A lot of discussion started yesterday about WAR thanks a very thoughtful article on It’s About The Money, Stupid. Discussion followed in two article on The Book Blog (here and here) and then on Replacement Level Baseball Blog. I’ve mostly been ignoring the defense part of WAR for some time now. Ever since Colin Wyers showed how useless those metrics really are, I see no reason to include them.
This was originally titled The Problem With WAR because it irritates Tango because he thinks it should be “My Problem With WAR.” Except it’s not my problem. I changed it because we hadn’t had an article with salsa in the title and that’s just wrong.
A basic salsa recipe is essentially a framework for all other salsas. You can replace the tomatoes with peaches, blackberries, mango, apples or whatever the hell you want. You can take any basic salsa recipe and replace the tomatoes with avocados to get guacamole. Salsa isn’t the only recipe that can be easily adapted and turned into something entirely different. We don’t care about those because we’re going to use a basic salsa recipe to illustrate the problem with WAR. I’m just making this recipe up. It’s probably pretty close to a basic salsa recipe, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
Basic Salsa
4 tomatoes, chopped
1 medium onion, chopped
1 jalapeno, minced
1 t. fresh lime juice
1/4 C. chopped cilantro
1/2 t. minced garlic
1 t. salt
1 t. crached black pepper
With this recipe you can use anything you want to replace tomatoes to come up with your own salsa. Like a black bean and corn salsa? This recipe works. Want a blackberry and apple salsa? Go ahead. Is guacamole your favorite? You’ve got the recipe right there.
We can even write that recipe out as a formula if we wanted to. Pound cake and vinaigrette are the easies formulas to remember. All recipes are formulas. You want a certain percentage of tomatoes, onions, jalapenos and so on in the above recipe to equal salsa.
Imagine I write that recipe differently.
Basic Salsa
4 tomatoes, chopped
1 medium onion, chopped
1 jalapeno, minced
1 t. fresh lime juice
1/4 C. chopped cilantro
1/2 t. minced garlic
1 C. salt
1 t. crached black pepper
You know nothing at all about food. So you make this recipe as it is, taste it and realize it sucks. You’re not sure why because you know nothing about food. You instead make a peach salsa thinking maybe the tomatoes weren’t ripe and the peach salsa sucks too. Every salsa you make with that recipe is going to be horrible. Now the forumula is broken.
When one of the ingredients is wrong, the recipe fails. I don’t know if you’ve ever been around any chefs or even professional cooks, but you’ll sometimes hear them talk about a recipe that works or one that fails. In that position you create so many new food items and some of them are going to work and some will fail. This salsa fails because of one ingredient.
WAR is like the 2nd basic salsa recipe. There’s an ingredient in WAR that messes it all up. The inclusion of defense makes it unreliable at best. But defense is obviously part of a player’s value so it belongs in the framework of calculating WAR. There’s no doubt about that.
You could eliminate the salt altogether in the salsa recipe and it would be fixed, but adding just a bit of salt will bring out more flavors. Eliminating the salt doesn’t break the recipe. It’s not as good as it could be with a little salt, but it works. The same is true here with defense. Defense breaks WAR. If we eliminate it we know we’re not capturing the entire value of a player, but the recepe now works. It’s not perfect. Being able to accurately measure defense and include it would highlight much of what we’d miss without it, but its inclusion breaks the damn thing.
Should we keep making salsas with 1 C of salt and pretend that something isn’t wrong? Should we keep adding in defense when it is undoubtedly broken and pretend that something isn’t wrong? Yes, defense is part of the framework, but should it be part of it right now? If the best defensive metrics we have are UZR and Total Zone then I say no. If I’m left to invent my own fielding number then I say no. If I’m left to rely on scouting reports, which are often incorrect, I say no. If I’m left to include the fans scouting report, I say no. There is nothing about any fielding metric in existence today that makes me confident it improves WAR. Quite the opposite actually.
If someone tells me my salsa recipe is broken, I’m not obligated to fix it. I’m not selling it so perhaps I wouldn’t care. Maybe I don’t even care about my reputation in which case there would be no reason at all for me to fix it. But as long as I have published an awful recipe I can’t tell others to stop complaining about it. If people say “my problem with the salsa recipe” I’d tell them that it’s not their problem but the recipe’s problem. “The problem with that salsa” is an accurate way to describe it. It takes one ingredient to fuck up a recipe. I know salt belongs in the recipe as much as I know defense belongs in the calculation of WAR, but as long as the two result in making the end product worse, I see no reason at all to include it. When a better metric comes along I’d be happy to add it back in, but what’s the point of adding in useless numbers? Are we supposed to think that adding in these useless numbers makes the metric better somehow? That’s ridiculous. That’s as true as improving salsa by adding Peanut Butter Crunch to it.
WAR’s problem is that it includes defense. It’s not my problem with WAR. The WAR formula is as broken as the second salsa recipe. This doesn’t mean we eliminate WAR altogether. There’s no need to eliminate salsa. It just needs to be fixed. Until it is, adding in defense only makes the number less reliable.
I like WAR and I’ll continue to use it. It’s a great stat, but based on what we now know about defensive metrics, including it seems silly.
Comments
Shit. Now I’m hungry for salsa. Preferably with the first recipe.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I once misread a chili recipe and made something closely approximating that second salsa recipe. It was terrible (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
I still like WAR too but hate it as a single-season aggregate stat for the reasons you mentioned, barring some sort of defensive adjustment (i.e. regression). I love it as a framework for summing up future value as we do in our player previews/trade value pieces.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I once misread a chili recipe and made something closely approximating that second salsa recipe. It was terrible (dying laughing)[/quote]I make this one seasoning that I use on chips for Tortilla Soup. It’s my recipe and I don’t even know if I have it written down anywhere, but one time the color didn’t look right. So I added more and more cayenne. I realized after I coated the fresh chips that I had forgotten paprika. Holy shit was that soup hot. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I still like WAR too but hate it as a single-season aggregate stat for the reasons you mentioned, barring some sort of defensive adjustment (i.e. regression). I love as a framework for summing up future value[/quote]I’ve mentioned it before, but if we’re using faulty defense numbers to project defense going forward we end up with bad projections. I’m comfortable at this point that completely ignoring it and accepting that it’s a stat doesn’t include one important part of player value. Until there’s a better fielding metric, I don’t want anything to do with the current ones.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Shit. Now I’m hungry for salsa. Preferably with the first recipe.[/quote]Me too.
I know I mentioned that recipe as a framework and it is, but if I’m making a fruit salsa, I cut the cilantro in half and add little fresh chopped mint.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’ve mentioned it before, but if we’re using faulty defense numbers to project defense going forward we end up with bad projections. I’m comfortable at this point that completely ignoring it and accepting that it’s a stat doesn’t include one important part of player value. Until there’s a better fielding metric, I don’t want anything to do with the current ones.[/quote]
If I had enough database skills to set it up (or some team paid me to set something like this up), I’d include defense but it would be on 2-3 year samples, plus scouting input like FSR, and regression, to get a single season WAR number.
BerseliusQuote Reply
So what you end up with are defensive numbers between -5 and 5, right? If that’s the extreme, is there really any point to go to that amount of work to include it?
mb21Quote Reply
I really need to start making my own salsa, it would save us some money (dying laughing). We became obsessed with breakfast tacos/huevos rancheros after we moved to TX and use a ton.
BerseliusQuote Reply
How much (% or otherwise) of WAR is defense? What happens if you just omit it altogether?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]So what you end up with are defensive numbers between -5 and 5, right? If that’s the extreme, is there really any point to go to that amount of work to include it?[/quote]
Well, it depends. If you have 3 years of data that tell you that, say, Carl Crawford is an insanely good LF, and the scouts agree, then it would be higher than 5.
It’s easy for me to say that’s what I would do when I’m too lazy to work out all of the specifics (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]How much (% or otherwise) of WAR is defense? What happens if you just omit it altogether?[/quote]
It’s all runs, RC so it’s additive not a percentage. The problem is quantifying guys like Bourn or Guitierrez who’s value is so tied up in defense (or guys who have huge negative defensive value).
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I really need to start making my own salsa, it would save us some money (dying laughing). We became obsessed with breakfast tacos/huevos rancheros after we moved to TX and use a ton.[/quote]Salsa is so easy to make. It takes about 10 minutes. If you can get homegrown tomatoes, it’s the best. If those aren’t available and most of the time they aren’t, I’ve started using cherry tomatoes. If I’m just making it for us then I put it all in the food processor. If we’re having guests I’ll actually dice the damn things to make it look better.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]It’s all runs, RC so it’s additive not a percentage.[/quote]Overall though, defense is more a percentage than anything else. Offense is 50% of the game and then pitching/defense is the other 50%. I think it’s about 35-40% pitching and 10-15% defense. Offense includes baserunning.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Salsa is so easy to make. It takes about 10 minutes. If you can get homegrown tomatoes, it’s the best. If those aren’t available and most of the time they aren’t, I’ve started using cherry tomatoes. If I’m just making it for us then I put it all in the food processor. If we’re having guests I’ll actually dice the damn things to make it look better.[/quote]
We always have a ton of extra cherry tomatoes because we use them in salads, but never finish a box before they go bad. I’ll definitely have to start doing this…
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]It’s all runs, RC so it’s additive not a percentage. The problem is quantifying guys like Bourn or Guitierrez who’s value is so tied up in defense (or guys who have huge negative defensive value).[/quote]
I’ve just always noticed a huge discrepancy between fWAR and rWAR and most of it seems to be linked to the defensive portion of the metric. I guess you can’t omit it outright, but it seems like it should be weighted somehow. Since it’s all based on runs produced/saved then I guess you can’t weight it.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
In all honesty, my second biggest issue with WAR is how Tango acts when people criticize it. I like Tango and I’ve learned a ton of stuff from him, but many of the complaints are legitimate. Taking a framework that includes a useless number and then reiterating it is a framework doesn’t solve the problem. It’s inclusion ruins it (at least on a season to season level and perhaps overall too). I can’t tell people the salsa framework is there so do what you want with it. The framework I gave in the second example is wrong. If we can’t accurately measure defense, it does not belong in WAR. It does not belong in the framework for now.
mb21Quote Reply
If I get homegrown tomatoes I’m not wasting it on salsa (dying laughing). I’ll slice those up and eat em raw.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]In all honesty, my second biggest issue with WAR is how Tango acts when people criticize it. I like Tango and I’ve learned a ton of stuff from him, but many of the complaints are legitimate. Taking a framework that includes a useless number and then reiterating it is a framework doesn’t solve the problem. It’s inclusion ruins it (at least on a season to season level and perhaps overall too). I can’t tell people the salsa framework is there so do what you want with it. The framework I gave in the second example is wrong. If we can’t accurately measure defense, it does not belong in WAR. It does not belong in the framework for now.[/quote]
+1 faget point LSA Rec’d NAMBLA
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I’ve just always noticed a huge discrepancy between fWAR and rWAR and most of it seems to be linked to the defensive portion of the metric. I guess you can’t omit it outright, but it seems like it should be weighted somehow. Since it’s all based on runs produced/saved then I guess you can’t weight it.[/quote]
They also handle pitching stats differently, rc
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]We always have a ton of extra cherry tomatoes because we use them in salads, but never finish a box before they go bad. I’ll definitely have to start doing this…[/quote]cherry tomatoes are good all year and most of the tomatoes you get in a store suck. Even roma tomatoes aren’t very good unless they’re in season. The heirloom tomatoes are better, but still not nearly as good as cherry tomatoes.
I use grape tomatoes. There’s less water content and they stay fresher longer (thicker skin?).
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]If I get homegrown tomatoes I’m not wasting it on salsa (dying laughing). I’ll slice those up and eat em raw.[/quote]If you only get a few, definitely, but we end up with over 100 of them each year. You can only slice and eat so many. I’m not about to can them.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I’ve just always noticed a huge discrepancy between fWAR and rWAR and most of it seems to be linked to the defensive portion of the metric. I guess you can’t omit it outright, but it seems like it should be weighted somehow. Since it’s all based on runs produced/saved then I guess you can’t weight it.[/quote]The biggest difference is that they use different replacement level baselines.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]They also handle pitching stats differently, rc[/quote]
I recall looking at Soriano’s 2007 stats and wondering how his fWAR and rWAR could have such discrepancy. I think it’s similar for certain pitchers because of those different pitching metrics. I think FanGraphs uses FIP and I’m not sure what B-Ref does.
By the way, for you college football folk, have you seen this re: Texas A&M?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AgHOQn7kDFm.40LJK9s1pq05nYcB?slug=ap-sec-texasam
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Bref uses team defense and then assigns it to the pitcher based on the percentage of innings in which he pitched. If you pitch 200 innings out of 1440 you get credit for 13.9% of the team defense. If the team defense was +10, a little more than 1 run is added to the pitcher.
mb21Quote Reply
No, I don’t think this is a good analogy. The recipe is not a framework; it’s a recipe for tomato salsa. You can substitute other things for tomato, but the recipe does not say so. The second one has a specific error added; it’s impossible to follow it without it coming out wrong. The WAR “recipe” is this:
offensive RAA
fielding RAA
positional adjustment
replacement level
Again, it’s completely unlike the second recipe in that it does not specifically tell you to do something wrong.
ACTQuote Reply
So basically you’re saying you don’t like WAR because it was invented by Mexicans?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]If you only get a few, definitely, but we end up with over 100 of them each year. You can only slice and eat so many. I’m not about to can them.[/quote]
berselius —–> too lazy to garden (dying laughing). We got some great garden tomatoes from our neighbors when we moved in but have already used them all up.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]
Again, it’s completely unlike the second recipe in that it does not specifically tell you to do something wrong.[/quote]
It sort of works though if you think the defensive metrics are broken and in that sense, WAR is specifically doing something wrong.
I don’t know enough about the defensive metrics to make a judgment though but I can see where he’s coming from.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]No, I don’t think this is a good analogy. The recipe is not a framework; it’s a recipe for tomato salsa. You can substitute other things for tomato, but the recipe does not say so. The second one has a specific error added; it’s impossible to follow it without it coming out wrong. The WAR “recipe” is this:
offensive RAA
fielding RAA
positional adjustment
replacement level
Again, it’s completely unlike the second recipe in that it does not specifically tell you to do something wrong.[/quote]
A better analogy would be to take that tomato recipe and use tomatoes that were grown in a sewer.
BerseliusQuote Reply
If the problem with WAR is the difficulty with the fielding portion, a better analogy would be a recipe that asks the cook to do something difficult that he doesn’t know how to do.
ACTQuote Reply
Rice CubeQuote Reply
My recipe for salsa:
Go to Jewel
Buy salsa
Take home
Open jar
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]No, I don’t think this is a good analogy. The recipe is not a framework; it’s a recipe for tomato salsa. You can substitute other things for tomato, but the recipe does not say so. The second one has a specific error added; it’s impossible to follow it without it coming out wrong. The WAR “recipe” is this:
offensive RAA
fielding RAA
positional adjustment
replacement level
Again, it’s completely unlike the second recipe in that it does not specifically tell you to do something wrong.[/quote]Sure it does. Fielding RAA is useless. It tells you to include it.
Let’s make it a better analogy then.
Tomatoes, onions, jalapeno, cilantro, salt, pepper, lime juice and pumpkin seeds. Fielding RAA are the equivalent to pumpkin seeds right now. They’re useless to that recipe. Maybe you can do something with the pumpkin seeds to make them useful in that recipe, but until someone does. you leave it out.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]My recipe for salsa:
Go to Jewel
Buy salsa
Take home
Open jar[/quote]
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]A better analogy would be to take that tomato recipe and use tomatoes that were grown in a sewer.[/quote]I thought about that, but I assumed that it was even obvious to a person who has never cooked to not use rotten tomatoes (my initial choice).
The reality is that both recipes are wrong because one ingredient is fucked up. Salt belongs in salsa and fielding belongs in WAR, but an accurate amount of each is far more important than its inclusion. That amount of salt gives you shitty tasting salsa. Including shitty defensive numbers gives you a shitty WAR.
mb21Quote Reply
Salsa is like BBQ, imo. If you want really good salsa/BBQ, you pretty much have to make it yourself. There are good products for sale out there, but it’s hard to find.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
As long as we know fielding numbers are useless. telling me to include them is wrong. We know that fielding numbers on a season to season level are as useless as weighting how a hitter performs in April and September more than the other 4 months. We wouldn’t do that because it’s stupid. It’s wrong. It would give us wrong answers.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Salsa is like BBQ, imo. If you want really good salsa/BBQ, you pretty much have to make it yourself. There are good products for sale out there, but it’s hard to find.[/quote]I’ve never found a salsa for sale that I liked all that much. Some are OK I guess, but that’s about it.
mb21Quote Reply
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/07/texas-and-the-pac-12-its-not-really-about-the-longhorn-network/#more-21139
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the “culture” argument. Texas is a completely different school from when I was a student 10 years ago, but the culture has been the same for decades.
I think our arrogance will be our downfall.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’ve never found a salsa for sale that I liked all that much. Some are OK I guess, but that’s about it.[/quote]
Never in a store. There are some restaurants that have good salsa for sale, but fresh is best.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/07/texas-and-the-pac-12-its-not-really-about-the-longhorn-network/#more-21139
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the “culture” argument. Texas is a completely different school from when I was a student 10 years ago, but the culture has been the same for decades.
I think our arrogance will be our downfall. [/quote]
I tend to agree with that. Either Texas has a plan that nobody can figure out. Maybe the Cubs beat writers are covering Texas Longhorns sports? Or Texas is just waiting for everything to collapse around them and react at that point. They’d have less leverage at that point.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Never in a store. There are some restaurants that have good salsa for sale, but fresh is best.[/quote]
TGIFridays has awesome salsa.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Never in a store. There are some restaurants that have good salsa for sale, but fresh is best.[/quote]Maybe where you live, but not in fucking Kansas. (dying laughing) I had some good salsa I bought in a restaurant when I lived in Phoenix, but you don’t find anything close to that here. Mexican food in this part of the country is hamburger with taco seasoning, cheese and tomatoes. It’s a joke.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]TGIFridays has awesome salsa.[/quote]They’re salsa is 9.5 WAR, but the rest of it is -9.5 WAR. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]TGIFridays has awesome salsa.[/quote]
That’s because you set your replacement level baseline really low.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Where does R+RBI figure into WAR calculations?
Aisle424Quote Reply
Cuisine in this part of the country is laughable. There’s a good restaurant here or there, but it’s mostly just shit. If I didn’t know how to cook I’d move somewhere else.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Where does R+RBI figure into WAR calculations?[/quote]It’s the heart and soul of it.
mb21Quote Reply
I have to say I love these food analogies and I’m glad we’ve moved on to something besides how Tom Ricketts may or may not have just fucked the Cubs for all of eternity.
Aisle424Quote Reply
What do they have to do to build a better defensive metric? Isn’t that what the FieldF/X stuff was supposed to do?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]I have to say I love these food analogies and I’m glad we’ve moved on to something besides how Tom Ricketts may or may not have just fucked the Cubs for all of eternity.[/quote]You had to bring that up, didn’t you?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]What do they have to do to build a better defensive metric? Isn’t that what the FieldF/X stuff was supposed to do?[/quote]Field F/X sounds like it has promise, but it’s been around for awhile now and I haven’t seen anything on it. It’s apparently quite a bit more complex than pitch f/x. I’d assume Hit F/X is too. It appears Command F/X isn’t that complicated, but may have major flaws.
mb21Quote Reply
I don’t think things are so bad with fielding that we can’t at least estimate (in terms of RAA) how good someone is at fielding. Even if hit location data is too unreliable to use, there’s still scouting and non-hit location metrics (FRAA, WOWY). Instead of saying someone is worth 6.3 WAR (which is ridiculously precise, given the uncertainty of the estimate), you could say he’s worth 5.8-6.8 WAR or something.
ACTQuote Reply
Beyond the Box Score was talking about opportunities (for RBIs and fielding) the other day and it seems like you’d need some kind of weighting involved as in some seasons even a shortstop will have less chances than usual while an outfielder will have lots of chances. I imagine that skews the numbers a bit.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
How about we just that player is 5 to 7 WAR? I can live with that.
I’d rather be as precise as possible about what we do know, though. I’d rather state someone is 4.2 WAR and feel confident that’s accurate than add in defense and say 3-5.
WAR seems to me to be a perfectly good example of a stat that should work with it knows and ignore what it doesn’t. Tango even admits it ignores certain things. Well, ignore defense then. If it’s going to pick and choose what to include, which I think it should, there should be some kind of reliability in anything that gets included.
MGL said over a full season UZR is something like plus or minus 11.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Beyond the Box Score was talking about opportunities (for RBIs and fielding) the other day and it seems like you’d need some kind of weighting involved as in some seasons even a shortstop will have less chances than usual while an outfielder will have lots of chances. I imagine that skews the numbers a bit.[/quote]That’s one of the issues with defensive metrics. It assumes an equal amount of difficulty for all players at a position.
I know Tango has said that good fielders next to you doesn’t affect the UZR, but that seems absurd. Scott Rolen was a great fielding 3rd baseman and those guys are taught to field every ball they can. He undoubtedly took chances away from the SS. There’s no doubt whatsoever that he did. There’s also no doubt that Jim Edmonds took chances away from the corner outfielder. A bad fielder next to you may also affect you. If you’ve got a lot of range you’re going to look a lot better than a similar left fielder who plays next to a great fielding CF.
mb21Quote Reply
My point throughout this thread is that I’d much rather not use defense than use it. I don’t believe it improves WAR. I think it makes it quite a bit worse.
mb21Quote Reply
(dying laughing), I’m reading some of those threads from Tango’s blog that were linked at the top. Few things amuse me more than saberist catfights.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Over 5 years or longer then I have no issue with it. It probably improves it somewhat, but not a lot.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Texas is just waiting for everything to collapse around them and react at that point. They’d have less leverage at that point.[/quote]
I think that’s their plan.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), I’m reading some of those threads from Tango’s blog that were linked at the top. Few things amuse me more than saberist catfights.[/quote]I know. I read those last night. As I said, I appreciate all the work Tango has done and the time he has taken to answer my emails and questions on his blog. That’s awesome, but the idea that WAR can’t be criticized or those that do are unintelligent is ridiculous. I’m also sick of the idea from MGL that these saberists are hardcore scientists and the only people on the planet who should discuss it are other hardcore scientists studying a stupid fucking baseball game.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]I think that’s their plan.[/quote]Doesn’t make any sense to me, Ryno. They have the leverage right now. I’m not exactly sure what that would mean. The Big Ten isn’t going to change how it pays members. Equal revenue sharing isn’t going away and Texas isn’t getting a bigger piece of the pie. However, they might be able to use that leverage to get maximum value immediately rather than in 5 or 10 years like Penn State and Nebraska.
I can’t imagine the Pac is going to change anything either. They might be able to give Texas a little more than the Big Ten can, but the Big Ten can give them a lot more money.
If I’m Texas I’m acting like I’m going to the Pac and then I’m calling Jim Delaney and asking how quickly we could be full members. I’d tell him to make it no later than year 2 or 3 and I’m in.
But I don’t understand the culture or whatever the hell they’re doing right now in a conference that’s been destined to die since it formed. It’s odd.
mb21Quote Reply
I’d also tell the Big Ten to bring along another baseball powerhouse to keep me company. Don’t care who it is. I don’t want to be lonely. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’d also tell the Big Ten to bring along another baseball powerhouse to keep me company. Don’t care who it is. I don’t want to be lonely. (dying laughing)[/quote]
Well, if they’re that big into baseball they should just go to the Pac-whatever.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Doesn’t make any sense to me, Ryno. They have the leverage right now. I’m not exactly sure what that would mean. The Big Ten isn’t going to change how it pays members. Equal revenue sharing isn’t going away and Texas isn’t getting a bigger piece of the pie. However, they might be able to use that leverage to get maximum value immediately rather than in 5 or 10 years like Penn State and Nebraska.
I can’t imagine the Pac is going to change anything either. They might be able to give Texas a little more than the Big Ten can, but the Big Ten can give them a lot more money.
If I’m Texas I’m acting like I’m going to the Pac and then I’m calling Jim Delaney and asking how quickly we could be full members. I’d tell him to make it no later than year 2 or 3 and I’m in.
But I don’t understand the culture or whatever the hell they’re doing right now in a conference that’s been destined to die since it formed. It’s odd.[/quote]
Ideally, they’d love a revamped SWC. Since that’s not happening, I think they’d prefer the Big 10 or independence. If they can rid themselves of Tech, I think they go to the Big 10. If not, independent.
It’s too bad they couldn’t keep aggy and lure Arkansas, BYU, TCU et al.
North: Arkansas, OU, OkSU, Kansas, KSU, BYU
South: Texas, aggy, TCU, Tech, Baylor, SMU
That’s a solid conference.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Don’t you know the difference between seltzer and salsa? You have the seltzer after the salsa!
GBTSQuote Reply
The lack of confidence intervals in WAR bothers me, also the nonchalance in the common usage.
Most analysts have no problem saying that player x has been worth four wins to his team, when what they really mean is “would have be worth four wins in a league average setting with performance with randomly distributed performance.”
That is, single-season WAR is an OK estimate of a player’s talent, but it’s not the best description of what has taken place.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]
Most analysts have no problem saying that player x has been worth four wins to his team, when what they really mean is
“would have be worth four wins in a league average setting with performance with randomly distributed performance.”
[/quote]You would be a boring announcer.
GBTSQuote Reply
(dying laughing) That’s what John Kerry would sound like as an ESPN analyst.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]You would be a boring announcer.[/quote]
apparently you haven’t seen any of my work
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]apparently you haven’t seen any of my work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eRgZOZ8o4s%5B/quote%5D
So you went the drag rat route?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
TPA looks at the Cubs GM search thru the lens of “Game of Thrones”
http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2011/09/game-of-thrones.html
MishQuote Reply
Is Brad Pitt acting as Beane or Tango? And who is Jonah Hill supposed to be? [insert curly-haired Jewish joke]
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]Is Brad Pitt acting as Beane or Tango? And who is Jonah Hill supposed to be? [insert curly-haired Jewish joke][/quote]
Jonah Hill —-> Jewish Paul DePodesta, but not really.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]So you went the drag rat route?[/quote]
I prefer to say that I got in on the ground floor of the refrigerator magnet business.
GWQuote Reply
Maybe I’m confused, didn’t Tango and Beane work together before Tango joined the M’s?
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]TPA looks at the Cubs GM search thru extremely tenuous “Game of Thrones” references
http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2011/09/game-of-thrones.html%5B/quote%5D
Fixed.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Without reading through any of the comments, arguments, or discussions, here’ s something about WAR which worries me:
WAR is a *unit*. It’s not really a “stat” in the way that, say, batting average is. There’s only one way to calculate batting average; there’s an infinite number of ways to “calculate” WAR. If I figure out that a team wins one additional game for every inch that its players are over six feet, then I say that Derrek Lee is a 6 WAR player because he’s six foot six.
Your analogy to salsa is a good one, since you’re basically saying that you don’t have a problem with salsa, you just think a particular recipe sucks.
So as long as you explain your own method and say “by this method, Derrek Lee is worth X WAR”, you should be okay. But when ESPN talks about WAR they make it sound like it’s a 100% decidable fact (without even mentioning which method they’re using).
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415] If I figure out that a team wins one additional game for every inch that its players are over six feet, then I say that Derrek Lee is a 6 WAR player because he’s six foot six.[/quote]
Your new WAR system seems incredibly biased against scrappy guys like Tony Campana and David Eckstein (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]No, I don’t think this is a good analogy. The recipe is not a framework; it’s a recipe for tomato salsa. You can substitute other things for tomato, but the recipe does not say so. The second one has a specific error added; it’s impossible to follow it without it coming out wrong. The WAR “recipe” is this:
offensive RAA
fielding RAA
positional adjustment
replacement level
Again, it’s completely unlike the second recipe in that it does not specifically tell you to do something wrong.[/quote]
Okay, I’ve now read the thread and seen that my points were probably made better by others already.
Anyway, ACT is right. The salsa “recipe” is really:
A lot of a slightly sweet, watery fruit vegetable (tomato/peach)
A fair amount of aromatics (onion, garlic)
A fair amount of hot (jalapeno)
A little bit of sour (lime)
A little bit of seasoning (salt, pepper, cilantro)
If you live in a world without limes or lemons and you have no good way of getting sour stuff into your recipe, then your recipe isn’t going to be great until you solve the problem. Your options are to leave it out and have a meh salsa, try some sour options (tamarind?) and risk it being terrible, or to never eat salsa until you’ve found the perfect sour thing.
Right now Tango, ESPN, and everybody are going with the tamarinds until they find something better. You think tamarind sucks so you leave it out. Some people probably just refuse to talk about WAR at all until people discover a better way to make a sour flavor.
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Your new WAR system seems incredibly biased against scrappy guys like Tony Campana and David Eckstein (dying laughing)[/quote]Undeniable proof that the system is correct.
fang2415Quote Reply
If defensive stats are so meaningless and the defensive metrics out there are too faggety, then how would any player be rated or valued defensively? I guess my question is, if you take players like Rolen, Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, the guys everybody usually equates as great defensive players, what stats or metrics out there prove that those players were great fielders? For most of them, they pass the eye test for sure. But I’m curious if there is a defensive metric out there that really ranks those players as great defensive players. If there is, why can’t that metric be used if it seems to prove what everybody has always thought in regards to great defensive players?
MuckerQuote Reply
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]Undeniable proof that the system is correct.[/quote]
I can’t argue with you today.
[quote name=Mucker]If defensive stats are so meaningless and the defensive metrics out there are too faggety, then how would any player be rated or valued defensively? I guess my question is, if you take players like Rolen, Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, the guys everybody usually equates as great defensive players, what stats or metrics out there prove that those players were great fielders? For most of them, they pass the eye test for sure. But I’m curious if there is a defensive metric out there that really ranks those players as great defensive players. If there is, why can’t that metric be used if it seems to prove what everybody has always thought in regards to great defensive players?[/quote]
This is a very very good question. I wish I had worded my original queries better as I was wondering the same thing.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mucker]If defensive stats are so meaningless and the defensive metrics out there are too faggety, then how would any player be rated or valued defensively? I guess my question is, if you take players like Rolen, Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, the guys everybody usually equates as great defensive players, what stats or metrics out there prove that those players were great fielders? For most of them, they pass the eye test for sure. But I’m curious if there is a defensive metric out there that really ranks those players as great defensive players. If there is, why can’t that metric be used if it seems to prove what everybody has always thought in regards to great defensive players?[/quote]Yeah, that’s kind of the point. The ones that do properly value those guys do some other crazy thing like saying that Yuni Betancourt is good or that guys fluctuate by 4 wins from one year to the next when nobody who was watching noticed any difference.
I think they’re still sometimes useful, but I think mb’s right that they should never be accepted as Truth and should always be taken with 1C salt.
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I can’t argue with you today.[/quote]
(dying laughing)
Jeez man, Alvin is an unintentional comic genius. The stuff he says is just never not funny.
fang2415Quote Reply
Thanks RC. I would be curious to see a poll of who people think are the best defensive players at each position, then measure that against the available metrics to see if there is any substance. BRef lists Bonds as one of the greatest LF in terms of Def War. I wonder how accurate that is. Maddux has 132 Gold Gloves so you would assume he was a great defensive player. It would be pretty cool to see something like that.
MuckerQuote Reply
It also seems kind of weird to use different defensive metrics for different players. For example, I may be mistaken, but catchers and pitchers don’t technically have a UZR, right? So even in a single system, like FanGraphs, the defensive component used in the calculation changes. Seems kind of flaky to not even standardize your defensive component but maybe I’m just not understanding it correctly.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
What would a good defensive metric look like? Just curious if anyone has any ideas there. It seems like there’s a lot of gray area because of the variables. Offense is a little easier, maybe because of the point by point system of tallying bases. You can’t stop in between second and third, so there’s no 62% triple, or something, but with fielding, it’s harder. There are defensive shifts, tendencies of hitters to hit in certain directions, the position relative to the situation (double play depth, playing in for the bunt), the variety of types of contact (line drive, ground ball, bunt, slap hit), and the speed and baserunning prowess of the offense.
Anyway, in my mind, I imagine you could have a very complex mathematical model based on starting position and some other factors — you’d have to come to some consensus on what constituted “average” for a given position — that might spit out a number, but how do you record all the initial parameters?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]Yeah, that’s kind of the point. The ones that do properly value those guys do some other crazy thing like saying that Yuni Betancourt is good or that guys fluctuate by 4 wins from one year to the next when nobody who was watching noticed any difference.
I think they’re still sometimes useful, but I think mb’s right that they should never be accepted as Truth and should always be taken with 1C salt.[/quote]Betancourt? Really? That’s interesting. I give up trying to understand the “new” stats. I’m just going to continue to use errors and Gold Gloves as my barometer for great defense until a new fancy metric is created.
MuckerQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]It also seems kind of weird to use different defensive metrics for different players. For example, I may be mistaken, but catchers and pitchers don’t technically have a UZR, right? So even in a single system, like FanGraphs, the defensive component used in the calculation changes. Seems kind of flaky to not even standardize your defensive component but maybe I’m just not understanding it correctly.[/quote]Sort of, but that’s partly because the roles are so different. Arguably a lot of a catcher’s defensive value comes from how well they “frame” the pitch to get strike calls. How the hell is that applicable to left fielders?
OTOH, I think most of them do attempt to put them on the same scales, e.g., “One way or another, catcher X saved 10 runs last year, whereas left fielder Y saved 8.” (Not sure if UZR does that yet for catchers, but if not then they’re just waiting until they can find a way to do it.)
The debate is about that “one way or another”. The quality of that number depends on, er… how good your salsa ingredients are.
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]It also seems kind of weird to use different defensive metrics for different players. For example, I may be mistaken, but catchers and pitchers don’t technically have a UZR, right? So even in a single system, like FanGraphs, the defensive component used in the calculation changes. Seems kind of flaky to not even standardize your defensive component but maybe I’m just not understanding it correctly.[/quote]I think you’d have to have a separate catcher’s metric, because the value for a team of the catcher has to do less with his range and more with things like “pitcher handling” and so forth. If you want to develop a number that gives value to a catcher, it seems to me you have to include some of the things that give that particular position value. I think you might even need something like a different metric for infield and outfield.
binkyQuote Reply
Well, there’s always range factor… (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]Sort of, but that’s partly because the roles are so different. Arguably a lot of a catcher’s defensive value comes from how well they “frame” the pitch to get strike calls. How the hell is that applicable to left fielders?
OTOH, I think most of them do attempt to put them on the same scales, e.g., “One way or another, catcher X saved 10 runs last year, whereas left fielder Y saved 8.” (Not sure if UZR does that yet for catchers, but if not then they’re just waiting until they can find a way to do it.)
The debate is about that “one way or another”. The quality of that number depends on, er… how good your salsa ingredients are.[/quote]Well the test should be future performance right? If the model has predictive value, it is better. That may be part of the problem. It’s too hard to say how well they are doing now, since defense tends to be more subjective.
binkyQuote Reply
KG
Triple-A Pacific Coast League: Bryan LaHair, 1B, Iowa (Cubs)
On the surface, LaHair certainly looks like another Canzler type; he turns 29 in November and is in his ninth minor-league season. That said, it was a remarkable season: His .331/.405/.664 line for Iowa (yes, Iowa is in the Pacific Coast League) included a minor league-leading 38 home runs, as well as a minor-league leading 1070 OPS. A funny thing happened during the year; scouts began to warm up to LaHair, not just seeing him as a minor-league slugger, but as one who could get the job done in the big leagues. “If you gave him a full-time job in the majors, he’d hit .270-.275 with 20-25 home runs,” said one scout, while asking, “Most teams could use that, no?” Well, the Cubs for one.
MishQuote Reply
Batting basically has 2 outcomes: contact or no contact. Within no contact, you have K and walk, and within contact you have out and hit, and within hit you have 4 different degrees (errors are the X factor, I guess). There are a simple number of outcomes. Maybe I’m missing an outcome or two, but there is a relatively small set of outcomes, so its very easy to weight those outcomes. When a ball is “hit” from the defensive perspective, there are almost infinite outcomes.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]Batting basically has 2 outcomes: contact or no contact. Within no contact, you have K and walk, and within contact you have out and hit, and within hit you have 4 different degrees (errors are the X factor, I guess). There are a simple number of outcomes. Maybe I’m missing an outcome or two, but there is a relatively small set of outcomes, so its very easy to weight those outcomes. When a ball is “hit” from the defensive perspective, there are almost infinite outcomes.[/quote]
They should also have a field condition weight factor for when the Cubs have to play after Paul McCartney concerts.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]Offense is a little easier, maybe because of the point by point system of tallying bases.[/quote]Offense is unusually easy to measure because it’s almost all discrete, decidable events. The pitch is over. It was a strike. The guy swung. That’s all we care about.
Baseball offense is extremely unusual among human activities because it’s so easy to measure. Social scientists spend entire careers trying to explain 2% of the variance of crime rates and such, but a stat like wOBA can explain a huge percentage of offensive value (I don’t know, 90%?).
Defense is more like everything else humans do — no clear endpoints, no easily definable outcomes, overlapping data, tons of contingencies, etc. And therefore much harder to put into a stat.
[quote name=Mucker]Betancourt? Really? That’s interesting. I give up trying to understand the “new” stats. I’m just going to continue to use errors and Gold Gloves as my barometer for great defense until a new fancy metric is created.[/quote](dying laughing), no, not really. I just made it up for an example since I’m too lazy to find a real one.
Gold Gloves are hugely dependent on past reputation (Jeter) and errors are just the first terrible attempt to quantify defense. I’d say your first instinct, to use your eye, is actually the probably most reliable measure, seriously.
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=josh]Batting basically has 2 outcomes: contact or no contact. Within no contact, you have K and walk, and within contact you have out and hit, and within hit you have 4 different degrees (errors are the X factor, I guess). There are a simple number of outcomes. Maybe I’m missing an outcome or two, but there is a relatively small set of outcomes, so its very easy to weight those outcomes. When a ball is “hit” from the defensive perspective, there are almost infinite outcomes.[/quote](dying laughing) at the redundancy of my posts this thread
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]I’d say your first instinct, to use your eye, is actually the probably most reliable measure, seriously.[/quote]also at my Alvin-like use of commas and adverbs
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]Offense is unusually easy to measure because it’s almost all discrete, decidable events. The pitch is over. It was a strike. The guy swung. That’s all we care about.
[/quote]That’s what I was getting at, too. So with defense, the important thing we want is some way to predict how often a player will make the plays he “should” make. It seems to me that this is dependent on 1) whether he gets to ball hit in his general vicinity, 2) whether he fields the ball (or makes the catch), 3) whether he subsequently makes a good throw, if required. 1) is complicated by the fact that the speed the ball is hit limits the fielder’s chance of getting to it. 3) is complicated because it partly depends on the guy who is catching. Maybe you could define an acceptable circle around the fielder’s glove which the throw should be within, but then again guys like Escobar make what appears to me to be intentional one-hop throws.
Unless there’s some simpler way that focuses on just the fielder. Like percentage of outs recorded within a certain zone count as average, slightly outside of that zone count as bonus? Difficulty scaled by the speed of the hit? How do you measure all that without some advanced technology?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415](dying laughing) at the redundancy of my posts this thread[/quote]Well, you said it more elegantly than I did.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]That’s what I was getting at, too. So with defense, the important thing we want is some way to predict how often a player will make the plays he “should” make. It seems to me that this is dependent on 1) whether he gets to ball hit in his general vicinity, 2) whether he fields the ball (or makes the catch), 3) whether he subsequently makes a good throw, if required. 1) is complicated by the fact that the speed the ball is hit limits the fielder’s chance of getting to it. 3) is complicated because it partly depends on the guy who is catching. Maybe you could define an acceptable circle around the fielder’s glove which the throw should be within, but then again guys like Escobar make what appears to me to be intentional one-hop throws.
Unless there’s some simpler way that focuses on just the fielder. Like percentage of outs recorded within a certain zone count as average, slightly outside of that zone count as bonus? Difficulty scaled by the speed of the hit? How do you measure all that without some advanced technology?[/quote]
That was the stuff FieldF/X was allegedly supposed to help figure out. The number of actual opportunities from season-to-season will still fluctuate much more than the number of innings pitched or the number of plate appearances so they’d still have to figure out some normalization factor even after they accumulate the data, methinks.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]I prefer to say that I got in on the ground floor of the refrigerator magnet business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwXfon1S5uU%5B/quote%5D
I didn’t recognize Leslie with all those clothes on.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]That was the stuff FieldF/X was allegedly supposed to help figure out. The number of actual opportunities from season-to-season will still fluctuate much more than the number of innings pitched or the number of plate appearances so they’d still have to figure out some normalization factor even after they accumulate the data, methinks.[/quote]Maybe it’s too complex. Like a gross simplification could be in order using fang’s idea that eyeballing is the best measure at the moment. Something like simply rating the quality of the response 1-5 of the fielder only (independent of whether the receiving fielder makes a great save, for example), and 1-5 on difficulty of the play. Like you said, the sample size is still small, but I can’t think of another way to do it. Of course this method requires an experienced scout. They probably already use such a system. Maybe someone can talk scouts into publishing that data.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]Maybe it’s too complex. Like a gross simplification could be in order using fang’s idea that eyeballing is the best measure at the moment. Something like simply rating the quality of the response 1-5 of the fielder only (independent of whether the receiving fielder makes a great save, for example), and 1-5 on difficulty of the play. Like you said, the sample size is still small, but I can’t think of another way to do it. Of course this method requires an experienced scout. They probably already use such a system. Maybe someone can talk scouts into publishing that data.[/quote]
A lot of the time in pathological studies you’ll have a series of pathologists in either a group setting or they are double-blinded and they can score the same tissue/tumor sample. The scoring is then averaged and a grade is determined. Maybe something akin to that can be done with baseball, and probably already is being done as you said. I imagine you’d have different categories for speed/range, hands, arm, and footwork. The problem of course is that it’s subjective, but I am guessing that even in certain stat breakdowns such as “line drive percentage” it can be argued that a ball in play is a fly ball or a fliner rather than a true line drive. I can’t really think of a good way to quantify defense that’s cut-and-dry, especially if the subjectivity is deeper than “flyball vs. line drive”…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I wonder if you can also set up a “luck” component in defense similar to hitter/pitcher BABIP. Sometimes the fielder has no idea where the ball is, and sometimes the pitcher just sticks his hand out and snags the ball with magic. There was a play in 2008 where a line drive bounced off Aramis’ glove and was snagged in the air by Ronny Cedeno. How much credit do you give to Aramis for deflecting the ball, and how much do you dock Cedeno for just being in the right place at the right time? These happenings are obviously rare but just throwing it out there.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Also, one day I hope that OVBlog can use the “salsa” tag again (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mucker]If defensive stats are so meaningless and the defensive metrics out there are too faggety, then how would any player be rated or valued defensively? I guess my question is, if you take players like Rolen, Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, the guys everybody usually equates as great defensive players, what stats or metrics out there prove that those players were great fielders? For most of them, they pass the eye test for sure. But I’m curious if there is a defensive metric out there that really ranks those players as great defensive players. If there is, why can’t that metric be used if it seems to prove what everybody has always thought in regards to great defensive players?[/quote]I’m not sure where those guys rank in the various systems, but I’d imagine at the career level they’re all pretty good. I think a lot of the problems with defensive metrics eventually work themselves out, but it takes a long damn time.
Andruw Jones was considered an awesome defensive CF by almost everyone. You get numbers all over the place for him. The real issue is that if you take the same exact data from BIS and use two different metrics you get two completely different results.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=josh]Maybe it’s too complex. Like a gross simplification could be in order using fang’s idea that eyeballing is the best measure at the moment. Something like simply rating the quality of the response 1-5 of the fielder only (independent of whether the receiving fielder makes a great save, for example), and 1-5 on difficulty of the play. Like you said, the sample size is still small, but I can’t think of another way to do it. Of course this method requires an experienced scout. They probably already use such a system. Maybe someone can talk scouts into publishing that data.[/quote]http://www.tangotiger.net/scout/index4.php?teamid=112&team=Chicago%20Cubs
Tango may defend bad defensive metrics (I assume, although I haven’t read those linked articles because my brain hurts when I read the book blog)… but he clearly knows that it doesn’t hurt to try new ideas for evaluating defense…
fang2415Quote Reply
I’ve been seriously hoping for people to come around on this. Honestly, really happy to hear this sorta discussion at OVBlog.
I know I had this discussion with Berselius a long while on Twitter ago and we came to some sorta consensus on the matter– the fact is, as long as one season’s worth of defensive numbers are horribly unreliable at best, then any one year sample of WAR is bound to almost as useless. I’ve honestly reached a point where I have very little use for WAR.
Is anyone here familiar with JC Bradbury’s criticisms of WAR? Any thoughts on those?
Jack NugentQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]Sort of, but that’s partly because the roles are so different. Arguably a lot of a catcher’s defensive value comes from how well they “frame” the pitch to get strike calls. How the hell is that applicable to left fielders?
OTOH, I think most of them do attempt to put them on the same scales, e.g., “One way or another, catcher X saved 10 runs last year, whereas left fielder Y saved 8.” (Not sure if UZR does that yet for catchers, but if not then they’re just waiting until they can find a way to do it.)
The debate is about that “one way or another”. The quality of that number depends on, er… how good your salsa ingredients are.[/quote]
Yes, exactly.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]http://www.tangotiger.net/scout/index4.php?teamid=112&team=Chicago%20Cubs
Tango may defend bad defensive metrics (I assume, although I haven’t read those linked articles because my brain hurts when I read the book blog)… but he clearly knows that it doesn’t hurt to try new ideas for evaluating defense…[/quote]I like the fans scouting report. I trust the fans a hell of a lot more than I do the metrics right now.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]I’ve been seriously hoping for people to come around on this. Honestly, really happy to hear this sorta discussion at OVBlog.
I know I had this discussion with Berselius a long while on Twitter ago and we came to some sorta consensus on the matter– the fact is, as long as one season’s worth of defensive numbers are horribly unreliable at best, then any one year sample of WAR is bound to almost as useless. I’ve honestly reached a point where I have very little use for WAR.
Is anyone here familiar with JC Bradbury’s criticisms of WAR? Any thoughts on those?[/quote]I haven’t read his criticisms for awhile. Not a fan of JC.
I’ll still use WAR. I have no problem with the concept, but one of the components of it is junk. I’m perfectly happy looking at what a player has done offensively and leaving it at that. When a better metric comes around I’ll reconsider, but the current ones need to be thrown away.
mb21Quote Reply
JC Bradbury takes issue with the idea of replacement level; he doesn’t think there is a large number of “replacement players” available. I’m not very familiar with him, but his argument seems to be based on the observation that the talent level of MLB players follows a normal distribution (bell curve). The main criticism of that is that it simply reflects selective sampling, and there are a lot of poor players in the minors. Again, I’m not an expert here, but this seems to be the basic idea.
ACTQuote Reply
I agree that using your eye is preferable to the metrics and I hate it when people trust what they saw. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
I thought even JC admitted he had the replacement level wrong.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]JC Bradbury takes issue with the idea of replacement level; he doesn’t think there is a large number of “replacement players” available. I’m not very familiar with him, but his argument seems to be based on the observation that the talent level of MLB players follows a normal distribution (bell curve). The main criticism of that is that it simply reflects selective sampling, and there are a lot of poor players in the minors. Again, I’m not an expert here, but this seems to be the basic idea.[/quote]
Right. I gave some of his stuff a quick read yesterday, and wasn’t completely convinced of what he was arguing, however, on some levels it does stand to reason for me that “replacement level” players aren’t quite as readily available as they’re made out to be. As JC notes, teams employ sub replacement level players with relative frequency, and while that doesn’t completely debunk the idea of replacement level, it does seem like the theory isn’t completely true in practice.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]KG
Triple-A Pacific Coast League: Bryan LaHair, 1B, Iowa (Cubs)
On the surface, LaHair certainly looks like another Canzler type; he turns 29 in November and is in his ninth minor-league season. That said, it was a remarkable season: His .331/.405/.664 line for Iowa (yes, Iowa is in the Pacific Coast League) included a minor league-leading 38 home runs, as well as a minor-league leading 1070 OPS. A funny thing happened during the year; scouts began to warm up to LaHair, not just seeing him as a minor-league slugger, but as one who could get the job done in the big leagues. “If you gave him a full-time job in the majors, he’d hit .270-.275 with 20-25 home runs,” said one scout, while asking, “Most teams could use that, no?” Well, the Cubs for one.[/quote]I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs try LaHair next year rather than Pena. He’s much cheaper, and maybe not much (or at all) worse.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]
Unless there’s some simpler way that focuses on just the fielder. Like percentage of outs recorded within a certain zone count as average, slightly outside of that zone count as bonus? Difficulty scaled by the speed of the hit? How do you measure all that without some advanced technology?[/quote]Actually, that’s basically what the advanced metrics do. They slice the field into several zones and then count the number of plays made in each zone and compare it to average. Part of the problem with UZR is that it also uses batted ball data and Colin Wyers has shown without doubt that it is useless right now. There are too many biases that affect whether or not a ball is placed in one zone or called a line drive, fly ball, etc.
mb21Quote Reply
One thing I found sorta odd about his study– in trying to demonstrate the bell curve of talent in MLB, he went with OPS of all stats. Honestly, given what we know about that number, why should we assume that’s even close to being the best number to grasp the dispersion of talent in baseball?
Jack NugentQuote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Right. I gave some of his stuff a quick read yesterday, and wasn’t completely convinced of what he was arguing, however, on some levels it does stand to reason for me that “replacement level” players aren’t quite as readily available as they’re made out to be. As JC notes, teams employ sub replacement level players with relative frequency, and while that doesn’t completely debunk the idea of replacement level, it does seem like the theory isn’t completely true in practice.[/quote]I’m not sure measuring current performance is the best way, though. Over the small samples these negative WAR guys play in, it’s not necessarily indicative of their true talent level.
I’m OK with replacement level. It’s just a baseline like average is. We could lower it, like Fangraphs does and probably eliminate some of the concern. We could use the .250 baseline that Baseball Prospectus used to use. As long as it’s the same for everyone, I’m OK with wherever they place it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs try LaHair next year rather than Pena. He’s much cheaper, and maybe not much (or at all) worse.[/quote]
I’m really against the Cubs bringing back Pena. Clearly, he’s a guy who’s just experienced some skills regression in recent years– he’s just sorta old now. I get he might be the nicest guy in the entire world, but that seems like a shitty criteria to evaluate a first baseman.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
On a whim, I decided to take a quick look at these two guys:
Ozzie – http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1012186&position=SS
Starlin – http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4579&position=SS
They obviously didn’t have UZR back when Ozzie played but the total zone numbers are pretty cool. I imagine that a lot of scouts looked at what Ozzie could do and weren’t too focused on his fielding percentage or errors because he was involved in so many defensive plays. I think Starlin has good range but has to settle down a bit to get his throws in. There are probably components of Starlin’s defense that can be comparable to Ozzie’s, but that’s just eyeball test at work. Still at a loss as to how a good defensive metric can be set up though.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]One thing I found sorta odd about his study– in trying to demonstrate the bell curve of talent in MLB, he went with OPS of all stats. Honestly, given what we know about that number, why should we assume that’s even close to being the best number to grasp the dispersion of talent in baseball?[/quote]He seriously used OPS? This is a recent article? I’m pretty sure JC has even criticized OPS.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]I’m really against the Cubs bringing back Pena. Clearly, he’s a guy who’s just experienced some skills regression in recent years– he’s just sorta old now. I get he might be the nicest guy in the entire world, but that seems like a shitty criteria to evaluate a first baseman.[/quote]I agree with both you and ACT. I wouldn’t mind if they brought Pena back for something like $5 million, but i think LaHair is as good. I’d also rather they just save the money and invest it in amateur talent.
mb21Quote Reply
OPS is often used because of its accessibility and the fact that it gets reasonably close results to linear weights. It’s not the worst thing in the world.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]He seriously used OPS? This is a recent article? I’m pretty sure JC has even criticized OPS.[/quote]
Yeah, he did. Strange right?
And I know where you’re coming from re: replacement level. It’s just a baseline, and it can be manipulated without debunking the entire idea. But it does seem like a worthy consideration that ‘replacement level’ players are a little more scarce than they’re made out to be.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
FG estimates that Pena has been worth roughly $9 million so far, so it’s not as if they overpaid him. But why go to the FA market if you might be able to get similar production for almost nothing?
ACTQuote Reply
I’m not sure I really know what to make of Brian LaHair, but the last time we saw a guy put up these sorts of ridiculous numbers in AAA, it was Geovany Soto, who proved there was some legitimacy to those numbers. The important thing to understand is that no one honestly thinks he’s the second coming or anything, but at this point there’s no reason not to get him as many ABs as possible. And if the Cubs go into full-on rebuilding mode, than I’d much rather see them give this guy a shot than bring back Carlos Pena for no reason.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
Apparently Dallas radio just said that Texas President Powers and AD Dodds are meeting today to discuss going Indy in Football and Big East in everything else.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]FG estimates that Pena has been worth roughly $9 million so far, so it’s not as if they overpaid him. But why go to the FA market if you might be able to get similar production for almost nothing?[/quote]
Right, see, I think at the time he was a decent investment, but that had more to do with the way they were able to fit a player with a little upside into a shoe string offseason budget. Things have changed enough though where the team really just oughta go a different direction, IMO.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I like the fans scouting report. I trust the fans a hell of a lot more than I do the metrics right now.[/quote]
One reason I don’t like fan scouting reports is that the people inclined to participate in the surveys seem like their opinions could easily be biased by what sorta numbers the defensive metrics spit out.
Honestly, I’m not convinced that accurately boiling down defense to any sort of metric is even possible. I just think it’s entirely possible there are too many variables to consider, and just too dynamic of a process to capture in any kind of algorithm.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Apparently Dallas radio just said that Texas President Powers and AD Dodds are meeting today to discuss going Indy in Football and Big East in everything else.[/quote]What the fuck?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]One reason I don’t like fan scouting reports is that the people inclined to participate in the surveys seem like their opinions could easily be biased by what sorta numbers the defensive metrics spit out.
Honestly, I’m not convinced that accurately boiling down defense to any sort of metric is even possible. I just think it’s entirely possible there are too many variables to consider, and just too dynamic of a process to capture in any kind of algorithm.[/quote]
Yup…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]One reason I don’t like fan scouting reports is that the people inclined to participate in the surveys seem like their opinions could easily be biased by what sorta numbers the defensive metrics spit out.
Honestly, I’m not convinced that accurately boiling down defense to any sort of metric is even possible. I just think it’s entirely possible there are too many variables to consider, and just too dynamic of a process to capture in any kind of algorithm.[/quote]That could be. One thing that bothers me with the FSR is that it seems fairly obvious to me that poor hitters, or players nobody likes, are graded poorly on defense.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]I’m not sure I really know what to make of Brian LaHair, but the last time we saw a guy put up these sorts of ridiculous numbers in AAA, it was Geovany Soto, who proved there was some legitimacy to those numbers. The important thing to understand is that no one honestly thinks he’s the second coming or anything, but at this point there’s no reason not to get him as many ABs as possible. And if the Cubs go into full-on rebuilding mode, than I’d much rather see them give this guy a shot than bring back Carlos Pena for no reason.[/quote]I agree. No idea what LaHair will do, but I don’t think it really matters. If the Cubs intend to contend they’ll sign a Pujols or Fielder. If they don’t, just let LaHair take over.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]What the fuck?[/quote]
Apparently we’re sick of:
1. Scheduling the same football teams every year.
B. Playing in a competitive baseball conference.
3. Not getting our asses kicked in basketball.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Apparently we’re sick of:
1. Scheduling the same football teams every year.
B. Playing in a competitive baseball conference.
3. Not getting our asses kicked in basketball.[/quote]It makes no sense. Do they think they’re Notre Dame? No disrespect here, Ryno, but Notre Dame has been a football power forever. Texas, while I think they’ll easily be better than ND going forward, are not on the same level with ND historically. I don’t get it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]That could be. One thing that bothers me with the FSR is that it seems fairly obvious to me that poor hitters, or players nobody likes, are graded poorly on defense.[/quote]There are all sorts of biases to FSR as well. For instance, most of the voters have probably heard how poorly Jeter rates on defensive metrics, so Jeter’s poor FSR rating cannot be taken as independent confirmation that he’s not a good fielder.
ACTQuote Reply
Should we protect the OVBlog brand and purchase a domain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14821192
mb21Quote Reply
.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]That could be. One thing that bothers me with the FSR is that it seems fairly obvious to me that poor hitters, or players nobody likes, are graded poorly on defense.[/quote]
Yeah, I can comfortably say I have no use whatsoever for FSR. No way I can be convinced we’re not taking about a super biased group of people being surveyed.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
I’m just over defensive metrics entirely. If you’re not a pro scout, and you don’t understand all the nuts and bolts of playing defense, I think people are best served just filing players under the “helping” and “hurting” categories.
Jack NugentQuote Reply
Anyway, my favorite way to look at defense is to take someone with a long career and compare actual plays made compared to what an average fielder would make (as in WOWY). Scouting is good, too.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Yeah, I can comfortably say I have no use whatsoever for FSR. No way I can be convinced we’re not taking about a super biased group of people being surveyed.[/quote]I don’t doubt that, but I still prefer it to the defensive metrics. Ideally there would be some site that collects scouting reports. Maybe a place like Rotten Tomatoes except for defense in baseball. Not sure if scouts would initially be interested in taking part, but I’m guessing over time they might be. You could have a score for the scouts and a score for the fans.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It makes no sense. Do they think they’re Notre Dame? No disrespect here, Ryno, but Notre Dame has been a football power forever. Texas, while I think they’ll easily be better than ND going forward, are not on the same level with ND historically. I don’t get it.[/quote]
I don’t think Texas has the national fanbase ND had when they went independent. I could see Texas thinking the network will give them similar status.
That said, I think they can end up with a better football schedule year by year as an Independent. We’ll keep OU on the schedule, so we pretty much just have to replace aggy, OkSU and the conference up-and-comer du jour, and viola.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Anyway, my favorite way to look at defense is to take someone with a long career and compare actual plays made compared to what an average fielder would make (as in WOWY). Scouting is good, too.[/quote]WOWY is good, but it takes so long to get an idea. It’s next to impossible to get a real-time idea of the player’s defense. By the time there’s enough data to use he’s getting worse. I love the concept and would read any article about it, but it doesn’t solve my issue. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
That said, I still like:
Big 10 > Pac 12 >>>>>>> Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big 12
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]WOWY is good, but it takes so long to get an idea. It’s next to impossible to get a real-time idea of the player’s defense. By the time there’s enough data to use he’s getting worse. I love the concept and would read any article about it, but it doesn’t solve my issue. (dying laughing)[/quote]
It would be counter-productive to use a relatively “subjective” defensive metric in the WAR calculation, no? I could see them trying to design a system that assigns a value to each “grade” for a defensive player and then add that into WAR, but I can see a lot of hardcore statheads freaking out because it’s only semi-quantitative.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]I don’t think Texas has the national fanbase ND had when they went independent. I could see Texas thinking the network will give them similar status.
That said, I think they can end up with a better football schedule year by year as an Independent. We’ll keep OU on the schedule, so we pretty much just have to replace aggy, OkSU and the conference up-and-comer du jour, and viola.[/quote]I still think independent is a last resort. It’s a viable option, but I don’t see it as a long term option.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]That said, I still like:
Big 10 > Pac 12 >>>>>>> Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big 12[/quote]From a financial standpoint, Texas couldn’t make more money than if they joined the Big Ten and maybe the SEC. Texas isn’t going to associate themselves with the SEC. That’s less likely than Texas becoming an FCS program.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]It would be counter-productive to use a relatively “subjective” defensive metric in the WAR calculation, no? I could see them trying to design a system that assigns a value to each “grade” for a defensive player and then add that into WAR, but I can see a lot of hardcore statheads freaking out because it’s only semi-quantitative.[/quote]I think Jack is right. Based on how poor the current metrics are, you’re probably best to just use your eyes and ignore it when it comes to WAR.
So and so is worth 2 WAR this season. He’s probably a bit above average on defense.
That’s good enough for me.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I like the fans scouting report. I trust the fans a hell of a lot more than I do the metrics right now.[/quote]I think there [quote name=mb21]I don’t doubt that, but I still prefer it to the defensive metrics. Ideally there would be some site that collects scouting reports. Maybe a place like Rotten Tomatoes except for defense in baseball. Not sure if scouts would initially be interested in taking part, but I’m guessing over time they might be. You could have a score for the scouts and a score for the fans.[/quote](dying laughing) at the rottentomatoes idea.
But yes, I think the FSR is liable to some severe biases (although I don’t know about it to say what they are exactly). Defense does strike me as an area where scouting is particularly useful. From there, it would be nice to have a way to translate professional opinions into a commonly understood linguistic shorthand, i.e., a stat.
Which is exactly what RT does with critics opinions (pretty darn good –> 80%). THIS COULD BE OV’S TICKET TO WEB EMPIRE WEALTH AND HAPPINESS
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415](dying laughing) at the rottentomatoes idea.
But yes, I think the FSR is liable to some severe biases (although I don’t know about it to say what they are exactly). Defense does strike me as an area where scouting is particularly useful. From there, it would be nice to have a way to translate professional opinions into a commonly understood linguistic shorthand, i.e., a stat.
Which is exactly what RT does with critics opinions (pretty darn good –> 80%). THIS COULD BE OV’S TICKET TO WEB EMPIRE WEALTH AND HAPPINESS[/quote]
It just might work.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
^ quote fail
fang2415Quote Reply
RC —-> Wrigley Field
Peace out, bitches.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]^ quote fail[/quote]Reply fail
[quote name=Rice Cube]It just might work.[/quote]Let’s see what happens.
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=fang2415]^ quote fail[/quote]
Was it “it might just work”?
RC —> no dinner
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=fang2415](dying laughing) at the rottentomatoes idea.
But yes, I think the FSR is liable to some severe biases (although I don’t know about it to say what they are exactly). Defense does strike me as an area where scouting is particularly useful. From there, it would be nice to have a way to translate professional opinions into a commonly understood linguistic shorthand, i.e., a stat.
Which is exactly what RT does with critics opinions (pretty darn good –> 80%). THIS COULD BE OV’S TICKET TO WEB EMPIRE WEALTH AND HAPPINESS[/quote]I’m guessing a place like MLBTR would have to set it up. They have some contacts and can probably get some of the younger scouts interested. They have a huge following so there would be no shortage of fan opinion.
One of the things I like about RT is you get both opinions. I’m always amused at ratings for movies like The Hangover 2. The fans loved it, but the critics hated it. One of them is wrong and while I haven’t seen it yet, I’m pretty sure it’s the critics.
mb21Quote Reply
Jack, do scouts use the 20-80 scale for defense? I’m sure they do, but I don’t often hear about it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Should we protect the OVBlog brand and purchase a domain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14821192%5B/quote%5D
Protect schmotect. I say we migrate to the .xxx site.
(.)(.)
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Protect schmotect. I say we migrate to the .xxx site.
(.)(.)[/quote]I don’t know. Berselius would start posting all his pics.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I don’t know. Berselius would start posting all his pics.[/quote]
Don’t you like anything?
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Don’t you like anything?[/quote]I’m a fun-sucker.
mb21Quote Reply
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Someone-spotted-a-UFO-during-the-Notre-Dame-weat?urn=ncaaf-wp5993
I figure since we have been talking a lot of college football here, that last note will be relevant…
snyds01 22Quote Reply
Iowa State is now suing Texas A&M. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=snyds01 22]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Someone-spotted-a-UFO-during-the-Notre-Dame-weat?urn=ncaaf-wp5993
I figure since we have been talking a lot of college football here, that last note will be relevant…[/quote]ND is at the point where they have to join a conference. NBC isn’t going to keep handing out money to them.
mb21Quote Reply
.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]From a financial standpoint, Texas couldn’t make more money than if they joined the Big Ten and maybe the SEC. Texas isn’t going to associate themselves with the SEC. That’s less likely than Texas becoming an FCS program.[/quote]
After the Big 10, we could share our network with Tech and join the Pac 12.
What bugs me is all the aggy fuckers saying it’s not fair for Texas to make more money than the other Big 12 teams. Really? Take aggy away from the Big 12 and it takes a hit. Take OU or Texas away from the Big 12, and it’s a mid-major.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Bradbury’s notion that average players are more plentiful than bad players is nonsensical.
GWQuote Reply
Legit info.:
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
What about some kind of simple superscore for defense, based on FSR, UZR, and scouts (if they’ll participate). Probably a headache gathering that kind of data, but it could just be a simple -2, 0, +2 type system. Maybe that leads to a guy who makes all the plays getting a -2 in cases, but overall, it’d give a sense of a player’s defense. I think, like someone said, the algorithm approach can’t work without incorporating a million variables. Might as well just go quantified subjective. Or hell, maybe just ignore defense.
binkyQuote Reply
Have -2 be two standard deviations from the mean or something, 0 everything in the middle, +2 two SD’s up.
binkyQuote Reply
RT @Rotoworld_BB: Report: Cards offered Pujols 9-yr, $195M deal (last offseason)
http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/340999/baseball-headlines?r=1
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]RT @Rotoworld_BB: Report: Cards offered Pujols 9-yr, $195M deal (last offseason)
http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/340999/baseball-headlines?r=1%5B/quote%5DHuh. That’s less than I thought. No wonder he turned it down.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]RT @Rotoworld_BB: Report: Cards offered Pujols 9-yr, $195M deal (last offseason)
http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/340999/baseball-headlines?r=1%5B/quote%5DI know it’s modest for a superstar baseball contract, but that’s an insane amount of money. Anyway, maybe I’m soured because of Sori, but I can’t get on board with signing a dude for 9 years.
binkyQuote Reply
Of course, Soriano was never that great. He was a pretty good hitter with power, but little patience. He was fast, but didn’t have a lot of defensive value (though he was probably above average in LF at first).
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Of course, Soriano was never that great. He was a pretty good hitter with power, but little patience. He was fast, but didn’t have a lot of defensive value (though he was probably above average in LF at first).[/quote]At the time, I honestly didn’t know shit about him. I remember thinking “I’ve heard that name…maybe.”
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Iowa State is now suing Texas A&M. (dying laughing)[/quote](dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS](dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)[/quote]Iowa State should just be thankful the rest of the Big 12 is giving them money. The CyClowns sure as fuck aren’t generating any revenue for the conference.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=josh]Have -2 be two standard deviations from the mean or something, 0 everything in the middle, +2 two SD’s up.[/quote]That might not be a bad idea. Let it be subjective, and limit its impact in case of cock-ups.
fang2415Quote Reply
Something that really struck me about the article at http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/8/23/2377758/the-art-of-scouting-how-to-compile-a-professional-scouting-report was that scouts still deliver no information about patience and pitch judgment, which seems to me like a key, if not the key, offensive skill.
OTOH, it seems like they’ve got defense covered fairly well, although a lot depends on how you weight the tools (not really sure that “fielding” should be in the same category as “throwing”).
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Iowa State is now suing Texas A&M. (dying laughing)[/quote]
When I heard some team was holding back the deal I was hoping it was ISU. What the fuck else are they going to do? If aTm was going to be the one to knock over the house of cards that is the B12, they might as well give them the finger on the way out. What do they have to lose at this point?
BerseliusQuote Reply
I don’t know. Put up more signs on freeways that tell people that they’re in the Cyclone state? (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
new thread up: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/minor-leagues/2011-minor-league-wrap-up-part-1.html
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GW]Bradbury’s notion that average players are more plentiful than bad players is nonsensical.[/quote]
I disagree.
Normal DistributionQuote Reply