SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2013 Non-Sox MLB Discussion
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2013 17:15:30 GMT -5
Leyland: You know, you don't have be a statistician to understand or use statistics. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intellectual curiosity can learn things from fields they're not necessarily trained in. Or, you know, you can be a stubborn old man who fears and rejects anything that would otherwise make you question your previously established world view. Either one is good I guess. I swear, the reason that we see so little tactical innovation or creativity in professional baseball today is that managers are, almost to a man, trying to assert that their way of thinking is superior to those damn kids and their xFIP and their nose piercings and their hippidy-hop music.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 4, 2013 18:13:49 GMT -5
Hard to get all hot and bothered by a manager standing up for his player who has the most wins and is being challenged by some. I suspect Leyland lives in a world of greys, not black and whites, but that he understands that backing a player gets him more than being doctrinaire to the Sabremetric crowd.
I'm not sure that I'd call him a "stubborn old man who fears and rejects anything," when that stubborn old man is a Hall of Famer who happens to have won a World Series and won countless titles. Particularly where his statement that he'd prefer a 15 game winner to a 5 game winner is indisputably correct.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 4, 2013 18:29:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure that "run support" is exactly an exotic sabermetric invention ... pretty sure that John McGraw understood the concept of "this team isn't scoring runs for this pitcher."
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Sept 4, 2013 18:31:39 GMT -5
Leyland: You know, you don't have be a statistician to understand or use statistics. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intellectual curiosity can learn things from fields they're not necessarily trained in. Or, you know, you can be a stubborn old man who fears and rejects anything that would otherwise make you question your previously established world view. Either one is good I guess. I swear, the reason that we see so little tactical innovation or creativity in professional baseball today is that managers are, almost to a man, trying to assert that their way of thinking is superior to those damn kids and their xFIP and their nose piercings and their hippidy-hop music. Literally this. I'm not even a big time sabermetric guy, but they've still proven to be quite useful, so why not utilize them? There doesn't have to be a sabermetric vs standard stat argument, but some managers treat it that way. I have no problem with him defending Scherzer when Max has been one of the best pitchers in baseball, thus shouldn't be facing scrutiny. What annoys me is the way Leyland addressed it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 4, 2013 20:34:01 GMT -5
Hard to get all hot and bothered by a manager standing up for his player who has the most wins and is being challenged by some. I suspect Leyland lives in a world of greys, not black and whites, but that he understands that backing a player gets him more than being doctrinaire to the Sabremetric crowd. I'm not sure that I'd call him a "stubborn old man who fears and rejects anything," when that stubborn old man is a Hall of Famer who happens to have won a World Series and won countless titles. Particularly where his statement that he'd prefer a 15 game winner to a 5 game winner is indisputably correct. There's like a million ways to do that. He choose a very specific one.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Sept 5, 2013 10:16:52 GMT -5
Ha! Leyland trolled FTHW. How anyone can justify their use of air while objecting to the idea that Jim Leyland is "a baseball manager, not a statistician" is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Sept 5, 2013 11:18:54 GMT -5
There doesn't have to be a sabermetric vs standard stat argument, but some managers treat it that way. I have no problem with him defending Scherzer when Max has been one of the best pitchers in baseball, thus shouldn't be facing scrutiny. What annoys me is the way Leyland addressed it. To be fair, most stat-heads (including the poor ones like me) have claimed that you do indeed need to make that argument and that wins and RBI's tell us literally nothing about how a guy will pitch/hit going forward. On the other hand, a good manager with a good team is likely getting his best hitters and best pitchers in place to get lots of wins and RBI's. In the end, the argument that Leyland is making, about Max being a good pitcher and winning games being important is right, but he's not being very intelligent about how he presents that argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 11:29:01 GMT -5
Ha! Leyland trolled FTHW. How anyone can justify their use of air while objecting to the idea that Jim Leyland is "a baseball manager, not a statistician" is beyond me. I have no problem with Leyland backing his guy (Scherzer). That's what he's supposed to do. I mean come on if he's asked if his pitcher's 19 wins matter, do you really expect him to say that it doesn't matter because of run support and luck? And further trying to imply that one of the most successful managers in the history of the game is stupid.....is well.....you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 5, 2013 14:35:15 GMT -5
Leyland uses stats. Just look at some of the shifts he uses. He was defending his guy. Sabermetric folks tend to jump on anyone that says anything against saber thinking. Doesn't sound like folks sure of their views to me.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 5, 2013 19:33:20 GMT -5
Old friend Mauro Gomez, DFA'd by the Jays earlier in the week, has been claimed by the Nats.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 6, 2013 23:08:00 GMT -5
Yusmero Petit throwing a perfect game. Who knew he still was pitching in the big leagues.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,880
|
Post by atzar on Sept 6, 2013 23:24:45 GMT -5
Yusmero Petit throwing a perfect game. Who knew he still was pitching in the big leagues. Am I wrong for not even knowing who this dude is?
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 6, 2013 23:27:57 GMT -5
Yusmero Petit throwing a perfect game. Who knew he still was pitching in the big leagues. Shane would have gotten to that ball.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,880
|
Post by atzar on Sept 6, 2013 23:28:53 GMT -5
Bummer that he couldn't get that perfect game. Still, wonderful outing from the little I watched.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 6, 2013 23:32:58 GMT -5
Yusmero Petit throwing a perfect game. Who knew he still was pitching in the big leagues. Am I wrong for not even knowing who this dude is? He used to be a top prospect . Needless to say it didn't workout.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 7, 2013 0:40:29 GMT -5
Yusmero Petit throwing a perfect game. Who knew he still was pitching in the big leagues. Am I wrong for not even knowing who this dude is? He was part of the stellar 2005 Eastern League class that included Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, Joel Zumaya, Liriano, Franklin Gutierrez, Michael Bourn, Rajai Davis, Hanley Ramirez, Brandon Moss, Anibal Sanchez, Delcarmen, and on and on. He was a 20 year old, and he'd dominated up to that point. The overwhelming success stopped right about then. Looks like he might be back.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Sept 7, 2013 9:02:37 GMT -5
I'm tired of no-name pitchers getting no-hitters and perfect games, so I'm glad it was broken up.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 7, 2013 19:49:35 GMT -5
Billy Hamilton has been used 4 times as a pinch runner by Cincy and is 4 for 4 in steals. Still doesn't have an ab yet. I remember the Oakland A's had a guy like that back in the 70's. Had a bunch of steals one year and only a few ab's. Can't remember his name. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_WashingtonLooked it up he didn't have any ab.s.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 8, 2013 13:52:28 GMT -5
Iggy with a 2run homer his first ab after missing a few games.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 8, 2013 13:59:40 GMT -5
Ok, I am curious as to the positional variations of batting. Below is 2013 year to date for AL. Pos AVG OBP SLG OPS AB C 0.245 0.317 0.396 0.714 8588 1B 0.258 0.336 0.450 0.786 9652 2B 0.262 0.327 0.384 0.711 8639 3B 0.265 0.325 0.431 0.757 7754 SS 0.254 0.309 0.366 0.675 8682 LF 0.255 0.327 0.416 0.743 10184 CF 0.263 0.326 0.402 0.727 8310 RF 0.255 0.319 0.409 0.729 8143 DH 0.270 0.353 0.433 0.786 2420 avg 0.258 0.325 0.408 0.733 I included AB to show the variation, so presumably the position is the players normal position? if a player occasionally DH's, it still listed at his normal position? We normally hear that SS and Catcher are the two premium defensive positions, followed by CF. By stats, it seem catchers are poor hitters, but can slug. SS can hit OK, but don't seem to draw sufficient walks? 1B and DH are the OBP leaders, 1B, 3B and DH are sluggers
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2013 15:25:31 GMT -5
Well, where are you getting your data from? Here's the split from Baseball Reference: Split PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS as C 8421 7532 886 1860 410 13 241 898 25 20 721 1819 .247 .316 .401 .716 as 1B 8966 7970 1044 2061 406 18 356 1213 48 16 851 1978 .259 .333 .448 .781 as 2B 8909 8033 972 2141 398 38 163 876 199 71 675 1427 .267 .326 .386 .712 as 3B 8841 7996 1013 2107 407 19 290 1015 61 35 680 1542 .264 .324 .428 .752 as SS 8739 7937 941 2025 401 43 146 827 193 65 581 1423 .255 .308 .372 .680 as LF 9011 8145 1068 2085 402 30 256 986 154 58 693 1767 .256 .318 .407 .725 as CF 9157 8242 1206 2197 430 76 216 892 323 104 728 1901 .267 .330 .416 .746 as RF 8999 8134 1092 2128 402 36 264 993 178 43 686 1745 .262 .323 .417 .740 as DH 8485 7509 946 1848 364 19 262 1022 53 22 848 1768 .246 .325 .404 .729 as P 335 291 12 25 2 0 0 6 4 0 12 139 .086 .122 .093 .215 as PH 1334 1164 132 250 42 5 33 145 17 2 144 356 .215 .306 .345 .650 as PH for DH 156 137 22 29 6 0 5 17 3 1 18 47 .212 .303 .365 .668 Other 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 .000 .500 .000 .500 as Infield 43876 39468 4856 10194 2022 131 1196 4829 423 189 3508 8189 .258 .321 .407 .728 as Outfield 27167 24521 3366 6410 1234 142 736 2871 573 188 2107 5413 .261 .324 .413 .737
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original TableGenerated 9/8/2013.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 8, 2013 16:01:20 GMT -5
mine is from MLB, I had to go to player stats, deselect qualifiers, and go position by position. Wow, BR has tons more data, and its all ready processed. So it does appear that MLB is reporting be "normal position"? where many teams have no permanent DH? The perm DH are above average, but batters as DH are below avg. but the stats for the regular position players are similar. I was surprised that 2B were good in both BA and OBP, below only in SLG. I thought some one point to a WAR by position showing 2B comparable to SS. Anyways, thanks for the BR link. I still need to explore that site. I should stop wasting time on MLB.com
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2013 16:17:09 GMT -5
mine is from MLB, I had to go to player stats, deselect qualifiers, and go position by position. I should stop wasting time on MLB.com yup. At least three sites I can think of off the top of my head w/ better stats.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 8, 2013 22:06:09 GMT -5
So thanks to Chris H, I finally found the player WAR list. I am citing only AL for now. I have not yet read the WAR calculation yet, but Baseball Reference provides as guidance:
WAR description number of players 8+ MVP 1 - Trout 5 All Star 13 including Trout 2+ Starter 59 total WAR 2 or higher 0-2 Sub 43 WAR 1-1.9 <0 Replacement 37 between WAR 0.5 and 0.9
So per WAR, Trout is MVP at 8.5, Cabrera 2nd at 6.9 There are 13 AL players at WAR 5 and above, with one at 4.7, another at 4.4, the rest 4.1 or below. So WAR 5 being All Star would have the correct roster count. 5 are 3B, 3 at 2B, 2 at CF, 1 at C, 1B, and RF. none at SS, LF and DH.
Below is the distribution of high WAR players by position. Last column is the Red Sox player WAR at the position.
POS\WAR 8 5-7.9 4-4.9 3-3.9 2-2.9 1-1.9 Tot 1+ Red Sox C - 1 1 3 1 8 14 1.7 1B - 1 1 1 3 6 12 3.3 2B - 3 1 3 2 3 12 5.5 3B - 5 - 1 3 2 11 2.2*/0.4 SS - - - 3 5 4 12 2.3 LF - - - 1 2 9 12 2.5 CF 1 1 3 4 2 3 14 5.5 RF - 1 1 - 3 7 12 5.7 DH - - - 1 1 1 3 3.8 Tot 1 12 7 17 22 43 102 Red Sox 3B - WAR 2.2 is Iggy, since traded (I know it was the right thing to do for this season, but how it pains me!) and I am confident WMB will be the right bat at 3B. Ortiz is top DH at 3.8. Considering that Papi is 4th in AL in OBP, SLG and OPS, 5th in AVG. Cano is below Ortiz and has WAR 6.6, I do not know if this is positional, or playing time. Considering the paucity of top DH, I think Ortiz is under valued? If # of games played factors in, the perhaps we need to add the WAR for the positions that are platooned?
There are 59 AL players with WAR 2 or better. So for 15 teams, that is 4 "starter" grade players per team. Another 43 are WAR 1 or better, but less than 2, so this adds another 3 players per team. There are a total of 139 players WAR 0.5 or better, to provide 9 players per team. To get 15 teams x 13 roster spots = 195 players, we would have to reach all the way down to WAR 0.1.
The Sox currently have 7 players with 2+ WAR, Salty at 1.7, and had for 1/2 season Iggy at 2.2. So not surprising the Red Sox are leading in key offensive categories. Finally, a plug for Nava WAR 2.5 and rank 43. This means that if talent were evenly distributed across 15 teams, Nava would be the fourth best on most teams, and third on a few.
What's the point of the above exercise? Recently, very few top tier pitchers are available on the free agent market, and of those available are age 30+ so the expectation of continued All-Star caliber performance is low. Considering how few WAR5 players there are league wide, perhaps we should adjust the value of retaining these accordingly. It does seem possible to pickup WAR 2+ and 1+ players to build a high total WAR team?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 9, 2013 12:18:49 GMT -5
mine is from MLB, I had to go to player stats, deselect qualifiers, and go position by position. Wow, BR has tons more data, and its all ready processed. So it does appear that MLB is reporting be "normal position"? where many teams have no permanent DH? The perm DH are above average, but batters as DH are below avg. but the stats for the regular position players are similar. I was surprised that 2B were good in both BA and OBP, below only in SLG. I thought some one point to a WAR by position showing 2B comparable to SS. Anyways, thanks for the BR link. I still need to explore that site. I should stop wasting time on MLB.com I've wanted a "position specific" offensive stat for a while. I hate using things like OPS+ or wOBA in combination with WAR because the only adjustment comes from the defensive side. It would be nice to have a positionally adjusted offensive stat that way you can compare players equally amongst their constituents. Sorting by position and then comparing wOBA vs. league average doesn't do it for me. Maybe a wOBApos+; it wouldn't work cross-positionally, but would allow for simplifications within positional examination. I don't know; now that I type it out, it seems less stellar than my brain had imagined.
|
|
|