Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stats vs. Traditional

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bench 5

    Also some of the subjective voting done such as MVP voting, Gold Gloves, All Stars etc. I think they are also useful means of evaluation as well.
    Not to mention, that even if they DID carry any weight, players of the past weren't able to rack them up, so bringing them up to back a players greatness is hogwash. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater ! lol, ok maybe not, just wanted to use Fever's favorite phrase one time :o

    Comment


    • #32
      SABR Matt: ...the majority ... leans heavily toward the statistical end of the spectrum.

      after 33 votes the sway is now towards traditional.
      "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

      Comment


      • #33
        Actually the sway isn't toward traditional as defined by this poll.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by csh19792001
          Exactly.

          This is basically what I was going to write in response to Leecemark's statement that "most of us think we take a balanced approach"...as if people's self assessments are accurate and honest- neither of which are usually true (see Diglahh's "middle class phenomenon" as a good example). Nobody is going to completely polarize themselves (even if in reality they are almost completely polar) because then they're effectively marginalizing themselves.

          And by categorically marginalizing yourself, you show that you have a huge hole in your knowledge base and a completely one sided take on things.
          Exactly????!!! Yeah, as soon as I understand that, I'll cheerfully agree!!

          But Let's not slice the baloney too thin here. I'll come clean, and I don't care if I marginalize myself!! What's so bad about me being honest and admitting there ARE rather HUGE holes in my knowledge base? I consider myself strongest in 1900-32 time frame, and weak in pre-1900, 1933-56, strong 1958-65, weak 1966-85, and somewhat familiar from 1985-present. Also terribly weak on Negro Leagues.

          So, I have HUGE, GAPING, HUMONGOUS holes in my knowledge. And after having said that, you can imagine how I view the knowledge of some of the other members!!!

          Concerning individuals, I consider myself somewhat strong in knowledge of:
          Cobb, Ruth, W. Johnson, J. Jackson, Collins, Speaker, Gehrig, Koufax, N. Ryan, Bonds. And I consider myself very ignorant of all the rest of the players in history. Whenever I have to post on someone, I find I must, of necessity, look them up and do my homework.

          Did I just marginalize myself? I certainly hope so. I think most of us are weak in most eras, and most players. So why is it so embarrassing to tell the other Fever members the truth? And I'm a big baseball nerd/geek.

          Even though I put down I'm 50/50, the real truth is that I am probably closer to 80% trusting of opinions, and only 20% trusting of stats.

          Truthfully, my math skills do not allow me to be better oriented towards numbers analysis. And there are some regrets along that line. I wish I could be more like Matt Sounders. If I were, I might be dangerous!

          And when it comes to opinions, I am only trusting of them where a healthy historical consensus exists. And then only by the "right" people.

          And the reason I am not trusting of stats more yet, is that I fear the system creators are subject to psychological biases. And another concern is that no 2 stat systems can agree on anything, after the top 10 players.

          Take the top 5 leading stat systems, ask them to give a printout of their top 100 position players, and then compare their 90th - 100 player. You would be lucky to get a single player in common. Sure, it's easy to get agreement in the top 5. But you can get that from traditional opinion. It's in the downline that we must see if there is evidence that can be duplicated, like in a science experiment. If an experiment cannot be replicated by others, no good scientist would accept it's conclusions as valid.

          Same thing in a baseball stat system. We must get verifiable results, by different systems, if we are to feel comfortable in the conclusions. I feel we will discover those systems in the future. And I'm crossing my fingers that Matt Souders will be one of the leading statmen of the future.

          Bill Burgess
          Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-13-2006, 02:32 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by [email protected]
            And the reason I am not trusting of stats more yet, is that I fear the system creators are subject to psychological biases. And another concern is that no 2 stat systems can agree on anything, after the top 10 players.

            Bill Burgess

            Actually most stat systems are virtually the same when looking at hitting. RC, EqA, Linear weights and probably any other one you can think get you too basically the same number. Its the fielding part that you get different numbers, and metrics don't have monopoly on this fault.

            Nor do I think this a fair standard. Ask anybody to compile a top 100 (which has been done several times here) and almost everybody is going to have different rankings past top 10 and a lot would be different in the top 10.

            As for the replicating and scientists you are misunderstanding the phrase. That standard is not for many different ways to come to the same conclusion, but for doing exactly what I did and getting the same results. Win Shares "works" in that I can take Bill James instructions and procedures and get the exact same win share results.

            Now that doesn't mean win shares is correct but simply that the analogy you are using is incorrect.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              Not to mention, that even if they DID carry any weight, players of the past weren't able to rack them up, so bringing them up to back a players greatness is hogwash. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater ! lol, ok maybe not, just wanted to use Fever's favorite phrase one time :o
              Sultan - MVP Awards of some type go back 90 years, Cy Young Awards and Gold Glove Awards go back 50 years. That's a pretty good chunk of history. Sure you can't compare the number of Cy Yound awards won by Sandy Koufax to someone prior to 1956 such as Walter Johnson but you can compare Sandy Koufax to anyone who pitched from the mid-50s forward in this respect. I think that the opinions of people that watched the games at the time are great evidence for the value of a player. Sometimes voters make a mistake but usually they get it right.
              "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

              Rogers Hornsby, 1961

              Comment


              • #37
                MVP awards may go back along way but that doesn't mean they got fair treatment. For instance in the 20's you could only win once and I believe you could only vote for one player per team. Whereas nowadays you can win as many times as you want and you do a top ten ranking.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                  Actually most stat systems are virtually the same when looking at hitting. RC, EqA, Linear weights and probably any other one you can think get you too basically the same number. Its the fielding part that you get different numbers, and metrics don't have monopoly on this fault.

                  Nor do I think this a fair standard. Ask anybody to compile a top 100 (which has been done several times here) and almost everybody is going to have different rankings past top 10 and a lot would be different in the top 10.

                  As for the replicating and scientists you are misunderstanding the phrase. That standard is not for many different ways to come to the same conclusion, but for doing exactly what I did and getting the same results. Win Shares "works" in that I can take Bill James instructions and procedures and get the exact same win share results.

                  Now that doesn't mean win shares is correct but simply that the analogy you are using is incorrect.
                  Let's go slow. And I'm not trying to win the conversation as much as learn something here.

                  If we take Win Shares, and another stat system, take their top 100 lists, why shouldn't we come to at least similar results? Even if we make the exercise easier, and limit our conversation to hitting alone, which should be theoretically simpler, why shouldn't we get verifiable results?

                  That would make traditionalists feel a lot more comfortable with numbers. I bet if Chris the elder were to compare our top 100 players, we'd share a heavy consensus. And I bet if I and another traditionalist member were to do the same thing, we'd also have a heavy consensus.

                  Bill

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I think the problem with the self-reporting is not in ourselves, but in the nature of the poll. Like I said earlier, I would put myself as 90/10 in favor of stats, but that option wasn't there. I don't expect people to take me at my word, but I think my self-temperature is fairly accurate.
                    I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bench 5
                      Sultan - MVP Awards of some type go back 90 years, Cy Young Awards and Gold Glove Awards go back 50 years. That's a pretty good chunk of history. Sure you can't compare the number of Cy Yound awards won by Sandy Koufax to someone prior to 1956 such as Walter Johnson but you can compare Sandy Koufax to anyone who pitched from the mid-50s forward in this respect. I think that the opinions of people that watched the games at the time are great evidence for the value of a player. Sometimes voters make a mistake but usually they get it right.
                      As Ubi mentioned, the MVP award from back then to now is apples and oranges. Pitchers were not only able to win in, but they were highly considered, only one player per team could be voted for, and you couldn't win the award twice. Gehrig's '27 campaign, as great as it was, could have easily gone without the MVP ribbon had Babe been a candidate. Smart people have come up with ways to measure how many MVP's a player "could have" won, but we just can't compare.

                      All star game didn't start until '33, and gold gloves, forget out that. It trickles down to everything. People throw out 30/30 and 40/40 and Barry's 500/500 as a measure of greatness. Plenty of other players could have, and would have done this had they known it would be such a big deal. We have the advantage of hindsight, they didn't and couldn't possess foresight into what we would value.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by [email protected]
                        Let's go slow. And I'm not trying to win the conversation as much as learn something here.

                        If we take Win Shares, and another stat system, take their top 100 lists, why shouldn't we come to at least similar results? Even if we make the exercise easier, and limit our conversation to hitting alone, which should be theoretically simpler, why shouldn't we get verifiable results?

                        That would make traditionalists feel a lot more comfortable with numbers. I bet if Chris the elder were to compare our top 100 players, we'd share a heavy consensus. And I bet if I and another traditionalist member were to do the same thing, we'd also have a heavy consensus.

                        Bill

                        I would ask what you define as comparable? But yes I do believe that if you take the offensive metrics of the most respected metrics you will get similar or "comparable" results. Most metrics are in the same ballpark when it comes to correlating to runs. In otherwords almost all metrics make the transition from offensive events to runs with almost the same accuracy. For instance BPro has Reggie Jackson at 563 runs above average, Runs Created has Reggie at 565 runs above average, and Palmer has him at 534 runs above average. Now it isn't always going to be that close of course but then again you get ten guys in a room and ask them to rank Reggies career or anyones and see what happens.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by [email protected]
                          Exactly????!!! Yeah, as soon as I understand that, I'll cheerfully agree!!

                          But Let's not slice the baloney too thin here. I'll come clean, and I don't care if I marginalize myself!! What's so bad about me being honest and admitting there ARE rather HUGE holes in my knowledge base? I consider myself strongest in 1900-32 time frame, and weak in pre-1900, 1933-56, strong 1958-65, weak 1966-85, and somewhat familiar from 1985-present. Also terribly weak on Negro Leagues.

                          So, I have HUGE, GAPING, HUMONGOUS holes in my knowledge. And after having said that, you can imagine how I view the knowledge of some of the other members!!!

                          Concerning individuals, I consider myself somewhat strong in knowledge of:
                          Cobb, Ruth, W. Johnson, J. Jackson, Collins, Speaker, Gehrig, Koufax, N. Ryan, Bonds. And I consider myself very ignorant of all the rest of the players in history. Whenever I have to post on someone, I find I must, of necessity, look them up and do my homework.

                          Did I just marginalize myself? I certainly hope so. I think most of us are weak in most eras, and most players. So why is it so embarrassing to tell the other Fever members the truth? And I'm a big baseball nerd/geek.
                          Bill, you've forgotten as much as most of us will ever know
                          Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                          Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                            Bill, you've forgotten as much as most of us will ever know
                            You better hope he hasn't forgotten only a few things.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                              Bill, you've forgotten as much as most of us will ever know
                              As delightful an illusion as I've ever pulled off. I know almost nothing. Even after many years of reading, I know hardly anything.

                              Most readings are of someone's opinions, so it's all subjective/suspect, at best.

                              I get most of my knowledge from my past readings of books, articles, Sporting News. If I'm not that familiar with someone, I have 2 favorite sources. Their Sporting News obit & Baseball's Best by Marty Appell.

                              If I need info on an event, I have Proquest/Sporting News to quick search. If I need stats, I have baseball-reference on speed dial, (icon on desktop).

                              So I am able to create the most lovely, charming, yet quaint impression that I have knowledge that I probably never will have. I just have better resources than most others, and can shift into fast drive to create my illusions fairly quickly. That & my good retention of my past readings did the trick.

                              Glad I fooled everyone. Ha ha. Nice illusion, huh? Like I've said often, you guys NEED Proquest/Sporting News to become as good a magician as I.

                              Bill Burgess
                              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-13-2006, 04:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                60/40 stats

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X