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

[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 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.

this is a false equivalency logical fallacy. saber stats don't exist to determine who will win the championship. They exist to increase the accuracy of statistical analysis.

As you stated, playoff baseball is it's own thing, determined mostly by luck, hit sequencing (non-predictable or controllable) good breaks and bad breaks. If you put the two worst teams in the playoffs for 20 years as an experiment, one of them would win the world series every 12 years or so. But this has no bearing on why wRC+ is > than OPS > batting avg

[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.

[JollyElm]

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

[Louieman]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

+1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Louieman

+1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0

Ibid your honor

[itjclarke]

To prior reference of there being no such thing as clutch hitting... Please. Try digging in against Mariano Riviera in the 9th inning of the 7th game of the WS and say that. Many/most will be affected by the stage, whereas the best, the "clutch" are not. For every guy like Jeter, whose numbers look very similar in the post season, which seemingly leads people to presume the situation doesn't affect the player and his stats... There are guys like Jose Canseco, Rick Ankiel, etc, whose postseasons could never come close to matching their regular seasons. When Ankiel airmails 3-4 pitches in the 1st inning, I think it's fair to say anecdotally that there is a such thing as being "clutch", or it's evil twin- to "choke".

To prior reference about these numbers not being used for purpose of winning a championship.. Huh Isn't that what this whole thing is about???? What the hell is the point then? I don't think Billy Beane got knee deep in his moneyball methodology to gauge players' HOF worthiness. He did so to find unique, undervalued ways to measure player value, so he could close the gap with rich teams... And WIN in the post season.

Theo Epstein clearly understands something some seem to deny. He understands this takes more than just crunching numbers to best his probability to win a WS. I'm sure he gives the analytics their fair weight, but also takes into account player/manager intangibles, personalities, etc.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Why don't you tamp back your constant anger and realize when someone is quoting 'Good Will Hunting.' Jesus.

funny, I haven't been angry at all, in any part of my posts. stop projecting your own personal inadequacies there pawpaw


only saw it once, had no interest in seeing it again. so I didn't recognize it. but it was an obvious attack by a flat earther against superior information. kinda like when jesus freaks lose their mind over evolution.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

funny, I haven't been angry at all, in any part of my posts. stop projecting your own personal inadequacies there pawpaw


only saw it once, had no interest in seeing it again. so I didn't recognize it. but it was an obvious attack by a flat earther against superior information. kinda like when jesus freaks lose their mind over evolution.

Awww…the angry Braves fan, who can't even read a simple movie quote without insulting everybody, thinks I'm inadequate. Isn't that cute? Does somebody need a hug?

[packs]

What superior information ever concluded an RBI wasn't worth much? No one ever won a game 0 to 0.

[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?

[Louieman]

Originally Posted by BengoughingForAwhile

Ha! How do you like them apples?

Hey, you got that from Vickers, er, no, "Vickahs"

[sycks22]

I'm onboard with walks being pretty useless. Adam Dunn led the league in walks twice and averaged over 100 / year with his career .237 batting average. Someone compared Raines to Gwynn saying they had the same numbers if you combine walks / hits together. Is it tougher to walk 70x's / year or hit .338 for a career? Is Adam Dunn a similar player to Jeter as some years they had the same walks/hits? What a joke.

[nat]

Whether its easier or harder to walk vs. hit for average isn't really germane to the discussion. Raines and Gwynn reached base almost exactly the same number of times, and contributed very similar amounts of value to their teams. It's true that a walk isn't as good as a hit, but it's almost as good as a single (what Gwynn was hitting), and the fact that Raines would then go on to steal second helped him a lot.

On Dunn versus Jeter: Jeter was a slightly better hitter than Dunn. Jeter got on base at a better rate than Dunn, Dunn hit for more power. The reason that Jeter will be a deserving hall of famer, and Dunn will not, is that Jeter was a good base runner and could play shortstop, whereas Dunn was a horrific base runner, and possibly the worst fielder of all time.*

*Note for Bravesfan: I know that Jeter had a lower Rfield/G than Dunn, but the positional adjustment more than makes up for it. (Dunn at shortstop would have been hilarious in a tragic sort of way.)

[ejharrington]

The Hall of Fame by definition should be geared towards FAMOUS players whose careers were deemed elite. There are different ways to measure whether they were elite (i.e., WAR and SABR-metrics, traditional stats, etc.) but statistics alone cannot be the determining measure otherwise there would be no need to have a vote; there would be bright statistical lines to determine who gets in (e.g., JAWS).

As a 47 year old who has watched baseball my entire life, Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, and Sammy Sosa were some of the best ballplayers I have ever saw, are well-known to both fans and non-fans of baseball, have elite statistics, and were central figures in some of the most memorable moments in baseball history.

These players, along with no-longer eligible Mark McGuire, Pete Rose, and Keith Hernandez, should clearly be in the Hall of Fame.

No offense to Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, etc., but when you look at their bodies of work they simply are not on the level of the players I noted above.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nat

Whether its easier or harder to walk vs. hit for average isn't really germane to the discussion. Raines and Gwynn reached base almost exactly the same number of times, and contributed very similar amounts of value to their teams. It's true that a walk isn't as good as a hit, but it's almost as good as a single (what Gwynn was hitting), and the fact that Raines would then go on to steal second helped him a lot.

This is the kind of disconnect that makes these discussions impossible. A walk scores a runner from 3rd rarely, never scores a runner from 2nd. A single almost always scores the runner from 3rd and most of the time from 2nd. A single is much more valuable than a walk. The goal of the game is to score runs not win at fantasy baseball.