Interesting Gammons tidbit re- defense and everett

[WulawHorn]

I know that many on here scoff at attempts to quantify defense on one hand, and I also know that many on here don't like to talk about defense on the other hand as all that matters for a player's position is his "hitting" skills, so maybe this blurb can equally irritate all camps...

Gammons is touting work of a new defensive metric where the guy watched every ball put into play, quantified the type of play (pop up, grounder, line drive, bloop etc.), assigned it to zones that they were hit to, and then measured all the players at every position in the bigs.  Sounded like an interesting book I'd like to check out, if for nothing else than to see the methodology.

Anyway, his conclusion for Short Stop was that none other than our very own Adam Everett was the best SS in the Majors, and he was "in a league of his own".  Interestingly enough (or maybe not with the style of play was that the top 6 short stops were all National leaguers.  Derek Jeter came in about last at SS.  Morgan Ensberg made the top 5 defensive players at 3b over the 3 year average.  

None of the Astros were in the bottom 5 at any of their positions.  Preston Wilson was a bottom 5 CF, but I doubt he ever plays there.

Of interest was that the local 9 came in 5th, right behind the white sox at 4th.  The Yankees were the worst in the league.  The Marlins last year were bottom 5 which kind of surprised me.  I remember watching them in 04 at the juice box the year after their WS title and thinking that they must be playing with 10 players they got to so many balls that we hit on the screws.

Anyway, thought this was interesting and it was on Whitey Gammons blog on ESPN.  I generally find Gammons to be full of shit, but that said he is interesting in my mind, if that makes any sense at all.

[JJxvi]

The Fielding Bible by John Dewan

[David in Jackson]

Quote:
I know that many on here scoff at attempts to quantify defense on one hand, and I also know that many on here don't like to talk about defense on the other hand as all that matters for a player's position is his "hitting" skills, so maybe this blurb can equally irritate all camps...

Consider yourself successful - I don't think there is anybody here who would argue that all that matters for a player's position is his hitting skills.

Still, I'm interested in this and would like to read more about it.  Although AE backers probably aren't the stats guys, it gives his backers something to point at.

Stats for defensive prowess have been waaaay behind all the advances in offensive evaluation and it's interesting to see how people approach the issue.

[WulawHorn]

That is actually almost word for word what Barzilla argued re AE and Ausmus last year as we were scuffling.

I think this is why I found the deal so interesting is b/c AE's supporters have generally been anti stathead crowd, and his detractors have been stat guys.  It was thus interesting to me that he got some love from a tech geek type analysis.

[pravata]

Quote:
That is actually almost word for word what Barzilla argued re AE and Ausmus last year as we were scuffling.

I think this is why I found the deal so interesting is b/c AE's supporters have generally been anti stathead crowd, and his detractors have been stat guys.  It was thus interesting to me that he got some love from a tech geek type analysis.

I would have no issue with assessments made by someone who watched Everett on every single play, made note of how he got to the ball, how he handled the play, and how and where the ball was hit.  If the person knew something about playing the infield and had watched other shortstops in a similar fashion, their comments, about Everett, would have some validity.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
I would have no issue with assessments made by someone who watched Everett on every single play, made note of how he got to the ball, how he handled the play, and how and where the ball was hit.  If the person knew something about playing the infield and had watched other shortstops in a similar fashion, their comments, about Everett, would have some validity.

If they truly watched every ball hit to make the assessment, I wouldn't care if they didn't know the first thing about playing the infield... all I need to know is which guy can get more outs than the other.

[astro pete]

Quote:


I would have no issue with assessments made by someone who watched Everett on every single play, made note of how he got to the ball, how he handled the play, and how and where the ball was hit.  If the person knew something about playing the infield and had watched other shortstops in a similar fashion, their comments, about Everett, would have some validity.

You don't understand sabermetrics.  If you did, you'd realize that player evaluations are best conducted by not actually watching baseball.

Actually, I think defensive stats can have value, though the one mentioned above, if it doesn't take into account where the fielder was originally positioned, is useless.  For instance, a line drive in the gap that is caught is far less impressive if the left fielder was positioned there to begin with.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:


I would have no issue with assessments made by someone who watched Everett on every single play, made note of how he got to the ball, how he handled the play, and how and where the ball was hit.  If the person knew something about playing the infield and had watched other shortstops in a similar fashion, their comments, about Everett, would have some validity.

You don't understand sabermetrics.  If you did, you'd realize that player evaluations are best conducted by not actually watching baseball.

Actually, I think defensive stats can have value, though the one mentioned above, if it doesn't take into account where the fielder was originally positioned, is useless.  For instance, a line drive in the gap that is caught is far less impressive if the left fielder was positioned there to begin with.

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:


I would have no issue with assessments made by someone who watched Everett on every single play, made note of how he got to the ball, how he handled the play, and how and where the ball was hit.  If the person knew something about playing the infield and had watched other shortstops in a similar fashion, their comments, about Everett, would have some validity.

You don't understand sabermetrics.  If you did, you'd realize that player evaluations are best conducted by not actually watching baseball.

Actually, I think defensive stats can have value, though the one mentioned above, if it doesn't take into account where the fielder was originally positioned, is useless.  For instance, a line drive in the gap that is caught is far less impressive if the left fielder was positioned there to begin with.

How is defensive positioning not part of defensive skill/ability?  Knowing the hitter, the pitcher, the pitch being thrown, and the highest probability of where the ball will be hit would seem to be a valuable skill for any defender, regardless of the position. I just don't know how, or if it's even possible, to measure and apply some statistical analysis of this.

As for the book, I've read the Baseball Abstract, or most of it anyway, and I think James made it pretty clear he isn't opposed to evaluating defense statistically.  His only knock against defensive stats is that the existing defensive statistics aren't very useful for comparative purposes.  

The method described by the original post seems to fall more in line with what, IIRC, what James believed would be necessary to make any defensive statistical assessment worthwhile.  The key point being that the same person, using the same criteria to evaluate each player, reviews every player and every opportunity they had to make a defensive play.  I'd love to see the game footage library those guys have!  Although, I don't see how this differs from scouting other than the documented results are being published.

[astro pete]

Quote:

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

Why couldn't a statistical analysis aid in the evaluation of those shortstops the Astros are focusing on?

[astro pete]

Quote:

How is defensive positioning not part of defensive skill/ability?  Knowing the hitter, the pitcher, the pitch being thrown, and the highest probability of where the ball will be hit would seem to be a valuable skill for any defender, regardless of the position. I just don't know how, or if it's even possible, to measure and apply some statistical analysis of this.

I suppose it is a defensive skill, although one that is entirely coachable.  The point you raise, however, casts light on the fundamental flaw of statistics: they don't paint the entire picture.  That's why I find it silly to rely solely on them.  But, that doesn't mean they don't have value.  If I'm evaluating two center fielders, a statistic that demonstrates one is likely to track down a fly ball in the gap, while the other is not, is useful.

That said, I don't know that this type of analysis exists.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

Why couldn't a statistical analysis aid in the evaluation of those shortstops the Astros are focusing on?

How would it aid in the evaluation if they look at every available shortstop?  How would it help to know where any short stop compared, numerically, to Jeter for instance?  Is Jeter an option?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

Why couldn't a statistical analysis aid in the evaluation of those shortstops the Astros are focusing on?

How would it aid in the evaluation if they look at every available shortstop?  How would it help to know where any short stop compared, numerically, to Jeter for instance?  Is Jeter an option?

It wouldn't.  But, I'm referring to the shortstops that the Astros would hypothetically be considering to be theirs.  ie- this group:

Quote:
 The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

Why couldn't a statistical analysis aid in the evaluation of those shortstops the Astros are focusing on?

How would it aid in the evaluation if they look at every available shortstop?  How would it help to know where any short stop compared, numerically, to Jeter for instance?  Is Jeter an option?

It wouldn't.  But, I'm referring to the shortstops that the Astros would hypothetically be considering to be theirs.  ie- this group:

Quote:
 The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.

They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I just don't see why you need them.  In practice, a team has to have a shortstop.  What kind of shortstop depends on the type of team.  The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.  It's immaterial how they compare to other shortstops that they can't get, the team needs the one shortstop.  They don't need a list of shortstops arranged in some numerically evaluated chart.

Why couldn't a statistical analysis aid in the evaluation of those shortstops the Astros are focusing on?

How would it aid in the evaluation if they look at every available shortstop?  How would it help to know where any short stop compared, numerically, to Jeter for instance?  Is Jeter an option?

It wouldn't.  But, I'm referring to the shortstops that the Astros would hypothetically be considering to be theirs.  ie- this group:

Quote:
 The management focuses on the shortstops they can obtain and evaluates them.

They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

Just to interject, I don't think any team would really care about evaluating other team's players unless they were a potential acquisition in a trade.  Any potential value of this type of approach would come from applying it to the internal positional players as just another piece of the evaluation process in who advances and who doesn't.  

Does anyone know if the method described differs from scouting analysis of players within a team's minor league system?  I assume it involves alot of what is being described by Gammons in addition to relying on the "trained eye" of people involved in professional baseball.

[mihoba]

Quote:
They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

Yogism: "You can observe alot just by watching."

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

Yogism: "You can observe alot just by watching."

Seems obvious.

[Nate in IA]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

Yogism: "You can observe alot just by watching."

Seems obvious.

I think there's a difference between watching and seeing.

[NeilT]

For what it's worth, there's a description of the methodology here:

The Link

[astro pete]

Quote:

Just to interject, I don't think any team would really care about evaluating other team's players unless they were a potential acquisition in a trade.  

Or when they were negotiating a contract.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Just to interject, I don't think any team would really care about evaluating other team's players unless they were a potential acquisition in a trade.  

Or when they were negotiating a contract.

You're saying that teams and agents typically use fielding statistics to negotiate contracts?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They'd have to go look at them, all of them, for a decent length of time.

Yogism: "You can observe alot just by watching."

Seems obvious.

I think there's a difference between watching and seeing.

Note keyword: observe.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Just to interject, I don't think any team would really care about evaluating other team's players unless they were a potential acquisition in a trade.  

Or when they were negotiating a contract.



You're saying that teams and agents typically use fielding statistics to negotiate contracts?



Well, I wasn't limiting my last post to fielding statistics, but yes, I'd imagine they're used (albeit to a far lesser extend than offensive statistics).  I know Scott Boras used them for Alex Rodriguez when he signed with Texas.  I bet guys like Adam Everett and Omar Vizquel rely on them more heavily.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Just to interject, I don't think any team would really care about evaluating other team's players unless they were a potential acquisition in a trade.  

Or when they were negotiating a contract.

You're saying that teams and agents typically use fielding statistics to negotiate contracts?



Well, I wasn't limiting my last post to fielding statistics, but yes, I'd imagine they're used (albeit to a far lesser extend than offensive statistics).  I know Scott Boras used them for Alex Rodriguez when he signed with Texas.  I bet guys like Adam Everett and Omar Vizquel rely on them more heavily.



We were discussing fielding statistics.  I missed the subject change?  As for your imagination concerning fielding statistics, there are a number of people in the TZ who actually know what types of information is used in contract negotiations.  I dont think they've mentioned fielding statistics in the past.  As for Scott Boras, is there anything he doesnt stuff in those binders?  When he was negotiating for Andruw Jones he actually had the nerve to show the Braves a video of Jones playing CF.  As if they'd never seen him.

[Arky Vaughan]

I for one don't think they should keep track of the league leders in home runs or RBI any more, since who gives a damn what other players in the league do if they are not available for your team?

[Bench]

Quote:
I for one don't think they should keep track of the league leders in home runs or RBI any more, since who gives a damn what other players in the league do if they are not available for your team?

And what's the deal with that whole wins-losses thing? It's not like the Astros can swap rosters with another team.

[JimR]

i know. W v. L is such an archaic way to evaluate a team's season. i await the sabermetric replacement for it.

[Bench]

Quote:
i know. W v. L is such an archaic way to evaluate a team's season. i await the sabermetric replacement for it.

I think there is one. I read something about Pythagorean wins and losses, which assumes the ratio between runs scored and runs allowed equals a team's win-loss record. However, it has nothing to do with the sum of two sqaured figures equalling the square root of another figure, so I have no idea how it got its name.

A few seasons ago, a friend lamented to me that his team (the Mets) was only two games behind the Braves under the pythagorean system, when they were nine games back in "the real world." He went on to tell me if they took two more games in an early season series with the Braves, "then by all rights the Mets should be leading the division," which apparantly to him made a lot of sense.

[WulawHorn]

Pythagrian therom analysis makes sense, and a GM should use it in creating a team. If you can figure out how many runs your team is likely to produce, and how many runs they are likely to give up, then you can project how many wins you see your team earning in the coming year.

It can also key in on which areas can be upgraded over the course of an offseason by devoting resources to the area.  For example, I would argue that if you could show that your team was extremely "lucky" to win 95 games last year and normal luck would have yielded 85 wins, then a prudent GM probably should look to improve the team rather than bring the entire gang back.  Similarly, if you were unlucky to only win 85, when the numbers would tend to show that you should have won 95 then maybe you should be patient instead of trying to take a wrecking ball to the roster.

However, your friend with the Mets v Braves analogy is strange, I don't know what the point of taking such a ridiculous moral victory during the course of a season is.  I think the predictive value is good for a GM to know.

Taken another way- does anyone remember that last year someone posted mock standings in mid May when the Astros were horrible showing that the Astros, when judged statistically, should have been performing toward the top of the division?  This would tend to indicate that your team is OK and they just had some bad luck to the first part of the season.  Ball bounces the other way and you get hot and take off, which we saw happen.

[astro pete]

Quote:
 
We were discussing fielding statistics.  I missed the subject change?  As for your imagination concerning fielding statistics, there are a number of people in the TZ who actually know what types of information is used in contract negotiations.  I dont think they've mentioned fielding statistics in the past.  As for Scott Boras, is there anything he doesnt stuff in those binders?  When he was negotiating for Andruw Jones he actually had the nerve to show the Braves a video of Jones playing CF.  As if they'd never seen him.

You and I were discussing fielding statistics, Tom changed the scope.  Or, at least that's how I read his post.  So, looks like we've shifted from whether or not certain defensive statistics have value in evaluating players' defensive abilities, to whether or not said statistics are ever compared to other players'.  

I realize we don't like Boras, but we can't omit him from the universe of sports agents because he's an asshole.  I use him as an example because his is the only binder I've seen.  But, I doubt he's the exeption to the rule.  What agent wouldn't use defensive statistics if they were beneficial to his client?  What drives the negotiations for Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus?

[WulawHorn]

I guess at the core of it all I don't understand some people's reluctance to buy into statistics in the game of baseball.  Analysts like the guys at BP and Neyer can, of course, go completely overboard and make strange claims such as you shouldn't watch players perform, but were I an owner I would want my GM to be understanding of the predictive role that some stat geeks can extrapolate from what has happened, and act in accordance with what is presented.

I think there has got to be a middle ground between the two extremes, and most decent clubs have incorporated both means of analysis into their team building.

[JJxvi]

Quote:
The method described by the original post seems to fall more in line with what, IIRC, what James believed would be necessary to make any defensive statistical assessment worthwhile. The key point being that the same person, using the same criteria to evaluate each player, reviews every player and every opportunity they had to make a defensive play. I'd love to see the game footage library those guys have! Although, I don't see how this differs from scouting other than the documented results are being published.

Bill James contributed to The Fielding Bible and I believe wrote the introduction to the book which is the section that compares the best shortstop in the game (Adam Everett) to the worst (Derek Jeter) one (at least according to whatever methodology they used).

[JJxvi]

 

Quote:
I read something about Pythagorean wins and losses, which assumes the ratio between runs scored and runs allowed equals a team's win-loss record. However, it has nothing to do with the sum of two sqaured figures equalling the square root of another figure, so I have no idea how it got its name.

Pythagorean win percentage = Runs squared divided by the sum of runs squared and runs allowed squared.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
I read something about Pythagorean wins and losses, which assumes the ratio between runs scored and runs allowed equals a team's win-loss record. However, it has nothing to do with the sum of two sqaured figures equalling the square root of another figure, so I have no idea how it got its name.

Pythagorean win percentage = Runs squared divided by the sum of runs squared and runs allowed squared.

I'd rather we not go down this avenue...

[astro pete]

Quote:
I guess at the core of it all I don't understand some people's reluctance to buy into statistics in the game of baseball.  Analysts like the guys at BP and Neyer can, of course, go completely overboard and make strange claims such as you shouldn't watch players perform, but were I an owner I would want my GM to be understanding of the predictive role that some stat geeks can extrapolate from what has happened, and act in accordance with what is presented.

I think there has got to be a middle ground between the two extremes, and most decent clubs have incorporated both means of analysis into their team building.

Like  this?

"Using a computer program that took the spray chart of Wilson's hits in Colorado and Washington last year and overlaid them onto Minute Maid Park, the Astros estimate Wilson would have hit about 30 homers in 2005 had he been playing in Houston."

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I think there has got to be a middle ground between the two extremes, and most decent clubs have incorporated both means of analysis into their team building.

This is where the rubber usually hits the road.  *ALL* major league teams use stats.  They have been using stats for a very, very, very long time.  They also use observational skills (re: scouts).  It would probably surprised some fans to know that the A's, the BoSox, the Cardinals and the Blue Jays still use scouts (just not as many as they did in the past).  Where some organizations part ways is the type of stats used and the value placed on stats to make decisions (not judgements).

The Houston Astros use statistical measurements all the time.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
 
We were discussing fielding statistics.  I missed the subject change?  As for your imagination concerning fielding statistics, there are a number of people in the TZ who actually know what types of information is used in contract negotiations.  I dont think they've mentioned fielding statistics in the past.  As for Scott Boras, is there anything he doesnt stuff in those binders?  When he was negotiating for Andruw Jones he actually had the nerve to show the Braves a video of Jones playing CF.  As if they'd never seen him.

You and I were discussing fielding statistics, Tom changed the scope.  Or, at least that's how I read his post.  So, looks like we've shifted from whether or not certain defensive statistics have value in evaluating players' defensive abilities, to whether or not said statistics are ever compared to other players'.  

I realize we don't like Boras, but we can't omit him from the universe of sports agents because he's an asshole.  I use him as an example because his is the only binder I've seen.  But, I doubt he's the exeption to the rule.  What agent wouldn't use defensive statistics if they were beneficial to his client?  What drives the negotiations for Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus?

No agent would use them.  Teams don't care about defense, only offense.

[pravata]

Quote:
I for one don't think they should keep track of the league leders in home runs or RBI any more, since who gives a damn what other players in the league do if they are not available for your team?

Take a deep breath, I know that every time a subject like this comes up you take the opportunity to spew, but the subject is fielding statistics.

[WulawHorn]

Exactly.  Interesting to see that teams around baseball are doing this, while some argue that such a tact is stupid.  There is a middle ground there, and good teams do some of each I'm sure.  I've always thought that the Astros were such an organization.  Truly, I don't believe I'd trade ownership/management groups with but a handfull of teams in all of MLB.

Maybe Braves and BoSox.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I guess at the core of it all I don't understand some people's reluctance to buy into statistics in the game of baseball.  Analysts like the guys at BP and Neyer can, of course, go completely overboard and make strange claims such as you shouldn't watch players perform, but were I an owner I would want my GM to be understanding of the predictive role that some stat geeks can extrapolate from what has happened, and act in accordance with what is presented.

I think there has got to be a middle ground between the two extremes, and most decent clubs have incorporated both means of analysis into their team building.

Like  this?

"Using a computer program that took the spray chart of Wilson's hits in Colorado and Washington last year and overlaid them onto Minute Maid Park, the Astros estimate Wilson would have hit about 30 homers in 2005 had he been playing in Houston."

Yep, as Wilson was on the list of the type of guy they were looking for and he actually called Purpura to say that he was interested in the team, this type of analysis, on this particular guy, might have been of interest.  I got the impression that this was done after he was signed?  Did they do this analysis with all of the other players they were interested in?  By the way, this reminds me of the old Hall of Fame football game with the offense and defense overlays.  Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me.

[astro pete]

Quote:
Exactly.  Interesting to see that teams around baseball are doing this, while some argue that such a tact is stupid.  There is a middle ground there, and good teams do some of each I'm sure.  I've always thought that the Astros were such an organization.  Truly, I don't believe I'd trade ownership/management groups with but a handfull of teams in all of MLB.

Maybe Braves and BoSox.

You'd trade with BOSTON?!?!?! You've lost your mind...

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
 
We were discussing fielding statistics.  I missed the subject change?  As for your imagination concerning fielding statistics, there are a number of people in the TZ who actually know what types of information is used in contract negotiations.  I dont think they've mentioned fielding statistics in the past.  As for Scott Boras, is there anything he doesnt stuff in those binders?  When he was negotiating for Andruw Jones he actually had the nerve to show the Braves a video of Jones playing CF.  As if they'd never seen him.

You and I were discussing fielding statistics, Tom changed the scope.  Or, at least that's how I read his post.  So, looks like we've shifted from whether or not certain defensive statistics have value in evaluating players' defensive abilities, to whether or not said statistics are ever compared to other players'.  

I realize we don't like Boras, but we can't omit him from the universe of sports agents because he's an asshole.  I use him as an example because his is the only binder I've seen.  But, I doubt he's the exeption to the rule.  What agent wouldn't use defensive statistics if they were beneficial to his client?  What drives the negotiations for Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus?

The way I understand it, if a negotiator wants the arbitrators eyes to glaze over and the other side to guffaw, an agent might bring up a fielding stat, outside of fielding percentage or errors. [edit] In any case, contract negotiating takes us even further afield in assessing onfield talents.

[WulawHorn]

I like Epstein, and I like their scouting guys.  I don't like Luccino- he's a psychopath.  I guess I should say I like elements of Boston.

[HurricaneDavid]

Quote:
Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me.

Yeah really... simply overlaying the spray charts?  That doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LF HR line is much taller in MMP than Coors or RFK.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me.

Yeah really... simply overlaying the spray charts?  That doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LF HR line is much taller in MMP than Coors or RFK.

Or that he'd be pitched different in different ballparks?  I had seen this from Purpura earlier and it made me cringe.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me.

Yeah really... simply overlaying the spray charts?  That doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LF HR line is much taller in MMP than Coors or RFK.

Or that he'd be pitched different in different ballparks?  I had seen this from Purpura earlier and it made me cringe.

If it's true that this "analysis" was done after the PW signing, it seems like it comes more from the PR side, rather than the baseball operations side of the office.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me.

Yeah really... simply overlaying the spray charts?  That doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the LF HR line is much taller in MMP than Coors or RFK.

Or that he'd be pitched different in different ballparks?  I had seen this from Purpura earlier and it made me cringe.

Did they take into account road games at Coors or RFK when he was on the opposite team?

[astro pete]

Quote:
[edit] In any case, contract negotiating takes us even further afield in assessing onfield talents.

I'd go so far as to say the two are mutually exclusive.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Take a deep breath, I know that every time a subject like this comes up you take the opportunity to spew ...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I notice that you've had a lot more to say in this thread than I have, despite the fact that I'm the one who has the fascination with statistics.

Quote:
... but the subject is fielding statistics.

Right, but the erroneous principle you enunciated can be just as aptly misapplied to offensive statistics or, for that matter, pitching statistics.

[JimR]

blah, blah, blah

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
blah, blah, blah

Sounds just like the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons to you, doesn't it?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Take a deep breath, I know that every time a subject like this comes up you take the opportunity to spew ...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I notice that you've had a lot more to say in this thread than I have, despite the fact that I'm the one who has the fascination with statistics.

I atleast tried to keep my scooter on the rails and stay on topic.  Which was, the validity of an analysis by someone who watched every ball hit to the shortstop.  I think someone who does that can say something about that shortstop.

Quote:
... but the subject is fielding statistics.

Right, but the erroneous principle you enunciated can be just as aptly misapplied to offensive statistics or, for that matter, pitching statistics.

Oddly, I don't continue to type things which I consider to be erroneous.  Arranging names next to numbers and pretending that's an evaluation doesn't seem to me to be useful.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
blah, blah, blah

Sounds just like the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons to you, doesn't it?

Nope, the teacher sounded like this: whap, whap, whap, whap, whap, whap.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
I think there has got to be a middle ground between the two extremes, and most decent clubs have incorporated both means of analysis into their team building.

This is where the rubber usually hits the road.  *ALL* major league teams use stats.  They have been using stats for a very, very, very long time.  They also use observational skills (re: scouts).  It would probably surprised some fans to know that the A's, the BoSox, the Cardinals and the Blue Jays still use scouts (just not as many as they did in the past).  Where some organizations part ways is the type of stats used and the value placed on stats to make decisions (not judgements).

The Houston Astros use statistical measurements all the time.

Wasn't there a big movement in MLB 3 or 4 years ago to put cameras in each stadium to cover the field, so that mlb could come up with this kind of defensive analysis?  Whatever happened to that?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I at least tried to keep my scooter on the rails and stay on topic.  Which was, the validity of an analysis by someone who watched every ball hit to the shortstop.  I think someone who does that can say something about that shortstop.

It's not off-topic to point out that if it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it's also immaterial how a team's batters compare to other batters that the team can't get, or how a team's pitchers compare to other pitchers that the team can't get.

Quote:
Oddly, I don't continue to type things which I consider to be erroneous.  Arranging names next to numbers and pretending that's an evaluation doesn't seem to me to be useful.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of comparing a team's fielders to the fielders of other teams.

You could have a totally subjective observation of fielding comparing Adam Everett to every other shortstop in baseball, but if the hypothesis is correct that it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it doesn't matter whether the comparison is a list of names and numbers, or a flowing narrative of scout's comments.

"Best arm in the league," says Scout X and "league leader in adjusted zone rating" both depend on a comparison to a bunch of shortstops the team can't get.  Just like "best curveball in baseball" or "most home runs in the majors."  I disagree that comparisons to other players are immaterial, whether the analysis is quantitivate or qualitative.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
blah, blah, blah

Sounds just like the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons to you, doesn't it?

Nope, the teacher sounded like this: whap, whap, whap, whap, whap, whap.

I always thought it sounded more like "wah wah, wah wah, wah wah."

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Nope, the teacher sounded like this: whap, whap, whap, whap, whap, whap.

I really don't think the "Peanuts" teachers were into corporal punishment.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I at least tried to keep my scooter on the rails and stay on topic.  Which was, the validity of an analysis by someone who watched every ball hit to the shortstop.  I think someone who does that can say something about that shortstop.

It's not off-topic to point out that if it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it's also immaterial how a team's batters compare to other batters that the team can't get, or how a team's pitchers compare to other pitchers that the team can't get.

I think you have it.  But, the point was not the comparison.  At least at first.  Through no fault of my own (nor Major Tom) we have slipped into a familar rut.  My point was that watching a guy make every single play (and describing them in detail) might just be a method of analysis that could work.

Quote:
Oddly, I don't continue to type things which I consider to be erroneous.  Arranging names next to numbers and pretending that's an evaluation doesn't seem to me to be useful.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of comparing a team's fielders to the fielders of other teams.

You could have a totally subjective observation of fielding comparing Adam Everett to every other shortstop in baseball, but if the hypothesis is correct that it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it doesn't matter whether the comparison is a list of names and numbers, or a flowing narrative of scout's comments.

"Best arm in the league," says Scout X and "league leader in adjusted zone rating" both depend on a comparison to a bunch of shortstops the team can't get.  Just like "best curveball in baseball" or "most home runs in the majors."  I disagree that comparisons to other players are immaterial, whether the analysis is quantitivate or qualitative.

We disagree completely on the extent and purpose of these comparisons.  Why would the Astros bother to compare Everett to Jeter?  Do they have that kind of time or inclination to doodle?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I think you have it. But, the point was not the comparison. At least at first. Through no fault of my own (nor Major Tom) we have slipped into a familar rut. My point was that watching a guy make every single play (and describing them in detail) might just be a method of analysis that could work.

I am in total agreement with you that an evaluative system wherein somebody watched every play would have some validity to it. Watching 10 plays per season on SportsCenter highlights is a pretty awful way to go about it.

Quote:
We disagree completely on the extent and purpose of these comparisons. Why would the Astros bother to compare Everett to Jeter? Do they have that kind of time or inclination to doodle?

I certainly think it would be a waste of time for them to have an army of scouts out watching every shortstop in baseball for this purpose. But to the extent there are modes of comparison that do not require this kind of investment, I think it serves as a useful frame of reference to take advantage of data (subjective or objective) on as many players as possible.

And I am in agreement with you regarding fretting over players you can't get. This is where I think Barzilla's stuff is most off-base. Just because Ausmus or Everett fields or hits better or worse than the league average has nothing to do with whether the Astros can make a player-personnel decision to replace them with a league-average catcher or shortstop.

Comparison to what else is out there might be useful for pointing out where the team is not doing as well as other teams, but that's diagnosing a symptom, not providing a solution.

[WulawHorn]

Arkie- Agreed that this system Gammons was talking about was interesting in a diagnosing a symptom way, not in an evaluative nature per se, as it is a list of comparissons.

I found this diagnosis interesting so I decided to share it.

I also think stats can/should play a role in evaluation/team building, and I'm sure you probably agree with this.  I'm also not suggesting that ALL evaluation should be done strictly on the basis of statistics.

These fielding statistics definately would have some future value as evaluation tools were we to see, suppose, that Adam Everett's defense has declined to the point where he is say the 15th best shortstop defensively in the league.  Then his value (that of a glove man) is diminished to the point where you could find others to better fit the skill set AE once did.  

I think Neyer actually had it right in a column I read a couple of years ago saying that with old time guys you knew how long they were a great defensive player by how long they played the position (i.e. in the absence of meaningful statistics defensively, if  a poor stick kept getting trotted out to play he was probably still a great defensive player- otherwise a rational team would have cut ties with him).

[stubbyc]

Quote:
blah, blah, blah

Do you ever even try to disprove something you don't believe with any real evidence? The past couple days I've seen you use "you're a spoiled brat" in an argument over probability, and "blah blah blah" was the best you could muster up in this thread. I don't even know what you're trying to argue against with the "blah blah blah" in this thread.

As far as these fielding statistics go I'm not sure how much stock to put into them. If someone can accurately figure out which shortstops got to the most balls hit in their region and which got to the least then this has to have some value. It should be considered with skepticism and not just thrown out the window just because you don't want to believe that it might possibly be of some value.

Oh well, I'm sure your response will be "Fuck off" or "WFW" or something equally profound.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
We disagree completely on the extent and purpose of these comparisons.  Why would the Astros bother to compare Everett to Jeter?  Do they have that kind of time or inclination to doodle?

Why wouldn't they compare Everett to other shortstops? I'm sure they want to have some idea where Everett ranks amongst shortstops. Why would they offer so much for Tejada if they had no idea how much of an upgrade he was over Everett?

[stubbyc]

Quote:
These fielding statistics definately would have some future value as evaluation tools were we to see, suppose, that Adam Everett's defense has declined to the point where he is say the 15th best shortstop defensively in the league. Then his value (that of a glove man) is diminished to the point where you could find others to better fit the skill set AE once did.

I agree. Whether or not this specific study is accurate really isn't the point. Does anyone on here truly believe that we're never going to be able to quantify defense with any shred of accuracy? Fielding studies are getting more in depth and even though fielding studies in the past have had flaws it would be foolish to dismiss every fielding study in the future because of it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
blah, blah, blah

Sounds just like the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons to you, doesn't it?

Nope, the teacher sounded like this: whap, whap, whap, whap, whap, whap.

I always thought it sounded more like "wah wah, wah wah, wah wah."

It has more of a trumpet with a cover on it sound.  It is subtle to say the least and I'm sure a case could be made for "wah" instead of "whap".  But since I witnessed firsthand the use of the Peanuts teacher's unique language in a corporate meeting several weeks ago, my opinion is that the sound is closer to "whap" (with a drawn out "a" prior to the "p" sound comes into play).  The meeting had to do with the lack of understanding for the technical jargon used in the presentation offered.  The person who spoke used it as follows: "You're saying things that, I'm sure, sound excellent to other technical minded people, but to me it all sounds like "whaaap, whaaap, whaaap, whaaap, whaaap".  BTW - the comment was not directed at me, I was a participant in the meeting, not the presenter.

Later, the same person said, in response to a direct question about the development of some documentation in her charge: "Well, the do-hickey thing-a-moboby wouldn't work the other day so we had to use the alternative whatchamightcallit to get it done... it set us back a few days."  I said "Betcha that sounded like "whaaap, whaaap, whaaap, whaaap, whaaap" to the tech guy over there.  His eyes are glazed over trying to understand you."

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Arkie- Agreed that this system Gammons was talking about was interesting in a diagnosing a symptom way, not in an evaluative nature per se, as it is a list of comparissons.

I found this diagnosis interesting so I decided to share it.

I also think stats can/should play a role in evaluation/team building, and I'm sure you probably agree with this.  I'm also not suggesting that ALL evaluation should be done strictly on the basis of statistics.

These fielding statistics definately would have some future value as evaluation tools were we to see, suppose, that Adam Everett's defense has declined to the point where he is say the 15th best shortstop defensively in the league.  Then his value (that of a glove man) is diminished to the point where you could find others to better fit the skill set AE once did.  

I think Neyer actually had it right in a column I read a couple of years ago saying that with old time guys you knew how long they were a great defensive player by how long they played the position (i.e. in the absence of meaningful statistics defensively, if  a poor stick kept getting trotted out to play he was probably still a great defensive player- otherwise a rational team would have cut ties with him).

My comments weren't directed at the study you cited in particular.  What I am saying is that the type of analysis that says, "Adam Everett is 30 runs below the league average for shortstops, thus the Astros should replace Adam Everett" is a false analysis.  Comparisons to other players in the league and to the league average are interesting and do provide a useful framework for evaluating a player's performance, but they doesn't tell us much about the team's options.  The salient issue is whether another available option -- in the system, by trade or by free agency -- would improve the team.

People have tended to take the deficiencies in fielding statistics and convert that into an all or nothing condemnation of them -- if they cannot tell us everything, they tell us nothing.  Even traditional fielding statistics do bear some indication of performance.  Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith have eye-popping fielding statistics, compared to their contemporaries.  The challange is recognizing where the limitations are.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
It has more of a trumpet with a cover on it sound.

I think they actually used a trumpet with a cup mute to make the sound.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
We disagree completely on the extent and purpose of these comparisons.  Why would the Astros bother to compare Everett to Jeter?  Do they have that kind of time or inclination to doodle?

Why wouldn't they compare Everett to other shortstops? I'm sure they want to have some idea where Everett ranks amongst shortstops. Why would they offer so much for Tejada if they had no idea how much of an upgrade he was over Everett?

For what purpose would the Astros use a ranking of shortstops?  And, by what criteria?  The type of analysis suggested, (I havent read the details so that should be my interpretation of the analysis) at the top of this thread seems to me the only way to judge a fielder.  Watch him every day for an extended period of time. Even if they were (and did) consider trading Everett are they going to base their decision on a ranking based on anything other than extended observation of the target?  Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett? [edit]This would be significant because the Astros management considered scoring runs to be a problem with the team.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
For what purpose would the Astros use a ranking of shortstops?  And, by what criteria?  The type of analysis suggested, (I havent read the details so that should be my interpretation of the analysis) at the top of this thread seems to me the only way to judge a fielder.  Watch him every day for an extended period of time. Even if they were (and did) consider trading Everett are they going to base their decision on a ranking based on anything other than extended observation of the target?  Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Tejada and Everett are a pretty obvious target set.  Why wouldn't such a list have some relevance in determining who's going to be in the target set?

If the Astros knew Ausmus weren't coming back, they'd have to do some background on who else to look at to replace him.  They'd rely on what they'd seen playing against other catchers, they'd rely on what their scouts and people with the Astros who had been in other organizations tell them, they'd rely on reputation, and why wouldn't they also look at how the various catchers stack up in certain ways?

I haven't read anyone here contending that the Astros are going to pull out John Dewan's book, see where different fielders rank, and just make a trade or signing, lickety-split, based on that. But that doesn't render such information useless.

[Holly]

Speaking of lawyers and "bla(h) bla(h) bla(h)":

The Link

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
For what purpose would the Astros use a ranking of shortstops?  And, by what criteria?  The type of analysis suggested, (I havent read the details so that should be my interpretation of the analysis) at the top of this thread seems to me the only way to judge a fielder.  Watch him every day for an extended period of time. Even if they were (and did) consider trading Everett are they going to base their decision on a ranking based on anything other than extended observation of the target?  Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Tejada and Everett are a pretty obvious target set.  Why wouldn't such a list have some relevance in determining who's going to be in the target set?

If the Astros knew Ausmus weren't coming back, they'd have to do some background on who else to look at to replace him.  They'd rely on what they'd seen playing against other catchers, they'd rely on what their scouts and people with the Astros who had been in other organizations tell them, they'd rely on reputation, and why wouldn't they also look at how the various catchers stack up in certain ways?

I haven't read anyone here contending that the Astros are going to pull out John Dewan's book, see where different fielders rank, and just make a trade or signing, lickety-split, based on that. But that doesn't render such information useless.

For whom?  Even in the context of what you're saying, the Astros consider it useless, as they aren't going to use that statistical methodology, nor any other of which we are aware.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
For what purpose would the Astros use a ranking of shortstops?  And, by what criteria?  The type of analysis suggested, (I havent read the details so that should be my interpretation of the analysis) at the top of this thread seems to me the only way to judge a fielder.  Watch him every day for an extended period of time. Even if they were (and did) consider trading Everett are they going to base their decision on a ranking based on anything other than extended observation of the target?  Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Tejada and Everett are a pretty obvious target set.  Why wouldn't such a list have some relevance in determining who's going to be in the target set?

...

Because that would not be the primary source (in content nor in order of reference) of information available to a professional baseball team.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
For whom?  Even in the context of what you're saying, the Astros consider it useless, as they aren't going to use that statistical methodology, nor any other of which we are aware.

"Of which we are aware."

How do we know what the Astros are using or not using for their analysis?

And whether they do or do not is not entirely relevant to whether a team might benefit from using a sound form of analysis in its operations.  (Not having read Dewan's book, I am not rendering an opinion on whether his particular form of analysis is sound.)

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Because that would not be the primary source (in content nor in order of reference) of information available to a professional baseball team.

Why would it have to be the primary source to have some value?  You seem to be making this an all-or-nothing argument.  Either they would have to use Dewan's list exclusively to pick who's going to be on the team, or Dewan's list has no value.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
For whom?  Even in the context of what you're saying, the Astros consider it useless, as they aren't going to use that statistical methodology, nor any other of which we are aware.

"Of which we are aware."

How do we know what the Astros are using or not using for their analysis?

And whether they do or do not is not entirely relevant to whether a team might benefit from using a sound form of analysis in its operations.  (Not having read Dewan's book, I am not rendering an opinion on whether his particular form of analysis is sound.)

We don't.  Which allows me to say whatever I want and you to say whatever you want about their methods.  Unless we watch what they say and what they do.  Far as we know Purpura uses transparency overlays as his primary method of analysis.  We do know that whatever form of analysis they use, it has lead them to Adam Everett, in a purposeful way, at short.

[Arky Vaughan]

In any event, I don't think most baseball statistical research is solely or even primarily directed toward the goal of getting a baseball team to use it, although I'm sure most researchers or authors would like that.

Perhaps it might be interesting to fans to read what somebody who has looked at a question closely has written, both to think about whether the approach makes sense and out of curiousity of what the results are.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
We don't.  Which allows me to say whatever I want and you to say whatever you want about their methods.  Unless we watch what they say and what they do.  Far as we know Purpura uses transparency overlays as his primary method of analysis.  We do know that whatever form of analysis they use, it has lead them to Adam Everett, in a purposeful way, at short.

Right.  Only I'm not saying, "I think they do use it."  There's no point to me saying that, because it's just a guess.

That's different from debating whether it might have value to them to use it.  And I do think there are evaluative tools that would have such value.  Whether or not they use any of those tools, I have no idea.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Because that would not be the primary source (in content nor in order of reference) of information available to a professional baseball team.

Why would it have to be the primary source to have some value?  You seem to be making this an all-or-nothing argument.  Either they would have to use Dewan's list exclusively to pick who's going to be on the team, or Dewan's list has no value.

I am not making an argument about analysis, I am making an argument about lists.  You're wanting me to make a black and white case so we can type the same things we've been typing for the past 3 years.  I think the methodology as described, watch the player every day, sounds pretty good.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
We don't.  Which allows me to say whatever I want and you to say whatever you want about their methods.  Unless we watch what they say and what they do.  Far as we know Purpura uses transparency overlays as his primary method of analysis.  We do know that whatever form of analysis they use, it has lead them to Adam Everett, in a purposeful way, at short.

Right.  Only I'm not saying, "I think they do use it."  There's no point to me saying that, because it's just a guess.

That's different from debating whether it might have value to them to use it.  And I do think there are evaluative tools that would have such value.  Whether or not they use any of those tools, I have no idea.

And this is where we part ways, the tools have value to you.  They don't seem to be used by the Astros.  I'm interested in the Astros, not you.  It's a point I keep making and seems to be leading me into a dead end here.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Here is a problem with what I've read before by fans and media about the proposed trade with the Orioles.  The Astros weren't trading *for* Tejada to *replace* Everett at short.  It just so happens that is where Tejada plays, at a good enough to not worry about a defensive drop off from Everett sort of way.  What the Astros were trading for was a #3 hitter that they desperately needed because they didn't believe Bagwell was going to make it back and because they needed a middle of the lineup hitter desperately.

In short, they needed the bat not so much the glove.  But since they got Wilson, it isn't worth giving up three players for Tejada.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Here is a problem with what I've read before by fans and media about the proposed trade with the Orioles.  The Astros weren't trading *for* Tejada to *replace* Everett at short.  It just so happens that is where Tejada plays, at a good enough to not worry about a defensive drop off from Everett sort of way.  What the Astros were trading for was a #3 hitter that they desperately needed because they didn't believe Bagwell was going to make it back and because they needed a middle of the lineup hitter desperately.

In short, they needed the bat not so much the glove.  But since they got Wilson, it isn't worth giving up three players for Tejada.

The way I read it was that if Tejada had given up his rights to request a trade at the end of the season the Astros would have made the deal. No?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Here is a problem with what I've read before by fans and media about the proposed trade with the Orioles.  The Astros weren't trading *for* Tejada to *replace* Everett at short.  It just so happens that is where Tejada plays, at a good enough to not worry about a defensive drop off from Everett sort of way.  What the Astros were trading for was a #3 hitter that they desperately needed because they didn't believe Bagwell was going to make it back and because they needed a middle of the lineup hitter desperately.

In short, they needed the bat not so much the glove.  But since they got Wilson, it isn't worth giving up three players for Tejada.

The way I read it was that if Tejada had given up his rights to request a trade at the end of the season the Astros would have made the deal. No?

Yes.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
And this is where we part ways, the tools have value to you.  They don't seem to be used by the Astros.  I'm interested in the Astros, not you.  It's a point I keep making and seems to be leading me into a dead end here.

They don't have value to me other than that I find it interesting to read about, think about and talk about them.  I also find it intersting to discuss whether they might have value to the Astros, even if that has no bearing on whether the Astros actually use them.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Also, is there something that I'm missing about Tejada that isn't obvious about him being an offensive upgrade (without a huge dropoff in defense) over Everett?

Here is a problem with what I've read before by fans and media about the proposed trade with the Orioles.  The Astros weren't trading *for* Tejada to *replace* Everett at short.  It just so happens that is where Tejada plays, at a good enough to not worry about a defensive drop off from Everett sort of way.  What the Astros were trading for was a #3 hitter that they desperately needed because they didn't believe Bagwell was going to make it back and because they needed a middle of the lineup hitter desperately.

In short, they needed the bat not so much the glove.  But since they got Wilson, it isn't worth giving up three players for Tejada.

Certainly.  I don't think they were trying to get rid of Everett.  They were trying to identify a trade that would help the team, and Tejada happens to play shortstop.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
And this is where we part ways, the tools have value to you.  They don't seem to be used by the Astros.  I'm interested in the Astros, not you.  It's a point I keep making and seems to be leading me into a dead end here.

They don't have value to me other than that I find it interesting to read about, think about and talk about them.  I also find it intersting to discuss whether they might have value to the Astros, even if that has no bearing on whether the Astros actually use them.

In that case, you're discussing something completely different from baseball.  Sort of meta-baseball.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I am not making an argument about analysis, I am making an argument about lists.  You're wanting me to make a black and white case so we can type the same things we've been typing for the past 3 years.  I think the methodology as described, watch the player every day, sounds pretty good.

I happen to think expressing the analysis through lists has some value.  You apparently do not.  I understand what you are saying and concede that it has some validity.  I just happen to approach it a bit differently.  Far be it for me to try to persuade you to agree with me, or vice-versa, for that matter.  C'est la vie.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I am not making an argument about analysis, I am making an argument about lists.  You're wanting me to make a black and white case so we can type the same things we've been typing for the past 3 years.  I think the methodology as described, watch the player every day, sounds pretty good.

I happen to think expressing the analysis through lists has some value.  You apparently do not.  I understand what you are saying and concede that it has some validity.  I just happen to approach it a bit differently.  Far be it for me to try to persuade you to agree with me, or vice-versa, for that matter.  C'est la vie.

Why in gods name would you care to?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
In that case, you're discussing something completely different from baseball.  Sort of meta-baseball.

No, not really.  It's just that you seem to discount or discard the way I enjoy watching and thinking and talking about baseball as somehow less authentic or valid or worthy than the way you and others enjoy watching and thinking and talking about baseball.  And that's why, every time this subject has come up for the last nine years and will come up as long as either of us cares to post here, the same discussion is going to ensue.

One thing I happen to appreciate about baseball is that there are so many ways for people to take pleasure in it.  I don't see the point in telling other people that the way they enjoy baseball isn't really baseball -- or is a waste of time or is bullshit, the way Jim likes to put it.  It seems like an approach almost specifically devised to provoke a less-than-positive response.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I am not making an argument about analysis, I am making an argument about lists.  You're wanting me to make a black and white case so we can type the same things we've been typing for the past 3 years.  I think the methodology as described, watch the player every day, sounds pretty good.

I happen to think expressing the analysis through lists has some value.  You apparently do not.  I understand what you are saying and concede that it has some validity.  I just happen to approach it a bit differently.  Far be it for me to try to persuade you to agree with me, or vice-versa, for that matter.  C'est la vie.

Why in gods name would you care to?

Is it that big a surprise that somebody might find something interesting that you do not?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
In that case, you're discussing something completely different from baseball.  Sort of meta-baseball.

No, not really.  It's just that you seem to discount or discard the way I enjoy watching and thinking and talking about baseball as somehow less authentic or valid or worthy than the way you and others enjoy watching and thinking and talking about baseball.  And that's why, every time this subject has come up for the last nine years and will come up as long as either of us cares to post here, the same discussion is going to ensue.

One thing I happen to appreciate about baseball is that there are so many ways for people to take pleasure in it.  I don't see the point in telling other people that the way they enjoy baseball isn't really baseball -- or is a waste of time or is bullshit, the way Jim likes to put it.  It seems like an approach almost specifically devised to provoke a less-than-positive response.

Since you're determined to tell me what I think, let me suggest that your primary interest is figuring out what it is you think about baseball.  This is not the same thing as discussing baseball.  You're discussing what Arky Vaughn thinks about baseball.  Not as interesting to others as you might believe.

[WulawHorn]

I don't know P- I happen to like listening to what Arkie Vaughn thinks about baseball (as well as what Pravata, Stros Ray, JimR, Noe, David in Jackson) etc think about baseball. If I wasn't interested in this other input then I would not frequent this site.

I really do not understand where you are coming from in saying all of our astros analysis should be devoted to understanding why the team does the way it does and the way it thinks.

In my opinion the variety of thought processes, different ways of analyzing the same problem, different methods/approaches to team building is part of what makes the game truly special, and just about all that makes it worth paying attention to in the off season.  

Part of what I love about the game is all the different strategies/approaches/arguments from everything from in game decision making to off season team building.  I had a 3 month long friendly argument with my buddy about walking the bases loaded with two outs in the ninth inning (guys on 1st and 3rd at the time) that was fun.  You don't like playing the what if game, and that is fine I guess.  I have to admit that sometimes it gets carried away with stupid trade proposal guy or Barzilla and his progeny, but a thoughtful and knowledgeable fan engaging in such lends me greater understanding of the game.

[pravata]

Quote:
I don't know P- I happen to like listening to what Arkie Vaughn thinks about baseball (as well as what Pravata, Stros Ray, JimR, Noe, David in Jackson) etc think about baseball. If I wasn't interested in this other input then I would not frequent this site.

I really do not understand where you are coming from in saying all of our astros analysis should be devoted to understanding why the team does the way it does and the way it thinks.

In my opinion the variety of thought processes, different ways of analyzing the same problem, different methods/approaches to team building is part of what makes the game truly special, and just about all that makes it worth paying attention to in the off season.  

Part of what I love about the game is all the different strategies/approaches/arguments from everything from in game decision making to off season team building.  I had a 3 month long friendly argument with my buddy about walking the bases loaded with two outs in the ninth inning (guys on 1st and 3rd at the time) that was fun.  You don't like playing the what if game, and that is fine I guess.  I have to admit that sometimes it gets carried away with stupid trade proposal guy or Barzilla and his progeny, but a thoughtful and knowledgeable fan engaging in such lends me greater understanding of the game.

What I'm saying is that when our delusion reaches the point that typing about what we think about baseball becomes more relevant to us than the actual facts of baseball, then the response of "bullshit", and put that succintly, is entirely the correct response.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Since you're determined to tell me what I think, let me suggest that your primary interest is figuring out what it is you think about baseball.  This is not the same thing as discussing baseball.  You're discussing what Arky Vaughn thinks about baseball.  Not as interesting to others as you might believe.

I thought we were discussing whether what I think is meta-baseball, as opposed to the real baseball that you discuss.

I'm loath to continue this digression, but could you please finish up by telling me, why is what you post so much more correct than what I or others posts?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
What I'm saying is that when our delusion reaches the point that typing about what we think about baseball becomes more relevant to us than the actual facts of baseball, then the response of "bullshit", and put that succintly, is entirely the correct response.

Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, but I am curious how it is that you make a distinction between what people here think about baseball (this is an opinion board after all) and what the "actual facts of baseball" are. (Or why it's delusional for us to have opinions on the matter.)

Does this board exist just for rote recitation of actual facts of baseball? I don't see that in the rules anywhere, and I certainly don't think that's why the forum was created. And I'm quite sure that nobody appointed you enforcer of that distinction.

We can both post what we will, and others can determine whether there's any validity to reading it without your marking your territory by spraying on every post that doesn't traffic in or affirm the "actual facts of baseball" as you perceive them.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Since you're determined to tell me what I think, let me suggest that your primary interest is figuring out what it is you think about baseball.  This is not the same thing as discussing baseball.  You're discussing what Arky Vaughn thinks about baseball.  Not as interesting to others as you might believe.

I thought we were discussing whether what I think is meta-baseball, as opposed to the real baseball that you discuss.

I'm loath to continue this digression, but could you please finish up by telling me, why is what you post so much more correct than what I or others posts?

In spite of this being the umpteenth time you've accused me of that, IT'S NOT, YOU DUMBASS! Think about this, how is it that a thread that started by discussing how to look at shortstops has turned into defending the right not to have your posts questioned?  (Yes you are, look what you just posted.)

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
What I'm saying is that when our delusion reaches the point that typing about what we think about baseball becomes more relevant to us than the actual facts of baseball, then the response of "bullshit", and put that succintly, is entirely the correct response.

Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, but I am curious how it is that you make a distinction between what people here think about baseball (this is an opinion board after all) and what the "actual facts of baseball" are. (Or why it's delusional for us to have opinions on the matter.)

Does this board exist just for rote recitation of actual facts of baseball? I don't see that in the rules anywhere, and I certainly don't think that's why the forum was created. And I'm quite sure that nobody appointed you enforcer of that distinction.

We can both post what we will, and others can determine whether there's any validity to reading it without your marking your territory by spraying on every post that doesn't traffic in or affirm the "actual facts of baseball" as you perceive them.

I'm sorry I think you lost the high ground when you started babbling about RBI and homeruns.  I'm not trying to convince you to stop prefering your ideas, I'm pointing out that that is what you do.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
In spite of this being the umpteenth time you've accused me of that, IT'S NOT, YOU DUMBASS! Think about this, how is it that a thread that started by discussing how to look at shortstops has turned into defending the right not to have your posts questioned?  (Yes you are, look what you just posted.)

This thread detoured when you expressed that what I had to say on the subject is invalid because it's not really baseball but meta-baseball.  I never denied your right to say that, any less than I have a right to observe how awfully agitated you are that I am discussing things that you think are delusional and don't belong here.  So what we're really debating now is whether I have the right to complain about your right to complain that I'm discussing meta-baseball rather than real baseball.  Which all seems rather pointless.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm sorry I think you lost the high ground when you started babbling about RBI and homeruns.  I'm not trying to convince you to stop prefering your ideas, I'm pointing out that that is what you do.

It was a sarcastic comment whose relationship to the subject matter I apparently did not explain well enough.  Next time I will try to be less sarcastic and more clear.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
In spite of this being the umpteenth time you've accused me of that, IT'S NOT, YOU DUMBASS! Think about this, how is it that a thread that started by discussing how to look at shortstops has turned into defending the right not to have your posts questioned?  (Yes you are, look what you just posted.)

This thread detoured when you expressed that what I had to say on the subject is invalid because it's not really baseball but meta-baseball.  I never denied your right to say that, any less than I have a right to observe how awfully agitated you are that I am discussing things that you think are delusional and don't belong here.  So what we're really debating now is whether I have the right to complain about your right to complain that I'm discussing meta-baseball rather than real baseball.  Which all seems rather pointless.

Then let this be the last time you accuse me of trying to write posting rules for this site and trying to decide for others what belongs here.  Post as you like, don't be such a whiner about the response.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm sorry I think you lost the high ground when you started babbling about RBI and homeruns.  I'm not trying to convince you to stop prefering your ideas, I'm pointing out that that is what you do.

It was a sarcastic comment whose relationship to the subject matter I apparently did not explain well enough.  Next time I will try to be less sarcastic and more clear.

Nice sanctimony, but your response to my offhanded comment about that post used the words erroneous and enunciated.  And not, I think, in ways that would suggest a vein of sarcasm.

[WulawHorn]

See- where I differ from you is that I think your posts are equally delusional as Arky's, and neither is really delusional, its just a different way of analyzing the game.  You seem to want to take a route that is more in line with figuring out why teams do what they do, and he and others might be debating whether or not how teams actually think us the most effective measure of thinking.

I have problems when people like Barzilla act sanctimonious and think that they know better than the actual management, whose full time job is to put together a team.  But the crux of the argument is that ALL teams think at least a little bit differntly than each other, so there is a wide range of ways to tackle the problem.  

If this were KC Royals zone.com should we still be interested only in analyzing why they did what they did instead of suggesting that they tackle the problem with different means and insights.  After all, they are pro's too (they are just more inept than the other pros).

[pravata]

Quote:
See- where I differ from you is that I think your posts are equally delusional as Arky's, and neither is really delusional, its just a different way of analyzing the game.  You seem to want to take a route that is more in line with figuring out why teams do what they do, and he and others might be debating whether or not how teams actually think us the most effective measure of thinking.

I have problems when people like Barzilla act sanctimonious and think that they know better than the actual management, whose full time job is to put together a team.  But the crux of the argument is that ALL teams think at least a little bit differntly than each other, so there is a wide range of ways to tackle the problem.  

If this were KC Royals zone.com should we still be interested only in analyzing why they did what they did instead of suggesting that they tackle the problem with different means and insights.  After all, they are pro's too (they are just more inept than the other pros).

I think you have this correctly.  I have no illusions about my delusions.  I would hope that if I have an incorrect understanding that someone would set me straight.  In case anyone is keeping score, that's the primary reason I visit this site.  

As for the Royals (as an example) situation, I've seen a lot of people argue that they could do as well as a major league GM because Cam Bonifay was once a GM.  I don't think much of that arguement.  What I would be more interested in would be a discussion of what other teams in similar situatons may have done, and why.  What statgeek #1 in the peanut gallery would do is of interest to statgeek #1 and maybe his mom.  But, I'm not going to stop him from having the opinion, I'll just entertain myself by making fun of it.  Reason #1A for visiting this site.

[WulawHorn]

OK- I get that, but my only differing apporach would be to say that if a lot of really smart stat geeks have similar things to say, rather than mocking, maybe their arguments could be analyzed and something useful to further the goal of team building could be found from these observations.

Of course much of what is said is probably some combination of self obvious, delusional or just plain stupid, but alot of smart people put a lot of effort into stuff like that at a hobby level.  Baseball is kinda like a giant think tank in a lot of ways and I think there is probably some stuff of value along with stuff that should be mocked.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Then let this be the last time you accuse me of trying to write posting rules for this site and trying to decide for others what belongs here.

You mean rules like don't accuse you of trying to write posting rules and trying to decide for others what belongs here or post as you like, but don't be such a whiner about the response?

Quote:
Post as you like, don't be such a whiner about the response.

You mean like whining about being accused of trying to write posting rules and trying to decide for others what belongs here?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
1. Then let this be the last time you accuse me of trying to write posting rules for this site and trying to decide for others what belongs here.

2. Post as you like, don't be such a whiner about the response.

Does this not constitute whining about me accusing you of trying to write posting rules for this site and trying to decide for others what belongs here?  And aren't these in themselves posting rules?

Now you are trying to be cute; in strictly a simpering grown man trying to be cute way.

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm willing to plead guilty to childishness on this one.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Nice sanctimony, but your response to my offhanded comment about that post used the words erroneous and enunciated.  And not, I think, in ways that would suggest a vein of sarcasm.

I did think your point was erroneous, and I don't think my post was off-topic.  Not that there is a rule that posts be on-topic here.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm not going to stop him from having the opinion, I'll just entertain myself by making fun of it.  Reason #1A for visiting this site.

How is this any different from trolling or flaming?  Your goal is to ridicule people and to provoke them.  There may be no rule against it, but it's a crappy thing to do.  Which is why you should not be surprised when you get the responses you do.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not going to stop him from having the opinion, I'll just entertain myself by making fun of it.  Reason #1A for visiting this site.

How is this any different from trolling or flaming?  Your goal is to ridicule people and to provoke them.  There may be no rule against it, but it's a crappy thing to do.  Which is why you should not be surprised when you get the responses you do.

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not going to stop him from having the opinion, I'll just entertain myself by making fun of it.  Reason #1A for visiting this site.

How is this any different from trolling or flaming?  Your goal is to ridicule people and to provoke them.  There may be no rule against it, but it's a crappy thing to do.  Which is why you should not be surprised when you get the responses you do.

If I was merely waving my ass, as you are now, that would be one thing.  But, my typical method of "making fun" does not resemble either of those.  Ejaculating "RBI" and "homerun", either as sarcasm or to provoke a response, would be nearer to what you're describing.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Nice sanctimony, but your response to my offhanded comment about that post used the words erroneous and enunciated.  And not, I think, in ways that would suggest a vein of sarcasm.

I did think your point was erroneous, and I don't think my post was off-topic.  Not that there is a rule that posts be on-topic here.

I thought it was just sarcasm.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

And he has no idea he's doing it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
If I was merely waving my ass, as you are now, that would be one thing.  But, my typical method of "making fun" does not resemble either of those.  Ejaculating "RBI" and "homerun", either as sarcasm or to provoke a response, would be nearer to what you're describing.

Let's try this one last time:

The Link

"It's not off-topic to point out that if it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it's also immaterial how a team's batters compare to other batters that the team can't get, or how a team's pitchers compare to other pitchers that the team can't get."

You haven't and can't refute that, so your bleating that the post was off-topic is just a red herring.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I thought it was just sarcasm.

You have the stage to yourself, Pravata.  I'm done with this thread.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

And he has no idea he's doing it.

Oh dear, someone doesnt like me.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
If I was merely waving my ass, as you are now, that would be one thing.  But, my typical method of "making fun" does not resemble either of those.  Ejaculating "RBI" and "homerun", either as sarcasm or to provoke a response, would be nearer to what you're describing.

Let's try this one last time:

The Link

"It's not off-topic to point out that if it's immaterial how a team's shortstops compare to other shortstops that the team can't get, then it's also immaterial how a team's batters compare to other batters that the team can't get, or how a team's pitchers compare to other pitchers that the team can't get."

You haven't and can't refute that, so your bleating that the post was off-topic is just a red herring.

I haven't refuted it because I agree with it. [edit]Is that the post that includes the RBI and homerun taunt?

[NeilT]

You're probably a pretty good librarian for an idiot.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

And he has no idea he's doing it.

Oh dear, someone doesnt like me.

Nah, I like you fine.  Between this and the blood clot thread, I'd say this crew is ready for exhibition games to start.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

And he has no idea he's doing it.

Oh dear, someone doesnt like me.

Nah, I like you fine.  Between this and the blood clot thread, I'd say this crew is ready for exhibition games to start.

I can't tell you how relieved I am,

In today?s (Tuesdays) intra-squad game at Osceola County Stadium, the Colt .45s defeated the Buffs, 5-4...RHP Roy Oswalt started for the Buffs and faced six batters, allowing two hits ...LHP Trever Miller started for the Colt .45s and surrendered a leadoff home run to SS Adam Everett...Everett finished 2x3 with a homer and two runs...OF Brian Gordon also hit a solo home run for the Buffs...on the mound for the Colt .45s: Miller, LHP Mike Gallo, RHP Taylor Buchholz and RHP Jason Hirsh...on the mound for the Buffs: Oswalt, RHP Chad Qualls, Joe Valentine, RHP Fernando Nieve, RHP Jimmy Barthmaier
The Link

[JimR]

ah, now Arky Statgeek pulled the dramatic exit ploy.

[pravata]

Quote:
ah, now Arky Statgeek pulled the dramatic exit ploy.

But I'm hearing loud whispering offstage.

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:

Give up, Arky.  He's got no life but posting on the internet.  He'll wear you down with one whine after another, and then accuse you of whining.

And he has no idea he's doing it.

Oh no, he's well aware that he's doing it.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
 Ejaculating "RBI" and "homerun"...

The Astros could use some of that kind of production, though I find myself reluctant to watch.

[otterj]

Quote:

Quote:
 Ejaculating "RBI" and "homerun"...

The Astros could use some of that kind of production, though I find myself reluctant to watch.

Ejaculating homeruns are always fun.

[Reuben]

In case anyone is looking for a diversion from the meat of this thread, may I submit,  The Link to Baseball Toaster, where the Astros Anagrams have been up for a couple days, so I'm not sure if it's already been pointed out here (but not that I've seen). And while you're there, be sure to check out their Random Diamond Note Generator if you haven't already (this thread does have Gammons in the title, so it sort of relates...)

 edit quick link to the anagram "answers," if you decide to give up:  The Link