In the "You Never Really Know What's Going on Behind

[bobbob1313]

I know it's obvious, or should be obvious, but bobbob is the one arguing that SLG is inconsequential.

 

It's not inconsequential, but OBP is more important. This can't be argue.

[Out of the Past]

It's not that SLG is inconsequential, but rather that, when comparing both to Runs, it is not on a 1:1 scale. It's more like 1.4:1 OBP:SLG. Going by that, if two players have the same OPS, the player with the better OBP is actually creating more runs. Ofcoarse there comes a point where OBP is so little and SLG is so much higher that a player with a higher SLG is going to be better than a player with a higher OBP, but in that case, the player with the higher SLG is going to have a higher OPS than the player with the higher OBP.

 

That's why I personally perfer the stat GPA, since it's basically (OBP*1.4)+SLG with ball park factors.

I agree that OBP is more important than SLG and your formula seems about right but with that said I think some of the OBP over all else crowd overstate how much more important OBP is than SLG.

 

Take two guys with the same OPS. How many more runs would a guy with .350 / .460 create than a guy with a .310 / .500 over 600 PAs? Like 3 or 4, right? Not a big number.

[Nny]

that's basically half a win.

 

combine that with the 7 other guys and you're talking about 4 wins.

 

it might be overblown but every little bit counts

[pierremvp1]

Go do some research on the subject before you talk about it again, please. You are coming off as really ignorant right now.

 

It's the typical get in line and goosestep with the rest of us or you're ignorant response I would expect from statheads.

 

My complaint is not with production stats - BA, OBP, SLG, there are too many legitimate ones to list here - but rather with the theoretical ones, and what goes with it, all players are the same, we could put a uniform on a number and it could play second base just as well a human being, is that they are the product of an immature set of theories masquerading as fact. There are two basic problems, the obsession and absolutism of those who probably know the least about it as evidenced here and that there simply are not enough variables invloved in formula construction to make most of it valid. By not taking enough factors into account the end-product is doomed to be nothing more than a cute number in a tutu dancing accross a computer screen.

 

I'm not anti-stat, they have their place as "a" tool, "a" consideration in the mix in the decision-making process, people forget a lot of what they are trying to quantify the brain is doing on the fly and much more effficiently only their frustration comes from not being able to deconstruct that cerebral analysis and get it down on paper. That's why to a person virtually everyone who plays baseball professionally say the word "clutch" represents something real, and of course the national anthem of statheads is "there's no such thing as clutch" and when confronted with the fact that players, the people actually doing the work not the bean-counters with their calculators see it differently, the universal, absolute, there is no wiggle room, it's our way or the highway, you moron get out of the way our bus is coming through stat-head answer is every baseball player is wrong. Or, not making myself to be on the same league as professional players, I'm simply ignorant because I don't buy your propaganda and agree to sign up in your war against baseball as a sport and not a video game.

 

It's not enough that I find value in some of it, if I don't subscribe 100% to this I am as you called me ignorant, and I've been called worse by your type. If I were to reach out my hand and say let's agree on this much at least the typical response is to slap me back for not accepting as gospel everything. So after a number of tmes watching that happen my solution to ignore all but straight production stats.

 

But getting back to the subject at hand, if somehow Jorge Cantu was able in 2008 to mimic his 2005 performance of 171 hits, 40 doubles, 28 homeruns and 117 RBIs and only 70 strikeouts in 600 ABs, I would be thrilled with that performance and gladly accept all his flaws like not getting on base as much as we'd like as part of the whole package. And you know what his OPS was that hot that season either but nothing beats driving in 117 runs in 162 games, except maybe driving in 118 runs in 162 games.

That's well written. I ascribe to basically the same theory regarding stats. They have their place. I do find the "lucky" stats an oxymoron though. And you do realize I'm sure that you're not going to make a dent in the statheads armor. If slavishly following stats makes them happy, so be it. To each his own. I personally think it's their loss. The refusal to care not a whit about "observation", the opinions one can have based on your own eyes, to me is part of the fun of the game. After all, MLB is not a computer program or a video game. It's real people. It's a business to the owners, but for the fans it should be a diversion and fun. I guess if delving deeply into uber sabre-stats is fun for the statheads, so be it.

Beam me up Scotty, WARP8.

[bobbob1313]

That's well written. I ascribe to basically the same theory regarding stats. They have their place. I do find the "lucky" stats an oxymoron though. And you do realize I'm sure that you're not going to make a dent in the statheads armor. If slavishly following stats makes them happy, so be it. To each his own. I personally think it's their loss. The refusal to care not a whit about "observation", the opinions one can have based on your own eyes, to me is part of the fun of the game. After all, MLB is not a computer program or a video game. It's real people. It's a business to the owners, but for the fans it should be a diversion and fun. I guess if delving deeply into uber sabre-stats is fun for the statheads, so be it.

Beam me up Scotty, WARP8.

 

See, the implication is that "statheads" (inarguably the dumbest insult ever) don't actually watch baseball. This is false. We use the stats to help us better understand the things we see because we understand that, with the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

 

And I suppose if we used something like "aberration" or "fluctuation" rather than luck (they'd mean the same thing in this context), there would be a lot less negativity towards it. But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

[Rabbethan]

But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

Like gravity.

[Rydawg]

That's well written. I ascribe to basically the same theory regarding stats. They have their place. I do find the "lucky" stats an oxymoron though. And you do realize I'm sure that you're not going to make a dent in the statheads armor. If slavishly following stats makes them happy, so be it. To each his own. I personally think it's their loss. The refusal to care not a whit about "observation", the opinions one can have based on your own eyes, to me is part of the fun of the game. After all, MLB is not a computer program or a video game. It's real people. It's a business to the owners, but for the fans it should be a diversion and fun. I guess if delving deeply into uber sabre-stats is fun for the statheads, so be it.

Beam me up Scotty, WARP8.

 

See, the implication is that "statheads" (inarguably the dumbest insult ever) don't actually watch baseball. This is false. We use the stats to help us better understand the things we see because we understand that, with the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

 

And I suppose if we used something like "aberration" or "fluctuation" rather than luck (they'd mean the same thing in this context), there would be a lot less negativity towards it. But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

 

I don't think statheads is meant as an insult, but more so a label. I mean, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think I can come up with a more creative insult than that. My apologies if it offends anyone. What would you prefer to be called??

 

Also, I never implied that you "whatevers" don't watch the games. It's pretty obvious that you do since you are a Marlins fan. However, I do think that you "whatevers" have never played the game of baseball. At least not a higher level than little league. Have ever seen a 90 mph fastball standing in the batters box? Have you ever made a great defensive play in an important game? Have you ever struck someone out? This of course is not meant as an insult either. Just trying to explain why some people have a better appreciation of the physical elements of the games, and not so much the mathematical side.

 

Either way it's all good. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. We can agree to have a different appreciation of the game. I do want to end this with one last statement. CHICS DIG THE LONG BALL!!! You can impress a chick with a big stick more easily than you can with a large calculator.. Or maybe not.. do the math and get back to me.. lol HR is the best stat of all time!!!!!!!

[pierremvp1]

But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

Like gravity.

Or friction.

Or Zombies.

the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

:blink:

[PitchingWinsGames]

Also, I never implied that you "whatevers" don't watch the games. It's pretty obvious that you do since you are a Marlins fan. However, I do think that you "whatevers" have never played the game of baseball. At least not a higher level than little league. Have ever seen a 90 mph fastball standing in the batters box? Have you ever made a great defensive play in an important game? Have you ever struck someone out? This of course is not meant as an insult either. Just trying to explain why some people have a better appreciation of the physical elements of the games, and not so much the mathematical side.

 

Either way it's all good. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. We can agree to have a different appreciation of the game. I do want to end this with one last statement. CHICS DIG THE LONG BALL!!! You can impress a chick with a big stick more easily than you can with a large calculator.. Or maybe not.. do the math and get back to me.. lol HR is the best stat of all time!!!!!!!

 

That's another thing that most people get wrong... A) That statement applies to most baseball fans... and to a lot of people that work in baseball, and B) Any and all statistical analysis is based on trends, the same type of analysis that is used in many common situations... weather, economics... etc. And no one remarks that "John Doe market analyst" never owned his own business when he made a model.

 

I think it's highly illogical to ignore either the talent/physical side, or the math/science side. I think that the SABR revolution has actually done an incredible service to the game by allowing guys to play at the major leagues that ordinarily wouldn't have if people just judged them by watching them. I mean, guys like Kevin Youkilis, Chad Bradford and the recently retired Jeremy Brown that didn't fit the "old" mold of ballplayers... how would you have felt if you were them and weren't allowed to play in the Majors because they didn't perform like ballplayers "should".

 

I do appreciate that you agree to disagree, though I didn't actually start in this conversation, I had to add my 2cents.

 

Thanks for your time

 

*edit* One more thing I felt I should add:

 

We can't argue the passion, the time and the effort ball players put into playing the game. Now I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'd rather be out PLAYING the game then sitting at a desk or table or computer charting data. I think that shows that SABR guys have an equivalent amount of passion for the game to devote their time to their own personal efforts regarding the game.

[bobbob1313]

the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

:blink:

 

Well, to put it another way, your mind exaggerates extremes and forgets mundane things. Which is why you remember Alex Rodriguez striking out with the bases loaded, but forget when he goes 2-5 with a double. Your mind has a limited capacity for information storage and so it tries to streamline the information it takes in. When this happens you lose alot along the way. Which is why judging strictly based on what you see isn't a very good way to judge almost anything.

 

You know the saying "my eyes are playing tricks on me"? It is a very true saying and it happens a lot. This is why I'm very skeptical of people who say they don't need stats because their eyes tell them everything they need to see. You can't possibly make informed decisions when you are remembering at best 20% of what you've seen.

 

There is one thing I've realized, recently. There are many (many) people who say they never look at stats (or they only look at like BA and ERA), but you will never hear any of the "statheads" say "I never watch baseball. I only look at stats." I just think that's funny.

 

And yeah, many of the SABR people have never played at a professional level, but 99% of all people who talk about baseball in any capacity (fan, or announcer) have never played it after little league. That argument doesn't hold any water for me. I just don't get the fiery opposition to new ways of thinking that many in the baseball community have.

[BroncoBob27]

Then look at teams with the same OBP and look at which one has the higher SLG

 

 

Now I might be mistaking what you're saying, but basicaly you're saying if two teams have the same OBP, the one with the higher SLG scores more runs?

 

I don't want this to come off the wrong way but wouldn't that be rather obvious? Both make outs at the same rate, but one has more TBs, ergo the one with more TBs should have more runs.

 

Or did I misunderstand what you said?

 

That's exactly what he's trying to say.

 

I'm not going to bother with him anymore on this subject since he's perfectly content with being willfully ignorant, as he showed when he said he stopped reading what CC posted after the 2nd sentence. There's no point having this discussion with him.

 

I'm more along the lines of 2003 than with you guys. Even on the point he touched with the name calling. I'm not a stathead by any means. At least not as deeply as some here. I fully believe in the theory the game is played between the lines with humans and not behind some computer with calculator in hand. Stats can be useful at times. At other times things are waaaayyy over "computed." And more times than not stats can be twisted and turned to "verify" completely different opinions on the same guy. Which is one of the main reasons I refuse to delve into stats too deeply.

 

How we got into this while we were talking about defense is beyond me. So let's get back to that for a bit. I do believe Castillo was the better defensive player, but Cantu isn't a slouch there either. That comes from actually going to the games and watching him. Not sitting behind a computer, or during the season watching him on TV, and then looking at the numbers. Because numbers can lie. Plain and simple. Goes hand and hand with the thinking Hanley isn's all that bad playing SS, because I think Miggy's lackadaisical play at 3RD the last couple years contributed to Hanley's "sloppy" play. Shot those negative numbers way up.

 

Right now Cantu seems to be a serviceable 3B. He can't be as bad defensively as what we have had there since the departure of Mikey. If he turns out better than what has actually been seen of his glove so far, it's a bonus. If the same thing, it's not a biggie. Like someone else said, he's a stopgap 3B. Someone to get us through until the prodigy is MLB ready.

 

Besides, he is the guy I was rooting for. And for no other reason I liked his name. Because I didn't really care which of the 3 actually won the spot. Until I saw Dallas play, then I was hoping he would be sent down. But we have already started our chant on the good plays and the HRs. "Yes he Cantu!!!" Silly way to pick a player? Yep, absolutely. But when you don't have the coaches' advantage of seeing them day to day and thusly don't really care which one gets the final nod, you go with what is fun and rely on the coaching staff to make the right decision.

[BroncoBob27]

That's well written. I ascribe to basically the same theory regarding stats. They have their place. I do find the "lucky" stats an oxymoron though. And you do realize I'm sure that you're not going to make a dent in the statheads armor. If slavishly following stats makes them happy, so be it. To each his own. I personally think it's their loss. The refusal to care not a whit about "observation", the opinions one can have based on your own eyes, to me is part of the fun of the game. After all, MLB is not a computer program or a video game. It's real people. It's a business to the owners, but for the fans it should be a diversion and fun. I guess if delving deeply into uber sabre-stats is fun for the statheads, so be it.

Beam me up Scotty, WARP8.

 

See, the implication is that "statheads" (inarguably the dumbest insult ever) don't actually watch baseball. This is false. We use the stats to help us better understand the things we see because we understand that, with the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

 

And I suppose if we used something like "aberration" or "fluctuation" rather than luck (they'd mean the same thing in this context), there would be a lot less negativity towards it. But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

 

I don't see "stathead" as an insult. Yall call yourselves that, dontcha?? But hey. If following the stats helps you enjoy the game that much more? Go for it. Some of us are going to continue to go with what we see and not get deep into the stats. I for one won't call you ignorant just because you rfuse to follow my way of thinking. Let's see how far that goes with you.

[BroncoBob27]

But people don't want to accept that there are things affecting the game on the field that are out of the control of the players.

Like gravity.

 

Or in De Aza's case, sprinkler heads.

[bobbob1313]

I fully believe in the theory the game is played between the lines with humans and not behind some computer with calculator in hand.

 

Is there anyone out there that does this? Seriously? Is there anyone on a major league roster that never shows up for the game, he just cruises google with a TI-83?

 

Is there anyone who believes that the game isn't played by humans? Seriously? Seriously? I hear that line of reasoning all of the time and it's so illogical I can't rap my mind around it.

[Rydawg]

the way the human mind is designed, you often see things that aren't really there.

:blink:

 

Well, to put it another way, your mind exaggerates extremes and forgets mundane things. Which is why you remember Alex Rodriguez striking out with the bases loaded, but forget when he goes 2-5 with a double. Your mind has a limited capacity for information storage and so it tries to streamline the information it takes in. When this happens you lose alot along the way. Which is why judging strictly based on what you see isn't a very good way to judge almost anything.

 

You know the saying "my eyes are playing tricks on me"? It is a very true saying and it happens a lot. This is why I'm very skeptical of people who say they don't need stats because their eyes tell them everything they need to see. You can't possibly make informed decisions when you are remembering at best 20% of what you've seen.

 

There is one thing I've realized, recently. There are many (many) people who say they never look at stats (or they only look at like BA and ERA), but you will never hear any of the "statheads" say "I never watch baseball. I only look at stats." I just think that's funny.

 

And yeah, many of the SABR people have never played at a professional level, but 99% of all people who talk about baseball in any capacity (fan, or announcer) have never played it after little league. That argument doesn't hold any water for me. I just don't get the fiery opposition to new ways of thinking that many in the baseball community have.

 

 

If that's case, why do major league teams send scouts to watch players before making a trade. Wouldn't a stat sheet tell them all they need to know? We're not saying stats are useless. They are a tool in the overall scheme of things when evaluating a player. But stats are just one part of the process. I have a saying for you also. "Seeing is believing".

[bobbob1313]

And nobody is saying scouting is useless.

[MarlinsLou]

:banghead

[rferry]

What happened that would make you think Castillo and the Marlins are clashing.

 

Teams regularly allow veterans seek out other jobs when they lose out on a starting job. It's not seen as anything terrible. It's rather respectful and professional of the two parties. The team doesn't want to tie the player to a back-up position. If the player wants to seek out other opportunities, they are often allowed to.

[Mungo]

Maybe they like Cantu's offensive upside and are willing to give up some defense for it.

 

We had loads of offense last year, and not much defense.

 

We won 71 games. :thumbdown

[EricWiener]

Maybe they like Cantu's offensive upside and are willing to give up some defense for it.

 

We had loads of offense last year, and not much defense.

 

We won 71 games. :thumbdown

 

We had pitchers that couldn't get outs, 16th out of 16 in pitching. If we had flawless defense we MIGHT have won 80. We lost a huge number of games in which we scored at least 4 runs.

[Mungo]

Maybe they like Cantu's offensive upside and are willing to give up some defense for it.

 

We had loads of offense last year, and not much defense.

 

We won 71 games. :thumbdown

 

We had pitchers that couldn't get outs, 16th out of 16 in pitching. If we had flawless defense we MIGHT have won 80. We lost a huge number of games in which we scored at least 4 runs.

 

True, but I still feel that if we had played some better defense, the pitching would not had been as important, and not as much pressure with close games. The offense got us leads in games, that we'd just give right back with lousy defense. The pitchers tightened up, instead of relaxing and getting guys out.

 

I'm not a "stathead" so I can't prove any of my theory, but it just comes from watching a lot of the games, it seemed as though many of the pitchers felt they had to press more than they should have, and of course that leads to more pitching mistakes. Isn't this just common sense ? :shifty

[bobbob1313]

I've never believed that pitchers pitch worse when they are pressing. Our terrible defense didn't help our pitching, but not for that reason. It hurt our pitching for very tangible reasons. Defense and pitching are inextricable linked.

[Nny]

Our defense cost us roughly 50-70 runs via several defensive metrics. That's 5-7 wins.

[Hotcorner]

Back to Cantu for a moment... I don't know why but I completely forgot he's only 26. For some reason I keep thinking he's an older guy.

 

There was a good article in the Herald about the strength training during the offseason he went through. Hey, wouldn't be the biggest shock in the world for Cantu to have a nice comeback season. Presley loves what he's seen from him in the spring, and by most accounts he's been adequate defensively.

 

I'll keep expectations to a minimum.

[Wild Card]

And an NL scout said he's been swinging the bat just as well this spring as anyone has ever seen him.