http://lightsabermetrics.blogspot.com/2010...liams-mess.html

 

In spite of a questionable off-season approach to their designated hitter situation and a deadline deal that didn’t fill that vortex of suck, the Chicago White Sox are in first place on the backs of Alex Rios, Alexei Ramirez, Paul Konerko, and most of the pitching staff. After facing Baltimore for one more tonight, they will be going into a critical 3 game series against division rival Minnesota. It doesn’t get us anywhere to look at the past, so the question is what can the White Sox do to maximize the value of the players they have going forward?

 

Constructive critisism would be much appriciated, and if this is too self-promotey then let me know, mods.

On the surface, that looks great, but his .333 BABIP is unsustainable for someone as… um… husky as Viciedo.

 

His weight has nothing to do with it.

 

Your other reasons are much more valid.

Best advise I can give...

If you want to be a writer - write every day and never stop.

 

Also, look up an interview with Herbert selbey jr that was a bonus feature on the requiem for a dream sound track.

 

He's an amazing writer who dropped out of school in the fourth grade!

Based on xBABIP, Viciedo should be hitting around .275.

Based on xBABIP, Viciedo should be hitting around .275.

 

You guys can thank Ozzie for playing the match ups for Dayan.

You guys can thank Ozzie for playing the match ups for Dayan.

 

I don't know if we should be thanking Ozzie for limiting his playing time. It could be helping his numbers, but the flaw in xBABIP is that it takes the average into account for everything. So it usually does not project power hitters very well since power hitters hit for a higher average on fly balls than the average Bill Pecota. And I think it's fair to say that Dayan is a good power hitter.

 

 

Congrats on getting this on FanGraphs Matt!

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/index.p...-williams-mess/

Edited August 12, 201015 yr by chw42

Viciedo needs to be in the minors getting more seasoning adn I don't mean Accent or Dash either

Congrats on getting this on FanGraphs Matt!

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/index.p...-williams-mess/

 

Um I think Matt is the writer on Fangraphs, or fangraphs is using his blog article on their website.

Edited August 12, 201015 yr by joeynach

Um I think Matt is the writer on Fangraphs, or fangraphs is using his blog article on their website.

 

No, FanGraphs is using his article, which he submitted.

Congrats on getting this on FanGraphs Matt!

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/index.p...-williams-mess/

 

Thanks chw, and thanks to anyone else who read it. I'm sure I'll end up writing plenty about the Sox on here, seeing as they're the team I follow the closest.

Thanks chw, and thanks to anyone else who read it. I'm sure I'll end up writing plenty about the Sox on here, seeing as they're the team I follow the closest.

Good job Matt. I am pretty old school on stats because well I'm old and advanced metrics are useful. I guess I'll really have to bone up on them but they will never role off my tongue the way ERA, RBI an batting average do.

 

I think the thing that bothers me most about sabermetrics is the constant use the the word "luck" in batting and pitching advanced stats. I know with pitching you can also do line drive rates. Maybe in Gavin's case hitters were just hitting the ball harder leading to worse numbers because of location or hangers or whatever. I guess you can tell me if that is true or not. Or maybe you already told me but because those stats are pretty unfamiliar to me I just didn't catch it. Is it really too simplistic to think when a pitcher makes quality pitches he's more likely to pitch better and have better "luck" ?

Edited August 13, 201015 yr by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

Good job Matt. I am pretty old school on stats because well I'm old and advanced metrics are useful. I guess I'll really have to bone up on them but they will never role off my tongue the way ERA, RBI an batting average do.

 

I think the thing that bothers me most about sabermetrics is the constant use the the word "luck" in batting and pitching advanced stats. I know with pitching you can also do line drive rates. Maybe in Gavin's case hitters were just hitting the ball harder leading to worse numbers because of location or hangers or whatever. I guess you can tell me if that is true or not. Or maybe you already told me but because those stats are pretty unfamiliar to me I just didn't catch it. Is it really too simplistic to think when a pitcher makes quality pitches he's more likely to pitch better and have better "luck" ?

 

Luck is just another word for randomness. And in statistics, there is a lot of randomness, as is there in baseball.

 

Tom Tango posted something about luck the other day. If all teams had equal talent and played a 162 game season, not all of them would be .500. You'd have 10 that are above .500. 10 around .500. 10 under .500. If they played a million times, all of them would be exactly .500, of course.

 

Basically, baseball is 60% skill, 40% luck/randomness.

Edited August 13, 201015 yr by chw42

Luck is just another word for randomness. And in statistics, there is a lot of randomness, as is there in baseball.

 

Tom Tango posted something about luck the other day. If all teams had equal talent and played a 162 game season, not all of them would be .500. You'd have 10 that are above .500. 10 around .500. 10 under .500. If they played a million times, all of them would be exactly .500, of course.

 

Basically, baseball is 60% skill, 40% luck/randomness.

Ok you lost me on that last statement. These are very highly skilled athletes. Is it 40% luck when a fast man can steal a base ? Is it 40% luck when that same fast man who has spent many hours practicing can run down a shot in the gap ? Is it 40% luck that a player hits .300 for his whole career ? To attribute 40% luck to the best baseball players in the world seems to trivialize the time spend honing their craft. The cream rises to the top in any specialized skill and it's not through luck . It's through constant repetition, God given talent and dedication.

Ok you lost me on that last statement. These are very highly skilled athletes. Is it 40% luck when a fast man can steal a base ? Is it 40% luck when that same fast man who has spent many hours practicing can run down a shot in the gap ? Is it 40% luck that a player hits .300 for his whole career ? To attribute 40% luck to the best baseball players in the world seems to trivialize the time spend honing their craft. The cream rises to the top in any specialized skill and it's not through luck . It's through constant repetition, God given talent and dedication.

 

Ok, I think I should have been more clear. Over the course of one 162 game season, baseball is 60% skill and 40% luck. Over the course of many, many seasons, the talent overcomes whatever good luck or bad luck comes their way.

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/...le/god_and_500/

Edited August 14, 201015 yr by chw42