sigh

We value base running mistakes differently. "Sigh"

As opposed to you flat out telling me that these statistics are so accurate, that people have to meet annually to fix them, but that there can't be any bias or error in the statistics related to something that they aren't quantifying correct? Please.

Look, I'm all for being reasonable here...and surely many advanced statistics are not perfectly fine-tuned. But to dismiss them outright because there may be some flaws is ridiculous. I don't know why you seem to be holding on to this line of reasoning because we all know you are smarter than that.

 

Let me put it this way. If we were in a postseason game, tied, in the 9th inning, and PK singles or doubles with less than two outs, and you have De Aza on the bench...would you not pinch run him for PK?

Look, I'm all for being reasonable here...and surely many advanced statistics are not perfectly fine-tuned. But to dismiss them outright because there may be some flaws is ridiculous. I don't know why you seem to be holding on to this line of reasoning because we all know you are smarter than that.

 

Let me put it this way. If we were in a postseason game, tied, in the 9th inning, and PK singles or doubles with less than two outs, and you have De Aza on the bench...would you not pinch run him for PK?

 

I'm holding on to the idea because it doesn't pass the common sense test. If the stat made sense, it would be much easier to accept.

Look, I'm all for being reasonable here...and surely many advanced statistics are not perfectly fine-tuned. But to dismiss them outright because there may be some flaws is ridiculous. I don't know why you seem to be holding on to this line of reasoning because we all know you are smarter than that.

 

Let me put it this way. If we were in a postseason game, tied, in the 9th inning, and PK singles or doubles with less than two outs, and you have De Aza on the bench...would you not pinch run him for PK?

 

I just dont think that is really the argument. Of course you would pinch run him right there. I think the argument is pretty much "Is De Aza a good baserunner?"

 

I say no. I watched him all season make one bonehead mistake after another, and not learn from it. There may be a statistic that says he is a positive on the basepaths, but it is really hard to agree with that after watching him this past season.

I just dont think that is really the argument. Of course you would pinch run him right there. I think the argument is pretty much "Is De Aza a good baserunner?"

 

I say no. I watched him all season make one bonehead mistake after another, and not learn from it. There may be a statistic that says he is a positive on the basepaths, but it is really hard to agree with that after watching him this past season.

If you go back to posts from last night, we all conceded he is not a good baserunner. The argument is does he bring value on the bases regardless of his idiotic mistakes? The answer to that is yes, and it's almost certainly all due to his above-average speed.

We value base running mistakes differently. "Sigh"

 

I was sighing at your bulls*** "SOME OF US STILL LIKE TO WATCH GAMES" line.

As opposed to you flat out telling me that these statistics are so accurate, that people have to meet annually to fix them, but that there can't be any bias or error in the statistics related to something that they aren't quantifying correct? Please.

 

People meet annually to tweak them, to improve them. As is, they are still pretty damn accurate.

 

Here are the top 30 in order from this past season (min 200 PAs):

 

Jacoby Ellsbury

Rajai Davis

Eric Young

Elvis Andrus

Mike Trout

Alcides Escobar

Alex Rios

Starling Marte

Jarrod Dyson

Daniel Murphy

Everth Cabrera

Adam Jones

Carlos Gomez

Coco Crisp

Hunter Pence

Nate McLouth

Leonys Martin

Craig Gentry

Emilio Bonaficio

Justin Upton

Carlos Gonzalez

Austin Jackson

Andrew McCutchen

Desmond Jennings

Carl Crawford

Juan Pierre

Alex Gordon

Drew Stubbs

Christian Yelich

Alexei Ramirez

 

If you won't agree that those are the 30 best base runners in the league, can you at least acknowledge that those are 30 of the most valuable - in most cases, this does mean fastest - base runners in the league?

As opposed to you flat out telling me that these statistics are so accurate, that people have to meet annually to fix them, but that there can't be any bias or error in the statistics related to something that they aren't quantifying correct? Please.

 

I don't understand what you're arguing here. You made an attack on the credibility of the numbers I was referring to, and I attempted to demonstrate credibility for them.

People meet annually to tweak them, to improve them. As is, they are still pretty damn accurate.

 

Here are the top 30 in order from this past season (min 200 PAs):

 

Jacoby Ellsbury

Rajai Davis

Eric Young

Elvis Andrus

Mike Trout

Alcides Escobar

Alex Rios

Starling Marte

Jarrod Dyson

Daniel Murphy

Everth Cabrera

Adam Jones

Carlos Gomez

Coco Crisp

Hunter Pence

Nate McLouth

Leonys Martin

Craig Gentry

Emilio Bonaficio

Justin Upton

Carlos Gonzalez

Austin Jackson

Andrew McCutchen

Desmond Jennings

Carl Crawford

Juan Pierre

Alex Gordon

Drew Stubbs

Christian Yelich

Alexei Ramirez

 

If you won't agree that those are the 30 best base runners in the league, can you at least acknowledge that those are 30 of the most valuable - in most cases, this does mean fastest - base runners in the league?

 

Out of the ones I looked up the other day out of that list, none had as many base running mistakes as De Aza, so it would make sense that they would hold more value.

Look, I'm all for being reasonable here...and surely many advanced statistics are not perfectly fine-tuned. But to dismiss them outright because there may be some flaws is ridiculous. I don't know why you seem to be holding on to this line of reasoning because we all know you are smarter than that.

 

Let me put it this way. If we were in a postseason game, tied, in the 9th inning, and PK singles or doubles with less than two outs, and you have De Aza on the bench...would you not pinch run him for PK?

Well, this is a no brainer, and you don't need advanced statistics to tell you to put De Aza in. However, to play the devil's (SS2K5) advocate, what if you had De Aza and Leury Garcia on the bench, and even though their stats match up you've seen De Aza picked off first base a few times and get a few bad jumps and consequently kill a few rallies, who do you put in the game?

 

I'm personally not a fan of advanced statistics...let me rephrase that...I don't know much about them and haven't made an effort to do much research. But advanced stats aside, De Aza is a fairly valuable player due to his decent hitting and good speed. He has made some bad decisions and has looked dumb on the basepads at times. But that's the kind of thing that can be coached. You can't as easily coach a slow runner to be faster. I like De Aza, and for his price he's fine in the outfield (preferably LF). It's ludicrous to say the guy has no value because he makes mistakes. You take him for his tools and you coach the mistakes.

Edited October 15, 201312 yr by pittshoganerkoff

I don't understand what you're arguing here. You made an attack on the credibility of the numbers I was referring to, and I attempted to demonstrate credibility for them.

 

By showing me that they are flawed, and perpetually being fixed, yet can't have missed this one particular standard.

I just dont think that is really the argument. Of course you would pinch run him right there. I think the argument is pretty much "Is De Aza a good baserunner?"

 

I say no. I watched him all season make one bonehead mistake after another, and not learn from it. There may be a statistic that says he is a positive on the basepaths, but it is really hard to agree with that after watching him this past season.

 

But I think that's the point -- there's still value there. Those of us arguing in favor aren't saying that ADA is an elite baserunner, we're just pointing out that his positives mathematically outweigh his negatives. He can both be a mentally poor baserunner and still provide substantial baserunning value. This is important because the context of the argument is that ADA's poor baserunning is something that must be replaced with high priority, and the results just don't line up with that notion.

Well, this is a no brainer, and you don't need advanced statistics to tell you to put De Aza in. However, to play the devil's (SS2K5) advocate, what if you had De Aza and Leury Garcia on the bench, and even though their stats match up you've seen De Aza picked off first base a few times and get a few bad jumps and consequently kill a few rallies, who do you put in the game?

 

I'm personally not a fan of advanced statistics...let me rephrase that...I don't know much about them and haven't made an effort to do much research. But advanced stats aside, De Aza is a fairly valuable player due to his decent hitting and good speed. He has made some bad decisions and has looked dumb on the basepads at times. But that's the kind of thing that can be coached. You can't as easily coach a slow runner to be faster. I like De Aza, and for his price he's fine in the outfield (preferably LF). It's ludicrous to say the guy has no value because he makes mistakes. You take him for his tools and you coach the mistakes.

 

From what I have seen, Garcia would be out there over De Aza in a heartbeat. Granted at this point it is limited samplesize.

But I think that's the point -- there's still value there. Those of us arguing in favor aren't saying that ADA is an elite baserunner, we're just pointing out that his positives mathematically outweigh his negatives. He can both be a mentally poor baserunner and still provide substantial baserunning value. This is important because the context of the argument is that ADA's poor baserunning is something that must be replaced with high priority, and the results just don't line up with that notion.

 

I have never said that.

And I want to acknowledge that, using qualitative data, it has been agreed that Alejandro De Aza is a bad base runner. Using quanitative data, it is being disputed whether Alejandro De Aza is valuable on the bases. This is the argument I don't understand. You can be a "bad" base runner and still provide positive value. Adam Dunn is a "bad" hitter that a lot of people want the Sox to get rid of, but he still produces surplus value when hitting. Both can improve at the areas being disputed here.

From what I have seen, Garcia would be out there over De Aza in a heartbeat. Granted at this point it is limited samplesize.

Right. And that's where a guy that makes mistakes ends up sitting because of those mistakes. That's a part of coaching, too. It's tough, but there will come a time (and maybe that time has already come) where he's told to get his head out of his ass and utilize his tools and make a difference.

Out of the ones I looked up the other day out of that list, none had as many base running mistakes as De Aza, so it would make sense that they would hold more value.

 

Then it's worth listing the next 9

 

David Wright

Ichiro Suzuki

Matt Carpenter

Ben Zobrist

Michael Bourn

Charlie Blackmon

Pedro Florimon

Josh Rutledge

Alejandro De Aza

And I want to acknowledge that, using qualitative data, it has been agreed that Alejandro De Aza is a bad base runner. Using quanitative data, it is being disputed whether Alejandro De Aza is valuable on the bases. This is the argument I don't understand. You can be a "bad" base runner and still provide positive value. Adam Dunn is a "bad" hitter that a lot of people want the Sox to get rid of, but he still produces surplus value when hitting. Both can improve at the areas being disputed here.

You were the one arguing you can't call him a bad baserunner. You can call him a dumb baserunner.

You were the one arguing you can't call him a bad baserunner. You can call him a dumb baserunner.

 

It's f***ing semantics. He's a valuable base runner, whatever

Right. And that's where a guy that makes mistakes ends up sitting because of those mistakes. That's a part of coaching, too. It's tough, but there will come a time (and maybe that time has already come) where he's told to get his head out of his ass and utilize his tools and make a difference.

 

In a key situation (such down one in the 9th inning kind of stuff) I would send a guy with less speed out there who I knew wouldn't get picked off or doubled off, versus a guy who could get me a run, but could cost me the game just as easily.

Then it's worth listing the next 9

 

David Wright

Ichiro Suzuki

Matt Carpenter

Ben Zobrist

Michael Bourn

Charlie Blackmon

Pedro Florimon

Josh Rutledge

Alejandro De Aza

 

I don't know anything about most of that list.

By showing me that they are flawed, and perpetually being fixed, yet can't have missed this one particular standard.

 

Well, everything's flawed. Physics is currently VERY flawed with all we're discovering about quantum behavior, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get out of the way when big, heavy things are moving toward you. As humans, it behooves us to act upon the best information we have at the time, while always searching for better information.

 

Look, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong in your suspicions, I'm just saying that until you can find some evidence for your suspicions, it's a lot less likely you're right than what the current evidence is showing us. To say that his 5ish extra baserunning errors were enough to outweigh an entire season of high stolen base efficiency and taking extra bases on singles, changing it from a vaguely positive season to among the worst in history is a BOLD claim, and if you want people to take that claim seriously, you should provide some substantial evidence to support it.

Edited October 15, 201312 yr by Eminor3rd

From what I have seen, Garcia would be out there over De Aza in a heartbeat. Granted at this point it is limited samplesize.

I'm not really sure you'd get an argument from anyone here if you went with Garcia.

 

That doesn't really follow though that because Garcia may be a better baserunner than De Aza, that therefore De Aza should be jettisoned this offseason.

 

The argument I have seen is that De Aza is SO BAD on the bases, that he should be discarded. It seems like that would be done just out of personal frustration moreso than anything else.

 

This is like when Contreras used to annoy the s*** out of Hawk with his walks. He'd throw like 120 pitches in 6 1/3 innings with 5 walks. Hawk would be so frustrated. But then you look at the scoreboard and he's given up 1 ER and 2 hits to go with those 5 walks. So what, we're going to just dump him because he's a pain in the ass to watch?

Arguing specific flaws or shortcomings of specific statistical tests is fun, but the dismissal of others is just annoying.

 

SS2K5, the idea that stats need to be tweaked doesn't mean they aren't good measures. It means they are improving measures, with flaws - like every statistic in any sport. That doesn't make them worthless. And yes, one can be a bad baserunner (which DeAza was this year at least), but have enough speed to make an overall positive impact on the bases.

 

But on the flip side, people got hugely frustrated with DeAza, and the mistakes are more amplified than the successes. Furthermore, the value within any equation of a given event is not not an exact science. So there is no need to dismiss people's frustrations at them. It also can be an indicator of future problems, because as DeAza ages, he can lean on that speed less, and has to have better instincts.

 

Why is that differentiation so hard for people? Why does this stat have to be useless or perfect?

 

 

How did De Aza rank in 2012? He didn't seem nearly as dumb on the bases and in the field.