User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6472 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Not sure how this will affect the PITCH f/x sleuths out there, but I have it from a very credible source that MLB Gameday will remove the PFX data point from all pitches later on this year, most likely in the second half of the season. They'll still post the type of pitch, speed at release, break, and result, but will no longer share the pfx data. [Edit: the reason, of course, is that some powerful people within baseball complained about the release of the pfx data, the same way the umpires union complained about the imposed strike zone on mlb gameday and had it removed... but this time, it wasn't the umps complaining]
I think it wasn't so much that fielding was thought to be overrated, so much so as we didn't have a good idea of how to measure it, so statheads thought it was better to give it less weight in valuing a player. Similar to how in fantasy auctions, you generally want to spend most of your money on hitters. It's not that pitching is less valuable than hitting, it's that it's less predictable, so investing your resources there makes less sense.
At least that's where I was at.
That’s true.
Actually, I give some credit to BIll James' "Rolling in the Grass" essay in his managers book.
Um ...
All three words?
So you're saying Bradley and Cameron aren't guys?
is different from
( NOT Gutsy AND NOT White AND NOT Guy )
First, the claims of fielding superiority were much more stretched back then. Even the non-stathead types are much more careful nowadays about making claims that a player saves a run or saves two hits a game. Early stathead fielding measures in the early-mid 90s had a run prevention distribution similar to today's. Of course statheads are going to say it's overrated when they're dealing with people that think a good fielder can save 50-100 runs a year.
It was also still the early days of a new offensive era and a lot of analysts were slow to realize that the days of being able to carry a glove man with a .550 OPS were gone.
Also, Ken Phelpsers were more common as Japan wasn't as viable an alternative for AAA players as it is today. It's one thing to replace a mediocre-hitting good defensive guy when you have Roberto Petagine or Ralph Milliard or Tom Evans to replace them with essentially for free (ignoring for a second that Evans was the Human Injury Machine), but good offensive fringe players are more expensive now that they're going the route of Greg LaRocca or the aforementioned Petagine and making a few million a year in Japan.
Actually, that's Chris Snelling.
-- MWE
No, I'm not even certain Snelling's even human. He's like some Styrofoam Baseball Robot prototype that the Japanese made.
Nick Johnson?
Alex Escobar?
Even the early 90s work of DA/DR didn't sway people very much - I say that because when I got on in 1996, that was what I heard. Until I started doing my fielding analysis with Runs Saved, and posting that on rsb, it was still pretty common to think that a great glove couldn't make up for a bad bat. It's essentially demonstrated so now. I used Rey Ordonez as my example, and he couldn't, but a fielder like Pokey Reese could.
That’s true.
Actually, I give some credit to BIll James' "Rolling in the Grass" essay in his managers book.
the last time this came up, I cited multiple posts where this was already on the way out, and Tippett's piece moved the chains pretty far.
When was Tippett's piece? I don't recall from the other thread.
Tippett wrote a summary of it.
Given:
Ax[ ( Pot(x) AND Watched(x) ) -> ( NOT Boiling(x) ) ]
By modus tollens:
Ax[ Boiling(x) -> NOT( Pot(x) AND Watched(x) ) ]
By De Morgan's law:
Ax[ Boiling(x) -> NOT Pot(x) OR NOT Watched(x) ) ]
Therefore, I think we can conclude that your statement is basically correct with a slight alteration:
If it boils, then no one was looking, or it's not a pot, or both.
Anyone care to write a computer sim to test this? This is a question that desperately needs answering!
Not related to anything here, but I think that's a terrific book, really overlooked amongst James' work, I think.
(From what I was exposed to anyway. I'm sure others' personal history is different.)
(From what I was exposed to anyway. I'm sure others' personal history is different.)
This is a pretty good timeline. I'd insert from 1998-2002, Ron Johnson wrote most of Tippett's piece to the general stathead population.
AFAIK, Tippett's bunt piece was like Moneyball - for people in the sabermetric circles, "we knew that".
For example, he gave the breakeven sucess rates for various Mets players on the bunt (Fonzie, 97%, Payton 76%, Appier 56%, Leiter 28%). Against Koufax 1965, an average hitter would have to be a 90% bunter to breakeven. There's alot of stuff where you have a general idea but you wouldn't know exactly everything, but he works it all out for you and considers several parameters and how they interconnect.
It was certainly one of the best things to come out of sabermetrics in 2002.
Right, but my issue with that is, as MGL says, you can't ever account for everything. I think there's a point of diminishing returns in the analysis.
I agree, as do several others here.
To again echo others, what Dan said (11) and what Chris said (16). The one place I've changed over time on this issue is in crediting/debiting a greater percentage of variance from league norms on BABIP to/from the defense than I once did.
Haven't moved on bunts though - always took the singles and errors into account. ;)
***
Tom (this is in response to some of the comments on the site from which this is linked) - I liked your tone in the interview - clear, honest (duh), often amusing answers.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main