rolling sabermetrics and statistics thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

because i'm tired of all the outdated annual threads on this board. baseball prospectus has a new pitching metric, SIERA, and you can read all about it for free in these five articles:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10027

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10032

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10037

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10042

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10045

tom tango and matt swartz (one of the two guys who came up with this) have a LENGTHY exchange about it here that i'm still working my way through: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/siera/#comments

i am not even close to comprehending of a lot of the math involved but their explanation of the stat is pretty readable. if it works, it's probably some of the most interesting stuff bpro has done in a while.

call all destroyer, Saturday, 13 February 2010 16:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

I just heard about SIERA this week...

Sorry, just started a new annual thread a minute ago; guess the specific book issues can go in there.

Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 13 February 2010 17:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i was thinking we could use this one for any interesting statistical stuff no matter what the source

call all destroyer, Saturday, 13 February 2010 17:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Adam (Minneapolis)
Could you ever see a team going completely by the numbers? That is to say, being an "every day player" would be meaningless because the team would play the statistical matchups every day no matter what in an effort to maximize output.

Rob Neyer (12:52 PM)
You mean like Casey Stengel in the 1950s? No, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many relievers on the roster, too many guys who would be unhappy with irregular playing time.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 17:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

(You guys have read about how Stengel used to use pitchers? Today's MSM would have a collective stroke.)

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 17:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

i always figured no one will actually do closer by committee these days because guys come up with the expectation of having a set role.

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 17:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

u got a link i can read?

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 17:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, you'd have to insert a fatigue factor as well... haha, this sounds like MLB THE SHOW (nb: Dr. Morbius, this is a videogame).

_▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 17:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes, I HEARD OF IT

cad, read the Robert Creamer bio of Stengel (or for the pre-Yankee years, S. Goldman's)

I belong to the "Your role is to pitch when you're needed" school.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 19:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

it'd be interesting to see an org try to adopt it from the low minors on up. you'd still have issues with outside guys though.

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 19:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

dudes with dreams of a 10 figure contract to rack up saves would take umbrage with such a system

mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

huh - i was thinking about this last night.
i think all it will take is a team with morbs' (superior) "Your role is to pitch when you're needed" system to win the ws and we might see the floodgates open.

The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 21:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

aka the "bullpen by committee"

The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 21:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

zmg since when were high-leverage innings a Morbius creation!?!

_▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 21:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

didn't bobby cox have a 'platooned' closer last year with soriano and gonzalez

ciderpress, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

sort of -- it was like 70% Soriano/30% Gonzalez

millions now zinging will never lol (WmC), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 23:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

not really SABR but interesting stat:

Through the first 1/3 of the 2010 season, the AL East has four of the best five records in the league.

If the season were to end today, there would be 2 teams in the AL East NOT advancing to the playoffs despite better records than all but one other team in the league.

Tampa, Yanquis, Toronto and Boston are all on pace for 90-win seasons.

_▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

more small sample size fun: 12 of the 16 starting catchers in the NL currently have an above average batting line by OPS+

ciderpress, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

49 years later, Roger Maris wins AL runs scored title:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4513/the-truth-is-always-being-rewritten

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

I'll post this here, even though it has partly to do with some back-and-forth on the Pujols thread. Bear with me--and when you jump all over me, please remember that I bought my first Zander Hollander guide in 1970. I've been there and back, and back again.

There's a blogger in San Francisco I read, Steve Rubio (a Prospectus writer when it was still fairly new, I think), and the other day he linked to the following from Jennifer Doyle, who seems to mostly write about soccer. I love what she says, and she captures some of my own feelings when I get into old-vs.-new-stat discussions on this board:

"Beware of sports writers who pretend to mastery of the facts. I come across a different version of these people in academia--they can recite a bunch of dates, or quote Hegel, and for this reason they seem to think that they've figured it all out. The ones who listen, however, who have a good sense of humor and know how to hold contradiction in their head without trying to resolve it--those are the ones who are most likely to say something interesting, something insightful, something new...Reader, beware of the sense of mastery which comes at the cost of a sense of wonder."

I have no problem at all with VORP and WAR and the like, as long as you view them as just more pieces of the puzzle. But I sometimes get the feeling that when someone throws VORP at me, it's like when someone yells "Challops!" on ILM, or "Muslim!" in Palin World--it's meant to end the discussion, not add to it. Obviously, we're a million miles ahead of the days when people used to think Steve Garvey was the best hitter in baseball because he'd go bat 700 times and knock in 100 runs. (Pointing out, however, that even James revised his thinking on Garvey when he reissued the Historical Abstract--one of many reasons I like James so much more than his disciples.) I wouldn't want baseball arguments to return to that level of thinking. But to echo Doyle's last sentence above, if your belief in the infallibility of VORP and WAR lead you to shrug your shoulders at the prospect of Pujols or Votto winning the Triple Crown, that's a place I don't want to end up.

I'll have more to say on this in my upcoming book, VORP: The God That Failed.

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:22 (seven years ago) Permalink

haven't you heard, the triple crown is now comprised of VORP, WAR, and WPA/LI

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

WPA/LI: "Well Played, Albert (Lasting Impressions)"? I can't keep up.

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

win probability added divided by leverage index

it's generally about the same as the batting component of WAR though, so not very useful. plain WPA is more interesting and kind of like the sabermetric equivalent of RBIs.

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

Thanks. I'm dying to find out what Ray Oyler's Leverage Index was for 1969--not very good, I'm guessing.

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

clemenza otm. James revolutionized my thinking during the mid/late 80s, but my enthusiasm for the game waned in the 90s when it seemed like the New Math was press-ganged into service to fantasy baseball. In the late 90s I sort of got my mojo back by actually watching a lot of baseball instead of reading about a lot of baseball. Sabermetrics are good corrective lenses, but I had to remember to use them to watch baseball games, not read box scores. I get a lot more fun out of the game that way.

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

leverage index is just a value which quantifies how "important" any single plate appearance is to winning that game

so bases loaded, 2 outs in a tie game would have a really high value whereas bases empty in a blowout would be really low

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

Has a leverage index been developed for relief appearances? Inherited runners stranded/scored drives me bananas.

Andy K, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:01 (seven years ago) Permalink

Admission I'd rather not make: I'm still stuck in a place where I follow baseball primarily through the lens of statistics (more traditional statistics, but statistics nonetheless). Getting back to actually watching more baseball is my next therapeutic goal. (Part of this does have to do with the overload of baseball on TV. Somewhere along the way, it just became too much.)

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:02 (seven years ago) Permalink

well yeah it works both ways

if a game situation is a 1.5 LI for the hitter (1.0 is average) then it's a 1.5 for the pitcher too by definition

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:03 (seven years ago) Permalink

tbh i'm a math nerd and i love all the baseball stats stuff but i think sabermetrics folks tend to have too much confidence in their own metrics, there's not nearly enough self-evaluation in the "field".

i think the offense stats are pretty close to complete but there's still so much we don't understand about pitching, let alone defense or player development

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:06 (seven years ago) Permalink

I think there is plenty of self-evaluation in the field; the BP guys debate stuff all the time, and most if not all recognize that these metrics are imperfect tools.

(not that I have the time to read all the articles or watch a game every day, understand)

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:09 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think the offense stats are pretty close to complete but there's still so much we don't understand about pitching, let alone defense or player development

Agreed. And just to really horrify VORP disciples, I think you can even learn something from Joe Morgan when it comes to "in the field" stuff. I realize Morgan is considered a human punchline by most everyone who's been influenced by James, but if you can look past the many blind spots that someone of his generation probably carries around (having to do with character, clutch play, the value of a .300 average in and of itself, etc.), there are going to be some things that he's learned about the game that I just don't believe you can arrive at through abstract statistical analysis. So treat him skeptically, for sure, but don't try to ridicule him out of extistence. (When the influence of James on me was at its peak in the late '80s/early '90s, Kubek used to drive me up the wall for the same reasons.)

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:19 (seven years ago) Permalink

So treat him skeptically, for sure, but don't try to ridicule him out of extistence.

Not sure I can follow you this far.

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:24 (seven years ago) Permalink

Morgan does not deserve to have the most prestigious color commentary job for baseball in the world. That doesn't mean he's never insightful. But the fact that he has insights into baseball is meaningless. He lacks the ability to express those insights or the work ethic to learn about the teams he's watching. Orel Hershiser is a far better analyst. Keith Hernandez is another guy I've enjoyed. Neither of those guys is a stats guy, but both actually do the legwork to bring some on-the-field insight to the presentation.

Also, while I have my issues with Morgan, there are plenty of guys who are worse. Rob Dibble springs to mind.

no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

Orel Hershiser is a far better analyst.

Which reminds me, John Smoltz has been an absolute treat this year since he sorta retired.

My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

Keith Hernandez is listenable mostly for the crazy shit he comes out with. He calls Jeff Francoeur "a streaky hitter."

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

I probably haven't listened closely enough to Morgan to be defending him. The back-and-forth between Miller and him is easy enough on my ears that I've never quite understood the intensely negative feelings about him that I keep encountering, but maybe that's all credit to Miller. And I have the additional bias that the mid-'70s Reds were my favourite team. This goes back a ways, but I used to think Palmer, Seaver, and Reggie were great in the booth. As analysts, I can't remember. I just liked them.

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

to clemenza, i don't know dude, you seemed pretty "blinders-on" when discussing Bonds' achievements and were in the process of pooh-poohing him on the Pujols thread so........... idk, was tbh hard to take you seriously in your short shrift dismissal of him as a legit triple crown candidate given the 232 BBs that got in the way of him chasing such a "retro-cool" counting achievement (all the while destroying almost every offensive record in the process).

but kudos to all y'all who were reading bill james in the summer of love~~~

i don't mind Morgan and Miller, because they're both local guys. Morgan seems way worse on the page then in the booth ime.

_▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

francoeur is a streaky hitter in that he has a lot of cold streaks

ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

Steroids notwithstanding, I really wasn't discounting the magnitude of Bonds's statistical achievements--just that I thought the walks ruled out him ever having a realistic shot at the Triple Crown. Not just in terms of RBI, but, I thought, also in BA. But Ciderpress's math made me realize that he in fact likely would have won one, maybe even two. Which was your point to begin with--you were right, I was wrong. What I didn't appreciate, though, was pulling out VORP as kind of a gotcha moment, like I'd just been teleported out a 1974 issue of Baseball Digest. (Not to knock BD, which I used to love.) Again, I've been reading James forever.

clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:58 (seven years ago) Permalink

That's cool, just like I said, you appeared to be full blinders in your take on Bonds achievements.

Also, VORP was introduced 9 years ago by Keith Woolner. Bill James has always preferred win-shares and runs-created in my 10 years of being familiar with SABR. IIRC.

_▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Thursday, 26 August 2010 20:11 (seven years ago) Permalink

who went to the pitchF/X summit in SF?

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 August 2010 02:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

i liked this little bit from the pitchFX summary on bpro:

5:39: Brad Hawpe play: starts with a >80% chance of catching the ball, but freezes in place and fails to make the play. Difficult to represent visually, because the out probability plummets while Hawpe stands in place and time elapses. In a different Hawpe play, his first step gives him a lower probability of catching the ball, since he broke in the wrong direction. Rumor has it no Rockies reps are in attendance, but they’re not missing out, since they’ve enjoyed a front-row seat for this sort of action for the last several years.

ciderpress, Monday, 30 August 2010 20:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

haha

no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Monday, 30 August 2010 21:23 (seven years ago) Permalink

wau

call all destroyer, Friday, 3 September 2010 16:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

source?

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 September 2010 16:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

players w/an OPS of 1.000 or more in 2000

Todd Helton
Manny Ramirez
Carlos Delgado
Barry Bonds
Jason Giambi
Gary Sheffield
Vladimir Guerrero
Frank Thomas
Sammy Sosa
Moises Alou
Jeff Bagwell
Nomar Garciaparra
Richard Hidalgo
Alex Rodriguez
Brian Giles
Jeff Kent
Mike Piazza
Troy Glaus
Edgar Martinez

players w/an OPS of 1.000 or more in 2010

Josh Hamilton
Miguel Cabrera
Joey Votto
Albert Pujols

('_') (omar little), Monday, 4 October 2010 06:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

jim thome and justin morneau deserve a mention on that too for partial seasons of 1.000+

ciderpress, Monday, 4 October 2010 16:41 (seven years ago) Permalink

very good article

k3vin k., Tuesday, 21 November 2017 18:57 (seven months ago) Permalink

very important assumption that James implicitly makes, but does not discuss: that the sole events worthy of consideration are the outcomes that actually occurred

Not sure where he implies this. And what type of outcomes are we talking about? It's not like he's arguing that you got a single but you get no credit because you didn't score.

timellison, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 22:58 (seven months ago) Permalink

According to Position A, the only thing that matters about Joey Votto’s walks is how the other Reds hitters capitalized on them.

Same thing. Don't think so.

timellison, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 23:07 (seven months ago) Permalink

if he only gets credit for them in games the reds win, then that's true

k3vin k., Wednesday, 22 November 2017 03:39 (seven months ago) Permalink

I think James was making a general point about context mattering and that stats that purport to show a player's overall worth might take context into consideration. To extrapolate from this that someone like Bill James doesn't understand that it's valuable to have a player on your team that gets hits even when his teammates don't happen to come through and bring him around to score is silly.

timellison, Wednesday, 22 November 2017 05:00 (seven months ago) Permalink

I completely agree, "position A" is a bad mischaracterization of James' views.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, 22 November 2017 10:05 (seven months ago) Permalink

The three-HR game vs. three-games-with-a-HR question...I guess it comes down to a) the first guy greatly increases the likelihood you'll come away with at least one win in the series, vs. b) the other guy increases your chances in three games, but you still could get swept. I'd rather have the three games with a HR myself, but I understand the argument that they're of equal value.

Judge's slump...I wonder what his WAR was for those two terrible months. If a guy just missed two whole months, his chances of winning MVP would be close to nil (Trout this year might support that--best player in the league again, but voters thought he missed too much time). I have to believe Judge was at, maybe even below, replacement level for those two months, the walks and the HR aside--a .180 batting average makes for a whole lot of outs. If that's true (and I don't know that it is), he may have been actively reducing his team's chances of winning games. Which to me has to count as even worse than simply being out of the lineup.

Again, not two months' worth of games, but two actual calendar months.

clemenza, Wednesday, 22 November 2017 21:03 (seven months ago) Permalink

One thing I remember from James in the 80s is the notion that a team's, let's say, 3rd run scored in any given game was more valuable than, say, their 10th run in any game that they happened to score that many, because a 10th run is generally less necessary for a win. Wouldn't that argue that the player who homers in four straight games is more valuable in that four-game stretch than the player who hits four in one game and then nothing?

I am bad at statistics and know it, so

WilliamC, Wednesday, 22 November 2017 21:50 (seven months ago) Permalink

Judge's slump...I wonder what his WAR was for those two terrible months.

from 7/14 to 9/2, his wRC+ was 82. obviously nowhere near as good as his first half of 197, but he was still putting up a 19% walk rate and playing solid defense. people act like he suddenly became a worthless player. i can't figure out how to split it up to get only the second half of july and all of august, but he put up +0.2 WAR in august, which extrapolated out over a whole season would come out to a little over 1 WAR. (it's 1.169, but you can dock him a little because the second half of july was his nadir.)

k3vin k., Wednesday, 22 November 2017 23:10 (seven months ago) Permalink

Thanks--I don't know how to figure that stuff out for myself. (I'm a whiz at RC/27...) The two months I isolated were slightly different: 7/13 - 9/12. Anyway, so he was a little above a replacement player. That helps his case. A little. I should also mention that I don't know how that measures up against MVPs historically. Maybe what I'm treating as this unprecedented slump for an MVP-candidate isn't in fact unprecedented--maybe other MVPs have had two-month stretches just as bad. I highly doubt it, but I can't say for sure.

(xpost) I think that's the basic argument, WC. In a way, Judge's season is a variation on that. It's a three-game series, though. He hit a home run in game 1, and overall went 3 for 8 in the first two games, with a couple of walks; in the third game, he went 1-6. Altuve went 2-5, 2-5, and 1-4, and he did other Altuve-like things in each game. (You can't do this precisely...that has him hitting .357, and you can't give him half-a-HR.) Who would you rather have?

clemenza, Wednesday, 22 November 2017 23:42 (seven months ago) Permalink

clem, you can see WAR leaders over certain splits on the fangraphs leaderboard. they just do monthly/yearly/halves, so to go from specific dates i had to use the splits tool

k3vin k., Thursday, 23 November 2017 00:18 (seven months ago) Permalink

just . . . everyone . . . stop with 'valuable'

if we're going to go this deep we should also factor in salary, and i *hope* no one wants to do that

make it the best fucking player over the course of a season award and let's go from there

mookieproof, Thursday, 23 November 2017 01:30 (seven months ago) Permalink

I think there have always been such awards; The Sporting News' Player of the Year comes to mind.

We love to argue, though, so in 1931 some people got together and said "Let's create an award just ambiguous enough that we'll always have something to argue about." The arguments were so good, they did it all over again a few years later with the HOF.

clemenza, Thursday, 23 November 2017 01:51 (seven months ago) Permalink

One thing I remember from James in the 80s is the notion that a team's, let's say, 3rd run scored in any given game was more valuable than, say, their 10th run in any game that they happened to score that many, because a 10th run is generally less necessary for a win. Wouldn't that argue that the player who homers in four straight games is more valuable in that four-game stretch than the player who hits four in one game and then nothing?

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at.

I guess it comes down to a) the first guy greatly increases the likelihood you'll come away with at least one win in the series, vs. b) the other guy increases your chances in three games, but you still could get swept.

Right, the counterargument would be that a 4 HR game basically guarantees you the win, whereas HRs in four straight games will score you some runs but won't guarantee a win. But to me that's kind of like claiming that a HR is equal to four singles, i.e. the HR guarantees you at least one run, whereas four singles gives you four chances to score runs but doesn't guarantee you'll score. And I probably don't have to explain why that's a fallacy (e.g. acc. to linear weights, a single is worth 0.4 runs on average, whereas a HR is worth 1.4 runs).

NoTimeBeforeTime, Thursday, 23 November 2017 10:34 (seven months ago) Permalink

One thing I remember from James in the 80s is the notion that a team's, let's say, 3rd run scored in any given game was more valuable than, say, their 10th run in any game that they happened to score that many, because a 10th run is generally less necessary for a win. Wouldn't that argue that the player who homers in four straight games is more valuable in that four-game stretch than the player who hits four in one game and then nothing?

this is the sort of trivia that was probably interesting or even groundbreaking back in james’ day when no one had really given it serious thought before. but in 2017 it doesn’t really address any issues that are interesting to most sabermetricians

k3vin k., Thursday, 23 November 2017 16:35 (seven months ago) Permalink

Except, it would seem, to the guy who invented sabermetrics.

clemenza, Thursday, 23 November 2017 18:01 (seven months ago) Permalink

game done changed

k3vin k., Thursday, 23 November 2017 22:23 (seven months ago) Permalink

but in 2017 it doesn’t really address any issues that are interesting to most sabermetricians

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. WPA, run expectancy, and pitcher leverage indices aren't interesting to most sabermetricians?

The basic point is still the same: context is relevant for evaluating past performance, but not for predicting future performance. The people arguing against that point are the ones jumping to silly conclusions, like in that BP article. Literally nobody is saying that Votto's walks are meaningless unless someone drives him in, that's a strawman argument. Bill James isn't the problem here.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Friday, 24 November 2017 03:20 (seven months ago) Permalink

context is relevant for evaluating past performance only if you wish to evaluate past performance in context :)

WPA and the like are fine for that, but those are a good deal more sophisticated than what i was commenting on. sorry, didn't mean to imply context-dependent stats don't have currency in the current sabermetric world -- of course they do. i personally don't care for them much, but that is just due to the questions i find interesting ("who are the best players?" rather than "who got luckiest this year?"). i agree with mookie in that i wish the award would just go to the player who played best that year (although not necessarily the "best player")

i will admit that i don't understand the granularity of win shares well enough (for some reason it seems to be impossible to find a good article on this...) to comment on it for certain, but my assumption is that because it is derived from total team wins, players on teams with better records might have an advantage. maybe that is incorrect

k3vin k., Friday, 24 November 2017 06:27 (seven months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

https://deadspin.com/major-league-baseballs-statcast-can-break-sabermetrics-1820987737

finally getting around to reading this

k3vin k., Monday, 1 January 2018 18:29 (six months ago) Permalink

cameron to the padres

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-one-i-never-thought-i-would-write

mookieproof, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:02 (six months ago) Permalink

goodness gracious

a team shd hire me

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:05 (six months ago) Permalink

damn, this one hurts. not great for the saber community when all its best writers get scooped up by MLB teams and their work becomes proprietary

k3vin k., Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:24 (six months ago) Permalink

which is partly what that article I posted above is about

k3vin k., Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:26 (six months ago) Permalink

this isn't new info, but the visualization is pretty cool: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=radar%20from%3AMattEddyBA&src=typd

mookieproof, Monday, 22 January 2018 22:21 (five months ago) Permalink

vlad jr is a beast

mookieproof, Monday, 22 January 2018 22:23 (five months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

You might notice some subtle changes to WAR. That's because of a new update we've rolled out that includes some improved or new data! Here's what you need to know https://t.co/odY5lVdYtb pic.twitter.com/Zq3kAmPua0

— Baseball Reference (@baseball_ref) March 15, 2018

mookieproof, Thursday, 15 March 2018 16:26 (four months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Only 70 players, not league-wide, but interesting anyway:

http://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-players-vote-for-stats-they-value-most/c-274986480

No votes for pitcher wins, but, somewhat amazingly, three for batting average.

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:52 (two months ago) Permalink

Not sure why that doesn't link. One more try:

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-players-vote-for-stats-they-value-most/c-274986480

clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2018 23:53 (two months ago) Permalink

something to be said for players ranking games played/innings.

campreverb, Wednesday, 9 May 2018 00:15 (two months ago) Permalink

probably the one I'd pick, if you're getting innings you're probably being pretty valuable to your team

k3vin k., Wednesday, 9 May 2018 03:53 (two months ago) Permalink

or you have a really bad manager, in a few cases. i definitely that in general more playing time is a positive indicator, especially IP for starting pitchers. for position players, it's a little more muddy. for every star like joey votto, stanton, or blackmon in the top 10 list of games played of 2017, there's also an alcides escobar, rougned odor, and (non-2018 version of) nick markakis.

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 04:04 (two months ago) Permalink

Shameless self-promotion: The Infield Shift has a tragic and hidden flaw and should be (mostly) shelved. @baseballpro https://t.co/lgVNAE5d3d

— Russell A. Carleton (@pizzacutter4) May 22, 2018

mookieproof, Tuesday, 22 May 2018 19:06 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Wow, look at the single season leaders in strike outs at the plate and how many are from the last decade or so.

Rob Deer is a contact hitter by comparison.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SO_season.shtml

Rank Player (age that year) Strikeouts Year Bats
1. Mark Reynolds (25) 223 2009 R
2. Adam Dunn (32) 222 2012 L
3. Chris Davis (30) 219 2016 L
4. Chris Carter (26) 212 2013 R
5. Mark Reynolds (26) 211 2010 R
6. Chris Davis (29) 208 2015 L
Aaron Judge (25) 208 2017 R
8. Chris Carter (29) 206 2016 R
9. Drew Stubbs (26) 205 2011 R
10. Mark Reynolds (24) 204 2008 R
11. Kris Bryant (23) 199 2015 R
Chris Davis (27) 199 2013 L
Adam Dunn (30) 199 2010 L
Ryan Howard (27) 199 2007 L
Ryan Howard (28) 199 2008 L
16. Jack Cust (29) 197 2008 L
17. Joey Gallo (23) 196 2017 L
Mark Reynolds (27) 196 2011 R
19. Chris Davis (31) 195 2017 L
Khris Davis (29) 195 2017 R
Adam Dunn (24) 195 2004 L
Curtis Granderson (31) 195 2012 L
23. Adam Dunn (26) 194 2006 L
Mike Napoli (34) 194 2016 R
25. Trevor Story (24) 191 2017 R
26. Ryan Howard (34) 190 2014 L
27. Bobby Bonds (24) 189 1970 R
Adam Dunn (33) 189 2013 L
Danny Espinosa (25) 189 2012 B
30. Jose Hernandez (32) 188 2002 R
31. Bobby Bonds (23) 187 1969 R

earlnash, Tuesday, 5 June 2018 22:23 (one month ago) Permalink

steve carlton's best K/9 in any season was 8.7 (it was 7.1 for his career)

so far this season the average, among 93 qualifying pitchers, is 8.6

mookieproof, Tuesday, 5 June 2018 22:51 (one month ago) Permalink

read in a recent post that fangraphs will soon debut a K+ stat

k3vin k., Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:24 (one month ago) Permalink

One thing I think about modern baseball is just how big the whole league is anymore. Dudes like the Big Unit, Dave Kingman or Richie Sexton were odd balls of their day being so tall and now every team has a bunch of guys 6-5 and taller.

earlnash, Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:40 (one month ago) Permalink

many of them pitchers.

the ignatius rock of ignorance (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:42 (one month ago) Permalink

https://imgur.com/a/NFXUl6u

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 6 June 2018 01:16 (one month ago) Permalink

https://imgur.com/a/NFXUl6u

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 6 June 2018 01:22 (one month ago) Permalink

I'm mad that Sixto Sanchez isn't 6'2"

challops trap house (Will M.), Wednesday, 6 June 2018 02:40 (one month ago) Permalink

Not sure if there would be an article out there on that but I’m interested in analysis about players who lose their ability or perhaps willingness to draw a walk as they age. Specifically thinking about someone like Albert Pujols, and whether or not it has mostly to do with pitchers challenging him more as his skills erode, thereby not pitching around him anymore + not IBBing him nearly as much (if ever!) I’m interested primarily bc of the many aging players who either retain those skills or sometimes even improve them over time (one example: Willie Mays drawing a career-best 112 walks in his age 40 season.)

My guess is there’s a lot related to bat speed and players having to cheat a bit more, which means they’re simply not going to be able to wait that extra split second anymore. But it’s interesting to me how some players completely lose a skill that seems to be one that would age well (and often and perhaps usually does!)

omar little, Sunday, 17 June 2018 20:17 (one month ago) Permalink

i think with pujols specifically it's that pitchers aren't afraid to challenge him anymore. same with the ghost of chris davis. i'm not so sure that they necessarily had a walk 'skill' so much as it was a by-product of their other skills

curtis granderson, on the other hand, has seen his walk rate go up even as his power fades. it is intersting

mookieproof, Sunday, 17 June 2018 21:01 (one month ago) Permalink

James once wrote about the Mays phenomenon--great hitters who lose their bat speed and become more selective to compensate.

clemenza, Sunday, 17 June 2018 22:41 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

I saw this stat and read the list and had a good chuckle on how many of these guys I knew as players from baseball cards or reading the Sporting News all the time as a kid.

Yonder Alonso: Similar Batters through 30

Sid Bream (966.4)
Doug Mientkiewicz (959.4)
David Segui (955.0)
Mike Ivie (946.9)
John Mabry (941.7)
Casey Kotchman (940.1)
Nick Etten (939.0)
Gerald Perry (938.2)
Babe Dahlgren (937.0)
Todd Benzinger (936.7)

earlnash, Thursday, 12 July 2018 02:12 (five days ago) Permalink

I’m not sure how, but a cleveland reliever got a save tonight in a 19-4 win

k3vin k., Thursday, 12 July 2018 03:07 (five days ago) Permalink

Think if you pitch three innings or more it doesn't matter what the score is.

timellison, Thursday, 12 July 2018 05:28 (five days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.