ptatc

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) I think they've done quite a bit of this and it's where they derive the statistics from. So many of these variables show such little significance towards the runs scored with such high variability that it's impossible to say that one is more important than the other, but it essentially follows basic guidelines and sounds logic. 1) A strikeout is the best guarantee for an out. 2) A walk is never an out. 3) If the batter hits it, you prefer it to be on the ground because it's almost never a home run and the batter will usually not advance beyond 1B. 4) A flyball is preferable to a line drive, but those can be dangerous. 5) You do not ever want to give up line drives. Your ideal pitcher is one who has good command, gets a fair amount of strike outs, and keeps the ball on the ground. I'd argue that the best pitcher - starter or reliever - of the modern era is Mariano Rivera. His numbers: 8.22 K/9 2.01 BB/9 52.5% GB% Those can be supplemented, and you can be great without 1 of them, but I generally think you need at least two of them to be a great pitcher. That makes sense. So if you run the step wise regression you should get something like K is 30% of the variability, low walk rate is 15% and GB% is 10%. I'm not saying those are the numbers but just for example. I'd like to see that information compared to runs. I'm going to use the fangraphs info and runs the data over break and see what comes up.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 09:20 AM) My hypothesis would be that you'd see some slight correlation to GB% and run prevention, but it wouldn't be significant. Your best groundballers (as SP) since the statistic has been kept have been Brandon Webb, Derek Lowe, Jake Westbrook, Chien-Ming Wang, Tim Hudson, Aaron Cook, Zach Day, Fausto Carmona/Roberto Hernandez, Kirk Saarloos, and Justin Masterson. That's a pretty mixed bag. The one thing I notice when looking over those pitchers is that the most successful ones have been those that have been able to accrue some strikeouts. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...=0&sort=6,d You can mess around with that a little bit. One thing's for certain - you don't make it starting if you are throwing flyballs unless you pitch in a big ballpark. Chris Young and Jered Weaver are really the only starters to find some success. I know that GB% alone isn't a key factor. Maybe it's K/BB or K% and GB%. I think the best place to start is to look at the pitchers who gave up the least runs and do a step wise linear regression to see what factors pop up.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 25, 2014 -> 04:05 PM) Well, LD rate correlates very highly with high BABIP, which correlates highly with successful hitting metrics in general. So you can't link LD rate directly to wins, but you can link it directly to good hitting and then link good hitting directly to wins. The reason it's important to find year-to-year correlations is to help you evaluate if a hitter's success is sustainable. Again, it's trying to boil down metrics to representatives of "true talent," which should be less likely to disappear. I was looking at it from the pitching aspect of GB% not the hitting. Still seems to be that good pitching beats good hitting especially in the post season. If LD rate is correlated to BABIP, it makes sense that a high GB% or lower LD rate would be correlated with better pitching and poorer hitting. I need to find the numbers though.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) That makes intuitive sense, but research has shown no significant year-to-year correlation between LD rates at all. GB rate is less reliable than you'd think, but is more consistent than LD -- the problem is that it cannot be considered an inherently good or bad thing because it doesn't fit into the equation of linear weights. In other words, it is a class of event, but it isn't a final outcome. Therefore, it cannot hold a run value. A GB can become one of several types of hits or outs, and the odds of each event occurring are entirely dependent on defense, chance, and the ability of the hitter -- all context-dependent and infinitely variable. I understand the GB is dependent on the defense, however has it shown that the GB rate has an influence on runs scored. There cannot be a direct correlation due to the variability of events however is there a place that lists the GB% and runs scored. This summer this will be a project to research.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) That makes intuitive sense, but research has shown no significant year-to-year correlation between LD rates at all. GB rate is less reliable than you'd think, but is more consistent than LD -- the problem is that it cannot be considered an inherently good or bad thing because it doesn't fit into the equation of linear weights. In other words, it is a class of event, but it isn't a final outcome. Therefore, it cannot hold a run value. A GB can become one of several types of hits or outs, and the odds of each event occurring are entirely dependent on defense, chance, and the ability of the hitter -- all context-dependent and infinitely variable. To what are they trying to correltate LD Or GB? I'm looking for some type of correlation with winning games. I know they aren't consistent from year to year but niether are wins. Canthey use a pearson or rho correlation to find GB with wins in a given year? I don't have the answers and I cant find much from anyone else either.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 07:03 PM) It's not about name value it's about track record and Paulino's track record is going to severely limit any return they may get for him. That's in a BEST case scenario. I disagree. If he is throwing well and showing he is healthy, he will have good value.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 05:27 PM) Scott Feldman is going to get you more in a trade than Felipe Paulino. Feldman had enough suitors last offseason to command $6M. I disagree. Paulino is known as a very talented pitcher who just hasn't stayed healthy. This is where Cooper and Herm come in. They work with him and see where it goes. If it goes well there are many options. If it goes poorly you don't pick up his option and either Surkamp or rienzo get time.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) I've always thought of him first as a writer/director. Ghostbusters was a funny movie, but you don't make that (Insert Celeb Here) is Dead thread based just on that role. Stripes was a much better role. He deserves celebrity based on that and SCTV work alone.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) Harold Ramis, writer/director/actor, 69. Going to have to watch Caddyshack tonight in his honor. Great screen writer. Many laughs. "Not practicing but willing to learn" RIP

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 02:47 PM) There will be no sober Canadians on Monday. Are there ever any? All green but too good to pass up.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) That's pretty close. I think they basically use those 3 because most of the time, there is absolutely no way a fielder can catch that ball. What FIP suggests is that a pitcher can force ground balls exactly to where he wants the hitter to hit it (or infield flies or regular fly balls), but if he has statues that can only field what hits them and then only throw playing behind him, he can still give up an absolute ton of hits. FIP just tries to isolate the difference between a pitcher having a good fielding infield and a poor fielding infield while also taking lucky seeing eye singles out of the equation. Sabermaticians do realize that putting the ball in play, but weakly, is a very good thing. Regarding runs scored, I'm curious to know what you are looking for specifically? There was actually breakthrough research done regarding run expectancy quite a few years ago that suggested that the sacrifice bunt is a poor decision in almost all situations except in a situation where you are playing for 1 run (either to tie or win), there's a runner on 2nd, and 0 outs. It can be 1st and 2nd too with no outs, but in all other situations, bunting simply works against the likelihood that you'll score a run. Was there anything else you had in mind on that? I know that the pitcher can't control the fielders. However, FIP is being used frequently for pitchers performance. I think that a combination using a GB and line drive percentage maybe along with the others may be able to show more of the pitchers influence on the game rather than only BB, K, and HR which is the only pure control variables. For the runs scored, I know I'm in the minority but I'm less concerned about an individuals performance than how the individual impacts a win or loss. The performance aspect is for arbitration and salaries. A players impact on winning a given game is more what I would be interested in. The only way I can see to start breaking it down is how he impacts scoring runs at bat and prevents runs on defense. WAR doesn't really do it because that really looks at how his performance is better than another player of lesser performance. The runs prevented stat seems to make sense on defense and OPS and OPS+ kind of start it for offense but there are still too many variables not taken into account for it to do too much.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 10:13 AM) To try and make this as short as possible, bWAR tells more about past performance, but fWAR tells more about future performances. It's more of a true talent indicator. Like for pitching, fWAR uses Fielding Independent Pitching numbers to figure in the calculation, whereas bWAR uses runs, and team wins. You get more outliers it seems with bWAR than fWAR. I think the large majority of the Sabr community would say that fWAR is the better number to use overall. After doing research on many of the stats this is one that bothers me the most, I think. If I understand it correctly (which is highly doubtful) FIP is predicated on the fact that pitchers can only control 3 factors: HR, BB and K. I think there is valid reasons to say that some pitchers can control the number of groundballs and thus control the game a little more. I realize it's not totally in the pitchers control because the fielders need to make plays. However, if the number of groundballs is increased the number of runs scored would decrease. There needs to be more stats focusing on runs scored versus runs allowed. I know there are some but there should be more focus on runs due to the fact that nothing else really matters in winning a game.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) It would be interesting to see what qualifies as a shift. A step here, a step there may not seem obvious or qualify but make a huge difference, and unless they shifted some OFs to the bleachers when Axelrod and Danks were pitching, I don't recall the Sox being burned too badly by that last year. Actually catching the ball was a problem. ^^^

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 04:30 AM) I've always had a hard time believing in advanced statistics for defense but I'm starting to come around . Yesterday Clubhouse Confidential with Brian Kenny on the MLB Network had on a guy with Baseball Info Solutions. Among other things I learned the White Sox were 2nd to last in the Majors last year on shifts per batted ball in play. Seems as if the Sox front office is a bit slow getting around to the idea that shifts can help the team and in particular its overall defense and pitchers stats. Some other things I learned were only last year did these stat heads start looking at the starting position of a fielder when determining range on a batted ball . Seems they were more interested in the speed and trajectory of the ball. Unless I misunderstood that seems like its an impossible thing to overlook. I think they mostly were using video but now have people at games to track these things. They mostly were talking about DRS ( Defensive Runs Saved) rather than UZR and Andrelton Simmons and Gerardo Parra were tied for the best DRS at 41 runs . The Oriole ,Rays and even the Cubs were among the leaders in shifts per batted ball. They also said shifts can take 30 to 40 points off an individuals batting average. I think we've all seen Dunn have hits taken away so the more prevalent defensive shifting has become the worse Dunn has looked. I tried to find the video to what I saw on MLB Network .com but they look like theyre over 2 months delayed to airing something and putting it online to see at least for Clubhouse Confidential. Maybe its on youtube but I didn't look. Anyone think the Sox may soon address this glaring hole in their thinking . Any signs point to a change in philosophy at all ? Someone please change Solotions to Solutions in the title. Does "shifts" imply that the SS or 3B moves to other side of 2B? I saw Ramierez and Beckham play "in the hole" or "the other way" quite a bit last year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 16, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) They have five starters without Dempster, so this doesn't change anything. Nothing to see here for White Sox fans. Classy move by Dempster to walk away from $13 million. One of the better guys in baseball. He was at Kane county when I worked there. This kind of things doesn't surprise me from him.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 15, 2014 -> 09:52 PM) But, but, it's baseball, and you know, the grass and the sun is out and, and. yeah, it totally f***ing sucks. Even ST '06 was terrible. Still disagree. I like all baseball. (I like the leading But, But in this thread) Of course if it's his gluteus medius or minimus and not the maximus it's not his butt however those are much less likely.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) I have absolutely no idea how you'd come to the conclusion that this team has a potentially solid defense since the same guys were one of the worst defenses I've ever seen last year. Weren't those same pretty good the year before though? Which year is the outlier?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 15, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) I feel like their actual under-the-armour stuff is good, I like it, especially cold gear like long sleeves. It appears their equipment shoes etc doesn't hold up as well. That could be. Other than the running gear, the only experience we have with it is my son's lacrosse cleats. They did fine excpet the little snot grew out of them in one season.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 15, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Yeah, I don't see Martin at fault at all here. He was like prey and was trying to deflect until they went away. They never did. He could have been fine in most locker rooms. The worst is that he did have the courage to confide in everyone that he was having a problem and that only accelerated the harassment. He was basically a "soft" player and the others were told to "toughen" him up. It happens in all locker rooms. Luckily most don't have a moron like Incognito and group that took it way too far. They all should be punished however since they can play all will continue to get chances. Martin I'm not so sure about. He wasn't particularly good to begin with and this won't help. I'm sure someone will give him a chance and it will be up to him to make the most of it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) Not to beat a dead horse but not upset that under armour sponsored equipment continues to get bad publicity. I hope they lose all of their sponsorships so I never have to see their terrible ideas again. That would suck. I really like their cold weather running gear.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 05:41 PM) If they are performing in different equipment than they trained in, then it seems like they only have themselves to blame. It's pretty common to race in equipment in which you don't train. You want more resistance during training. In track you have spikes just for the races, in swimming they typically will use higher drag suits. However, it's not common to not have done much testing with them and then use them in the most important races of their careers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:58 PM) No, because literally only like 1-2 pitchers have had this surgery before and 0 have done so at Danks's age. Pretty much. Although there were some positive results last year with his increased endurance and not needing to miss time due to "soreness" It's a good sign that the surgeon tightened up the capsule enough to create stability but not enough to limit motion and create imbalances. It will be interesting to see if his fastball is back. The capsule may be too tight to allow the motion for it. It may need more time to stretch out if this is the case.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:07 AM) His passing is the top headline on espn.com right now. Guess he was more popular than I thought. Excellent manager and an even better person. One of the best people, especially as a manger, that I've ever met. RIP

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) IMO, Flowers is already going to get plenty of development time...and I'm not sure he's earned it anyway. Right now he's still the starting catcher unless he's released after ST. And Phegley...phrankly, after his big league performance last season even a good spring training wouldn't convince me that he belongs on the big league team right now. Charlotte for a couple months at the very least seems like a good reaction to how he performed in the big leagues last year. If the White Sox find something of really tiny utility that they'd be willing to give up for Nieto, fine. I'm not even sure I'd give up Jared Mitchell for him right now since all we have to do is keep him on the big league roster. I see what you did there. Nice.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) What an epic choke job by the USA long track speed skating team in this Olympics. Davis has been the best in the world in the 1000 on the men's side and Richardson and Bowe the two best in the 1000 on the women's side and all 3 come up empty and weren't even competitive for medals. Stricter testing in the Olympics?