OT - New Hall of Famers: Bagwell, Raines and Ivan Rodriguez

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

Originally Posted by bnorth

Those old outdated stats mean nothing. You need the new cool ones. You know the ones were they use hypothetical and theoretical in the explanation of how they got those stats.

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

No, they are hypothetical. Someone makes up a model, plugs in actual data and comes up with a number. They can't prove that number means anything.

If you want to claim otherwise, provide me with a mathematical proof that those stats mean what you claim they do. It is one person's opinion, that is all.

[packs]

You can't pick and choose which stats are more advantageous to your point. Either you look at every stat or no stats. If someone posts production numbers such as HR, RBI, AVE, OPS, those stats are just as relevant as your stats.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, they are hypothetical. Someone makes up a model, plugs in actual data and comes up with a number. They can't prove that number means anything.

If you want to claim otherwise, provide me with a mathematical proof that those stats mean what you claim they do. It is one person's opinion, that is all.

ummm no they aren't, just because you haven't taken the time to understand them doesn't make you rather ignorant opinion valid. go do some learning then come back to me. try fangraphs.com and go to the glossary it explains how they formulate everything.

Originally Posted by packs

You can't pick and choose which stats are more advantageous to your point. Either you look at every stat or no stats. If someone posts production numbers such as HR, RBI, AVE, OPS, those stats are just as relevant as your stats.

homers- yes, it is a legit stat for determining production

RBI- not worth much, it is symbolic of the OBP of the batters in front of a player and has been found to have no bearing on an individual's offensive production. I know it's been ingrained in you for years, but it's a false narrative.


AVE- IDK what this is

OPS- it's not as good as people think as it treats OBP and SLG equally and we know now that OBP is worth nearly twice as much as SLG, it is far better to use wRC+ and ISO to figure those two things

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

ummm no they aren't, just because you haven't taken the time to understand them doesn't make you rather ignorant opinion valid. go do some learning then come back to me. try fangraphs.com and go to the glossary it explains how they formulate everything.

Thanks for proving me right. Posting a link to someone's opinion just confirms you can not prove anything. 6 years of college was plenty of learning for me. I don't need to read more opinions. I can think for myself.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)

Gonna have to disagree on his defense. I don't look at sabermetrics or anything else, so please excuse me if the "numbers" prove otherwise. There wasn't a person on this planet that would try to go from 2nd to 3rd when hit to Vladdy out in RF. I think if you look up the definition of "cannon" in the dictionary, it has a picture of Vlad! Honestly, do yourself a favor and google "vladimir guerrero cannon".

[nat]

He did have a cannon of an arm. The problem was that he often didn't know where the cannonball was going.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Gonna have to disagree on his defense. I don't look at sabermetrics or anything else, so please excuse me if the "numbers" prove otherwise. There wasn't a person on this planet that would try to go from 2nd to 3rd when hit to Vladdy out in RF. I think if you look up the definition of "cannon" in the dictionary, it has a picture of Vlad! Honestly, do yourself a favor and google "vladimir guerrero cannon".

there is more to OF defense than arm strength, his range was pretty mediocre (and only got worse as he aged) and his arm accuracy was hit or miss too.

[packs]

I don't think RBI's is a "false narrative". A player has to produce to get an RBI. You're treating it as a given. Just because a guy is on base does not mean he is going to score. I don't know what you're putting forward when you say something like RBI has nothing to do with a player's production. Of course it does.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think RBI's is a "false narrative". A player has to produce to get an RBI. You're treating it as a given. Just because a guy is on base does not mean he is going to score. I don't know what you're putting forward when you say something like RBI has nothing to do with a player's production. Of course it does.

This has seemed a repetitive (and exhausting) discussion on the board over the past year +, and no one is convincing this poster of anything other than what he feels is his superior grasp (statistically) of the game.

I'm all for considering everything, including the new. I also know though, getting a hit takes far more skill than taking a walk. If one is willing to dismiss the RBI for being dependent upon runners getting on base, then one should also consider that taking a walk is in large part dependent upon a pitcher throwing 4 balls. Getting a clean single, or smacking one over the wall IMO is still probably the purest measure of a batter's hitting skill (purely the hand eye coordination of hitting), and thus BA should never simply be discounted.

If there are newer, more comprehensive stats, great, use them.. but IMO, it's much more open minded to consider all data, not cherry pick. I also know if I were a GM, there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation.

[packs]

I just question the thinking. When you say something like an RBI is not worth much I don't understand that person's viewpoint on the game. A game is won by scoring more runs than the other team. If you have a guy who drives in players, you win games. Getting on base doesn't score you a run. Knocking in the guy on base scores you a run. The most runs wins. So how does an RBI not mean much? If the three players ahead of you get on base, you don't get an RBI simply for coming to bat, nor does your team score a run because it put guys on base.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

I just question the thinking. When you say something like an RBI is not worth much I don't understand that person's viewpoint on the game. A game is won by scoring more runs than the other team. If you have a guy who drives in players, you win games. Getting on base doesn't score you a run. Knocking in the guy on base scores you a run. The most runs wins. So how does an RBI not mean much? If the three players ahead of you get on base, you don't get an RBI simply for coming to bat, nor does your team score a run because it put guys on base.

Completely agree. RBI as a stat does have its holes when measuring a players' performance, for reasons the other poster states, but it is not, nor will it ever be a meaningless stat.

Adding, I'm very interested to see more advances batter splits; no out RISP, 1 out RISP, 2 out RISP... then see those splits in late innings, close game, etc. Performance, or lack there of in those situations is pretty telling.

And btw, coaxing a walk with 2 outs, winning run on 3rd is just about useless... but I would love to consider a stat that weights the individual, situational value of each walk... as opposed to lumping them all into the apparently ever powerful OBP.

[nat]

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

Edit: Lots of splits don't mean anything, in that they are not predictive. Sometimes people summarize this point by saying "there's no such thing as clutch hitting"; what this means is that a player's performance in the clutch at one time does not make a future clutch performance any more or less likely.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by nat

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

I am not talking/arguing slugging vs OBP, just the ability to get a clean hit. Situationally, I don't want my #3 hitter working a walk by taking super close pitches when he's got a chance to end the game with 2 outs. in the 9th. I'd also prefer to not have to rely on my Bad Vlad-like 4th or 5th OFer to PH every time I need an actual hit as opposed to walk. Consistently hitting the ball hard is still the purest way to gauge a hitter's actual hitting ability.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by nat

"there are still several situations I'd much prefer a guy who aggressively puts bat to ball, as opposed to taking a walk... like any 2 out RISP situation."

Of course there are situations like that. And it might be a good idea to have somebody on the bench who can do just that, so that you can use him as a pinch hitter in those situations. But, on average, a point of on-base percentage will do more to win games for you than a point of slugging percentage. The evidence for that is that that is precisely what has happened. The people who looked into this ran regression analyses to determine the strength of the correlation between slugging/on-base and runs, using historical data. It turns out that the correlation is stronger for on-base percentage than it is for slugging percentage.

As far as RBI go: they are a very crude measure of the quality of a batter. They depend very heavily on the ability of the guys in front of you to get on base. It's not a coincidence that the guys batting behind Wade Boggs (to take one high OBP guy) had lots of RBI. Now, RBI are also reflective of a batter's ability to drive the ball, but they don't reflect it very well. Slugging percentage does a much better job.

Edit: Lots of splits don't mean anything, in that they are not predictive. Sometimes people summarize this point by saying "there's no such thing as clutch hitting"; what this means is that a player's performance in the clutch at one time does not make a future clutch performance any more or less likely.

what Nat said above.


the problem with RBI is that it's more reflective of a team's offensive production than the individual. It is not very projectable from one year to the next and it simply is not indicative of an individual's offensive performance. He had no control over the quality of the hitter's in front of him yet some want to give him credit for this? it makes no sense.


and the antiquated statement people make about "hits are better than walks" is fine, sure they are, some of the time. But the majority of plate appearances take place with the bases empty so, in fact, a walk is just as valuable as a single (and often more because a walk increases pitch count)

[Louieman]

Of course that's your contention, you're a first year grad student.
You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, talking about, ya know, how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That'll last you until next year, you're gonna be here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about, ya know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization...