Jump to content

Trembley on "Average 3Bman" RBIs


Arthur_Bryant

Recommended Posts

I'm not very knowledgable in the world of crunching baseball data (certainly compared to some of the stat-folk on here), but I believe in the value of the concept. I'm just a guy who prides himself on having a decent amount of logic. I'm hopeful Trembley does too. I'd even have prefered he said home runs to rbi's, but as you said, it's just a quote.

Getting condescended to by you will go down as the ironic moment of my day. I've noticed a pattern from you. Whatever floats your boat, that's why God and Al Gore invented the internet....

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Not to get into politics, but...

Al Gore never said he invented the internet. That said, he did play an instrumental role in funding the military project that did invent it. PM if you wanna chat about it. Hope I didn't say anything too controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I agree. Just because a large part of your job is daily interactions with the media, why should it be important for someone to be precise with their language? I always just ignore everything a manager says and assume he really knows the exact right answer but is sparing my feelings since I obviously couldn't understand the concept and it would fly right past me.

I much prefer the idea of someone dumbing down their answers to the point that they are incorrect, and scarely so. That way, the casual fan and the man running the team can be on the same incorrect page together.

This is extremely naive for someone as knowledgeable as you are. When DT speaks to the press he is following guidelines that markeyting has laid out for him. If he had his druthers he wouldn't speak to them at all. The team isn't marketed to fans like the ones at the OH, it is geared to fans with more traditional ideas about Baseball, Apple Pie and Chevrolets. I haven't met DT, have you? I wonder if Scottie or Tony or any of the others who have, find him as ignorant of current stats as many here seem to think he is. I could be wrong but to my mind, I think that they have numbers that we don't ever see, that are even more sophisticated than the ones we do. I just don't think they bother to use them in the contexts of media opportunities. He isn't being patronizing, IMO, as you seem to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thank god DT isn't building the team. He really comes off as an idiot to me."

You think DT is an idiot, which presupposes that you're not.

Pronunciation: \ə-ˈjen-də\

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerundive of agere

Date: 1871

1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>

2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>

So genius how is what I said an agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is extremely naive for someone as knowledgeable as you are. When DT speaks to the press he is following guidelines that markeyting has laid out for him. If he had his druthers he wouldn't speak to them at all. The team isn't marketed to fans like the ones at the OH, it is geared to fans with more traditional ideas about Baseball, Apple Pie and Chevrolets. I haven't met DT, have you? I wonder if Scottie or Tony or any of the others who have, find him as ignorant of current stats as many here seem to think he is. I could be wrong but to my mind, I think that they have numbers that we don't ever see, that are even more sophisticated than the ones we do. I just don't think they bother to use them in the contexts of media opportunities. He isn't being patronizing, IMO, as you seem to think.

This doesn't make any sense. The options aren't 1) speak over peoples head, and 2) make blatantly false statements because that's what fans believe.

How about just making general statements that the fans can understand?

"We need more production out of 1B/3B -- we aren't getting the power and consistent hitting we need from such important offensive positions. If you look around the league, that's where a lot of the top bats are, right? We need guys on par with the Longorias, the Youklises, the Teixeiras."

So am I naive for expecting this, or do you think Trembley isn't intelligent enough to make a statement like the above? Or do you think my statement is still too difficult for the "common fan" to figure out?

Seriously, I don't think he's a stupid man, but the statement about needing more RBI guys was clearly either an inability to accurately express what he was truly thinking, or a pretty bad misconception about how to look at stats.

Despite what you are trying to argue, no one is asking that he re-write the book on complex statistical analysis. It's a low bar -- don't make statements that are embarassingly incorrect and have been known to be incorrect for a fair amount of time now. If you misspeak and make such a statement, take your lumps and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RBI's is a meaningless stat.

No it's not. It is a very meaningful stat. You just need to keep what it means in the proper perspective. Saying it's meaningless is just as dumb as saying you should take it out of context and go by that alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. It is a very meaningful stat. You just need to keep what it means in the proper perspective. Saying it's meaningless is just as dumb as saying you should take it out of context and go by that alone.

It has an actually meaning. It just should not be brought up when discussing a players value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't make any sense. The options aren't 1) speak over peoples head, and 2) make blatantly false statements because that's what fans believe.

How about just making general statements that the fans can understand?

"We need more production out of 1B/3B -- we aren't getting the power and consistent hitting we need from such important offensive positions. If you look around the league, that's where a lot of the top bats are, right? We need guys on par with the Longorias, the Youklises, the Teixeiras."

So am I naive for expecting this, or do you think Trembley isn't intelligent enough to make a statement like the above? Or do you think my statement is still too difficult for the "common fan" to figure out?

Seriously, I don't think he's a stupid man, but the statement about needing more RBI guys was clearly either an inability to accurately express what he was truly thinking, or a pretty bad misconception about how to look at stats.

Despite what you are trying to argue, no one is asking that he re-write the book on complex statistical analysis. It's a low bar -- don't make statements that are embarassingly incorrect and have been known to be incorrect for a fair amount of time now. If you misspeak and make such a statement, take your lumps and move on.

You are really bending over back wards to make something out of next to nothing. If I were a marketing guy and were asked to chose between DT's statement and yours, I would choose DT's because it is simple and clear to the average fan. DT said he needed 90 -100 RBI's from 3B and 1B. Generally speaking people who put up those kind of numbers have good OPS, OBP, etc. because they are good hitters. If they weren't, they wouldn't be put in situations that would give them the oportunity to get that many RBI's. FRobby pointed out that the average production from 3B was 81 RBI's, so he was off by 9 RBI's, big deal. DT only responds to questions from the press. When was the last time you heard Roch or anyone else referring to the distinction between OBP, OPS, BA, and RBI's or ERA vs WHIP, K/9 BB/9 and K/BB. These distinctions seem to matter a great deal to some folks here because it affords them the opportunity to hold themselves superior in some way, but they matter little to the media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. It is a very meaningful stat. You just need to keep what it means in the proper perspective. Saying it's meaningless is just as dumb as saying you should take it out of context and go by that alone.
This is far too sophisticated a concept for some venues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has an actually meaning. It just should not be brought up when discussing a players value.
So when we are talking about Markakis' value as a player, we should not bring up the fact that he has 100 RBI's 2 of the last 3 seasons? I bet his agent would.:rofl:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine that DT wants a guy at 3B who can knock in 90-100 runs. I think that would be a big help. I hope AM gets him one.

I'm not sure what the problem is, except that evidently some folks feel better if they think they know more about stats than DT does, so they make a federal case about a dang soundbite comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really bending over back wards to make something out of next to nothing. If I were a marketing guy and were asked to chose between DT's statement and yours, I would choose DT's because it is simple and clear to the average fan. DT said he needed 90 -100 RBI's from 3B and 1B. Generally speaking people who put up those kind of numbers have good OPS, OBP, etc. because they are good hitters. If they weren't, they wouldn't be put in situations that would give them the oportunity to get that many RBI's. FRobby pointed out that the average production from 3B was 81 RBI's, so he was off by 9 RBI's, big deal. DT only responds to questions from the press. When was the last time you heard Roch or anyone else referring to the distinction between OBP, OPS, BA, and RBI's or ERA vs WHIP, K/9 BB/9 and K/BB. These distinctions seem to matter a great deal to some folks here because it affords them the opportunity to hold themselves superior in some way, but they matter little to the media.

The bolded has nothing to do with anything I've said. And yes, I see now how throwing out an arbitrary number of RBI is preferable to just saying "We need our own version of Longoria." That statement would just leave fans scratching their heads...:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. It is a very meaningful stat. You just need to keep what it means in the proper perspective. Saying it's meaningless is just as dumb as saying you should take it out of context and go by that alone.

Bingo.

A lot of sound & fury about a throwaway line, I think. Of course, perhaps he's simply saying that in order to contend we need an entire line-up that allows our 3B the opportunity to drive in 100 runs. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • If he can't reach an accord with his brother and it's effecting the operation of the team how is that not his fault?  That's his job at this point, that's the part he's responsible for.
    • I’ve been trying to tell y’all we are going to be platoon heavy and playing the best match up against whomever we will be facing. We have depth across the board to make that happen. We are going back to Weaver ball baby! 
    • Huh.  I learned something. Someone actually paid to put their name on the Oakland Coliseum.
    • This seems a bit of a harsh take.  JA hired Elias and gave him the go ahead on all of this.  Louie starts fighting bout money and direction with JA.  Surely this started behind the scenes vs in the open.  At that point, JA has to do what he can to keep the franchise moving in the right direction with the knowledge that there could be funds issues due to litigation.  This is going to lead to prioritizing which could put some other things on hold.  I don’t see how that is JA’s fault.    If your theory is JA isn’t willing to spend versus not able to, why haven’t Elias or Sig even hinted at that?   Elias just built a great system.  He could gat another GM job pretty easily.  Sig also has plenty of places he could go.  If they thought they were being unfairly hamstrung there would be some sort of leak or comment from them indicating this was a issue.  Instead, there has been nothing which leads me to believe they know JA is doing what he can and are willing to wait for it to be sorted out. 
    • Apparently the whole point of moving back the leftfield wall was to put the Orioles in a position to justify acquiring / starting mediocre to below average pitchers (Gibson and Irvin). Based on how OPACY ballpark factor is trending I don't see any reason to believe Irvin's success at home won't continue, even if it's to a slightly lesser extent. So worst case scenario you're probably looking at a possible uptick in ERA to the low 4.00s, which certainly isn't going to be enough to get him bumped from the rotation.  #23 - Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Orioles) - 95.3 Overall Park Factor, 86.0 Fly Ball (24th), 83 Home Run (27th) Well, the Orioles moved the left field fence way in before the 2022 season, and it clearly had the desired impact. Both its fly ball and home run park factors reached their lowest points over the past decade, and that 83 home run mark marked its first foray below 100 over that span. Even before the fences came in, this park was one of those that yielded homers, but not all that many runs. It hasn’t posted a higher than average doubles or triples park factor over the last decade. #27 - RingCentral Coliseum (Athletics) - 93.5 Overall Park Factor, 85.9 Fly Ball (25th), 92 Home Run (22nd) First and foremost, this place is a dump. That said, this marks 10 straight years as a pitchers’ park for RingCentral. When you suppress both homers (8 straight years below 100 HR park factor) and singles (10 straight years), there simply aren’t many avenues to behaving as a hitters’ park.
    • The LHH 1B thing makes me wonder how often we’ll be playing the splits…  Not just @ 1B but elsewhere too. Irvin has already earned over the last few years being an ML starter.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...