Baseball Myths

[Jamiecballer]

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.

exactly! but if you are looking at the stats at the end of the season and evaluating the performance of six individuals how do you know which one's had a Player A in their lives and which ones didn't? we don't. we aren't privy to those interactions. factoring in those variables would be impossible, so it's easier to just say that Player A had no part in Player B's success.

sorry dude. life doesn't work that way. try taking this attitude to your workplace and see what they think of it.

edit: funny you should mention academia, are you a prof by chance?

[SpecialFNK]

there are so many examples good or bad, but all a small sample size.

Andre Ethier.
June 5th, 2011.
in a game facing Travis Wood, then with the Reds. Ethier went 2 for 3, with Matt Kemp hitting behind him. Matt Kemp also hit a HR in that game in the 1st inning, a 1st inning where Ethier before him hit a sacrifice fly (out).
in the 3rd inning Ethier hit a double. in the 4th inning Ethier hit a single. could Wood have had ANY thought in his head about Kemp being next? how is one supposed to know what Wood was thinking in the 2 AB to Ethier after Kemp's HR in the 1st. coming into this game Kemp had a line of .318/.395/.576/.971 on the season.
you can't say Wood was not concerned with Kemp being up next, and you can't say Wood had no thoughts at all about Kemp being up next. you just don't know. if a pitcher allows the on deck hitter to get into his head, he could make a mistake to the batter at the plate because he wasn't fully concentrating on the batter. pitchers are human, it happens.

May 6th, 2012.
in another game facing Travis Wood, this time with the Cubs. Ethier went 0 for 3. in this game Juan Rivera was hitting behind Ethier.

but there are other factors. the 2011 game was in Cincinnati, where on the season Wood was 5.86/1.50. the 2012 game was in Chicago. Wood is also a left handed pitcher. in 2011 Ethier was .220/.258/.305/.563 against LHP. in 2012 Ethier was .222/.276/.330/.606 against LHP.
so why was Wood able to get Ethier out all 3 times in the 2012 game, but only his 1st AB in the 2011 game?

there are things that happen with baseball, that you can't put into a number. I can't pull a number to show that as evidence, because there is no number to get.

[IceHawk-181]

exactly! but if you are looking at the stats at the end of the season and evaluating the performance of six individuals how do you know which one's had a Player A in their lives and which ones didn't? we don't. we aren't privy to those interactions. factoring in those variables would be impossible, so it's easier to just say that Player A had no part in Player B's success.

It does not matter.

We know how the performance changed and therefore we can measure the outcomes.

This is the reason I continually refer to this exchange as a Straw Man Argument.

You have abandoned the main question of measurable outcomes and are pursuing a dead-end argument about causal factors that lacks logical coherence or internal consistency because you have failed, to this point, to logically support a single argument you have put forth.

sorry dude. life doesn't work that way. try taking this attitude to your workplace and see what they think of it.

edit: funny you should mention academia, are you a prof by chance?

I hold a Masters Degree in History, am finishing my Doctorate, teaching the second half of the American Survey Course, and studying graduate level Quantitative Analysis on top of my own research.

To say that I hold the necessary credentials and the professional acumen to speak intelligently on the subjects of deductive reasoning, the mechanism of epistemological inquiry, and the methodological underpinnings of critical analysis would be an understatement.

redacted

You did not analyze a single piece of evidence in that reply.

What is Etheir's career performance against Wood normalized for protection?
What is Wood's pitch selection in these specific cases normalized for whom he is facing?
Was Wood's pitch selection altered in comparison to these norms?
If alteration existed does it correlate to the individual in the on-deck circle?

Assumption and presuppositions are not proof SpecialFNK.

I can't pull a number to show that as evidence, because there is no number to get.

Your refusal to actually analyze something does not prove it cannot be analyzed.

[Jamiecballer]

It does not matter.

We know how the performance changed and therefore we can measure the outcomes.

This is the reason I continually refer to this exchange as a Straw Man Argument.

You have abandoned the main question of measurable outcomes and are pursuing a dead-end argument about causal factors that lacks logical coherence or internal consistency because you have failed, to this point, to logically support a single argument you have put forth.

2 things and i'm done.

1) i can't abandon something i was never talking about. if you want to talk straw man arguments this is a great example right here. i was never talking about measuring results. anybody can organize numbers into columns. it's not hard. doesn't interest me much. analyzing why is infinitely more interesting.

2) i'm not questioning your intelligence, just your willingness to be open minded.

[IceHawk-181]

Also, Rivera went 3 for 5 on May 6th, 2012, driving in 2 RBIs.

Which seriously hurts your argument, as on May 6th Ethier had a 0.600 Hitter responsible for 2 of the Dodger's 3 runs protecting him that day.

[IceHawk-181]

2 things and i'm done.

1) i can't abandon something i was never talking about. if you want to talk straw man arguments this is a great example right here. i was never talking about measuring results. anybody can organize numbers into columns. it's not hard. doesn't interest me much. analyzing why is infinitely more interesting.

2) i'm not questioning your intelligence, just your willingness to be open minded.

1) Concession Accepted
2) In matters of Logic and Math there is only right and wrong. You happen to be wrong.

[1908_Cubs]

there are so many examples good or bad, but all a small sample size.

Andre Ethier.
June 5th, 2011.
in a game facing Travis Wood, then with the Reds. Ethier went 2 for 3, with Matt Kemp hitting behind him. Matt Kemp also hit a HR in that game in the 1st inning, a 1st inning where Ethier before him hit a sacrifice fly (out).
in the 3rd inning Ethier hit a double. in the 4th inning Ethier hit a single. could Wood have had ANY thought in his head about Kemp being next? how is one supposed to know what Wood was thinking in the 2 AB to Ethier after Kemp's HR in the 1st. coming into this game Kemp had a line of .318/.395/.576/.971 on the season.
you can't say Wood was not concerned with Kemp being up next, and you can't say Wood had no thoughts at all about Kemp being up next. you just don't know. if a pitcher allows the on deck hitter to get into his head, he could make a mistake to the batter at the plate because he wasn't fully concentrating on the batter. pitchers are human, it happens.

May 6th, 2012.
in another game facing Travis Wood, this time with the Cubs. Ethier went 0 for 3. in this game Juan Rivera was hitting behind Ethier.

but there are other factors. the 2011 game was in Cincinnati, where on the season Wood was 5.86/1.50. the 2012 game was in Chicago. Wood is also a left handed pitcher. in 2011 Ethier was .220/.258/.305/.563 against LHP. in 2012 Ethier was .222/.276/.330/.606 against LHP.
so why was Wood able to get Ethier out all 3 times in the 2012 game, but only his 1st AB in the 2011 game?
there are things that happen with baseball, that you can't put into a number. I can't pull a number to show that as evidence, because there is no number to get.

Because nothing is perfect and no statistic is predictive it is only a cumulation of things that have happened. What we can deduce is this: typically, Ethier is trash against LHP. It doesn't mean he will be in every AB. He had a good game against Travis Wood. That's it. Once. What you fail to mention is that Juan Rivera actually went 3-5 in that game against Wood. If it were the protection that made Ethier play well once, why would Travis Wood not have pitched Ethier differently and been scared of Rivera? I mean, Rivera hit a home run in the 3rd inning. Isn't that essentiall the precipice of your argument?

All of the above just continues to show the myth of the situation. Ethier is bad against LHP. He has been his entire career. Doesn't mean he can't have a good game ocasionally, it happens. One time, Neifi Perez hit a game winning GS for the Cubs! Against the Cardinals! In St. Louis! In extras! Random events like this happen. Finding one example where Ethier played well and then arbitraily attributing it to his protection is ridiculous. Especially in a case where Juan Rivera had a good game.

[Jamiecballer]

1) Concession Accepted
2) In matters of Logic and Math there is only right and wrong. You happen to be wrong.

bahahah. sure sure.

[IceHawk-181]

Because nothing is perfect and no statistic is predictive it is only a cumulation of things that have happened.

Absolutely correct.

bahahah. sure sure.

You have failed to properly define your point of view.
You have failed to support your arguments with logical points.
You have shifted into straw men arguments when faced with an inability to prove an initial point.
You floated a not so subtle baiting technique.

And all in all have yet to provide a single piece of evidence or a single logically consistent and rhetorically coherent argument in favor of your point of view.

That would be the definition of a Concession.


There is zero evidence that line-up protection exists in baseball.

Only the accomplishments on the field have a direct effect on the outcome of a game.

Anything that happens on the field can be seen, tracked, and measured.

In other news sliding head first into a base does not get you there faster and a baseball cannot rise after being thrown.

[Jamiecballer]

You have failed to properly define your point of view.
You have failed to support your arguments with logical points.
You have shifted into straw men arguments when faced with an inability to prove an initial point.
You floated a not so subtle baiting technique.

And all in all have yet to provide a single piece of evidence or a single logically consistent and rhetorically coherent argument in favor of your point of view.

That would be the definition of a Concession.


There is zero evidence that line-up protection exists in baseball.

Only the accomplishments on the field have a direct effect on the outcome of a game.

Anything that happens on the field can be seen, tracked, and measured.

i'm not continuing. i can see you have a need to be "correct" and if you take my lack of interest in continuing to talk as some sort of victory i am happy to let you have it. well done big boy.

[sexicano31]

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!

Indeed. I watch about 140-150 phillies games a year. And thanks to MLB.tv I watch all the late night games every night

[NoUseForAName]

there are so many examples good or bad, but all a small sample size.

Andre Ethier.
June 5th, 2011.
in a game facing Travis Wood, then with the Reds. Ethier went 2 for 3, with Matt Kemp hitting behind him. Matt Kemp also hit a HR in that game in the 1st inning, a 1st inning where Ethier before him hit a sacrifice fly (out).
in the 3rd inning Ethier hit a double. in the 4th inning Ethier hit a single. could Wood have had ANY thought in his head about Kemp being next? how is one supposed to know what Wood was thinking in the 2 AB to Ethier after Kemp's HR in the 1st. coming into this game Kemp had a line of .318/.395/.576/.971 on the season.
you can't say Wood was not concerned with Kemp being up next, and you can't say Wood had no thoughts at all about Kemp being up next. you just don't know. if a pitcher allows the on deck hitter to get into his head, he could make a mistake to the batter at the plate because he wasn't fully concentrating on the batter. pitchers are human, it happens.

May 6th, 2012.
in another game facing Travis Wood, this time with the Cubs. Ethier went 0 for 3. in this game Juan Rivera was hitting behind Ethier.

but there are other factors. the 2011 game was in Cincinnati, where on the season Wood was 5.86/1.50. the 2012 game was in Chicago. Wood is also a left handed pitcher. in 2011 Ethier was .220/.258/.305/.563 against LHP. in 2012 Ethier was .222/.276/.330/.606 against LHP.
so why was Wood able to get Ethier out all 3 times in the 2012 game, but only his 1st AB in the 2011 game?

there are things that happen with baseball, that you can't put into a number. I can't pull a number to show that as evidence, because there is no number to get.

This is an extremely small sample size and really proves nothing.

Edit: not to mention why was Ethier better in 2012 then 2011? Kemp was much better in 2011 then he was last year, yet Ethier's better year came in 2012.

[IceHawk-181]

i'm not continuing. i can see you have a need to be "correct" and if you take my lack of interest in continuing to talk as some sort of victory i am happy to let you have it. well done big boy.

Well that is true, I do have this rather aberrant desire to be "correct," disabuse myself of unsubstantiated assumptions, refute irrational lines of thought, and base my claims in logical posits, evidentiary support, and consistent and coherent rhetorical modes while applying the same burden of proof to myself that I would apply to an individual with whom I am debating.

I am just weird I guess.

Personally, I never watch games anymore!
I just have an algorithm load up WPA changes into my brain while it calculates changes to OPS+ and WAR...

[Jamiecballer]

Well that is true, I do have this rather aberrant desire to be "correct," disabuse myself of unsubstantiated assumptions, refute irrational lines of thought, and base my claims in logical posits, evidentiary support, and consistent and coherent rhetorical modes while applying the same burden of proof to myself that I would apply to an individual with whom I am debating.

I am just weird I guess.

Personally, I never watch games anymore!
I just have an algorithm load up WPA changes into my brain while it calculates changes to OPS+ and WAR...

hahaha. at least you have a sense of humor that's good

[Guppyfighter]

It does not matter.

We know how the performance changed and therefore we can measure the outcomes.

This is the reason I continually refer to this exchange as a Straw Man Argument.

You have abandoned the main question of measurable outcomes and are pursuing a dead-end argument about causal factors that lacks logical coherence or internal consistency because you have failed, to this point, to logically support a single argument you have put forth.


I hold a Masters Degree in History, am finishing my Doctorate, teaching the second half of the American Survey Course, and studying graduate level Quantitative Analysis on top of my own research.

To say that I hold the necessary credentials and the professional acumen to speak intelligently on the subjects of deductive reasoning, the mechanism of epistemological inquiry, and the methodological underpinnings of critical analysis would be an understatement.


You did not analyze a single piece of evidence in that reply.

What is Etheir's career performance against Wood normalized for protection?
What is Wood's pitch selection in these specific cases normalized for whom he is facing?
Was Wood's pitch selection altered in comparison to these norms?
If alteration existed does it correlate to the individual in the on-deck circle?

Assumption and presuppositions are not proof SpecialFNK.


Your refusal to actually analyze something does not prove it cannot be analyzed.

I agree with most every thing you are saying, but the bold makes me cringe. "This is me proving I know things"