DougJones43

stat request if anyone has time. what % of non-TV games do the brewers score 8 or more runs? it seems like whenever i can't watch them they go nuts!

points well taken, everyone. i concede that MLE is a much better tool than i had originally believed or gave it credit for.

i guess i just don't agree with that. i'll take an average major league player like you said, using previous major league stats. over the past 3 seasons, damian miller has posted an avererage ops of .731. following the trend of his previous major league numbers, this season he is at .726. the MLE theory will state that the chances of damian miller hitting close to his career averages will be no better than stating ryan braun would have posted a .700+ ops this season at the major league level. i just don't buy into the two being EQUALLY reliable. that's the whole thing i have issue with, is saying MLE's are equally reliable or unreliable. edit: in response to "stats can't and won't be reliable for all players", this is obviously true and has been discussed a lot around here. the doesn't mean some stats aren't much more reliable than others. i just happen to believe that MLE is a stat that is far less reliable than others, although the nature of it (you can never truly say what a player would have done) makes it nearly impossible to prove this true or false.

so, according to this statement, the amount of certainty we have in a guy who is killing the ball in AA being successful in the majors at some point is equal to the amount of certainty we can have in albert pujols putting up good numbers next season? i have to take issue with this statement, and this statistic. i don't see how minor league numbers could give any consistant indication of wheter or not a guy has potential at the major league level. having success at the minor league level does not seem to regularly translate into a hitter having what it takes to hit major league level pitching. for example, take 2 former brewer prospects. antone williamson: had a full 100+ game season at AA in which he posted an ops of .855 bobby hughes: posted a .963 ops in 67 AA games one season, and later posted a .864 in 89 games at AAA. i would imagine that these seasons would have translated through to be solid major league seasons using the MLE, while in reality, hughes most likely would have been blown away by major league pitching. i don't know all the ins and outs of this formula, but wouldn't it have predicted some major league success for these guys? i would imagine it would have. but it became apparent that neither of them had the talent to be good major league hitters. i'm not trying to attack anyone or just point out exceptions to a stats usefulness, i just think that to say this stat is as reliable as previous major league statististics is way off the mark. edit: i also don't think rickie weeks would have put up a .945 ops this season, injured or not

i'm not entirely sure i understand the request. would it be to discuss specific game decisions (like "should the brewers have had brady clark try and steal in situation X during saturday's game?"), or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.? 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. if in fact there was to be a forum that rivaled the statistical analysis forum, in order to truly be the opposite, it would not be a Game Strategy Forum, but rather the I Know What I Saw Forum.

absolutely. i wasn't really trying to point out an "exception" to stats being useful either, and i apologize if i misconstrued what you were trying to say. if anyone was to look through my post history, while i at times think stats can be unreliable (stating the obvious there i guess), i have never denied their usefulness and i realize they are the best tool we have. you did bring up another interesting point though. are things like recovery from injury and time off/rustiness at all quantifiable? you posted that the projections for hardy could have been altered to take these things into account. what would be the best way to go about doing this? are there actual formulas that have been developed based on type of injury or time away? considering how different each player's mental and physical makeup is, and how different each individual injury can be, it seems like those are things that would be nearly impossible to quantify. particularly if that player has never suffered a major injury before, and there is no past information to reference.

precisely. and now that hardy has gotten his feet wet, he seems to be on track to putting up similar numbers to what the production predictors would have estimated. a wonderful example of stats and non-stats living in perfect harmony...

if you were refering to my post, that wasn't my intent. it just seems that in the instances stats don't predict something correctly, rather than saying yes, there were things at work in that case that stats do not encompass. there are a lot of psychological and human elements to baseball. the stats were wrong, it is just disregarded and somehow doesn't count, because that wasn't the "real" jj hardy.

isn't that a prime example of how unreliable stats can be? because they don't take things like this into account? that's an entire half-season worth of baseball that stats would have never predicted due to the "human element." to me, this quote is taking one of the big flaws of statistical analysis, and just disregarding it.

i have a question. i realize stats are very important towards determining what kind of success a player may or may not have. the biggest limitation in my eyes, however, is the fact that stats can really only be fairly applied to players who have put in some time at the major league level, or at least the high minors. i'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but where does that leave stats in regards to drafting players, particularly out of high school? i know that stats are recorded for high school and college players, but a lot of those stats aren't always going to be relevant for a number of reasons (huge difference in competition level from player to player, putting up good numbers in HS or even college doesn't necessarily mean a guy has what it takes to be a good major league player). getting quality players throughout your farm system is crucial to future success. you can't really base your drafts off of ops, oxs, or whip when evaluating prep players, so it seems as though that only leaves room for the leathery-faced, skoal-spitting scouts with their stopwatches, radar guns, and gut-feelings.

i agree that the brewers, overall, don't hit that bad in the "clutch." however, they seem to be incredibly inconsistent from game to game (6 for 12 one game, 1 for 13 the next game kind of thing). the overall risp batting average stat doesn't reflect this or shed much light on this. i'm aware that over the course of a full season, overall numbers are generally a good indicator of success, but i'd be curious not so much about overall risp BA, but something like how many individual games have the brewers batted under .200 w/risp, and how does that stack up against the rest of the league?

for the record, i for one don't blame yost for this loss. i didn't agree with the 7th inning decision, but his hands are kind of tied either way you look at it. it certainly isn't his fault that the brewers offense was only in a position to score some runs one time in the whole ballgame. it's got to be tough to manage when you're team hasn't scored diddly in 6 games. you don't have a lot of flexibility. it's tough to single out one player on the offense as the culprit. they just all seem to get hot one week, and then all go cold together the next week. that has led to some frustrating inconsistency.

sorry. that wouldn't qualify either. please read the definition rydogg posted. for it to be hindsight, i would have to have said it was a bad decision solely because it didn't work. i think it was a bad decision because it didn't give us our best opportunity to score in that inning, which would have tied the game. if we had pinch hit for sheets, and still ended up with no runs, i would have said it was the right decision even though it didn't work. i base my comments on what gives us the best chance, not what worked and what didn't.

i don't think saying i like our chances to score a run better with 1 out than with 2 outs qualifies as a hindsight comment. i don't say decisions were bad based on whether or not they work. i want decisions made that give us the best chance to win. perhaps you should learn what that expression means before you use it again.

magruder was put in a position where he needed to get a basehit with 2 outs. had we pinch hit for sheets, we would have had 2 chances to drive in that run, one of the chances would have only taken a fly ball. even if it was clark in there, i would have still disagreed with the decision because you're banking on a 2-out basehit, but knowing magruder was next made it an even worse call. it's a lot easier to drive that run in with 1 out than with 2 outs.

i was referring to him bunting with sheets and leaving it up to magruder with 2 outs to drive in that run. by not pinch hitting for sheets with 1 out, you're once again putting the game in magruder's hands, INTENTIONALLY. i really don't understand how you don't see that

managers are supposed to grow from their mistakes. i really can't believe what i heard. yost put the game in magruder's hand again. for the third time within the last 2 series vs st. louis. i know ben was pitching well. but honestly, could he not see that we weren't getting many scoring chances. once again, he passed up one of the few scoring opportunities we had, waiting for more to come along which never did. having sheets pitch more really becomes irrelevant when you end up getting shutout, doesn't it.

yost has plain and simple quit arranging his lineups around having moeller catch for sheets, which is a very good thing

or hit into a dp, or tap a grounder that gets us nothing. i guess we just differ in philosophy. against st. louis, i'd assume go for a big inning if we get the chance, even if it might be at the expense of giving ourselves a chance at that 1 run. and i still think we had a better chance of just 1 run with branyan, plus he gives us at least a decent opportunity for an XBH to break it open. magruder is just awful.

we were down by 2. we're playing the cardinals. we have the bases loaded with just 1 out and our goal is to come out of it down by 1??? just hoping for 1 run in that situation is a problem. not exactly the mentality you want to try and beat the best team in the NL.

1. just because we lost for reasons other than the decision in question, doesn't mean that decision was correct. 2. nobody's reason for questioning the move was only the fact that it didn't end up working. 3. why can't people on here disagree with a strategic move without being accused of wanting yost fired? i, for one have said numerous times i think yost is the best man for this job. that doesn't mean i can't strongly disagree with some of the things he does.

well, you were right. he hit a dribbler that didn't score a run. putting in somebody just because they can get the bat on the ball, instead of a .900+ ops guy who k's sometimes is managing scared.

that's exactly how i feel. to me, it's managing defensively, like we're lucky to be on the same field as st. louis. to me, with that move yost may has well have said "hey, i'm just happy we're close. maybe, just maybe we'll be close enough at the end that a homerun could tie it." try and get a lead and play from ahead, not hope to tie it late!!

nobody is saying branyan would have positively delivered. but don't you agree that he would have given us a much better chance at a big inning, or at least 1 run? so how can you defend batting our worst hitter during the best scoring opportunity we saw all night???

so, let's see. back in st. louis, magruder hits with the tying run on while jenkins rides pine, later to single with nobody on. today, magruder hits over branyan with the bases loaded, and branyan later hits what would have been a sac fly. maybe melvin needs to remove the temptation for yost to use magruder in key situations, much like he did with phelps.