Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: RJA on 2 Jun 2007 11:30 "John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message news:9ad063lmnstha69ta5v2sb02so8s1sj52k(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:54:49 -0400, David Short > <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > >>coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >>> On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >>>> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs >>>> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for >>>> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per >>>> year. >>> >>> MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's >>> only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty >>> league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more >>> important to put the ball in play than not. >> >>This is one of the fundamental chasm's that sabremetrics cannot cross. >> >>There are people who do not believe in math. They do not understand it. >>They don't know what it does. When the math doesn't fit what they think >>they know, it MUST be the math is wrong. > > Would you pay $250 for a seat in the Diamond section at GABP to watch > guys in three-piece suits sit down in front of tables with computers > on them and run numbers through Excel to determine which team wins the > championship every year? > > That's basically what fantasy baseball is about. > > In the real world, that's not what baseball is about at all. > > One of the things by which people are going to test sabermetrics is > whether or not it agrees with reality. Which is a good test. In fact, > Grabiner even says so in his manifesto. > > The reality in real-world baseball is that on each and every day when > a game is played, each team has an opportunity to win a game that day. > There's no guarantee that he team that math determines to be the > better team is going to win any particular game. And at the end of the > season, the teams that have won the most games in each division make > the playoffs, along with the non-division winning team with the most > wins. That's the reality. Like it or not, ultimately the only thing > that really counts is the number under W in the standings. > > This is why I'm with coachrose13 on this one. A lot of what Saber > works with sounds great for the fantasy baseball leagues where the > players are just numbers on a sheet and the winners and losers are > determined based on the math, but...well, who was it that said that > every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? A team's > journey to the playoffs begins with tonight's game. Math is simply not > up to the task of determining who is going to win tonight and who is > going to lose. That's going to be determined by factors that no > equation can hope to quantify. > > I don't know offhand what the Reds' record was in one-run ballgames > during the 2000 season. But in any one of those games, if a guy comes > up with a runner on third and less than two outs and instead of > striking out, he grounds out while the runner scores and ties the > game, then what? > > The math that tells us the difference is only a couple of runs a year > can be correct, but the contention that it therefore makes no > difference whether the guy strikes out or puts the ball in play does > not take into account the timing of WHEN that handful of runs is > scored or not scored. > > That's where the math fails the test of whether or not the math agrees > with reality. Perhaps the Reds win that game in extra innings. As a > result of that one statistically insignificant play, the Reds get one > more W and instead of finishing in a tie with the Mets, they win a > postseason berth outright. And as we all know, once a team gets into > the postseason the sample size for a 5-game or 7-game series is so > small, neither sabermetrics nor anything else has any hope of > accurately predicting the results. > > I remember a guy who hit one HR all year long who hit two in the same > game in a WS. Based on stats the probability was that the guy wasn't > going to homer at all during that series. But he did, however much to > the consternation of the mathemeticians who must explain it away as > "small sample size" because no equation can quantify all of the > factors that will determine the outcome of tonight's game. Which is a > Good Thing. Otherwise there would be no point in playing the games. You make a lot of good points, which is why you probably aren't going to get a response.
From: Ron Johnson on 2 Jun 2007 12:07 On Jun 2, 10:37 am, "Bob Braun" <oxspo...(a)hotandsunnymail.com> wrote: > "Ron Johnson" <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message > > news:1180722245.198328.125780(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 1, 11:29 am, "Bob Braun" <oxspo...(a)hotandsunnymail.com> wrote: > >> "David Short" <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message > > >>news:46602529.6050808(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu... > > >> > coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >> >> On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >> >>> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs > >> >>> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for > >> >>> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per > >> >>> year. > > >> >> MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's > >> >> only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty > >> >> league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more > >> >> important to put the ball in play than not. > > >> > This is one of the fundamental chasm's that sabremetrics cannot cross. > > >> > There are people who do not believe in math. They do not understand it. > >> > They don't know what it does. When the math doesn't fit what they think > >> > they know, it MUST be the math is wrong. > > >> > dfs > > >> I understand the math. I understand the models. I understand the > >> concepts. > >> I don't think K's are as costly as some may think. BUT........ > >> when we are talking about ground balls, fly balls, moving runners and the > >> relative percentages, I still prefer a ball in play. How many times does > >> a > >> runner advance on a K? > > >> The numbers are also skewed by the selfishness of modern day baseball > >> players. They simply don't adjust. > > > People have been saying that since ... well I suspect it > > goes back to the day after baseball became a clearly > > distinct game. > > > Al Spalding was talking about fans not being > > able to identify with players making vast sums of money > > in the 1880s (and how all that money was making players selfish) > > and the first "damned selfish players not playing the game the > > right way" quote that I'm aware of goes back to Dickie > > Pearce (Who was 35 when we first got organized leagues) > > >> Situational hitting is a lost art, and > >> it's often times not discernable on a stat sheet. > > > Well we've got PBP data going back to the mid 50s (and beyond. > > We have most of 1911 for instance) > > So in 1974 I lined out to the second baseman, with a runner at second and > nobody out. The runner was caught off the bag for a DP. > > Your data will show that I was attempting to move the runner?
From: Ron Johnson on 2 Jun 2007 12:19 On Jun 2, 10:37 am, "Bob Braun" <oxspo...(a)hotandsunnymail.com> wrote: > "Ron Johnson" <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message > > news:1180722245.198328.125780(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> Situational hitting is a lost art, and > >> it's often times not discernable on a stat sheet. > > > Well we've got PBP data going back to the mid 50s (and beyond. > > We have most of 1911 for instance) > > So in 1974 I lined out to the second baseman, with a runner at second and > nobody out. The runner was caught off the bag for a DP. > > Your data will show that I was attempting to move the runner? Well no. Just the results. We don't care about intent. Any more than we care about the intent we a guy gets sawed off and bloops something over an infielder's head. If they were *trying* to move runners along with greater frequency in the 60s but weren't succeeding often enough to matter (bear in mind that in the 60s, there were fewer opportunities to make a productive out. Fewer baserunners, a few more sac bunts) it's obviously of no particular importance.
From: RJA on 2 Jun 2007 14:46 "Ron Johnson" <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message news:1180801180.085792.6690(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 10:37 am, "Bob Braun" <oxspo...(a)hotandsunnymail.com> wrote: >> "Ron Johnson" <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message >> >> news:1180722245.198328.125780(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Situational hitting is a lost art, and >> >> it's often times not discernable on a stat sheet. >> >> > Well we've got PBP data going back to the mid 50s (and beyond. >> > We have most of 1911 for instance) >> >> So in 1974 I lined out to the second baseman, with a runner at second and >> nobody out. The runner was caught off the bag for a DP. >> >> Your data will show that I was attempting to move the runner? > > Well no. Just the results. We don't care about intent. > Any more than we care about the intent we a guy gets > sawed off and bloops something over an infielder's head. > > If they were *trying* to move runners along with greater > frequency in the 60s but weren't succeeding often enough > to matter (bear in mind that in the 60s, there were > fewer opportunities to make a productive out. Fewer > baserunners, a few more sac bunts) it's obviously > of no particular importance. I have some questions that you might have stats for. 1) What percentage of at bats in which the ball is put in play result in only 1 out? 2) What percentage of at bats which result in a K result in only 1 out (99% + I assume) 3) What percentage of balls in play move a runner? 4) What percentage of Ks move a runner? That's all I need right now.
From: Lance Freezeland on 2 Jun 2007 15:04
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:22:42 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> gave us: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:54:49 -0400, David Short ><David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: >>coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >>> On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >>>> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs >>>> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for >>>> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per >>>> year. >>> MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's >>> only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty >>> league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more >>> important to put the ball in play than not. >>This is one of the fundamental chasm's that sabremetrics cannot cross. >>There are people who do not believe in math. They do not understand it. >>They don't know what it does. When the math doesn't fit what they think >>they know, it MUST be the math is wrong. >Would you pay $250 for a seat in the Diamond section at GABP to watch >guys in three-piece suits sit down in front of tables with computers >on them and run numbers through Excel to determine which team wins the >championship every year? >That's basically what fantasy baseball is about. No, fantasy baseball is guys like you and me drafting teams of players to compete in specified stat categories. Have you ever played fantasy baseball? >In the real world, that's not what baseball is about at all. >One of the things by which people are going to test sabermetrics is >whether or not it agrees with reality. Which is a good test. In fact, >Grabiner even says so in his manifesto. >The reality in real-world baseball is that on each and every day when >a game is played, each team has an opportunity to win a game that day. >There's no guarantee that he team that math determines to be the >better team is going to win any particular game. And at the end of the >season, the teams that have won the most games in each division make >the playoffs, along with the non-division winning team with the most >wins. That's the reality. Like it or not, ultimately the only thing >that really counts is the number under W in the standings. >This is why I'm with coachrose13 on this one. A lot of what Saber >works with sounds great for the fantasy baseball leagues where the >players are just numbers on a sheet and the winners and losers are >determined based on the math, but...well, who was it that said that >every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? A team's >journey to the playoffs begins with tonight's game. Math is simply not >up to the task of determining who is going to win tonight and who is >going to lose. That's going to be determined by factors that no >equation can hope to quantify. >I don't know offhand what the Reds' record was in one-run ballgames >during the 2000 season. But in any one of those games, if a guy comes >up with a runner on third and less than two outs and instead of >striking out, he grounds out while the runner scores and ties the >game, then what? >The math that tells us the difference is only a couple of runs a year >can be correct, but the contention that it therefore makes no >difference whether the guy strikes out or puts the ball in play does >not take into account the timing of WHEN that handful of runs is >scored or not scored. Nobody has suggested to the contrary. However, these things tend to even out over the long run. >That's where the math fails the test of whether or not the math agrees >with reality. Perhaps the Reds win that game in extra innings. As a >result of that one statistically insignificant play, the Reds get one >more W and instead of finishing in a tie with the Mets, they win a >postseason berth outright. And as we all know, once a team gets into >the postseason the sample size for a 5-game or 7-game series is so >small, neither sabermetrics nor anything else has any hope of >accurately predicting the results. >I remember a guy who hit one HR all year long who hit two in the same >game in a WS. Based on stats the probability was that the guy wasn't >going to homer at all during that series. But he did, however much to >the consternation of the mathemeticians who must explain it away as >"small sample size" because no equation can quantify all of the >factors that will determine the outcome of tonight's game. Which is a >Good Thing. Otherwise there would be no point in playing the games. Of course it's a small sample size. Do you disagree with that? But when a manager looks down his bench to make his lineup and he's looking for some power, who do you think he's going to summon -- Adam Dunn or Sean Casey? And ask yourself how he's going to make that determination -- he's going to remember all those homeruns Dunn has hit in the past and remember that Casey has become a punch and Judy hitter. -- Lance "He (Darryl Strawberry) is not a dog; a dog is loyal and runs after balls." Tommy Lasorda ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |