CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
In this case, it might be a little bit generational, although I don't know your age, so maybe not. It's a slight alteration (Crain/brain) to a line from a very popular pop song from 2008.
If you weren't listening to pop music at that time, you probably wouldn't have heard it, or at least not enough to remember that one line. It's not like it's in the chorus or a really important part of the song.
For what it's worth, I thought it was an hilarious title.
One thing occurs to me - if challenges come at the manager's discretion, they're going to want to make the best decisions possible. I would think that involves having someone back in the clubhouse watching the game on TV who can see all the replays and tell the manager if it's worth challenging.
Now, the problem becomes that you need some time for the TV-watcher to make the determination and relay that info to the manager. I'd be worried about stalling in these situations.
For example, imagine that a runner tries to steal second and is called safe in a close play. Will the shortstop or secondbaseman be coached to dawdle before throwing the ball back to the pitcher, or will the pitcher be coached to take a really long time playing with the rosin bag before delivering the next pitch?
Conversely, if the runner is out, is the runner instructed to make his way really slowly back to the dugout, or is the batter coached to step out of the box a couple of times before the next pitch?
Maybe the effect of something like this would be negligible, but it might be kind of irritating to know that each time a play is remotely close, there's going to be a minute of unofficial delay while teams figure out whether or not to challenge.
"RBI aren't about luck. It's bat control and sacrificing personal stats like AVG to do whatever is needed to get the run in."
I can certainly understand what's being suggested here, but this should be something we can evaluate. For instance, it's pretty easy to look up the AL leaderboard for sacrifice flies. Cabrera's in a big pack in 15th place with 6 SFs. The leader, Mark Teixeira, has 12. That raw number should probably be adjusted to account for how many times the batter has come up with < 2 outs and a runner on 3rd.
I don't know how to look up how many times Cabrera has grounded out while driving in a run, but sac flies + RBI groundouts would be the only 2 scenarios covered in "sacrificing AVG to get the run in", right? Maybe Cabrera has a huge number of RBI groundouts and his SF/chance is really high, which would validate what the insider was arguing.
I suspect it's more likely that Cabrera has the most RBI because he has the most extra base hits, the most total bases, and the 2nd most hits in the AL. In other words, accumulating the "personal stats" are where the RBI came from.
Victor Conte said recently:
"...what they're doing is using fast-acting testosterone - creams, gels, orals, patches - and they clear so quickly, sometimes in a matter of hours. … They could conceivably, after a game, use testosterone to help with tissue repair and healing and recovery and by the time they'd show up at the park the next day, their PE (progesterone/estradiol) ratio would be normal."
It is 100% possible that Braun could have submitted another sample that was legitimately clean without proving anything about the original test.
That's how I'm "rationalizing" his clean test.
Schmo is Todd T. Squirrel.
From the linked article:
"Notice that the slope of the regression line for the cap era (-0.72) is singificantly steeper than the slope of the line for the pre-cap era (-0.54). This indicates that year-to-year parity has indeed improved since the salary cap. It's easier for bad teams to improve and harder for good teams to stay on top.
The R-squared for the cap era is also stronger than for the pre-cap era (0.35 compared to 0.27). This indicates that in the cap era not only do team's year-to-year fortunes change to a greater magnitude, but more reliably and predictably too.
So we can say that yes, although the salary cap has made little or no difference in the within-year parity of team strength, the cap has made a difference in the year-to-year churn of improvement and decline."
The author seems to be saying that the cap has increased parity.
"1) In order to be a "bust," by definition, most players drafted after you need to have outperformed you."
Huh? What is the definition of "bust" so that this is true?
More broadly, your point seems to be that if Wieters goes on to a 10 year career as a .260/.320/.400 catcher with good defense, then he can't be called a disappointment.
No, that would be a disappointment. And you're being dishonest in how you're framing it. He's not just a "top 10 draft pick". He was the #1 prospect in the game (Baseball America among others) heading into 2009, having destroyed AA with a line of .365/.460/.625. As a switch-hitting catcher. Everyone was projecting stardom for Wieters, not just PECOTA. Meeting expectations is relative to those expectations.
As an example: If Stephen Strasburg (in an alternate universe where he stays healthy) turned out to be a pitcher who could give a team 180 innings of 4.15 ERA starting pitching for 10 years, would it be fair to call him a disappointment? Maybe even a bust?
Sorry, just noticed that I wrote the wrong hash value - the correct one is 3c771e9fb7264. The row with LDA_RT_PRIOR = 0.042.
(for some reason, I can't use "Post Reply")
I don't have any special statistical education/knowledge, but I'll give it a shot...
I was mainly focused on LD %, as this was the area where the two sets diverged the most (as far as I could tell), and my understanding is that LD % has the biggest impact on babip. Set A had much more extreme LD % values than Set B. The highest LD % in Set A is 40% vs. 28% in Set B, and the lowest is 4% in Set A vs. 14% in Set B. Set B exists in a narrower range than Set A.
Based on this, I'd be more inclined to use Set B to predict future performance, since generally things regress to the mean over time. When Set A says a player has a LD % of 4%, while Set B is saying 18%, 18% is probably closer to what's actually going to happen in the future, because 4% LD % is aberrantly low.
Set A looks to me to be some form of raw play-by-play observed data. Set B, I don't really know, but it seems like it was derived in some way as opposed to being just observed results.
I took a look at a few of the extremes, and the Set B data doesn't appear to match up with reality. In particular, Cristian Guzman from 1999 (hash=7b0dbb617dcdf7c9) seems like Set B can't come from what actually happened. Set B is claiming Guzman hit 13 line drives, 57 ground balls, 1 fly ball, and no pop-ups in his first 100 PAs, but the play-by-play data conflicts with this. Unless something weird is going on with bunts, I'm not seeing how those results can be even close to accurate.
I will be interested to learn what Set B is.
I will also be not all that shocked if I'm completely off base on some or all of this...
These are great! And since imitation is the most sincere form or flattery -
Even as Jeter and Posada are fading and with Pettite retired, one Yankee continues to defy time. An excerpt from Keats' "Ode on a Panamanian Closer":
Thou still unravish'd stalwart of the 9th,
Thou foster-child of pressure and slow time,
Mariano Rivera, who effortlessly throws
A wicked cutter more sweetly than our rhyme:
What late-game legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Fenway or the mound of New Yankee?
What men or gods are these? What runners stranded?
What broken bats? What struggle to escape?
What strikeouts swinging? What wild ecstasy?
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to fans, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know in baseball, and all ye need to know.
An autumn leaf falls
as Josh Vitters hacks away,
lost in the tall weeds
Lincecum's career home ERA: 3.06
Lincecum's career away ERA: 3.02
Seems like his gaudy ERA is less dependent on the baseball at AT&T Park than you are imagining.
CRP13 - you mention WAR in a number of your posts, but it's obvious you don't understand the concept at all.
You keep insisting McGwire is a "one trick pony" over and over, but who cares about that? Your point has no significance.
Hitters can contribute in a number of ways - they can get hits often, they can walk a lot, they can hit extra base hits, they can steal bases. In the end, things like HRs, SBs, singles, walks, advancing from 1st to 3rd on a single, etc - these things all contribute to scoring runs.
Stats like WARP and WAR directly compare a "one trick pony" like McGwire against a well rounded Palmeiro. WARP says that McGwire was clearly better than Palmeiro. WAR from BRef still has McGwire's peak better than Palmeiro's, and career WAR is very close.
Why do you think that a player whose value comes entirely from hitting for power is worse than a player whose value comes from different areas, assuming that their overall value is the same?
"He has just too many seasons where he was a merely above-average slugging 1B, and not a HOF-bound one."
You are saying this about McGwire, but it actually applies to Palmeiro.
The sum of McGwire's best 10 years are considerably better than Palmeiro's 10 best. McGwire - 60.5 WARP, Palmeiro - 50.3.
The only reason Palmeiro's career WARP is sort of close to McGwire's is because of Palmeiro's 10 seasons where he posted WARPs in the 1-3.5 range. Those are not "elite" seasons.
But then the question is - Will Jayson Werth be a good player when the Nationals are good? It's entirely possible that Werth is going to have 2-4 really good years while the Nationals are still bad, and then begin to decline as Strasburg, Harper, Norris, etc are just coming into their own. If the Nationals' WS contention window is 2015-2017, are 36-38 year old Jayson Werth and his $20 mil contract helping the Nationals, or hurting them by taking up lots of their payroll and producing relatively little?
Especially since Dan Hudson's ~80 IP for the Diamondbacks are good for 3rd on the NL ROY ballot, over Jaime Garcia and Starlin Castro.
Maybe Hudson deserves to be in front of those two - I'm not arguing for or against that. But Hudson being on the NL ballot at least establishes that a rookie can be worthy of recognition despite pitching only a "few innings".
It's hard to argue that Feliz hasn't been better and more valuable than Danny Valencia or Wade Davis, unless you use the "few innings" argument. But Dan Hudson's selection seems to undermine that.
"1) We only have injury data going back about 8 years. That's not enough to do the historical comps for the full career path adjustment."
I would have to think you're going to have to be careful with using historical injury data in general, because of advances in medical technology and technique.
An injury may not have the same ramifications in 2010 as it did in 2000.
2) Letting only the 'smart, informed' people decide things has been the basis of history's most heinous left-wing dictatorships.
What are some of these heinous left-wing dictatorships? In most of the Marxist dicatorships I can think of, most of the intellectuals and educated people were killed, imprisoned, or "re-educated".
I don't know. We Cub fans had to endure Joe Carter as a color commentator. "Malaise and general blanditude" sounds about right. :)
OK, I think what I was missing was the idea that Harper's value is higher than it would have been had he not hit so well. So Harper is now worth more as a result of his success this year. Like, .300, 12 HR Harper is asking for $20 million, but is more likely to go back to school if the Nats lowball him, while .400, 30 HR Harper is asking for $30 million, but is less likely to walk away if he has to accept less in order to sign.
I definitely understand the second factor, the CBA and a potential hard slot at #1. The "exceeding expectations lowers his leverage" argument was presented as separate from it, though.
Hi Kevin – would you be able to elaborate a little more on the concept that Harper has hit so well that he’s decreased his leverage? This seems counterintuitive to me.
As I understand it, Harper’s leverage will essentially be, “Pay me $X, or I will go back to school for a year, after which I re-enter the draft and another team will give me $X or greater.” And isn’t his performance this year evidence that he will or won’t be worth the outlandish money he asks for?
I would think that his otherworldly numbers this year will (A) make the Nats believe he’s more likely to be worth a massive bonus/contract and (B) increase the chances that another team would gladly pay that bonus next year if they don’t agree to pay. And so, Harper has comparatively lower risk if he does fail to come to terms this year.
Your articles (and Matt's) are my favorite on BP - keep up the good work!
Well, in retrospect, calling you a shill wasn't too cool either.
"Like some of my favorite players, I'm willing to give BP an "off-year", and I'm willing to pony up another $40 to give them another chance."
Felt like you were directly stumping for subscriptions, which seems a little strong to me. Why frame it in that context when defending BP? I guess it's the form that a lot of these complaints take...
I totally agree that BP delivers great content overall. For fantasy this year, though, they've been subpar, and they should face the music for that.
Sorry, but with all your comments you seem like a shill.
I see comments like this with some degree of regularity. I think they come from a misunderstanding of the +/- ratings, or at least a different understanding than I have.
As I understand it - If a comment is offensive to you, you should click the "inappropriate?" link, which alerts a BP moderator. Giving a "+" to a comment indicates agreement with the comment, and a "-" indicates disagreement, not necessarily disapproval or scorn.
I enjoy seeing the ratings for comments - it gives a rough sense of how popular/prevalent a belief or idea is.
I do agree that it's lame to hide comments that fall below -4 (or whatever the threshold is), and I can say that I always unhide a hidden comment and read it when looking at the comments section. Are there people out there who don't read hidden comments? I wish there was at least an account option that would disable the hiding of comments.
"For example, Martinez had 10 4+ WARP3 seasons, whereas Thomas had only 9."
This is misleading, though. Martinez's cumulative WARP3 for those 10 years: 60.2, for an average of 6.02.
Thomas' cumulative WARP3 for the 9 years: 68.5, for an average of 7.61. If you throw in 2006, when he had a WARP3 of 3.8, the average is a 7.23 WARP3 over 10 years.
I would consider 1.25 to 1.5 wins a year to be a significant difference.
Solid article, Eric. It may not be as easily palatable as much of the stuff we often see, but it's a pleasure to see you explore an aspect of the game, regardless of outcome.
It seems like doing what you suggest, if to works, would cause "consistency" to equal "success" and "inconsistency" "failure" in the minds of the press and fans.
So, if the pitcher is largely successful, he might get the label of "consistent". But, if he's average or slightly worse, I'd imagine he's even more likely to be deemed inconsistent, so your strategy would backfire.
When I saw a dude named "Merkin" early in the article, I was hoping CK would not disappoint w/r/t a reference.
Consider me not disappointed.
"First they came for Thanksgiving, and I did not speak out - because I didn't really care about Thanksgiving.
Then they came for me - and no one was left to speak out."
Let us rally behind jashnew and his courageous stand against the War on Thanksgiving.