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

[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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

+ 1 million. Walks are the most worthless stat in the game. If you are my best player, I want you trying to drive in that runner on 3rd instead of drawing a walk and forcing a lesser player to do your job.

[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.

[itjclarke]

Again, I'm open to advanced metrics, but I think another flaw is this-- I think most these stats are more fully realized over the course of a neverending regular season. Sure, walks equal this.. this equals that.. that equals more wins out of 100... and over the course of an infinite number of games, the math works out.

Problem is, baseball's championship is not determined like this. It's eventually determined by a relatively small sample size of games, against the best talent. If the advanced metrics truly equaled WS titles, that's great... but without looking I'd guess that the majority of "Pythagorean win" leaders have not gone on to win WS over the past 20-30-40 years.

One thing that I've seen in recent WS (Giants wins it was especially true) is that by the post season, of the remaining teams/talent the pitching is just better. Many of the guys who may have been saber super stars over their prior 162 games, are attacked directly and mercilessly as opposed to being walked or whatever. It's a different game and a different set of tactics when you need to win a best of 5 or 7, or in the late innings of those games, as opposed to winning most of 162.

[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...

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 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...

wrong........

I'm 44 been involved in metrics for over 10 years (after a few years of reluctance to them as well) the simple fact is that they are better at telling us the statistical story of baseball.

Life evolves, sports evolve, stats evolve. You have a choice to either evolve along with it or get left behind.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 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...

Best post in the thread. Definitely made me LOL. That is one of my top 5 favorite movies.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by 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...

Ha! How do you like them apples?