Is Dan Duquette thinking of Trumbo as an outfielder?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

Wasn't talking about that.  At all.

 

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

If you believe that speed off the bat, spin, trajectory, and wind speed and variance is measured exactly by anyone, I have a bridge I can sell you.

Sure sounded like it.

 

[Number5]

4 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Same system is used for both.  A person can not believe in one without at the very least acknowledging the other.

Totally false.

[Number5]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Sure sounded like it.

 

No.  Are we now pretending that a thrown ball and a batted ball are identical?  Really? 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No.  Are we now pretending that a thrown ball and a batted ball are identical?  Really? 

Let me get this straight.  You think MLBam is making up it's Statcast numbers?  You know stuff like launch angle and speed off the bat?

 

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/Statcast-TPT.pdf

[El Gordo]

Is BIS incorporating statcast into DRS/UZR?

[thezeroes]

5 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Is BIS incorporating statcast into DRS/UZR?

Not yet.  MLB has not released the data that was collected from STATCAST to the general public or these other sites that do the supposed "Advanced Matrics" on defense.  Until it is incorporated into the mix both DRS and UZR will still be subjective in the abstract of the data they use. 

 

[Number5]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Let me get this straight.  You think MLBam is making up it's Statcast numbers?  You know stuff like launch angle and speed off the bat?

 

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/Statcast-TPT.pdf

It is good that you occasionally check to make sure that you are getting something straight.  No, never said that.  I said yes, they do try to account for some of these things, but really can't.  They have improved, but are inexact.  There are just plain too many variables to get this exactly right and then apply it with precision to each and every batted ball without missing anything and then, in turn, to apply it to every part of every defensive play.  You can believe that every batter's swing angle on every pitch is accurately measured and the exact spot on both the bat and the ball, and the exact point of contact in his swing arc is precisely measured, if you wish.  And you can assume that the exact swing speed and point of contact is captured precisely, if you want to.  And, of course, you can choose to assume that all of these factors are captured precisely every time so that the spin and force upon the ball is unquestionably accurately measured.   And that is before the pitcher or weather is taken into account at all, and before the ball is actually on its way toward the fielder.  Even the playing surface is a factor that they try to account for, but simply cannot get exactly perfect.  You can further believe that all of this is accurately included in the various defensive metrics and then applied accurately and correctly to every play if you wish.  You can also believe that every player and every coach will always make the exact same decision on every single part of every single play in every single game if you wish.  That would certainly make everything more like a computer game, but it just doesn't mesh with what happens in real life, IMO.  If you wish to think that all of these factors are completely and accurately accounted-for and that the metrics are perfect, be my guest.  Me?  I'll agree with the players and coaches on this, thank you.

[weams]

16 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Not yet.  MLB has not released the data that was collected from STATCAST to the general public or these other sites that do the supposed "Advanced Matrics" on defense.  Until it is incorporated into the mix both DRS and UZR will still be subjective in the abstract of the data they use. 

 

Even then it wont be substantial data. Like K rates or OPS.

[Can_of_corn]

Of course I don't think it is 100% accurate 100% of the time.  I would have thought that went without saying.  But, overall, they can track that stuff now.  Some degree of failure is always assumed.

I do think they collect more good data from one game than they did in a month when Earl was filling out his notecards.

[thezeroes]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

No.  Are we now pretending that a thrown ball and a batted ball are identical?  Really? 

http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/08/26/statcast-era-data-technology-statistics

[weams]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Of course I don't think it is 100% accurate 100% of the time.  I would have thought that went without saying.  But, overall, they can track that stuff now.  Some degree of failure is always assumed.

I do think they collect more good data from one game than they did in a month when Earl was filling out his notecards.

Earl was pretty accurate. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, weams said:

Earl was pretty accurate. 

I was just referencing a place in time.

When I do that on this board I try to make it Oriole related.

[weams]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was just referencing a place in time.

When I do that on this board I try to make it Oriole related.

And you do a good job of that. Earl was a bit more objective than the impressed 22 year old who believes he invented Paley-Wiener. And realistically thinks that defense is a stronger component of WAR than the traditional counting statistics. 

[weams]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was just referencing a place in time.

When I do that on this board I try to make it Oriole related.

I think we both can agree that Mark Trumbo is not likely to approach a wall with earnest vigor. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I think we both can agree that Mark Trumbo is not likely to approach a wall with earnest vigor. 

I wasted ten minutes during the season trying to see if there was a medical term for a fear of walls after Trumbo pulled up one game.

 

I didn't just want to make up something like teíchosphobia.