More on pitch framing.
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.
Page 1 of 2 pages
@ Maury - serious question - what's makes you say that?
Apparently, I need to brush up on my comedy chops.
The snark and the humor got stale many years ago.
The book used to be fairly merciless (and undeniably hilarious) in its criticism of archaic front offices and players hanging around because of “veteran presence” rather than actual baseball skill, but it’s nicer now, more conventional, more team-friendly.
I think the article might have nailed it. Are too many writers eyeing front office jobs to leave themselves open to being wrong? Concerned with upseting people they know? You'd think the annonymous nature of each teams intro section would help. It also could just be a dilution of talent through attrition or poaching or whatever. Maybe we were just spoiled.
Been getting every annual since I won one in a predict-the-season contest by Lee Sinins. Jesus christo that was a long time ago. Really hoping this is a one year aberration.
It’s also less Socratic. The intro chapters on each team used to be freewheeling musings on what a baseball organization was, what a team’s philosophy was, what it means to be a member of that organization. Now the team intros have been dramatically shortened, and chopped up into easy-to-digest but less meaty portions that aren’t all that different than a slightly smarter version of an old Street and Smith’s preview magazine.
It was often funny how many of their articles would cite OPS+ constantly and ignore their own EQA and VORP. They'd have articles focusing on how dumb some front office was for passing over or trading away some hitter because he was a good hitter when their own WARP said the guy was so bad on defense that he wasn't particularly valuable. That lack of buy-in by their own writers hurt them I thought -- you don't want uniformity of opinion among your writers but they should at least be agreeing on the basic methodology and then work from there. You can't have an article proclaiming the superiority of your new measure then have your writers not use it 95% of the time.
At this stage, advanced stats are all over the place and the FOs are generating their own. It's quaint that RDP still cites EQA (not that there's anything wrong with that). I can't recall the last time I saw a good piece of BPro analysis linked here -- is that a paywall thing?
I think this hurt the BP stats, but it was better for their writing. I think it's always better to use stats that everyone knows and knows the scale of. Fangraphs writers use their wOBA and their ERA- and I have no idea (hyperbole for wOBA, literally true for ERA-) what those numbers represent while ERA+ and OPS+ are on a scale that anyone can understand.
I can't recall the last time I saw a good piece of BPro analysis linked here -- is that a paywall thing?
And that's fine, there's no need to be on the cutting edge of baseball quant analysis.
At this stage, advanced stats are all over the place and the FOs are generating their own. It's quaint that RDP still cites EQA (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Agree, but I do think that ERA- should replace ERA+.
Lowest ERA-'s for any starter? The Big Train, and a skinny kid named Pedro.
Oh yeah, Dan Fox in Pittsburgh. Then there's Keith Law and Russell Carleton, who worked for teams in the past.
the extensive use of OPS+ and ERA+ on this site seem like they're more due to inertia than anything else.
Because these stats are plenty good enough.
How is saying that those stats are "good enough" and refusing to learn and use newer, better, more useful stats much different from sports writers and announcers who stick with BA/HR/RBI and ERA/Wins because those are "good enough" to those people? So you're using the stats of 5-10 years ago instead of the stats of 20-30 years ago. Is that much better, if you just get stuck there and refuse to adapt when better stats become available?
Does Dan Fox still work for the Pirates?
The problem with your argument is that going from AVE/HR/RBI ---> EqA or is a much bigger leap than going from EqA ---> wRC+.
What post 34 said is absolutely true: wRC+ is objectively superior to OPS+ and ERA- is objectively superior to ERA+. I wish people around here would use the Fangraphs stats more, the extensive use of OPS+ and ERA+ on this site seem like they're more due to inertia than anything else.
But ultimately if their stats was easily navigatable and fast, we would probably work around it, even with all the other flaws, but utimately it's just not worth the effort for that little bit of gain in accuracy.
We don't have EqA anymore, we have TAv. It's not just a rebadge anymore, TAv has a different methodology than EqA did. (And if you can tell me ANY gains from going to wRC+, I'd be shocked.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (6 members)
Page rendered in 2.7297 seconds, 189 querie(s) executed