Jump to content

Mark Reynolds vs. Garrett Atkins

Bradysburns

By Bradysburns
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply
KAZ97 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

KAZ97

Posted
Posted
To a very small degree. Prior to the year our best estimate of Reynolds' true talent was an .819 OPS, or a 108 OPS+. Right now that estimate is a .809 or a 107.

Mostly citing a 2-for-8 run as evidence a guy is a .250 hitter is just confirmation bias.

Out of curiosity, how are you making your "right now" estimates of .809 and 107?

I'm starting to come out of the fog and walk toward the light. Except the light is blinding and often disorientating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted
That's almost as bad a comparison as Reynolds to Atkins.
All players good and bad alike swing and miss hittable FB. That is no criteria on which to base an evaluation of a batter. Yes Nick has a much better contact rate than Reynolds. They both can be fooled by an 87 mph fast ball well located and look like they can't catch up to it. Is it just me or does Reynolds hit the ball a lot farther than Nick?:rolleyestf:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Out of curiosity, how are you making your "right now" estimates of .809 and 107?

I'm starting to come out of the fog and walk toward the light. Except the light is blinding and often disorientating.

Career numbers. Maximum sample size.

If you have somewhere else you're going, I'm willing to listen. I'm a very amateur statistician, you have far more credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KAZ97 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

KAZ97

Posted
Posted
Career numbers. Maximum sample size.

If you have somewhere else you're going, I'm willing to listen. I'm a very amateur statistician, you have far more credentials.

Oh, ok gotcha. I thought you were implying that you went into the season believing Reynolds is a true .819 hitter and after observing 100 or so plate appearances you now believe he's a .809 hitter. Which would have been fine, I was just curious how you got that number. I now see you are comfortable with ditching the prior belief of .819 (was that his PECOTA or something?) and just reverting to his career totals.

There are some methods of taking a best guess before the season, and then updating that guess as the season goes along to get "informed" estimates of true talent. Those methods are formally biased (biased towards your initial guess which could be wrong) but are typically more precise than traditional methods. Kinda the middle ground between believing a guy who goes 2 for 8 is a .250 hitter and throwing out all data until some magical sample size is obtained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Oh, ok gotcha. I thought you were implying that you went into the season believing Reynolds is a true .819 hitter and after observing 100 or so plate appearances you now believe he's a .809 hitter. Which would have been fine, I was just curious how you got that number. I now see you are comfortable with ditching the prior belief of .819 (was that his PECOTA or something?) and just reverting to his career totals.

There are some methods of taking a best guess before the season, and then updating that guess as the season goes along to get "informed" estimates of true talent. Those methods are formally biased (biased towards your initial guess which could be wrong) but are typically more precise than traditional methods. Kinda the middle ground between believing a guy who goes 2 for 8 is a .250 hitter and throwing out all data until some magical sample size is obtained.

All I was saying is that his career numbers before opening day were an .819, and now they're an .809. So prior to the season one estimate of his true talent was an .819, and after a month of a .500 or .600 or whatever, that estimate is now .809.

I think the 2-for-8 guy is whatever his prior career numbers are, plus 2-for-8. Or maybe some weighted average of his last few years, plus 2-for-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
No, of course not. Given your opinions on Adam Jones and defensive metrics I expect you to dismiss me with a waive of your thumb and a roll of your eyes.

At least you are not getting the picture of baloney he posted the last time he didn't have a real response to something I said to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted

No, of course not. Given your opinions on Adam Jones and defensive metrics I expect you to dismiss me with a waive of your thumb and a roll of your eyes.

Good, because you do such a good job of it yourself it would be redundant of me to do so. As for Adam Jones; he is a league average CF with some promise, if he gains some discipline both at the plate and in the field. And defensive metrics; though imprecise they are a lot better than the eyes of the loving and biased beholder. Do you disagree, Dottore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Good, because you do such a good job of it yourself it would be redundant of me to do so. As for Adam Jones; he is a league average CF with some promise, if he gains some discipline both at the plate and in the field. And defensive metrics; though imprecise they are a lot better than the eyes of the loving and biased beholder. Do you disagree, Dottore?

I know I have Sports Guy wrapped up in knots when he starts making disparaging remarks about soccer in a thread about baseball. With you it's obscure Italian theater references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...