1992casey

rluzinski, I'm still doing that homework assignment! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif clancyphile, I think it's a given that singles are more valuable than walks when related to the outcome of a game. I think what a lot of us are suggesting is that there's more luck (statistical variance) involved in hitting singles than walks, meaning it's probably very reasonable to expect a swing in OPS. I did some playing around, subtracting singles from Brady's numbers while leaving everything else the same. This work is a couple days old, but for the sake of illustration, it ought to be fine. As of a couple days ago, Brady had a .304 batting average. It appears that its not unusual for a .281 career hitter to hit .304 for a season. Likewise, .265 wouldn't be out of the question, either. When I gathered these numbers, Brady had an OBP/SLG/OPS of .370/.419/.789. Those numbers, of course, are above average for a CF. Let's say Brady hits at his career batting average (.281), keeping doubles, homers, walks, and HBP exactly the same. His OBP/SLG/OPS turns into .349/.396/.746. That's OK, but not quite so impressive. Now let's say Brady hits .265, keeping everything else the same. That turns his OBP/SLG/OPS into .334/.380/.714?not really good at all for a CF. I'm probably being generous here. Brady's been hit by 16 pitches this season. Although on one hand, I think there's a degree of skill involved in being hit, I wouldn't expect him to be hit 16 times again. One of us is going to have to take a good look at rluzinski's article and see what conclusions we can draw. What seemed to trip me up is that various sources split up the types of balls in play differently.

I think there's quite a list of things that come out of either Daron or Bill's mouth that could be censored. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Thanks, JoeH33! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Where do you get the pretty lineups now that USA Today has changed its format?

Brian needs to add the s-word to the cuss filter.

Pitching Matchup Cubs: RHP Greg Maddux 12-13, 4.31 ERA in 20051-1, 6.55 ERA vs. Brewers in 2005Brewers: RHP Rick Helling 2-0, 2.19 ERA in 2005Hasn't faced Cubs in 2005 TV: FSN http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif Radio: WTMJ 620 MLB.com Game Preview, 2005-09-22 vs. Cubs

It's been discussed somewhere. I believe one of the moderators said he'd leave it here for the time being?to reach a larger audience?then move it because of the statistical information it contains.

Has yesterday's chart (the one in the post with the quoted edit) been changed? In other words, does it still have the error?

At reillymcshane's request and for everyone's benefit, here's a review of this season's Brewer PECOTA projections: PITCHERS Pitcher / ERA Mike Adams / 4.11 Jeff Bennett / 4.82 José Capellan / 4.76 Chris Capuano / 4.37 Marcos Carvajal / 4.59 Doug Davis / 4.35 Jorge De La Rosa / 4.89 Dana Eveland / 4.43 Rick Helling / 5.32 Ben Hendrickson / 4.47 Jeff Housman / 5.24 Brooks Kieschnick / 4.66 Justin Lehr / 4.21 Wes Obermueller / 5.21 Manny Parra / 4.78 Luis Peña / 4.88 Tommy Phelps / 4.49 Victor Santos / 5.06 Dennis Sarfate / 5.78 Ben Sheets / 3.22 Matt Wise / 4.43 Glenn Woolard / 4.91 HITTERS Player / BA / OBP / SLG / OPS Pat Borders / .240 / .270 / .370 / .640 Russ Branyan / .252 / .361 / .502 / .863 Brady Clark / .256 / .331 / .366 / .697 Callix Crabbe / .233 / .301 / .323 / .624 Nelson Cruz / .252 / .306 / .441 / .747 Enrique Cruz / .221 / .281 / .337 / .618 Matt Erickson / .258 / .343 / .359 / .702 Prince Fielder / .268 / .357 / .470 / .827 Tony Gwynn Jr. / .226 / .291 / .296 / .587 Bill Hall / .251 / .301 / .389 / .690 J.J. Hardy / .268 / .328 / .437 / .765 Corey Hart / .260 / .318 / .435 / .753 Wes Helms / .256 / .322 / .422 / .744 Geoff Jenkins / .267 / .341 / .480 / .821 Mark Johnson .234 .333 .353 / .686 Brooks Kieschnick / .238 / .310 / .415 / .725 David Krynzel / .244 / .316 / .367 / .683 Carlos Lee / .287 / .356 / .499 / .855 Chris Magruder / .258 / .325 / .417 / .742 Damian Miller / .244 / .320 / .386 / .706 Chad Moeller / .243 / .311 / .381 / .692 Brad Nelson / .242 / .303 / .413 / .716 Lyle Overbay / .269 / .356 / .442 / .798 Lou Palmisano / .243 / .317 / .370 / .687 Junior Spivey / .264 / .343 / .432 / .775 Rickie Weeks / .256 / .356 / .409 / .765

I figured PECOTA was better suited for a new thread, so here it is: Compare 2005 Brewers to PECOTA projections EDIT: link fixed to reflect the fact that the topic was moved.

Bill, Wouldn't Chad Tracy's greatest value be at 3B rather than 1B?

I figured it'd be better to put my limited comments and questions in a separate post. According to these stats, it looks as if Jason Michaels might be the ever so slightly better defensive center fielder this year. Using Rate and Rate2, he looks be 3 runs (30% of a win) defensively over 100 games. Am I right in that the defensive section of the player cards lists offensive stats? Is that just for convenience?

Well, I gave it a shot comparing the two players you mention. I don't know much of anything about the funky fielding stats Baseball Prospectus offers, but I'll summarize what they have on these two players. Stat definitions are stolen from the Baseball Prospectus Stat Glossary. Information comes from each player's "DT" card, whatever that means. You need a free subscription to access those cards. 2005 numbers, Lofton and Michaels Player Cards:

Part of the beauty of the Baseball Prospectus system is its objectivity. But when the book comes out, there's also a personal touch. In the player commentary, a writer will occasionally say that he feels that the PECOTA system has been too kind to or too harsh on the player.

When we see a 25 point gap in OPS, it's obviously time to look at other factors. The first thing I'd probably do is break it down into OBP and SLG. If those are relatively equal, I may decide not to care. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Or I may look into other aspects of a batter's abilities that may be irrelevant if the difference between two players' OPSs were a lot greater. The obvious limitation of any rate stat (average, like BA, OPS, OBP, ERA) is that it doesn't make playing time apparent. Of course, counting stats (examples being hits, homers, RBI, Ks) have that limitation, too.

J Brew Crew1, Your post isn't harsh at all! I don't think it's all 'over the place', either. I think statheads (geeks) should be perfectly willing to acknowledge the limitations of the stats they use. (I use the terms 'statheads' and 'geeks' affectionately, of course! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif) As an example, I think Range Factor has a very limited useful value. The few times I choose to mention it, I take pains to explain why I normally don't like to use it but why it might apply in the given narrow situation. I think it's generally acknowledged that OPS is a safe stat to use and really doesn't require justification. Usually, I'd submit that the argument around OPS would apply to the splits someone opts to present. Clutch is a toughie. Bill James isn't ready to write it off, even though studies generally can't demonstrate its existence. I believe part of the problem is that James is seeing a flawed approach in many studies?his own and others?and would like to see them redone using different parameters. I look at clutch this way. I wouldn't choose to acquire a player based on RISP stats, but I'd certainly look to maximize those numbers by balancing out my team so effective platoons, pinch hitting situations, and switches can occur.

I think what you're describing is essentially a piece of raw data. Compiling any raw data we can makes sense to me. How it's applied would be a totally different animal. This might be a good topic for its own thread on the statistical analysis forum. It's already popped up a little bit over there. I see the topic of balls in play having value for future reference, but I also see it eventually getting lost in this thread.

Chris wrote a post this afternoon that exemplifies the type of thing we need to see more of. Rather than taking a side, it presents some ideas on both sides of the coin and offers a springboard for discussion. We're seeing that type of post popping up on the Statistical Analysis forum. It's refreshing.

huntsvillefan's post is so good that I don't know which part to highlight and quote. I've valued his personal observations on these forums as he's one of a small number of us who gets to see many of the players we talk about. The fact that he's willing to check his observations against available stats tells me that his observations are that much more credible.

Russ' aunt posted here a couple times last year and drops by the Brewers' mlb.com forum occasionally. She's able to handle some of the less flattering comments about her nephew with a sense of humor. I think what happens is that there are so many forums around the internet with no moderation at all, and because of that, people lose touch with basic netiquette. Repetition and duplicate threads would be part of that. On this forum, people take offense when they're reminded to do something they should be doing anyway. Years ago, when the newsgroups were the primary medium for discussion, people would be flamed for repeating something that had been covered weeks earlier. While that certainly seems extreme by today's standards, it's an example of people policing themselves. In a situation very similar to what's happening on this forum right now, AOL was the first major online service to provide access to the internet. The first part of they internet made accessible was the newsgroups. Floods of AOL posters jumped in and paid little attention to netiquette, bringing things to the point where anyone who posted under an AOL address could be subject to attack. I think people have to realize that the moderators here provide a service and do it well. While one might not always agree with each decision a moderator makes, the motives behind those decisions are certainly right on track. They're just trying to keep things organized and civil.

I have a question about how threads get moved. Sometimes the thread still appears in its previous forum with a notation saying "moved". Other times it disappears entirely. Is that a moderator's choice or is that an ezBoard thing?

This should have been posted to the Issues forum, possibly even to an existing thread over there.The Branyan thread was duplicative in nature. Because it was locked rather than deleted, people who posted there certainly can copy and paste their comments into one of several existing threads

Several people suggested that the Eveland thread would be great for WOAH SOLVDD, but if I'm right, it looks like that thread died of old age. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tired.gif

Because you're bringing up standard deviation, I think you're already understanding what I said. The key, of course, is to determine what's statistically significant, what's within or outside normal statistical variance, etc. I look at things this way. If I think something's going on, I like to see a stat to back it up. Observation?and especially memory?can be way off base. An example would be the (at least) two times Bill Schroeder told us that the American League didn't steal a lot of bases. After getting started, we can discuss the quality of the stats involved. Discussion might have to do with sample size, reliability, validity, another stat, etc.

There actually is a statistical definition for "about as often", but it varies from stat to stat.