View Single Post
04-03-2012, 09:53 PM
Lafleurs Guy
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,548
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
You're completely revising history. Dumping Giambi and Pena hardly amounted to "ripping apart the club". They specifically refer to the early part of the season amounting to a small sample size - i.e., regression to the mean had not yet occurred. There was nothing whatsoever in the film or the book that should lead you to conclude that the A's over-emphasized analytics in their assembly of the team. In fact, Beane traded Pena precisely because Art Howe had not bought into the analytics enough (playing Pena instead of Hatteberg). It's a logical fallacy to conclude the winning streak happened because those players were traded.

If you want to keep misrepresenting what was presented in either the movie or the book, and continue to revise history to fit your argument, I'd ask that you point to an excerpt from the book that confirms Beane made trades because he lost belief in the analytical approach.
Changing two every day roster players is actually pretty significant man. It's a 25% switch in your roster. They were in last place the day they made that trade. Almost immediately after the moves the team began to win.

I never said he lost faith in the analytical approach at all and that's not what I argued. I said that picking players from a spreadsheet ALONE didn't work. SABR in baseball DOES largely work because baseball was made for it. Beane proved it. But even there you have to look at some intangibles when you build your roster.
Originally Posted by Mathletic View Post
@Lafleurs Guy

You have to take into account that the Moneyball movie is different from the book to start with. There are plenty of segments in the movie that are not talked about at all in the book. Obviously, there was no way they could synthesize the whole book into a movie. The way they built the movie was still great because it got the point across but it's different from reality. That said, in the movie you see the A's moving from old-fashioned scouting to stats analysis overnight. In reality it wasn't the case. They talked about using scientific methods to evaluate players even before Billy Beane was hired as a GM. Even before 2003 they used analytics.

Also, Jeremy Giambi was already on the team. In the movie we see the A's hiring him in 2002 or 2003, can't remember, while he was on the team for a couple of years before that.
Of course it's exaggerated. No doubt about that. Point is though that there was a break from traditional scouting to analytics. You are right on Jeremy being there longer though. It's pretty far back and I just looked. You're right I forgot he was there with Jason for a season before his brother left for NY. So yes, I'm wrong on that detail, thanks for correcting.

Bottom line though is that 2002 really marked some big changes for him. He had lost key players in Jason G. and Damon as well as others.
Originally Posted by Mathletic View Post
That said, it's quite obvious that as along as you have human beings involved there will always be a human element. Before dealing with numbers you deal with human beings. So that aspect of management will never go away.

Also, I strongly recommend reading the book. Honestly, it's a great read. Friends of mine who had no big interest in baseball ... before knowing there would even be a movie about Moneyball ... absolutely loved the book from beginning to end.
I own the book. BTW, if you want to read a cool book (different subject) go read Game of Shadows. THAT is a cool book.
Originally Posted by EllertoKostitsynGoal View Post
Corsi isn't really about offensive performance, it's not really about defensive performance either. It's about both. It weighs how much a player takes vs how much he gives up. Let's not forget it's only about 5on5 hockey too.

I would even say Corsi tends to make purely offensive player look better than purely defensive ones, mostly the purely defensive 3rd-4th liners who takes alot of tough minutes. Looking at the guys who have played signifiant toughs or second toughs on our team, the guy who was getting killed the most in Corsi isn't the soft Cammalleri, the lazy AK or the inexperienced Eller, it's actually Moen who looks like a terrible defensive player if you only look at his Corsi (and assume Corsi is only about defence). That's because Moen doesn't create offence so even if he doesn't give up alot (in the context of the minutes he has played), he takes even less.

And you can't use Corsi without context, you can't use any stats without context. Plekanec doesn't look that good looking at his Corsi but then you can look at his quality of competition, quality of teammates, zonestars etc... and he suddenly looks much much better.

And they are a lot more things to advanced stats than Corsi.

About Grabovski, if I'm not mistaken it was his RelCorsi that topped the league. RelCorsi calculates the Corsi of a player relative to his team (it's actually probably a better stat than Corsi (mostly for evaluating players on bad teams) but even that will be impacted by quality of competition etc.. since it's based on original Corsi).

So Grabovski, a really good 5on5 player (let's not forget that these fancy stats mostly concentrate on 5on5 play), a player who had 43 ES pts last year, had the best RelCorsi in the league last year. Looking at Toronto's roster last year, only 3 players had a positive Corsi, that team was absolutely dreadfull on possession. So it's pretty normal that Grabovski would have a great RelCorsi since that team significantly outshot the opposition with Grabovski on the ice but crashed in possession when he got off it (the other two players with a positive Corsi were his linemates).

And Grabovski is probably much much better than you thought he was. He's evolved into a Plekanec type, great two-way player, can carry the play at ES in tough minutes.
Part of the reason why I posted this thread is that I'm trying to figure out why folks keep going back to this stat. Not sure if it was RelCORSI or not but that would explain a lot if it is. So far I haven't really seen a compelling reason for this stat to really be given the kind of importance I've seen it being given from some posters on here. All I hear is... go to this site or 'its' self explanatory'... I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. When I see Gomez with a higher CORSI than Crosby I'm skeptical about what kind of value it brings.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote