batting order either, but with Hanley out Fredi obviously feels he needs to mix things up a bit.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

could not have agreed more

34 career GDP. 82 career doubles.

 

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

 

i am loving this comedy night thing

 

For someone who doesn't know anything about baseball, you sure are an arrogant prick.

 

 

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm arrogant, I just thought that was funny. Aside from being "Someone who doesn't know anything about baseball (I enter a plea of not guilty to these charges)," I am also someone who enjoys logical and rational thinking.

 

To say that "Olivo had about the same chance to knock a double as he did a double play" is wildly illogical and irrational. It has nothing to do with his 35 GDP and 82 2B in his career or his numbers this season (11 GDP, 14 2B). To reach 2nd base safely, Olivo has to either pray for an error or hit the ball hard as he tends to do occasionally. The potential for him to not hit the ball hard greatly exceeds that of hitting the ball hard and reaching 2nd base. In that scenario, with a runner on 1st base, the chances of a double play are significantly increased if Olivo fails to hit the ball hard, which is what he is more likely to do. He did not remotely have the same chance to hit a double as he did a double play.

 

Matt Treanor would have hit a 3 run homer.

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm arrogant, I just thought that was funny. Aside from being "Someone who doesn't know anything about baseball (I enter a plea of not guilty to these charges)," I am also someone who enjoys logical and rational thinking.

 

To say that "Olivo had about the same chance to knock a double as he did a double play" is wildly illogical and irrational. It has nothing to do with his 35 GDP and 82 2B in his career or his numbers this season (11 GDP, 14 2B).

The one thing you get right is the fact that career GDP vs. 2B stats are pretty meaningless. The reason for that, however, is not because of Olivo's current season stats. It's because they are not fair comparisons. Olivo has the opportunity to hit a double every time he comes to an at-bat. Olivo only has the opportunity to hit into a double play when there are force outs. Therefore, you'd have to look at Olivo's DP%, which tells you how often he hit into a double play when in a double play situation. (I'll post that number in my response to the second part of your post)

 

To reach 2nd base safely, Olivo has to either pray for an error or hit the ball hard as he tends to do occasionally. The potential for him to not hit the ball hard greatly exceeds that of hitting the ball hard and reaching 2nd base. In that scenario, with a runner on 1st base, the chances of a double play are significantly increased if Olivo fails to hit the ball hard, which is what he is more likely to do. He did not remotely have the same chance to hit a double as he did a double play.

Here's where your analysis runs into some trouble. You have absolutely no proof to confirm anything that you're saying here. You try to break down the situation into a variety of outcomes, but that breakdown is incomplete and unfounded. From what I read, you have nothing to substantiate a claim like, "the chances of a double play are significantly increased if Olivo fails to hit the ball hard, which is what he is more likely to do," except gut feelings and incomplete memories of past observations. Given that, the conclusions you reach based on those assumptions are not compelling, at least for me.

 

The great thing is that we have stats which allow to perform a substantive analysis of this one in-game situation and determine with greater certainty than what instincts tell us what the manager should have done. So, let's do just that. (Note: I'm using Olivo's career stats because they are similar to his current season stats and offer us a bigger sample size, which increases the confidence we can have in the conclusions)

 

Probability Olivo hits into a double play (according to Baseball Prospectus' DP%) - 14.1%

Probability Olivo gets a single - 14.38% (248 career singles / 1,724 career PA)

Probability Olivo gets a double - 4.76% (82 career doubles / 1.724 PA)

Probability Olivo gets a triple - 0.75% (13 career triples / 1,724 PA)

Probability Olivo gets a home run - 3.13% (54 career HR / 1,724 PA)

Probability Olivo draws a walk - 3.77% (65 career BBs / 1,724 PA)

Probability Olivo gets an out that isn't a double play (i.e. only 1 out) - 59.11% (Subtract 100% by all the other probabilities)

 

Now, if you calculate the expected value of an Olivo at-bat using the runs table that's been cited earlier, you get that the expected value of an Olivo at-bat in a double play situation is -0.13 runs.

 

The expected value of a successful bunt by Olivo is -0.1 runs. The difference between the two outcomes is negligible. Under normal circumstances, giving up an out with a bunt is counterproductive, but Olivo's inability to draw a walk to save his life really hurts his value as a potentially productive hitter in that situation. However, there is something to keep in mind before anyone looks at this analysis as confirmation that he should have bunted or that the decision is a wash. The expected value of -0.1 runs for a bunt is for an at-bat where the hitter successfully bunts in that situation. There's definite uncertainty that Olivo will be able to successfully drop down a bunt that advances the runners, especially given that he's only dropped down at most 3 successful bunts since he's been a Marlin. That uncertainty increases the risk of a bunt because if he fails it probably leaves him in a 2 strike hole.

 

So, the decision is only a wash if you're almost 100% confident Olivo can drop down that bunt. If there's even the slightest doubt he can do it, you're statistically better off just letting him hit. I think Fredi made the right call.

my whole point was that they are not fair comparisons because of the conditions needed for a double play (runner on 1st in this case).

 

consider this: is it more likely Olivo will hit the ball on the button or hit it poorly? his avg, obp, slg, and ops demonstrate that Olivo has a much greater chance of doing nothing productive than hitting a double.

 

the bottom line regardless of all of this:

 

fredi better never hit olivo 6th again

My problem with stats like those is that it doesn't break down the situation far enough.

 

Those numbers include LHP.

 

He rakes LHP.

 

He can't hit RHP.

 

Skews the numbers and don't actually show the right percentages for the situation at hand.

 

Doing the math over again:

 

Chance of single (172 singles/1228 PA) - 13.4%

Chance of double (51 doubles) - 4.0%

Chance of triple (10 triples) - 0.8%

Chance of home run (30 HRs) - 2.3%

Chance of walk (48 bbs) - 3.7%

 

As you can see, everything goes down, and I'd imagine his DP% chance goes up aswell. His chance of making an out now? 75.8%. 3 out of 4 times, he fails us. Baseball is a game of failure but that's ridiculous.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

This post brought to you by:

 

 

 

Backyard Baseball: Play With the Pros as Kids!

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

This post brought to you by:

 

 

 

Backyard Baseball: Play With the Pros as Kids!

 

:notworthy

 

We've had way too many 'yup, those are our fans' moments lately.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

This post brought to you by:

 

 

 

Backyard Baseball: Play With the Pros as Kids!

 

:notworthy

 

We've had way too many 'yup, those are our fans' moments lately.

 

It's not just Marlins fans, for the record. This is how most baseball fans and Joe Morgan worshippers think.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

 

Posts made using statistics are more enlightening than the 2-3 sentence ramblings we get from the "see with their eyes" crowd. If you were a scout, the opinion on "what you see with your eyes" would be worth a sh*t. But since no one on here is a scout, those posts should be greatly discouraged. Those posts only 1) make you look dumb 2) make the board look dumb.

 

Enlightening discussion > all other discussion

 

Statistics don't lie, they tell a non-biased story. If you want to disregard them with the usual " :lol stat head" posts, you're only hurting your development of the understanding of the game and adding nothing to the discussion.

 

Read SonsOfSamHorn.com and NYYFans.com.

 

SOSH is mostly a stat site. NYYFans are the "see with your eyes" crowd. Huge difference in content.

bottom line is Olivo and Gonzalez both suck and I would trade both of them and Eric Reed for the unretirement of Perry Hill and some guest appearances by Gary Tuck

Admin Beinfest for President

I love stats but I think some of you go overboard with them for example using CERA which is completely useless or someone quoting 76 different stats to prove a point and then concluding that such and such happened because of good luck or bad luck.

I love stats but I think some of you go overboard with them for example using CERA which is completely useless or someone quoting 76 different stats to prove a point and then concluding that such and such happened because of good luck or bad luck.

 

 

Im in the same boat as Polo.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

 

Posts made using statistics are more enlightening than the 2-3 sentence ramblings we get from the "see with their eyes" crowd. If you were a scout, the opinion on "what you see with your eyes" would be worth a sh*t. But since no one on here is a scout, those posts should be greatly discouraged. Those posts only 1) make you look dumb 2) make the board look dumb.

 

Enlightening discussion > all other discussion

 

Statistics don't lie, they tell a non-biased story. If you want to disregard them with the usual " :lol stat head" posts, you're only hurting your development of the understanding of the game and adding nothing to the discussion.

 

Read SonsOfSamHorn.com and NYYFans.com.

 

SOSH is mostly a stat site. NYYFans are the "see with your eyes" crowd. Huge difference in content.

 

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team. Real live baseball is far different than fantasy baseball. Deal with it.

Stats do lie. They can be used to tell any story you want them to. Numbers are continually twisted and turned to say whatever the poster wants them to. And especially with young players that are basically still honeing their skills. Using just stats and exaggerated faults, "1.)make you look dumb 2.)make the board look dumb." Add if the fact that most posters here continually exaggerate the faults and ignore the pluses of certain players and you have a very lop sided view.

You want to have a difference of opinion? Fine. You want to start with the name calling? That's another thing. You don't like my views? Just don't read them. I have no problem at all with that.

I love stats but I think some of you go overboard with them for example using CERA which is completely useless or someone quoting 76 different stats to prove a point and then concluding that such and such happened because of good luck or bad luck.

 

 

Im in the same boat as Polo.

 

Not a stat guy at all, as is very obvious. But you both touched on something there. A brushing of what I mean by exaggerating the faults and ignoring the pluses.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

 

Posts made using statistics are more enlightening than the 2-3 sentence ramblings we get from the "see with their eyes" crowd. If you were a scout, the opinion on "what you see with your eyes" would be worth a sh*t. But since no one on here is a scout, those posts should be greatly discouraged. Those posts only 1) make you look dumb 2) make the board look dumb.

 

Enlightening discussion > all other discussion

 

Statistics don't lie, they tell a non-biased story. If you want to disregard them with the usual " :lol stat head" posts, you're only hurting your development of the understanding of the game and adding nothing to the discussion.

 

Read SonsOfSamHorn.com and NYYFans.com.

 

SOSH is mostly a stat site. NYYFans are the "see with your eyes" crowd. Huge difference in content.

 

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team. Real live baseball is far different than fantasy baseball. Deal with it.

Stats do lie. They can be used to tell any story you want them to. Numbers are continually twisted and turned to say whatever the poster wants them to. And especially with young players that are basically still honeing their skills. Using just stats and exaggerated faults, "1.)make you look dumb 2.)make the board look dumb." Add if the fact that most posters here continually exaggerate the faults and ignore the pluses of certain players and you have a very lop sided view.

You want to have a difference of opinion? Fine. You want to start with the name calling? That's another thing. You don't like my views? Just don't read them. I have no problem at all with that.

 

I love your condescending tone as you dig a nice little hole in the sand to put your head in to block out all of the nasty stats. "I don't need no computers to tell me how to play baseball. What do computers know about baseball?"

 

There is a difference between fantasy baseball and using statistics to judge and compare different players. If you can't see that then there's no point even trying to discuss anything with you. Try getting out of your high tower and stop dismissing things you don't understand out of hand.

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team. Real live baseball is far different than fantasy baseball. Deal with it.

Stats do lie. They can be used to tell any story you want them to. Numbers are continually twisted and turned to say whatever the poster wants them to. And especially with young players that are basically still honeing their skills. Using just stats and exaggerated faults, "1.)make you look dumb 2.)make the board look dumb." Add if the fact that most posters here continually exaggerate the faults and ignore the pluses of certain players and you have a very lop sided view.

You want to have a difference of opinion? Fine. You want to start with the name calling? That's another thing. You don't like my views? Just don't read them. I have no problem at all with that.

 

I love how you make it an either/or thing. Like we're either scouring the internet for stats OR we're watching the games. Maybe you don't realize it, but we watch the games too. However, we're not arrogant enough to think that we can formulate a complete opinion based solely on our observations. You go to the games and watch these kids progress. Congratulations! So do the stat heads. Moreover, the idea that you're going to go solely by what your eyes tells you is just intellectual laziness mixed in with a good dose of naivete. Forgive me I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine how you are able to watch every single major league game AND be the only individual on the planet not subject to memory flaws like confirmation bias and the peak-end rule that psychology says EVERYONE has. I mean if you're the exception, more power to you. Unfortunately, I'm not in possession of a photographic memory or a time machine, so I have to rely on a computer. On the plus side, it's probably cheaper and easier to maintain.

 

As for the point that stats lie because they can be twisted and turned to suit one's need, no one is denying that CERTAIN statistics are less useful than others. The problem that you seem to have is that you make the huge assumption that all statistics are intended to answer the same question or are considered equally useful. Take a statistic like batting average, that's a very useful statistic is someone asks, "How often does Player X get a hit?" Now, if someone asks "How good is Player X," batting average is a really bad statistic to use. Admittedly, some people misrepresent statistics, use the wrong ones, and don't really comprehend the importance of statistical concepts like confidence intervals and sample size. That's why I appreciate posts like Ensam's which appropriately question whether more relevant statistics can be used. However, are you going to tell me that judgments made from observations are not just as likely, if not more so, to be misrepresented and overgeneralized? Reggie Abercrombie hit a monster HR last year in RFK. If someone came to the conclusion, "Whoa! Abercrombie must be awesome" based solely on that at-bat, he'd be tragically wrong. Now, based on your line of reasoning, I can't have faith in judgments I make from what I see because some people come to really dumb conclusions based on what they see.

 

Another thing, I find it really funny that you accuse stat people of exaggerating faults and ignoring pluses when the entire stat movement basically started because traditional scouting was doing just that. "Player X sucks; he strikes out too much" is a common statement made by people who don't rely on statistics. This is an exaggeration of faults because, as people like bobbob have mentioned time and again, strikeouts are no different than a pop fly or ground out 90-95% of the time. It's things like this and the fact that front offices seem to be filled with people who buy into this crap that a player like Adam Dunn probably won't get paid his true value. As for the ignoring of plusses, how about the fact that most front offices were really behind the curve on the importance of on-base percentage. Moneyball is an entire book about a team that picked up undervalued players because teams that follow your approach ignored their valuable skill sets. So please, spare me the generalizations.

CrimsonCane = The Man

HOF nominated.

the only real problem I have with Fredi (besides the fact they are giving Hermida the Milledge treatment) is that he is way too intimidated by the media

 

I had lunch with someone today who said that really is the only thing the FO is put off about right now

 

Fredi is used to coaching minor leaguers and in the minors you don't really go to the media or throw blame around

 

up in the show is a different story

BroncoBob27 = annoying

BroncoBob27 = annoying

 

You can use all of the stats you want to say that he's annoying, but at the end of the day, all that matters is what I can see with my eyes. And what I see is a guy who is still young and still improving, and you can't judge how annoying a young poster is with stats.

My quick two cents about statistics...

 

For one, I think there is a pretty common tendecy to misuse statistics. The use of statistics is an attempt to apply numeral metrics to situations that are sometimes hard to quantify. Further, every statistic is limited by the factors it ignores...and no statistic takes into account every factor. Even if somehow you could quantify every factor, the process of weighting the factors is far too subjective to come up with an objective measure.

 

Next, let's not forget that in most instances we are relying on statistics to predict future results. One statistical aberration that is seemingly immune to statiscal analysis is the "streakiness" of a player. You can show me every statistic in the book that says X bullpen pitcher is lights out, but if he imploded the night before and looked shaky in pregame tossing, I think it's probably safe to trust your eyes and not the statistics.

 

The best point of all that was made earlier - know what the statistic means. Don't tell me that X pitcher is not having a great year if his ERA is low, but his WHIP is relatively high. Last time I checked, runs are recorded in baseball when a runner crosses home plate. You can argue that the WHIP indicates that he could be destined for trouble down the road, but don't tell me that he hasn't been pitching will.

 

Most of all, remember that there's not a statistic out there that will tell you who the best pitcher/batter is.