Jump to content
DocJJ

Not to be whiny, but can we just cut Richie Martin loose already?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, weams said:

Like I dsaid. Lazy and sloppy. We put a man on the moon. We can have plays graded by robots. 

I don’t think they’re lazy or sloppy.    There are smart people working as hard as they can to make this stuff as accurate as they can.    But sometimes, it just doesn’t jibe with what we think we see.    Could be we’re wrong,  could be some flaws in their system.

I’ll say this: it used to be a lot more common for the different advanced metrics to disagree with each other.    These days, they almost always agree in direction, but with variances in order of magnitude.  I don’t find as many cases where I strongly disagree with the numbers as I used to.    But Martin is definitely one that has me scratching my head.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think they’re lazy or sloppy.    There are smart people working as hard as they can to make this stuff as accurate as they can.    But sometimes, it just doesn’t jibe with what we think we see.    Could be we’re wrong,  could be some flaws in their system.

I’ll say this: it used to be a lot more common for the different advanced metrics to disagree with each other.    These days, they almost always agree in direction, but with variances in order of magnitude.  I don’t find as many cases where I strongly disagree with the numbers as I used to.    But Martin is definitely one that has me scratching my head.  

The defensive ones excluded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frobby said:

No, I meant the defensive ones.   

Well. They have done nothing to improve UZR so I don;t know what to say then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frobby said:

No, I meant the defensive ones.   

Is this another above replacement chicken and egg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

No, I meant the defensive ones.   

And I mostly agree with Lichtman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think they’re lazy or sloppy.    There are smart people working as hard as they can to make this stuff as accurate as they can.    But sometimes, it just doesn’t jibe with what we think we see.    Could be we’re wrong,  could be some flaws in their system.

I’ll say this: it used to be a lot more common for the different advanced metrics to disagree with each other.    These days, they almost always agree in direction, but with variances in order of magnitude.  I don’t find as many cases where I strongly disagree with the numbers as I used to.    But Martin is definitely one that has me scratching my head.  

It's not supposed to jibe with what you see.  That is the entire point of statistical analysis.  What we see is commonly shrouded in a number of different cognitive biases.  Whether you think the numbers are valid or not is one thing but the problem with a lot people who question quantitative analysis is the belief that because it doesn't match your eyes it is invalid, it's the point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, awannabegeek said:

It's not supposed to jibe with what you see.  That is the entire point of statistical analysis.  What we see is commonly shrouded in a number of different cognitive biases.  Whether you think the numbers are valid or not is one thing but the problem with a lot people who question quantitative analysis is the belief that because it doesn't match your eyes it is invalid, it's the point.   

When a statistic doesn’t jibe with what you see, there are two explanations: what you see is misleading, or there is something wrong with how the stat is compiled.   It’s foolishly stubborn to believe it’s always the same one of those two.    Especially when you’ve got defensive metrics that disagree with each other.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frobby said:

When a statistic doesn’t jibe with what you see, there are two explanations: what you see is misleading, or there is something wrong with how the stat is compiled.   It’s foolishly stubborn to believe it’s always the same one of those two.    Especially when you’ve got defensive metrics that disagree with each other.   

It is even more foolishly stubborn to believe because statistic doesn't match your eye test it must be inaccurate....That seems to be the argument of most anti-stat guys.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantitative analysis should always be questioned just like anything else. Not doing so is, IMO, naive. If such analysis can't hold up to criticism and questioning, then it's not much of an analysis. Besides, that analysis was compiled by other humans with the same potential for biases and have their own ideas about what should and should not be included in the analysis. Work done by humans is likely just as prone to flaws as the humans that did the work. That said, I'm ok with some of the offensive statistics, but have never been all that impressed with the defensive ones though I did try. They need a lot of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, awannabegeek said:

It is even more foolishly stubborn to believe because statistic doesn't match your eye test it must be inaccurate....That seems to be the argument of most anti-stat guys.  

I agree with you there.     The new OF stats that statcast has developed that measure how good a jump an OF gets etc. are quite useful because they expose guys who make make a lot of catches that look nice, but who don’t really cover the ground that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Quantitative analysis should always be questioned just like anything else. Not doing so is, IMO, naive. If such analysis can't hold up to criticism and questioning, then it's not much of an analysis. Besides, that analysis was compiled by other humans with the same potential for biases and have their own ideas about what should and should not be included in the analysis. Work done by humans is likely just as prone to flaws as the humans that did the work. That said, I'm ok with some of the offensive statistics, but have never been all that impressed with the defensive ones though I did try. They need a lot of work.

My post is not to say quantitative analysis is flawless, is that the counter argument to quantitative analysis' accuracy is not "well my eyes see something different so the stats are wrong", that is the point.  Humans of all sorts are prone to cognitive biases but the data scientists which help build these stats know how to control for it and the error rate due to their cognitive bias is I'm going to bet a lot smaller than the average baseball fan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree with you there.     The new OF stats that statcast has developed that measure how good a jump an OF gets etc. are quite useful because they expose guys who make make a lot of catches that look nice, but who don’t really cover the ground that well.

They are nice stats to have for sure. I guess to me, I look at it like.. either the guy can makes plays on defense or he can't. If he can't, it's pretty obvious. I don't care if he's diving all over the place or not. All I care about is whether or not he can make the plays. Santander supposedly gets a bad jump on balls, but he's made some nice plays out there and really hasn't looked nearly as bad as I expected him to look. Now, being able to make plays despite getting a bad jump may indicate a guy that has a limited shelf life out there as he ages. That I can buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, awannabegeek said:

My post is not to say quantitative analysis is flawless, is that the counter argument to quantitative analysis' accuracy is not "well my eyes see something different so the stats are wrong", that is the point.  Humans of all sorts are prone to cognitive biases but the data scientists which help build these stats know how to control for it and the error rate due to their cognitive bias is I'm going to bet a lot smaller than the average baseball fan.  

The big issue I have with the advanced defensive metrics is lack of transparency.    I’d love to see UZR broken down into individual plays (that’s how it’s built, after all) and be able to see the plays that got a significantly positive or negative score.   But it’s just a number on a spreadsheet somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







×
×
  • Create New...