Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My issue with a lot of analytical stats

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post
    Trevor Story - Exact type of player you seem to not like. Mashes home runs and strikes out a ton.
    Maybe because he leads the league in stolen bases right now? /s
    46 wins to match last year's total

    Comment


    • #17
      The really hard core fan may agree with your take on the current playing style of MLB, but watches it anyway. But, there are very few of these folks in today's world compared to say 1949. The casual fan probably looks for something more entertaining. Fans above casual level probably still watch. My last few experiences at an MLB park were that loads of the people in the park were not even casual fans. They got their tickets at work or through a group and the game is an outing. I had to listen to social conversation all around me all game long that was almost never about baseball or the game. These people were just THERE and they didn't care what was going on, on the field except that they wanted the home team to win. But they weren't going home devastated if the team lost.

      When I was a kid I sat in the bleachers at Cleveland Stadium and we talked baseball and almost everyone had a radio tuned to the local Radio call of the game. The fans were hard core and for the Indians (!!) A team with virtually no money and no hope in that era. Things are just sadly different today is all. I am sure Indian management is much more happy with a Stadium packed with oblivious fans on a social outing than they were with 7,000 hard cores rattling around 85,000 seat Cleveland Municipal Stadium.

      (BTW my last few trips to an MLB ballpark were to a largely filled Angel Stadium in Anaheim.)

      **************************************
      I also agree with the OP in his comments about the way baseball is played. If I ran a team I would of course run it by the style most likely to produce victories (walks, HRs. K's). But to simply watch teams play.... I like the idea of deeper fences, more triples, more balls hit into the field of play, fewer HR's fewer walks Fewer K's..... more fielding etc. I want the Indians to play to produce victories though.... I don't know how to reconcile this unless we could get ALL teams to lengthen fences and have more foul ground and pitch for strikes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Calif_Eagle View Post
        The really hard core fan may agree with your take on the current playing style of MLB, but watches it anyway. But, there are very few of these folks in today's world compared to say 1949. The casual fan probably looks for something more entertaining. Fans above casual level probably still watch. My last few experiences at an MLB park were that loads of the people in the park were not even casual fans. They got their tickets at work or through a group and the game is an outing. I had to listen to social conversation all around me all game long that was almost never about baseball or the game. These people were just THERE and they didn't care what was going on, on the field except that they wanted the home team to win. But they weren't going home devastated if the team lost.

        When I was a kid I sat in the bleachers at Cleveland Stadium and we talked baseball and almost everyone had a radio tuned to the local Radio call of the game. The fans were hard core and for the Indians (!!) A team with virtually no money and no hope in that era. Things are just sadly different today is all. I am sure Indian management is much more happy with a Stadium packed with oblivious fans on a social outing than they were with 7,000 hard cores rattling around 85,000 seat Cleveland Municipal Stadium.

        (BTW my last few trips to an MLB ballpark were to a largely filled Angel Stadium in Anaheim.)

        **************************************
        I also agree with the OP in his comments about the way baseball is played. If I ran a team I would of course run it by the style most likely to produce victories (walks, HRs. K's). But to simply watch teams play.... I like the idea of deeper fences, more triples, more balls hit into the field of play, fewer HR's fewer walks Fewer K's..... more fielding etc. I want the Indians to play to produce victories though.... I don't know how to reconcile this unless we could get ALL teams to lengthen fences and have more foul ground and pitch for strikes.
        When I was a kid going to old Tiger Stadium I never saw a sold out game. I attended the game where they retired Hal Newhouser's number and it was half full. Going to games later when the Tigers were good, yes there were more people who had no idea how to enjoy baseball, but they were there and they cheered when they were supposed to. And it was a better experience because it was a full stadium.


        Now I am in Boston and I go to games at Fenway. Most people expect it to be full of diehards, but actually they are diehard only in the sense that they know who they are supposed to cheer for. With the huge international university/medical community in the greater Boston area you have so many people who have never seen a game before who are going because that is what you do in Boston, and cheering for the Red Sox because that is what you do. And I love it.
        "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

        -Bill James

        Comment


        • #19
          There are also many a dull games in today's MLB, such as the Cubs-Brewers game today. The wind was blowing in, and both teams tried the impossible. Inning after inning of fly balls caught up in the wind with neither team able to manufacture a run with their slow, muscle-bound players. It went 15 innings before Contreras finally hit one out to end it. 5 hours of anesthesia was the best way to put it.

          I played two tabletop games this afternoon which were much more entertaining than the one on the radio. The 1964 White Sox beat the 1968 Tigers 3-2 with Gary Peters besting Earl Wilson. Then, the 1966 Dodgers beat the 1970 Reds 2-0 on a Claude Osteen shutout over Jim McGlothlin and two relievers. All 3 Chisox runs were manufactured with small ball measures.

          1st inning: Don Buford leadoff double which was really a long single that he stretched into a double with speed. Floyd Robinson advanced Buford to 3rd on a 3-1. Ron Hansen plated Buford on a 4-3 grounder hit deep enough to score.

          5th inning: Jim Landis was hit by a pitch. Tommy McCraw reached on a fielding error at second by Dick McAuliffe. Mike Hershberger drove Landis home with a single.

          8th inning: Gary Peters hit a leadoff double (he was a great hitting pitcher). Al Weis (defensive replacement for Buford at second) sacrificed Peters to 3rd. Pete Ward hit an infield single that scored Peters.

          The Dodgers scored their two runs in the sixth inning on a Tommy Davis single, a Lou Johnson walk, a John Kennedy sacrifice, an Osteen Sacrifice fly to right that also advanced Johnson, and an infield single by Maury Wills.

          Comment


          • #20
            I sat thru all 15 innings of that same game and had a ball. Most important thing was the most exciting thing: the cubs won. If you have to run out 56 pitchers to do it, I'm all in.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Calif_Eagle View Post
              The really hard core fan may agree with your take on the current playing style of MLB, but watches it anyway. But, there are very few of these folks in today's world compared to say 1949. The casual fan probably looks for something more entertaining. Fans above casual level probably still watch. My last few experiences at an MLB park were that loads of the people in the park were not even casual fans. They got their tickets at work or through a group and the game is an outing. I had to listen to social conversation all around me all game long that was almost never about baseball or the game. These people were just THERE and they didn't care what was going on, on the field except that they wanted the home team to win. But they weren't going home devastated if the team lost.

              When I was a kid I sat in the bleachers at Cleveland Stadium and we talked baseball and almost everyone had a radio tuned to the local Radio call of the game. The fans were hard core and for the Indians (!!) A team with virtually no money and no hope in that era. Things are just sadly different today is all. I am sure Indian management is much more happy with a Stadium packed with oblivious fans on a social outing than they were with 7,000 hard cores rattling around 85,000 seat Cleveland Municipal Stadium.

              (BTW my last few trips to an MLB ballpark were to a largely filled Angel Stadium in Anaheim.)

              **************************************
              I also agree with the OP in his comments about the way baseball is played. If I ran a team I would of course run it by the style most likely to produce victories (walks, HRs. K's). But to simply watch teams play.... I like the idea of deeper fences, more triples, more balls hit into the field of play, fewer HR's fewer walks Fewer K's..... more fielding etc. I want the Indians to play to produce victories though.... I don't know how to reconcile this unless we could get ALL teams to lengthen fences and have more foul ground and pitch for strikes.

              Sorry I never got back to this thread, but now after some time has passed, I have had time to put my thoughts together a little better.

              First, this quote above hit home to me, because there were a lot of years where I sat through several games at the Mistake by the Lake. In the years that I did not stay in LA and stayed in Nashville, Cleveland Indians' baseball was my number one sporting event. We're talking the terrible years when players like Tony Horton, Vern Fuller, The Immortal Joe Azcue, Larry Brown, Max Alvis, and others. There were days and nights where you could buy that $3 general admission ticket and sit behind home plate by the second inning. Then, when Pete Franklin began broadcasting to 38 State and Half of Canada, my love of the Indians increased even more, and I was crazy enough to build and place an AM antenna in our attic just to pick up WWWE and hear the Indians games and Pete Franklin at nights. That's what made me rethink this original thought to start this thread.

              What I would like to see is an updated linear statistic that breaks down the weights for the offensive results. When a player hits a bases empty single, it should be weighted the same as a walk or hit by pitch. When a player gets on first with no outs and then successfully steals second, it should count the same as a double. So, that means if a player hits a single with a man on base, then that single should count for more than a current single. And when a player hits a double with men on base, it should count even more than it does now when compared to stealing second.

              Then, because the stolen base has risk, but in a way sometimes the double has risk that the player will be thrown out, then the caught stealing should count like the batter never got on base at all. A single and caught stealing with nobody on base should count the same as any out with the bases empty.

              Basically, the attempt to rate the different events is great, but it's the weightings that I believe needs better algorithms. Now that computers can break down everything, the old-fashioned early 21st Century linear stats should become more detailed.

              I think of this in the same way that so many people treated FIP like it was a religion until it was shown that pitchers can affect the speed of batted balls to the tune of about 13 points of batting average on batted balls. This was something that logic could have foretold. It is not an either or thing when a batter swings at a pitch. It's not either hit the ball or miss the ball. A strikeout is obviously the ultimate result from a pitcher having command over the batter, but not striking him out does not mean that the batter has the control. The batter can almost miss the ball and just barely get wood on it. This batted ball isn't going anywhere. It is totally different from the batted ball that ends up on top of the roof at Tiger Stadium or in the center field bleachers at the Polo Grounds. Which then brings us to the HR part of FIP. How many variables go into a pitcher-batter confrontation that ends up in a home run?

              The ball has to clear a fence that is totally different in every ballpark. Altitude, weather, fence distance and height, all of these affect the home run, and some might affect it by enough to make rating this stat ridiculous. The newer speed, launch angle, etc. and spin rate and movement stats mean more than FIP now, and my guess is that the 30 MLB teams are going almost exclusively with those numbers over the linear data of just a decade ago.

              And, the overwhelming evidence is that baseball better find a way to add more action to the games, because selfie-taking and going to parks to be seen will not sustain itself over time.

              Comment

              Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X