Whats it gonna freakin take. Seriously, even in the good ole' days when Tampa was terrible we couldn't beat them. They've always had our number. Also if Travis Snider could freakin stay healthy we would've brought him up by now.
With Guerrero coming up in a few weeks, a new mid rotation pitcher to be acquired in 1 month and Murphy being fired at the All Star break. We are in great shape to make a run... To optimistic?
With Guerrero coming up in a few weeks, a new mid rotation pitcher to be acquired in 1 month and Murphy being fired at the All Star break. We are in great shape to make a run... To optimistic?
Huge let down after going 3 for 4 with the NY teams. They seemed to be doing things right, then just totally lose it again. hard to see positives from this series.
Morrow scares me against the Rangers. Hes been to good so far. seems due for getting a little roughed up
Huge let down after going 3 for 4 with the NY teams. They seemed to be doing things right, then just totally lose it again. hard to see positives from this series.
Morrow scares me against the Rangers. Hes been to good so far. seems due for getting a little roughed up
4 for 5 *
But ya not looking forward to the weekend series, unfortunately i think we're going 0 for, and god damn ricky ro, love the man but for god sakes your command has been terrible lately!!
Such a huge sigh of relief watching him have a couple multi-hit games in a row. I don't think he can reach a .300 avg considering how he started, but .280 should be achievable. And yes, in this world of sabre-metrics and arithmetic, I'm still one of those people who put alot of stock into avg and obp.
Such a huge sigh of relief watching him have a couple multi-hit games in a row. I don't think he can reach a .300 avg considering how he started, but .280 should be achievable. And yes, in this world of sabre-metrics and arithmetic, I'm still one of those people who put alot of stock into avg and obp.
If he shows a certain level of consistency like he has this month, I see no reason why he can't reach .300 or very close ot it. I think he was more eager to improve himself this month, which is why he's been striking out more. Fortunately, he's been able to considerably improve his AVG, OBP and SLG.
Such a huge sigh of relief watching him have a couple multi-hit games in a row. I don't think he can reach a .300 avg considering how he started, but .280 should be achievable. And yes, in this world of sabre-metrics and arithmetic, I'm still one of those people who put alot of stock into avg and obp.
avg is a very "comfortable" number, but I can't understand why you'd use it if you're using OBP. OBP is basically average, but better.
I get using OBP and OPS separately, or skipping OPS sometimes because OPS casts a wider net that isn't always desirable, but unless you're using average because you want to talk with someone who refuses to acknowledge newer stats, using it over OBP is a little like continuing to buy CRT tvs over flat panels just because they're what you're used to. It's also not like OBP is particularly awkard to calculate or work with either. No more so than classic BA.
__________________ "Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." '13 Shark CI Tracker: 48 gms, 19-23-6 (SJ-Opponent-National/Market feed)19 SJ feeds in HD Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
avg is a very "comfortable" number, but I can't understand why you'd use it if you're using OBP. OBP is basically average, but better.
I get using OBP and OPS separately, or skipping OPS sometimes because OPS casts a wider net that isn't always desirable, but unless you're using average because you want to talk with someone who refuses to acknowledge newer stats, using it over OBP is a little like continuing to buy CRT tvs over flat panels just because they're what you're used to. It's also not like OBP is particularly awkard to calculate or work with either. No more so than classic BA.
The only people I talk baseball with on a regular basis are a few of my uncles, and they're pretty oldschool. So yea, I guess they've rubbed off on me a little bit lol. I tend to to lean away from OPS as I can find it a little misleading, where as avg and obp are more definitive. I still can find use for advanced sabre-metrics but alot of the time they're manipulated to prove a point that may not not always be true. I'm a pretty traditional guy, haven't taken the jump just yet.
The only people I talk baseball with on a regular basis are a few of my uncles, and they're pretty oldschool. So yea, I guess they've rubbed off on me a little bit lol. I tend to to lean away from OPS as I can find it a little misleading, where as avg and obp are more definitive. I still can find use for advanced sabre-metrics but alot of the time they're manipulated to prove a point that may not not always be true. I'm a pretty traditional guy, haven't taken the jump just yet.
Any stat can be manipulated to prove a point, not just sabr stats. Also FAIR WARNING: I'm not launching into this particular rant because of you, just because your post gives me a good opportunity to insert it into the discussion. Please do not take the following as being directed at you in particular (it's not) or meant as a response to what you posted (it's not). You were just a convenient jumping off point here. Nothing more.
******Rant alert!!!*******
So with that said, people who dismiss sabr stats as worthless or garbage or the domain of nerds who don't like the game and think it's played by numbers and not human beings boggle my mind. sabr stats are not replacements for qualitative evaluation. They're just supposed to be improvements over the flaws of the older stats. BA doesn't paint you nearly as complete a picture as OBP does, so there's no value in using the former over the later for real anlysis. FIP may be complex, but you don't need to understand all the math of it to see it as a viable way to supplement the holes in ERA. defensive metrics are unproven and a little awkward, but I'll take some awkwardness rather than relying solely on easily fallible human qualitative observation. Or errors (which are the worst kind of stat: qualitative observation masquerading as concrete quantitative logic). The fact that the standard excuses used to trash sabrmetrics tend to be warped and unrealistic views of their proponents or uses, or at worst outright fabrications speaks more to the issues residing with the comfort level of traditionalist baseball fans with embracing new ideas than it does to any fatal flaws or problems with the sabrmetric style stats.
FWIW, I bet a ton of traditionalists are cool with WHIP now for pitchers. Because it's a simple stat that makes sense. WHIP as a stat is barely 30 years old and was invented by a sabr nerd who was also in part responsible for the creation of roto league fantasy baseball and who is partially responsible for the rise in popularity of the godfather of sabrmetrics, Bill James.
So if that doesn't show that there's a place for sabr stats in the modern game and doesn't at least get some staunch traditionalist fans to reevaluate their acceptance of newer statistical ideas, it would be pretty hypocritical.
*****We now return you to your regularly scheduled post, already in progress*****
...and that's why I think that was the greatest Blue Jays team ever assembled.
But like I was saying earlier, except to use with people who refuse to associate with new stats, or in cases where it sounds "cleaner" to discuss someone hitting .300 or whatnot, I can't think of any situation where you could use BA that it wouldn't be better to use OBP. OBP is BA without the ridiculousness of excluding walks and HBPs. BA is like what would happen if NHL statisticians started separating empty netters and power play goals from a player's goal total (as in they are not included at all, not that they're counted in the total and then again in a separate category for completeness' sake)
At least though BA isn't as bad of an evaluative stat as RBIs or *shudder* wins.
I agree, that was the best Jays team ever assembled.
On another completely unrelated note, while I doubt I'll ever take part in some of the sabre-metric analysis done on this forum, I accept the fact that it will probably become common knowledge among baseball enthusiasts within the next decade or so. No worries, I know you weren't taking a shot at me. I don't think think I've ever said it's "worthless" etc etc, just not my cup of tea. Besides, let's just say mathematics isn't my strong suit. lol.
Any stat can be manipulated to prove a point, not just sabr stats. Also FAIR WARNING: I'm not launching into this particular rant because of you, just because your post gives me a good opportunity to insert it into the discussion. Please do not take the following as being directed at you in particular (it's not) or meant as a response to what you posted (it's not). You were just a convenient jumping off point here. Nothing more.
******Rant alert!!!*******
So with that said, people who dismiss sabr stats as worthless or garbage or the domain of nerds who don't like the game and think it's played by numbers and not human beings boggle my mind. sabr stats are not replacements for qualitative evaluation. They're just supposed to be improvements over the flaws of the older stats. BA doesn't paint you nearly as complete a picture as OBP does, so there's no value in using the former over the later for real anlysis. FIP may be complex, but you don't need to understand all the math of it to see it as a viable way to supplement the holes in ERA. defensive metrics are unproven and a little awkward, but I'll take some awkwardness rather than relying solely on easily fallible human qualitative observation. Or errors (which are the worst kind of stat: qualitative observation masquerading as concrete quantitative logic). The fact that the standard excuses used to trash sabrmetrics tend to be warped and unrealistic views of their proponents or uses, or at worst outright fabrications speaks more to the issues residing with the comfort level of traditionalist baseball fans with embracing new ideas than it does to any fatal flaws or problems with the sabrmetric style stats.
FWIW, I bet a ton of traditionalists are cool with WHIP now for pitchers. Because it's a simple stat that makes sense. WHIP as a stat is barely 30 years old and was invented by a sabr nerd who was also in part responsible for the creation of roto league fantasy baseball and who is partially responsible for the rise in popularity of the godfather of sabrmetrics, Bill James.
So if that doesn't show that there's a place for sabr stats in the modern game and doesn't at least get some staunch traditionalist fans to reevaluate their acceptance of newer statistical ideas, it would be pretty hypocritical.
*****We now return you to your regularly scheduled post, already in progress*****
...and that's why I think that was the greatest Blue Jays team ever assembled.
But like I was saying earlier, except to use with people who refuse to associate with new stats, or in cases where it sounds "cleaner" to discuss someone hitting .300 or whatnot, I can't think of any situation where you could use BA that it wouldn't be better to use OBP. OBP is BA without the ridiculousness of excluding walks and HBPs. BA is like what would happen if NHL statisticians started separating empty netters and power play goals from a player's goal total (as in they are not included at all, not that they're counted in the total and then again in a separate category for completeness' sake)
At least though BA isn't as bad of an evaluative stat as RBIs or *shudder* wins.
I've never really looked into sabremetrics as I think it would just fly over my head but I'd really like to try and get it down. Any suggestions on where to go to at least get myself started? What I hate about RBI's is that they don't count for the player if they occur on an error. It's not like the runs are disallowed. I can understand not punishing a pitchers era because of it but I never understood why the batter didn't get the rbi. Or even why an error is considered an out as far as a batter is conscerned. At least I believe it is.
I've never really looked into sabremetrics as I think it would just fly over my head but I'd really like to try and get it down. Any suggestions on where to go to at least get myself started? What I hate about RBI's is that they don't count for the player if they occur on an error. It's not like the runs are disallowed. I can understand not punishing a pitchers era because of it but I never understood why the batter didn't get the rbi. Or even why an error is considered an out as far as a batter is conscerned. At least I believe it is.
My biggest thing with Sabremetrics is that is doesn't take into account the mental side of the game and situations in the game. A pitcher who gets run support pitches differently when ahead of the game. A batter hitting in front of Miguel Cabrera will get better pitches to hit than say hitting in front of Adam Lind.
I know Sabremetrics are here to stay but people put too much emphasis on them do not value the human element to the game.....how to you measure a slump or hot streak....cause there is not a way to discern that in Sabremetrics.
I tend to stay with old school stats and feel for players....you can argue that Juan Pierre is more valuable than Joey Votto cause is WAR is better but you tell me which guy you start a franchise with.
My biggest thing with Sabremetrics is that is doesn't take into account the mental side of the game and situations in the game. A pitcher who gets run support pitches differently when ahead of the game. A batter hitting in front of Miguel Cabrera will get better pitches to hit than say hitting in front of Adam Lind.
I know Sabremetrics are here to stay but people put too much emphasis on them do not value the human element to the game.....how to you measure a slump or hot streak....cause there is not a way to discern that in Sabremetrics.
I tend to stay with old school stats and feel for players....you can argue that Juan Pierre is more valuable than Joey Votto cause is WAR is better but you tell me which guy you start a franchise with.
There's nothing from stopping anyone from seeing both sides of the coin though. It's a good extra bit of knowledge to have.
My biggest thing with Sabremetrics is that is doesn't take into account the mental side of the game and situations in the game. A pitcher who gets run support pitches differently when ahead of the game. A batter hitting in front of Miguel Cabrera will get better pitches to hit than say hitting in front of Adam Lind.
I know Sabremetrics are here to stay but people put too much emphasis on them do not value the human element to the game.....how to you measure a slump or hot streak....cause there is not a way to discern that in Sabremetrics.
I tend to stay with old school stats and feel for players....you can argue that Juan Pierre is more valuable than Joey Votto cause is WAR is better but you tell me which guy you start a franchise with.
How is this different than regular stats? It's not. That entire premise is false. It never pretends to deal with the mental side of the game any more than old school stats. In fact, some stats that were born out of sabr concepts, like BABIP, are specifically designed to help evaluate whether a player's performance differences are a simple hot or cold streak or the result of particular changes in how they're swinging/hitting (like hitting more fly balls or pulling more pitches)
and in no universe is Juan Pierre's WAR anywhere close to Votto's. Sabremetrics will back you up on that assertion about their relative worth. Juan Pierre's career WAR is like 13 in 13 career seasons (it's a cumulative stat). Joey Votto is at 23 in 6 seasons. never mind that in his 5 full seasons in the majors, Votto's lowest single season WAR is just barely worse than Pierre's career high single season #. The point of that isn't that you need them to tell you certain glaringly obvious things taht are in fact correct. It's to help you quantify those assertions and also to disprove assertions that are baseless or groundless (like hte people that continue to believe firmly that Juan Pierre is a valuable player)
like dredeye said, Sabremetrics do not require you to ignore qualitative analysis. They're meant to give you a little bit more to work with.
My biggest thing with Sabremetrics is that is doesn't take into account the mental side of the game and situations in the game. A pitcher who gets run support pitches differently when ahead of the game. A batter hitting in front of Miguel Cabrera will get better pitches to hit than say hitting in front of Adam Lind.
What?
And I'm not sure if there is an evidence of that second part. Pitchers aren't going to give you pitches to hit if you can hit them. For example: if you're a great fastball hitters, pitchers aren't going to give you fastball no matter where you are hitting.
Here is something interesting: Eric Thames saw 54.1% amounts of fastball last season batting mostly in front of Bautista. This year? He is seeing them nearly 60% of the time batting 6th. I guess Lawrie is makin' pitchers get him those fastballs, huh?
Quote:
I know Sabremetrics are here to stay but people put too much emphasis on them do not value the human element to the game.....how to you measure a slump or hot streak....cause there is not a way to discern that in Sabremetrics.
I'll agree with the fact that sabremetrics don't consider human element of the game. You can't measure or quantify but I am sure it affects the game a lot.
Quote:
I tend to stay with old school stats and feel for players....you can argue that Juan Pierre is more valuable than Joey Votto cause is WAR is better but you tell me which guy you start a franchise with.
People should just use both instead of strongly being on the side of sabremetrics or the old school approach.
One thing that kinda really bugs me is when a player has a good year but also had a high BABIP to go along with it. Some will just say he got "lucky" because his BABIP is so high and debunk the fact that the player was maybe just really good. It's possible it might not be sustainable but it doesn't mean he wasn't good because his BABIP was high. Vice versa too.
And I'm not sure if there is an evidence of that second part. Pitchers aren't going to give you pitches to hit if you can hit them. For example: if you're a great fastball hitters, pitchers aren't going to give you fastball no matter where you are hitting.
Here is something interesting: Eric Thames saw 54.1% amounts of fastball last season batting mostly in front of Bautista. This year? He is seeing them nearly 60% of the time batting 6th. I guess Lawrie is makin' pitchers get him those fastballs, huh?
FWIW, both the idea of lineup protection (that where you are in the lineup and who is or isn't located in the slots around you) and the idea of "pitching to the lead" where pitchers with or without amounts of run support suddenly alter their plan of attack or try and get extra-fine or extra-lax with their control have both been debunked with signficant research. I don't have links to the studies on hand, but these two ideas were favorite targets of FJM to dissect and disprove.
Traditional scouting, the type that describes the peculiar quirks and nuances of a player's swing, the way they load up, when they open their hips, or the arm slots they use when delivering a pitch, the deceptiveness of the ball out of their hand... That stuff is important, and it can't be measured. Only trained, experienced human eyes can tell that story. I never played baseball, and I find those things fascinating, but unfortunately it mostly goes over my head.
The traditionalist BS I refer to, the type that should be met with a righteous fury of condescension and sabremetrics, is when someone like Pat Tabler tries to tell me that Derek Jeter is a great defensive SS, or that the Yankees have the best defense in the American league because they have so few errors. Get out.
and Murphy being fired at the All Star break. We are in great shape to make a run... To optimistic?
