Jump to content

Bill James' 2013 Projections


luismatos4prez

Recommended Posts

Looking forward to reading more of this thread when time allows. Regret that I have been unable to contribute to the discourse for a bit. Appreciate the capacity for most of the folks participating to express their own PoV without becoming too pedantic. Kudos to all who have remained civil and shared.

McCracken's erroneous conclusions regarding pitchers' impacts on batted balls will be on the agenda for next week : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That's fine, in this case the only real thing of note that I've gotten from you as that you feel there may be some bias with pitcher quality in the first data set of the Tango study. That's a tangible input, though I really don't buy it as having any significant effect, nor do I have any input as to why you think there's a bias. Personally, I think your statement that Tango did his research in order to confirm a specific result would indicate that you are the one that has the bias here. I've also asked you several times now to explain the second larger data set in the study. Why is your input as valuable as Tom Tango's (or Bill James etc) without providing any real analysis other than you think it's flawed? Why are 20k data points in the study in addition to numerous studies by many highly trained professionals with statistical backgrounds (who make a living at this) all essentially saying the same thing wrong in pointing out the premsie of lineup protection is flawed?

That you think there is bias in a study isn't much of an input. That you think there isn't enough data to reach a reasonable conclusion when professionals in the business have, isn't much of an input. Please, if you've got some enlightening input/analysis, then give it. I'm all ears here.

Sorry bro. You sound like an nice guy and you're certainly entitled to to your opinion, but until I hear something more tangible from you, your opinion is pretty irrelevant. As bad as I think number5 is in his logic, he's actually been able to provide some pretty specific details/analysis in his arguments (after you twist his arm a little bit). Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you.

Anyways, unless you feel you have something relevant I should respond to, you and number5 please feel free to have the last word. I'm pretty much spent here.

Hi again CA - I'm afraid your question was originally addressed to me and some or the real world aspects of life that are not nearly as enjoyable as discussing baseball have superseded my desire to respond. I hope to be in a better spot time-wise either later this evening or over the weekend and hope you aren't completely spent on the topic. Seems like there's some gradation of truth between the two extremes; maybe we can forge some new research on the topic and join the list of published studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think I get it. I would like good hitters up in key situations too. I'd like good hitters up in all situations.

This is very funny. Why don't you try reading the study on lineup protection that I referenced earlier in the thread. Specifically, the first data set.

I thought I had addressed that. The Tango study only refers to batter outcomes, not run-scoring results. It only indicates that a good hitter hits just as well if he makes contact, regardless of who is on deck. I don't dispute that at all. My point (and what is missed by this study) is that in these key situations, the offense wants the strong batter to put the ball in play. The study does agree with me in one way, showing the batter does make contact more often with a good hitter on deck than with a poor hitter on deck. The percentages of the resultant batted balls are virtually the same, but there are more batted balls, which in those situations would result in more runs scored. The treats all outs the same, whereas, in reality, some outs are productive. In many cases these outs are more productive for the inning as a whole than a base on balls would have been. The study is inconclusive as to the actual effect on the game, which is what is of paramount importance to the manager, and what the whole question of lineup protection is all about, since it does not address runs scored in these situations at all.

I have never said that I think a hitters individual OBP, OPS, wOBA, BA, etc. is increased by lineup protection. My contention is that more runs are scored. This study simply doesn't address it, other than to clearly show that more batted balls do indeed occur in these situations when a good hitter is on deck. I would extrapolate that more runs would score as a result of that, since we are talking about situations with runners in scoring position, but the study doesn't address it one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I had addressed that. The Tango study only refers to batter outcomes, not run-scoring results. It only indicates that a good hitter hits just as well if he makes contact, regardless of who is on deck. I don't dispute that at all. My point (and what is missed by this study) is that in these key situations, the offense wants the strong batter to put the ball in play. The study does agree with me in one way, showing the batter does make contact more often with a good hitter on deck than with a poor hitter on deck. The percentages of the resultant batted balls are virtually the same, but there are more batted balls, which in those situations would result in more runs scored. The treats all outs the same, whereas, in reality, some outs are productive. In many cases these outs are more productive for the inning as a whole than a base on balls would have been. The study is inconclusive as to the actual effect on the game, which is what is of paramount importance to the manager, and what the whole question of lineup protection is all about, since it does not address runs scored in these situations at all.

I have never said that I think a hitters individual OBP, OPS, wOBA, BA, etc. is increased by lineup protection. My contention is that more runs are scored. This study simply doesn't address it, other than to clearly show that more batted balls do indeed occur in these situations when a good hitter is on deck. I would extrapolate that more runs would score as a result of that, since we are talking about situations with runners in scoring position, but the study doesn't address it one way or the other.

Ok, this is an input. I actually don't disagree with any of this. I've already conceded this point as possible in this thread. It may very well be true that more/less runs may be scored as result of this effect.

Caveats being:

1. The effect is (in most cases) marginal at best.

2. The effect is largely a function of the overall strength/weakness of the lineup as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again CA - I'm afraid your question was originally addressed to me and some or the real world aspects of life that are not nearly as enjoyable as discussing baseball have superseded my desire to respond. I hope to be in a better spot time-wise either later this evening or over the weekend and hope you aren't completely spent on the topic. Seems like there's some gradation of truth between the two extremes; maybe we can forge some new research on the topic and join the list of published studies.

Ok thanks. No worries. I realize people don't have as much time as I do. My apologies to Mark Beckens (although that would appear to mean he hasn't actually contributed anything that I would consider of value). I think Number5 and I are essentially on the same page now.

The pitcher quality thing is definitely an interesting point. If the pitcher is pitching in an IBB situation, that could mean they perceive some situational advantage and could present a bias. I get that. I also get the micro/macro perspective. In the end, I think it really boils down to lineup quality, but I'll keep an open mind and look forward to your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics. Straw-man. You've got this debating thing down cold.

Clearly, from everything you have written, you do not understand that lineup protection and lineup optimization are distinct concepts. I am not going to try to explain the difference to you, because it would be a waste of my time.

Thread: Bill James' 2013...

this is more of a legacy neg rep for your whole effort in this thread. provide no evidence, semantic games, empty the debating handbook w/o bringing anything to the table other than what you already decided to believe

Was this you? Whoever it was, what a ridiculous low blow. My posts are clearly stated. If you disagree, state your case in a logical manner, don't neg rep someone because they more clearly state their opposing view than you state yours. I broke no rules here. Stating that someone who disagrees with your views is ignorant and a waste of your time, following up with an unjustified neg-rep is however, uncalled-for. This is the second neg rep I have ever received. The other was from a Cubs fan who disagreed with a post about the Roberts trade discussions in 2008. Neg-repping people because they disagree with you is just plain low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily good batters have thousands and thousands of at bats, often in front of hundreds of different batters of wildly varying quality. So there's ample data to draw conclusions from.

I'm talking about. The manager sets the lineup for a game and they score 4 runs. There is no way to know if they would have scored 3 or 5 if the lineup had been different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine, in this case the only real thing of note that I've gotten from you as that you feel there may be some bias with pitcher quality in the first data set of the Tango study. That's a tangible input, though I really don't buy it as having any significant effect, nor do I have any input as to why you think there's a bias. Personally, I think your statement that Tango did his research in order to confirm a specific result would indicate that you are the one that has the bias here. I've also asked you several times now to explain the second larger data set in the study. Why is your input as valuable as Tom Tango's (or Bill James etc) without providing any real analysis other than you think it's flawed? Why are 20k data points in the study in addition to numerous studies by many highly trained professionals with statistical backgrounds (who make a living at this) all essentially saying the same thing wrong in pointing out the premsie of lineup protection is flawed?

That you think there is bias in a study isn't much of an input. That you think there isn't enough data to reach a reasonable conclusion when professionals in the business have, isn't much of an input. Please, if you've got some enlightening input/analysis, then give it. I'm all ears here.

Sorry bro. You sound like an nice guy and you're certainly entitled to to your opinion, but until I hear something more tangible from you, your opinion is pretty irrelevant. As bad as I think number5 is in his logic, he's actually been able to provide some pretty specific details/analysis in his arguments (after you twist his arm a little bit). Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you.

Anyways, unless you feel you have something relevant I should respond to, you and number5 please feel free to have the last word. I'm pretty much spent here.

I comments were no way intended toward that link. They were general statements about the use or abuse of stats. Picking stats that support someones point and ignoring others cause they don't fit. It wasn't directed at Tango or anyone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about. The manager sets the lineup for a game and they score 4 runs. There is no way to know if they would have scored 3 or 5 if the lineup had been different.

You don't need to. That's an impossible level of proof. Using that example, you really can't postulate anything. You can't tell me they wouldn't have scored 3 or 5 if they'd given up the DH and let Daniel Cabrera bat.

What you do is use reasonable data and reasonable assumptions and draw conclusions. And lots of people have done that with regard to lineup protection and found almost nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread: Bill James' 2013...

this is more of a legacy neg rep for your whole effort in this thread. provide no evidence, semantic games, empty the debating handbook w/o bringing anything to the table other than what you already decided to believe

Was this you? Whoever it was, what a ridiculous low blow. My posts are clearly stated. If you disagree, state your case in a logical manner, don't neg rep someone because they more clearly state their opposing view than you state yours. I broke no rules here. Stating that someone who disagrees with your views is ignorant and a waste of your time, following up with an unjustified neg-rep is however, uncalled-for. This is the second neg rep I have ever received. The other was from a Cubs fan who disagreed with a post about the Roberts trade discussions in 2008. Neg-repping people because they disagree with you is just plain low.

"You cannot give reputation to the same post twice." Wish I could double dip on the positive rep for this post.

I appreciate the dialogue and exchange of ideas in this thread first and foremost. Double positive rep to you for dealing with the non-contributing diatribe without sinking to the same level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You cannot give reputation to the same post twice." Wish I could double dip on the positive rep for this post.

I appreciate the dialogue and exchange of ideas in this thread first and foremost. Double positive rep to you for dealing with the non-contributing diatribe without sinking to the same level.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I comments were no way intended toward that link. They were general statements about the use or abuse of stats. Picking stats that support someones point and ignoring others cause they don't fit. It wasn't directed at Tango or anyone here.

Awesome. Meaningless platitudes are always appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my comments are incorrect? I told you I needed to reread the article. Someone else threw out Cabrera's OPS went down and I commented on it. You chimed in and ran with the discussion.

If Cabrera gets better pitches now, his stats don't reflect it. He actually posted a better OPS in his last two pre-Fielder seasons (1.042 in 2010, and 1.033 in 2011) than he did this year with Fielder behind him (.999).
<----an example of picking one stat to prove a point.

I'll reread the article when I get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • If they added Brebbia and Erceg to bolster the pen. I’d pass on Kimbrel. He’s been mostly good but when he’s bad it’s been bad.
    • There is a better correlation between strong bullpens and winning in the playoffs vs starters. 
    • I went 95 plus … there are 66 games left. .500 the rest of the way gets then to 91. If they play .600 ball that 97. 
    • Can't see that happening unless another great back end option emerges this year (other than Felix). Tiny payroll and Kimbrel has been very good. Unlikely that Felix is back this year and I can't see the plan being for him to have his old usage % next year. 
    • Something tells me he wouldn’t be hurling a 16 LB bowling ball with a hook if he had a UCL tear. But, what do I know … I wouldn’t bother to argue my athletic credentials with him. 
    • I think they will move on from Kimbrel, especially if Felix returns and is healthy later this summer. I think they could make better use of the $12 million or so on the option. 
    • I covered about 15 consecutive All Star games at ESPN. In some of the early years, the players wore the uniforms they played with and seeing those players take batting practice wearing those uniforms was glorious to watch.Over the years I got to see Joe DiMaggio wear a Yankees uniform...Willie Mays wear a Giants uniform, Henry Aaron wearing a Braves uniform. I felt like I was transformed  back in time. It gave me goosebumps. One ASG in Pittsburgh, I saw Brooks Robinson take batting practice wearing his Oriole uniform. I took this picture. I showed it to Brooks years later. He smiled and said, 'Roy, look at the smile on my face. I loved to wear that uniform and take batting practice wearing it." Then he said something that moved me. He said, wistfully, "Thats the LAST time I ever took batting practice wearing my uniform for the Orioles." I believe MLB lost its soul a  little bit when they went for those silly "Beer League" uniforms, and those ridiculous day-glo colors too. Baseball, for me, more than ANY other sport is about tradition and legacy. Those All Star uniforms we saw the other night were almost vulgar, and something close to an insult on the tradition and history of the game.Brooks Robinson is gone now, and so are many who PROUDLY wore those uniforms and made history wearing them.I feel honored that I got to take Brooks Robinson taking batting practice for the last time wearing that uniform. I hear baseball, next year will go back to the tradition using the standard (not those grotesque city connect) uniforms and it will re- acquaint the nation with the uniforms the way they SHOULD look in a classic exhibition.It's never too late to honor the game and the uniforms great players wore doing great things.I just wish baseball would have gotten the message about 10 years ago.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...