random off-topic thread

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

show me a concrete example of what you're talking about, and I'll gladly explain why it makes sense (if it does) or why it's bad sabermetrics (if it doesn't). It's important to keep in mind that sabermetrics, like any science, has its share of quacks, but that's not a meaningful indictment of the science itself.

Finally found the discussion I was thinking about in regards to not-so-common-sense mathematical applications. It hopefully wasn't from a crack-pot doing bad science, but a statement from yourself related to Bill James himself.

Bill James did a study a while back in which he found that a team's record in one-run games can be estimated by the Pythag formula, using .865 as the exponent instead of 2.

Is there a common sense reason why .865 should be used instead of .85 or .95 or whatever else? Other than that just working with the data collected?

It certainly doesn't have anything REALLY to do with winning a close ball game on the field in terms of what someone would think using common sense.

[Heltonfan]

Apples and oranges. That's a purely descriptive formula. No one is saying that the nature of baseball dictates that one-run games are won and lost according to that equation - that's just a handy little shortcut. And there is some common sense in it - essentially, the lowered exponent reflects that teams' winning percentages in one-run games will be somewhere between .500 and their overall winning percentage. Which makes perfect sense; one-run games, by definition, are games where very little separates the two teams, so the difference between the wheat and the chaff is minimized. The flip side, of course, is that a team like the Red Sox will have a much, much better record in blowout games (say, decided by 5+ runs) than a team like the Nationals.

[RockieRooter]

Samuel Clemens has to do with the hazards of linear extrapolation...which he illustrated very effectively. My reply was triggered by the phrase "on a pace to" followed by a conclusion based on the season long extrapolation.

Helton's slugging percentage is over .500, so he hasn't been a singles hitter so far by any means. Who's to say that some of those long extra base hits won't become HRs later on as the weather warms up? Do you expect that Helton will break down as the season goes on? Why would you post as if a lot of doubles has no real value?

[Newman]

Helton made the last out tonite, 0-4.

He has 29 RBI this year. Six players on the Red Sox have more RBI than Todd does.

I'm just observing that for a cleanup hitter Helton doesn't have many home runs or RBI.

Traditionally shouldn't the cleanup hitter lead the team in those categories or be second?

Why not bat Hawpe in the 4th slot?

I don't know about batting Helton in the 2 hole. He would clog up the bases since he can't run, plus we have the speedy dynamic duo batting up there. Why not just drop Helton down to the 5th spot in the lineup?

Atkins has more doubles than Helton.

Mark Twain said something about the hazards of linear extrapolation? Didn't he say that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, that it's probably a duck? Or did Yogi say that? In any event if Helton swings like a singles hitter, slaps the ball to left like a singles hitter, has only 6 home runs while playing at altitude, doesn't that make him a duck?

[GerryInCS]

How long has Todd been in the #4 spot? Holliday and Atkins both manned that spot earlier in the year IIRC. while Todd was #3

[Roxpert]

Todd has 217 at-bats this year. 216 of them have come from the #4 spot in the order, and one was from the #9 spot (pinch hitting).

So Todd has been the cleanup hitter the entire year in games he starts.

[Newman]

Not sure who the host was last night, on ESPN's Baseball tonite. Steve Berthume perhaps?

Mostly the coverage was good. I liked the interview with the excited Verlander after his no hitter. Liked the fact that SD passed on him, the year he came out in the draft and took some local boy named Bush who has turned out to be a loser

But then they get to the highlights and the smirky host has to throw in some snide comment about the great rivalry between the Bosox and the Rox. East coast bias arrogance.

Look we know the Rox suck. Is it really entertaining anymore to rub it in our faces?

[Newman]

This I find equally annoying. Actually more annoying. Every single baseball expert that espn has on board from Dusty Baker to John Kruk, from EY to Eduardo Perez, they all support Barry Bonds and his march to eclipse Hank Aaron's all time home run record.

You mean to tell me they can't find ONE baseball expert, maybe Keith Olbermann, who is outraged by this event, who will be wearing a black arm band or a bag over his head when it happens?

There is not ONE baseballer who gets on the air who will voice his displeasure. Buster Olney? Nope. Joe Morgan. Nope. Peter Gammons. Nope. It's like they all get a piece of the corporate profits when Barroid breaks the record.

[Roxpert]

Has there ever been a day in baseball history where one player hit his 500th homer, and another player got his 3000th hit? I don't think so.

[Dante Bichette]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Has there ever been a day in baseball history where one player hit his 500th homer, and another player got his 3000th hit? I don't think so.

That is definately remarkable. Biggio is a class act and a sure hall of famer, Thomas is a guy who stays out of trouble but whines too much and will probably not make the hall of fame, despite 500 homers.

[Roxpert]

Oh, I think Thomas is a HOFer, though not 1st ballot. He has been a great hitter all-around, with average and patience. Sure, he has had his issues and injury problems, but he is really an all-time elite hitter, not just due to his 500 homers.

[John Cocktoston]

I think Thomas is a HOF'er, but I wish Biggio had this night to himself. He's one of the best, most remarkable, players of his generation and he doesn't get nearly enough love, IMO. Guy came up as a catcher, moved to 2B, won 4 gold gloves and then moved to CF. That's insane.

[Dante Bichette]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Oh, I think Thomas is a HOFer, though not 1st ballot. He has been a great hitter all-around, with average and patience. Sure, he has had his issues and injury problems, but he is really an all-time elite hitter, not just due to his 500 homers.

I might agree with you. I am on the fence with Thomas, although I haven't given it a lot of thought, but regardless of what we think, I don't see him getting in. I could be wrong, but I think the Hall of Fame voters are very skeptical about offensive numbers, especially home run totals, of players in this era and we will see this play out as players like Thomas retire.

What about Sosa? Do you think he gets in? 600 home runs?

[John Cocktoston]

I think Sosa will be the first (second if you count McGwire) real obvious casualty of the steroids era. He should be in on numbers alone (actually well before Big Mac) but I think he might have real problems getting in.

[Dante Bichette]

Originally Posted by John Cocktoston

I think Thomas is a HOF'er, but I wish Biggio had this night to himself. He's one of the best, most remarkable, players of his generation and he doesn't get nearly enough love, IMO. Guy came up as a catcher, moved to 2B, won 4 gold gloves and then moved to CF. That's insane.

Yep. Thomas is a great player, but not in Biggio's class. Biggio has many tools; great hitter, good average and speed, great defensive player. Thomas basically hit for average and power and that was it. I don't mean to take anything away from him or demean what he has done, but Biggio is one of the best players of this generation.