2014 Phillies Thread - There's Always Next Year

[PhillyPhreak54]

Because I'll argue that this new data is too analytical and doesn't take the human or situational elements into consideration.

Sabr is about spreadsheets and math.

I look at it like out of touch big corporations watching the bottom line rather than seeing the people who actually make the company run. Need to shave some costs? Well let's restrict pricing flexibility and maybe let to of Worker A because he makes too much. Why? Because the math says so.

[MDS]

and those companies make even more money than before...its inhumane and immoral but from a business perspective, it works.

baseball doesnt really have to worry about that. all youre doing is not bunting. it still works.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Because I'll argue that this new data is too analytical and doesn't take the human or situational elements into consideration.

Sabr is about spreadsheets and math.

I look at it like out of touch big corporations watching the bottom line rather than seeing the people who actually make the company run. Need to shave some costs? Well let's restrict pricing flexibility and maybe let to of Worker A because he makes too much. Why? Because the math says so.

Baseball is about spreadsheets and math.  It always was the sport where statistics seemed more important.  Even now, the debate isn't whether stats are important, it's just about which stats are important.

Whether people want to admit it or not, SABR thought has worked its way pretty well into player evaluation and front offices in baseball.  It hasn't reached the same level with coaching because most coaches have an old school mindset.  I tend to think that the sabermetric movement does minimize some subjective elements too much but there really is enough of a sample size on some specific things MDS talks about.

I think oldschool people get worried about what it represents so they just ignore anything that is being said because it gets labeled as geeky when in reality, a lot of it is just about trying to emphasize what's more important.  Example: someone hitting .270 with a .400 OBP is much better than someone hitting .300 with a .330 OBP, but a lot of the old school people just liked to throw out batting average as one of the key stats.  In reality, if you get on base and hit for power, you're going to win a lot of games.  If you limit the number of people on base and get a lot of strikeouts (which limits variance), you're going to win a lot of games. 

I don't know anything about VORP or things like that but some of the very basic SABR philosophies have already been accepted by most front offices because they make sense when you think about them from a baseball perspective & there has been a significant enough sample size to prove them out.

[PhillyPhreak54]

I take issue with no bunting (ever!), that somehow RBIs aren't important and now even runs aren't worth something?

That is too over the top.

Sure some of their philosophies have merit and are proven over time but I will never buy into shtein like VORP, WAR, xFIP and other statistical atrocities like that.

[MDS]

vorp is a compilation stat

instead of looking at the ops, avg, obp, hrs, sbs, etc. for all SS, it averages it all out and tells how much better player x was over  a replacement player, like jayson nix. for example, jimmy rollins had a staggering 1.2 vorp last year, the year before was 3.3. that essentially means he had marginal value over someone you could have found on the street, like jayson nix. 

so if you were a gm and jimmy was a FA you wouldnt value him very much, at least offensively. or you could and be wrong.

[MDS]

I take issue with no bunting (ever!), that somehow RBIs aren't important and now even runs aren't worth something?

That is too over the top.

pitchers can bunt because they suck at hitting. if you can guarantee that 2 very good players will bat with the winning/tying run at 3rd bunting is also OK. other than that it shouldnt happen, since its you know, the low percentage play.

RBIs are a team stat. you cant get them unless people are on base. player x can hit 4th and hit all the doubles and homers he wants, but if the 3 players in front of him cant get on base, hes not getting rbis. which means he sucks because he only drove in 85 runs! he sucks!

[Eagles_Legendz]

The problem with RBIs is somewhat similar to the problem with wins for pitchers.  RBIs normally indicate someone producing at the plate but I think where SABR people would disagree with it being a keystone stat is that it's a product of opportunity. 

If you look at something like OPS which measures how often you get on base and the amount of power you hit for, you're more likely to analyze clearly who is a better player than if you just go by RBIs, because someone batting 4th in Colorado is going to put up more RBIs than someone batting 4th in Houston even if the dude in Houston is better simply because more people will be on base in front of him in Colorado.  Things like OPS measure only the individuals production whereas RBI is dependent on others.  I think RBI still gives a fairly accurate snapshot but I also can see how it's dependent upon some other factors.

[Geowhizzer]

[PhillyPhreak54]

I'm fine with OPS

RBIs are a product of opportunity. You get up with a guy in scoring position the. You're supposed to knock him in. If you don't then you're not going to have a job.

Of course if a guy has 42 RBIs one year after having 87 the year before and 92 the year after then you search for why. Oh, the team hit .231 and didn't have many runners on? Or whatever the reason may be...you just have to dig deeper as to why.

But generally it is a legit production stat.

[ice grillin you]

ops is the worst sabrementric stat because its not a sabremetic stat....and it  perfectly illustrates how the nerds want to be included so bad


...its farging slugging plus on base %...two things that every scout since the beginning of time has looked at...branch rickey was doing his version of ops in the 50's...

nerds then wake up one day combine two age old numbers call it ops and wanna act like the reinvented baseball..its a joke

[Eagles_Legendz]

OPS is relevant because people value batting average way too highly in relation to on base percentage.  People used to say .285 slap hitters were good offensive players when they were awful.  OPS shows that quickly.

[Rome]

You just hurt the hell outta Ben Revere's feelings.

[MDS]

nerds then wake up one day combine two age old numbers call it ops and wanna act like the reinvented baseball..its a joke

this is the crux of the debate

basically you feel your way of life is under attack. this is war. you went to fight on a lie. and youre still fighting, george. youre still fighting.

[Eagles_Legendz]

I should edit my last comment to say .285 slap hitters who don't walk.  Bourn actually had a few years where he was a valuable offensive player because he walked.  If you hit ~290/300, walk, and steal bases, then my comment doesn't fit (though part of Bourn's real value was how good he was defensively).  It's more listening to years of having to hear how latter day Placido Polanco's were "solid professional baseball players" when he was a drain on the whole team offensively.   So while I agree with igy that OPS isn't a "new stat" it's new in the sense that old school people still acted liked slap hitting players who didn't walk were good on offense.  They're not and I think OPS being prominent helps illustrate that.

[ice grillin you]

nerds then wake up one day combine two age old numbers call it ops and wanna act like the reinvented baseball..its a joke

this is the crux of the debate

basically you feel your way of life is under attack. this is war. you went to fight on a lie. and youre still fighting, george. youre still fighting.

i dont have a way of life when it comes to baseball...i watch games they calculate formulas...i know the difference between dave cash and johnny cash...they dont