Sabermetrics, My Take

[ledzepp8]

1- No one denies this. The "eye test" also has issues with small sample sized, I would say more issues.

2- Who are these "many people"?

3- It is also impossible to measure then with the "eye test". The very word intangible should be a clue that it isn't something easily measured.

4- I think analytics can be of great use when looking at young talent. For instance Manny was very young for his level so his bat projected better then the raw numbers indicated. Same with Schoop last season, sabermetrics provided a framework to see how he might project forward. Whereas someone just looking at his actual performance might think he would could never be a ML hitter.

5- Yes, we all know this. That would be why you read people saying things like "It takes two seasons for defensive metrics to stabilize".

I think there is a lot more discussion available when stats are used then when folks make blanket statements without supporting arguments then refuse to budge from them.

I don't understand why folks rebel against more knowledge. How can you not want to know more? Yes you have to pay attention and weigh the value of what you ingest but it sure beats ignorance.

Because obviously you should base all of your positions and arguments off of intuition and anecdotal evidence.

[weams]

Because obviously you should base all of your positions and arguments off of intuition and anecdotal evidence.

Well a friend of mine said he heard on talk radio that there was a difference in the clubhouse without Nick. I could only speculate that is why Steve Pearce is not hitting well. He thinks we might only have 78 wins also!

[ledzepp8]

No, I'm saying when you summarize twenty different stats into value, you lose a lot. I think that's by definition, some may disagree. For example, Altuve is a great player but is he worth the same WAR in every stadium? Isn't that a supposition of the WAR summary? In my opinion, guys that play for the Orioles need a little pop. They play 81 games in a bandbox. A player who plays above average defense and hits for power means more to the Orioles than some teams. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. Also, your division matters. Where do you play the most, outside of your home stadium? Does WAR account for that? I could go on and on, but imagine some on this board wouldn't want that:)

I'm obviously far from an expert on sabermetrics, but I'm pretty sure that park factors are taken into account with WAR.

[ledzepp8]

So at what point isn't there a small sample size? How can player who played as much as Lough did last year be properly judged in relation to WAR?

I also think that OPS+ and ERA+ make some sense but they don't tell me what a player would do on a different team. I don't think if Player A plays in a hitters park and has an OPS+ of 123 and Player B plays in a pitchers park and has the same numbers that means they are the same player. At the end of the day If I am a GM it matters how that player performs for my team.

Last year WAR told us the Orioles pitchers were practically the same as 2014. Because WAR says so I am not suppose to believe my eyes?

OPS+ is supposed to be park adjusted...so yeah it's not saying they're the same player but it's saying they were similar in regards to OPS+.

[El Gordo]

I like saber metrics. This place would be so boring without them.

[ledzepp8]

Forgive me if I'm looking at this wrong. Baseball Reference says that replacement level for a team is 48 wins. 2014 Orioles were worth a cumulative rWAR of 45.9. Add that to the 48 wins and you get 93.9 wins. Their Pythagorean W/L was 94-68. They went 96-66. It would seem like WAR is doing a pretty good job of judging the worth of that collection of players. Is it perfect? Of course not. But what is? It's certainly lends more accuracy than just looking at the team and saying, yeah they look pretty good.

[brianod]

Forgive me if I'm looking at this wrong. Baseball Reference says that replacement level for a team is 48 wins. 2014 Orioles were worth a cumulative rWAR of 45.9. Add that to the 48 wins and you get 93.9 wins. Their Pythagorean W/L was 94-68. They went 96-66. It would seem like WAR is doing a pretty good job of judging the worth of that collection of players. Is it perfect? Of course not. But what is? It's certainly lends more accuracy than just looking at the team and saying, yeah they look pretty good.

That is my entire point in this thread, is it perfect, nothing is. I'm simply saying that too much reliance can be placed on it, not that it isn't a tool that should be used.

[weams]

That is my entire point in this thread, is it perfect, nothing is. I'm simply saying that too much reliance can be placed on it, not that it isn't a tool that should be used.

No one. No one. Says that the tools can't be wrong in a small sample. No one says J.J. can't get that hit. But math says 75 percent of the time, he won't. Over the long run.

[brianod]

To further some up and be done with this, player evaluation is an art, not a science. Human performance can't be judged entirely by statistics. The advanced metrics of today should be used in conjunction with human judgment. Simply saying that someone has more WAR doesn't win the argument. DD and Buck make big bucks along with their staffs and we should rely on their experience and judgment along with advanced metrics in making personnel decisions. I don't think this is all that controversial to say and do believe it's true. Let's go out and get a win today gentlemen, I sense a little positive momentum building after last night.

[Can_of_corn]

That is my entire point in this thread, is it perfect, nothing is. I'm simply saying that too much reliance can be placed on it, not that it isn't a tool that should be used.

Looking back on your first post, you were saying a good bit more then that.

[CA-ORIOLE]

No one. No one. Says that the tools can't be wrong in a small sample. No one says J.J. can't get that hit. But math says 75 percent of the time, he won't. Over the long run.

So lets discount statistics by 75%.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Looking back on your first post, you were saying a good bit more then that.

An not much more than gibberish since.

[weams]

So lets discount statistics by 75%.

Speaking of that. The Blue Jays won the Off Season.

[Can_of_corn]

Speaking of that. The Blue Jays won the Off Season.

I thought it was the Red Sox?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Speaking of that. The Blue Jays won the Off Season.

Their cWAR is pretty high. I wouldn't discount them.