1992casey

Quoth Bob Uecker:

I think the way people frequently miss the point is by suggesting that a high OBP/SLG player be replaced by a low OBP/SLG player simply because of Ks.

I saw that 'dozens of hits' comment last night and decided simply to take it as hyperbole. I can't see any way a player can offer that kind of defensive improvement over someone else. For illustration purposes, rather than actually looking at Clark and Krynzel, it might pay to compare two players with readily available stats.

This question has rarely popped up. What is the probability of the Brewers finishing 2nd in the NL Central?

Anything with a cool rluzinski chart is probably a potential candidate for this forum. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Here's what I would nominate based on a cursory check: Offensive Consistency - Quick And DirtyFinal Record Probabilities (For archiving purposes, it might be appropriate to change the subject title to Final 2005 Record Probabilities.)Trying to get a handle on OPSI hope I haven't missed any Hall of Fame Trial threads, but here's what I've found. (If it's decided to move them over here, it may pay to check with splitterpfj to make sure none are missed.) Hall of Fame player trialsRequests for Hall of Fame TrialsHall of Fame Trial.............Bruce SutterHall of Fame trial.............Jim RiceHall of Fame Trial - Ted SimmonsHall of Fame Trial...........Andre DawsonARTICLE: Hall of Fame Trial - Tim ?Rock? Raines

Bill and Daron were talking about Brady Clark in terms of OPS. I only heard a little bit. Did anyone catch what they said?

pogokat, How about a pinned thread at the top of the Statistical Analysis forum where we could all 'nominate' threads that could eventually be moved over there? As far as where a thread starts, I guess it would depend on the motivation for starting it. Something like Log5 Equation or Power/speed number are probably best served by starting over there to begin with. Other threads turn into stat discussion as they evolve and can be moved when they start to die.

I was going to post something to that effect on the Issues forum and still might. The Statistical Analysis thread offers the added advantage of material being archived for a longer period, thus letting us reference the material for that longer time. Sometimes stuff comes up over here and turns out to be good material for the Statistical Analysis thread. In those cases, I'd give the threads the larger audience over here for the time being, then move them over there. I'd submit that the Hall of Fame Trial threads would be good material to archive on the Statistical Analysis forum before they're lost.

OXS is on base percentage times slugging percentage. Multiply it by ABs (not plate appearances) and it gives an excellent idea of the number of runs a player was responsible for over the span of those ABs. Somewhere in the Statistical Analysis forum, rluzinski explains mathematically why we use ABs instead of PAs.

I got frustrated in the middle of that and punched 0. That got me to a real person.

Apparently the game just popped up on DishNetwork, too: channel 447. I'm thinking FOX didn't follow through with getting the info on the added games to the satellite services.

I have the game on DirecTV, too. Just in time for Daron to lie and say the Brewers were leading 3-0.

The generic DirecTV logo with the musical background just popped up on DirecTV channel 642. I wonder if that means something.

I believe there's usually a disclaimer saying that it's one bobblehead per person rather than one bobblehead per ticket. That may only apply to games with an age limit on the giveaway, though. It'd be interesting to see what your friend does.

DHonks, You got a hair further than I did. The service rep actually tried to connect you with a supervisor. When I called, all she did was say she'd deliver the message. I think I may try calling again now that I know different customer service reps handle this differently. I called Gateway Computers for my neighbors a couple days ago. The first thing Gateway asked was, "May I have a phone number in case we get cut off and I have to call you back?" Why doesn't everyone do that?

Is anyone seeing the game on DishNetwork?

I called DirecTV. I didn't get any answer, but the case was referred to an engineer. I still think contacting Aleta is a good idea. She'll get the message too late, but better late than never.

It's not on my DirecTV. I'm hearing that it isn't showing up on DishNetwork, either. Something tells me FOX dropped the ball on this one. Aleta Mercer's e-mail: Aleta.Mercer@milwaukeebrewers.com She's the one in charge of broadcasting and media issues.

Dave Sheinin of the Washington Post published an interesting article on bunting this past weekend: Too Much of a Sacrifice?. (The article will likely require registration. BugMeNot.com or the BugMeNot Firefox/Mozilla Suite Extension will get you around that.) It's interesting in that it covers a lot of angles: Frank Robinson: I don't live by the numbers, and I don't manage by the numbers. I put on the bunt when the situation calls for a bunt. Author Dave Sheinin: Critics of the sacrifice bunt, on the other hand, contend it is a losing play that, mathematically, reduces a team's scoring potential in most situations. Buck Showalter: In our park, it's literally true that no lead is ever safe. So it doesn't make sense to give away an out with a sacrifice bunt, with this lineup in this park. That's not to say I'm anti-bunt. It's just a matter of our unique circumstances. James Click, Baseball Prospectus: People's adoration for the play is antiquated and needs to be updated for the modern game. [Click acknowledged that his type of analytical thinking] is not something that's received well among the old-school crowd in baseball, which is unfortunate, [and concludes that the bunt is] archaic, outdated strategy. Author Dave Sheinin: Click ran simulations using actual players to determine the thresholds for which specific hitters should and should not bunt. His conclusion: With a runner on first base and no outs, any hitter with an on-base percentage (OBP) of at least .206 and/or a slugging percentage (SLG) of at least .182?numbers that would encompass practically every hitter in the majors, including many pitchers?should swing away. The only exception is when a team is playing specifically for one run, in which case the thresholds are a .282 OBP and/or .322 SLG. Earl Weaver: I hated playing for one run. But I didn't always take my own advice. I never bunted with Frank Robinson or Boog Powell or Eddie Murray at the plate, of course. But I did it with [Mark] Belanger and [Paul] Blair, two real good players. I think I bunted them too much. J.P. Ricciardi: Basically, my philosophy is, if it's the ninth inning and we have the winning run on base, I have no problem sacrificing. But I'll tell you this: It hasn't worked too well. Earl Weaver had the greatest line?if you play for one run, that's all you'll get. ... It's not cut-and-dry in my book, but if I had my druthers, we wouldn't bunt very much at all. Buck Martinez: the bottom line is, there is no one way to play baseball [or] to manage a baseball game. Bill James: All studies of the sacrifice bunt of which I am aware show that the sacrifice bunt is a poor percentage play. But I have never found this argument convincing. ... I do agree that there is little reason to believe that profligate bunting helps a team win. But if I were a manager, I would certainly signal a bunt with a good bunter against a poor defensive third baseman, and probably in some other situations as well. Ned Yost: The bunt is kind of a lost art. Even our pitchers who are supposed to be good bunters?and we work on it every day?they struggle to bunt. A lot of times, our success or failure [in a game] hinges around the bunt. And if a pitcher can't get a bunt down early in the game, it can kill us. Bunting is still a big part of the game, but it's fallen by the wayside in the last 10 years or so.It should probably be pointed out that the author misuses the term "Moneyball" and should use "sabermetric" instead, but that's not the main point and not a huge issue. There is also discussion of this article at Baseball Primer.

rluzinski will have a better answer, but when I've haphazardly messed with that with large samples, ABs seem to have worked better.

I'm betting on "c" because at first glance, it looks like the worst set of stats. But really, I think "a", "b", and "c" look pretty close. I'd rather see OPS against than ERA. It'd make the question easier. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Generally, statisticians attribute differences between actual and Pythagorean records to luck or chance. I've kind of felt that teams could 'make' some luck through good fundamental play, good managerial decisions, etc. But thinking about it further, executing fundamentals and good decision making would cause a team to score more, thus increasing both Pythagorean and actual records. Maybe the stat people are right that the difference is simply chance? By the way, rluzinski offers a nice explanation of what we're discussing in his Pythagorean Theorem thread. (Note that I'm not crying duplicate thread here. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif The Pythagorean nature of the graphs wouldn't have necessarily been apparent to everyone.)

Did you save your changes when you checked/unchecked that box?

I just utilized a cool feature on Fan Zone Central. When you edit a post, it asks the user to put in a reason.

While we're at it, you may as well know about italics. Again, you can use ezCodes: Italic stuff here Or you can use HTML: Italic stuff here or Italic stuff here You can also combine bold and italics. exCode: Bold and italic stuff here OR Bold and italic stuff here HTML: Bold and italic stuff here OR b>Bold and italic stuff here OR Bold and italic stuff here OR strong>Bold and italic stuff here Although they'll more than likely work, you shouldn't 'criss-cross' tags: Bold and italic stuff here, Bold and italic stuff here, etc.