Question about approach and process.

[weams]

A pretty good list there also. You may be on to something.

1. Davis (BAL) 370

2. Cabrera (DET) 353

3. Goldschmidt (ARI) 332

4. Trout (LAA) 328

5. Jones (BAL) 322

6. Beltre (TEX) 321

7. Cano (NYY) 312

8. Longoria (TBR) 306

9. Pence (SFG) 304

10. Carpenter (STL) 301

We are certainly not seeing the anomaly of Rajai Davis' on this list.

[Stotle]

What part of the word lie don't you understand?Twain clearly is calling statistics one of 3 kinds of lies. None of this BS about context. That's equivocation, what some people think is yet another kind of lie.

Haha. Whatever you say, sir. I think you are grossly misunderstanding the concept, which is that the ability of a statistic to mislead is every bit as important a characteristic as its ability to inform. Which is why context and serious consideration of how that statistic was arrived upon is so important.

[DrungoHazewood]

Care to elaborate? Except that Twain is quoting Disraeli, how does the statement not apply. One doesn't have to agree that statistics lie but that is certainly what Twain is suggesting.

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

I'd guess that almost no one who uses that quote knows or cares about its context or origin. They just see a famous dude riffing on how stats suck, and that's, like, awesome and stuff since stats don't prove nuthin'.

[DrungoHazewood]

"Figures often beguile me," Mark Twain wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

I love stats, but there is no "God Stat" that unequivocally defines players' values. Certainly, wRC+ fails the test.

As for Loney, he's a good hitter. He'd be more valuable if he hit that way as a middle infielder or even center fielder (wink to Frobby). I'm puzzled by the 3-year deal for a first baseman who hits a dozen HRs over 600 ABs, however.

So, what's your offensive metric of choice?

[Frobby]

A pretty good list there also. You may be on to something.

1. Davis (BAL) 370

2. Cabrera (DET) 353

3. Goldschmidt (ARI) 332

4. Trout (LAA) 328

5. Jones (BAL) 322

6. Beltre (TEX) 321

7. Cano (NYY) 312

8. Longoria (TBR) 306

9. Pence (SFG) 304

10. Carpenter (STL) 301

There are three problems with total bases. First, it ignores the value of getting on base via walk or HBP. Second, it simply isn't true that a double is twice as valuable as a single, a triple is three times as valuable, etc. We know this from more than a century of consistent data. Third, total bases ignores how many times the batter came to the plate. It's a great stat for Jones, since he rarely walks, gets a lot of extra base hits and has a ton of plate appearances, but it totally misrepresents his offensive value.

[Can_of_corn]

wOBA sounds the best when you read it aloud.

[CA-ORIOLE]

So, what's your offensive metric of choice?

Pretty sure he's the batting average guy.

[OFFNY]

Pretty sure he's the batting average guy.

The Batting Average Man ...... oh the Batting Average Man can.

The Batting Average Man can 'cause he mixes it with love, and makes the world taste good.

[CA-ORIOLE]

wOBA sounds the best when you read it aloud.

Yep, its pretty clearly superior and wRC+ is essentially park adjusted woba, so why don't we go with that and argue the Loney really wasn't a better hitter than Jones last year with some attempt at logic.

[weams]

There are three problems with total bases. First, it ignores the value of getting on base via walk or HBP. Second, it simply isn't true that a double is twice as valuable as a single, a triple is three times as valuable, etc. We know this from more than a century of consistent data. Third, total bases ignores how many times the batter came to the plate. It's a great stat for Jones, since he rarely walks, gets a lot of extra base hits and has a ton of plate appearances, but it totally misrepresents his offensive value.

But it is a pretty good stat. And it does highlight some of the game's superior talents.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think that most advanced metric place weight on things that happen to be trendy..

Weighted averages and park adjustments are "trendy stats" now. Good freakin grief.

Some very interesting information there, I will have to think about that.

Think harder. Try doing some research and tell us "WHY" you think weighted averages are "trendy'. I would love to hear it.

[weams]

Weighted averages and park adjustments are "trendy stats" now. Good freakin grief.

Think harder. Try doing some research and tell us "WHY" you think weighted averages are "trendy'. I would love to hear it.

I am uncertain that I understand the weight well enough to comment to your satisfaction here. I think that a regular OPS does a lot in and of itself. I think it takes into account enough things to be able to be used to comparison purposes, if not predictive analysis.

[BarclaySouthway]

I am uncertain that I understand the weight well enough to comment to your satisfaction here. I think that a regular OPS does a lot in and of itself. I think it takes into account enough things to be able to be used to comparison purposes, if not predictive analysis.

The AL's top 11 players in OPS last year were also the top 11 in wOBA. There's not a whole lot of difference between the two when you're comparing players.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am uncertain that I understand the weight well enough to comment to your satisfaction here. I think that a regular OPS does a lot in and of itself. I think it takes into account enough things to be able to be used to comparison purposes, if not predictive analysis.

Well, you apparently know enough to call it "trendy". Is OPS a good enough ballpark stat, sure it is, but woba is more exact.

You are uncertain you don't understand the weights? Like what specifically, don't you understand? You don't understand understand how a SLG percentage can driven by homeruns can be more valuable that a SLG percentage driven by singles. You don't understand or agree that OBP is more valuable than SLG percentage and that this is not accurately weighted in OPS? What is it exactly that you don't agree with about weighted averages?

These concepts aren't "trendy", they are pretty universally agreed upon and have been by the professionals who have studied and done this for years. This isn't defensive metrics. The only quibble may be some minor details. So how do you justify your statement that this is a 'trendy" stat and what is it that you don't get? It's the heart of offensive player evaluation. Provide something. Do some research and provide a coherent response before spouting complete nonsense.

You really don't understand how park factor can affect raw OPS or weighted averages/woba. You don't get that a player playing in OPACY can have different/better results than the same player playing in Tropicana Field? Is it really that difficult to comprehend (whether you agree on the particular player/results or not), that comparing raw numbers in a cases like this is pretty dumb analysis?

You're better than this.

[El Gordo]

I'd guess that almost no one who uses that quote knows or cares about its context or origin. They just see a famous dude riffing on how stats suck, and that's, like, awesome and stuff since stats don't prove nuthin'.

The point he was making clearly is that statics are a kind of lie. He didn't say can be or in the wrong hands. He didn't qualify it in any way. No doubt he was making a joke. But what context do you know about that would have him mean other wise. We see statistics abused here all the time to support questionable conclusions. Not to mention in politics and advertising.