Bobby Cox gets 1800th win

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I love James - and I'm going to try to dig up this work - but doesn't he have to be able to predict the future a bit with this analysis?

Yes, and this is a valid criticism. Suppose that it turns out in 2020 that the best manager of all time was Bob Brenly, now in his second year (I doubt that this will happen, but it could). That would make Brenly the "best current manager" but that is unknowable at this point in time. So James, just as he does to pick the best current players in baseball, uses the best model he can develop along with past performance data to make his rankings.

To give an example of what you are alluding to, suppose that Mike Ryan of the Minnesota Twins, the guy with the two-hits-and-two-runs-and-two-RBI-in-one-inning debut the other day that was erased by the rainstorm, is actually not only the best left fielder in the game today, but the best left fielder in the history of the game. No one would know this, and no one could know this at this point in time. No matter who ranked left fielders, or how they did it, Ryan would not rank first. But he might actually be not only the best current left fielder in the game but also the best left fielder in the history of the game - or he might be one of the worst. We can't know what he is until he shows us on the field. This is why we have to use real data in our models.

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


Studies have shown that some people say they believe in things that they really don't, and some say they don't believe in things that they really do. Religion is an area especially prone to this. Why?

We obvoiusly don't need to rehash the religion topic again

I guess I find it odd that a statement by a person saying they like something (since that person obviously knows their feelings better than others) can be thought of as an opinion, yet a conclusion brought about by data presented by someone else (such as the James data instance) is something more than an opinion.
And, if someone saying they definitively like something is still just an opinion, isn't somebody saying they believe a formula/analysis to be a valid measure of something (such as your apparent belief that James' analysis is a valid tool) be an opinion too. In essence, aren't you saying you like James' method of evaluating managers? How is that different than someone saying they like a milkshake?

Again, I am not arguing the merits of James' research in the slightest, since I have not read it as it pertains to managers. It just seems a bit strange that someone saying they like something in one instance is just an opinion, and in another it's something more.

As an aside, as for the Jesuits/research comment you made earlier, if someone says they like something they really don't, that seems to be a lie, not an opinion.

This conversation has gotten odd, but somewhat entertaining

GH

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by GForce22
Of course, if James values pitchers so much, and the Braves have had the best rotation for the better part of a decade, one would think that made Cox's job significantly easier.

Consider just how good a job Cox must have done to exceed expectations "if James values pitchers so much, and the Braves have had the best rotation for the better part of a decade."

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


Consider just how good a job Cox must have done to exceed expectations "if James values pitchers so much, and the Braves have had the best rotation for the better part of a decade."

That's what I'm wondering, what the "expectations" were in those years, given the rotation.

Also, does James' analysis include postseason at all?

GH

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by GForce22
I guess I find it odd that a statement by a person saying they like something (since that person obviously knows their feelings better than others) can be thought of as an opinion, yet a conclusion brought about by data presented by someone else (such as the James data instance) is something more than an opinion.

We are ambling into metaphysics here and the nature of objectivity versus subjectivity. But bear in mind that baseball data, unlike virtually all of the rest of life, is both real and unambiguous. If real, unambigous and correct data is used in a valid model, then you get an objective result, and that's just how a lot of science and engineering (and sabremterics) is done.

And, if someone saying they definitively like something is still just an opinion, isn't somebody saying they believe a formula/analysis to be a valid measure of something (such as your apparent belief that James' analysis is a valid tool) be an opinion too. In essence, aren't you saying you like James' method of evaluating managers? How is that different than someone saying they like a milkshake?

The validity and accuracy of an objective model should have nothing to do with whether you like it or not (I don't like Win Shares, but it appears damnably valid). Validity and accuracy can be determined objectively. An opinion about whether you like something or not, on the other hand, is subjective.

"It's valid" does not equal "I like it."

Originally posted by GForce22
As an aside, as for the Jesuits/research comment you made earlier, if someone says they like something they really don't, that seems to be a lie, not an opinion.

A statement can be false but not a lie if the person making it believes it to be true. Consider someone suffering from delusion; if John Doe really believes that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, when he tells you that he is the Emperor, he isn't lying, just making a false statement unknowingly. Consider an ignorant person, who states that Colorado borders on California because he believes it; again, a false statement but not a lie. Consider my best friend, who tells women that he is looking for a wife - and honestly believes it - when every action he takes says otherwise. Consider my sister, who is firmly convinced that she does not believe in the supernatural, but who is spooked easily. Are any of them lying? Not one of them is making a statement that they believe to be false.

[JAttractive]

Malleus I know it would be difficult to summarize something like this but can you give me an idea of maybe one or two things Win Shares taught you that you didn't want to know?

I plan on buying/ordering this book soon and would like a "sneak preview" of what I will find. Just something sort and sweet to wet my taste buds...

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


Yes, and this is a valid criticism. Suppose that it turns out in 2020 that the best manager of all time was Bob Brenly, now in his second year (I doubt that this will happen, but it could). That would make Brenly the "best current manager" but that is unknowable at this point in time. So James, just as he does to pick the best current players in baseball, uses the best model he can develop along with past performance data to make his rankings.

To give an example of what you are alluding to, suppose that Mike Ryan of the Minnesota Twins, the guy with the two-hits-and-two-runs-and-two-RBI-in-one-inning debut the other day that was erased by the rainstorm, is actually not only the best left fielder in the game today, but the best left fielder in the history of the game. No one would know this, and no one could know this at this point in time. No matter who ranked left fielders, or how they did it, Ryan would not rank first. But he might actually be not only the best current left fielder in the game but also the best left fielder in the history of the game - or he might be one of the worst. We can't know what he is until he shows us on the field. This is why we have to use real data in our models.

I meant more along the lines of: To judge the managers they need to have an 'expected record' to perform against. So to make a decision about a manager you have to have a preconcieved notion about what the teams record is going to be. If he can tell me how many games a team is going to win every year - why doesn't he just print that - and we'll all get rich in Vegas.

[Malleus Dei]

JAttractive: How about that Ty Cobb was a more productive baseball player than Babe Ruth was? Or that Willie Mays was a more productive baseball player than Mickey Mantle was?

lynchjm24: You'll have to read the book. It's like Win shares; it's too darned hard to explain.

[JAttractive]

Thanks Malleus. It definitely sounds very interesting. Whether I end up agreeing with his models and assessments or not he is always a fun read and gives you plenty to consider.

[holyroller]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


Let me do this without flaming.

Holyroller, you are making an important error.

Bill James invents statistsics.

Bill james does analysis.

Bill James writes opinions.

When Bill James invents a statistic, like, say, Range Factor, it is unarguable because it is simply data (in this case, defensive plays divided by games played).

When Bill James does a statistical analysis, it is unarguable as long as (1) the data is correct; (2) the model is valid. Both conditions must be met. You are welcome to argue that his model is wrong or that his data is wrong, but if his data and his model are both correct and there are no math errors then you cannot argue with the results unless they are inapplicable to the question at hand, a statistical crime that I have yet to see James commit. If James says that Julio Franco created more runs per 27 outs (RC/27) during a season than Erubiel Durazo did, as long as his data is correct and the RC/27 model is correct and he didn't make any calculation errors, then you cannot argue with that no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

But Bill James also writes informed opinions, which can be argued with as long as you are also informed about the subject as well. Starting in the 1977 Abstract, James has written an amazing number of opinions. Some of them are brilliant. His condemnations of some players and managers are classic (he once wrote that the only way one player could field his position any worse would be if he used a machete) and many of his essays which stray into editorials/opinion pieces are very edifying and amusing. But some of his opinions - on Pete Rose not being guilty, for instance - are so much hogwash. (James mainatined that the betting slips that damned Rose were bogus because they had an Atlanta-Philadelphia game listed on them on a day that the Braves and Phillies did not play, which was true, but anyone who followed basketball, as he does not, would know that there was an Atlanta-Philadelphia basketball ganme on that date.) You can argue with Bill James informed opinion, as I have, but to do so requires that you also be informed on the subject; otherwise, you are just spouting "I-like-milkshakes" nonsense.

Do you see the difference? The point of all this is that there some things Bill James writes that you can argue with - his opinions, like whether baseball is better or worse today or the innocence of Pete Rose - and there are some things that you cannot argue with - his statistics or analysis - unless you can show that his data or models are bad or inapplicable or an error was made. James's statistics and models have taught me things about the game over the years that I would never have believed and did not want to accept, and that process has not been a painless one, as my previous and cherished beliefs often failed to survive contact with statistical reality. But as to his opinions...well, sometimes I know as much or more about one of the subjects of one of his opinion pieces than he does, though admittedly not often, and sometimes I can point out where he is wrong, as with the Rose betting slips...and you might know enough to do the same.

I agree 100%. Except you neglect to mention one very important fact. While the model of analysis can be correct, and the statistical evidence can be correct, the conclusions based upon the evidence are influenced by subjective factors.

Take his historical rankings of players in the new abstract. The player's win shares for each season, per 162 games, career total, and etc. are all there and cannot be disputed. His rankings, on the other hand, can be disputed because, like anything, they are partly based on subjective judgements. So, while the list of the top 100 catchers based on total win shares cannot be debated as long as the data is correct, the list of who the top 100 catchers of all time are CAN be debated.

I would think that his list of the top managers in the game would tend to resemble his list of the 100 best catchers rather than the top 100 career win shares by catchers. The data he bases his conclusions on cannot be debated, but his conclusions? Absolutely they can be debated. I am also 100 percent certain that Bill James would agree with me, rather than you, on this point. Even if your conclusion is sound and informed, based on correct data, it is still an opinion and can be debated. To complete the analogy, the list of the top managers based solely on wins above expected level cannot be debated, but the list of the best managers can be because it is based on several different factors, and each person will put different weight on each factor.

RC/27 are simply a fact. Win Shares are simply a fact. Linear Weights (by Pete Palmer) are simply a fact. Team wins above expected are simply a fact. However, the conclusions based on these facts are opinions, not fact. Any list of the top players of all time are an opinion. By the same token, any list of the top managers in the game are also an opinion.

[Old Man]

So when James writes and you quote it:
Is it fact or an opinion?

A fact can not be debated, on the other hand an opinion can be. Hence the question "Who is the best manager in baseball today?" is an opinion. It is not a fact.

So when someone brings up an opinion that "Cox is the best". There will never be any facts to this statement. Sure you can bring up stats to back your statement, but they will never be fact.

Next step in any differing opinions is the debate. Where you can bring up facts to back your opinion.

I hope all could respect someone opinion on who is the best manager or clutch hitter or whatever comes up in this forum that is NOT fact.

Bonds leads the NL in hitting...fact and can not be debated.
Bonds is a best hitter in baseball today and is a clutch hitter...opinion and can be debated.

The most important thing to remember is respect for everyone's opinion. No one will ever be wrong. Once a consensus is made that may be the held belief. Anyone who is too narrow minded to not see that leads themselves to conflict in debates. Worse of all you will never get a consensus and conclusion to a debate. Which is truely the reason for stating an opinion and getting a debate going.


Edit: For grammer and spelling for which I am poor at, sorry.

[Andy]

Old Man, I could not have said that better myself. You worded it perfectly.

Edit: Nice sig also

[angry_malkie]

Malleus: So win shares state that Ty Cobb was a more productive player than Babe Ruth? FINALLY, someone respectable agrees with me on that... Maybe I'll have to stop thinking of wins shares as a statistic that is impossible to measure regardless of what depth you go into, and actually shell out for the book (something i've been considering anyway, but more than anything else to try to find the one whole that makes the system fall appart completely...)

[Malleus Dei]

Old Man: No, no, and no.

You still have not (1) understood that a valid analysis done with valid data and a valid model is NOT an opinion, despite everything that I have been trying to teach you; (2) learned to distinguish between an informed opinion and an uninformed one; or (3) realized yet that people really can state opinions that are utterly wrong - wrong as in contrary to fact, which are therefore unsupportable. You can state as your opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but that is (1) wrong; (2) unsupportable, and (3) demonstrably false. Some of the uninformed and unsupportable "opinions" being tossed around on this board are literally no better that that.

All opinions are most certainly not equal, not all things that you think are opinions are opinions, and the only thing that uninformed and unsupported opinions deserve is to be promptly corrected. ("No, the moon is NOT made out of green cheese. We have rock samples from the moon.")

Sabremetrics is not about being polite, sharing, or having a group hug: it's all about finding out what the data is and just what it means.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by holyroller
I agree 100%. Except you neglect to mention one very important fact. While the model of analysis can be correct, and the statistical evidence can be correct, the conclusions based upon the evidence are influenced by subjective factors.

No, that statement is false. Not "are influenced by subjective factors." Substitute "can be influenced by subjective factors" and you are correct (and the analyst who leaps into the subjective had better have made it clear that he has done so) but your statement as written is false.

What you wrote translates as "all conclusions are subjective and are therefore opinions" and that, no offense intended, is BS, as the use of the mathematical and scientific methods to reach purely objective conclusions - conclusions that are not in any way opinions - is common practice.

[Malleus Dei]

It's time to call a halt to this.

Too many of you, whether you realize it or not, are relativists. Relativism is a major Western heresy, the core belief of which is the thesis that there can be no objecticity and that all opinions are equally valid.

To teach you to understand objectivism, which Western science is based on, appears to be a difficult, if not impossible, task. To get you to embrace it would probably be impossible.

You are the heirs of something that some of you appear to have never met.

Have a nice day.

[Old Man]

Malleus you will lose every debate if you make things personal. Meaning: I say something and you disagree. What I said is almost verbatim from an article on opinion from the net. I can't get the site up to paste it here. I shall later tonight. The only reason you disagree is not the content but who wrote it.
When you do this you lose crediblity as a debater. You can't always put someone down and say they are wrong just because of who they are.

You talk down to me when you say "I have been trying to teach you". This is a statement which says "you are above me" But sadly you are not, we are equal. But you do this with everyone, which is the reason so many pissing contests go on with your name in it.

Opinions need data. Sorry but that is one of the dumbest statements I have every heard on this site. So what you are saying is opinions are not allowed here. I think they are, but you can ask someone to back up their opinion with facts or something else. You never did when I said I like Seattle's manager. You only need to go furthur once an opinion is disputed. Then you go to debate stage. This is what you can't handle: debate. It is either your way or the highway. You see I think I can say "The moon is full of green cheese". If you don't agree, you bring up the facts to say that opinion is wrong. I have a right to say my opinion and will do so, without offending anyone here. That is my guarantee to this site moderators and the community as a whole.

Instead you knocked me just for saying it. Meaning you don't like someone else not just their opinion, knock them for it unless you agree. You have a right to bring up facts to say my opinion is wrong. You have no right to say I can't have the opinion.

The most pompous statement I keep reading is you are teaching us. And we are not lying down listening to you with no thoughts to our own opinions or thoughts. Who the heck do you really think you are? That much above everyone else?

You asked me to look up a couple of words and one of them was uninformed opinion. I have now used that word in my sig.

I have a words for you to look up: respect and narrowminded. Please look them up. First one: use it freely as you may get the same treatment back in kind. Second one: stop using it and feel the love.

[Old Man]

Here is the site on opinion:

Opinion

Go to the first one... public opinion.

[spleen1015]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
It's time to call a halt to this.

Too many of you, whether you realize it or not, are relativists. Relativism is a major Western heresy, the core belief of which is the thesis that there can be no objecticity and that all opinions are equally valid.

To teach you to understand objectivism, which Western science is based on, appears to be a difficult, if not impossible, task. To get you to embrace it would probably be impossible.

You are the heirs of something that some of you appear to have never met.

Have a nice day.

This is a load of crap. You want to put an end to this because someone has proven that you're not correct. Someone has shot holes all throughout what you've said in this thread. This was actually a very good thread. Once Cooley stepped out of it, there was a good conversation going. I'm actually surprised that a thread you're involved in was able to stay away from flaming for so long. But, of course, you had to put an end to that and put everyone down. You truly are a unique individual, the only one on my ignore list.

[GForce22]

I behaved myself in this thread, even in the face of this nonsense. Suppose it goes to show I'm not the only one who sees Mal in this light (as he has tried to convey).

Old man, very well reasoned and thought out post. Which is exactly why you get the responses from him you do.

GH