2011 MLB Season

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

And your reasoning for this is?

 

Because it is the most ambiguous of all sabermetrical stats. I was a big follower of Bill James in the early 80's, but I can't buy into this stat.

It is a non-standardized statistic. There is no one clearly established calculatable formula.

I'm not anti-statistics or even advanced sabermetrics. This one just sounds better than it's actual meaning, at least in this point of its usage and development.

[MrRain422]

There are two common formulas for WAR (Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference), and although neither is perfect, I think it's still pretty useful. Certainly isn't the be-all-and-end-all of evaluating a player, but it's a pretty nifty little shortcut to simplifying all of the many stats that should be considered and combining them into a single number that is easy to understand. The trickiest part is still evaluating defense (and this accounts for the differences between the two versions of WAR). I agree that it shouldn't be the only thing we look at, but I think its probably one of the most useful stats in evaluating a player as a whole.

 

Also -- and this is just a general question for anybody -- anyone care to speculate on why advanced metrics are more controversial in baseball than in other sports? I can't think of a single stat in all of sports that is more complex than QB passer rating, but it still seems to be a pretty widely accepted measure of QB effectiveness.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

There are two common formulas for WAR (Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference), and although neither is perfect, I think it's still pretty useful. Certainly isn't the be-all-and-end-all of evaluating a player, but it's a pretty nifty little shortcut to simplifying all of the many stats that should be considered and combining them into a single number that is easy to understand. The trickiest part is still evaluating defense (and this accounts for the differences between the two versions of WAR). I agree that it shouldn't be the only thing we look at, but I think its probably one of the most useful stats in evaluating a player as a whole.

 

Also -- and this is just a general question for anybody -- anyone care to speculate on why advanced metrics are more controversial in baseball than in other sports? I can't think of a single stat in all of sports that is more complex than QB passer rating, but it still seems to be a pretty widely accepted measure of QB effectiveness.

 

As for me...I care more about baseball. The stats are actually reflective of the game on the field, and the long history and continuity of the game makes the game's milestones understandable and familiar. Outside of the lowering of the mound in 1969, there has been no real tampering with the acutal mechanics of how the game is played. While the DH is controversial (to some), it is really not a substantial change to the mechanics of the game. The DH still has to bat and the pitcher is still 60'6'' from home.

[MrRain422]

Though the rules have generally stayed the same, the game has changed a whole lot since the mound was lowered. Steroids aside, there have been huge advances in what we know about nutrition and physical health, and the ever increasing strength and abilities of the players has dramatically changed how the game is played. Also, a lot of the traditional stats make less sense than they used too, both due to changes in how the game is played (errors made more sense as a way to evaluate fielders back when the stat was invented back in the late 1800s). Our understanding of the game has changed dramatically and has shed light on how deceptive some of the traditional stats are. Sure, we all understand what RBI are, and there's 120 years worth of data that can help us to understand what is a lot of RBI historically and what is not a lot, but that doesn't mean that we should keep giving deceptive stats like RBI as much credence as we used to, just because the guys who first started tracking stats didn't grasp the game as well as we do now, with decades upon decades of research and new innovations in how we interpret what happened on the field.

[calvino]

As for me...I care more about baseball. The stats are actually reflective of the game on the field, and the long history and continuity of the game makes the game's milestones understandable and familiar. Outside of the lowering of the mound in 1969, there has been no real tampering with the acutal mechanics of how the game is played. While the DH is controversial (to some), it is really not a substantial change to the mechanics of the game. The DH still has to bat and the pitcher is still 60'6'' from home.

 

Some Instant replay has been implemented - definitely can change an outcome of a game/stats.

[MrRain422]

Also, park effects can make those traditional stats a little deceptive as well. For example, it's hard to contextualize Coors Field and compare the statistics compiled there to those in the Polo Grounds. They may as well have been playing the game on different planets.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Some Instant replay has been implemented - definitely can change an outcome of a game/stats.

 

True. But they haven't change the very nature of the game a la the changes the NFL made in the late 70's to ease up the defense's advantage over the passing game.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Also, park effects can make those traditional stats a little deceptive as well. For example, it's hard to contextualize Coors Field and compare the statistics compiled there to those in the Polo Grounds. They may as well have been playing the game on different planets.

 

Good point. My response point here is that it is individualized to ballparks. The NFL moved the hash marks in the mid-70's to help open up the running game.

MLB didn't move first base to 99' from the plate.

There have been two basic changes to baseball in a structural sense in the last111 years. The ball was officially 'livenend' in the early 20's and the mound was lowered prior to the '69 season.

[Sir Stewart]

I don't mind those Miami designs at all. It's fucking south Florida, people.

[Lammycat]

Shouldn't they be thongs and tank -top half shirts, then?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Though the rules have generally stayed the same, the game has changed a whole lot since the mound was lowered. Steroids aside, there have been huge advances in what we know about nutrition and physical health, and the ever increasing strength and abilities of the players has dramatically changed how the game is played. Also, a lot of the traditional stats make less sense than they used too, both due to changes in how the game is played (errors made more sense as a way to evaluate fielders back when the stat was invented back in the late 1800s). Our understanding of the game has changed dramatically and has shed light on how deceptive some of the traditional stats are. Sure, we all understand what RBI are, and there's 120 years worth of data that can help us to understand what is a lot of RBI historically and what is not a lot, but that doesn't mean that we should keep giving deceptive stats like RBI as much credence as we used to, just because the guys who first started tracking stats didn't grasp the game as well as we do now, with decades upon decades of research and new innovations in how we interpret what happened on the field.

 

RBI may be deceptive, but it is a concrete, measurable stat. The very definition of WAR points to the reason why I find it, well, to be perfectly honset, silly.

 

"WAR calculates the total number of wins that any player adds to his team over the course of a season by comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement"

Read it again.

 

"Comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement."

I understand it, I grasp the concept. It just sounds like debating Keynesian economics.

[bobbob1313]

I don't mind those Miami designs at all. It's fucking south Florida, people.

 

Yep. They could have been a lot worse.

 

The logo, in particular makes me think of a very specific place that I drove past every day for 10 months on my way to work. I like it a lot.

[The High Heat]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111204&content_id=26090230&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Those colorful Marlins have reached contractual agreements with both Heath Bell and Jose Reyes, who will receive $106 MM over six seasons. Hanley Ramirez is supposed to switch to 3B to accomodate Reyes.

[The High Heat]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111204&content_id=26089768&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Then there's the (apparently) never ending Manny Saga: Manny Ramirez applied for reinstatement and had his suspension cut in half to 50 games should he be signed and activated.

 

G' luck in finding employment, Manuel!

[bobbob1313]

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Those colorful Marlins have reached contractual agreements with both Heath Bell and Jose Reyes, who will receive $106 MM over six seasons. Hanley Ramirez is supposed to switch to 3B to accomodate Reyes.

 

That shit cray.

[jenbobblehead]

Manny rumors are that he's looking at the O's, because of his past relationship with Dan Duquette. Frankly, as disappointed as I am with Manny for his antics the last year he was with the red sox, I think he'd be a good match up for the O's who, frankly, could use some more crazy personalities to sell tickets to that great stadium. Although I do believe that the Oriole's wholesale routing of the red sox at the end of the 2011 season hopefully will help them fill up that ball park. It is a great place to see a game.

[Sir Stewart]

It is a great place to see a game.

 

Hell yup.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

_{Where are the Marlins coming up with all this cash?}

 

_{Signing Reyes...WHY? They already have a brilliant young short stop in Ramirez. He's better that Reyes on defense and offense.}

 

_{The Marlins looking to trade Ramirez for pitching? Going to risk pissing him off by asking him to move to third?}

 

_{What's the word you hear bobbob?}

[bobbob1313]

Reyes is far better defensively.

 

And Hanley has said he'd move to third.

[The High Heat]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111130&content_id=26060702&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Ron Santo has finally been elected to the Hall of Fame. At least one year too late.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Reyes is far better defensively.

 

And Hanley has said he'd move to third.

 

At least one great injustice has been rectified (and I am completely serious)

[KevinG]

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Ron Santo has finally been elected to the Hall of Fame. At least one year too late.

 

For sure. I wonder who will give his induction speech? Jeff Santo? Pat? I could listen to Ronnie stories form Pat all day.

[Guest Jules]

For sure. I wonder who will give his induction speech? Jeff Santo? Pat?

His leg.

[rareair]

3.6

[Guest Jules]

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_mlb&c_id=mlb

 

Ron Santo has finally been elected to the Hall of Fame. At least one year too late.

 

So he got better since he died? These committees are stupid. He should've been in years ago.