Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Article: Gleeman and the Geek, Ep 87: Opening Day

  1. #21
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,676
    Like
    32
    Liked 742 Times in 414 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jorgenswest View Post
    I appreciated the increase in baseball discussion and content. Taking specific events in the game (batting order, bullpen use, pinch hitting...) and expanding them to the general kept me listening. I hope this is a direction that will continue.

    ... but "Progression to the mean" ... c'mon

    Regression to the Mean | FanGraphs Sabermetrics Library
    Well, John can be technically right here and he can also be technically wrong. Regression is nothing more than the return to a former state.

    In the case of Willingham, he is likely to regress toward his mean, meaning his stats will go into decline. On the other hand, 2011 Mauer was also likely to regress to the mean and improve his stats based on previous season performances.

    Whereas it could be considering that Dozier, having never posted good Major League stats but performing under his supposed capabilities, could progress to his mean (ie. his expected performance level that he has yet to achieve).

  2. #22
    Regarding the “discussion” at about 30 minutes into the podcast: I really get tired of so-called sabremetricians taking a stronger “I know more about this so I am the smarter baseball fan” attitude than they should. In reality, smart baseball fans THINK CRITICALLY and thoughtfully digest different lines of baseball thought. Anyone who largely sees every run and every at bat as equally important across a season (i.e., the Pythagorean) has decreased credibility with me. A two run go-ahead single in the top of the 8th is just not equivalent to a single in a 12-2 game. If you argue that with me I might have to start “checking my email.” Let’s not forget that the pythag is based on CORRELATION, not causation. That is, there is a RELATIONSHIP between runs scored/given up and wins—that not all that surprising if you think about it. There is also a relationship between ice cream sales and temperature—does that mean if people would have bought more ice cream in Minneapolis we could’ve had a warmer opening day?

    To overemphasize the “hard core smart person” side of sabremetrics and de-emphasize its correlational nature that inherently includes varying levels of imprecision (i.e., the third place Angels had the highest WAR in their division last year) signals a higher level of critical thought is needed. Make no mistake sabremetric analysis contributes to our knowledge of the great game, but I would appreciate it if some people could broaden their perspective and reduce their sabremetric elitism. Blast away all of you that are smarter than me.

  3. #23
    (Edited and Deleted this Post)

  4. #24
    Sorry everyone, that last post came off a little more half-cocked than I intended. I am just arguing for a little more perspective and balance than a strict adherence to a "this many runs equals this many wins", especially since this is theoretical and cannot be played out in real life. The Twins had a higher team WAR than the Orioles last year---in light of this variability in the accuracy of WAR I find it hard to get too worked up about the theoretical discussion about how many runs it is costing us to have Mauer bat 2nd or 3rd. Critical, game determining at-bats happen at all points of the batting lineup throughout a season (e.g.., Parmalee's at bat yesterday). FWIW, I would've rather had Mauer batting in Parmalee's slot yesterday.

  5. #25
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,603
    Like
    495
    Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
    But you can't move Mauer around based on every at bat......so the goal is to get him the most at bats in each game as possible. Not sure how that is even up for debate, really. It just seems obvious on its face, let alone when you look at the math*

    *math is for predicting the likely future, not the certain future, of course it does not always work, again, not sure how that is up for debate either.
    Lighten up Francis....

  6. #26
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,676
    Like
    32
    Liked 742 Times in 414 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    *math is for predicting the likely future, not the certain future, of course it does not always work, again, not sure how that is up for debate either.
    This is the key. You can't predict aberrant behavior. You can only take the information you have on hand and make the best decisions using that information.

    And really, that's all sabermetrics are... I've never seen anyone claim them to be infallible. All they are is a tool to improve the mean and maximize the talent you have available as a team.

  7. #27
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,307
    Like
    50
    Liked 70 Times in 37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SDTwinkie View Post
    Regarding the “discussion” at about 30 minutes into the podcast: I really get tired of so-called sabremetricians taking a stronger “I know more about this so I am the smarter baseball fan” attitude than they should. In reality, smart baseball fans THINK CRITICALLY and thoughtfully digest different lines of baseball thought. Anyone who largely sees every run and every at bat as equally important across a season (i.e., the Pythagorean) has decreased credibility with me. A two run go-ahead single in the top of the 8th is just not equivalent to a single in a 12-2 game. If you argue that with me I might have to start “checking my email.” Let’s not forget that the pythag is based on CORRELATION, not causation. That is, there is a RELATIONSHIP between runs scored/given up and wins—that not all that surprising if you think about it. There is also a relationship between ice cream sales and temperature—does that mean if people would have bought more ice cream in Minneapolis we could’ve had a warmer opening day?

    To overemphasize the “hard core smart person” side of sabremetrics and de-emphasize its correlational nature that inherently includes varying levels of imprecision (i.e., the third place Angels had the highest WAR in their division last year) signals a higher level of critical thought is needed. Make no mistake sabremetric analysis contributes to our knowledge of the great game, but I would appreciate it if some people could broaden their perspective and reduce their sabremetric elitism. Blast away all of you that are smarter than me.
    Stating that having your better hitters get more AB's than your worse hitters should lead to more runs and more wins isn't really sabermetrics, its common sense.

  8. #28
    "Stating that having your better hitters get more AB's than your worse hitters should lead to more runs and more wins isn't really sabermetrics, its common sense."

    Completely agree.

  9. #29
    And really, that's all sabermetrics are... I've never seen anyone claim them to be infallible. All they are is a tool to improve the mean and maximize the talent you have available as a team.[/QUOTE]

    This is my perspective as well--one that we can all agree upon. It is overemphasis and dismissiveness that I have a problem with.

  10. #30
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,307
    Like
    50
    Liked 70 Times in 37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    This is the key. You can't predict aberrant behavior. You can only take the information you have on hand and make the best decisions using that information.

    And really, that's all sabermetrics are... I've never seen anyone claim them to be infallible. All they are is a tool to improve the mean and maximize the talent you have available as a team.
    Exactly. I like to equate sabermetrics to poker hands.

    AA is going to win more hands than 72o. But, this does not guarantee you are going to win a single hand, or even a series of hands, with AA vs 72o.
    All you can do is know that you are getting your money in with the best of it, and over a large enough sample size you are going to win money, while the guy going in with 72o is going to lose money.
    Sometimes it takes a REALLY LARGE sample size though.

    Bottom line: Playing the odds will never guarantee success, but it's hard to see how it can even be disputed that it gives you a better chance than not playing the odds.

  11. #31
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,770
    Like
    4
    Liked 66 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Yes, in real life the extra 7 times Joe Mauer gets on base throughout the year could mean 7 more wins. If ANYTHING, the math tempers things a bit.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    But you can't move Mauer around based on every at bat......so the goal is to get him the most at bats in each game as possible. Not sure how that is even up for debate, really. It just seems obvious on its face, let alone when you look at the math*

    *math is for predicting the likely future, not the certain future, of course it does not always work, again, not sure how that is up for debate either.
    No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

  13. #33
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,307
    Like
    50
    Liked 70 Times in 37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SDTwinkie View Post
    No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.
    I don't see how trying to define 'x' does that at all.

  14. #34
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,770
    Like
    4
    Liked 66 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    When talking about Gardy, we are generally talking about statistical analysis vs. "gut" ("gut" to me is pretty dismissive). I would be surprised if this particular batting order change would mean less than 2 wins. But anything above 0 wins is enough for me to warrant the change. Clearly.

  15. #35
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,770
    Like
    4
    Liked 66 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by SDTwinkie View Post
    No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.
    It's not just an assumption. It's probability based on statistical analysis. 1.5 wins seems a bit conservative when compared to common sense. And 1.5 wins matters.

  16. #36
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,770
    Like
    4
    Liked 66 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    I have said this before and it is NOT directed to anyone in this thread, but I often get the same vibe from anti statistical analysis people as I do from anti-evolutionists. "Well, your theory isn't perfect, so . . . I'll just go back to what I *feel* is true." Clearly, evolution is more well-established since "theory" in science is *NOT* "theory" in general parlance, including baseball statistical analysis, but I do think there are similarities in the general acceptance of the two.

  17. #37
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    967
    Like
    3
    Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SDTwinkie View Post
    No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

    My point was John specifically asks Aaron to quantify it, which Aaron avoided doing until asked. When John replies that the number insignificant, Aaron tries to use other numbers to put it in perspective. At which point John gets high and mighty says the number doesn't matter and rips Aaaron for quantifying it. It's hilarious!

    As many have pointed out, it's less about an exact number than about a more specific way to evaluate the value of doing something in baseball. Is it perfect? No, but it can be useful as a reference point.

    Furthermore, missed in the discussion was that John quoted chance happenings as being more useful to a team, but a manager can't control that, but he can control how many ABs a bad player gets.
    Last edited by Alex; 04-02-2013 at 07:11 PM.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Wahl View Post
    I have said this before and it is NOT directed to anyone in this thread, but I often get the same vibe from anti statistical analysis people as I do from anti-evolutionists. "Well, your theory isn't perfect, so . . . I'll just go back to what I *feel* is true." Clearly, evolution is more well-established since "theory" in science is *NOT* "theory" in general parlance, including baseball statistical analysis, but I do think there are similarities in the general acceptance of the two.

    Oh Gosh, I do sound like this, don’t I?!? Ouch. Please don’t count me in this camp.

    I guess all I am attempting to say is that baseball outcomes are predictable and random at the same time—and sometimes human factors and performance in critical situations (e.g., Parmalee at bat yesterday) are important. I am not ant-stats, just am sometimes put off when some individuals (no one in this discussion) overemphasize them in an arrogant manner.

    OK, I am quitting now--thanks for the respectful discussion everyone. Go Twins.

  19. #39
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,676
    Like
    32
    Liked 742 Times in 414 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    I don't get this argument. It doesn't matter if one run is added or fifty. If the team is better by even the smallest margin and there are no significant downsides, you make the move. It's that bloody simple.

  20. #40
    Senior Member All-Star Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Posts
    3,770
    Like
    4
    Liked 66 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by SDTwinkie View Post
    Oh Gosh, I do sound like this, don’t I?!? Ouch. Please don’t count me in this camp.

    I guess all I am attempting to say is that baseball outcomes are predictable and random at the same time—and sometimes human factors and performance in critical situations (e.g., Parmalee at bat yesterday) are important. I am not ant-stats, just am sometimes put off when some individuals (no one in this discussion) overemphasize them in an arrogant manner.

    OK, I am quitting now--thanks for the respectful discussion everyone. Go Twins.
    No, it did not apply to anyone in particular. It is a general thing that I have found.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.