New In-Game "Pitch to Contact" - Page 3

D-BacksJosh · 02-01-2013, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Just people with too much time on their hands looking for something to do.

And what better thing to do when you have too much time on your hands then analyze baseball?

BIG17EASY · 02-01-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

And what better thing to do when you have too much time on your hands then analyze baseball?

Analyze Kate Upton, perhaps. (Don't tell Justin Verlander.)

Curve Ball Dave · 02-01-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Sabermatricians have too much time on their hands. In the end, all that matters is did they win or not. I couldn't. Care less about the impact every single thing had an any given game. A solo HR, or any HR for that matter for a team that loses means nothing, even if that HR gave that team a temporary lead. The end result, they lost.

This trend of having to start analyzing every burp that happens in a dugout for it's impact on a game is silly.

My only question: did they win or lose. Even with all these new stats, the best teams still lose around 60-70 games and the worst teams generally lose around 90 games, just as it has been the entire history of the sport so I really don't see where all these sabermetric stats have made any difference. Just people with too much time on their hands looking for something to do.

Word ^^^

D-BacksJosh · 02-01-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Analyze Kate Upton, perhaps. (Don't tell Justin Verlander.)

Good idea. I wonder what her WAR is.

fhomess · 02-01-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Sabermatricians have too much time on their hands. In the end, all that matters is did they win or not. I couldn't. Care less about the impact every single thing had an any given game. A solo HR, or any HR for that matter for a team that loses means nothing, even if that HR gave that team a temporary lead. The end result, they lost.

This trend of having to start analyzing every burp that happens in a dugout for it's impact on a game is silly.

My only question: did they win or lose. Even with all these new stats, the best teams still lose around 60-70 games and the worst teams generally lose around 90 games, just as it has been the entire history of the sport so I really don't see where all these sabermetric stats have made any difference. Just people with too much time on their hands looking for something to do.

You'll notice I made no comment on whether or not I think WPA is something worthwhile.

Anyway, if one extends your line of thinking to the logical conclusion, the only stat worth counting is team wins and losses. From that perspective, you could argue that any HR is meaningless even if your team wins, as it doesn't matter HOW you win, just whether or not you do. Personally, I think there's some merit to the idea that the be all end all stat of everything is championships won, followed closely by team wins and losses.

That said, wins and losses are based on the contributions of several individuals, so I also think there's some merit to trying to figure out how players contribute to wins and losses at an individual level. That's not a simple thing to do, and there's two sides of the coin: how much did they contribute to past wins and losses, and how much can a team expect them to contribute to future wins and losses. Every GM evaluates both of those things, as the former informs the latter. What stats you or anyone else uses to do that evaluation is ultimately up to you.

StyxNCa · 02-01-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhomess

You'll notice I made no comment on whether or not I think WPA is something worthwhile.

Anyway, if one extends your line of thinking to the logical conclusion, the only stat worth counting is team wins and losses. From that perspective, you could argue that any HR is meaningless even if your team wins, as it doesn't matter HOW you win, just whether or not you do. Personally, I think there's some merit to the idea that the be all end all stat of everything is championships won, followed closely by team wins and losses.

That said, wins and losses are based on the contributions of several individuals, so I also think there's some merit to trying to figure out how players contribute to wins and losses at an individual level. That's not a simple thing to do, and there's two sides of the coin: how much did they contribute to past wins and losses, and how much can a team expect them to contribute to future wins and losses. Every GM evaluates both of those things, as the former informs the latter. What stats you or anyone else uses to do that evaluation is ultimately up to you.

Right.

All I am saying is that to me all I care about is whether they won or lost. How they did it matters not to me.

Just to let you know, I wasn't spouting at you. What you said just triggered my rant but I used what you said to show why I went on.

StyxNCa · 02-01-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

And what better thing to do when you have too much time on your hands then analyze baseball?

I have no idea. I am to busy to figure out the answer to that.

StyxNCa · 02-01-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

If you're sitting in a GM office deciding whether to invest $100 million in a player, you probably want at least a bit of information about how that player will affect your chances of winning games. And our understanding of what goes into winning games has evolved a lot over the last few decades.

Basically, and no offense is meant to anyone here, I can tell you what to expect from the basic stats, I don't need everything broken down to the nth degree. All the sabermetric stats are derived from formulas that use the basic stats, therefore all the info you need is right there in the basic stats.

My guess is people who need all these newfangled stats in the real world, for some reason, are either unable to figure things out by what they see from players or they just don't believe what their eyes are showing them. I have never looked at any sabermetric stat in my life and yet I know as much about players and their value as anyone who comes to their conclusion of a player by poring over those sabermetrics. I wonder how that's possible.

rpriske · 02-01-2013, 01:58 PM

Or they realize that sometimes the 'basic stats' provide misleading information.

For example, wins and losses are team stats. Evaluating a pitcher based on them is downright silly.

D-BacksJosh · 02-01-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Basically, and no offense is meant to anyone here, I can tell you what to expect from the basic stats, I don't need everything broken down to the nth degree. All the sabermetric stats are derived from formulas that use the basic stats, therefore all the info you need is right there in the basic stats.

My guess is people who need all these newfangled stats in the real world, for some reason, are either unable to figure things out by what they see from players or they just don't believe what their eyes are showing them. I have never looked at any sabermetric stat in my life and yet I know as much about players and their value as anyone who comes to their conclusion of a player by poring over those sabermetrics. I wonder how that's possible.

So was the 2002 Oakland A's implementation of sabermetrics a fluke? Did they just get lucky on that 20 game win streak, or could it have been a result of that implementation?

BIG17EASY · 02-01-2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

So was the 2002 Oakland A's implementation of sabermetrics a fluke? Did they just get lucky on that 20 game win streak, or could it have been a result of that implementation?

Moneyball isn't so much sabermetrics as it is a different way of looking at what's important.

Lukas Berger · 02-01-2013, 02:13 PM

So why not throw out all stats except for wins and losses and what you see. HR's? Hits? Walks? Tells us nothing. Wins are a better way to judge a hitter. So clearly Brandon Crawford is the best SS in baseball and deserves a $150,000,000 contract when he becomes a free agent. That's the logical conclusion of your statements.

D-BacksJosh · 02-01-2013, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Moneyball isn't so much sabermetrics as it is a different way of looking at what's important.

A different way of looking at what's important through the use of analytical sabermetric concepts.

Lukas Berger · 02-01-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I have never looked at any sabermetric stat in my life and yet I know as much about players and their value as anyone who comes to their conclusion of a player by poring over those sabermetrics. I wonder how that's possible.

It's not. A lot of what you think you know is wrong. Because what you know is influenced by biases and other factors you aren't even aware of from just seeing things with your eyes (for example, park effects).

That's not a knock against you, it's true of everyone. It's true of people who use sabermetrics of course too but that's part of the reason for using them, we understand that that's the case and are willing to use other tools to give us more knowledge.

True knowledge comes from knowing you don't have all the answers and that a different way of looking at things can fill in the gaps.

injury log · 02-01-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Basically, and no offense is meant to anyone here, I can tell you what to expect from the basic stats, I don't need everything broken down to the nth degree. All the sabermetric stats are derived from formulas that use the basic stats, therefore all the info you need is right there in the basic stats.

My guess is people who need all these newfangled stats in the real world, for some reason, are either unable to figure things out by what they see from players or they just don't believe what their eyes are showing them. I have never looked at any sabermetric stat in my life and yet I know as much about players and their value as anyone who comes to their conclusion of a player by poring over those sabermetrics. I wonder how that's possible.

Basically, and no offense is meant to you here, I don't get the impression you even understand what sabermetric stats are. They are not, for example, all based on the 'basic stats'. So I don't think you're in a position to compare how well a sabermetrician evaluates players with how well you do.

And I think most baseball analysts agree (and have for a long time) that an intelligent synthesis of statistical information and scouting information provides a much better portrait of a player than does statistical information (or scouting information) alone. The idea that there's some sort of stats vs scouting divide is mostly a myth.

tomwolf2008 · 02-01-2013, 02:50 PM

Traditional Stats are used to record what has happened. Sabermetrics stats are mainly used (and quite good at) project what can happen. They are used to do different things and shouldn't be compare to each other.

CBL-Commish · 02-01-2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

My guess is people who need all these newfangled stats in the real world, for some reason, are either unable to figure things out by what they see from players...

Well, of course. Nobody can. The human mind isn't set up to contextualize thousands of bits of data about each of hundreds of baseball players, very few of whom any one person can see more than a trivial bit of their playing time.

Quote:

...or they just don't believe what their eyes are showing them.

Nor should they. Lest one start to think that the guy with the sweetest swing is the most valuable, the guy who dives most has the best glove, and he who pitches in Colorado is always a bum.

CBL-Commish · 02-01-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Traditional Stats are used to record what has happened. Sabermetrics stats are mainly used (and quite good at) project what can happen. They are used to do different things and shouldn't be compare to each other.

What? No. Plenty of folks see someone who hit 33 homers last year and assume that's what he's going to do going forward, and most sabermetric stats are quite good at putting into context and evaluating what happened last year.

StyxNCa · 02-01-2013, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Well, of course. Nobody can. The human mind isn't set up to contextualize thousands of bits of data about each of hundreds of baseball players, very few of whom any one person can see more than a trivial bit of their playing time.

Nor should they. Lest one start to think that the guy with the sweetest swing is the most valuable, the guy who dives most has the best glove, and he who pitches in Colorado is always a bum.

My point is being misunderstood and I don't know any other way of stating it so I won't try.

tomwolf2008 · 02-01-2013, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

What? No. Plenty of folks see someone who hit 33 homers last year and assume that's what he's going to do going forward, and most sabermetric stats are quite good at putting into context and evaluating what happened last year.

Exactly, I totally agree with you and I think you might misunderstood what I mean.

Using your example, you don't need sabermetric to tell you that this player hit 33 HRs, but you do need sabermetric to tell you how much of it is due to luck/ballpark dimension/altitude/whatever so you can have a more accurate idea of what a given ballplayer will do next season

02-01-2013, 02:13 PM	#52
Lukas Berger OOTP Developments Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France Posts: 19,906	So why not throw out all stats except for wins and losses and what you see. HR's? Hits? Walks? Tells us nothing. Wins are a better way to judge a hitter. So clearly Brandon Crawford is the best SS in baseball and deserves a $150,000,000 contract when he becomes a free agent. That's the logical conclusion of your statements. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 02-01-2013 at 02:15 PM.

02-01-2013, 01:58 PM	#49
rpriske Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Spencerville, ON, Canada Posts: 23,989 Blog Entries: 1	Or they realize that sometimes the 'basic stats' provide misleading information. For example, wins and losses are team stats. Evaluating a pitcher based on them is downright silly.

02-01-2013, 02:50 PM	#56
tomwolf2008 Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 359	Traditional Stats are used to record what has happened. Sabermetrics stats are mainly used (and quite good at) project what can happen. They are used to do different things and shouldn't be compare to each other.