Dickerson not happy
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: HTP on 4 Mar 2010 18:15 On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:09:42 -0800 (PST), Ron Johnson <ron7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >But they are good enough that you should be able > >to point to a specific problem (EG, ZR doesn't > >properly account for the monster when it comes > >to Boston LF rating. And if the manager is > >fond of the shift it's going to affect infielder > >ratings differently depending on system design) > > That's one reason I'm not so keen on the current methods of quantifying defense. > You mentioned LF in Boston - Jason bay really gets hosed by current metrics. The > guy logged over 1200 innings in one of the toughest left fields in the game and > played errorless ball, put up a better range and range factor than the average > of all left fielders, and contributed 15 assists to boot. His reqard is that he > gets a -11.2 UZR and everyone arguing about his defense in LF based on a stat > that has less than a decade of data since it wasn't invented until...what, 2003? > Don't you guys always talk about small sample size? > > Similarly, stats analysts panned the Phillies when they signed Ibanez because of > his -23.5 UZR in 2007 and -10.5 in 2008, but last year he put up +10.7 (a 200% > improvement). Amazing what playing next to a Gold Glove centerfielder will do. > > No, I still think there's a long way to go WRT defense. > > >Well Leyland doesn't. He's below .500 for his career, has made the > >playoffs 5 times in 18 years and has never managed a surprise > >winner. I'm at a loss to see a year when you can point to his > >team and say without Leyland's decision to do X they don't win. > > >And Torre didn't win for a damned long time. > > >I mean Torre's winning percentage with the Mets was .405 > > >In Atlanta he made the playoffs his first year and went downhill > >every year after that (and there are reason to assign some > >of the blame to his decisions). And that one year was his > >lone playoff appearance before going to the Yankees. > >(He was 109 games below .500 before going to the Yankees) > > Well...there are a lot of other considerations that I think come into play, > including the players they had to work with, and how much cooperation they got > from the front office, to name two. Also, on-field strategy isn't the only thing > that goes into being a successful manager. You said yourself that "don't screw > it up" isn't as easy and people think, and working for Steinbrenner...yet Torre > didn't screw it up four times during the kate 1990s. Leyland started out with > some truly awful teams in Pittsburgh that are mainly the reason he's under .500 > for his career...and when he took the Tigers team that went 71-91 in 2005 to the > World Series in 2006, it sure surprised me! > > McKeon going to Florida and taking the Marlins to a WS win, how can that be > anything but a surprise winner? > > Bobby Cox is another old school manager. He and Torre are tied with 15 playoff > appearances, more than any other manager in the history of the game. Piniella, > another traditionalist, is also in the top ten along with Lasorda, Sparky, and a > bunch of guys who managed in the 60's or earlier. The only guy in the bunch you > can say is a stats-oriented manager is LaRussa, and he's needed more than 600 > more games than Torre to get 300 more wins - and 300 more losses. He also needed > more than 400 more games than Cox to about 150 more wins and over 300 more > losses...his winning percentage is lower than either of the other two. > > I suspect that arrangement may change with time. Cox is retiring after this year > and Torre may do so in a few years, but LaRussa's not done yet and Piniella's > still at it. After that...Scioscia has six playoff appearances, Gardenhire and > Francona each have five, all still active and currently with pretty good teams. > > JK I've heard about a new system in the works for evaluating fielding. My memories not clear on the details or even where i read about it. I think it may have been one of the Reds blogsites. Struck balls would be measured for velocity, trajectory, direction, etc... The fielding attempt by a player would be compared to the attempts of other players on similarly hit balls. Video of all of these attempts would be kept in a massive video library. This way we could compare, say Stubbs to Taveras, on thier defensive attempt on a similarly hit ball.
From: Ron Johnson on 4 Mar 2010 19:39 On Mar 4, 6:15 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:09:42 -0800 (PST), Ron Johnson <ron7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >But they are good enough that you should be able > > >to point to a specific problem (EG, ZR doesn't > > >properly account for the monster when it comes > > >to Boston LF rating. And if the manager is > > >fond of the shift it's going to affect infielder > > >ratings differently depending on system design) > > > That's one reason I'm not so keen on the current methods of quantifying defense. > > You mentioned LF in Boston - Jason bay really gets hosed by current metrics. The > > guy logged over 1200 innings in one of the toughest left fields in the game and > > played errorless ball, put up a better range and range factor than the average > > of all left fielders, and contributed 15 assists to boot. His reqard is that he > > gets a -11.2 UZR and everyone arguing about his defense in LF based on a stat > > that has less than a decade of data since it wasn't invented until...what, 2003? > > Don't you guys always talk about small sample size? > > > Similarly, stats analysts panned the Phillies when they signed Ibanez because of > > his -23.5 UZR in 2007 and -10.5 in 2008, but last year he put up +10.7 (a 200% > > improvement). Amazing what playing next to a Gold Glove centerfielder will do. > > > No, I still think there's a long way to go WRT defense. > > > >Well Leyland doesn't. He's below .500 for his career, has made the > > >playoffs 5 times in 18 years and has never managed a surprise > > >winner. I'm at a loss to see a year when you can point to his > > >team and say without Leyland's decision to do X they don't win. > > > >And Torre didn't win for a damned long time. > > > >I mean Torre's winning percentage with the Mets was .405 > > > >In Atlanta he made the playoffs his first year and went downhill > > >every year after that (and there are reason to assign some > > >of the blame to his decisions). And that one year was his > > >lone playoff appearance before going to the Yankees. > > >(He was 109 games below .500 before going to the Yankees) > > > Well...there are a lot of other considerations that I think come into play, > > including the players they had to work with, and how much cooperation they got > > from the front office, to name two. Also, on-field strategy isn't the only thing > > that goes into being a successful manager. You said yourself that "don't screw > > it up" isn't as easy and people think, and working for Steinbrenner...yet Torre > > didn't screw it up four times during the kate 1990s. Leyland started out with > > some truly awful teams in Pittsburgh that are mainly the reason he's under .500 > > for his career...and when he took the Tigers team that went 71-91 in 2005 to the > > World Series in 2006, it sure surprised me! > > > McKeon going to Florida and taking the Marlins to a WS win, how can that be > > anything but a surprise winner? > > > Bobby Cox is another old school manager. He and Torre are tied with 15 playoff > > appearances, more than any other manager in the history of the game. Piniella, > > another traditionalist, is also in the top ten along with Lasorda, Sparky, and a > > bunch of guys who managed in the 60's or earlier. The only guy in the bunch you > > can say is a stats-oriented manager is LaRussa, and he's needed more than 600 > > more games than Torre to get 300 more wins - and 300 more losses. He also needed > > more than 400 more games than Cox to about 150 more wins and over 300 more > > losses...his winning percentage is lower than either of the other two. > > > I suspect that arrangement may change with time. Cox is retiring after this year > > and Torre may do so in a few years, but LaRussa's not done yet and Piniella's > > still at it. After that...Scioscia has six playoff appearances, Gardenhire and > > Francona each have five, all still active and currently with pretty good teams. > > > JK > > I've heard about a new system in the works for evaluating fielding. My > memories not clear on the details or even where i read about it. I > think it may have been one of the Reds blogsites. > > Struck balls would be measured for velocity, trajectory, direction, > etc... The fielding attempt by a player would be compared to the > attempts of other players on similarly hit balls. Video of all of > these attempts would be kept in a massive video library. This way we > could compare, say Stubbs to Taveras, on thier defensive attempt on a > similarly hit ball. That's not precisely new. It's the basis of Dave Pinto's PMR. The Devil is in the details of course.
From: john smith on 4 Mar 2010 20:07 Henry, when I say dominant pitching I mean guys like Seaver, Koufax, and Gibson. I mean guys whose stuff you fear as a hitter. You mentioned the Braves and I don't consider guys like Maddux or Glavine that dominant basically because no hitter fears them guys. They were pitchers who knew how to pitch and when they left balls over the plate, they got hit very hard. I respect Glavine and Maddux but would hardly call them dominant. Smotlz on the other hand was a guy who could shatter some bats and I always thought he would be better in the post season than he was. Hello John K and Shilling, he was pretty dominant but name someone else?.......... Another guy who you had to fear back in the day was Steve Carlton a devastating lefty. When was the last time we saw a dominant lefty starting pitcher who figured in many post season wins... Guys like Koufax, Seaver,Gibson and Carlton willed their team to victory by winning the game before they got on the mound... The mental aspect of the game can not be found in stats. We all know hitting is way more difficult during the post season. The intensity and the pitch by pitch scrutiny just leads to lower scoring games. If you played the game, there is just a certain comfort zone as a hitter you have. You know the pitchers you can hit with no problem. Then their are the dominant types you know are going to be almost impossible to hit when they are on their game. All this stuff gets magnified 10 times in a playoff atmosphere and the pitcher always has the advantage... John K give me a break about that Concepcion reason for losing to the Metsies. The biggest reasons they lost were pitching and a game 5 in Shea stadium going to a team that was about 25 games lower in the standings. Never went for that flip flop home field advantage stuff....
From: RJA on 5 Mar 2010 10:27 On Mar 4, 2:23 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:54:39 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Mar 4, 9:00 am, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:22:10 -0800 (PST), RJA <agentvau...(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. > > >John, youre a stathead. > > Heh. I understand how most of this stuff works. I mean, it's really just math, > and I wasn't bad at math in school, okay, but understanding the premise behind > something and actually buying that premise are two different things. > > Don't get me wrong, my hat's off to the guys who religiously collect the results > of every game and translate the results into the stats that show up on Baseball > Reference or The Baseball Cube, or in the Lahman database, or wherever. These > guys are recording the history of the game I love. And at no time have I ever > said you can't use that data to explain what HAS happened, and why. > > Where I begin to deviate from being a stathead has to do with attempts to use > that collected data from past events to predict what's GOING to happen rather > than quantifying what has already happened. PECOTA projections for individual > players are ridiculous. For that matter, PECOTA projections for teams is also > laughable. I don't buy the assumptions made about what constitutes replacement > level when calculating stuff like WAR and VORP either. I could cite examples of > why but the exercise would be pointless. The bottom line is I feel the sheer > number of deviations renders such attempts an exercise in futility. The concept > of variance doesn't apply here - the dice are loaded. PECOTA is one thing because they are trying to nail down an exact prediction, but you can't sit there and say that a good sample of stats from player A isn't a good indicator of what he will likely do in an upcoming season provided he doesn't have those excuses that you mentioned like injury, personal matters, etc.
From: tom dunne on 5 Mar 2010 13:03
On Mar 4, 8:07 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Henry, when I say dominant pitching I mean guys like Seaver, Koufax, and > Gibson. I mean guys whose stuff you fear as a hitter. You mentioned the > Braves and I don't consider guys like Maddux or Glavine that dominant > basically because no hitter fears them guys. They were pitchers who knew > how to pitch and when they left balls over the plate, they got hit very > hard. I respect Glavine and Maddux but would hardly call them dominant. > Smotlz on the other hand was a guy who could shatter some bats and I > always thought he would be better in the post season than he was. Sometimes, it's hard for me to believe I'm actually reading what people write. I'll grant you Glavine, to a degree, but Maddux not dominant? I have to believe that you simply never watched him pitch in his prime. He was, without question, the most dominant pitcher of the mid-90s. It's not even close. He didn't have a knockdown fastball, but he so owned the other team's batters that he didn't need it. Maddux was 2nd or 3rd in strikeouts for five straight years. He has the 10th most strikeouts of all time. Number 10 all time! And to say that Maddux got hit hard when he left the ball over the plate... Maddux DIDN'T leave the ball over the plate. Maddux pitched longer than Tom Seaver, but Seaver gave up 27 more homers. Maddux had 250 more strikeouts than Bob Gibson, but also 300 fewer walks than Gibson. Weighted for pitching in the modern (steroid) era, Maddux's ERA is actually just a hair better than Sandy Koufax, and Maddux maintained that for twice as long as Koufax did! Complete and total domination, Maddux was hands down the best pitcher of the 1990s. |