Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    28,903
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymfan87 View Post
    Let's have a fun little exercise, shall we? Here's side by side the teams sorted by WAR (fangraphs batting+fangraphs RA/9), and teams sorted by actual season win total. Without looking it up, guess which list is which. The O's are left out because it would be too much of a giveaway:

    Code:
    Nationals         Nationals 
    Reds              Reds
    Braves            Yankees
    Yankees           Braves
    Cardinals         A's
    Angels            Giants
    Rays              Rangers
    A's               Rays
    Rangers           Angels
    Giants            Cardinals
    D'Backs           Tigers
    Brewers           Dodgers
    White Sox         White Sox
    Dodgers           Brewers
    Tigers            Phillies
    Phillies          D'Backs
    Pirates           Pirates
    M's               Padres
    Padres            M's
    Royals            Mets
    Red Sox           Blue Jays
    Mets              Royals
    Blue Jays         Red Sox
    Twins             Marlins
    Marlins           Indians
    Cubs              Twins
    Rockies           Rockies
    Indians           Cubs
    Astros            Astros
    The one on the right is the actual standings.


    "You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    Okay, we'll stop this "debate" right there. That's a fundamental difference in our mindsets, so no need to go any further. If you don't think luck is a huge factor in BASEBALL, then obviously in-depth statistics are no use to you.

    I think over 162 games it evens itself out, and funny how the better teams always seem to get lucky isn't it?

    You think baseball is a crap-shoot, but you put your faith in the statistical expression of a crap-shoot?

    That makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by StoicSentry View Post
    Funny how this is supposed to be the "scientific" approach to baseball and yet it uses the totally unscientific concept of "luck" to account for all it's failings. Any spot where the stats didn't work, you just plug in "luck." It's like magic! Except it's... science?




    Exactly.

    I just more or less said exactly the same thing...

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,139
    vCash
    1500
    Funny thing is that franchises that were run well prior to sabermetrics seemed to put together championship teams. When the Mets in recent years have gone the sabermetric route of acquiring players they ended up with guys like Brad Emaus so it's not the be all way of putting a team on the field. I will get laughed at for saying this but ultimately team chemistry wins championships. You can throw a bunch of players together that have had high WAR on their other teams but it doesn't necessarily translate to success. Boston hired Bill James in 2003 and it paid off with championships in '04 & '07 but was that all to do with sabermetrics or was it something more like a group of guys who meshed well together? It didn't prevent their collapse in 2011 when guys quit down the stretch or their pathetic 69-93 season in 2012 when everyone was pretty much playing like individuals.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,139
    vCash
    1500
    Just refresh my memory but the A's in the early 2000's won exactly how many championships going the "Moneyball" route?

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    The A's have a very good run, better than the Mets have had since the 80s, but that was because they got 3 aces in a row, not because they got Scott Hatteberg.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,422
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SILVER SEAVER View Post
    Just refresh my memory but the A's in the early 2000's won exactly how many championships going the "Moneyball" route?
    The playoffs are a huge crapshoot. The 83 win Cardinals were not the best team in baseball in 2006...if they were, they would have won more than 83 games.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,139
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly View Post
    The A's have a very good run, better than the Mets have had since the 80s, but that was because they got 3 aces in a row, not because they got Scott Hatteberg.
    And those three aces like you said had nothing to do with sabermetrics. They acted like in the movie that Bradford and Rincon were the catalysts behind their run.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,139
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymfan87 View Post
    The playoffs are a huge crapshoot. The 83 win Cardinals were not the best team in baseball in 2006...if they were, they would have won more than 83 games.
    And the 2006 Cardinals were a prime example of a team getting hot at the right time, team chemistry and having an exceptional manager and coaching staff.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    12,923
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly View Post
    I think over 162 games it evens itself out, and funny how the better teams always seem to get lucky isn't it?

    You think baseball is a crap-shoot, but you put your faith in the statistical expression of a crap-shoot?

    That makes no sense whatsoever.
    I never said baseball is a crap-shoot. It is luck-heavy, and most in-depth statistics looks at the parts of the game that aren't as luck-heavy: walks, strikeouts, HR's, fielder range, etc. So yes, it makes sense, although this logic seems to be beyond you.

    Anyways, regarding your baseless claim that the "better teams always seem to get lucky," that is also false. The only teams to have made the playoffs after benefiting from a lot of luck (based on the methodology I'm using) are the Orioles and the A's. Teams like the Cardnials, Tigers, and Rangers, on the other hand, made the playoffs despite of some bad luck.
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,422
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SILVER SEAVER View Post
    And the 2006 Cardinals were a prime example of a team getting hot at the right time, team chemistry and having an exceptional manager and coaching staff.
    Last year the A's fit that exact description, same with the O's, and both got bounced very quickly.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,916
    vCash
    1500
    The WAR vs. Wins debate is interesting. Lets look at how closely they match. Take replacement level (51.9) + pitching WAR + hitting WAR for every team as an estimate of WAR wins (wWins). Compare to actual wins in 2012:

    Wins wWins
    95 99.8 Yankees
    94 94.3 A's
    93 93.9 Rangers
    93 85.0 Orioles
    90 93.0 Rays
    89 92.4 Angels
    88 88.8 Tigers
    85 90.3 White Sox
    75 79.7 Mariners
    73 73.7 Jays
    72 76.6 Royals
    69 70.8 Red Sox
    68 65.3 Indians
    66 70.7 Twins
    98 92.7 Nationals
    97 92.6 Reds
    94 86.3 Giants
    94 86.8 Braves
    88 91.1 Cardinals
    86 83.7 Dodgers
    83 81.3 Brewers
    81 77.7 Phillies
    81 82.9 Diamondbacks
    79 72.9 Pirates
    76 74.3 Padres
    74 71.8 Mets
    69 67.2 Marlins
    64 72.3 Rockies
    61 63.6 Cubs
    55 59.4 Astros

    Not a bad match, but not great either. More than half the time the difference is under 4 wins. But less than half the time is it under 3 wins. The standard deviation of the differences is 4.27, which means that 5% of the time, we can expect the two will differ by at least 8.5 wins (2 standard deviations). So 2.5% of the time, you might even make the playoffs with only a 30 WAR team (a roughly league average team in talent).

    This isn't too surprising though, since WAR doesn't include things like clutch hitting, situational performances, strategic managerial decision making (getting the right players in at the right time), plus luck and other immeasurables which don't impact rate stats. Not surprisingly, these differences add up to a few wins over a season on average.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    12,923
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by clayamtion View Post
    I'm sorry. My point is ignorant.
    Let me ask you this. Would you rather have 1 .900 ops player & a player with an ops of .700 or would you have two players with an ops of .800?
    Ceteris paribus, it would pretty much be equivalent IMO. Although a better analogy for this discussion is: would you rather have a guy who drove in 100 runs and a guy who drove in 60 runs, or two guys who drove in 80 runs? We're talking about 2012 production, not averages.
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    12,923
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by StoicSentry View Post
    Funny how this is supposed to be the "scientific" approach to baseball and yet it uses the totally unscientific concept of "luck" to account for all it's failings. Any spot where the stats didn't work, you just plug in "luck." It's like magic! Except it's... science?
    If the stats worked perfectly, all we would be proving is that baseball doesn't involve luck. Think about what you're saying. This is the game where a 30-foot dribbler off the end of the bat means as much as a 250-foot rope into CF. And where a batter gets punished equally for striking out and for getting robbed by a diving catch.

    Again, I'm not saying the game is a crapshoot. The post on the previous page ranking WAR vs. actual rankings should show that in-depth statistics are not useless.
    Last edited by SJ5382; 01-04-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    I never said baseball is a crap-shoot. It is luck-heavy, and most in-depth statistics looks at the parts of the game that aren't as luck-heavy: walks, strikeouts, HR's, fielder range, etc. So yes, it makes sense, although this logic seems to be beyond you.

    Anyways, regarding your baseless claim that the "better teams always seem to get lucky," that is also false. The only teams to have made the playoffs after benefiting from a lot of luck (based on the methodology I'm using) are the Orioles and the A's. Teams like the Cardnials, Tigers, and Rangers, on the other hand, made the playoffs despite of some bad luck.

    Crapshoot, luck-heavy, same thing. Yet you believe in the statistical expression of a luck-heavy sport, that makes no sense.

    What methodology do you have to show that what you consider to be luck is actually luck?

    They made the playoff despite some bad luck? did you watch all their games?

    What's a 'lot of luck?'

    If that's that luck-heavy how come the Mets never win anything? how come the Mets never luck into a great BP either?

    Sounds a lot to me like luck is wheeled out there to explain the fact that 'stats' don't work half as well as stat geeks want them too, and to excuse endless ineptitude and losing.

    I suppose you think the Met are just an unlucky team...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •