MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[caliber66]

Shouldn't Andre's head be on the other dude?

[redpillbox]

I saw him pitch in 1987, in the back end of a Astros-Mets doubleheader. I was glad to have witnessed him, but he was not that great that day. The two men's peaks did not really overlap, but Bob Gibson I suspect was feared more than Ryan.

 

Edit: Oops, a quick check of Retrosheet indicates that Ryan pitched in the front end of that 7/24/87 twinbill.

 

 

I saw Nolan Ryan's last game in our beloved Kingdome in Seattle. He was hurt with a couple of weeks (?) left in the season and had to be taken out early, everyone knew he would probably never pitch again, so we gave him a standing ovation, he tipped his cap and that was it. It was a moment.

 

As an autograph hound in my earlier years, I can say that Nolan Ryan is one of the classiest individuals I ever met. The same cannot be said for Reggie Jackson...there was a spitting incident.

[Oil Can Boyd]

I'd have been pretty fucking scared of Ryan. 100 MPH fastballs with no control are terrifying.

I remember seeing Nolan Ryan hit Jim Rice in the head with a fastball. My recollection is that it hit off the top of RIce's helmet and went into the stands as if it was a foul ball.

[jenbobblehead]

I need a cold shower after reading all that. Sometimes, you guys are more fun than at SoSH!!!

[MrRain422]

I was talking to MrRain.

 

I already addressed this.

 

If Rice was on any team but the Red Sox, we would be hearing nothing of your disapproval of his HOF status, bobbob.

 

If Rice was on any team but the Red Sox, his numbers likely wouldn't even be borderline, as they were very much inflated by playing so much at Fenway.

 

 

Gammonds said unless you were alive when a player played, you can't argue his HOF merits.

 

If he really said this, then I strongly disagree. Is it fair for us to argue the Hall of Fame merits of Ty Cobb vs. those of his teammate Red Downs? After all, none of us here saw either of them play.

 

 

Not much to say to cryptique other than....c'mon dude, anyone who claims that they are intentionally being ignorant of something but then continues to argue against it anyway is really reaching. If you disagree with some or all of it, fine, but it's a whole lot less compelling of an argument when you admit (and are proud of the fact) that you don't know much about it.

 

No one is claiming that statistic tell the whole story, but either do a few random memories. The statistics (which again are a record of what happened) tell the story of what happened over hundreds of games and thousands of innings a whole lot better than your memories of the perhaps dozens that you watched. I once saw Dmitri Young hit three homers in a game, and then the very next time I was at the ballpark, he hit 2 more. So what? Every ballplayer has great games and poor ones, makes great plays and shitty ones. A Hall of Fame career is about what is done over the course of a career, and a highlight reel can't express that.

 

Also, the adage about Rice being the most feared hitter of his era doesn't really hold water. Perhaps he was "feared" but if so, the other teams certainly didn't reflect it in the way they played against him, as he was rarely intentionally walked, probably because, as bobbob pointed out, he was a double play machine.

[caliber66]

No one is claiming that statistic tell the whole story

 

Actually, it seems like some people are doing exactly that.

 

Also, the adage about Rice being the most feared hitter of his era doesn't really hold water. Perhaps he was "feared" but if so, the other teams certainly didn't reflect it in the way they played against him, as he was rarely intentionally walked, probably because, as bobbob pointed out, he was a double play machine.

Considering he had Bill Buckner and Wade Boggs hitting in front of him basically his entire career, it's not surprising he hit into a lot of double plays, and it's also not surprising that he wasn't intentionally walked a ton.

[cryptique]

Not much to say to cryptique other than....c'mon dude, anyone who claims that they are intentionally being ignorant of something but then continues to argue against it anyway is really reaching. If you disagree with some or all of it, fine, but it's a whole lot less compelling of an argument when you admit (and are proud of the fact) that you don't know much about it.

I'm ignorant of torture methods, but I know they're a bad idea.

 

I'm ignorant of what really happens in Barry Manilow fan club meetings, but I can safely say that I would not enjoy one.

 

I'm ignorant of what auto-erotic asphyxiation feels like, but I know it's not for me.

 

I'm ignorant of why you think yours is a compelling argument, but I can say with all confidence that it's not.

 

I profess ignorance of sabermetrics, but it's not comprehensive ignorance. I know enough about it to know that I'm not interested in learning more. I'm familiar with what the stats are, for the most part, and even what most of them attempt to quantify and/or describe. They do not interest me beyond that, because they do not add to my enjoyment of baseball, and in fact, they would only detract from it.

 

That is why I claim "ignorance." Not because I cover my eyes and ears and block the subject out, but because I ventured far enough down that road to recognize that there wasn't anything for me at the end of it.

[bobbob1313]

'Tique, I can safely say you don't really know much about statistical analysis, seeing as you cited fucking errors as a way that statistical analysis would miss a great player's defensive prowess.

 

I think you have seen a couple of really shit stats used in a really awful, stupid way and that you've decided all are like that. I'm done trying to convince you of anything, but don't pretend like you really know anything about sabermetrics.

 

I honestly don't see how having a knowledge of advanced statistics can detract from you're enjoyment of the game, but whatever.

 

Considering he had Bill Buckner and Wade Boggs hitting in front of him basically his entire career, it's not surprising he hit into a lot of double plays, and it's also not surprising that he wasn't intentionally walked a ton.

 

Buckner and Boggs hitting in front of him wouldn't really affect his double play numbers, because the speed of the person in front of you has much less to do with a DP than what you do and how fast you are.

 

Unless you are going to blame them for being on base when he grounded out, but that's stupid.

 

And either way, he hit into a lot of double plays. A DP is the 2nd worst possible outcome of a single at bat, so his 315 DP has to come into the conversation.

[MrRain422]

I'm ignorant of torture methods, but I know they're a bad idea.

 

I'm ignorant of what really happens in Barry Manilow fan club meetings, but I can safely say that I would not enjoy one.

 

I'm ignorant of what auto-erotic asphyxiation feels like, but I know it's not for me.

 

I'm ignorant of why you think yours is a compelling argument, but I can say with all confidence that it's not.

 

I profess ignorance of sabermetrics, but it's not comprehensive ignorance. I know enough about it to know that I'm not interested in learning more. I'm familiar with what the stats are, for the most part, and even what most of them attempt to quantify and/or describe. They do not interest me beyond that, because they do not add to my enjoyment of baseball, and in fact, they would only detract from it.

 

That is why I claim "ignorance." Not because I cover my eyes and ears and block the subject out, but because I ventured far enough down that road to recognize that there wasn't anything for me at the end of it.

 

Sure, that's fine that you don't want to know any more about it, but you're writing it off as if you know everything there is to know. No need to learn about anything that you don't want to but sort of dumb to make such harsh and sweeping judgments about something you admittedly don't know much about.

 

 

Actually, it seems like some people are doing exactly that.

 

If that's how you wish to read it, but really no one is saying that.

[dondoboy]

Buckner and Boggs hitting in front of him wouldn't really affect his double play numbers, because the speed of the person in front of you has much less to do with a DP than what you do and how fast you are.

 

 

I've enjoyed reading this exchange, but this quote is absurd. It not only matters how fast they are, but what they do, and how well they do it, to insure not only they, but the runner behind them, reaches base. Maybe there's a stat for that, I don't know.

[cryptique]

'Tique, I can safely say you don't really know much about statistical analysis, seeing as you cited fucking errors as a way that statistical analysis would miss a great player's defensive prowess.

You misunderstood what I said, but that's pretty typical for you. You never provided a response to my central point about fielding -- because there's no way your pet statistics can possibly accommodate the scenario I described.

 

Because they're inadequate. Because baseball defies your attempt to crunch it down to a page full of numbers. Because it's a living, breathing, human endeavor, and all the formulas and numbers you throw at it can't rob it of its nature, no matter how hard people like you might try.

 

You don't particularly want to hear anything that challenges your firmly entrenched position. You made up your mind a long time ago, and you're unshakable. Bully for you.

 

You're obviously a Kool-Aid drinker of the highest order, and nothing will ever convince you that Mighty Sabermetrics are anything but infallible, despite the simple, indisputable fact that they cannot possibly tell the whole story of a player's on-field career.

 

Yes, indisputable. I said it, because it's true.

 

You deny that this is what you're saying, but your arguments say exactly the opposite. Sabermetrics are a valiant attempt, but they will forever fall short. You don't seem to understand that.

 

So, have fun with them. Your vast understanding of the pseudo-science of sabermetrics, plus four bucks, might buy you a venti latte someday. Enjoy your cult.

[PigSooie]

A lot of people are mad.

[caliber66]

Buckner and Boggs hitting in front of him wouldn't really affect his double play numbers, because the speed of the person in front of you has much less to do with a DP than what you do and how fast you are.

 

Unless you are going to blame them for being on base when he grounded out, but that's stupid.

 

And either way, he hit into a lot of double plays. A DP is the 2nd worst possible outcome of a single at bat, so his 315 DP has to come into the conversation.

Having slow guys with very good OBP batting in front of you for a significant portion of your career will absolutely affect your DP numbers. Until 1982, before Boggs joined the team, he averaged about 18 DPs a year. Certainly not great, but nothing earth-shattering. In 1982, when Boggs joined the team (although in 82 Rice hit behind Dwight Evans, another slow guy who got on base a lot), he hit into 29. Then 31, then 36, then 35. In 1986, with Buckner as a buffer between Boggs and Rice for much of the season, he only hit into 19 DPs. Bill Buckner hit into by far the most DPs of his career (25) that season, when it was he who was batting behind Boggs. So yeah, it probably does make a difference who is hitting in front of you.

[MattZ]

I'd also suggest that DPs alone aren't a fair judge of much as a stat because, like wins and RBIs (the bane of the Bill James crowd), they are dependent on what other players on your team have done. And because DPs (depending on the speed of the hitter) are often hard hit ground balls that give the fielders the time to turn two. There's little difference in reality (other than luck perhaps) between a hard hit ball just out of the reach of the SS and a hard hit ball hit directly at a SS resulting in a DP. Well, other than one results in a hit (ie, good) and one results in a DP (ie, bad x2). So, a plus or a major negative can result from the virtually same ball in play.

 

In "old school" baseball (since I don't have a better term for it), you tipped your cap to the defense if they turned 2 on your hard hit ground ball. Hitting the ball hard was the goal and how fate treated you after that was up to the baseball gods. The sabremetricians of the world, note 6-4-3 in their book and forget about the event until 20 years later when evaluating the player. And the player gets knocked for hitting into the DP. Not entirely fair, not entirely representative of the situation. And a good example of why stats can be misleading.

 

Also, bobbob, why do you continually throw up your hands and say it's not worth it and then continue arguing?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

You never provided a response to my central point about fielding -- because there's no way your pet statistics can possibly accommodate the scenario I described.

The scenario you described is actually exactly what the +/- stat was created for. Most people agree that errors aren't a good way to evaluate fielding. +/- requires reviewing video off all defensive plays over a season.

[cryptique]

The scenario you described is actually exactly what the +/- stat was created for. Most people agree that errors aren't a good way to evaluate fielding. +/- requires reviewing video off all defensive plays over a season.

...which introduces subjectivity to the statistics, making them decidedly imperfect.

[caliber66]

Wow, that sounds pretty subjective.

 

edit: yeah.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

...which introduces subjectivity to the statistics, making them decidedly imperfect.

Of course it's imperfect, but it's much better than errors and fielding percentage.

 

John Dewan

 

My book, The Fielding Bible, goes into great length (ad nauseum to some) describing the new fielding system we developed at Baseball Info Solutions, the Plus/Minus System. Video Scouts at BIS review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc. Using this in-depth data, we’re able to figure out how each player compares to his peers at his position. How often does Derek Jeter field that softly batted ball located 20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position, for example, compared to all other major league shortstops?

 

A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average. Adam Everett turned in the highest score we’ve had in four years of using the system with a +43 at shortstop in 2006. That means he made 43 more plays than the average MLB shortstop would make.

 

The charts on the next page summarize the leaders in plus/minus by position for the last three years and for 2006 by itself.

[cryptique]

Of course it's imperfect, but it's much better than errors and fielding percentage.

That's beside the point. All I'm doing is arguing that these vaunted statistics aren't the complete and final story. I'm not comparing them to simple "errors" or "fielding percentage" stats.

 

Also: MattZ, you said pretty much what I was going to about the double play thing, thanks.

[PigSooie]

Good stuff here.

 

http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2...-henderson.html

[cryptique]

John Dewan

 

My book, The Fielding Bible, goes into great length (ad nauseum to some) describing the new fielding system we developed at Baseball Info Solutions, the Plus/Minus System. Video Scouts at BIS review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc. Using this in-depth data, we’re able to figure out how each player compares to his peers at his position. How often does Derek Jeter field that softly batted ball located 20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position, for example, compared to all other major league shortstops?

 

A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average. Adam Everett turned in the highest score we’ve had in four years of using the system with a +43 at shortstop in 2006. That means he made 43 more plays than the average MLB shortstop would make.

 

The charts on the next page summarize the leaders in plus/minus by position for the last three years and for 2006 by itself.

Wow. Somebody needs to get a life.

 

But seriously, this all sounds very fancy, but it's an example of where the subjective human factor is introduced into these statistics. Sorry, but I don't care how carefully they construct their methodology -- this is still going to be a statistic based on subjective human judgment and not on objective reality, and they still can't account for every variable.

 

"20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position"? What about the speed of the batted ball? What about whether the fielder also had to think about covering second base? What about the light level and whether there are shadows over home plate? What about the speed of the batter getting to first? What about the length of the grass in the infield?

 

These stats purport to provide balanced comparisons, but there are too many factors that they cannot control for, and in the end they're just so much wanking off. I can't put any real faith into them.

 

Not that the Gold Glove voters are any great shakes...

[Guest Jules]

If he really said this, then I strongly disagree. Is it fair for us to argue the Hall of Fame merits of Ty Cobb vs. those of his teammate Red Downs? After all, none of us here saw either of them play.

He didn't really say that.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Wow. Somebody needs to get a life.

 

But seriously, this all sounds very fancy, but it's an example of where the subjective human factor is introduced into these statistics. Sorry, but I don't care how carefully they construct their methodology -- this is still going to be a statistic based on subjective human judgment and not on objective reality, and they still can't account for every variable.

 

"20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position"? What about the speed of the batted ball? What about whether the fielder also had to think about covering second base? What about the light level and whether there are shadows over home plate? What about the speed of the batter getting to first? What about the length of the grass in the infield?

 

These stats purport to provide balanced comparisons, but there are too many factors that they cannot control for, and in the end they're just so much wanking off. I can't put any real faith into them.

 

Not that the Gold Glove voters are any great shakes...

They account for speed. They do not account for every variable, but they account for the most important ones. In the fielding bible, they also provide comparisons based on the dominant hand of the hitter and pitcher, home and away, etc. Dewan is the second or third most famous baseball statistician. That's his job and I'm sure he makes a nice living for himself.

 

Keep in mind that a good portion of baseball is already subjective (strike zone, hit vs. error, etc.). The point is not to take all subjectivitiy out of it, but to come up with something better.

[Sir Stewart]

I already addressed this.

You proved that Rice is considered a dickhead by everyone? Where?

[cryptique]

Keep in mind that a good portion of baseball is already subjective (strike zone, hit vs. error, etc.).

That's kinda been my point all along.

 

The point is not to take all subjectivitiy out of it, but to come up with something better.

Better than...?

 

Personally, I just don't see the point. This kind of stuff is fine for people in the front office, I suppose, but now that the fans have grabbed hold of it, it's taken on a life of its own, and it's used as a club in threads like this one to beat down anyone who dares to question the sabermetric orthodoxy.

 

Which is why I've likened it to a cult.