Dickerson not happy
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: RJA on 4 Mar 2010 09:53 On Mar 3, 2:32 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:48:21 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >and how do we know that a player has "performed at a high level"? > > > Further up the thread you committed several collosal errors of logic, > >and rather than answer those individually i decided its best to tie it > >all up with a bow and ask you the above question. > > I thought that was obvious - we know that a player has performed at a high level > because we have had the opportunity to observe his performance. > > I think it's equally obvious that such observations guarantee nothing about his > future performance. Players get hurt. Players get older. Players have > uncharacteristically bad seasons in the middle of HOF careers. Players > experience uncharacteristically good years in the middle of otherwise > unremarkable careers. Players go on, or off, the juice - or get caught and > suspended for 50 games thus depriving their teams of their services. > > And in tonight's game...did that player have an argument with his wife or > girfriend before he left to go to the ballpark? Did he tie one on last night and > show up at the ballpark today feeling like death warmed over? Did he eat > something for lunch that didn't agree with him? After all, these guys are human > beings. I don't always feel 100% every single day, and I wouldn't expect anyone > else to, either...even pro athletes. This goes right back to Tom's post. You're gonna move Pujols or Votto or any 3rd hitter down in the order because he was in an argument with his wife, or are you going to assume he's still better than the next option in that spot based on both of their statistical track records? This is still a situation of all things equal. Any guys can have an issue on a given night, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't make your decisions based on what you already know (through stats) about those players.
From: John Kasupski on 4 Mar 2010 10:45 On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:05:55 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 3, 11:32�am, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> >wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:48:21 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >and how do we know that a player has "performed at a high level"? >> >> I thought that was obvious - we know that a player has performed at a high level >> because we have had the opportunity to observe his performance. > >and how is that observation of a players performance measured and >expressed? I'm trying to get you to say it here. I know what you're trying to get me to say, Henry, but stats don't cover everything. Most of us in this NG noticed last year about Taveras' routes to fly balls. The other John observed that sometimes guys threw to the wrong base. We've undoubtedly all seen an outfielder in baseball airmail the cutoff man. There isn't a number for that stuff. Sometimes statistics can quantify observations and sometimes they can't. That is why I said we know when a player has performed at a high level because we have been able to observe that performance. Sometimes those observations are expressed in statistics, other times they aren't. >You've been steadily obscuring the difference between absolute >certainty and probability, either intentionally or unintentionally. >Tom Dunne expressed it well in the previous post, that stats, as a >means of predicting and planning for the future, arent about >guarantees but about probabilities, and that human beings would be >unable to plan for the future or even to act at all if we were unable >to utilize information from pertinent past events. > > Getting back to the specific issue at hand. > > Willie Taveras has never been a guy that gets on base. That's an interesting statement considering that in 2007 he had more singles than anyone else in the entire National League - during which year, by the way, he also happened to lead off 88 times for the team that won the NL pennant (the next closest guy, Kazuo Matsui, led off 29 times).. >He hits >leadoff ahead of good hitters, runs fast, yet doesnt score as often as >most other leadoff hitters. He has made no change in his approach >coming into 2009 and its reasonable to think that his main assett - >his speed - will or would diminish because of his age. Ummm...his age as of June 30th, 2009 was only 27. I think that's a little bit early to expect modern athletes' physical gifts to begin to diminish due to age. >Therefore its >more likely than not that his offensive capabilites would be similar >or worse to his previous season, By that line of reasoning Dave Concepcion should have been out of baseball after the 1972 season. He was 24 and had just hit .209 in 1972 and /205 the year before that. Instead he played 16 more years in the major leagues, hit better than .300 three times, played in four World Series, was an all-star nine times and the All-star MVP in 1982. Five Gold Gloves, two silver bats, the list of his accomplishments goes on and on. Granted that Davey wasn't leading off in '72, but the Reds had some guy named Pete doing that. I don't see any Pete on the 2009 roster. Or a Bobby Tolan either for that matter. >and that once again he will be a >below average run rpoducer in the leadoff slot. Its not guaranteed but >its likely. Given that information, does it make sense to have Willy >set the table? Not if theres a better option. Well, there werent many >if any intially, but after some time passed, and more information was >gathered, it became more and more likely that Dickerson was more >capable that Taveras of getting on base. Yet Dusty kept Willie in that >spot. That deserves criticism. Dickerson leading off? He's 27 already, the same age as Taveras! Isn't it reasonable to think his performance would diminish because of his age? That's what you just told me about Taveras..... JK
From: RJA on 4 Mar 2010 11:22 On Mar 4, 10:45 am, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:05:55 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Mar 3, 11:32 am, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> > >wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:48:21 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >and how do we know that a player has "performed at a high level"? > > >> I thought that was obvious - we know that a player has performed at a high level > >> because we have had the opportunity to observe his performance. > > >and how is that observation of a players performance measured and > >expressed? I'm trying to get you to say it here. > > I know what you're trying to get me to say, Henry, but stats don't cover > everything. Most of us in this NG noticed last year about Taveras' routes to fly > balls. The other John observed that sometimes guys threw to the wrong base. > We've undoubtedly all seen an outfielder in baseball airmail the cutoff man. > There isn't a number for that stuff. Sometimes statistics can quantify > observations and sometimes they can't. That is why I said we know when a player > has performed at a high level because we have been able to observe that > performance. Sometimes those observations are expressed in statistics, other > times they aren't. > > >You've been steadily obscuring the difference between absolute > >certainty and probability, either intentionally or unintentionally. > >Tom Dunne expressed it well in the previous post, that stats, as a > >means of predicting and planning for the future, arent about > >guarantees but about probabilities, and that human beings would be > >unable to plan for the future or even to act at all if we were unable > >to utilize information from pertinent past events. > > > Getting back to the specific issue at hand. > > > Willie Taveras has never been a guy that gets on base. > > That's an interesting statement considering that in 2007 he had more singles > than anyone else in the entire National League - during which year, by the way, > he also happened to lead off 88 times for the team that won the NL pennant (the > next closest guy, Kazuo Matsui, led off 29 times).. Counting singles isn't going to give you a good idea about production. He did have his best OBP season that year because he managed to hit an unprecedented .320, 45 points higher than his career average. I don't know where to look but I'd bet a good amount that he had a lot of luck in doing it. It certainly wasn't by hitting line drives. The man of speed has never managed to hit more than 19 doubles or 5 triples in his career. What does that say about a guy with all that speed?
From: John Kasupski on 4 Mar 2010 11:44 On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:22:36 -0800 (PST), Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >On Mar 2, 3:31�pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> My point here is that, given that saber is looking at long-term results while >> traditionalist managers are looking at a shorter time frame, maybe the >> difference isn't as significant as some might think. I recall reading online >> somewhere that Hits actually tracks wins pretty well at 71%, that BA is a better >> stat than it's given credit for all things considered because it tracks wins at >> a 79% clip, that OBP tracks wins only 1.2% better than BA and that the >> difference between BA and OPS is another 5% of improvement. > >You read wrong or somebody was writing BS. > >First of all any correlation based argument will give nutty >results. The correlation between doubles and team runs scored >is much higher than the correlation between triples and >runs scored. In what context? By which I mean to ask, is that simply because the number of doubles that are hit in vastly exceeds the number of triples that are hit? >There's a positive correlation between runners left on >base and runs scored. Does that mean it's good to leave >runners on base? Hardly. > >The proper way to approach (say) the BA/OBP/SLG issue >is to run a multiple regression against team runs scored. > >And when you do this it turns out that OBP is worth >~1.7 times what SLG is and that BA is insigificant. > >Likewise the double/triple issue. If you run a >multiple regression (including the other counter >stats) you'll get a proper weight. > >Now as to the specific claims about correlations, >OPS has about a 94% correlation with team >runs scored, batting average 83% with OBP >and SLG at just under 90%. Well, there again, don't you reach a point of diminishing returns somewhere? Given the number of variables involved, I'd think that once you get above...I dunno, say 85% or so, the difference isn't going to be that significant for any particular game...and I'd guess probably even not for a short series. >And the standard error in modeling team runs scored >using batting average is ~48 runs. Better metrics >like linear weights are in the 15 run range. Runs >created is about 25 -- about where weighted OPS is. > >OPS itself is around 28. I'm not at all surprised that RC is better than OPS for this purpose. JK
From: John Kasupski on 4 Mar 2010 12:00
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:22:10 -0800 (PST), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Counting singles isn't going to give you a good idea about >production. He did have his best OBP season that year because he >managed to hit an unprecedented .320, 45 points higher than his career >average. I don't know where to look but I'd bet a good amount that he >had a lot of luck in doing it. He bunted for 37 of his 119 hits. Last year he only bunted for 11 hits. He hit ..275 on ground balls, .106 on flies, .314 on bunts...and .673 on line drives but those were few and far between. >It certainly wasn't by hitting line drives. Ya think? :-) >The man of speed has never managed to hit more than 19 >doubles or 5 triples in his career. What does that say about a guy >with all that speed? What we could already determine from empirical evidence - that he's about as far from being a power hitter as it's possible to be. Look at his career numbers for hit trajectory. His career splits on Baseball Reference show 949 ground balls with a .279 BABIP, 537 fly balls with a .123 BABIP, 281 line drives with a .703 BABIP, and 226 bunts with a .527 BABIP. If he's not bunting for a hit, he's...well, he's Norris Hopper is what he is. JK |