bjamesw22

You're always on rluzinski like white on rice, and always playing the victim like you're somehow getting the short end of the stick. Whatever. Now YOU'RE making a generalization. you called out Russ and Brett I never singled him or them out. Someone else did. See directly below I'm sorry, but I started off this thread as something I thought was a good idea NOT as something to create controversy. They're not based on simulations, they're based on play-by-play data. All a simulation is is a quicker way to accumulate the same data you would if you compiled the data for many play-by-play games. Please, for everyone's sake, please please please try not to pick another fight out of all of this. I'm NOT picking a fight. I'm voicing my opinion on how partisan I believe the statistical analysis forum is. I just don't understand why or how statistics are now more important than having strategical knowledge. I'm sorry I don't agree with it and I think it is ok not to.

If you read the beginning of the thread that's how the thread started off. And I'm not the one who made it go in a different direction.

Same can be said about all of the statistical analysis topics. Why are they any different?

Now I say to hell with the whole thing, if that's the amount of respect you have for other points of view. WHAT?!? What does what I have to say have ANYTHING to do with not respecting other points of view? It does EXACTLY the same thing as the statistical analysis forum does. Many don't believe in relying on stats to make all of our decisions yet we have a forum that analyses just that. So why shouldn't there be a different forum for the other side. SABR guys have basically had their own forum created so that "everyone else" can reference to them when they deem us stupid for not relying on "facts" (stats). The creation of that forum is so partisan it is rediculas. It shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's been created as the place where the "gospel" is kept.

or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.? Yes. either way, most of that gets covered in the major league forum (i seem to remember participating in a 10-page discussion regarding a ben sheets suicide squeeze), and i really don't think it would be possible without stats being part of the discussion. I'm sorry, but there are tons of situations where the statistics show an advantage to one decision to another that almost every single manager would disagree with. So people can't talk about it? It's called traditional baseball knowledge, not "I know what I saw". I think you could take the discussion of game strategy to the stats forum, as a lot of us "SABR guys" base some of our views on in-game strategy on stats - things like bunts, SB's, etc. I'm sure if you wanted to post something related to that in that forum, it could generate discussion. No, it would create heated arguments. Stat guys don't agree with traditional baseball knowledge because if their stats don't back it up, they don't believe it. If you ask me, there are MANY discussions here that totally degenerate because of statistical talk. In a game that is so random like baseball, statistics that are formulated based on hundreds or thousands of simulations shouldn't be applied to many in-game situations if any. So in a case when you are talking about a suicide squeeze, hit and run, etc that happen maybe 3 times a year for suicide squeezes and probably 20 times for hitting and running how can you apply the probabilities to those situations when the probabilities are based upon hundreds and thousands of simulations? You can't and you shouldn't even try. It's traditional baseball knowledge and in-game strategy and we should be able to discuss it without an ounce of statistical reference.

Couldn't this thread title have been "Russ and Brett got their forum, why can't I have mine?" It's a logical question. Why make a republican forum and not make a democratic one? I could go on and on. To me it doesn't make sense. You're darn right, why make a SABR forum if you're not going to make a game strategy/traditional knowledge forum? The creation of the statistical analysis forum is totally biased and partisan. Your feeble attempt to create controversy and raise my blood pressure failed. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/grin.gif

My only warning is that these numbers don't take into account our ace pitcher being lost for the season. Let me say that I believe are chances are VERY bleak. But those numbers don't take a lot of other things into account also. I will hold to my prediction that the crew will be 83-79 when all is said and done.

I guess I don't understand why we have a Statistical Analysis Forum then. Why make that forum if you're not going to make one for the opposite end of the spectrum? EDIT: Why not ditch the Polls Forum? It's rarely used anyways.

I guess I'm talking about baseball strategy in general not in-game baseball strategy (well I guess some could be). For instance: Hit and Run Suicide Squeeze Fielding position for batters (like Bonds, etc.) 1st and 3rd situations etc. etc. etc.

minor league production isn't as important as talent. Are we talking about talent or athleticism? There is a difference.

Age makes a big difference when you're evaluating minor league talent and what level they should be at. They are only a year apart and neither of them have deserved to be at the levels they were at throughout their careers. Both of them had one good minor league year...at High Desert of course.

Don't forget that Hall was drafted out of HS and Scarborough played at Texas A&M. That, in all likelyhood, make Steve more ready to advance more quickly thru the system, as he was not only older but had played baseball at a higher level than Hall. But they were both rushed. Neither guys stats warranted promotions besides both of their seasons in High Desert. And they both were promoted after one year at each level no matter if they succeeded or not...obviously by looking at their numbers.

Now THAT chart I like! Good stuff there...thanks for digging that up. It pretty much shows that it doesn't matter who is pitching, we don't hit better or worse against anyone. You would at least think there would be a trend upwards the worse a pitchers ERA got. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/sick.gif

If however, 56% of the pollers sampled liked grape jelly, than you can safely conclude that grape jelly is, in fact, more popular (shame on them). No kidding, everyone knows strawberry jelly is the best! Morons! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif I understand what you're saying Russ. Thanks for the clarification. Hall was pushed, Scar was not. That's the major difference in my mind between their numbers. Scar: Rookie League in 1999 Indy by 2002. Hall: Rookie League in 1998 Indy by 2002. If anything, Scar was pushed equally if not more than Hall was. And the numbers for each are identical.

I picked swisher because as of right now, in 2005, he and Hall are nearly identical statistically. It's scary. You can say the same for the minor league careers of Bill Hall and Steve Scarborough too. Yes...scary. Scarborough Hall

The whole point of my post was to show that even if you took a robot hitter that had a 25% chance of getting a hit per AB, he wouldn't bat .250 as a result of the natural distribution of probabilistic events. Therefore, the very best simulator in the whole world that could somehow magically KNOW what the exact abilities of a player will be for the next year STILL will be off as often and as much as my chart shows. I was responding to this: Just because a statistical prediction is off by 20 points on a batting average doesn't make it wrong. Even if you knew the EXACT ability of the player you wouldn't be exactly right. I think people need to keep that in mind. I guess I just don't understand why we should used this chart then. Even by your admission even the most accurate simulation wouldn't be completely accurate even by the guidelines of the chart. So why would we use it when we don't know the actual ability of the player, we don't take age into consideration, or take injury into consideration? If the most accurate simulation would be off, then using it when factoring in all of the things I just stated would make this chart totally unrealiable. So what I'm saying is that in your statement when you said "Just because a statistical prediction is off by 20 points on a batting average doesn't make it wrong." It actually really is wrong for what it is being used for. Maybe not for the parameters by which it was constructed, but for all uses in baseball when trying to predicting future events it isn't reliable.

I agree with that...but the model of %'s that a player will perform above or below their "ability" is a very flawed chart. It doesn't take some major things into equation. Age Injury How a player ability changes over the course of their careers You can't make an informed decision based on a chart where the variable is a floating variable. Again, I agree that many of them do aid in decision making but it depends what you're using it for and strictly you adhere to their rules.

But again, you're assuming that a .250 hitter is actually a .250 hitter. How do you know? I want to throw an example out there with this statement. We'll use JJ Hardy as the focus. He will probably finish the year around .240. The percentages of him batting worse than that are much lower than that. The chance of him batting better than that, much better in fact, is much higher than that chart lists. It's just another stat plugged into a computer that is supposed to tell us something that it really dosen't. I would consider it more accurate if it was used for players strictly in their prime years...but JJ Hardy is not in his prime years.

The thesis here -- the one scoop was talking about and the one I'm talking about -- is that Hardy's first half was not the "real" J.J. Hardy, because he got hurt last year and wasn't ready to come back, and that once Hardy got over that initial freakout, the "real" J.J. Hardy emerged. So if he finishes the year with a .680 OPS and a .240 average are you really going to look back and say, well, that year he was really a .270 hitter? Just because a statistical prediction is off by 20 points on a batting average doesn't make it wrong. Even if you knew the EXACT ability of the player you wouldn't be exactly right. I think people need to keep that in mind. But again, you're assuming that a .250 hitter is actually a .250 hitter. How do you know? And we've already talked about this before...but that model TOTALLY falls apart at the extremes. That chart tells you nothing because of the non-certainty of the actual ability of a player and the way that it falls apart at the extremes.

Right, but they predicted he would be a solid major league hitter this year. But if you look at his overall stats, those numbers do not show a hitter who is a solid major league hitter this year. A .684 OPS is much different than the .765 that was predicted.

I thought another good forum that could be added to brewerfan.net is a game strategy forum. I don't know how it could be constructed, but I for one am a guy that loves to discuss game strategy. Other than rabid hyperactive in-game thread discussion there really isn't that much discussion on this board about actual strategy.

BP's PECOTA system, which is just a sophisticated predictor based on past performace, projected before the season that Hardy would hit .268 / .328 / .437 this year. But those numbers were not accurate. I don't see what they predicted. It is an estimated number...a best guess...not what will actually happen.

Some of Rluzinski posts have been very eye opening, for example. and I also beleive clutch exists. RLuzinski's great article showed that you couldn't prove it with the stats. Ok Russ, you can stop posting under a different name now. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif No, but really, I agree that stats are eye opening. But this is one of the statements I absolutely do not agree with : using the stats as gospel to make determinations about players without looking into how the stat was composed by that player. OPS doesn't tell you everything. Does it generally tell you how good a player is? Yes. Does it tell you that a .875 OPS player is a better hitter than a .850 OPS player? No. Just as the eyes can decieve a fan, the stats can also decieve at first glance in the same way.

you MUST stop taking things as personal attacks... Or how about not posting things in a condescending way so that it isn't taken in a personal way. Thing is, I didn't take it personally. I was just appauled by the fact that you came up with such an unsubstantiated claim saying that I don't see things from the statistical point of view when in fact I do and even agree with it many times.

All I know is when teams need to get him out, they get him out. By Situation AB AVG OBP SLG OPS On Second 13 .231 .375 .538 .913 On Third 7 .429 .556 1.286 1.842 First and Second 14 .286 .444 .500 .944 First and Third 5 .600 .778 .800 1.578 Second and Third 1 .000 .833 .000 .833 (5 walks) Runners On 79 .253 .427 .468 .895 Scoring Position 46 .283 .500 .587 1.087 Scoring Posn, 2 out 18 .222 .517 .500 1.017 Men On, 2 out 28 .179 .425 .357 .782 Man on 3rd, <2 out 10 .300 .500 .600 1.100 Lead Off Inning 38 .158 .256 .368 .624 Seems to me like the only situations he DOESN'T hit in is when he leads off an inning when there is....nobody on. I don't understand where people come up with this stuff.