nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
there is a general principle for what you just described...sometimes called Occam's razor...sometimes called scientific parsimony...
Matt Kemp
- Thread starter jsebe10
- Start date
there is a general principle for what you just described...sometimes called Occam's razor...sometimes called scientific parsimony...
How about hitters taking AB's off in blowouts? Or a meaningless homerun in the 9th when down by 8?
If that hypothetical run doesn't score then should that be counted against someone? In the end we are trying to measure real impact on wins and losses.
But we are looking at an individual player in this example where a few plays could alter the perception.
Agreed 100%.
Yet these situations are accepted at the end of the year in a persons season totals. In the end we can actually go off of what actually happened. Whether a player didn't try due to the game situation shouldn't really matter.
Everything matters if you want the best conclusions.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
one of the things a good scientist will develop is a sense of where to apply that skepticism...I guess some of us are trying to tell you that you're not directing your skepticism in a direction that is likely to be productive...or as a friend in the oil bidness likes to say you gotta know where to drill em
Best conclusions for what? A players actual ability or what they did on the field? Those aren't the same.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
you what really grinds my gears!! when a runner steals 2nd/3rd late in a game that is a blowout and the score keeper calls catcher indifference. So no stolen base for runner or catcher.. yet when the next guy gets a hit and he scores, that pitcher gets the ER tacked to his stats. WHAT@!!#@@
Why would this not be productive?
Contributions to wins and losses. Isn't that what we are talking about in this thread?
This is a very important distinction to make. Even after all these valuation stats are created and perfected, we still have to go through the exercise of determining which are predictive. If they aren't predictive, they are essentially meaningless.
A good example is the Rangers being "clutch" last year. Yes, it happened. Yes, they won those games. However, being "clutch" one year is not predictive of being "clutch" in subsequent years.
Same line of thinking when we talked about a guy with a reputation for having a good arm vs a guy that actually has a good arm. While both guys may produce equal value with their arms, the guy with the actual good arm as measured by statcast would be the guy to invest in long term.
Actual plays contribute to wins and losses. Due to sequencing you might get a lot in one game so their impact is technically suppressed. However these things equal out over 162 games (for the most part). I don't want to penalize a great catch or a homerun when the game is late and out of hand.
But ability and contributions to win's and losses are not the same thing.
You aren't even arguing a consistent point anymore. You have resorted to positing something contrary to every statement.
I agree. I prefer to track contributions. Whether by luck or skill it still happened.
I think so, the same way we've always recorded an error regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scored and we've always recorded hits even if they don't lead to anything.
I think it is more important to assess whether the right, or best, play was made than it is to assess the actual results of a play, when speaking about defense. We already know the results of plays, games, seasons, etc. What the advanced metrics are trying to do a better job of assessing is the quality of a player's play, or his value.
I think skepticism is healthy when it leads to a questioning of how data is gathered/interpreted, etc. That obviously requires a great deal of information and generally more expertise than fans are going to have. I don't think skepticism is healthy if it leads to mostly ignoring data that is pretty clear on how it is gathered and what it measures.
For example, if a fan doesn't really know what WAR is or how it is calculated, I think that's a good thing...if it leads that fan to dig into what WAR is and how it's calculated. If they still have certain issues with it at that point, they can take those into account when using it. I don't think it's a good thing if they just say, 'What is WAR and how is it calculated? Hmm, I'm skeptical...therefore I don't really care what it says, I'm going with what I see.'
This is an important point to make. 'Advanced metrics' are really just more in-depth extensions of what baseball evaluation has always been about...stats.
We know what batting average measures, and nobody says, 'well, what if a player is focusing on moving a runner over and not as much on getting a hit? That has to be factored in.' Everyone just takes batting average for what it measures. Advanced metrics are the exact same thing. They measure a certain thing objectively. They are not the end-all, be-all to determine what a player is in all situations, but they are better measures, generally speaking, than things like batting average and RBI.