Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

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

  • Androctus
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!
    The only topics not yet touched on in this thread are space exploration and Pre-Cambrian history. Any ideas??

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    Thanks....A Freudian compliment!
    Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by runningshoes53
    And if Ed were a psychologist, you'd be his patient.
    Thanks....A Freudian compliment!

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    We're not talking about a simple (and quite intuitive) concept like "score more runs". If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic. It's not enough to know that a faster car wins a race. You need to know what will most help that car to be faster than the rest of the cars in the race.Sabermetrics not only allows us to understand all of that, it allows us to equalize for all of it (Park Factors, Defense Independent Pitching, etc. etc.). In short, you're trying to say there's a deficiency that doesn't exist.The recent past can be used- with a great deal of accuracy- to predict future performance. The past is not at all unrelated to the future because it gives us insight into what's most likely to happen next.And yet, you've consistently railed against statistical analysis. And the problem with your contention that you can place a "value" on Abreu's "intangibles" is that you've come to a completely erroneous conclusion about this "clutch" hitting. You claimed that he "never" hits in the clutch when the data tells us that he quite obviously has. Yes, your methodology is less accurate than mine. If it weren't, you'd be lauding Abreu as a fine clutch hitter.That which is imperfect is not incapable of having extreme value. We've been over this before.Evolution is inevitable. Rickey was the grandfather of what we now know as sabermetrics and we keep seeing better and better information developed.Rickey was one of those "mechanics" I was talking about. By understanding individual performance, we're better able to understand how that whole "team" thing works. And yes, the metrics I've posted before and use consistently are valid measurements of individual contribution.A "sabermetroid". Thank goodness you're above childish namecalling.I'm just going to delete your rampantly misguided analysis of the Rickey article you didn't understand and move one. I have no other choice because you made so many aggregious reading comprehension errors, it's pointless to even start with them.You don't understand sabermetrics so yes, you'd be wasting our time. I can't count how many times you've posted that strawman (i.e. "replacing observation"). I've burned it to the ground already. It's not an "either/or" proposition and no one on the side opposing you has ever attempted to make that argument. You need to acknowledge that and move on.A "lack of practicable applicability"? Riiiiiiiight. Just because you don't know anything about sabermetrics, that doesn't mean it has no practical application. I can't even believe you typed that considering how many teams are using analytics while being quite successful doing so.
    Baseball has incorporated subjective and objective analysis from almost day one. Both have evolved. That's a dramatic erroneous over-generalization. No one with a hint of sabermetrics knowledge would say such a thing.
    First I edited your remarks to show you but for your penchant for insults you had the gist of a counter argument. I don't agree with you but that's ok. As far as sabermetroid I was not insulting you I was torn between that and other awkward constructs like sabermetrician, saberlytic, saberteer, saberneer, sabertine, sabertinian, saberfiend, saberlyte, etc. Is it impossible for you to reconcile opinions vastly different than yours can coexist and aren't neccessarily deficient? I hope this ritualistic deletion of my aforementioned post assuages whatever anguish it caused you.

    Leave a comment:


  • runningshoes
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic.
    And if Ed were a psychologist, you'd be his patient.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by Androctus
    You might stop and wonder why I havn't taken an active part since like page three...it because I was able to ascertain three things at that point - (1) I'm not going to change your mind (2) you are not going to change mine and (3) this thread is doomed. So all that was left was to back away and make light of your efforts to sway the diehards in here. It's a lost cause, friend, but your self dignity refuses you to slip away quietly and stop wasting your time here. Its obvious you are one of those "last word" types. You can have it with me - I don't feel its that important. You entitled to your opinion here, but on this you have no stats to back you up. Ed probably has more knowledge in his middle finger, and for the record I agree with everything he has stated thus far from his conclusions about Abreu to his opinion of you. But I'm content to sit and watch Ed work - he doesn't need help from me. To your credit, this is actually the single most incorrect statement thats come from you so far, because I should think that the exact opposite is true. Stats are easily applied to the game for the simple fact that they are so accessible now. situational stats make analysis easy. But to observe someone's character, and how they apply themselves to the game, and all the other intangibles that make a player what they are, takes a bit more. It takes the same observation you like to discredit. If it were as easy as opening a stat book, they wouldn't need scouts, would they? Oh I've a handle on it and I don't need you to tell me how it works. And I've done it on a level you can't conceive obviously, if you look back I challenge you to find one post of mine that contains the thinly veiled insults and name calling that have riddle your whole entirely ridiculous diatribe - which is why I won't debate with you, Steel. Certainly not that I'm afraid of your intellect, its just you're not worth my time.
    I appreciate your remarks...Baseball, Androctus.... You reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again...

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by iPod
    But how is that possible when he hits very well in "close and late" situations? Close and late is exactly what you guys keep talking about, the "bottom of the 9th, guy on 2nd, 2 outs, down 1" type of situations. ESPN keeps track of how players do in those situations, and in Abreu's case, all his numbers shoot up. Here are his close and late numbers, per ESPN's website..298 BA, 6 HR, 14 RBI, 84 AB Per 550 at-bats, an about average number of at-bats in a full season, that's 39 home runs and 92 RBI.In other words, in the 7th inning or later, with the score close, he was, essentially, a .300/40/90 guy. How is it physically possible for Bobby Abreu to have been a poor hitter in the clutch with numbers like those? I'm not asking this in a belittling way, it just seems peculiar to me that a player with such sterling situational numbers would still have a reputation for being "unclutch". As for the gold glove thing, I probably would agree with you. Just from what I've seen from him he doesn't appear that good, most eyewitnesses that have seen him more (like yourselves) aren't really impressed, and while I don't have much faith in the fielding formulae we have, his numbers don't appear very impressive for 2005. Plus, I believe the fielding numbers that are based on numbers of putouts and assists are quite possibly biased by the fact that the Phillies perhaps (just guessing) have flyball starting pitchers, like Eric Milton, that would induce the Phillies outfielders to have an artificially high number of putouts.
    I haven't quite led the Abreu isn't clutch charge but I think the problem comes in watching him throughout entire games where he approaches his first at bat and last at bat with a seeming indifference to game situations now certainly the stats you quote call in question the conclusion he's not as consistent a hitter in post seventh inning situations but one thing was certain last year after the All Star game he was not as effective a hitter as he was before. He declined in every hitting category from the previous season and in almost every category over the previous four seasons. This didn't happen in a vacuum it happened during a very tight pennant race and I think that's a large part of why Phillies fans are currently dissatisfied with his hitting. Is that fair? Is it just a bad second half? Given his career numbers you can write it off as a rough back 81 on the course. Fact is with what the Phutes owe him over the next two years I'm already coloring him going, going, gone. BTW the fly ball pitcher/Milton thing is spot on...
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-21-2005, 07:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Nice post Ed. While I have a few problems with some of your interpretations, the jist of your post is dead on. I would also say here that I think you look at saber-types a bit like my grandfather looks at computers....he knows they can be helpful in some situations, but he doesn't trust them. Fair enough. I did read the article, several years ago, and re-read it just now. I think you're taking what you wanted to from it and spinning its intent a little, but only a little, and we all take what we want from what we read, right? Anyway, I offer up my apologies for my offenses...they were in the spirit of the argument.
    No offense taken. I'm only offering my own interpretation and I'm sure others like yourself can draw different conclusions. I am guilty of taking that which makes my case but I specifically posted the url to allow anyone to grade my conclusions. On the whole I think Rickey was quite clear as to how and why he compiled his stats.
    Abreu is not a dog or a stiff he's a fine player but I think at his age and with the Phillies who else do they have to offer other than Utley and Howard that has value to get a real arm?
    As for saber-types I give them no more and certainly no less weight in regards to evaluating a player I've watched for years. If we were discussing players I was unfamiliar with I would weight their conclusion beyond any superficial analysis my having seen them play occasionally might produce.
    It's a case specific matter here.
    The rest of it is a lack of fixed methodology for determining value and in changing yearly (even if it is in the pursuit of accuracy) you preclude wide acceptance. Again that's my opinion and if some take umbrage at my eschewing their orthodoxy that's the way the cookie crumbles. I do welcome their opinions this post regardless of agreement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Androctus
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    Considering that you haven't appropriately responded to anything I've posted- including a heaping helping of non-statistical real baseball information-
    You might stop and wonder why I havn't taken an active part since like page three...it because I was able to ascertain three things at that point - (1) I'm not going to change your mind (2) you are not going to change mine and (3) this thread is doomed. So all that was left was to back away and make light of your efforts to sway the diehards in here. It's a lost cause, friend, but your self dignity refuses you to slip away quietly and stop wasting your time here. Its obvious you are one of those "last word" types. You can have it with me - I don't feel its that important.

    I wouldn't take such an admittance on your part to mean anything other than what I already knew coming in:

    You're simply overmatched in an actual baseball discussion when you have folks other than Ed's ilk lurking. Ed acknowledged that he was overmatched the moment he posted word one in this thread. Neither of you need to admit that because it's not in question. In fact, I wonder why you and Ed don't just avoid the thread altogether because there IS actual baseball that's being discussed here regardless of Ed's recent M.O. of childishly ranting and carrying on about nothing, which is designed to tangent us all away from the fact that he possesses little actual baseball knowledge.
    You entitled to your opinion here, but on this you have no stats to back you up. Ed probably has more knowledge in his middle finger, and for the record I agree with everything he has stated thus far from his conclusions about Abreu to his opinion of you. But I'm content to sit and watch Ed work - he doesn't need help from me.

    It's easy to mindlessly parrot "Stats suck! Stats don't tell the whole story! Bwraaaaak!" It's more difficult to understand their relevance when applied to the baseball you claim to be watching.
    To your credit, this is actually the single most incorrect statement thats come from you so far, because I should think that the exact opposite is true. Stats are easily applied to the game for the simple fact that they are so accessible now. situational stats make analysis easy. But to observe someone's character, and how they apply themselves to the game, and all the other intangibles that make a player what they are, takes a bit more. It takes the same observation you like to discredit. If it were as easy as opening a stat book, they wouldn't need scouts, would they?

    But watch on. Maybe someday you'll figure out what it is you're actually seeing. If so, one day you'll be able to actually add something to a baseball discussion rather than to detract from it.
    Oh I've a handle on it and I don't need you to tell me how it works. And I've done it on a level you can't conceive obviously, if you look back I challenge you to find one post of mine that contains the thinly veiled insults and name calling that have riddle your whole entirely ridiculous diatribe - which is why I won't debate with you, Steel. Certainly not that I'm afraid of your intellect, its just you're not worth my time.
    Last edited by Androctus; 11-21-2005, 05:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    As for sabermetrics let me explain my previous opinions and frame them in context none of which is meant as an accusation, pejorative or slight to any one in this forum.
    Next time, it would be helpful to use things called "paragraphs".

    Sabermetrics is an empirical observation not theoretically derived there is no known reason why it works except sometimes it does.
    That's completely inaccurate.

    There are vast statistical deviations between results and expected results which include weather, injury, luck, illness, personal problems, substance abuse etc.
    None of which are ignored by anyone.

    Sabermetric reasoning says runs win ballgames, hardly earth shattering and not neccesarily a conclusion only a mathmatician can derive.

    A good measure of a player's worth is the ability to help score more runs than the opposing team. Sabermetrics was hardly the first to recognize higher scoring predicates a desirable outcome.
    We're not talking about a simple (and quite intuitive) concept like "score more runs". If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic. It's not enough to know that a faster car wins a race. You need to know what will most help that car to be faster than the rest of the cars in the race.

    But runs created doesn't take into account stadiums, starting pitching, bullpens, sea level etc. Runs created doesn't take into account various factors such as lower or higher average levels of offensive production or inequities like better pitching in any given season.
    Sabermetrics not only allows us to understand all of that, it allows us to equalize for all of it (Park Factors, Defense Independent Pitching, etc. etc.). In short, you're trying to say there's a deficiency that doesn't exist. The reason you aren't able to identify that there isn't a deficiency is because you don't really understand how it all works.

    In postscript it can make adjustments but I too can predict the past with 100% accuracy after it occurs.

    Sabermetrics attempts determining the value of a player in a season gone by and predicting the value of a player in the future based on his past. Two completely different things.
    No, they're not. The recent past can be used- with a great deal of accuracy- to predict future performance. The past is not at all unrelated to the future because it gives us insight into what's most likely to happen next.

    If we're only talking about Abreu's past those of us who watch Phillies games possess far more insight than statistically limited conclusions. Why? Because we observed and can place a value on Abreu's intangibles. Something sabermetrics simply can't and doesn't do. Does that invalidate the expressed opinion of those who haven't such experience? No. But it doesn't qualify them to scold, lecture or belittle those that do.
    And yet, you've consistently (and emotionally) railed against statistical analysis while not understanding it.

    And the problem with your contention that you can place a "value" on Abreu's "intangibles" is that you've come to a completely erroneous conclusion about his "clutch" hitting. You claimed that he "never" hits in the clutch when the data tells us that he quite obviously has.

    As far as whatever value or belief system we use to determine the value of his intangible worth it isn't any more or less accurate than sabermetrics which for all its vaunted math is simply the law of averages overcomplicated by the few to the bemusement of many without deriving any better results.
    Yes, your methodology is less accurate than mine. If it weren't, you'd be lauding Abreu as a fine clutch hitter.

    Does sabermetrics help define parameters of consideration in the comparison of players? I think it does so wonderfully if you accept the formula as conclusive. Since the formula's keep changing (regardless of reason) I find it hard to reconcile as immutable.
    That which is imperfect is not incapable of having extreme value. We've been over this before.

    There are other sabermetric equations to compute all facets of log splitting minutia like win shares, linear weight values etc. they rise and fall like the stock market replaced by the next formula as quickly as they're promulgated so let's get on with Mr. Rickey as an example statistics form sound individual conclusions which I contend he did not.
    Evolution is inevitable. Rickey was the grandfather of what we now know as sabermetrics and we keep seeing better and better information developed.

    Unfortunately and despite assertions to the contrary he's consistently clear he values the team as a whole and not the individual he only calculates individual statistics to measure a team's total worth.
    Rickey was one of those "mechanics" I was talking about. By understanding individual performance, we're better able to understand how that whole "team" thing works. And yes, the metrics I've posted before and use consistently are valid measurements of individual contribution.

    There's little surprise a sabermetroid would find refuge in selected passages of Branch Rickey's article:
    A "sabermetroid". Thank goodness you're above childish namecalling.

    I'm just going to delete your rampantly misguided analysis of the Rickey article you didn't understand and move one. I have no other choice because you made so many aggregious reading comprehension errors, it's pointless to even start with them.

    When something by total weight and inference invalidates your argument you are best served by not introducing it if someone points out the obvious tenor of the article which you should know by having read it in its entirety it is ridiculous to cast aspersions in the hope no one will call your bluff and read it. Again I applaud misquoting someone as an entirely honorable tactic in argument but leap nimbly from such devices when they burst into rhetorical flame.
    And the guy who's been intellectually dishonest this whole time tries to call someone else a kettle. Or pot. Makes no difference even though it's exceptionally funny.

    Now I could waste equally long posts on the shortcomings of sabermetrics both mathmatically and by prediction since 1987.
    You don't understand sabermetrics so yes, you'd be wasting our time.

    It is an interesting and engaging way to attempt to impose order on a chaotic structure. Nor is it entirely invalid either. It does not however rise to such a level of perfection as to merit it precluding or replacing observation, reflection or any other method of forming an opinion. Anyone who believes such formula include or exclude anyone from being knowledgable is simply practicing "a little knowledge can be dangerous."
    I can't count how many times you've posted that strawman (i.e. "replacing observation"). I've burned it to the ground already. It's not an "either/or" proposition and no one on the side opposing you has ever attempted to make that argument. You need to acknowledge that and move on.

    For a system of certainty to be in place twenty years in a given profession to have so few adherents as GM's, managers, or front office personnel indicates to me the "wonk" factor and lack of practicable applicability not a character defect of those who love sabermetrics nor of those who do not.
    A "lack of practicable applicability"? Riiiiiiiight. Just because you don't know anything about sabermetrics, that doesn't mean it has no practical application. I can't even believe you typed that considering how many teams are using analytics while being quite successful doing so.

    This is not a "cutting edge" theory it's a quarter century tweak driven obsessive compulsive attempt to divide chewing tobacco by spit sunflower seed to explain previous outcomes and impose pseudo-science on the future outcome of an abstract art that spins quite freely of sabermetrics 162 games a year.
    Baseball has incorporated subjective and objective analysis from almost day one. Both have evolved. Instead of wasting your time (and ours) by continuing to position irrelevant uneducated indictments of objective methodology, you might want to learn something about it to incorporate it into your own knowledge base. You'd be wrong less if you did. Until then, all we're reading is the wailing of a less-informed person telling us the Earth is still flat.

    How do I reach this conclusion? Anything that defies their sabermetric calculations is anamoly, luck, or unforseeable circumstance.
    That's a dramatic erroneous over-generalization. No one with a hint of sabermetrics knowledge would say such a thing.

    I call that the gypsy con aspect it doesn't happen if you don't believe. Because sabermetrics fails routinely in experiment year after year it is a belief system not a science. You can't pick and choose data or weight it and call it empirical. That's the nature of any conclusion mathmatically derived. Quadratic equations are accepted because they work and are provable not because Joe Quadratic said it was so.
    Drivel. All of it.

    I encourage everyone to read the Rickey article and look at the predictions of sabermetrics and the vastly different outcomes since 1987. Is sabermetrics interesting? A worthwhile analytical construct? Perhaps but is it the raison d'etre for enjoying discussing baseball? For me and many others no.
    Then why do you rant on and on about it? Is it that scary to you?

    Does it mean you aren't welcome to introduce, defend, propose or post such conclusions? Does it mean you have to agree with my conclusions? Nope. I'm here to scribble and quibble about baseball. That's why Baskin Robbins isn't famous for one flavor. The original poster of Mr. Rickey's article did us all a service to introduce us to a 51 year perspective of baseball tempered by accepting new approaches to delineating quality. Additionally he makes many good points but insists on couching them in gratuitous vituperative remarks which I find distasteful in the extreme. I have no animosity for that which is typed in the heat of battle when it does not occur in such quantity but at some point enough is enough. I wish all who post here nothing but the best and always enjoy their posts.
    Until you can police your own behavior like an adult, you need to shut up about the behavior of others. The word "hypocritical" just ain't big enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • iPod
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    Abreu's never hits in the clutch...it compliments his timid fielding.
    But how is that possible when he hits very well in "close and late" situations? Close and late is exactly what you guys keep talking about, the "bottom of the 9th, guy on 2nd, 2 outs, down 1" type of situations. ESPN keeps track of how players do in those situations, and in Abreu's case, all his numbers shoot up. Here are his close and late numbers, per ESPN's website.

    .298 BA, 6 HR, 14 RBI, 84 AB
    Per 550 at-bats, an about average number of at-bats in a full season, that's 39 home runs and 92 RBI.

    In other words, in the 7th inning or later, with the score close, he was, essentially, a .300/40/90 guy. How is it physically possible for Bobby Abreu to have been a poor hitter in the clutch with numbers like those? I'm not asking this in a belittling way, it just seems peculiar to me that a player with such sterling situational numbers would still have a reputation for being "unclutch".

    As for the gold glove thing, I probably would agree with you. Just from what I've seen from him he doesn't appear that good, most eyewitnesses that have seen him more (like yourselves) aren't really impressed, and while I don't have much faith in the fielding formulae we have, his numbers don't appear very impressive for 2005. Plus, I believe the fielding numbers that are based on numbers of putouts and assists are quite possibly biased by the fact that the Phillies perhaps (just guessing) have flyball starting pitchers, like Eric Milton, that would induce the Phillies outfielders to have an artificially high number of putouts.
    Last edited by iPod; 11-21-2005, 03:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Nice post Ed. While I have a few problems with some of your interpretations, the jist of your post is dead on. I would also say here that I think you look at saber-types a bit like my grandfather looks at computers....he knows they can be helpful in some situations, but he doesn't trust them. Fair enough. I did read the article, several years ago, and re-read it just now. I think you're taking what you wanted to from it and spinning its intent a little, but only a little, and we all take what we want from what we read, right?

    Anyway, I offer up my apologies for my offenses...they were in the spirit of the argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Finally something we can agree on Ed.
    I welcome such agreement.
    As for sabermetrics let me explain my previous opinions and frame them in context none of which is meant as an accusation, pejorative or slight to any one in this forum.
    Sabermetrics is an empirical observation not theoretically derived there is no known reason why it works except sometimes it does. There are vast statistical deviations between results and expected results which include weather, injury, luck, illness, personal problems, substance abuse etc.
    Sabermetric reasoning says runs win ballgames, hardly earth shattering and not neccesarily a conclusion only a mathmatician can derive. A good measure of a player's worth is the ability to help score more runs than the opposing team. Sabermetrics was hardly the first to recognize higher scoring predicates a desirable outcome.
    But runs created doesn't take into account stadiums, starting pitching, bullpens, sea level etc. Runs created doesn't take into account various factors such as lower or higher average levels of offensive production or inequities like better pitching in any given season. In postscript it can make adjustments but I too can predict the past with 100% accuracy after it occurs.
    Sabermetrics attempts determining the value of a player in a season gone by and predicting the value of a player in the future based on his past. Two completely different things.
    If we're only talking about Abreu's past those of us who watch Phillies games possess far more insight than statistically limited conclusions. Why? Because we observed and can place a value on Abreu's intangibles. Something sabermetrics simply can't and doesn't do. Does that invalidate the expressed opinion of those who haven't such experience? No. But it doesn't qualify them to scold, lecture or belittle those that do.
    As far as whatever value or belief system we use to determine the value of his intangible worth it isn't any more or less accurate than sabermetrics which for all its vaunted math is simply the law of averages overcomplicated by the few to the bemusement of many without deriving any better results.
    Does sabermetrics help define parameters of consideration in the comparison of players? I think it does so wonderfully if you accept the formula as conclusive. Since the formula's keep changing (regardless of reason) I find it hard to reconcile as immutable.
    There are other sabermetric equations to compute all facets of log splitting minutia like win shares, linear weight values etc. they rise and fall like the stock market replaced by the next formula as quickly as they're promulgated so let's get on with Mr. Rickey as an example statistics form sound individual conclusions which I contend he did not.
    Unfortunately and despite assertions to the contrary he's consistently clear he values the team as a whole and not the individual he only calculates individual statistics to measure a team's total worth.
    There's little surprise a sabermetroid would find refuge in selected passages of Branch Rickey's article:
    GOODBY TO SOME OLD BASEBALL IDEAS (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...o_old_idea.htm)
    First and foremost Rickey qualifies exactly what he believes is the value of his calculations:
    "The formula is designed principally to gauge and analyze performance on a team basis."
    Rickey only frames individual performance in regards to value to a team but we're talking about an individual not a team. So why is this article cited in an argument questioning the verifiability of individual statistical inference in regards to Bobby Abreu?
    Rickey indicates specifically statistics do not account for that which he values most:
    "In my experience probably the most important single thing in batting has been the mental attitude of the hitter going to the plate."
    Most important? Many in this forum who actually watched Abreu at the plate innumerable times were entirely dismissed as possessing opinions of no value whatsoever because their well grounded actual observation did not conform to statistically driven non-observation. A conclusion I dispute.
    Rickey discusses "clutch" as:
    "...speed, taking the extra base, stealing one occasionally, managerial savvy and timeliness of hitting. All these capabilities, unmeasurable in an individual, are reflected by one statistic which has never been used to my knowledge and which I shall call "clutch." It is simply the percentage of men who got on base who scored."
    Ok that means Abreu by virtue of his hits, walks and steals isn't the worst player on the team and no one is suggesting he is.
    Despite all his efforts Rickey had to conclude there's:
    "No way of applying all three of these basic factors to individuals as well as teams. Clutch was strictly a team figure..."
    Isn't sabermetrics all about applying statistical formula to an individual to predict performance?
    Rickey maintains walks drawn are the true key to an individuals worth hardly the stuff of doubles triples and home runs being more valuable using Teddy Ballgame as an example and stating:
    "Actually walks are extremely important."
    Apparently Rickey contravenes the sabermetric notion extra base hits are more important.
    Rickey concretely demonstrates baseball is more than statistical inference using Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson as an example:
    "Cobb...beat you with more than his bat. He beat you with brains, aggressiveness and opportunities, all the things that show up in clutch which we cannot estimate for an individual player. When Cobb got on base his very presence there upset the pitcher. It caused the infield to make errors it would not otherwise make. Jackie Robinson of Brooklyn has the same nuisance value to a lesser degree today, and as a runner on third he has no equal."
    A comparison I made without even lifting a pencil to do simple addition. I maintain Abreu does not inspire such terror in the opposition.
    Rickey presciently shows why Abreu looks better on paper as a fielder than he is:
    "Fielding averages? Utterly worthless as a yardstick. They are not only misleading, but deceiving. Take Zeke Bonura, the old White Sox first baseman, generally regarded as a poor fielder. The fielding averages showed that he led American League in fielding for three years. Why? Zeke had "good hands"! Anything he reached, he held. Result: an absence of errors. But he was also slow moving and did not cover much territory. Balls that a quicker man may have fielded went for base hits, but the fielding averages do not reflect this."
    Something I maintain and you also agree with in regards to Abreu's unearned Gold Mitt and poor fielding in the face of statistics.
    Finally Rickey puts it in perspective something lacking it seems in the modern adherents of saberism:
    "Although the formula gives a comprehensive diagnosis of teams and players, it has limitations. It cannot predict the performance of a team on any given day or in any brief series because players have good and bad days. Nor can it foresee with accuracy the outcome of a pennant race because players do not always live up to past performances."
    Players do not always live up to past performances. The devil's in the details I suppose.
    Rickey's formula is only as he calls it an "interpretation."
    When something by total weight and inference invalidates your argument you are best served by not introducing it if someone points out the obvious tenor of the article which you should know by having read it in its entirety it is ridiculous to cast aspersions in the hope no one will call your bluff and read it. Again I applaud misquoting someone as an entirely honorable tactic in argument but leap nimbly from such devices when they burst into rhetorical flame.
    Now I could waste equally long posts on the shortcomings of sabermetrics both mathmatically and by prediction since 1987. It is an interesting and engaging way to attempt to impose order on a chaotic structure. Nor is it entirely invalid either. It does not however rise to such a level of perfection as to merit it precluding or replacing observation, reflection or any other method of forming an opinion. Anyone who believes such formula include or exclude anyone from being knowledgable is simply practicing "a little knowledge can be dangerous."
    For a system of certainty to be in place twenty years in a given profession to have so few adherents as GM's, managers, or front office personnel indicates to me the "wonk" factor and lack of practicable applicability not a character defect of those who love sabermetrics nor of those who do not.
    This is not a "cutting edge" theory it's a quarter century tweak driven obsessive compulsive attempt to divide chewing tobacco by spit sunflower seed to explain previous outcomes and impose pseudo-science on the future outcome of an abstract art that spins quite freely of sabermetrics 162 games a year. How do I reach this conclusion? Anything that defies their sabermetric calculations is anamoly, luck, or unforseeable circumstance. I call that the gypsy con aspect it doesn't happen if you don't believe. Because sabermetrics fails routinely in experiment year after year it is a belief system not a science. You can't pick and choose data or weight it and call it empirical. That's the nature of any conclusion mathmatically derived. Quadratic equations are accepted because they work and are provable not because Joe Quadratic said it was so.
    I encourage everyone to read the Rickey article and look at the predictions of sabermetrics and the vastly different outcomes since 1987. Is sabermetrics interesting? A worthwhile analytical construct? Perhaps but is it the raison d'etre for enjoying discussing baseball? For me and many others no. Does it mean you aren't welcome to introduce, defend, propose or post such conclusions? Does it mean you have to agree with my conclusions? Nope. I'm here to scribble and quibble about baseball. That's why Baskin Robbins isn't famous for one flavor. The original poster of Mr. Rickey's article did us all a service to introduce us to a 51 year perspective of baseball tempered by accepting new approaches to delineating quality. Additionally he makes many good points but insists on couching them in gratuitous vituperative remarks which I find distasteful in the extreme. I have no animosity for that which is typed in the heat of battle when it does not occur in such quantity but at some point enough is enough. I wish all who post here nothing but the best and always enjoy their posts.
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-21-2005, 01:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    Abreu's Gold Mitt makes a mockery of the award and debases future winners...indisputable.
    Finally something we can agree on Ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • LP fan
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    And Einstein was an atheist. What happened to the point?
    we're off track, but they're cool quotes....

    anyways: as mentioned earlier in the thread by another poster, the phils offence and defense is good enough to win....with Rollins, Abreu, Howard, Burrell and Utley in there.....all thats needed is some pitching I think....better pitching and phils would have been in the series this year....I can live with Bobby's gold glove and perceived lack of ?what - character, hustle?? anyways, his numbers are too good to throw away....trading him will set the team too far back again

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X