Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 31 of 43 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 640

Thread: Baseball Myths

  1. #451
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    what about pitch speed? what about which specific pitcher a pitch came from? even the same pitch is different from one pitcher to the next.
    a cutter from Mariano Rivera isn't going to be the same as a cutter from another pitcher. not all fastballs are equal, they can vary from pitcher to pitcher to pitcher.
    different pitchers have different specialty pitches that are not going to be the same as others. a pitcher who can throw a great change up isn't going to be the same as another pitcher with an average change up. if you look at a chart that says "X"% of change ups, is that taking into account who the change ups came from? or any other pitch?
    what about taking into account whether the pitcher was pitching from the windup compared to from the stretch? these are things can can lead to different results.
    these may be small things, but they factor into the results and can't just be ignored.

    what if you took a pitcher to see how he reacts on his next pitch after giving up a HR. different pitchers could have it effect them differently. some can get upset and lose their composure. some may get upset and hit/throw at the next batter. I've seen it happen. if a pitcher gave up 20 HR in a season, then he would have 20 times when he would have a 1st pitch after that. but of course it's easy for one to say, small sample size.
    it's happened different times when a pitcher can give up a HR, and then intentionally hit/throw at the next batter. so why did he do that? what about when the opposing pitcher comes out for the next inning and he intentionally hits/throws at the batter? is it going to specifically say that in the statistics? or does that go down simply as HBP?

    this is all the evidence I need.
    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb
    But if the pitcher and catcher are worried enough about Ethier in the on-deck circle while Kemp is in the batter's box, Maddon would argue that all the run-expectancy charts and data don't mean anything. Kemp will see better pitches because Ethier is in the pitcher's head.

    "Absolutely -- or even the manager's head, or even the pitching coach's head or even whomever's head," Maddon said. "Everyone talks about the data and how wonderful it is, and I'm truly a believer, but there's also the buy-in component also. Unless you have total buy-in from everybody involved, it doesn't necessarily have the same impact."
    In other words, as Maddon said, lineup protection will exist so long as the people on the mound, behind the plate and in the dugout believe it's important.
    that from a major league manager who is in the game on a daily basis.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    38,019
    vCash
    1500
    Major League managers are not your go-to-source. They believe bunting is good. Sac flys. It's been statistically proven they harm run production, not create it. Managers are generally behind the time, not in front of it. Even guys like Maddon who are "forward thinking" when it comes to managers is behind the times.

    It's a clear cry to authority. It's a fallacy and not your friend for argument's sake. That's literally debate 101.

    Again, while you can bring up a situational issue that occurs it's been proven due to sample size that those situations you continually bring up, the one-time occurrences, don't matter over the course of large sample sizes. Sure, in a one time event, yes, maybe something changes. But you can make those strawman arguments all across the board. Using the one time arguments, you can find games where Neifi Perez looked like Jesus and Albert Pujols went 0-for. Yet, we're looking at broad spectrum, as that's the only way to show existence. The reason we use a large sample size is clear: it's to eliminate one-time occurrences, like Neifi Perez's game winning Grand Slam, or Albert Pujols' 0-fors. Why? Because they're only one time variances. Large sample sizes show much better the ability of one player's outcomes. If you didn't, you could come to the conclusion that Neifi Perez was better than Pujols, which is just obviously not true. The same goes for lineup protection. Using these stupid one-time occurrences as the basis of your argument blurs the reality of the situation.

    Even your argument, your article, proved that "output doesn't exist". If output doesn't change, then why do we care? If output doesn't correlate to runs scored.....then protection doesn't exist. I mean, it's literally that black and white. The idea is that protection affects the outcomes because it puts hitters in better positions. Yet, if output doesn't go up, then protection simply doesn't exist. If it doesn't affect the score, and it doesn't affect the outcome....why the **** do we care?
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-01-2013 at 07:32 PM.
    #ClutchTime

  3. #453
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    why does sample size even matter?
    even if there was 1 game where your #4 hitter was replaced by a backup and for some reason still hitting in the #4 spot, and because of that your #3 hitter was pitched to differently, that's still protection even if it was only for 1 game. that should still count. for that 1 game your #3 hitter was not protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Major League managers are not your go-to-source. They believe bunting is good. Sac flys. It's been statistically proven they harm run production, not create it.
    I completely disagree with this.
    and this is why they are managers and saber geeks are not.
    the object of the game is to score more runs. there are situations where bunting and sac flys lead to a run.
    if a sac fly leads to a run, that's a run. if there was no sac fly and the following batters made an out (which batters do what 70% of the time) then that would have been 1 run that did not score.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    11,458
    vCash
    1500
    But he made an out. Thats not good.

    You act like this stuff is made up and its not. This is real, documented, measurable stuff
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


  5. #455
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    38,019
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    why does sample size even matter?
    This is what you're not getting. Let me give you a real-world example of something that happened to me.

    So I'm a history teacher. I teach, specifically, 6th grade geography. The other day, we were doing the capitals of Europe. We've been doing them for some time. I have one student in class who tried to answer every question by yelling the answer out in class, despite the rule of "raising your hand". I would say "What's the capital of Spain?" and he'd yell out "Paris!". "No". Eventually we'd move on to the next, and he'd again, yell, "Paris!". After about 15 (and literally, every response from him was the same), I got to France and he yelled out "Paris!" This is why you can't use one example. If you used one example, I could say "Look, little Johnny knows his capitals of Europe, he correctly answered that Paris is in fact, the capital of France". However, in the large sample size, he was 1-of-15. He failed miserably. He obviously has no idea what the capitals of Europe are despite the fact that he guessed on one. It's the old statement of "even a blind squirrel finds a nut".

    Sure, you can find an example in which a player seems to have gotten "protection". You've tried to make up a million examples of that. But they're one occurrence variance. This is the exact reason you need sample size. When you find one example you need to ask yourself "is this apart of a trend or is it a simple random act?". Well, when we look across the league to find that. In this case....the answer is no, there is no larger trend. It means that while there may have been a random example in which it seems that something exists, the larger picture says it doesn't.

    I mean, this is really, super basic stuff.


    I completely disagree with this.
    and this is why they are managers and saber geeks are not.
    the object of the game is to score more runs. there are situations where bunting and sac flys lead to a run.
    if a sac fly leads to a run, that's a run. if there was no sac fly and the following batters made an out (which batters do what 70% of the time) then that would have been 1 run that did not score.
    1) Most batters don't make an "out" 70% of the time. In fact, the league OBP is over .300. I believe it's closer to .320. So we're talking 68% of the time. Don't just make **** up.

    2) No, the reason managers are managers are usually because they were around the game as players. Most of these managers have no clue about advanced metrics. Managers, especially at the MLB level, are generally babysitters. They make the lineups and they keep the clubhouse even keeled. Mesh the players. They're not coaching **** any more. This idea that they get the job because "they're the brightest minds in baseball" is idiotic. There are tons of people who are more qualified at line up production in America than idiots like Bobby Valentine, but they don't get the call because they're unknowns.

    3) The object of the game IS to score runs. Literally, it's been proven, statistically, that bunting deters, not helps, your team from scoring runs. Jesus Christ. Again, this is basic **** we've been able to see for years. Another myth debunked! Outs are a finite resource. Giving up outs when you only get 27 of them harms you. Bunting only is necessary if the game is tied and it's 9th inning and you're the home team. Other then that the goal should and will always be to score as many runs as possible. Each out given up takes away from a team's ability to score. We can prove that without a measure of doubt. It's been done. A lot. Look it up.
    #ClutchTime

  6. #456
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post

    1) Most batters don't make an "out" 70% of the time. In fact, the league OBP is over .300. I believe it's closer to .320. So we're talking 68% of the time. Don't just make **** up.
    I meant roughly.
    and technically it would vary from batter to batter to batter since not all batters get on base at the same rate. but still I meant roughly.

    how many times has one team won because they made less outs than the other team?
    I could swear every single baseball game ever played has been won or lost based on runs.

    not all outs are equal. there are productive outs made that lead to a run being scored.
    it's not about about not making outs. a team can have more situations of not making outs, leave those runners on base, and not win the game.
    runs win games, not number of men on base.

    situation1.
    runner on 3rd with 1 out.
    batter hits a fly ball (out), runner tags on a sacrifice fly and scores a run.
    batter makes any out. end of inning. 1 run scored.

    situation2.
    runner on 3rd with 1 out.
    batter strikes out.
    runner on 3rd with 2 out.
    batter makes any out. end of inning. 0 runs scored.

    which situation is better? exactly the same number of outs, but the difference is a run was scored in the 1st situation and not the next.
    obviously you would prefer to score as many runs as possible, so you would prefer to get on base whether it's a walk or a hit. but seeing how batters make an out roughly 68% of the time then an out is going to be made more often than not.

    different situations can lead to what approach you take. sometimes you're facing a great pitcher who isn't giving up many hits in the game period. you might have to take advantage of a scoring situation when you can.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I meant roughly.
    and technically it would vary from batter to batter to batter since not all batters get on base at the same rate. but still I meant roughly.

    how many times has one team won because they made less outs than the other team?
    I could swear every single baseball game ever played has been won or lost based on runs.

    not all outs are equal. there are productive outs made that lead to a run being scored.
    it's not about about not making outs. a team can have more situations of not making outs, leave those runners on base, and not win the game.
    runs win games, not number of men on base.

    situation1.
    runner on 3rd with 1 out.
    batter hits a fly ball (out), runner tags on a sacrifice fly and scores a run.
    batter makes any out. end of inning. 1 run scored.

    situation2.
    runner on 3rd with 1 out.
    batter strikes out.
    runner on 3rd with 2 out.
    batter makes any out. end of inning. 0 runs scored.

    which situation is better? exactly the same number of outs, but the difference is a run was scored in the 1st situation and not the next.
    obviously you would prefer to score as many runs as possible, so you would prefer to get on base whether it's a walk or a hit. but seeing how batters make an out roughly 68% of the time then an out is going to be made more often than not.

    different situations can lead to what approach you take. sometimes you're facing a great pitcher who isn't giving up many hits in the game period. you might have to take advantage of a scoring situation when you can.
    Stop it, dude.

  8. #458
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    38,019
    vCash
    1500
    I absolutely, positively, love, that you've once again taken this whole idea of "sample size" and just thrown it out the window. It's been said over and over again one time variances don't ****ing mean anything. It doesn't.

    You can sit here until you're blue in the goddamned face and bring up the false/fake/madeup examples and it doesn't change the facts. You could literally come up with a real world example of where a bunt somehow lead to winning and it wouldn't change the historical data that proves you wrong. I mean, how many times does it need to be said that one time examples don't strengthen your argument? It's a one time variance. It's a simple random event. It only becomes proof of a larger event if you can prove causation and trend. You're doing neither by showing a one time event. A one time event can literally, by sheer definition of one time events, NOT be evidence of a trend which is a multi-event occurrence!

    A run expectancy chart

    Runner on first base with zero outs: .853 chance of scoring a run
    Runner on second base with one outs: .678 chance of scoring a run

    For example. This, proves that bunting with a runner on first base and no outs, decreases your ability to score a run. Bigger the numbers = the more times a runner scored in that situation.

    I mean it's simple. Look at the whole chart. You can see how different situations change the outcome of runs scores.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-01-2013 at 08:18 PM.
    #ClutchTime

  9. #459
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,083
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    and this is why they are managers and saber geeks are not.
    Why do you have to go there? I don't consider myself to be an expert on sabrmetrics, but I do respect that they are a superior form of information than traditional statistics and I welcome new credible information when it's made available. If your argument hadn't completely destroyed your credibility, remarks like the one you made above finish the job.

  10. #460
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    19,823
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mtf View Post
    Why do you have to go there? I don't consider myself to be an expert on sabrmetrics, but I do respect that they are a superior form of information than traditional statistics and I welcome new credible information when it's made available. If your argument hadn't completely destroyed your credibility, remarks like the one you made above finish the job.

  11. #461
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    While I rarely use the term it is unfortunately perfectly applicable here.

    SpecialFNK is literally ignorant of how statistics work.

    For a while I thought he was merely being obstinate because he is a fan of traditional baseball myths (perfectly understandable as much of the baseball fandom has been indoctrinated to accept appeals to authority and tradition as fact for some time), however that is not the case.

    He does not understand statistics, at all, and refuses to learn because he has a personal or emotional attachment to an arbitrary idea.

    That he has completely failed to recognize that individual anecdotes are in no way representative of a significant or meaningful sample size, that he clearly does not understand what a sample size is or why the concept of statistical significance in a game that has been defined by recordable and measurable stats since its inception are all proof of this.

    SpecialFNK, you have been literally, mathematically, and logically proven wrong.

    Jeffy, 1908 Cubs, et al have expended a great deal of logic that, for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics, literally proves you wrong.

    You respond ad nauseum with rhetoric and fallacies.

    You are wedded to your opinion and that is understandable and fine for you.

    It is also wrong and your continued inability to actually prove a single assertion you have made simply demonstrates the untenable and illogical nature of your views.

    It has nothing to do with so-called "advanced metrics" or anything like that.

    It is simply a refusal to accept the fundamental basis of deductive reasoning, logic, and the foundational precepts of introductory statistics.

    In short, you know you are wrong but do not want to admit it or you truly do not understand what has been presented to you.

    Either way, you lost his argument some time ago.

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by mtf View Post
    Why do you have to go there? I don't consider myself to be an expert on sabrmetrics, but I do respect that they are a superior form of information than traditional statistics and I welcome new credible information when it's made available. If your argument hadn't completely destroyed your credibility, remarks like the one you made above finish the job.

    Uh, more and more managers are stat geeks. If you noticed, the manager of the year, Melvin is a stat geek. The runner up is also a stat geek. The Orioles manager.

  13. #463
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,083
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppyfighter View Post
    Uh, more and more managers are stat geeks. If you noticed, the manager of the year, Melvin is a stat geek. The runner up is also a stat geek. The Orioles manager.
    You do realize that I was in no way talking about Managers, right?

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by mtf View Post
    You do realize that I was in no way talking about Managers, right?
    Weird. I quoted the wrong person evidently. I meant to quote the other person who said managers are managers because they are not stat geeks.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    sometimes I really wonder if people actually watch baseball games. I have watched games where you can see with your eyes situations where something like a bunt was the reason a run was scored. I'm not saying a bunt is always a good thing. I'm saying there are instances where a bunt was the difference in a game being won or lost. I have also seen games where a bunt happened and you're thinking WHY WAS HE BUNTING! ..so I'm not saying every bunt is good.
    if you don't think bunting is beneficial, then you're saying bunting should be done ZERO % of the time. I'm saying bunting has it's place in certain situations.
    how am I supposed to look through millions of games looking for evidence of where a bunt lead to a run. and even if I did look and found an example, how do you KNOW what would have happened if the player did not bunt in that situation? you would never know because how often is the situation exactly the same with all the same variables.
    baseball is a game that is actually played, on a field. numbers are great, but they're not accurate 100% of the time. otherwise the game would be very simple.
    by taking a bunt out of the situation, you're ASSUMING what would happen. seeing as how batters make an out roughly 68% of the time, not bunting the batter would still make an out 68% of the time.
    every team has 27 outs, and it's what's done with those 27 outs that determines who wins the game. in the right situation bunting a runner moves him 90 feet closer to scoring.

    Runner on first base with zero outs: .853 chance of scoring a run
    Runner on second base with one outs: .678 chance of scoring a run
    does this take into account who the pitchers are? no. so these numbers are flawed and meaningless.
    runner on first base with zero outs. .853 chance of scoring a run. so that .853 would be the same if David Price is pitching compared to Luke Hochevar? no. so like I said before, these numbers are flawed because they don't take into account the difference in who is pitching, or even the difference in many different situations.
    if David Price is pitching a gem, you have a runner on first base with nobody out, a bunt might be something you consider. if Luke Hochevar is pitching, you have a runner on first base with nobody out, in this situation you're not likely going to consider bunting because Hochevar isn't the same level of pitcher.
    that makes a difference. if you say it doesn't, your saying all pitchers are equal and they're not, and you can't even say with accuracy they it "evens out" when you don't know that.
    if you're not taking into account the pitchers, the numbers don't mean a thing.

    why does a small sample size not count? do you know what larger sample sizes are? small sample sizes added together. seeing as how there are what thousands or millions of different reasons for results, technically not all small sample sizes can just be thrown together and be called equal.

    some time ago it was said a pitcher will never change his approach to the batter at bate based on who the batter is on deck.
    August 1st 2011 Prince Fielder then with the Brewers was intentionally walked twice, because in the lineup the Brewers had Felipe Lopez batting behind Fielder. the pitcher changed the way he pitched to Fielder because of who was on deck, because Fielder had no protection. which is what I said before, that most lineups are examples of protection because the pitcher can not change his approach.
    but of course this is a small sample size and isn't going to count.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

Page 31 of 43 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •