The guy got SHELLED almost every time I suffered through watching him try to pitch. He really, really, really sucked badly, and if you're going to bring in some geek new age "stats" to try to convince anyone that he was "unlucky" instead of downright F'ing awful, you're wasting your time. He sucked. So bad. And there's no arguing it.

 

3rd most valuable pitcher LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You're right. Your opinion is most certainly more accurate than unbiased statistics.

 

Are you familiar with BABIP?

All of the above will eventually happen. It takes time for the game to adjust. The eye test has been proven to mean nothing.

Isn't the eye test used for some of these unbiased numbers? I think your statement will even make eminor cringe.

Isn't the eye test used for some of these unbiased numbers? I think your statement will even make eminor cringe.

 

No, actually.

Here DA, take a gander:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-...-test-disagree/

No, actually.

How is the advanced defense determined if no one actually is looking?

How is the advanced defense determined if no one actually is looking?

 

computers and ball trajectories.

computers and ball trajectories.

Who programs the computers?

Who programs the computers?

IBM?

You're right. Your opinion is most certainly more accurate than unbiased statistics.

 

Are you familiar with BABIP?

I guess GMs must not use these "unbiased statistics", because you think one of them would have given Ronald a major league job if he was simply unlucky last year.

IBM?

Nice. I think UZR is human generated.

Edited February 8, 201511 yr by Dick Allen

I guess GMs must not use these "unbiased statistics", because you think one of them would have given Ronald a major league job if he was simply unlucky last year.

he'll hook on with the big league club.

 

But that said, weird things happen. There's no reason Jermaine Dye shouldn't have been able to find a contract when he was "forced" out of baseball at 36. He was still capable of decent slash stats and good power.

Nice. I think UZR is human generated.

obviously there is human interaction at some point in most stat generation. the "eye test" generally doesn't refer to statistics at all. and you know that.

obviously there is human interaction at some point in most stat generation. the "eye test" generally doesn't refer to statistics at all. and you know that.

But if humans are determining ipwhere the ball was hit, and if it was hit sharply, then the eye test is still a big part of the determination. Even fangraphs has mentioned possible human error in UZR.

But if humans are determining ipwhere the ball was hit, and if it was hit sharply, then the eye test is still a big part of the determination. Even fangraphs has mentioned possible human error in UZR.

Forest for the trees again.

 

Of course there is human error. There will always be human error. Advanced stats specifically attempt to bring the amount of human error to as low a level as possible.

 

Forest for the trees.

Forest for the trees again.

 

Of course there is human error. There will always be human error. Advanced stats specifically attempt to bring the amount of human error to as low a level as possible.

 

Forest for the trees.

If you are going to use a phrase, at least use it correctly if you are going to use it twice. It is forest from the trees.

 

 

Still, saying actually watching games give you nothing is beyond laughable. All these guys are where they are because someone had watched them, usually for quite a while. There is more to playing any team sport than what shows up on a stat sheet.

 

If you just blew off watching and not noticing something might be there that isn't showing yet, guys like Joey Bats would be pumping gas right now.

Edited February 9, 201511 yr by Dick Allen

If you are going to use a phrase, at least use it correctly if you are going to use it twice. It is forest from the trees.

 

 

Still, saying actually watching games give you nothing is beyond laughable. All these guys are where they are because someone had watched them, usually for quite a while. There is more to playing any team sport than what shows up on a stat sheet.

 

If you just blew off watching and not noticing something might be there that isn't showing yet, guys like Joey Bats would be pumping gas right now.

 

 

This... what were his advanced statistics all the years he was in Pittsburgh? We're they saying he was incredibly unlucky for multiple years? I am actually curious and have no idea how to look up the advanced stats.

All the data from UZR/DRS, to my knowledge, ARE collected by humans watching the games. The values are calculated by some sort of grid system that, combined with the human's judgement of how the type of ball it was (liner, fly, etc.) determines the difficulty of the play essentially by how often the play is made. The run values that are then assigned are based on linear weights derived from the difference in run probability from the base/out state that now exists versus what existed before.

 

The new MLBAM stuff everyone keeps talking about IS collected by computers/cameras. That's why it's so exciting -- it's going to give us completely objective/factual data on reaction time, route efficiency, acceleration, etc. for the first time ever.

If you are going to use a phrase, at least use it correctly if you are going to use it twice. It is forest from the trees.

 

 

Still, saying actually watching games give you nothing is beyond laughable. All these guys are where they are because someone had watched them, usually for quite a while. There is more to playing any team sport than what shows up on a stat sheet.

 

If you just blew off watching and not noticing something might be there that isn't showing yet, guys like Joey Bats would be pumping gas right now.

 

When did I ever say watching games gives you nothing? Stats don't include things like a players mental makeup. Stats projected Beckham to be great. Turns out he was a head case and wasn't able to adjust. They don't tell you about new stances or swings or superstitions. There are limitations to stats, but they're MUCH more effective than the eye test on the whole.

 

And I didn't use the phrase incorrectly. You're missing the forest for the trees.

This... what were his advanced statistics all the years he was in Pittsburgh? We're they saying he was incredibly unlucky for multiple years? I am actually curious and have no idea how to look up the advanced stats.

 

The transformation for Bautista, from what I understand, is solely due to a change in approach and swing mechanics. Basically, he was taught to be a complete/opposite-field type hitter his whole career, but when he failed and got to Toronto, they just told him to let it rip every time, figuring he didn't have much to lose at that point. Turned out he was a natural slugger trying to be something he never was.

 

I think David Ortiz has a similar story. Neither of them have anything to do with advanced/traditional stats at all. I don't think there exists any type of model that can predict shifts in performance based on radical changes to approach/arsenal.

Is this guy ever going to sign? Might as well wait for Spring Training and injuries to occur at this point.

When did I ever say watching games gives you nothing? Stats don't include things like a players mental makeup. Stats projected Beckham to be great. Turns out he was a head case and wasn't able to adjust. They don't tell you about new stances or swings or superstitions. There are limitations to stats, but they're MUCH more effective than the eye test on the whole.

 

And I didn't use the phrase incorrectly. You're missing the forest for the trees.

When you posted the eye test has proven to mean nothing.

The transformation for Bautista, from what I understand, is solely due to a change in approach and swing mechanics. Basically, he was taught to be a complete/opposite-field type hitter his whole career, but when he failed and got to Toronto, they just told him to let it rip every time, figuring he didn't have much to lose at that point. Turned out he was a natural slugger trying to be something he never was.

 

I think David Ortiz has a similar story. Neither of them have anything to do with advanced/traditional stats at all. I don't think there exists any type of model that can predict shifts in performance based on radical changes to approach/arsenal.

Ortiz was a good hitter with the Twins. Bautista was pretty awful until his late 20s. If talent is there, approach changes can work. Maybe his release gets Viciedo thinking he needs to change. Odds are probably against it, but there are always surprises.

When you posted the eye test has proven to mean nothing.

We're arguing over a concept that doesn't have a clear definition. What means next to nothing is when anyone from a casual fan to a coach to an announcer makes a qualifying statement based on how a player "looks". Generally speaking, that has little to no bearing on anything, except in rare circumstances.

 

But yes, as I usually do, I played the hyperbole card. So sue me.

 

If the crux of your argument is based on whether or not I slightly exaggerated to prove a point, then you don't have much of an argument.

Ortiz was a good hitter with the Twins. Bautista was pretty awful until his late 20s. If talent is there, approach changes can work. Maybe his release gets Viciedo thinking he needs to change. Odds are probably against it, but there are always surprises.

Ortiz was terrible until he was 28 or 29

Is this guy ever going to sign? Might as well wait for Spring Training and injuries to occur at this point.

 

Sounds like Padres or Cubs in next few days