The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Notes from Saturday

Posted by: Chad Jennings - Posted in Misc on Feb 20, 2010 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Mark those calendars. The Yankees play the Tigers on March 10, and Johnny Damon will be there. The saga finally ends with a one-year deal worth roughly $8 million. Meanwhile, in Tampa… 

There were a few Steinbrenner sightings at the Yankees spring training complex today. Hal Steinbrenner and Felix Lopez met with Joe Girardi before the morning workout, then George Steinbrenner himself stopped by the stadium to watch his grandson’s high school team play a game. The Daily News has a picture of The Boss sitting in his private box.

As for the morning meeting between the manager and the managing general partner, Girardi didn’t go into specifics, but said they talked about last season, the coming season and some of the new players in camp.

“When Hal comes down, conversations are very meaningful and right to the point,” Girardi said. “We talk a lot of baseball. It’s great. I feel like we’re always on the same page. He’s very open, and conversations are usually very constructive.” 

• No plans for personal, postseason catchers this time around. “Jorge (Posada) is going to catch (A.J. Burnett) in spring training,” Girardi said. “We’re going to do that. There are times, I know for me personally, it took me longer to learn some pitchers than others… We’re going to put them together and we’ll approach it as Jorge is going to catch every day in the season.”

• Andrew Brackman did not pitch today because of a small cut on the pointer finger of his right hand. Brackman said it’s no big deal, and he’s planning to throw his bullpen tomorrow instead.

• The plan to hold the Yankees starters back at the beginning of camp came after a series of discussions, beginning in December, between Girardi and Dave Eiland. They talked about having them make one less start, but decided that was too drastic, and finally settled on this plan. “This wasn’t something that we formulated in one day,” Girardi said.

• Francisco Cervelli said it feels “special” to be in camp as the favorite for a big league job. “I felt really comfortable last year,” he said. “I think the key was my teammates. They always said, you can do it. Just worry about catching, don’t worry about hitting. We’re going to hit for you. The only thing we need is for you to control the pitcher and play your game… (But) you want to be like them. You want to be a part of the festival.”

• Former Yankees beat writer Ed Price posted a picture of Melky Cabrera on Twitter. Cabrera’s sporting a bit of a beard now that he’s playing for the Braves.

• Pitchers who threw today:
First group: Aceves, Gaudin, Mitre, Sabathia
Second group: Albaladejo, Robertson, Sanchez
Third group: Pope, Ring, Segovia
Fourth group: Arias, Duff, Hirsh, Sanit

• First group pairings: Cervelli caught Aceves, Rivera caught Gaudin, Romine caught Mitre, Posada caught Sabathia. New addition Jose Gil caught Segovia and Hirsh.

• After today’s workout, there was a letter from Major League Baseball posted in the clubhouse. It listed 12 new performance enhancing substances and 30 new stimulants now banned by the league. One of the stimulants was Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, a 29-letter word for “50-game suspension.”

Finally, it was pretty cool to see Yogi Berra standing in the doorway to watch the bullpen sessions this morning. Most of the catchers would shyly move past him, but Jorge Posada had several conversations with him.

Yogi

Yogi and Jorge2

Comments

comments

 

Advertisement

307 Responses to “Notes from Saturday”

  1. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Sources tell Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports that the Tigers are “near agreement” on a one-year contract with free agent outfielder Johnny Damon.
    There are increasing indications that this will actually happen. The guarantee is for more than $7 million, according to Brown, while the contract does not include an option for a second year. Either the Tigers backtracked from a two-year offer or it never existed to begin with.

  2. Frank February 20th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Congrats to Damon. He was a good Yankee and a key contributor to a title run. Wish him nothing but the best going forward.

  3. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    have to say if JD wanted to be a Yankee a little while back it would have happen on the Yankee end……

  4. Jonathan February 20th, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Love the pic of Jorge and Yogi. Oh yeah, Cervelli with the “you want to be part of the festival” quote. Awesome.

  5. blake February 20th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Which deal will turn out better by the end of the season…NJ for 5 Million or JD for 8 Million? I’m a bit surprised the Tigers went that high as no other team seemed to be close to that number.

  6. Phil the Thrill February 20th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Berra and Posada two of the three greatest catchers in Yankee history.

    Man, that’s cool.

  7. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Chad -

    Wow! thanks for all of this.

    Jorge has history with Yogi – no biggie for him! :lol:

    George looked good in that pic.

    Melkie! :(

  8. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    blake February 20th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Which deal will turn out better by the end of the season…NJ for 5 Million or JD for 8 Million? I’m a bit surprised the Tigers went that high as no other team seemed to be close to that number.———————————
    ————————————————–
    one year deal……give me Damon

  9. Bronx Jeers February 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    One of the stimulants was Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, a 29-letter word for “50-game suspension.”

    That’s MDMA.

    Better known as Ecstasy.

    Swish must be bummed.

  10. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    He didn’t want one year from the Yankees.

  11. greg February 20th, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Without question, I’d rather have Damon at that price for one year. The lineup will have a very odd flow with the plodding NJ in the second spot. And they will sorely miss Matsui hitting behind Arod, as well.

  12. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    He didn’t want one year from the Yankees.———————
    —————————–
    but he took one year ?????????????????

  13. RonH February 20th, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Glad Johnny finally has a home, but did he leave another year and $6 million on the table?

    If the Tigers are struggling, can we possibly see Johnny back in pinstripes in July?

  14. Frank February 20th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    “Which deal will turn out better by the end of the season…NJ for 5 Million or JD for 8 Million”

    For one year, I’d have preferred Damon at $8M.

  15. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    RonH February 20th, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Glad Johnny finally has a home, but did he leave another year and $6 million on the table?

    If the Tigers are struggling, can we possibly see Johnny back in pinstripes in July?==================
    =============================
    he had his chance F— him…….even up trade NJ for JD ….in a NY minute

  16. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    randy

    “i could have added that our economy was damaged dramatically by people using algorithms instead of judgement in the mortgage fiasco. there are countless examples of statistical analysis gone wild in our world.”

    In the words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”

    That’s a consequence of a lack of regulation, not statistical analysis.

  17. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    give me Damon

  18. Nick in SF February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Magnetic Fields banned from baseball?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ_7NEtNnvo

  19. Rob February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    there’s a no-trade clause in the contract with Detroit.

    And give me Damon over NJ any day

  20. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    greg
    February 20th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    Without question, I’d rather have Damon at that price for one year. The lineup will have a very odd flow with the plodding NJ in the second spot. And they will sorely miss Matsui hitting behind Arod, as well.
    ====

    I like NJ but I can’t disagree w/you.

  21. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    I repeat -

    Damon made if fairly clear he did not want a one-year deal from the Yankees.

    He ended up with the one-year deal because there was nothing left, bridges with the Yankees were burned, basically, and this way, he only has to suffer the non-cosmopolitanism of Detroit for one season.

  22. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    I think they made a mistake, but giving Damon $8m, even if some is deferred, is at least some indication that they wanted to dump Granderson.

  23. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    if it came down to JD for two years or NJ for one year….it’s a no brainer

  24. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Olney’s source says none of Damon’s salary is deferred. If that’s true, Ilitch and Boras may be having sexual relations. NTTAWWT

  25. m February 20th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    You can’t really ask either/or.

    Damon turned down the Yankees. Cashman chose not to overpay by bidding against himself. Good job by Cash.

  26. blake February 20th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    we can compare the two contracts between johnson and Damon now and say yea maybe I’d rather have Damon for that money but Cashman didn’t want to play chicken with Damon and get into a despatate situation where he would have to give him more than that. Al indications are that Damon wouldn’t have accepted that same deal with the Yankees which says he didn’t really want to stay that bad and Cash made the right move by pulling the trigger on NJ.

  27. Rob February 20th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    I’ve got a few friends in Detroit, and the talk there is that the Granderson deal was not a salary dump at all. The Tigers tired of his poor work ethic, he got lazy in the outfield and on the basepaths, and refused to deal with his problem hitting vs lefties. We’ll see what happens.

  28. Erica - always OPPC February 20th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Goodbye LoHud, it was fun here while it lasted.

    I have decided to sell my apartment and move to Detroit and be a Detroit Tigers fan this year. The shopping stinks there apparently, but I will give it a shot.

  29. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    nick in sf-

    see explanation about “hostility” in last post.

  30. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Once again, Cash was proven to have made the right decision by not offering Damon arbitration (I thought he should have; I was wrong). The economic situation has cost the Yankees a number of picks.

  31. Erica - always OPPC February 20th, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Okay-

    I really hope no one took that last post seriously. In all seriousness, while I am very saddened that I woke up from my nap to learn Johnny is a Tiger now, I wish him the best of luck and will always remember the good times. The real and pretend ones….

  32. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Bon voyage, Erica.

    A good meal can be had in Greek Town.

  33. Triple short of a Cycle February 20th, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Erica,

    The good thing is that by moving moving to Detroit you will be able to afford a 4 bedroom house with a gun and then some

  34. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Rob -

    Sounds like negative spin to me, to make the deal more palatable.

    He’s already worked with K Long, so…

    Cash did the right thing.

    I thought Damon would end his career in NY and I’m disappointed that it worked out this way. But given the way the situation was handled by Damon & Boras, don’t reallky see how it could have worked out differently.

  35. pat February 20th, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    From Johnny’s perspective….1 year where you don’t want to be is better than 2 years where you don’t want to be.

    No trade would give him control should a trade deadline deal become a factor.

  36. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Erica – always OPPC

    “Goodbye LoHud, it was fun here while it lasted.

    I have decided to sell my apartment and move to Detroit and be a Detroit Tigers fan this year. The shopping stinks there apparently, but I will give it a shot.”

    Dear Johnny,

    It appears you have a stalker. So the spacious dimensions of Comerica are not the only thing that you have to worry about.

    Regards,

    Rich

    j/k Erica :)

  37. David in Cal February 20th, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    I’m surprised that Damon got as much as $8 million, since no team other than Detroit was anywhere in that neighborhood. One would think Detroit could have signed Damon for a couple of million less.

    I think Damon will be a big disappointment in Detroit. He won’t be able to play LF very well. He’ll miss games due to minor injuries. A combination of regression to the mean, aging, and a deep right field will cause his hitting to be substantially worse than last year.

  38. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Tarheelyank
    February 20th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
    Good for Johnny.
    IMO “some” sabres do not trust their “eyes”, or do not have the experience watching the game, so they turn to stats to be reassured. It’s kind of ironic to me that all stats start out by being observations.

    LGY
    You are a perfect example.

    —————————-

    Who said I do not trust my eyes?

  39. whatever February 20th, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    it wasnt a salary dump, the tigers traded granderson because they didn’t like him anymore.. I told you all that last month, Damon is the better player, that proves it right there.. the yankees got robbed.

  40. Nick D. February 20th, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    So lemme get this straight…Damon turned down 2 years, $14 mil from the yanks, the team he “loves” and probably the best team in baseball and the defending world champs for $1 more on a 1 year deal with the Tigers? Really? The Tigers? Psh…i’m glad he’s gone after all these shenanigans.

    Have fun with that Johnny.

  41. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    LGY,

    You will appreciate this:

    http://www.aolnews.com/nation/.....webmaildl1

  42. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    if he was ever offered a two year contract by the Keys and did indeed turn it down….go from there

  43. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Why are people assuming that Johnny is moving the family to Detroit?

    He will probably rent an apartment for the season and Mrs. Damon will still be driving in from their Jersey home to shop on 5th avenue.

  44. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    He’s getting paid eight million dollars to play a kid’s game.

    Why shouldn’t he have fun?

  45. whatever February 20th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    you know what people? you can blame DAMON all you want and call him a fool and thats he’s not worth it.. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY.. are the yankees a better team with DAMON? YES.. 100% yes.. so its THE YANKEES LOSS, NOT DAMONS’s… so wag your smug fingers all you want.. fact of the matter is the team is not as good as last years.. and now we have granderson who has a poor work ethic, takes bad routes, and can’t hit lefties… lets see how long it takes before he’s in the dughouse.

  46. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    “That’s a consequence of a lack of regulation, not statistical analysis.”

    rich in nj-

    i disagree.

    statistical analysis might be the wrong term, but the bundling of mortgages that were resold as securities were driven by people with formulas and computers.

    there was much smoke and mirrors that made people think it was too complex to understand.

    that’s similar to sabermetrics to me. maybe as you say it’s not the analysis but people not regulating. my point is the people who do the complex analysis seem to try to make people believe that they know best when in reality they are just trying to run another scam to make money.

    if it does get down to people making decisions then i’m sure you’d have no problem with regulating the people using complex statistical analysis at the highest levels of the financial world.

    my point is i don’t trust something just because it’s complex.

    i may in the end trust it, but i will be slow to use something that i don’t understand.

  47. David in Cal February 20th, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    “Which deal will turn out better by the end of the season…NJ for 5 Million or JD for 8 Million”

    My guess is that NJ will outhit Damon by a wide margin, as measured by wOBA. In 2009 Damon’s wOBA was .376 and NJ’s was .373. However, Damon’s was an unusually good result; NJ’s was slightly lower than his normal result. Next year Damon will be a year older and will lose the Yankee Stadium advantage. NJ will be helped by Yankee Stadium and by being another year removed from his wrist injury. I won’t be shocked if NJ hits as many HRs than Damon. Johnson will surely have a much higher OBA.

  48. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    we have all heard JD talk….sometimes when he talks it doesn’t come out the way he wants it to….

  49. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    Granderson has a ‘poor work ethic.’

    Another fun season on the blog with people leaping to judgment about stuff they are clueless about – like how hard a guy works out.

  50. Carl February 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    When Jeter first arrived during the winter before the ’08 season, he told Riley “he wasn’t ready to give up shortstop and give up playing baseball,” Riley says. “He had a commitment to play 8-to-10 more years, maybe not all at shortstop, but he wants to play that long.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/spo.....z0g7wsN0UT

  51. Boston Dave XXVII February 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    I’ve been reading some say the Tigers basically “traded” Granderson for Damon. There’s a bit more to it than that.

    Tigers add: Damon, Austin Jackson, Daniel Schlereth, Max Scherzer, and Phil Coke

    Tigers lose: Granderson, Edwin Jackson

    That is actually quite a haul for Detroit. Schlereth and Scherezer are solid pitching prospects. I am no Tigers fan but they didn’t exactly have a horrible offseason.

  52. Nick D. February 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    “you know what people? you can blame DAMON all you want and call him a fool and thats he’s not worth it.. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY.. are the yankees a better team with DAMON? YES.. 100% yes.. so its THE YANKEES LOSS, NOT DAMONS’s… so wag your smug fingers all you want.. fact of the matter is the team is not as good as last years.. and now we have granderson who has a poor work ethic, takes bad routes, and can’t hit lefties… lets see how long it takes before he’s in the dughouse.”

    This is pure speculation. stop stating it like it’s pure fact. Come back in July and make this statement if it’s even relevant then.

    Let old Balky Calves Johnny have fun in the “85 wins makes the playoffs” AL central. We’ll be too busy chasing another championship to notice.

  53. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    there aren’t to many peeps here that rather have NJ over JD in the 2nd hole

  54. whatever February 20th, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    I loved Damon before the Yankees signed him and I loved him as a Yankee.

    I have never liked Granderson.
    8th inning, bring in a lefty.. AUTOMATIC RALLY KILLER.
    thats what I’ve always felt, especially the past few years.

    Don’t like him, won’t root for him.. he has to earn every bit of my trust before I open up.

  55. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    So, when Leyland said earlier that Granderson was all you’d ever want in a player, he was lying? I have never ever heard anyone negative said about Granderson in any way.

    The Tigers are getting a lot of backlash from fans for letting one of their favorite players go; they (through the media) are responding by all of a sudden spreading negative press about Curtis Granderson.

    I don’t know how he’ll workout with the Yankees – no one does. But I’m glad they got him.

  56. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Bod,

    Thanks for the link. Amazing. I love reading those dog saving stories that pop up in the news every so often.

  57. Boston Dave XXVII February 20th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    “are the yankees a better team with DAMON? YES.. 100% yes.. so its THE YANKEES LOSS, NOT DAMONS’s…”

    ———–

    Yeah…

    the Yankees would be better with John Lackey, Matt Holliday, Mike Gonzalez, and Jason Bay too.

    Talking about “the Yankees loss” with regard to Damon is foolish. They tried to sign him. He didn’t want to sign for more $$ than he got.

    End of story.

  58. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    LGY,

    Gotta admit, I got misty-eyed over that one!

  59. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    randy

    “statistical analysis might be the wrong term, but the bundling of mortgages that were resold as securities were driven by people with formulas and computers.

    there was much smoke and mirrors that made people think it was too complex to understand.”

    There was insufficient regulation mandating disclosure and sufficient capital requirements in case of a default.

    There was no separation between banks and proprietary trading.

    People with meager incomes were permitted to obtain $700,000 mortgages with little or no money down.

    It’s no coincidence that this crisis occurred subsequent to the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

    “that’s similar to sabermetrics to me. maybe as you say it’s not the analysis but people not regulating. my point is the people who do the complex analysis seem to try to make people believe that they know best when in reality they are just trying to run another scam to make money.”

    That’s as similar to sabermetrics as pigs are to flying.

    “my point is i don’t trust something just because it’s complex.”

    You know what’s complex as well? A catcher learning to call the right pitches to a variety of hitters in a variety of counts, or as a batter, forming an educated guess on which pitches are going to be thrown in various counts and situations.

    Complexity dissolves with familiarity.

  60. pat February 20th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Granderson has a poor work ethic?

    Leyland said he buried him unintentionally by playing him everyday even against a string of tough lefties because he would and said the organization probably took advantage of his easy going way by “volunteering” him to take on every cause in Detroit.

    Sounds like a pretty good work ethic and attitude to me.

  61. paul c February 20th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Cashman was right. If Damon signs for anything less than Abreu money, he should have been a Yankee.

  62. bru February 20th, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    randy l.

    interesting & i agree a little but take BA,SLG,OPS,OBP,ERA for example

    the above stats are 100 % accepted by everybody,fans,coaches,gm’s,scouts,etc…

    everybody here throw all of these stats around all the time for many reasons because they are accepted by people who are in the game therefore accepted by us

    some new stats are in the infant stages & if they become as accepted by people in the game as era,ba,slg.ops,obp then the people who bash them will change their tune

    i am puzzled why some people critisize some stats but include ones that they are comfortable with to suit their needs or boost their arguments

  63. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Bod,

    I just watched the video that went with the story. I can see how Blue was able to keep that little girl warm for so long. He is a tad wide if you know what I mean…

    On the other hand, I have a foster dog with me right now that is so skinny she would probably need the little girl to cuddle with her if she was left outside to stay warm!

  64. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    “Complexity dissolves with familiarity.

    rich in nj-

    i agree about glass- steagall.

    like i said i’ll slowly trust something complex if i see it works, but then i hedge this trust.

    you honestly don’t see the similarities of the statistical analysis community with the statistical analysis of wall street ?

  65. bru February 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    funny

    i am watching the game after munson died

    guidry pitching with a 9-7 record & an era of 2.55

  66. Phil the Thrill February 20th, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Hmmm, Granderson is about 7 years younger than Damon and the only reason he was available was they thought Verlander was gonna cost more, and Grandy had a bad/unlucky final year in Comerica. This was just good luck for the Yanks.

  67. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    let’s go,

    I was just wondering how she ended up with Don Cherry’s dog :D.

    Yeah, the dog’s err..girth surely helped.

    It’s great you taking in dogs. Very cool/kind thing to do.

  68. pete February 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    To SJ, GB7, Randy I:

    Hey guys, just got back from work, read some of your responses, have a few comments:

    1. For the pitch-types argument: the pitch-types are from Pitch/fx. Pitch/fx actually does have a sinker classification, as well as a 2-seamer classification. The data you were looking at, though, was from 2009, when wang’s “sinker” had less overall movement than the average 4-seam fastball. Pitch/fx analyzes pitches based purely on their velocity and break, so it cannot tell the difference between a four seamer with movement and a crappy 2-seamer or sinker. If you have a problem with that, that’s fine, but that’s Pitch/fx, not fangraphs.

    2. Even if the pitch-types “error” had been the fault of fangraphs.com, it would still remain irrelevant. If we were talking about simply taking them at their word, then yes, other errors in their work would be relevant, but we aren’t. One of the most frustrating things when talking with the stick-to-their-guns types is that they maintain the false assumption that these stats have anything at all to do with opinion, or that they are “mystical” or something like that. They can certainly be flawed, but they are never based on opinion. Ever. And all of the information they use, along with how they use it, is right there for you to see. For example: if you think that this: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs.....at-is-wrc/ is inaccurate, then explain why in terms of what it is, not errors its “creators” have made. Advanced metrics are not the wild hypotheses of nerds in their mothers basements. They are discoveries made by nerds who are quite often very successful because their critical thinking skills are very valuable in the corporate world. Discoveries made through the use of extensive databases and computational technology that wasn’t available before, even though the numbers still existed.

    Look I genuinely enjoy engaging in intelligent baseball debates. So by all means, if you find flaws with stats like wRC+ or WAR of UZR, point them out to me. But you guys aren’t doing that. You’re instead finding the first error you can point out from the source and incorrectly correlating that with an error in the stat. I’ll certainly accept that there are some minor flaws with each of those stats, but if you’re going to say that they are bogus stats or that they’re entirely meaningless or no better than RBI or Wins, then find those egregious errors WITHIN THE STATS THEMSELVES. Please!! I’d love to have a legitimate conversation about the positives and negatives of wRC+ (my personal favorite right now) or other similar stats. But PLEASE, if we’re going to do that, let’s actually legitimately speak specifically and critically, rather than broadly and anecdotally, about the stat we’re debating.

  69. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “in the good old days, brakes were mechanical and they didn’t fail like these prius brakes do. there’s a point where complexity goes too far or gets ahead of itself.”

    The Prius system is a derivation of the anti-lock braking system, which we all know is a far superior system to the old mechanical brakes you site as bring less prone to failure (which of course they were not).

    Contemporary brake technology is indisputably BETTER than it was before ABS.

    The world is a MUCH safer place for computer-assisted breaking systems, even factoring in mistakes like your example.

    That ONE system failed should not lead you to reject all similar technology and conclude the old way was better. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the issue can easily demonstrate otherwise.

    Okay, so let’s call Fangraphs a Prius. For sake of argument I’ll grant you that to make the point. But that doesn’t mean anything other than sabremetrics aren’t infallible, which NO one is attempting to argue.

  70. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    randy

    “you honestly don’t see the similarities of the statistical analysis community with the statistical analysis of wall street ?”

    I think they have as much in common as two vastly disparate entities with divergent purposes being viewed as similar solely because they both speak English.

  71. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    “for example, no one takes a shower by setting a number on a thermostat to get the right water temperature. everyone just turns the faucets until they get a temp they like.”

    LOL

    Thermostatic control is in fact pretty much standard in new shower valves. You don’t digitally control the exact temperature, it just makes sure the temperature doesn’t suddenly change (unless manually controlled to do such) and you don’t get a sudden unintended rush of scalding hot or freezing water.

    I know this well as I just remodeled my bathroom last year..

  72. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Anyways, dubious analogies aside…

    “my point is that some things don’t need to be complicated by over analysis and baseball is one of them.”

    Why can’t we simply agree that baseball doesn’t need to be complicated by over analysis for YOU to appreciate it and enjoy it? There isn’t anyone in the world much less here who raise an argument to that.

    But if you love of baseball leads you into discussion of the merits of baseball PLAYERS, to say there isn’t and never will be new and better ways of answering those questions and making those comparisons, then you’re fighting against the inevitable.

  73. Betsy - Romine wasn't built in a day February 20th, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Thank goodness. I love Joe, but I really thought he made a mistake in his thinking AJ needed a personal catcher…….

  74. gfd February 20th, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    No one has ever accused Granderson of a poor work ethic, that’s bogus. Detroit loves him and All the coaches too.

  75. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    “As for stats, are stats infallible? Are not stats a compilation of observations?”

    In a sense. They must be observed to be recorded (this is sort of like the tree falls in in a forest question), but some are not biased to human observation.

    AVG. OBP, slugging. These are not relative to the observer, though to be intellectually honest I have to concede these stats are prone to statistically tiny derivations due to human official scoring.

    “But, because I post Gardner at times was overmatched at the plate last year, and you provide some stat that say differently, does not make you right, and me wrong.”

    Never argued it did. The argument is he still performed adequately at the plate (relative to the performance of other players in 2009) DESPITE your personal observation. And that if he goeshis whole career performing relatively as he did last year while the whole time you observe him being sometimes overmatched, he can still be productive player.

    I’ve never argued he didn’t look the way you think he did. I think he looked awful sometimes too. But neither of that changes at the end of the day, he somehow, someway, did a decent job of what he was asked to do.

    “This an example of arrogance.”

    I fail to see how simply identifying a pattern that repeats itself over the course of human history is arrogance.

    That’s called observation.

  76. Betsy - Romine wasn't built in a day February 20th, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Who cares what the better deal would be between NJ and Damon? Damon was never going to take that from the Yankees and the Yankees were not about to put their plans on hold for Damon – and they shouldn’t. I don’t get the implication that the Yankees messed up here – what more would you want the Yankees to do? Sigh.

    Pat, you asked why the gloating in the previous thread. Who’s gloating? I disagree with you that the Yankees lost out and I think Damon and Boras messed up.

  77. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Carl
    February 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    When Jeter first arrived during the winter before the ‘08 season, he told Riley “he wasn’t ready to give up shortstop and give up playing baseball,” Riley says. “He had a commitment to play 8-to-10 more years, maybe not all at shortstop, but he wants to play that long.
    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/spo…..z0g7wsN0UT
    ===

    Great read, Carl, thanks.

    I’m betting Jete reinvents himself once his SS days are behind him, but not necessarily his baseball days.

  78. bobshantz February 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    ‘Berra and Posada two of the three greatest catchers in Yankee history.’

    I would say two of the four (Munson, Dickey). You could even make a case for Elston Howard.

  79. Betsy - Romine wasn't built in a day February 20th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    Rob, I’m sorry – I don’t believe that for a moment

  80. pete February 20th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    stuckey: get out while you still can…

  81. haiku-man February 20th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    I knew Molina’s days were numbered when AJ, only responded to Molina. That was one off season signing I was happy didn’t happen, bringing him back. Molina is a strong defensive catcher but the drama was nerve racking. People actually started blaming Posada for AJ’s bad outings.

  82. pat February 20th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Betsy

    I don’t believe I addressed the gloating comment to anyone in particular.

    The Yankees lost out in that they did not get their first choice at the price they wanted. Damon lost out because he did not get back to the best situation for him. What’s to disagree about that. It’s fact.

  83. Phil the Thrill February 20th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    bobshantz. Berra, Dickey, Posada are the top three. I could have said top 5 if if wanted to include Thurm and Eltson.

  84. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    “I think they have as much in common as two vastly disparate entities with divergent purposes being viewed as similar solely because they both speak English.”

    nitwit.

  85. pete February 20th, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Randy: of course there are similarities with the statistical analysis communities in baseball and wall street. but to discredit the pursuit of statistical understanding because of a recent economic crash, as it seems you are implying, is ridiculous. First off, multiple things went wrong there. Years of irresponsible spending and loaning on the part of both the consumers and the bankers was a huge part of it. But the other thing is, all statistics can be wrong. That doesn’t even remotely invalidate them. In fact, the fact that statistical outliers exist validates their existence more than anything.

    You’ll notice that no worthwhile statistic is 100%. If something happened 100% of the time, we’d probably have figured that out by now. We don’t have a statistic for how often the sun comes up in the morning. But when, for example, a quality player like Nick Swisher has a crap year like he did in 2008, we can look at statistics and say “well the numbers suggest that he’ll bounce back, and that last year was an aberration”. In this sense, every call made using statistics is a gamble. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t need the stats in the first place. The stats are there to reassure us when we get caught up in the moment, they are there to show us which investments would be smart and which wouldn’t. They are not there to be right 100% of the time. Because that’s impossible.

  86. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    randy

    “nitwit.”

    I take that as a concession on your part.

  87. joeman February 20th, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Bodhisattva – Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    let’s go,

    I was just wondering how she ended up with Don Cherry’s dog :D .

    Yeah, the dog’s err..girth surely helped.

    It’s great you taking in dogs. Very cool/kind thing to do.———-
    ———————–
    Blue

  88. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    ” Even if the pitch-types “error” had been the fault of fangraphs.com, it would still remain irrelevant.”

    pete -
    you’re a dunce.

    fangraphs has a glossary of about 8 pitches and doesn’t count sinkers, forkballs, screwballs etc.

    anyone on here can look at what pete is trying to cover up :
    http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....#pitchtype

    click on glossary.

    sinker is not a pitch according to this fangraph glossary.

  89. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Bod,

    Fostering a dog is great. The woman I work with lets you keep him/her for a day, weekend, week, month whatever you like until they get adopted or you decide you cannot give them up! (my first “foster dog” somehow never left). She provides the food, collar, leash, etc. also. And the best part is that instead of my dog begging to go to the park or shoving her toys into my lap she just plays with the other dog all day and is dead tired by 7pm.

    I always recommend it to people who are not sure they want a dog or if they can handle the responsibility. Like test-driving a car.

  90. Betsy - Romine wasn't built in a day February 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Oh boy….yeah, AJ only pitched well to Molina.

    Pat, did I say you did? I was responding to a comment you made, that’s all.

  91. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    “I take that as a concession on your part.”

    rich in nj-

    concession?

    no, i was just dismissing you for functioning below your IQ level.

  92. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    “Randy: of course there are similarities with the statistical analysis communities in baseball and wall street.”

    pete , i take it back.

    since you agree with me, i have upgraded you from dunce status.

  93. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    randy i

    “no, i was just dismissing you for functioning below your IQ level.”

    Sadly, you think that just because you type something, it must be true.

    I love what the internet does to people.

  94. pete February 20th, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    randy:
    I have a challenge for you: tell me what is wrong with wRC+. Not fangraphs.com, not anything else. Just wRC+. And do so without mentioning “pitch types”. To mention them in this debate is entirely ad hominem, and it is on par with saying “Plato thought the world was flat so there is nothing valuable about anything he says”. I’m not sure why fangraphs puts sinkers and 2 seamers in the same category as four seamers, but I’m sure if you asked any of their writers, they could give you a very good explanation.

  95. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    rich in nj, pete, stuckey-

    we could go around the mulberry bush on this all night and not agree.

    i first remember coming across this sort of debate in an existentialism class in college taught by a former jesuit priest who left the church and married a nun.

    what i remember him saying was that the music that you experience , the actual experience of it inside you , has nothing to do with understanding the science of sound.

    i think we are arguing about a similar thing.

    i think baseball is music . you guys seem to think it’s sound waves that you measure with formulas and physics.

    you’re not wrong, but i’m just not into the physics of it .

    i’d rather experience the game viscerally through the senses.

    this may be a case where no one is wrong , but how they want to experience the game.

    if however, you think that your way can beat my way on a baseball field, i think you’re wrong.

  96. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    PitchFX tracks other types of fastballs, just email them to include them in their pitch lists. I emailed them about their bad bb% data and they fixed it.

  97. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    “And that if he goeshis whole career performing relatively as he did last year while the whole time you observe him being sometimes overmatched, “HE CAN” still be a productive player.”

    And he could also be mowing lawns in Hoboken. In other words it could go either way.

    “I’ve never argued he didn’t look the way you think he did. I think he looked awful sometimes too. But neither of that changes at the end of the day, he somehow, someway, did a decent job of what he was asked to do.’

    Well it turns out we are saying the same thing about last year. However looking forward—

    You look at the stats and think it was positive.

    I look at the overmatched AB’s, the lack of bunting or playing to his strength and think, he better turn it around and quick or his chance with the Yankees is going to go bye bye. I do also see the potential to maximize his game and be a productive player, but only if he improves.

    “I fail to see how simply identifying a pattern that repeats itself over the course of human history is arrogance. ”

    Is this the pattern you refer to–?

    “This is about people not liking to be told they might be wrong. That they might be wrong is beside the point. They still resent it.”

    Is there any chance you might be wrong Stuckey?

  98. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    ” I’m not sure why fangraphs puts sinkers and 2 seamers in the same category as four seamers, but I’m sure if you asked any of their writers, they could give you a very good explanation.”

    pete-

    anyone on this blog is free to take a look and make up their mind.
    http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....#pitchtype

    i think almost everyone will say fangraphs screwed up by not measuring sinkers as a separate pitch. it’s a really dumb thing to do.

    the explanation the writers should give if they are smart is ” we #$$%$ed up”.

    the smart thing for you to do is admit it’s a pretty bogus thing to include on their sabermetric site.

    i don’t see anyone else from the stat community on this blog defending this limited pitch selection glossary that fangrpahs uses for it’s pitch selection data.

    you think any mlb team would pay for it?

    keep talking about it though

    the more you do the more people on the blog see how silly it is.

  99. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    lets go yankees
    February 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    Bod,
    Fostering a dog is great. The woman I work with lets you keep him/her for a day, weekend, week, month whatever you like until they get adopted or you decide you cannot give them up! (my first “foster dog” somehow never left). She provides the food, collar, leash, etc. also. And the best part is that instead of my dog begging to go to the park or shoving her toys into my lap she just plays with the other dog all day and is dead tired by 7pm.
    I always recommend it to people who are not sure they want a dog or if they can handle the responsibility. Like test-driving a car.
    ====
    I’ve got a friend who takes in strays. Last count: 3 dogs and seven cats. They all seem to co-exist well enough, but when you walk into the kitchen (which is the entrance room), you’ve got to duck. The cats like to motor from shelf to shelf and the dogs, of course, enjoy their version of Edward Albee’s “Get the Guests.”

  100. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    randy

    I really don’t care if people want to avail themselves of advanced metrics. Beat your way? As if. Who cares?

    It’s beyond comical that you think statistical analysis prevents enjoying the “music” of the game. That fallacy only exists in your head, but it’s no big deal.

    When, however, you try to make a fatuous leap in order to link sabermetrics with the wall street crisis, the bounds of rational discussion have been crossed, and you reveal yourself as a flat earther.

  101. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    Joeman,

    The very dog!

  102. pete February 20th, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    randy: well that’s an entirely different discussion. it’s one thing to not care about stats or particular stats. It’s another to belittle their existence or the people who promote them without backing up your opinions. I also think that baseball is music. I love watching a season unfurl, watching a pitcher like mike mussina set up one pitch with another. It’s one of my absolute favorite things to do. But, like with music (my profession), I am also fascinated by the underlying science. I love reading about and using for analytical purposes the advanced stats that explain the game on a deeper and more accurate/scientific level. For me, this is what allows me to survive the long offseason. I love the “play GM” aspect of the game, and since my playing career is largely over, I want to be as good of a fake GM as I possibly can. For me, that is a huge part of what baseball is all about. It’s the only sport where the offseason is almost as interesting as the regular season to me. That doesn’t mean you have to or should be interested in sabermetrics, or that your indifference to it is an indication of a lesser intellectual capacity or anything like that.

    But why, then, did you get in this debate in the first place, if you don’t care about them? It definitely seems like you have something against advanced metrics, as you were belligerently arguing against their use earlier today. If you’re debating whether it is right or wrong to, as a fan, be “into the physics of it”, then you’re absolutely right about it being a nobody’s right or wrong scenario. But that isn’t what you were saying earlier.

    As for the “on a baseball field” part, well there’s no real way to see how that would play out. I’d love to pitch against (or to) you, but that hardly seems like a likely scenario. Assertions of who is a better baseball player amongst commenters on a baseball blog don’t exactly hold much weight.

  103. Rob February 20th, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    “Hmmm, Granderson is about 7 years younger than Damon and the only reason he was available was they thought Verlander was gonna cost more, and Grandy had a bad/unlucky final year in Comerica. This was just good luck for the Yanks.”

    HOw many Detroit games did you watch last season? I saw plenty on MLB Extra Innings and can tell you “luck” had nothing to do with Granderson’s bad season. He rarely even hit the ball hard vs lefties. It’s going to be the same story with NY.

  104. pete February 20th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Randy:
    so, in summary, you have not found anything wrong with wRC+. got it.

  105. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    “PitchFX tracks other types of fastballs, just email them to include them in their pitch lists. I emailed them about their bad bb% data and they fixed it.”

    jerkface-

    this is the glossary Fangraphs has on it’s pitch type selection page:
    http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....#pitchtype

    SL – Slider
    CT – Cutter
    CB – Curveball
    CH – Changeup
    KN – Knuckleball
    SF – Split-Fingered Fastball
    XX – Unknown
    PO – Pitchout
    About Pitch Types – All pitch types in this section are provided by Baseball Info Solutions and should not be confused with Major League Baseball’s PitchFx data.

    i think you see the problem when using it for wang.

  106. lets go yankees February 20th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    I’ve got a friend who takes in strays. Last count: 3 dogs and seven cats. They all seem to co-exist well enough, but when you walk into the kitchen (which is the entrance room), you’ve got to duck. The cats like to motor from shelf to shelf and the dogs, of course, enjoy their version of Edward Albee’s “Get the Guests.”

    —————————–

    Wow. That is a lot of animals in one household. If I had 3 dogs and 7 cats in my apartment I do not think I would have any place to walk.

  107. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    “Randy:
    so, in summary, you have not found anything wrong with wRC+. got it.”

    pete-
    i’m up to my butt in sabermetric alligators.

    i’ll get to you when i get to you.

    oh, by the way, what is wRC+ ?

    just to save time :)

  108. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    LGY,

    And it’s a one bedroom.

    She and her husband seem perfectly content with all the children.

    Lots of trips to the vet, though.

  109. pete February 20th, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Debate 101, as taught by Randy:

    Debater #1: your argument is stupid
    Debater #2: why is that?
    Debater #1: cuz it’s stupid. the guys you’re getting your info from put out some information recently that i had some problems with. here they are: (lists problems with unrelated information)
    Debater #2: but that’s not what I’m arguing about. Why is MY argument stupid?
    Debater #1: (lists problems with the aforementioned unrelated information again)
    Debater #2: I’m afraid I don’t see your point
    Debater #1: here I’ll show you where they screwed up that other time: (links to source of unrelated information issues)
    Debater #2: right but I was never arguing about that. I could, but it’s well beside the point. What’s wrong with my original argument?
    Debater #1: (shows him link again)
    Debater #2: ….

  110. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    New Historicists vs. Humanists.

    LOL.

  111. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    I see Lou Reed has a gig jingling AT&T commercials w/his unheralded gem “Perfect Day.”

    Good for Lou. I saw him in the high West 20s one night at an ungodly hour, hanging around on the street and looking a little keyed up.

    Hopefully, he has a nice cash flow going these days.

  112. frank b February 20th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    poor work ethic……….NO WAY, I LIVE IN THE DETROIT AREA. I;VE NEVER HEARD THAT AT ALL. GRANDERSON WILL BE GREAT THIS YEAR, WAIT AND SEE.

  113. Warren February 20th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Damon left the Biggest Road Show on Earth for a team in Detroit.

    Someone was a bit greedy.

  114. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    “oh, by the way, what is wRC+ ?”

    Probably just a nice (sabre) way of saying your Full Of Sh#@#@. Oh and it’s park and league adjusted.

  115. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    randy: again, sorry if I seem snooty or condescending, I don’t mean to. It’s just that it’s very frustrating to argue with someone when that person continually repeats the same ad hominem point that doesn’t actually address the issue of debate. I don’t mean it as an attack on you as a person at all, and any attitude that comes out is the result of years of dealing with everything from B-Jobberism to “Swishah is teh worst fielda evah!! I saw it with my eyes!!” to “A-Rod is teh choke artist!!”, et all, from the mainstream mediots like George King and Jon Heyman and Joel Sherman. It’s nothing personal, just a short fuse on the subject.

  116. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    “i think we are arguing about a similar thing.”

    We aren’t. No one cares or presumes to try to change why YOU LIKE baseball.

    “i think baseball is music.”

    The problem is there is no competitive component to “music”, at least not relevant to your analogy.

    But you don’t understand baseball at all (and I know you really do) if you don’t recognize when the ENTIRE POINT of something is superior competitive performance, then improving and finding news ways of measuring performance is VITAL.

    Listen if you wan to argue you’re talking about the simple joy of playing catch with your dad, or playing a sandlot game withouta care in the world who wins, then I agree, baseball is music. I get and am with you.

    But if we are going to agree to discuss PROFESSIONAL baseball on its necessary terms, to deny any means to improve competitive edge is frankly unbecoming of someone who considers himself a true baseball man.

    “i’d rather experience the game viscerally through the senses.”

    Is this independent of whether the Yankees are beating the Red Sox???

    Really?

    “this may be a case where no one is wrong , but how they want to experience the game.”

    No Randy. You’re wrong about the Prius. You’re wrong about the shower valve. You’re wrong about what this argument was originally about, which isn’t what you’re try to sell right now.

    It hasn’t been about how an individual experiences the game, though I genuinely appreciate that’s your attempt at a graceful exit.

    But unless the point of an Yankees 2010 season is to simply provide fans an enjoyable, sensory experience, and not kick the s**t out of the rest of Major League baseball, then original point still stands.

    And I don’t believe for a second you really believe the former.

  117. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    weighted ruse created.

  118. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Tarheel: honestly, you’re already on the internet. on the upper right hand side of your screen, you (probably) have a google search bar. you could look up wRC+ very easily. But no, instead you simply assume it’s bogus, as you and people like you do with everything you disagree with. Try understanding a statistic before you berate it. It might help you pick your battles a little better. wRC+ is one of the absolute best statistics out there for measuring a player’s offensive contributions.

  119. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Seems like the problem is with Baseball Information Solutions.

  120. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    I nail that or what?!

  121. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    stuckey: well said. the “enjoyment of the game” defense is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. why would anybody who doesn’t enjoy the game spend so much time analyzing it?

    and if you’re still waiting for my wRC+ explanation Randy, I’m sorry i thought it went through but apparently it’s “still awaiting moderation” probably because I had a couple of links (one to fangraphs explanation of wRC+ and the other to Tom Tango’s linear weight values). It should be up soon.

  122. Erica - always OPPC February 20th, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    new thread – blog outing :arrow:

  123. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    “But, like with music (my profession), I am also fascinated by the underlying science.”

    pete-

    as an aside are you new on the blog? i don’t recognize you, but anyone who’s a regular on the blog knows my feeling about sabermetrics or as stuckey correctly makes the distinction that i often don’t like the people themselves using sabermetrics rather than the stats themselves. he’s right.

    now about the music thing. i’m a total non musician. if i had to step into a symphony or play an instrument in springsteen’s band i’d be at a total loss. i listen to music, but i don’t know how to make it or even how to read music. in short , i’m a music fan.

    i could however catch a game for the yankees even at 60 , my present age , and it would look like baseball.

    yes there’d be some stealing, but i’d catch the ball, and if joba shook me off , we’d have a problem out on the mound.

    now why do you think you understand baseball ? is it because you are a baseball fan
    in the sense i am a music fan?

    if you are both a professional musician and have had high level baseball experience( big time college or pro ) my hat’s off to you.

    you’d be a very talented individual.

  124. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Also BIS gives information to many teams and sports information websites and TV channels/news programs.

    So its not like they totally suck.

  125. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    timing of blog outing announcement priceless.

  126. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    pete

    It was joke between randy and I.

    honestly, you’re already on the internet. on the upper right hand side of your screen, you (probably) have a google search bar. you could look up Humour very easily. But no, instead you simply assume it’s bogus, as you and people like you do with everything you disagree with. Try understanding humour before you berate it. It might help you pick your battles a little better.

  127. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    randy: my baseball playing experience extends no further than HS varsity. I’ve had to give it up in college b/c i can’t commit to a baseball schedule b/c of the music, which sucks, but I think it’s important to note that the abilities developed in playing baseball are not the same as those developed for understanding it. Muscle memory =/= critical thinking ability. I can still watch tons of baseball, I can still study the stats thoroughly and enthusiastically, and I can still see the value in stats, even if I am not brilliant enough to come with new ones.

    Brian Cashman has no playing experience above high school either. Should he defer to your opinion on all baseball-related questions?

  128. Bodhisattva - Destiny Wears Pinstripes February 20th, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    THY,

    From downtown!

  129. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    “or as stuckey correctly makes the distinction that i often don’t like the people themselves using sabermetrics rather than the stats themselves. he’s right.”

    I believe Wave Your Hat owes someone an apology…:-)

  130. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    tarheel: of course it was tongue-and-cheek. I’m not an idiot. That doesn’t make it any less cavalier in its berating of a very legitimate statistic. It was a stupid thing to say, joke or not. “special relativity? more like SPECIAL relativity, if you know what i mean! right? RIGHT?!!!” good one bud. real clever

  131. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    “Brian Cashman has no playing experience above high school either. Should he defer to your opinion on all baseball-related questions?”

    HAHAHA

    Randy step away from the keyboard.

  132. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    thy: fraid i don’t follow…

  133. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    pete -

    !

    Wrong question to Randy in your last post re: Cashman.

    !

    :)

  134. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    “Is there any chance you might be wrong Stuckey?”

    I genuinely don’t know what you’re asking me what I might be wrong about. I MIGHT give a different answer according to what the question is.

  135. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    ohh gotcha. anti-cash? explains a lot.

  136. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    stuckey-

    you’re right.

    ultimately it’s about competition.

    but i’d be really surprised if you could back up your verbal arrogance on a baseball field.

    i’ve been around a lot of mlb players and i’ve never seen any with the attitude you have.

    the game humbles people. no one goes far in it and has the attitude you have.

  137. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    “You look at the stats and think it was positive.”

    IN my mind critical thinking doesn’t permit me otherwise. He measurably outperformed the average 9 (AL)/8 (NL) hitter in the major leagues.

    Is there another conclusion to be drawn from that?

    “I look at the overmatched AB’s, the lack of bunting or playing to his strength and think, he better turn it around and quick or his chance with the Yankees is going to go bye bye.”

    My answer to that is if he looked overmatched 65% of the time but got on base the 35%, who gives a s**t about how he looked during the 65?

    Now I say that to make a point fully aware of making productive outs, etc, AND that he did not get on base 35% of the time…

    My point is, how he LOOKED when he failed is less important than how OFTEN he succeeded.

    I hope the Yankees don’t use some internal measuring stick as to how “good” they think Brett Gardner “should” be, and instead simply determine how good he is against the available alternatives, with all the factors like cost, etc measured.

  138. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    “HAHAHA
    Randy step away from the keyboard.”

    tarheel yank-

    good idea.

    i’m about ready to launch the missiles :)

  139. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    What if Brett Gardner “overperformed” ? What if he succeeded in spite of himself?

    Just thinking out loud here.

  140. Nick in SF February 20th, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_.....e_baseball

  141. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    Doreen, that is a possibility, but given his distribution of hit types (ld, gb, and fb) and his subsequent BABIP, it seems he did not.

    But if he doesnt hit more GBs, its possible that his numbers will decline.

  142. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    “cavalier in its berating of a very legitimate statistic”

    I hope this was humour, because it sure made me laugh.

  143. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Tarheelyank
    February 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    “cavalier in its berating of a very legitimate statistic”

    I hope this was humour, because it sure made me laugh.

    ————————————————————

    I guess we finally discovered that these statistical gurus of baseball actually have some value after all.

  144. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    “Having said that, given his speed, it might behoove Gardner to hit more balls on the ground (although he is probably best off ignoring me and doing what works for him). The point is that Gardner hasn’t been getting “lucky” with balls in play.”

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs.....jer-morgan

    I will let that paragraph speak for itself.

  145. Nick in SF February 20th, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    Brian Cashman battted .348 in 1988. Not a school record.

    http://www.cuacardinals.com/sp.....ve/Records

  146. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    “Brian Cashman has no playing experience above high school either. Should he defer to your opinion on all baseball-related questions?”

    pete-

    you’re going to be a welcome addition to the blog, but you don’t now how funny it is what you just said .

    brian played at catholic university, a small division three school and was a pretty good second baseman at that level.

    the problem is that catholic university would have trouble beating a good florida high school team .

    brian cashman earned his stripes with years of apprenticeship in the yankees front office (his college baseball career , though low level,didn’t hurt).

    just now, with three-four years of being firmly in charge (and after all those years of getting coffee for george) has he finally got it.

    he’s earned it at this point though experience in the game , not from being a fangraphs boy.

    at least i hope not.

  147. Phil the Thrill February 20th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    Brian Cashman was a star second basemen with a high OBP at Catholic University in DC.

  148. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    stuckey: that’s not a perfect way of looking at it though. Gardner had a pretty small sample last year and was largely played only in situations in his favor. So that he looked overmatched in his outs is relevant because it suggests that that overmatching could be an indicator of his true ability levels, and his solid wOBA an aberration caused by small sample size.

    However, I feel very strongly that people blow the “overmatched” thing wayyyy out of proportion. Gardner’s bat itself is never going to be better than average, and will likely be fringy for most of his career. Guys with no power and weak swings don’t have huge offensive ceilings. However, if Gardner can be a 90-95 OPS+ guy, he’ll end up a net positive on offense (and that’s not even including his potentially super-awesome defense) because his baserunning and basestealing can bump him into the 100-105 wRC+ category. If that +20 UZR in center is real, then that’s a legit 5 win player (In Johnny D’s career year last year at 35 years old, he was a 3.5 win player…just sayin…). People doubt that he can do even that, though because he did, in fact, look quite overmatched at times in September and October. But this was after he had 3 weeks off from injury, and then didn’t get a real rehab assignment to get his swing back. My guess is that it’ll always take a ton of reps before Gardner’s at the point where he can handle MLB pitching, but once he gets to that point, he’s a quality mlb player. Taking 3 weeks off from swinging a bat and then suddenly facing major league pitching is going to make any fringy hitter look overmatched. The point is that pre-injury, gardner did not look overmatched at the plate. He looked like a .350 OBP hitter with tremendous speed. Considering the strength of the rest of the yanks’ lineup in 2010, it’d be well worth it for them to figure out if they’ve got a cost-controlled 4-5 win player on their hands by starting gardner all year. (not 162 games, but IMO, unless he’s .200/.250/.300-ing it, he should play. The kid has always improved after an adjustment period at each new level. Let’s just make sure he can’t before saying he can’t.

  149. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Jerkface -

    Do you mean if he doesn’t turn beat out more gbs for hits? (i.e. bunt singles)

    —-

    Part of my thinking is if a player really doesn’t Look Good doing something – overmatched, bad swing, say – will he be able to consistently or sufficiently improve his skills or will he be more likely to remain static or decline in performance?

  150. pete February 20th, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    wow I had no idea he played in college. good for him. having said that, notice the changes in approach he’s made from 2005 to now. In ’05, would he have passed on Damon and Matsui for Granderson and Johnson? Would he have opted for Gardner as the starting left fielder? probably not. This offseason, it’s become quite clear that he has a much better all-around understanding of advanced metrics, as evidenced by his valuation of defense and OBP. That’s likely the product of a lot of sources, they’re not going to differ in opinion from fangraphs on many things.

    The only real anti-sabermetrics teams out there now are Cincinatti, San Francisco, and the Mets. How are they doing?

  151. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    “the game humbles people. no one goes far in it and has the attitude you have.”

    You really want to go here? :-)

    I didn’t make it past Division III Randy, you’re not telling me anything I already don’t know about my own abilities.

    But tell me what the game does to people who won’t take responsibility for their missteps?

    You’ve been backtracking and sidestepping for days, readjusting your fluid arguments believing I imagine no one would notice until you finally cornered yourself and had no choice to admit you had no way out.

    But you couldn’t even do that with grace.

    Looks like we both have our flaws.

  152. bru February 20th, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    In a game of numbers like baseball, fans and GM’s alike have looked to many stats to attempt to quantify the offensive prowess of a player.

    Probably the oldest stat is Batting Average, which tells us how many hits per at-bat a player got. The flaw with this statistic is that walks are completely left out, neither counted as a positive or negative. Also, the power of the hits is not taken into consideration. A single is counted the same as a home run. To validate the ineffectiveness of this stat to tell the whole story, Ichiro and Albert Pujols have almost identical career AVG’s, at .333 and .334 respectively. I don’t think anyone would argue that Ichiro is as good a hitter, however, so clearly Batting Average is not telling us the whole story.

  153. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    THY: why? what is so egregious about that? if you’re going to challenge wRC+, do it directly. find something specifically wrong with it, and point it out. I’d welcome that, I love finding what’s wrong with stats – it’s what drove me to sabermetrics in the first place – because it helps you improve them.

  154. bru February 20th, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Another widely used stat is On-Base Percentage. This stat is similar to AVG, but it also counts walks and being hit by a pitch. Similar to AVG, its main failing is that it counts a Home Run the same as a single or walk. So, for the same reason that AVG does not show us the whole picture, OBP is likewise flawed

  155. Nick in SF February 20th, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Devil’s advocate: if stuckey was as humble as Mother Theresa or as arrogant as Donald Trump, would either make a difference in the validity of certain types of statistical analysis?

  156. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    bru: that’s exactly right. that’s where sabermetrics begin. they take a stat, locate its flaws, and fix those problems by generating new, better statistics. then they find the flaws in their own statistics, and update them like that. It’s all about improvement. Why are people so anti-improvement?

  157. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    The only real anti-sabermetrics teams out there now are Cincinatti, San Francisco, and the Mets. How are they doing?

    This is not true. The Twins are almost 100% scouting, and one of 2 teams without a stat department.

  158. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    “Gardner’s bat itself is never going to be better than average, and will likely be fringy for most of his career. Guys with no power and weak swings don’t have huge offensive ceilings.”

    Ok Stuckey let him have it.

  159. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    bru: yes and so on. OBP = better than AVG, but still flawed. OPS: better than OBP, still flawed. OPS+: better than OPS, still flawed. wOBA: better than OPS+ (arguably), still flawed. wRC+: better than wOBA, but presumably still flawed. We haven’t found anything better yet though. Should we stop looking, no. But since the flaws have decreased with each step, and the benefits have increased, I think it’s safe to say that wRC+>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BA

  160. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Maybe because you’re trying to pawn off more flawed stats as improvements.

  161. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    pete: understood, but I was trying to make a simple point. All the legwork you just did was factored into the equation.

    There are a TON of variables here. He lost the job handed to him, look awful after the injury.

    But he was very good for two months straight. He’s ceiling isn’t high, but he has shown a career pattern of improving.

    I could (and have) go on all day. The point was how he did IS independent of how he looked, from a pure perspective.

    Is it an indicator he got lucky?

    Maybe?

    Could be mean if he just looks a LITTLE better he could be even better than any expectation.

    Maybe.

    I’ll I’m saying he wasn’t bad this last. Baseball doesn’t award or retract runs on style.

  162. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    A lot of people used to believe that dice rolls and other gambling was controlled by the Gods, until some men decided to create the theories of probability.

  163. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    Jerkface: yeah that’s right. forgot about the twins. there are a few holdouts for certain. the twins, though, have an extraordinary ability to develop average major leaguers through their player development program. It’s why they constantly have solid teams. Average regulars + 2 studs + AL Central = contention. Still, that there are only 2 teams without a stat department ought to say something.

  164. Jerkface February 20th, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    Though based on my roulette losings last cruise Id reckon some higher entity has it out for me.

  165. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    GB7: PLEASE point out specific flaws in wRC+. As i’ve said about 3029309 times, I’m perfectly open to their existence. I haven’t found them, but I’m sure the exist. But if you’re going to say “more flawed statistics” and be taken seriously, you HAVE to specify the alleged flaws.

  166. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Stuckey: no I agree, I’m high on Gardner. Like I said, I think he’s got a pretty real shot at being a 4 win player this year, and 5 isn’t out of the question (just look at Nyjer Morgan last year). I was just pointing out that while he did in fact have a good year last year, looking purely at his MLB stats from ’09 is a very very flawed way of judging him. Not saying that’s how you judge him, just how it came across in your post. His career trends thus far, however, suggest that we could see a bump up this year. If Brett goes .265/.335/.375 and goes 45/50 for stolen bases and UZRs +20, he will be MUCH more valuable than Johnny Damon will be in 2010.

  167. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    “Maybe because you’re trying to pawn off more flawed stats as improvements.”

    Maybe you don’t understand minimizing flaws IS improvement.

    If no change is worthwhile unless it’s perfect and not because it’s still imperfect but better, that would put a screeching halt to any and all innovation.

  168. Tarheelyank February 20th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    “you’re going to challenge wRC+, do it directly.”

    pete
    one more time. I was saying wRC+ is code for “randy” is full of SH#$@. I have no idea if wRC+ is good or not.

    “Part of my thinking is if a player really doesn’t Look Good doing something – overmatched, bad swing, say – will he be able to consistently or sufficiently improve his skills or will he be more likely to remain static or decline in performance?”

    Doreen

    I haven’t said so lately, but you are one of the smartest posters on lohud. Baseball or otherwise.

  169. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    well said stuckey. i said it earlier, but there’d be no point in any stats at all if any of the things they measured was a certain way 100% of the time. The whole point of having stats is so that we know how good a players’ chances are of succeeding

  170. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    “looking purely at his MLB stats from ‘09 is a very very flawed way of judging him. ”

    pete, we agree, but I just want to clarify this point because I believe words are important.. His 2009 stats are a PERFECT way of judging him.

    His 2009 stats are an imperfect way of predicting his 2010 stats.

  171. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    thy: ohhhh (finally) gotcha. sortof. still not totally sure why it’s funny, but whatevs

  172. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    THY -

    That’s very nice of you. I think I just know when I don’t know.

  173. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    “You’ve been backtracking and sidestepping for days, readjusting your fluid arguments believing I imagine no one would notice until you finally cornered yourself and had no choice to admit you had no way out”

    stuckey-

    i have no idea what your are talking about, but feel free to share your insights.

    what i’m saying about humility and baseball is that at the pro level no one cares about what you think.
    i was a bullpen catcher for two years and i didn’t say ten words in a row that often.

    one time i offered advice to a pitcher i was catching who had won over a hundred mlb games, he stopped throwing and asked me why i thought i was there. as i looked at him thinking of what to say, he said ” because the ball rolls a really long ways if you aren’t . ”

    i couldn’t predict who will win the world series any better than you could or even a casual fan.

    the battle you and i have going on is that you think you have some special insight into the game because of sabermetric stats that you are into. as sj44 said earlier today there is no statistical holy grail in baseball. there is no way you are going to figure out a way to win in baseball through statistical analysis.

    the game is way too complex for that.

    it’s much more complex than chess and look how long it took for big blue to beat the best chess players.

  174. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    “Part of my thinking is if a player really doesn’t Look Good doing something – overmatched, bad swing, say – will he be able to consistently or sufficiently improve his skills or will he be more likely to remain static or decline in performance?”

    I’d say the odds favor static, with improve and decline having likely equal, smaller odds.

    And if Bret Gardner remains static, in 2010 for $500k, batting 9th for the NY Yankees, he’ll be just fine, so long as the ball finds in glove in the outfield.

    In other words, the odds favor him being just fine, or better than that.

    You agree Doreen?

  175. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    stuckey: k i see what you’re saying. yes exactly.

    THY/Randy: I do have to wonder why people do challenge wRC+ though, if they don’t know what it is? I mean, shouldn’t you look it up and find out what it is and what exactly is wrong with it before you make a judgment on its validity? (not saying you did this THY, but it just seems odd that we’ve been having this debate all day and nobody has even bothered to learn what wRC+, which I said from the beginning is the best offensive stat out there right now, is. If nothing else, it’s lazy.

  176. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    It continues to amaze me why the four of you wizards would bother hanging out on this board trying to educate a bunch of people that are so obviously beneath your intellectual level.

    Has it occured to you that most people just don’t care about it?

  177. Doreen February 20th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    stuckey -

    As a #9 hitter you could definitely do worse than Brett Gardner.

    I’m hoping the work he’s put in during the off-season pays off for him. He seems to be a hard-working guy. I thought he was hurt immensely by the timing of his injury last season. I was disappointed he didn’t use his speed to get on base more. If he only improves in that aspect, I’d be satisfied on 2 levels – that he saw the weakness and took the steps to do something about it, and of course, the results themselves would be satisfying.

    (He’s no Melky Cabrera, but I’ll live. :lol: )

  178. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    “This is not true. The Twins are almost 100% scouting, and one of 2 teams without a stat department.”

    aren’t the phillies old school too?

  179. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    randy: the point of statistical analysis is not to find the unstoppable tool for winning. that doesn’t exist. Injuries, luck, statistical outliers, steroids, tons of things can throw the whole thing off. But baseball organizations, just like any business, have to operate on a business model that is as efficient as possible. The motto that most use is the following: since we cannot control for or foresee the things that defy percentages, we will play the percentages. If this approach is maintained, we will ultimately wind up with the most attainable success, because the fluctuations will be around an optimal mean, given our resources, rather than a sub-optimal mean.

    In other words, smart teams make themselves as good as they can be, if all goes to plan, so that if or when it doesn’t, the dropoff will be from optimal to something less, rather than from something less to something much less.

  180. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    Randy: Charlie Manuel is. Their front office is not at all though, and that’s what makes the biggest difference. I think their cost-benefit analysis is pretty weak, but if I recall correctly they do have a big stats department. Could be wrong, though. A retarded monkey could build an NL-East champion right now.

  181. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    “Still, that there are only 2 teams without a stat department ought to say something.”

    pete ,

    on the other hand, if all teams used statistical analysis, how would we tell if it worked or not ?

    when people say cashman is good , i say look at who he’s competing with. they’re all people like him.

    now the twins gm. he has to make the playoffs with 120 million less dollars.

    no wonder he doesn’t use statistical analysis. he’s too busy trying to figure out how to win games.

  182. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    GB7: if they don’t care, why do they argue? seems a little strange. and i can’t speak for the others, but I only stick around here when there’s nothing going on over at RAB. sat. night open threads are generally pretty devoid of activity over there.

  183. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Randy: so every GM simultaneously hopped on the stat-train then, huh? Look, the twins do an amazing job year-to-year of playing out their best-case-scenarios. I have no idea how they do it. But their best case scenarios are 88-90 win seasons. I’d rather the 105 win team that underperforms and wins 100 games than the 89 win team that plays to its maximum potential.

    And you can say it’s all about money, but the Rays have 100+ win upside this year, and their payroll is on par with the Twins, who don’t even have close to 100+ win upside.

  184. randy l. February 20th, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    pete-

    we don’t use the” R” word here.

    doreen has expressed the reasons quite clearly and i think everyone agrees.

    i do get your point about the nl east though.

    what about the twins ?

    how do you figure they do so well with their old school approach with such a small payroll?

  185. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    “what i’m saying about humility and baseball is that at the pro level no one cares about what you think.”

    I don’t recall asking them to, nor the point of any such request.

    But let’s have some fun with this anyways.

    The players you played with. Would you disagree that the players of that era could have benefitted with the fitness, nutrition and conditioning sciences players today take advantage of?

    Or is that all just more hoo-ha?

    I think players of bygone eras didn’t know things that could have helped them be better baseball players. Not because they were stupid, just because the things that could have helped them weren’t developed or widely understood yet.

    But that’s just me being an arrogant jackass again I suppose.

    “the battle you and i have going on is that you think you have some special insight into the game because of sabermetric stats that you are into.”

    The mistake you continue to make in replying to me is you’re so blinded in thinking my logic is being clouded by the stats you find flaws in, you keep ignoring me when I say I’m not into sabermatic stats.

    I’m into logic and critical thinking. Which you’ve been brutalizing.

    I don’t know how else to get you to realize I’m no sabremetrician other than to invite you to look up the roughly dozen times I’ve clearly stated it.

    You keep criticizing me for my attitude in regards to YOUR intelligence. Well, what do you want me to think when you can’t see to understand what I’ve said clearly and repeatedly?

    “there is no way you are going to figure out a way to win in baseball through statistical analysis.”

    Soley? No.

    Does it help?

    Only an idiot would deny that.

    “the game is way too complex for that.”

    “there’s a point where complexity goes too far or gets ahead of itself”

    And here I was all this time thinking baseball was just about perfect as it was…

  186. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    Look randy, all I’m saying is that if you took the 2010, saber-educated Yankee team, and had them play in the 1980s or 1970s or any other pre-stat team, they’d be 115 game winners. The reason they aren’t going to totally sweep the floor with the rest of the league (I think they’re the best team still, but the difference isn’t close to what it would have been) is that the rest of the league is competing at that level as well. Just look at the sox. Anybody who doesn’t understand sabermetrics would be baffled by their moves this offseason. Beltre? Cameron? those guys can’t hit .300 or 30 home runs! They’re bums! JD Drew? Bum! Jason Bay? Now THERE’s a guy they should have held on to!

    i mean seriously

  187. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    Small revenue teams have a smaller margin for error. The Twins made two trades (Santana and Garza) in which they didn’t get a sufficient return, and as a result, it has cost them a significant amount of wins.

  188. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    my apologies to anyone I offended. i got riled up. very sorry. I should not have said that it was very rude and insensitive.

  189. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    pete
    February 20th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
    GB7: if they don’t care, why do they argue? seems a little strange. and i can’t speak for the others, but I only stick around here when there’s nothing going on over at RAB. sat. night open threads are generally pretty devoid of activity over there.

    ————————————————————

    I can understand why there wouldn’t be much going on over at RAB. You’ve probably run them off with this BS and they’re about as sick of it and you as a lot of people on here are..

  190. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Rich: but a team with a more advanced critical thinking approach would never have made those trades. Scouting and tools said Delmon Young was a total stud (and he still may evolve into a quality player, we don’t know yet), but stats said he was a guy who didn’t walk enough and played horrible defense. Garza, on the other hand, was the one guy after liriano who had the potential to be an impact starter, and they traded him for Delmon Young.

  191. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    That’s the third time that you’ve apologized for the same crap. I doubt that you’re actually sorry, since 3 times in 2 hours sort of loses it’s affectiveness.

  192. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    GB7: actually no, it’s just a smaller community so there are fewer commenters around on a Sat. night. I wouldn’t be either if I weren’t on a semester off with nobody around in the middle of nowhere with work at 4:30 in the AM. Most there, with one notable exception, agree with pretty much everything i’ve said here. RAB is a pretty heavily saber-oriented site (not compared to fangraphs or tangotiger or anything like that, but compared to most single-team news/analysis blogs). And they’re one of the very best.

  193. stuckey February 20th, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    “It continues to amaze me why the four of you wizards would bother hanging out on this board trying to educate a bunch of people that are so obviously beneath your intellectual level.”

    Likely for the same reason you’ve become entirely fixated on this point.

  194. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    GB7: uh…no? I apologized once for the “****** monkey” comment, as it was insensitive and plays no part in this discussion. When have I made a comment like that before?

  195. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    I’ve read some of the BS at RAB and for the most part, it’s full of obnoxious jerks. You fit in well.

  196. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    and, it’d be *effectiveness. affectiveness isn’t a word

    /nitpick’d

  197. Rich in NJ February 20th, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Pete

    I’m a saber oriented thinker, but I think the Santana trade was about Bill Smith not wanting to trade him to a team in the AL, and it cost him, big time. I think he knew he was getting 10 cents on the dollar when he pulled the trigger.

    You could be right about Garza/Young, but even statistically oriented GMs make bad trades, but perhaps with a lesser frequency.

  198. GreenBeret7 February 20th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    What was the other two apologies for, then? Private thoughts? You used the same apology for the same remarks three times. Sorry…but it gets a little hollow.

  199. pete February 20th, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    GB7: really? I’d love to hear some examples of this “BS” over at RAB. Could you point one out, and explain specifically why it is “BS”? Or how about the “obnoxious jerks”. I’d love to be introduced. RAB has one regular who sort of fits that profile, but we love him and his four-named ways anyway. He’s even on urbandictionary. And his only real crime is unrelenting pessimism and ignorance. He’s really not an “obnoxious jerk”. Everyone else there is pretty much just the balls though. The comment sections are consistently awesome

  200. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Rich: that’s true. I agree the Santana trade was just fiscal necessity. the garza trade was just a bad trade. still, the stats backed it up as a bad trade, even before it happened.

    GB7: what apologies and what remarks are you referring to? (quote please) I’m genuinely curious, because that is my first apology, and it was the first time i made an insensitive remark

  201. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:01 am

    GB,

    Why do you feel that it is your job to police this blog? If you are tired of or annoyed by the conversation why don’t you go do something else? Or start a different conversation with someone or people on here.

    You spend all day calling people obnoxious, stupid, and jerks. Ever think that you may be the problem?

  202. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:02 am

    the santana trade also happened at a bad time. the year before sabathia’s contract ran out, right after santana had for the first time ever started to show signs of decline, and right in the beginning of a young pitching boom that made GMs dream about their own prospects. It was pretty tough luck for the Twins that offseason.

  203. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Perhaps a site where you can have your own little saber-jerk is more of what you’re looking for. I seriously doubt you find many, if any converts here. Maybe it’s best to let people find the new magic numbers on their own.

  204. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 12:04 am

    “The players you played with. Would you disagree that the players of that era could have benefitted with the fitness, nutrition and conditioning sciences players today take advantage of?”

    first of all , i was just a bullpen catcher and not a player, but the kind of players i was around were guys like al oliver, hal mcrae, cesar cedeno, joaquin andujar, jose cruz, graig nettles, ron washinton, jerry royster, etc. rick petersen was a player too, but he wasn’t very good. smartest player i’ve ever seen though.

    these guys could really play the game. i’m not sure today’s players are better than these guys.

    do they hit more home runs? do they field better than nettles or throw better than jose cruz? run faster than omar moreno or ron leflore who also played on those teams.

    that said i like the idea of fitness, nutrition, and conditioning science.

    you say you’re not a major advocate of sabermetrics. i’ll take your word for it.

    you could have fooled me though.

  205. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:06 am

    RAB is a fantastic blog. IMO best Yankee blog on the internet for the combination of big league and prospect analysis. No need to bash them.

    Actually I can see why GB would bash them. If you ever commented there lets just say you would be overwhelmed.

  206. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Quick question:

    Outside of UZR, how do you guys know flaws exist in advanced statistics when none of you are able to identify any of them?

  207. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 12:13 am

    “my apologies to anyone I offended. i got riled up. very sorry. I should not have said that it was very rude and insensitive.”

    pete -

    no problem. we all say things we shouldn’t.you apologized. case closed.

    you really should come over here more often.

    #1
    if everyone over at RAB thinks the same as you, you really need to come over here where people do not do group speak. you will be told you are full of crap when you are. trust me . it’ll be good for you.

    #2

    you seem to keep stuckey busy which many of us will pay you money for – lots of money :)

  208. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:13 am

    GB7: I’m not trying to convert anyone. People who chose to debate me on these subjects i’ll gladly engage, but otherwise i really don’t care. And quite honestly, you’re the only one who seems to think i’m an “obnoxious jerk”. You seem to be operating under the impression that everybody agrees with you, which simply isn’t true. There are many who read this site but completely ignore the comments because of the belligerently sticking-to-out-guns nature of some of the main commenters. People who wage personal attacks on the people whose opinions they disagree with, and people whose idea of debate is to try to pick out an irrelevant flaw in somebody’s argument and declare that that means the person is wrong. People who will argue to their death that a stat is bogus but won’t even bother learning what the stat actually means. I would say that THAT is much more obnoxious, and renders one much more of a “jerk” than simply deferring to the best stats out there rather than antiquated stats that are entirely context-driven and don’t bring nearly as much relevant information to the table as the advanced ones. That’s what I’m arguing against. If you don’t care about the advanced stats that’s fine. Don’t pay attention. But that doesn’t make you right, or us wrong, and if you’re going to call BS on a stat, back it up. And do your damn research. I think if you actually bothered to learn about any of these stats you would realize that they hold quite a bit more weight than you realize. But of course you won’t do that, because it’s whatever it is that i am saying is much less important to you than me being wrong.

  209. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:13 am

    GB7: I’m not trying to convert anyone. People who chose to debate me on these subjects i’ll gladly engage, but otherwise i really don’t care. And quite honestly, you’re the only one who seems to think i’m an “obnoxious jerk”. You seem to be operating under the impression that everybody agrees with you, which simply isn’t true. There are many who read this site but completely ignore the comments because of the belligerently sticking-to-out-guns nature of some of the main commenters. People who wage personal attacks on the people whose opinions they disagree with, and people whose idea of debate is to try to pick out an irrelevant flaw in somebody’s argument and declare that that means the person is wrong. People who will argue to their death that a stat is bogus but won’t even bother learning what the stat actually means. I would say that THAT is much more obnoxious, and renders one much more of a “jerk” than simply deferring to the best stats out there rather than antiquated stats that are entirely context-driven and don’t bring nearly as much relevant information to the table as the advanced ones. That’s what I’m arguing against. If you don’t care about the advanced stats that’s fine. Don’t pay attention. But that doesn’t make you right, or us wrong, and if you’re going to call BS on a stat, back it up. And do your damn research. I think if you actually bothered to learn about any of these stats you would realize that they hold quite a bit more weight than you realize. But of course you won’t do that, because it’s whatever it is that i am saying is much less important to you than me being wrong.

  210. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Plus, what really is an advanced statistic?

    I don’t think OPS+ or ERA+ are advanced. I really don’t view wOBA as advanced either, and since wRC+ is a derivative of wOBA, that does’t really qualify, imo.

    It really comes down to: they weren’t around 20 years ago, so they must suck.

  211. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 12:20 am

    “that said i like the idea of fitness, nutrition, and conditioning science.”

    May I ask if you see the any similarity between the advent and acceptance of two different types of news sciences into Major League baseball?

    “you could have fooled me though.”

    Wish I hadn’t. It’s been my point to YOU all along. You don’t have to personally be a practitioner of something to appreciate it’s value.

    Acknowledging something is worthwhile it not committing to personally applying it.

    I don’t begrudge you or own disregard for advanced stats. But that shouldn’t have to be the same thing as arguing it’s worthless.

    I think the art of ballet is a welcome, worthwhile pursuit and part of our culture. I just hope to god no one asks me to sit through one.

  212. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:21 am

    sorry for the double post.
    randy: oh there’s plenty of debate there. People just tend not to casually dismiss facts as dimwitted opinion. Well most. The debates are most often about players whose stats tell only a small portion of the story – either due to a small sample or age or injuries or league or stadium or other factors. Believe me there is a lot of divergence of opinion. Left field has been a topic of great debate over there this offseason. You should check it out it’s a genuinely top-of-the-line blog. The writing is excellent both in the articles and the comments, and all of the back-and-forth is done in reply format (with nesting limits) so it isn’t so hard to follow :)

    There are times when the news is slow and you want to get your debate on, and nobody over there disagrees with you, so you head over to ESPN or LoHud to get your argument fix, but for the most part, consistently intelligent analysis and opinion and comment sharing (it truly is an excellent commenting community, too, in terms of humor and manners and enthusiasm) is very refreshing. Also the 3-4 full-length articles with 3-4 more blurbs/links per day is amazing.

  213. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 12:21 am

    pete
    February 20th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    randy: again, sorry if I seem snooty or condescending, I don’t mean to. It’s just that it’s very frustrating to argue with someone when that person continually repeats the same ad hominem point that doesn’t actually address the issue of debate. I don’t mean it as an attack on you as a person at all, and any attitude that comes out is the result of years of dealing with everything from B-Jobberism to “Swishah is teh worst fielda evah!! I saw it with my eyes!!” to “A-Rod is teh choke artist!!”, et all, from the mainstream mediots like George King and Jon Heyman and Joel Sherman. It’s nothing personal, just a short fuse on the subject.

    ————————————————————

    Does this look familiar? And, again earlier.

  214. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 12:23 am

    “Actually I can see why GB would bash them. If you ever commented there lets just say you would be overwhelmed.”

    ha ha. i could say the reverse. bring over ben k over here and watch him get pummeled.

    all kidding aside,i wouldn’t take part in any blog where the guys who run it can boot you off or censor you when they don’t like what you say.

    one of the strengths of this blog is the blog meisters let the commenters battle it out unless we cross some line of decency.

    i used to comment on MVN until the nitwit that runs it , a die hard red sox fan, tried to tell me to knock off my challenges to him. i told him straight out where to go. they even came on here and told me not to badmouth them or else.

    as you can imagine that went over well :)

    anyway, i’d say a site that everyone things the same is kind of odd.

    are you sure it’s not a cult of some kind over at RAB ?

  215. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 12:23 am

    “you seem to keep stuckey busy which many of us will pay you money for – lots of money :)”

    F that. I can be bought directly.

    Gimme your best offer and tell you how long that make me forget the LoHud URL…

  216. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Rich: I agree with you. None of the stats out there right now require you to have a background in level-3 calculus, as some of the reporters and tv analysts seem to imply. They just require you to be open to new ideas and critical thinking. wRC+ is really a very basic stat. It just says “player x did these things, which have historically contributed to this many runs, which is this many percentage points above the league average, which is this many above the league average in neutral park conditions”

  217. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:27 am

    GB7: that was entirely different from the “****** monkey” remark. In the instances you’re referring to, i was preemptively apologizing to Randy in the event that i unintentionally came off as condescending, which is very real when arguing in a tone-ambiguous setting like an online comment thread. I was enjoying the back-and-forth with Randy, and I was hoping that I wasn’t coming off as a jerk, so I wanted to make sure he knew that if I was, I genuinely didn’t mean it.

  218. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:29 am

    “all kidding aside,i wouldn’t take part in any blog where the guys who run it can boot you off or censor you when they don’t like what you say”

    That’s the way it used to be here until Chad and Sam got the keys.

  219. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:31 am

    randy: you don’t get censored on RAB unless you don’t follow the commenting guidelines. typically this is only people who say really offensive things (rare) or completely off-topic (less rare). The off-topic thing would take adjusting to for a LoHud native, but it’s a net positive. There is a perpetual off-topic thread there, and an open thread every night, but the idea with the no off-topic posts is so that no personal arguments that the rest of the readers don’t care about will dominate a thread like they can here (like we’ve done to this one :)). If you don’t do anything egregious, you don’t get censored at RAB. Nobody has ever been censored or banned because of an opinion there.

  220. Tarheelyank February 21st, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Randy that sounds like Pete. :D

    One last thought before bed.

    The notion that all “old school” posters here don’t like stats is false. Arrogant bullcrap that doesn’t “pass the smell test” yes, stats no.

    My evidence is CB. 99.99% of his posts are spot on. Full of advanced stats or not.

    Some of you sabres should read more of his posts. In fact it should be a requirement at Lo-Hud. All Sabres must be trained by CB before quoting “advanced metrics”, Or (for Stuckey) “critical thinking”. (give me a break)

  221. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:32 am

    randy,

    I am sure Ben, Mike, and Joe could handle themselves over here. They have developed a great blog with great readership.

    People over at RAB do not all think alike. There are often contentious debates in the comments section.

    The difference from here and RAB is that on this blog you can make statements without any evidence or research and be embraced by the regulars. The reason I said GB would be overwhelmed is because over on RAB you have ZERO credibility with that style and it does not fly with the regulars.

  222. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:34 am

    “The notion that all “old school” posters here don’t like stats is false. Arrogant bullcrap that doesn’t “pass the smell test” yes, stats no.”

    ———————–

    Both randy and GB have stated numerous times that they do not like advanced statistics.

  223. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:36 am

    “The notion that all “old school” posters here don’t like stats is false. Arrogant bullcrap that doesn’t “pass the smell test” yes, stats no.”

    Why do people think that something is true merely because they type it?

  224. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:39 am

    And what exactly does not pass the “smell test?”

    Ironically, other than UZR the only people on this blog who have ever identified a flaw in an advanced statistic was a pro-statistic person.

  225. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:39 am

    “anyway, i’d say a site that everyone things the same is kind of odd.
    are you sure it’s not a cult of some kind over at RAB ”

    first, they don’t all think the same thing. not at all. it’s just that the whole saber-vs.-oldschool debate happened there about a year ago, and the newschoolers won in a landslide, and there aren’t many holdouts over there, not because the commenters are belligerent, but because they are very adept at disproving a faulty argument (as many, if not quite all, anti-stat arguments are), and equally adept at not only explaining their own opinions, but at backing them up with evidence. They’re not hard to argue with because they are jerks or anything like that, it’s just that they’re very good at legitimately PROVING (as I appear to have failed to do) points, rather than merely stating opinions. They can be impatient with stubborn posters, but it’s nothing ridiculous.

    As to the cult thing, well yeah haha it kind of is. The number of running inside jokes over there is crazy, because so many of the commenters are every-day guys who have been there for over 2 years. Theirs is an extensive and wonderful private lexicon, but they’re working on a RAB meme dictionary that would help out newcomers, so I wouldn’t worry about that.

  226. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 12:43 am

    “My evidence is CB. 99.99% of his posts are spot on.”

    Your “evidence” is your opinion?

    No wonder my citing of “critical thinking” grates on you.

  227. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 12:43 am

    It is also ironic that people on this blog would say the guys and girls at RAB are jerks.

    Personal attacks are not permitted at RAB while they are quite commonplace here.

  228. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:44 am

    LGY: definitely. I heard Ben on that talk show the other night and he was amazingly patient with those guys (both of them were talking about how Joba “screams closer”, and how Ollie Perez was going to be a 22 game winner, stuff like that. So apparently when Joba does a fistpump and lets out a primal scream, he’s yelling “CLOSER!!!” :))

    Yes they are very quick on the pounce there, but it’s the general opinion that if you can’t back something up with facts, then A) announce that it’s just an opinion/hunch, and B) don’t expect anyone to agree with you

  229. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:45 am

    here, the facts themselves are often rejected. there, they are disputed with other facts, if they are believed to be misleading or erroneous

  230. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 12:45 am

    “May I ask if you see the any similarity between the advent and acceptance of two different types of news sciences into Major League baseball?”

    stuckey-

    i understand that technology comes at us in a lot of ways.

    there are a lot of technological advances in the game that wouldn’t be filed under the sabermetric umbrella.

    there are medical advances that didn’t exist twenty years ago- not sabermetric.

    there are video advances that make twenty years ago look like the dark ages.
    i was actually close friends with the yankee video coordinator in the early 90′s. carl taylor did it when he was being the #1 BP pitcher on the team and sometime bullpen catcher. again not sabermetric.

    basically there has been all kinds of video and imaging technology that didn’t exist before.

    it’s all about computer technology.

    yes stats also are driven by the increased computing power.

    that’s sabermetric i guess.

    but not all sabermetric.

    i think there are stats totally separate from sabermetrics.

    that would be stats without the dogma that goes with sabermetric stats.

    the stat community really needs to move on past sabermetrics.

    sabermetrics is so early 2000, so billy ball.

    time to move on.

  231. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:46 am

    for example, since about 11 this morning I have asked people what they thought was wrong with stats like wRC+. I have yet to get an answer, let alone a good one, yet many will go to bed believing they’ve won the argument.

  232. Tarheelyank February 21st, 2010 at 12:48 am

    LGY
    And what exactly does not pass the “smell test?”

    Google Lets go Yankees at Lo-Hud. I give you -5 RPOBC (replacement posts over bull crap). Thats the smell test.

    Stuckey

    On the contrary, I believe my pointing out your arrogance is grating on you.

  233. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:49 am

    randy: but seriously, I’ve been asking this for over 12 hours now (not consecutively, thank god, but still): what is wrong with, for example, using wRC+ as an offensive metric over, say, RBIs? Not a single person has even attempted to answer that question. Why????

  234. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 12:49 am

    Instead of trying to jam this stuff down peoples throats as the only way to truly know and understand baseball, let them decide when and if they want it. After that, just clam up about it. The data isn’t always right and to claim that it is, is BS. It’s not your job or responsibility to teach.

  235. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:52 am

    nobody is jamming it down anybody’s throats! people are just backing up opinions with actual facts, and people are acting like those facts are just more opinions, except arrogantly stated as facts. this is patently false. wRC+ is a conglomerate of FACTS. It legitimately feels like people here, more than being anti-stat, are anti-fact. I just don’t get why!

  236. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:52 am

    No one has ever tried to jam anything down anyone’s throats.

    The dance usually goes as follows:

    People cite stats to help prove a point.

    The other side says the stat sucks.

    People then try to explain why the stat has validity.

    The other side says you are trying to convert me.

    Rinse. Repeat.

  237. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:53 am

    “The data isn’t always right and to claim that it is, is BS”

    the data, by definition, can only be right. i’d love to hear an example (for once!!!) of data being wrong

  238. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:54 am

    Rich: and yet we keep coming back. why do we do this to ourselves? it’s like arguing with a little kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and goes “LA LA LA LA LA” insanely frustrating yet we keep arguing anyway. We’re idiots.

  239. pete February 21st, 2010 at 12:56 am

    THY: citing stats as facts is not arrogant. that’s correct. rejecting facts, now THAT is arrogant.

  240. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 12:58 am

    “Personal attacks are not permitted at RAB while they are quite commonplace here.”

    let’s go yankees-

    that’s because that little weenie ben k. would kick you off the blog if he didn’t like what you said.

    he’d take his baseball and go home.

    admit it, this blog is opening you up.

    you’re even starting to understand when we’re busting your chops.

    think how valuable a sense of humor is .

    you’d be surprised if you go a few years back at what gb7 used to say to me when i correctly pointed how valuable livan hernandez would be to the twins.

    the names he used to call me were way worse than the ones you’ve had the honor of receiving .

    so hang in there. if you get really good, gb7 will let you have it with his best insults.

    no offense, but you have to raise your game to get the really good ones.

  241. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:58 am

    pete

    We’re either optimists or masochists.

  242. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Ben K. is cool. I don’t understand the hate.

  243. Tarheelyank February 21st, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Pete
    Get it straight. the quote is

    “you keep ignoring me when I say I’m not into sabermatic stats.
    I’m into logic and critical thinking.”

    To me that’s Stuckey’s arrogance. But you are right, this is going no where. Goodnight.

  244. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:02 am

    “what is wrong with, for example, using wRC+ as an offensive metric over, say, RBIs?”

    pete-

    i don’t have a clue what wRC+ is.

    i’ll look it up tomorrow when my brain is fresh.

  245. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:02 am

    randy: that’s just not true. nobody has ever, i repeat EVER been kicked off RAB for expressing an opinion. they are kicked off for the manner in which it expressed sometimes. Racial/homophobic slurs are instant bans, Off-topic comments are removed and put in the off-topic thread, and personal attacks (namecallings, etc.) are instant-bans, as they should be, because never in the history of discussion has a personal attack actually brought anything worthwhile to the table. the discourse at RAB is more civil and intelligent than at any other blog i’ve been to. The quick banhammer and off-topic comment deleting is a big part of that

  246. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Randy,

    I’m glad to see your post. I do believe in previous flare ups in your zeal to discredit sabremetrics you’ve exaggerated your position, essentially denying any and all advances in the game in the last few decades.

    For example, video, computing, and medical technology. I make the above assumption because none of these things (which you SEEM to credit) and sabremetics (which you don’t) strike me as having more or less to do with the “baseball is music, and its all about the sensory experience” argument.

    That case against seem to apply equally to all these sciences in terms of them impacting the game, which you HAVE made the ultimate criteria.

    “that would be stats without the dogma that goes with sabermetric stats.”

    I think Randy(?) said it best… there are no “advanced” or sabremetric stats, there are only new and old stats.

  247. Nick in SF February 21st, 2010 at 1:03 am

    (Livan Hernandez was DFA’d by the Twins. :) )

  248. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:06 am

    THY: but to say that sabermetric analysis isn’t logic and critical thinking is something you’ll need to back up with factual evidence. otherwise what he said wasn’t arrogant. it was true. I feel the same way. To me, evaluating a player based on RBIs or Wins just seems lazy and complacent. I’d rather use better stats. wRC+ is a better offensive stat than RBIs. I said this before, and backed it up by explaining wRC+ and how it uses linear weights to correctly valuate player-driven (and only player-driven) events, which RBIs don’t do.

  249. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:07 am

    For months, all anybody talked about was fielding stats. Then the numbers came as fact and it shows that Teixeira’s around the middle of the pack or lower as a defensive first baseman. Then, the word is…”Oh, you can’t judge first basemen by these numbers’. Then it was catchers, thirdbasemen. Why put them out as fact if you can’t use them?

    Next, the big thing to push was FIP and then with pitching, you have them not counting some pitches because they’re really just fastballs or curves or whaever Bs. Now tonight, the big push is wRC+. What’s next? Those that eat Wheaties vs those that eat Cheerios? Just admit that these one and true facts are flawed and stop passing it off as correct.

  250. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:08 am

    “Ben K. is cool. I don’t understand the hate.”

    hate is too strong a word.

    he really ticked me off a few years ago before RAB on another blog when he just trashed bernie williams to no end. we butted heads.

    i’m sorry , but i can’t listen to that garbage from someone who’s a little baseball wannabe.

    i say show some respect to yankee greats when they hit the twilight of their careers.

    i feel the same way about posada.

    i really can’t stand listening to so called yankee fans bash him.

  251. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:08 am

    and honestly, when somebody explains something two hundred times, both in links and in posts, saying “i don’t have a clue what that is” is not a valid excuse.

  252. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 1:09 am

    No, most people admitted that UZR, unlike ZR, misses how good Teix is.

    Nothing is perfect. No one ever claimed it was. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful.

  253. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am

    FIP has nothing to do with pitch selection.

    Another example of not doing your research before making conclusions.

  254. Nick in SF February 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am

    “but i can’t listen to that garbage from someone who’s a little baseball wannabe.”

    That kind of sentiment is never going to win an argument over the value of advanced statistical analysis.

  255. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am

    I get the impression that Randy raised Livan Hernandez from a pup and only pushed his name because he was getting kickbacks.

    And, I still don’t like you all that much, Randy. I only tolerate you because you’re older than dirt.

  256. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am

    “On the contrary, I believe my pointing out your arrogance is grating on you.”

    Only on LoHud can someone make an arrogant boast citing someone else’s arrogance and not recognize their own hypocrisy.

    I’ll give you this. I’m not one to concern myself with tempering my posts out of faux social grace, nor ignore the irony of the outright rudeness of those labeling me arrogant.

    If THAT makes me arrogant, I can live with that.

  257. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:13 am

    “Those that eat Wheaties vs those that eat Cheerios?”

    gb7-

    you jackass.

    everyone knows that cheerios with mounds of sugar that settles to the bottom of the bowl is the best way to start the morning while reading the morning box scores and ignoring your mother telling you that you will miss the bus if you don’t hurry up.

  258. Nick in SF February 21st, 2010 at 1:14 am

    And Posada may be in/close to the twilight of his career (a subjective judgement based on one’s definition of what constitutes being the twilight of one’s career) but he was a valued (and statistically valued) contributor in 2009 and the hope is he will he in 2010.

  259. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:14 am

    lets go yankees
    February 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am
    FIP has nothing to do with pitch selection.

    Another example of not doing your research before making conclusions.

    ————————————————————

    I didn’t say it did.

  260. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:15 am

    ” And, I still don’t like you all that much, Randy. I only tolerate you because you’re older than dirt.”

    admit it, you’re impressed i got jackass through the filter.

  261. lets go yankees February 21st, 2010 at 1:15 am

    So then what is the problem with FIP?

  262. Tarheelyank February 21st, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Pete

    go read the quote one more time. It wasn’t me who said sabremetric analysis is not the same as critical thinking. Ask Stuckey to explain his reasoning.

  263. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:17 am

    randy l.
    February 21st, 2010 at 1:13 am
    “Those that eat Wheaties vs those that eat Cheerios?”

    gb7-

    you jackass.

    everyone knows that cheerios with mounds of sugar that settles to the bottom of the bowl is the best way to start the morning while reading the morning box scores and ignoring your mother telling you that you will miss the bus if you don’t hurry up.

    ————————————————————

    Then why does fraudgraphs have Wheaties as the Breakfast Of Champions? Even Super Sugar Crisp is rated above Cheerios.

  264. Rich in NJ February 21st, 2010 at 1:19 am

    fraudgraphs…so clever.

  265. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:19 am

    GB7: how about, for once, you actually prove that they are not only flawed, but more flawed than whatever it was that you were previously relying on. And UZR has been explained as imperfect for 1Bs since its inception. And it’s not an ineffective gauge of 1B range, just of overall value, because scooping, which doesn’t affect UZR, does affect 1B defensive value. For his career, tex is a well above average defender at first base, per UZR, but his **seemingly** making a diving play every night does not necessitate his having a good defensive year last year (when UZR pegged him as average). UZR is a fact – he made (slightly) fewer plays on balls hit in his zone than the average 1B did last year (and who knows, maybe it was also just a good year for 1Bs defensively). That’s not something you can dispute. That’s like saying “the HRs stats say that Jeter only hit 18 home runs last year but i watched him and he was a great player. he must have had way more”. An important thing to understand with UZR is that most major leaguers, especially infielders, are ridiculously preposterously absurdly unbelievably amazing defensive baseball players. A vast majority. That is why the fact that a guy made a bunch of great plays isn’t necessarily relevant. It’s the ones that got by him – the balls that trickled under cano’s glove, etc. etc. Those are the difference makers.

    FIP people who don’t understand either misuse or misclassify and disregard because of that. It’s simply a means of analyzing a pitcher’s performance outside of his fielders’ performance. Inherent in this is that some pitchers will outperform it while others will underpeform it. Some pitchers are unnaturally good at generating weak contact, for instance, which leads to a much higher ratio of outs. However, nobody is analyzing a pitcher like Mariano, who continually outperforms his FIP with it. They use it to gauge the outliers. When Cole Hamels pitches to a 3.85 ERA next year, as he should have the last two years, maybe you’ll realize that there is actually something to this, considering the extraordinarily high rate of correlation it has. But again, it was only ever meant to be taken as “how good a pitcher is outside of balls in play”. When people try to extend it past that, they run into trouble.

    And wRC+ I have explained 5 or 6 times today, i don’t need to do it again. you can look it up. But I think even you will probably be convinced by that one. It’s the best stat out there right now for offense, hands down.

  266. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:19 am

    randy l.
    February 21st, 2010 at 1:15 am
    ” And, I still don’t like you all that much, Randy. I only tolerate you because you’re older than dirt.”

    admit it, you’re impressed i got jackass through the filter.

    ————————————————————

    LMAO. shocked is more like it.

  267. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:20 am

    “That kind of sentiment is never going to win an argument over the value of advanced statistical analysis.”

    let’s go yankees-

    one more thing.

    never argue with nick in sf after midnight.

    he lays in the weeds on the west coast until our brains turn to mush on the east coast and then he jumps in.

    it’s a veteran move actually. wish i had thought of it,

  268. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 1:20 am

    “go read the quote one more time. It wasn’t me who said sabremetric analysis is not the same as critical thinking. Ask Stuckey to explain his reasoning.”

    I’d like to ask you why you keep saying you’re going to bed when you don’t…

    Is that arrogant?

    But what I really want to ask is this:

    Do you read GB’s posts? How about Randy’s? Your own?

    Is arrogance really the greatest social sin around these parts?

    You want to criticize for a lack of social grace. Have at it. I’m guilty.

    Just don’t be so selective. It ruins your credibility.

  269. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:21 am

    THY: but your perception of that remark as “arrogant” suggests to me that you don’t think that our approach is consistent with the words “logic” and “critical thinking”, but you’ve yet to properly explain why that is.

  270. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:23 am

    rich in NJ: well didn’t you know? if GB7 makes fun of something, it automatically destroys its credibility, regardless of whether or not GB7 backs up his opinion with anything other than his own ego

  271. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:23 am

    And wRC+ I have explained 5 or 6 times today, i don’t need to do it again. you can look it up. But I think even you will probably be convinced by that one. It’s the best stat out there right now for offense, hands down.

    ————————————————————

    Why? Because that’s your opinion? It has no more value to me than that Win shares BS that James thought up about 20 years ago.

  272. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am

    “LMAO. shocked is more like it.”

    gb7-

    i have a list of names that peter a. used to call me so i know they will likely make it through the filter :)

    i’ll bet if many people see that ” jackass” made it through the filter, it’s not going to have a long life here.

    too bad too. it’s a very handy word.

    i save it only for special occasions.

  273. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Give me aall he they start putting this crap on HOF plaques or naming awards after the the best ever. Then, it might mean something more than just fluff.

  274. Tarheelyank February 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Stuckey, you are right on all counts. We are all arrogant SOB’S, and I really do need to go to bed.

  275. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Give me ***a call when*** they

  276. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:28 am

    ” fraudgraphs”

    good one.

  277. Nick in SF February 21st, 2010 at 1:29 am

    These are difficult times for Tarheel fans.

  278. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:29 am

    best wRC+s, career:
    Babe Ruth
    Ted Williams
    Lou Gehrig
    Barry Bonds

    ya that’s total BS. Those guys were scrubs.

  279. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 1:30 am

    “Why? Because that’s your opinion? It has no more value to me than that Win shares BS that James thought up about 20 years ago.”

    Okay, now I finally get it :-) Green Beret, I loathe to admit you had me fooled for a while. I was buying into your act hook, line and sinker. I thought you really believed the things you were posting.

    But now, as you’ve essentially rejected something completely site unseen, you’ve given yourself up. NO ONE is that close-minded, and this self-righteously committed to ignorance.

    This has all obviously been high performance art and we’ve all been unwitting audience.

    Bravo sir, bravo.

  280. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:32 am

    randy l.
    February 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am
    “LMAO. shocked is more like it.”

    gb7-

    i have a list of names that peter a. used to call me so i know they will likely make it through the filter

    i’ll bet if many people see that ” jackass” made it through the filter, it’s not going to have a long life here.

    too bad too. it’s a very handy word.

    i save it only for special occasions.

    ———————————————————–

    That’s one donut choking SOB that i don’t miss. If I need a good laugh, I just read the 15-20 e-mails he sent. The last one I got, he warned me that he gets emails from his friend that works on here. I assume that he meant the only one that could stand him.

  281. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 1:32 am

    What’s wrong with wRC+?

    Well, for starters, “wRC+” does not roll trippingly off the tongue.

    It might be a good stat, but the packaging is no good.

    Also, you need a cheat sheet on hand to know what goes into it. And it would take up too many sound bytes to explain what goes into it.

    Yes, if you learn it, it is a shorthand for everything a player can do. But so far, it’s not mainstream. So it can’t be shorthand yet.

    So, there may be no flaw within the stat itself based on what goes into creating it. But it needs better pr.

    And that’s my take. :)

  282. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:34 am

    “Even Super Sugar Crisp is rated above Cheerios.”

    if you ran out of cheerios, sugar crisps could be borrowed from your little sisters, but it wasn’t an idea way to start the day.

  283. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:39 am

    gb7-

    i actually reached a middle ground with pete and had some excellent baseball exchanges with him. the new guys have done a great job, but i liked pete for the very reason that he was so irreverent.

    as far as you two go ,sometimes you can’t put two bears on the same mountain.

  284. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Sugar Crisp was for eating straight out of the box – no milk.

    Cheerios was an excuse for eating sugar straight. Interesting for a sugar-free cereal.

    Wheaties? What are Wheaties??? Yuck. There isn’t a sports figure alive or dead whose picture could actually entice me to eat what’s inside that box! (I did try them once.)

  285. Nick in SF February 21st, 2010 at 1:42 am

    By the way, randy, I am currently suffering from flu-like symptoms, so I’m not giving you any time zone handicap at all.

  286. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:42 am

    “Why? Because that’s your opinion? It has no more value to me than that Win shares BS that James thought up about 20 years ago.”

    win shares, amazingly, is still a quality (as in, WAR is not significantly better) stat. Bill James is a genius. And fine, just for you GB7, i’m going to explain it one more time and why I think it’s the best offensive stat:

    wRC+ is to wRC as ERA+ is to ERA, or OPS+ to OPS. It’s a wRC standing against the rest of the league, with league average being 100, and each point being a percentage point. wRC is the tally of runs created using Tom Tango’s linear weights, which essentially ascribe a value to each event a player precipitates based on the average historical context-neutral value of that event. I will link to them in a following post but my links have been getting eaten up so I’ll hold off for now. Needless to say, they use over 50 years worth of data to find the exact correlation between, say, a stolen base and a a run. Over the past 50 years, a stolen base has led to a run 19.4% of the time, so we can say that, on average, it is worth .194 runs. Tango has listed weights for all applicable events on his site. After the season ends, all of those runs (they run negative too with outs), and that gets you wRC. wRC+ takes that and measures it against the league average, and then adjusts for park effects, which is done by taking the league’s difference in wRC+ from each park to the overall league average, and then each player’s raw wRC+ is multiplied by those park factors to get his true, park and league neutral wRC+. So by all means, tell me what is so laughable about that? To me it just sounds like it is measuring a player’s overall offensive contribution, weighing itself properly based on true values for plays, and measuring up against the league average, and neutralizing the park factors. How is that a bad stat?

  287. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 1:45 am

    pete -

    I told you above – it’s about marketing.

    Give it a better name.

    I’m only about .33797 kidding. :)

  288. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Doreen: well that I understand. But it’s not a terribly complicated formula, at all. I don’t know how quickly it will cross over into the main stream, since casual fans have no interest applying any academic thought process into baseball. to most people, it defeats the purpose. to us nutty obsessive types, though, who want to understand the ins and outs of how to assemble a good ballclub, the desire to fully understand every stat out there and critically analyze them until we know which are the best is irrepressible, and I do think wRC+ will be in the hardcore fan lexicon soon enough. Sure it doesn’t role off the tongue, but it’s easy to type, and that’s where most people use it. It’s not exactly brand new – quite a few people cite it regularly

  289. pete February 21st, 2010 at 1:49 am

    doreen: yeah i know that i was just giving GB7 the explanation he’d been dying to hear

  290. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 1:51 am

    pete -

    It’s NOT easy to type! I have to look for the “plus” sign every time. :lol:

    It isn’t a difficult formula. But it IS more than a simple ratio, like BA or ERA. I think if it’s used more and explained better, it’ll do fine as a stat. The “weighted” part has to go, and the “plus.” It needs simplification. I don’t know why I’m still awake at this time, I’m usually long gone by now.

  291. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:52 am

    “By the way, randy, I am currently suffering from flu-like symptoms, so I’m not giving you any time zone handicap at all.”

    nick in sf-

    no way i’m falling for the old “flu -like symptoms” gambit.

    you’d still kick my butt at this time of night anyway with the flu.

    i just realized nick in sf is a blog sandbagger.

  292. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:53 am

    pete
    February 21st, 2010 at 1:42 am
    “Why? Because that’s your opinion? It has no more value to me than that Win shares BS that James thought up about 20 years ago.”

    win shares, amazingly, is still a quality (as in, WAR is not significantly better) stat. Bill James is a genius. And fine, just for you GB7, i’m going to explain it one more time and why I think it’s the best offensive stat:

    wRC+ is to wRC as ERA+ is to ERA, or OPS+ to OPS. It’s a wRC standing against the rest of the league, with league average being 100, and each point being a percentage point. wRC is the tally of runs created using Tom Tango’s linear weights, which essentially ascribe a value to each event a player precipitates

    ————————————————————

    Personally, your opinion means next to nothing to me and Cash was better than Tango every day of the week. I didn’t ask for your opinion or explaination.

  293. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 1:53 am

    The name needs simplification, that is.

  294. stuckey February 21st, 2010 at 1:56 am

    “Personally, your opinion means next to nothing to me and Cash was better than Tango every day of the week. I didn’t ask for your opinion or explaination.”

    LOL… love it. This board is SO much better now that I’m in on the joke…

    More, more!!!

  295. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:56 am

    You lost any crediblity you may had had be declaring James is a genius. he’s a money grubbing con-artist and a shill for the red sox….on the same level as George Mitchell.

  296. randy l. February 21st, 2010 at 1:58 am

    ” I don’t know why I’m still awake at this time, I’m usually long gone by now.”

    doreen -

    i have no idea why i’m up either.

    must have been the stimulating conversation from those RAB crossovers.

    anyway, agree with you about wheaties. i had no use for them either.

    but that’s it for me . time for bed.

    high 70′s finally in so florida tomorrow.

    can’t wait.

  297. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 1:58 am

    you may ***have*** had ***by***

  298. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Maybe “O-Rating”. Because the stat is a rating, more so than an average or a counter (like RBI, HRs). Offense Rating.

    Runs Created makes it sound too hypothetical even though it’s based on collected data. It’s too reminiscent of VORP-type stuff, which, while I am beginning to understand, still is like a voodoo thing to me. Also WAR. Which, did it have to be so violent, what’s wrong with WOR?

    P-Rating? Productivity.

    And the rating part lets people know it’s like stars – 5 stars is better than 2.

    Gotta make it easy for the people.

  299. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Enjoy the Florida weather, Randy l.

  300. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Other than accounting for home runs, it doesn’t count for runs or runs batted in at all….only possible runs. It doesn’t take into account for the times that they get on base because of errors or when they are safe on sac bunts or fielders choices and are actually safe with not outs being recorded.

  301. Doreen February 21st, 2010 at 2:13 am

    pete -

    As I think about it – it can never replace the use of all those other stats. For instance, I’m going to read player “X” has a wRC+ of 123. And I’m still going to want to know how many RBIs, how many HRs, how many walks, etc. So it would be a good quick number to compare one player’s total productivity as against another player or players, but it won’t tell you the specifics, the details – I think people would still want to know those.

  302. GreenBeret7 February 21st, 2010 at 2:16 am

    You get credit for runs created with singles, doubles, etc when no runs are scored at all.

  303. ex-pitcher February 21st, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Betcha Granderson has better numbers at the end of year than Damon. Also is about twice as good ( overall ) in field as Johnny.

    Love Johnny though !

    I hope Phil The Thrill meant there are 5 great Yankee catchers : Berra, Dickey, Howard, Munson, and Posada.

  304. Neil February 21st, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Man what a pleasure to see Yogi (photo) at camp. This is another reason why I am so proud to be a Yankee fan. I have never seen Yogi play,(am too young), but seeing him in or out of a uniform you automatically think Yankees. Much love and respect for the players and organization for giving the yankees veterans all the love. Other teams have won titles across the sport spectrum, but very few reaches back like the bombers. Much love & respect to all for that!!!!

  305. Cheap Kobe Shoes August 18th, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    And Harrods in Great Britain, receiving glowing popularity from fashion pursuers all over the world.

  306. Air Jordan 13 Shoes August 21st, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Perhaps it is no surprise then that work wear has been used to create industrial chic fashion: big boots and caps emblazoned having a work wear manufacturer’s name are about as stylish as you can get. Fashion clothing has already added work wear in their list of styles.

  307. kd 6 Shoes August 22nd, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Imagine not having to have to wait for promoted sales in order to find great bargains on all sorts of fashion designer females shoes..

Leave a comment below


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581