The superstats of today - Page 3

AngelinOF · 07-23-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plutoro
Most teams before 1920 won without power and walks.

You might want to check that statement:
1905-New York 1st in Walks & SLG
1906-Chicago (A) 1st in walks to make up for their paulty .230 ba
1907-Chicago (N) 3rd in walks
1908-Chicago (N) 3rd in walks & SLG, 2nd in OBP
1909-Pittsburgh 3rd in walks, 1st in OBP, & SLG
1910-Philadelphia (A)--6th in walks but 1st in OBP & SLG
1911-Philadelphia (A)--6th in walks 1st in SLG, 2nd in OBP
1912-Boston (A)-1st in Walks, OBP, & SLG
1913-Philadelphia (A)-1st in Walks, OBP, & SLG
1914-Boston (N)-1st in walks
1915-Boston (A)-4th in walks, 3rd in OBP & SLG
1916-Boston (A)-first bad team was 6th in walks & OBP and 5th in SLG
1917-Chicago (A)-2nd Walks & SLG, 1st in OBP
1918-Boston (A)-3rd walks & Slg
1919-Cincinnati-1st Walks & OBP, 2nd in SLG
1920-Cleveland-1st walks & OBP, 3rd SLG

And one pretty common factor is that the team that was last in walks usually finished last in the standings.

draven085 · 07-23-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plutoro
I do understand winshares and such, why you say I dont is beyond me. I understand them, but I dont like them.

If you understand Win Shares so well, please elaborate on what you don't agree with about the methodology.

jaxmagicman · 07-23-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AngelinOF
You might want to check that statement:
1905-New York 1st in Walks & SLG
1906-Chicago (A) 1st in walks to make up for their paulty .230 ba
1907-Chicago (N) 3rd in walks
1908-Chicago (N) 3rd in walks & SLG, 2nd in OBP
1909-Pittsburgh 3rd in walks, 1st in OBP, & SLG
1910-Philadelphia (A)--6th in walks but 1st in OBP & SLG
1911-Philadelphia (A)--6th in walks 1st in SLG, 2nd in OBP
1912-Boston (A)-1st in Walks, OBP, & SLG
1913-Philadelphia (A)-1st in Walks, OBP, & SLG
1914-Boston (N)-1st in walks
1915-Boston (A)-4th in walks, 3rd in OBP & SLG
1916-Boston (A)-first bad team was 6th in walks & OBP and 5th in SLG
1917-Chicago (A)-2nd Walks & SLG, 1st in OBP
1918-Boston (A)-3rd walks & Slg
1919-Cincinnati-1st Walks & OBP, 2nd in SLG
1920-Cleveland-1st walks & OBP, 3rd SLG

And one pretty common factor is that the team that was last in walks usually finished last in the standings.

Good research. I agree that walks have always been important. The more people on base the more runs you score (that might sound like a duh?) But I have had leagues where a guy hits 50 solo hrs, and leagues where guys have hit 20-30 2-run, 3-run homers. The team where the guy hits 50 hrs but doesn't have a good lead off always finished last. It is important to get people on base, I don't care how, homeruns aren't that important if they are all solo shots. Some people even say Homeruns kill rallies (sometimes). Because if pitcher gives up a homerun he has chance to settle down and deal with the guy at the plate. If there is still somebody on after a hit, he still has to worry about the runner on base.

Crapshoot · 07-23-2003, 09:52 AM

How did I miss this ?

All the good stuff happens when I go home...

Anyone who thinks these "newfangled" statistics are useless also is likely to think that the horse-driven buggy is too modern a vehicle of transportation. They are good because they accurataly predict the data, and are based on empirical evidence- it isn't exactly out of thin air..

Crapshoot · 07-23-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
Does Plutoro fit the profile of an internet troll? The arguments he started were set out to upset certain kind of people for sure. And he didn't seem to care about the criticisms or suggestions much, just insist on his original ideas. Not very negotiatable. No hurting comments like common trolls though.

Or is he just stuck on old sports cliches?

good q- I think its a combination of both....

Plutoro · 07-23-2003, 10:16 AM

Kq said what I was trying to say.

The stats were developed by looking at history, so you weight what was important in history and make your stat work.

But todays game vs a 1960's game are alot different so what won then want work EXACTLY as it will now.

You still need to get extra base hits and get on base. But those HR are closer to doubles now, and there are different pitch's thrown (less knuckleballs for example) and more of the sinker type pitch's that will skew the OBP stat (more and less walks, more and less average) as well as changing the importance of things like a steal (pitchers work faster so the steal is less important, as well as the double play as more groundballs are produced via the sinker).

draven085 · 07-23-2003, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
Does Plutoro fit the profile of an internet troll? The arguments he started were set out to upset certain kind of people for sure. And he didn't seem to care about the criticisms or suggestions much, just insist on his original ideas. Not very negotiatable. No hurting comments like common trolls though.

Or is he just stuck on old sports cliches?

I think the best part about Plutoro is that he never answers direct questions you ask him about the things he says. He did this in his infamous RBI Rating thread as well.

Hammer755 · 07-23-2003, 10:35 AM

Plutoro,

What you're trying to do is disprove 100 years of empirical data with a small sampling of anecdotal evidence and 'gut feeling'. No wonder you don't like Moneyball or Billy Beane.

Statistics do lie sometimes, but rarely when you have as much historical data as MLB does.

Eckstein 4 Prez · 07-23-2003, 11:08 AM

A slight 'jack of this thread, but I doubt Plutoro's ever going to come up with anything substantive to refute the excellent posts many have made anyway......

My roommate, who's a casual baseball fan, just out of nowhere says to me two days ago, "I just finished reading this interesting book I got as a gift a while back, and I think it's the kind of thing you'd really like. It's all about the Oakland...."
"Moneyball? You've got MONEYBALL sitting in your room and you didn't TELL ME?!?"

Anyway, I've been reading it in every spare moment the last two days, and am currently about 2/3 of the way through. It is truly outstanding. I actually was already of fan of Michael Lewis since Liar's Poker, so I knew I'd like it - it's the kind of book that executives should read for the tips that can be generalized, and baseball fans should read to see how thinking such as Plutoro's dominates the game of baseball today (actually, thinking far more antiquated than Plutoro's - at least he displays some basic familiarity with the newer, better systems) and how easy it is to take advantage of such thinking. Great book.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-23-2003, 11:16 AM

Thank you for this thread which will help illuminate the conspiracy by statheads and their superstats to ruin the world's greatest game.

H.P. Lovecraft · 07-23-2003, 12:11 PM

A good GM is not necessarily one who is the best with stats. It's not the stats, but the interpretation of them, along with other factors, that makes for a good GM.

Stats can only show the past, and GMs are more concerned with the future. They try to see if, from stats and what they see of players (conditioning, attitudes), players are worth having on the team.

Stats are invaluable for showing what a player has done, and knowing what a player has done is a valuable tool for predicting what he will do.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-23-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Stats are invaluable for showing what a player has done, and knowing what a player has done is a valuable tool for predicting what he will do.

Then show me a stat that measures a player's intangibles, huh huh? You can't put a price on those.

Hammer755 · 07-23-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Then show me a stat that measures a player's intangibles, huh huh? You can't put a price on those.

Sure you can.

4 - The number of World Series rings owned by Derek Jeter. Ergo, Derek Jeter must have great intangibles.

Skipaway · 07-23-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by H.P. Lovecraft
A good GM is not necessarily one who is the best with stats. It's not the stats, but the interpretation of them, along with other factors, that makes for a good GM.

Stats can only show the past, and GMs are more concerned with the future. They try to see if, from stats and what they see of players (conditioning, attitudes), players are worth having on the team.

Stats are invaluable for showing what a player has done, and knowing what a player has done is a valuable tool for predicting what he will do.

I think the thing with using stats as a major tool for valuing player's future is the best these days. Every front office has been using the traditional scouting tools for decades, and the sabermetrics approach is just starting. While both might be used for predicting future performance, the stats approach has been vastly under-utilized. And as everything else in the world, anything undervalued is the better buy. Due to the recent success of Oakland and Torondo, teams would start pick this up. Maybe in 10 years the stats approach would hit the point of diminish return and smart GMs would need to come up with new stuff to stay ahead.

And I believe that is the true spirit in Moneyball. It is NOT about how sabermetrics is the best or stuff like that. As I've said before in this forum, the beauty is the same as every other business book: buy low, sell high and be ahead of the trend . Right now stuff like using stats for draft or OBP are undervalued, so why not go with them. You just need to remember to pick up a new direction before everyone else catch up to remain highly profitable.

ctorg · 07-23-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
I think the thing with using stats as a major tool for valuing player's future is the best these days. Every front office has been using the traditional scouting tools for decades, and the sabermetrics approach is just starting. While both might be used for predicting future performance, the stats approach has been vastly under-utilized. And as everything else in the world, anything undervalued is the better buy. Due to the recent success of Oakland and Torondo, teams would start pick this up. Maybe in 10 years the stats approach would hit the point of diminish return and smart GMs would need to come up with new stuff to stay ahead.

Yeah, I think you're right there. Actually, I think it will be less than ten years.

Skipaway · 07-23-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctorg
Yeah, I think you're right there. Actually, I think it will be less than ten years.

The trend already started in the draft this year. It's also disgusting seeing the "better draft college player in the 1st round" articles all over the place.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-23-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Sure you can.

4 - The number of World Series rings owned by Derek Jeter. Ergo, Derek Jeter must have great intangibles.

Case closed. Statheads go crawl back to the caves you came from, and have a nice day.

ctorg · 07-23-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
The trend already started in the draft this year. It's also disgusting seeing the "better draft college player in the 1st round" articles all over the place.

Why is that disgusting?

07-23-2003, 09:52 AM	#44
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	How did I miss this ? All the good stuff happens when I go home... Anyone who thinks these "newfangled" statistics are useless also is likely to think that the horse-driven buggy is too modern a vehicle of transportation. They are good because they accurataly predict the data, and are based on empirical evidence- it isn't exactly out of thin air.. __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

07-23-2003, 10:16 AM	#46
Plutoro Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 276	Kq said what I was trying to say. The stats were developed by looking at history, so you weight what was important in history and make your stat work. But todays game vs a 1960's game are alot different so what won then want work EXACTLY as it will now. You still need to get extra base hits and get on base. But those HR are closer to doubles now, and there are different pitch's thrown (less knuckleballs for example) and more of the sinker type pitch's that will skew the OBP stat (more and less walks, more and less average) as well as changing the importance of things like a steal (pitchers work faster so the steal is less important, as well as the double play as more groundballs are produced via the sinker). __________________ SMLB-San Diego Padres: Pre-season 2003, currently rebuilding (year 1 of 5). 15-22 now, Klesko and Burroughs are hot each hitting .325 plus, Bartosh and Keisler both making strong cases for RoY in the early season.

07-23-2003, 10:35 AM	#48
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	Plutoro, What you're trying to do is disprove 100 years of empirical data with a small sampling of anecdotal evidence and 'gut feeling'. No wonder you don't like Moneyball or Billy Beane. Statistics do lie sometimes, but rarely when you have as much historical data as MLB does. Last edited by Hammer755; 07-23-2003 at 10:39 AM.

07-23-2003, 11:08 AM	#49
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	A slight 'jack of this thread, but I doubt Plutoro's ever going to come up with anything substantive to refute the excellent posts many have made anyway...... My roommate, who's a casual baseball fan, just out of nowhere says to me two days ago, "I just finished reading this interesting book I got as a gift a while back, and I think it's the kind of thing you'd really like. It's all about the Oakland...." "Moneyball? You've got MONEYBALL sitting in your room and you didn't TELL ME?!?" Anyway, I've been reading it in every spare moment the last two days, and am currently about 2/3 of the way through. It is truly outstanding. I actually was already of fan of Michael Lewis since Liar's Poker, so I knew I'd like it - it's the kind of book that executives should read for the tips that can be generalized, and baseball fans should read to see how thinking such as Plutoro's dominates the game of baseball today (actually, thinking far more antiquated than Plutoro's - at least he displays some basic familiarity with the newer, better systems) and how easy it is to take advantage of such thinking. Great book. __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

07-23-2003, 11:16 AM	#50
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Thank you for this thread which will help illuminate the conspiracy by statheads and their superstats to ruin the world's greatest game.

07-23-2003, 12:11 PM	#51
H.P. Lovecraft Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arkham, MA Posts: 73	A good GM is not necessarily one who is the best with stats. It's not the stats, but the interpretation of them, along with other factors, that makes for a good GM. Stats can only show the past, and GMs are more concerned with the future. They try to see if, from stats and what they see of players (conditioning, attitudes), players are worth having on the team. Stats are invaluable for showing what a player has done, and knowing what a player has done is a valuable tool for predicting what he will do.