because i'm tired of all the outdated annual threads on this board.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:
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
(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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
u got a link i can read?
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
aka the "bullpen by committee"
― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 21:06 (eleven years ago) link
zmg since when were high-leverage innings a Morbius creation!?!
― _▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂_ (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 21:18 (eleven years ago) link
didn't bobby cox have a 'platooned' closer last year with soriano and gonzalez
― ciderpress, Tuesday, 20 April 2010 22:33 (eleven years ago) link
sort of -- it was like 70% Soriano/30% Gonzalez
― millions now zinging will never lol (WmC), Tuesday, 20 April 2010 23:19 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
49 years later, Roger Maris wins AL runs scored title:
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:07 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
haven't you heard, the triple crown is now comprised of VORP, WAR, and WPA/LI
― ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
WPA/LI: "Well Played, Albert (Lasting Impressions)"? I can't keep up.
― clemenza, Thursday, 26 August 2010 18:46 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
Has a leverage index been developed for relief appearances? Inherited runners stranded/scored drives me bananas.
― Andy K, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:01 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
francoeur is a streaky hitter in that he has a lot of cold streaks
― ciderpress, Thursday, 26 August 2010 19:49 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
who went to the pitchF/X summit in SF?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 August 2010 02:38 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
― no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Monday, 30 August 2010 21:23 (eleven years ago) link
― no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Friday, 3 September 2010 16:12 (eleven years ago) link
― call all destroyer, Friday, 3 September 2010 16:14 (eleven years ago) link
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 September 2010 16:57 (eleven years ago) link
― no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Friday, 3 September 2010 18:42 (eleven years ago) link
players w/an OPS of 1.000 or more in 2000
Todd HeltonManny RamirezCarlos DelgadoBarry BondsJason GiambiGary SheffieldVladimir GuerreroFrank ThomasSammy SosaMoises AlouJeff BagwellNomar GarciaparraRichard HidalgoAlex RodriguezBrian GilesJeff KentMike PiazzaTroy GlausEdgar Martinez
players w/an OPS of 1.000 or more in 2010
Josh HamiltonMiguel CabreraJoey VottoAlbert Pujols
― ('_') (omar little), Monday, 4 October 2010 06:32 (eleven years ago) link
jim thome and justin morneau deserve a mention on that too for partial seasons of 1.000+
― ciderpress, Monday, 4 October 2010 16:41 (eleven years ago) link
I don't know who the mystery player is at 51.05...
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 November 2019 19:27 (two years ago) link
I suspect I calculated parts of the formula in some order that didn't follow correct order of operations.
You did! You just went left to right when there is a multiplication in the middle.
― timellison, Saturday, 2 November 2019 21:48 (two years ago) link
I don’t see strikeouts in the formula! Also, it penalizes walks I guess? Dammit 13 year old Clemens’s, wtf??jk of course. This was a noble effort. esp knowing that you had to hand calculate everything. Weren’t you afraid you missed some players? (Unless...you didn’t do every player of all time...did you?)
― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Saturday, 2 November 2019 23:55 (two years ago) link
Sorry, my phone autocorrected you to the rocket
Or wait, it’s adding for walks, and then subtracting 250
― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Saturday, 2 November 2019 23:56 (two years ago) link
That's supposed to be 2 x SO - 1/2 x BB; strikeouts looks like 50. An ILX'or I'm Facebook friends with figured out how to make the numbers work out...Mike Trout comes in at 43-something, just below Mantle. The guy just strikes out too damn often, and I'm surprised the Angels don't cut him loose.
― clemenza, Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:20 (two years ago) link
give me ed delahanty over any of these bozos
― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:24 (two years ago) link
Weren’t you afraid you missed some players?
I also found pages of the final totals (not sure what to call it...CI, the Clemenza Index) for an alphabetized list of anybody who had a good career. I was working from the '74 edition of the Mac, not the first '69 edition; Aaron was still active, so I'm not sure what my cut-off date was (more likely, I had a minimum AB requirement).
Ed definitely makes the all-drinking team, from what I remember.
― clemenza, Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:25 (two years ago) link
in 1895, delahanty scored 149 runs in 116 games. he hit a healthy .404 but came in second in the batting race behind jesse burkett at .409
― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:26 (two years ago) link
it's a really cool list - awesome that you kept it!
despite my misreading of the equation, it is also very very neatly printed.
― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:27 (two years ago) link
Would have generated a few posts on the ILB police blotter thread:
"Delahanty died when he was swept over Niagara Falls in early July 1903. He was apparently kicked off a train by the train's conductor for being drunk and disorderly. The conductor said Delahanty was brandishing a straight razor and threatening passengers after he consumed five whiskies. After being kicked off the train, Delahanty started his way across the International Railway Bridge connecting Buffalo, New York with Fort Erie (near Niagara Falls) and fell or jumped off the bridge (some accounts say Ed was yelling about death that night). Whether "Big Ed" died from his plunge over the Falls or drowned on the way to the Falls is uncertain. His body was found at the bottom of Niagara Falls two weeks after his death."
― clemenza, Sunday, 3 November 2019 04:32 (two years ago) link
don't ask why i felt compelled to make this, but might as well share. this is the top 5 wRC+ for each year of the 1950's. i wanted to see which player seasons were way ahead of their peers, relatively. williams in '54 and williams and mantle in '57 both stand out
also, i have to share this as well because it is crazy how the charts in Excel wannabe clone Numbers are hard to customize and offers all the wrong options...unless you go into 3D graph mode, in which case everything is possible
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 23 January 2020 01:10 (one year ago) link
Surprised there's such a difference between Mantle's '56 and '57--his bWAR is the same for the two seasons. I know it's relative to the league, but still.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 15:15 (one year ago) link
heh, the chart i made is confusing as all hell. it's so confusing even i can't figure out wtf is going on!
but basically, the top line represents the first place finisher in wRC+ for the year. it happens to be williams in both '54 and '57, which makes it look like the entire top line is williams. but in '55, for example, the first place wRC+ was mantle, at 179.
...i know, that's really confusing! i only did it that way because i wanted to see the discrepancy between the top 5 finishers each year, to look for outliers.
mantle's '56 was actually very close to '57, by wRC+. it was 202 in 1956 (twice as good as the average hitter!!), which was first place in the league, and 217 in 1957, second only to williams.
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 23 January 2020 16:36 (one year ago) link
*fingers crossed behind back*
i will never make another ill-advised graph again
C'mon, the 3D one even casts a shadow--worth the price of admission alone.
― clemenza, Thursday, 23 January 2020 21:28 (one year ago) link
not exactly sabermetrics, but: the details behind pitch classification
― mookieproof, Monday, 3 February 2020 16:33 (one year ago) link
this seems like a wild stab in the dark to me, but
We created a dashboard for NCAA WAR over the past four seasons. Calculate WAR based on school, year, name, and more: https://t.co/ZI6q74BApbYou can read an introduction to cWAR and what went into the dashboard here: https://t.co/PvFB5KGiKV pic.twitter.com/ftkYyfEsW1— Driveline Baseball (@DrivelineBB) June 10, 2020
― mookieproof, Thursday, 11 June 2020 15:32 (one year ago) link
this is great
― mookieproof, Friday, 17 July 2020 21:05 (one year ago) link
i'm with John Thorn
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 July 2020 21:58 (one year ago) link
Dallas Keuchel is 6-2 w/ a 2.19 ERA. He has 1.7 bWAR & 1.5 fWAR.Rick Porcello is 1-5 with a 6.06 ERA. He has 0.0 bWAR.& 1.5 fWAR.— David Laurila (@DavidLaurilaQA) September 17, 2020
― mookieproof, Thursday, 17 September 2020 14:55 (one year ago) link
thing is, both bWAR and fWAR are useful, for pitchers, they just measure different things. bWAR lines up with what people think they're getting out of WAR, and is based on results. fWAR for pitchers is based on FIP, so it's more of a measure of how they "should" be doing. which is confusing, agreed on that. wish that both b-r and fangraphs would offer both versions - give me both a results-based WAR and a peripheral based WAR, and just keep them separate imo
i like having them both because i can look at porcello's line and immediately know that he's been unlucky in terms of his results (likely he has been giving up a ton of home runs, or his LOB% is way lower than it normally would be because of bad sequencing luck).
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 September 2020 16:48 (one year ago) link
actually porcello's given up very few homers and his babip's a nightmare, which is no doubt why fangraphs likes him
i'm willing to grant that he's been unlucky with balls in play and LOB (the mets defense probably doesn't help). but i suspect his 5.7% HR/FB this season (12% for career) is luck too. meanwhile his WHIP is over 1.5, he doesn't have great strikeout numbers for this day and age, and he goes less than five innings per start.
and keuchel's been *insanely* lucky in every facet! so i guess i feel like they should both have lower fWAR
(this is not to argue with your larger point, which is otm)
― mookieproof, Thursday, 17 September 2020 17:23 (one year ago) link
it also seems likely that i have an outdated idea in my mind of what one should expect from a (good/average/replacement-level) major league starter
― mookieproof, Thursday, 17 September 2020 17:25 (one year ago) link
Starters? pfffft. Give me a listicle of the top 500 openers in the game (globally, including little league) and I'll be projecting HOF eligibility by sundown.
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Thursday, 17 September 2020 17:49 (one year ago) link
there's always been this...WAR (sorry)... between BR and fangraphs with the WAR stats. honestly, i think fangraphs needs to change, because their WAR philosophy inconsistent between the pitchers and hitters. for hitters it seems more (though not entirely) results-based, like BR. but for pitchers it's more peripheral. it's just kind of weird, especially when you're trying to compare value between pitchers and hitters.
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 September 2020 18:06 (one year ago) link
Do you really want to get me started about how flawed their defensive metrics* are and how that number is quietly folded into each site's "offensive" WAR and just published as QED gospel?
*just about every other season there is some radical makeover of defensive stats causing some huge ripple in the lists that appeal to whatever you call the devotees of "MOJO-magazine equivalents of baseball"-type content.
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Thursday, 17 September 2020 18:21 (one year ago) link
oh yeah, i feel you on that for sure. i've never understood why it's not just clearly bifurcated as offense WAR and defense WAR.
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 September 2020 18:24 (one year ago) link
it is! At least on bbref it is, there's oWAR and dWAR (which doesn't actually add up to WAR because it includes the position adjustment bonus in each)
― Piven After Midnight (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 18 September 2020 02:38 (one year ago) link
oh d'doh, i just mean on fangraphs. i still hate the baseball-ref style/format, and rarely visit it for that reason alone. you know how there are chrome extensions? and particularly for some websites (like discogs) that reorganize the data on the fly? i wish someone would do that for either baseball-ref or fangraphs.
― Karl Malone, Friday, 18 September 2020 06:36 (one year ago) link
Good Posnanski piece that definitely spotlights a major flaw in bWAR.
(That's his "share this piece" link, so should work.)
― clemenza, Friday, 17 September 2021 19:41 (two months ago) link
the fog of glove again
― mookieproof, Friday, 17 September 2021 20:31 (two months ago) link
great article, thanks for taking the time to share!
however, i ran across a similar anecdote the other day and removed it from my memories, and i am afraid i am about t delete this again for similar reasons:
*By the way, do you know who IS playing in front of the 1970s Baltimore Orioles defense? Adam Wainwright. DRS does show the Cardinals being a terrific defensive team, but even that underrates how good they’ve been behind Wainwright; the Cards are 22 Outs Above Average when Waino is on the mound. That is more than double anyone else in baseball.p
i don't know what the previous series of deleted words was about, but one thing i know is that adam wainwright is on his way to be being the best pitcher in baseball again, and it's definitely related to luck!
― typo punishment 3: people shouldn't have to feel like they have ea (Karl Malone), Friday, 17 September 2021 21:21 (two months ago) link
i prefer fWAR to bWAR a lot for pitching, though i find that bWAR defenders tend to be way more defensive about it than fWAR defenders. people really just don't like the concept of FIP. but the thing tango said about halving the value of DRS should apply to hitters too... it results in massive outlier seasons because DRS is so springy when UZR is more conservative. it really seems to impact MVP conversations too even though no one really trusts defensive stats. you get these wild 10+ WAR hitter seasons because someone put up a DRS of 8 million (and a UZR of 15)
should also point out that fWAR isn't just FIP, there are also adjustments for IFFBs and catcher framing (though that's controversial for some people too)
― ✖, Monday, 20 September 2021 00:16 (two months ago) link
that said i do appreciate that bWAR updates its position adjustment values season by season, fangraphs just keeps pretending that playing shortstop is as valuable now as it was 20 years ago despite teams now feeling comfortable parking their trucks there
― ✖, Monday, 20 September 2021 00:18 (two months ago) link
yeah it is a fluid situation for sure
― mens rea activist (k3vin k.), Monday, 20 September 2021 00:49 (two months ago) link
trying to figure out why there's such a huge disparity between the 2015 phillies' UZR (-15) and DRS (-98) - one thing i didn't know was that DRS also calculates pitcher defense while UZR doesn't even attempt to. a lot of the difference between the two is just DRS giving a lower rating to their defenders across the board, but there's also 22!!! runs lost by the pitching staff. 5 pitchers have a DRS of 1 and the rest have a combined DRS of -27. there are 3 pitchers worth -4 runs and 2 of them are relievers. refuse to believe that ken giles, who had 1 error all year, somehow cost his team 4 defensive runs in 70 innings of work
― ✖, Monday, 20 September 2021 01:00 (two months ago) link
i generally get that, but then i remember jon lester playing his position a few years ago, when he forgot how to throw first base for a while
― typo punishment 3: people shouldn't have to feel like they have ea (Karl Malone), Monday, 20 September 2021 01:07 (two months ago) link
those would generally register as errors though wouldn't they? so what's the knock against giles, he wasn't rangy enough? hard to figure out what the individual components are on bbref pages. lester did have a pretty bad season (-7 DRS) though he never had more than 3 errors in a season - i think that's mostly because he allowed a lot of SBs that year.
thing is, i don't think pitcher bWAR includes individual defense, but i think individual pitcher DRS contributes to the overall defensive adjustment. so hypothetically a pitcher could have a really bad DRS which wouldn't lower their WAR at all, but might actually raise their WAR by contributing to a bad team defense adjustment. but i'm not sure of that.
― ✖, Monday, 20 September 2021 01:38 (two months ago) link
lester allowed a lot of SBs that year because he was yips-unable to throw to first and keep runners honest. so, not an error, but a definite problem on defense.
that *was* kind of an outlier though, and the ken giles example seems unreasonable
― mookieproof, Monday, 20 September 2021 02:04 (two months ago) link
Have statskeepers ever tried to account for walkoff singles that would have been doubles or triples if they'd played out in a non-walkoff situation? Like last night, Austin Riley's walkoff would have been a double in any other inning.
― Profiles in Liquid Courage (WmC), Sunday, 17 October 2021 23:46 (one month ago) link
no idea, but I’d guess that these are so rare that the difference would be negligible
― mens rea activist (k3vin k.), Monday, 18 October 2021 00:06 (one month ago) link
Sounds like irresistable bait to statheads to me.
― Profiles in Liquid Courage (WmC), Monday, 18 October 2021 00:37 (one month ago) link
well there are def stats out there that rate hitters on hit probability based on predicted batted ball outcomes measured by contact speed off the bat, launch angle etc that would prob see such a hit as something more than a single (would not even know that it was recorded as a single) and thus reward austin riley for it based on that
― J0rdan S., Monday, 18 October 2021 00:54 (one month ago) link
yeah that’s a good point, his xwOBA doesn’t take a hit because he’s only credited with a single
― mens rea activist (k3vin k.), Monday, 18 October 2021 01:07 (one month ago) link
xp interesting, thx
― Profiles in Liquid Courage (WmC), Monday, 18 October 2021 01:24 (one month ago) link
As EW pod
― Its big ball chunky time (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 18 October 2021 02:49 (one month ago) link
From Robert Christgau's monthly reader-questions column (it has a terrible name...):
Professional baseball is rapidly changing. Are you familiar with sabermetrics baseball and its implications? Or is this just too nerdy a thing to ask? — KBW, South Korea
I was reading sabermetrics pioneer Bill James as early as the ‘70s, I think--long ago, anyway. Thought all of his analysis was fascinating and a lot of it worth incorporating into the game. It really changed pitching, although not as much as the revised strength training stratagems that have generated so many near-100 fast balls. But if I remember correctly, even then I didn’t like how down he was on stolen bases--they’re too much fun (I loved how much the Yankees stole late in the past season). And when I watch the game with its radical shifts these days I sometimes get nostalgic for the old days, as well as wishing more players would settle for singles by exploiting shifts. In particular I still prefer human umpires calling balls and strikes even though what was clearly a bad call on a held-up swing prematurely ended the Dodgers-Giants championship game.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 20 October 2021 21:48 (one month ago) link
xxxxp i thought official scorers were supposed to use their judgment on walk-off hits . . . and i was wrong. this seems unnecessarily complicated, especially with the ground-rule double possibility:
2019 OBR rule 9.06(f) Subject to the provisions of Rule 9.06(g), when a batter ends a game with a safe hit that drives in as many runs as are necessary to put his team in the lead, the Official Scorer shall credit such batter with only as many bases on his hit as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run, and then only if the batter runs out his hit for as many bases as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run.Rule 9.06(f) Comment: The Official Scorer shall apply this rule even when the batter is theoretically entitled to more bases because of being awarded an “automatic” extra-base hit under various provisions of Rules 5.05 and 5.06(b)(4)…
Rule 9.06(f) Comment: The Official Scorer shall apply this rule even when the batter is theoretically entitled to more bases because of being awarded an “automatic” extra-base hit under various provisions of Rules 5.05 and 5.06(b)(4)…
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 20 October 2021 22:04 (one month ago) link