Baseball Myths

[IceHawk-181]

this is about acknowledging that there are things you and i cannot quantify no matter how hard we try.

This is quite frankly a poor rhetorical approach and, well, wrong.

All of the "intangibles" that may or may not exist in baseball are meaningless unless said player translates those onto the field.

Everything in baseball is finally determined on the field and as a matter of fact we can quantify every single thing that occurs there.

That is the very nature of Baseball Statistics, traditional, sabermetric, or otherwise.

A player with all the grit and heart in the world who hits 0.200 and walks one time out of twenty is still a player with a 0.200/0.250 slash line.

The "intangibles" need not be measured, as their results are measurable.

This is the equivalent to saying that one cannot prove gravity exists because we do not completely understand why particles have mass.

Jamiecballer and FNK would say that, until we know the absolute details of the causal mechanism, the results cannot be measured.

A scientist would tell you to jump and measure the result.

See the difference?


EDIT:
Allow me to make this distinction as I am not sure the two of you realize this.

Jeffy, Jej, et al are not making a claim as to the causal mechanism behind a player's performance.

Like any good scientists or adherents to basic logic they are merely demonstrating that there is no significant effect, independent of causal mechanisms, that would provide any evidence that the concept of line-up protection actually alters the outcome of a game.

If it does not alter the outcome of an at-bat, an inning, or a game, then it is irrelevant.

We know, as fact, that pitchers do not deviate from their approaches to certain batters based on the next individual in the line-up. Numerous studies have looked at Barry Bond's preceding hitters for instance and found zero correlation between his presence and the pitches the other batter saw.


Talk about "intangibles" all you want; until it effects the game in some measureable fashion they are meaningless.

[jej]

[Jamiecballer]

This is quite frankly a poor rhetorical approach and, well, wrong.

All of the "intangibles" that may or may not exist in baseball are meaningless unless said player translates those onto the field.

Everything in baseball is finally determined on the field and as a matter of fact we can quantify every single thing that occurs there.

That is the very nature of Baseball Statistics, traditional, sabermetric, or otherwise.

A player with all the grit and heart in the world who hits 0.200 and walks one time out of twenty is still a player with a 0.200/0.205 slash line.

The "intangibles" need not be measured, as their results are measurable.

This is the equivalent to saying that one cannot prove gravity exists because we do not completely understand why particles have mass.

Jamiecballer and FNK would say that, until we know the absolute details of the causal mechanism, the results cannot be measured.

A scientist would tell you to jump and measure the result.

See the difference?


EDIT:
Allow me to make this distinction as I am not sure the two of you realize this.

Jeffy, Jej, et al are not making a claim as to the causal mechanism behind a player's performance.

Like any good scientists or adherents to basic logic they are merely demonstrating that there is no significant effect, independent of causal mechanisms, that would provide any evidence that the concept of line-up protection actually alters the outcome of a game.

If it does not alter the outcome of an at-bat, an inning, or a game, then it is irrelevant.

We know, as fact, that pitchers do not deviate from their approaches to certain batters based on the next individual in the line-up. Numerous studies have looked at Barry Bond's preceding hitters for instance and found zero correlation between his presence and the pitches the other batter saw.


Talk about "intangibles" all you want; until it effects the game in some measureable fashion they are meaningless.

let me ask you a simple question that i think makes a point quite clearly. because either you are not understanding, or i am not and i'd like to find out.

i'm not even an intangibles guy so frankly i'm not sure why i got targeted as if i was, but since you brought it up...

lets pretend for a second. let's say a veteran player (whom we will call "player A") encourages another to work harder in the off-season than he ever has before, or gets through to him in a way that no one else has before. if that player goes on to perform better than he ever has before, which baseball statistic do you have that quantifies the value provided by "player A"?

you have none. and it makes you uncomfortable as hell, doesn't it.

[Jamiecballer]

Jamiecballer and FNK would say that, until we know the absolute details of the causal mechanism, the results cannot be measured.

i've not said that at all. i'm saying you don't know what the results mean in an absolute fashion when there is some degree of ignorance, probably closer to complete ignorance of the causative factors.

[SpecialFNK]

I feel a little speechless.
do people even watch baseball games? or are you stuck with your head on the numbers all the time. **** no wonder you think everything is numbers.

any numbers to use for or against protection are flawed. there are so many variables it's insane to even try to go though them all. thousands of different situations.

just because a study was done with Bonds, or Cabrera, or Braun, or McGuire, or Sosa, or anyone else. have they studied every single #3 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #3 batter in every game? have they studied every single #4 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #4 batter in every game? have they studied every single #5 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #5 batter in every game?
and even in those batters, there are so many other situations that could lead to the results on the field that have nothing to do with who the batter is or who is next. where the game is played, what time of day is the game played, when during the season is the game played, are these batters facing left handed or right handed pitchers. thousands and thousands of different situations, all with different effects.

even if you take just 1 pitcher. look at how that 1 pitcher did against batter#3 when that batter#3 was followed by a good batter next, and how he did against batter#3 when that batter#3 was not followed by someone good. for each of those 2 scenarios, factor in where the game was played, night/day game, left handed/right handed pitcher, early/middle/late in the season. and that's just for 1 pitcher in 1 season. do that for every pitcher in 1 season, and then every pitcher in the previous season, and every pitcher in the season before that. 1 pitcher isn't always similar from 1 season to the next. then do all that for every other spot in the batting order. each of those numbers would all be a small sample size good or bad, and can't be put together because they're all different.

there is no way to know whether the hitter on deck is in the pitchers head. he's not going to come out and say so. any results could be based on many different things. even if pitcher A struggled against batter#3 when he was followed by a good hitter, but had good results against batter#3 when he was not followed by a good hitter, those results could be also based on home/away, night/day, left handed/right handed, early/middle/late season. so any results you see are flawed and not an accurate result of any specific thing.

religion was used before. just because one person doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean others don't believe in God to the point that it has a big impact on their daily life and things they do.

if you want to do a poll. you want to ask teenagers at what age did they become sexually active. you could get much different results if you ask a Christian high school compared to a non Christian high school.

my point is, unless you're studying EVERY SINGLE PLAYER out there, your study is meaningless.
a study was done with Bonds and Cabrera. so what, that's 2 players out of thousands of different players.

but you want to say/think that no pitcher in baseball ever lets the on deck hitter get in his head and has that effect their performance, then go ahead.
no argument or numbers are going to convince me differently.

[Jamiecballer]

it was good discussion either way. something tells me it's about to get personal though so we should leave it at that.

[SpecialFNK]

here is something else maybe worth looking into.
does a runner on base effect how a pitcher pitches to the batter?
example. speedy SB threat on 1B. does the pitcher pitch differently to the batter because he is worried/concerned about that runner stealing 2nd? or does the pitcher pitch to the batter exactly the same as he would if the bases were empty?
if a pitcher is only supposed to be concerned with the batter at the plate, then 100% of the time a runner on base regardless of who he is should not effect how the pitcher goes after the batter. right?

[Jamiecballer]

here is something else maybe worth looking into.
does a runner on base effect how a pitcher pitches to the batter?
example. speedy SB threat on 1B. does the pitcher pitch differently to the batter because he is worried/concerned about that runner stealing 2nd? or does the pitcher pitch to the batter exactly the same as he would if the bases were empty?
if a pitcher is only supposed to be concerned with the batter at the plate, then 100% of the time a runner on base regardless of who he is should not effect how the pitcher goes after the batter. right?

if the pitcher is 100% focused on the task at hand it should not affect them so most of the time it probably has no effect.

i can tell you from my years as a pitcher that i was terrible at holding runners on (i am 6'4 with a huge leg kick) and i was very aware of it.

[Jamiecballer]

here is something else maybe worth looking into.
does a runner on base effect how a pitcher pitches to the batter?
example. speedy SB threat on 1B. does the pitcher pitch differently to the batter because he is worried/concerned about that runner stealing 2nd? or does the pitcher pitch to the batter exactly the same as he would if the bases were empty?
if a pitcher is only supposed to be concerned with the batter at the plate, then 100% of the time a runner on base regardless of who he is should not effect how the pitcher goes after the batter. right?

wtf duplicate post

[NoUseForAName]

I feel a little speechless.
do people even watch baseball games? or are you stuck with your head on the numbers all the time. **** no wonder you think everything is numbers.

any numbers to use for or against protection are flawed. there are so many variables it's insane to even try to go though them all. thousands of different situations.

just because a study was done with Bonds, or Cabrera, or Braun, or McGuire, or Sosa, or anyone else. have they studied every single #3 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #3 batter in every game? have they studied every single #4 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #4 batter in every game? have they studied every single #5 batter in the last 10 years, and every single batter who followed that #5 batter in every game?
and even in those batters, there are so many other situations that could lead to the results on the field that have nothing to do with who the batter is or who is next. where the game is played, what time of day is the game played, when during the season is the game played, are these batters facing left handed or right handed pitchers. thousands and thousands of different situations, all with different effects.

even if you take just 1 pitcher. look at how that 1 pitcher did against batter#3 when that batter#3 was followed by a good batter next, and how he did against batter#3 when that batter#3 was not followed by someone good. for each of those 2 scenarios, factor in where the game was played, night/day game, left handed/right handed pitcher, early/middle/late in the season. and that's just for 1 pitcher in 1 season. do that for every pitcher in 1 season, and then every pitcher in the previous season, and every pitcher in the season before that. 1 pitcher isn't always similar from 1 season to the next. then do all that for every other spot in the batting order. each of those numbers would all be a small sample size good or bad, and can't be put together because they're all different.

there is no way to know whether the hitter on deck is in the pitchers head. he's not going to come out and say so. any results could be based on many different things. even if pitcher A struggled against batter#3 when he was followed by a good hitter, but had good results against batter#3 when he was not followed by a good hitter, those results could be also based on home/away, night/day, left handed/right handed, early/middle/late season. so any results you see are flawed and not an accurate result of any specific thing.

religion was used before. just because one person doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean others don't believe in God to the point that it has a big impact on their daily life and things they do.

if you want to do a poll. you want to ask teenagers at what age did they become sexually active. you could get much different results if you ask a Christian high school compared to a non Christian high school.

my point is, unless you're studying EVERY SINGLE PLAYER out there, your study is meaningless.
a study was done with Bonds and Cabrera. so what, that's 2 players out of thousands of different players.

but you want to say/think that no pitcher in baseball ever lets the on deck hitter get in his head and has that effect their performance, then go ahead.
no argument or numbers are going to convince me differently.

Why do people feel people who like stats a lot don't watch games? Id bet most guys who closely follow sabr stats watch more games than most people. I havent for a couple years because ive worked 80-90 hours a week for over two years, but I use to watch 200+ games a year. Its the same in the nfl forum. Oh you like stats? You dont watch the games then!

[Jamiecballer]

Why do people feel people who like stats a lot don't watch games? Id bet most guys who closely follow sabr stats watch more games than most people. I havent for a couple years because ive worked 80-90 hours a week for over two years, but I use to watch 200+ games a year. Its the same in the nfl forum. Oh you like stats? You dont watch the games then!

agreed. it's an unfair assumption.

[IceHawk-181]

Again, you seem to be the one suffering under a misunderstanding Jamiecballer; Let's use your own example:

lets pretend for a second. let's say a veteran player (whom we will call "player A") encourages another to work harder in the off-season than he ever has before, or gets through to him in a way that no one else has before. if that player goes on to perform better than he ever has before, which baseball statistic do you have that quantifies the value provided by "player A"?

Absolutely none.
The value resides in the individual whom translates those motivational pieces into actual on-field accomplishments. Player "A" cannot take player "B's" at-bats or innings, therefore it is still dependent upon the actual on-field performance of player B.

And we are not discussing the worth of off-field value, but actual on-field production.

This was a poor attempt at a straw man argument and easily dispensed with.

i've not said that at all. i'm saying you don't know what the results mean in an absolute fashion when there is some degree of ignorance, probably closer to complete ignorance of the causative factors.

This is perhaps a poor choice of wording, because by definition we do know what the results mean in an absolute fashion.

Baseball is a closed circuit in which the results, what we refer to as baseball statistics, are an absolute description of what a player did.

You are referring to extracting qualitative comparative "worth," we are referring to describing quantitative actual value.

This is another straw man argument, and not inherently related to the discussion at hand.

any numbers to use for or against protection are flawed. there are so many variables it's insane to even try to go though them all. thousands of different situations.

It seems the fundamental concept of a statistical sample is lost on you.

Your choice of this defense is telling.

Only an individual who lacks evidence builds his case on refuting the existence of evidence.

This is a concession from you, whether you realize it or not.

here is something else maybe worth looking into.
does a runner on base effect how a pitcher pitches to the batter?
example. speedy SB threat on 1B. does the pitcher pitch differently to the batter because he is worried/concerned about that runner stealing 2nd? or does the pitcher pitch to the batter exactly the same as he would if the bases were empty?
if a pitcher is only supposed to be concerned with the batter at the plate, then 100% of the time a runner on base regardless of who he is should not effect how the pitcher goes after the batter. right?

I know you think you are being clever, but there is data to test every question you have here.

You can compare a pitcher's standard approach to batters in general and specific batters in various on-base situations and plot then against a control (in this case career averages) and find your answer.

All of this data exists, it is your refusal to actually produce any to back up your arguments.

[Jamiecballer]

Again, you seem to be the one suffering under a misunderstanding Jamiecballer; Let's use your own example:

Absolutely none.
The value resides in the individual whom translates those motivational pieces into actual on-field accomplishments. Player "A" cannot take player "B's" at-bats or innings, therefore it is still dependent upon the actual on-field performance of player B.

And we are not discussing the worth of off-field value, but actual on-field production.

This was a poor attempt at a straw man argument and easily dispensed with.

how can you say there is zero value in Player A's contribution if they served as a catalyst for change in Player B and thus an improvement in his performance?

[IceHawk-181]

Doubling down on the straw man? Or actually not understanding the differentiation between:

On Field Contribution – What Statistics Actually Measure
Off-Field Contribution – Causal variables

If you want to make a causal-relationship argument you would still compare actual on-field statistics before and after said mentoring program.

However, at the end of the day the only on-field value comes from player execution, which is measureable in absolute terms via baseball statistics, traditional and otherwise.

[IceHawk-181]

If you cannot measure outcomes without a full understanding of causal variables then 2,000 years of the Scientific Method has been in error and someone needs to tell academia to head back to the drawing boards...