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

[Rydawg]

What do you mean that a formula for "real, tangible production" hasn't been created yet? There are plenty of them out there that take into account everything tangible that a player does. WARP, for instance. Cantu in 05 was worth 3.0 wins based on everything he did that season at the plate and in the field.

 

 

You have to be kidding! WARP?? What is this? Star Trek? What's the next stat to come out ? MACH? Do you seriously believe that you can come up with a stat that tells you how many wins a player is worth? I can't believe statheads expect to be taken seriously with stuff like that.

[Rabbethan]

What do you mean that a formula for "real, tangible production" hasn't been created yet? There are plenty of them out there that take into account everything tangible that a player does. WARP, for instance. Cantu in 05 was worth 3.0 wins based on everything he did that season at the plate and in the field.

 

 

You have to be kidding! WARP?? What is this? Star Trek? What's the next stat to come out ? MACH? Do you seriously believe that you can come up with a stat that tells you how many wins a player is worth? I can't believe statheads expect to be taken seriously with stuff like that.

If you were being facetious, that was awesome. If not....you should also stop listening to those who speak of RBIs because it reminds me of a barbecue. Next thing you know, they will be telling us that Hanley Ramirez has 32.1 PORK.

[EricWiener]

No. You are wrong. 117 RBIs is not a meaningless number it represents real people crossing a real plate scoring real runs in real games.

 

117 RBIs is significant to the team because it is runs actually score, but it is not a good stat to judge a player by. RBIs reflect many things outside of that player's control / performance. I happen to think that players that are consitant RBI men don't get the respect they deserve from my fellow stat heads, but a single season, or even a few seasons of good-RBI productions has as much to do with the other players as it does with the man with the stat.

 

OPS has a correlation to scoring that cannot be denied. OBP is inherently the capacity to score and SLG is inherently the capacity to drive runs in. Pretty much every other offensive stat is meaningless as an indicator of run scoring potential.

[Marlins2003]

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.

[Rydawg]

What do you mean that a formula for "real, tangible production" hasn't been created yet? There are plenty of them out there that take into account everything tangible that a player does. WARP, for instance. Cantu in 05 was worth 3.0 wins based on everything he did that season at the plate and in the field.

 

 

You have to be kidding! WARP?? What is this? Star Trek? What's the next stat to come out ? MACH? Do you seriously believe that you can come up with a stat that tells you how many wins a player is worth? I can't believe statheads expect to be taken seriously with stuff like that.

If you were being facetious, that was awesome. If not....you should also stop listening to those who speak of RBIs because it reminds me of a barbecue. Next thing you know, they will be telling us that Hanley Ramirez has 32.1 PORK.

 

It was meant as humor. However, I do think that all of these saber stats are redundant and they just over analyze everthing. For example, I can't stand OPS. What's the need for it. I know when a player has a good OBP, or a good slug %. Why do I need to combine the two? Also, If a leadoff hitter has a good OBP but a low slug % because he doesn't have much power, his OPS will suffer. Now does that not make him a good leadoff hitter ? Slugging has nothing to do with getting on base from the leadoff spot and doing your job. Now, I realize that the great players will have a high OPS because they can get on base, and hit for power, but do I really need to see an OPS # to realize that Pujols, or Cabrera, or Hanley are great players? Not really..

 

Tony Gwynn has a career OPS of 847. Not bad, but nothing to brag about. Is he not in the Hall of Fame? Andre Dawson has a carerr OPS of 805. Again, not terrible, but not great either. Would you not want either of these two guys in the Marlins outfield? I sure would.

 

I'm not saying that stats don't have their place, but what I am saying is that they are not the end all be all. Especially when you combine stats. You will argue that stats such as RBI, Runs scored, and batting average are overrated, and that arguement does have some merit. However, those are simple stats that can gauge a players success fairly accurate. You can see a run batted in, a run scored, or a player get a hit and have it affect his batting average. When you bring up stuff like WARP (Wins over average replacement player..something like that), it just becomes mind boggling. I mean how do you quantify that? You need some kind of mathematical formula. Can you tell when a players WARP goes up or down by watching a game. Damn, Hanley just popped up to second, there goes his WARP..

 

In reference to the subject at hand, Cantu over Castillo offensively makes a lot of sense. Do you think that if Cantu replicates his 05' season, over an average Castillo season, that it would only be worth 3 wins for the Marlins? WARP takes into account wins over an average players production. However, in our case we don't have an average third baseman. Not Castillo, not Lee Mitchell, McPherson, or Amezega. Now what? What would you compare Cantu's stats too? Because we sure don't have the finances to go get an average third baseman. To me the choice is simple. Cantu over Castillo (offensively speaking) and that is worth much more than 3 wins if Cantu can produce 05' numbers.

 

Finally, stats can tell you what has happened in the past, but are not as accurate in predicting the future. Guys play hurt one year, or peak on another year, and decline in yet another year. This is a physical (as opposed to a video game) game, played by real humans. Humans that have bad days, and good days, bad years, and good years, painful years and painless years. Stats can't quantify the Human aspect of the game, and I think that is the biggest problem that guys like 2003 and myself have with these stats. I can respect the fact that some people use these stats, and can even admit they have some merit, but I will not be told that I can't understand what I am seeing on the field with my own two eyes because of some mathematical equation.

[EricWiener]

What do you mean that a formula for "real, tangible production" hasn't been created yet? There are plenty of them out there that take into account everything tangible that a player does. WARP, for instance. Cantu in 05 was worth 3.0 wins based on everything he did that season at the plate and in the field.

 

 

You have to be kidding! WARP?? What is this? Star Trek? What's the next stat to come out ? MACH? Do you seriously believe that you can come up with a stat that tells you how many wins a player is worth? I can't believe statheads expect to be taken seriously with stuff like that.

If you were being facetious, that was awesome. If not....you should also stop listening to those who speak of RBIs because it reminds me of a barbecue. Next thing you know, they will be telling us that Hanley Ramirez has 32.1 PORK.

 

It was meant as humor. However, I do think that all of these saber stats are redundant and they just over analyze everthing. For example, I can't stand OPS. What's the need for it. I know when a player has a good OBP, or a good slug %. Why do I need to combine the two? Also, If a leadoff hitter has a good OBP but a low slug % because he doesn't have much power, his OPS will suffer. Now does that not make him a good leadoff hitter ? Slugging has nothing to do with getting on base from the leadoff spot and doing your job.

Except that the #6-9 hitters need to be driven in also. The job of every hitter, regardless of where they hit in the lineup, is to not get out and take extra bases. Everything else is fluff.

 

You cited Tony Gwynn's .847 as not something to brag about... and you are just plain wrong. Gwynn's OPS is outstanding and HoF worthy. A reliable .850ish OF is something great in today's era of inflated offensive stats, and much more so in the 80s and early 90s.

I'd take the pre-injury Andre Dawson and the 'no longer on turf' Dawson, and pretty much ignore the last few Expos season and the last 5-6 years when he should have retired already. BTW, I don't think Dawson should be in the HoF, and I know that is a minority opinion.

[EricWiener]

Once last thing... Cantu is just keeping the seat warm for now.

[Rydawg]

No. You are wrong. 117 RBIs is not a meaningless number it represents real people crossing a real plate scoring real runs in real games.

 

117 RBIs is significant to the team because it is runs actually score, but it is not a good stat to judge a player by. RBIs reflect many things outside of that player's control / performance. I happen to think that players that are consitant RBI men don't get the respect they deserve from my fellow stat heads, but a single season, or even a few seasons of good-RBI productions has as much to do with the other players as it does with the man with the stat.

 

OPS has a correlation to scoring that cannot be denied. OBP is inherently the capacity to score and SLG is inherently the capacity to drive runs in. Pretty much every other offensive stat is meaningless as an indicator of run scoring potential.

 

Because you can't drive in runs with a single? RBI's are the result of a player being put in a position to drive in a run, and that player producing. The key ingredient is the production. If the player fails to produce in those situations, time and again, he will not have many RBI's, and most likely won't be kept in the lineup. Players hit 3rd and 4th for a reason. Because they can produce more often than not with men on base.

[bobbob1313]

Yeah, you win baseball games because you score more runs, but there is almost a 100% correlation between a team's OBP and it's runs scored. The top 5 teams in runs scored and OBP will almost always be very similar every year.

The correlation between team OPS and runs scored is way stronger than the correlation between team OBP and runs scored.

 

Why do you blow-off SLG as if it's inconsequential?

 

We did this once before. CrimsonCane realized that OBP was like 4 times more important in OPS than SLG%. Why? Because not making outs is the most important thing you can do in baseball as a hitter.

 

This is my whole point. Fine, if you want to blow off WARP or any of the other SABR stats, thats fine. But OBP isn't a SABR stat. It's simply the single most important stat available to you as a baseball fan, because if tells you one thing: How good a player is at not making outs. And Jorge Cantu isn't very good at that. Neither was Andre Dawson, which is why he's not a HOFer, but thats another discussion.

[EricWiener]

Because you can't drive in runs with a single?

 

Singles add to SLG%.

[bobbob1313]

Rydawg, you are taking the effect and making it the cause. The guys who drive in runs because they are good hitters who hit 3rd and 4th. They don't hit 3rd and 4th because they have some innate inherent ability to drive in runs better than other people.

[Out of the Past]

Yeah, you win baseball games because you score more runs, but there is almost a 100% correlation between a team's OBP and it's runs scored. The top 5 teams in runs scored and OBP will almost always be very similar every year.

The correlation between team OPS and runs scored is way stronger than the correlation between team OBP and runs scored.

 

Why do you blow-off SLG as if it's inconsequential?

 

We did this once before. CrimsonCane realized that OBP was like 4 times more important in OPS than SLG%. Why? Because not making outs is the most important thing you can do in baseball as a hitter.

I remember his post and his conclusion but unfortunately I was lost after the second sentence.

 

This will take 2 minutes. Sort the NL stats by OBP for each year from '01 to '07. Then look at teams with the same OBP and look at which one has the higher SLG. The team with the higher SLG scored more runs in 30 of the 35 cases (looked quickly so I may be slighlty off but still!). I don't think that's a coincidence. What is your explanation for this? Mine is that SLG is very important when it comes to scoring runs.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggreg...ng&type=reg

[Rydawg]

What do you mean that a formula for "real, tangible production" hasn't been created yet? There are plenty of them out there that take into account everything tangible that a player does. WARP, for instance. Cantu in 05 was worth 3.0 wins based on everything he did that season at the plate and in the field.

 

 

You have to be kidding! WARP?? What is this? Star Trek? What's the next stat to come out ? MACH? Do you seriously believe that you can come up with a stat that tells you how many wins a player is worth? I can't believe statheads expect to be taken seriously with stuff like that.

If you were being facetious, that was awesome. If not....you should also stop listening to those who speak of RBIs because it reminds me of a barbecue. Next thing you know, they will be telling us that Hanley Ramirez has 32.1 PORK.

 

It was meant as humor. However, I do think that all of these saber stats are redundant and they just over analyze everthing. For example, I can't stand OPS. What's the need for it. I know when a player has a good OBP, or a good slug %. Why do I need to combine the two? Also, If a leadoff hitter has a good OBP but a low slug % because he doesn't have much power, his OPS will suffer. Now does that not make him a good leadoff hitter ? Slugging has nothing to do with getting on base from the leadoff spot and doing your job.

Except that the #6-9 hitters need to be driven in also. The job of every hitter, regardless of where they hit in the lineup, is to not get out and take extra bases. Everything else is fluff.

 

You cited Tony Gwynn's .847 as not something to brag about... and you are just plain wrong. Gwynn's OPS is outstanding and HoF worthy. A reliable .850ish OF is something great in today's era of inflated offensive stats, and much more so in the 80s and early 90s.

I'd take the pre-injury Andre Dawson and the 'no longer on turf' Dawson, and pretty much ignore the last few Expos season and the last 5-6 years when he should have retired already. BTW, I don't think Dawson should be in the HoF, and I know that is a minority opinion.

 

I agree with you that Gwynn is hall worthy. And we can agree or disagree that .847 is a great OPS. I really don't care because as I stated I think it's a stupid stat. But, do you see what you just did with the Dawson arguement? Even though you don't think he is HOF, which is irrelevant in this discussion, you must think he was a very good player. You had to erase his last 5-6 season and his last few Expos seasons to explain why such a good player has a low OPS. You took the human aspect out of it. Age, and bad knees. All I am saying is that stats are useful, but they don't tell the entire story of the on field product. Mathematical equations can't tell me what my eyes can see.

[Rydawg]

Because you can't drive in runs with a single?

 

Singles add to SLG%.

 

 

And if you hit nothing but singles, your slg% would be??? Terrible

[Lane1974]

why is the consternation with having Cantu winning the job over Castillo with Castillo's career OBPs of .298, .307, .299, and .270, and OPS of .666, .724, .682, and .604? Or is it his career K/BB ratio of 297/84? It's not like they are cutting Miggy for Cantu's bat. Much ado about nothing, in the long run this is going to be like Pokey Reese retiring - it seemed like a bigger deal when it happened than it turned out to be. Castillo would be nothing more than a defensive replacement, and that is what Amezega can do. Wood is more likely to be a better pinch hitter than Castillo would, not to mention who knows if Castillo would mentally be accepting of that role, he has been a clubhouse problem in Pittsburgh.

[EricWiener]

Because you can't drive in runs with a single?

 

Singles add to SLG%.

 

 

And if you hit nothing but singles, your slg% would be??? Terrible

 

If you are a singles hitter that hits .350, and draws 50 walks you'd have an .800 OPS. That how both Ichiro Suzuki and Josh Willingham can be valuable players. Singles add to SLG%.

[bobbob1313]

why is the consternation with having Cantu winning the job over Castillo with Castillo's career OBPs of .298, .307, .299, and .270, and OPS of .666, .724, .682, and .604? Or is it his career K/BB ratio of 297/84? It's not like they are cutting Miggy for Cantu's bat. Much ado about nothing, in the long run this is going to be like Pokey Reese retiring - it seemed like a bigger deal when it happened than it turned out to be. Castillo would be nothing more than a defensive replacement, and that is what Amezega can do. Wood is more likely to be a better pinch hitter than Castillo would, not to mention who knows if Castillo would mentally be accepting of that role, he has been a clubhouse problem in Pittsburgh.

 

My point is this:

 

A) If our focus is on defense this season, which has been Fredi's biggest talking point, then there's no reason for Cantu to be there.

 

B ) Cantu is not very good, and people are talking about him as if he's anything more than a marginal offensive player.

[EricWiener]

All I am saying is that stats are useful, but they don't tell the entire story of the on field product. Mathematical equations can't tell me what my eyes can see.

 

No, stats do represent the on field product, they don't cite the causes (bad knees, age, player needs new contact lenses, stupid hitting coach) but they do show the results. Mathematical equations can show you that what your eyes see is not reliable.

[Nny]

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?

[EricWiener]

why is the consternation with having Cantu winning the job over Castillo with Castillo's career OBPs of .298, .307, .299, and .270, and OPS of .666, .724, .682, and .604? Or is it his career K/BB ratio of 297/84? It's not like they are cutting Miggy for Cantu's bat. Much ado about nothing, in the long run this is going to be like Pokey Reese retiring - it seemed like a bigger deal when it happened than it turned out to be. Castillo would be nothing more than a defensive replacement, and that is what Amezega can do. Wood is more likely to be a better pinch hitter than Castillo would, not to mention who knows if Castillo would mentally be accepting of that role, he has been a clubhouse problem in Pittsburgh.

 

My point is this:

 

A) If our focus is on defense this season, which has been Fredi's biggest talking point, then there's no reason for Cantu to be there.

 

B ) Cantu is not very good, and people are talking about him as if he's anything more than a marginal offensive player.

 

 

A) If our focus is on defense this season (and I don't mean making our extant quality hitters into better fielders), then we are preparing to make some very bad decisions.

 

B) Cantu is the best hitter that we can use to play 3B, that isn't still recovering from injury, and he isn't a butcher in the field. He's keeping the seat warm for now.

[bobbob1313]

A) If our focus is on defense this season (and I don't mean making our extant quality hitters into better fielders), then we are preparing to make some very bad decisions.

 

B) Cantu is the best hitter that we can use to play 3B, that isn't still recovering from injury, and he isn't a butcher in the field. He's keeping the seat warm for now.

 

Believe me, I agree with both of your points, I'm just pointing out why releasing Castillo isn't in line with the team's stated goals.

[bobbob1313]

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.

[Out of the Past]

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?

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

[Out of the Past]

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.

That's not what I said. I said I was lost two sentences in, not that I stopped reading after two sentences. There's a difference. Although I consider him a smart and credible poster that doesn't mean I have to agree with his conclusions on an analysis that I don't understand.

[Nny]

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.