Are the Giants the most anti-saber team in the mlb?

[nateistheshi]

The Giants are 10 games above .500 with a negative run differential. Detroit is the only other team with a winning record, yet a negative run differential.

The Giants pitchers have the 2nd highest BB% in mlb at 9.0 behind only the Cubs. They also have the 2nd lowest HR/FB ratio ahead of only SD.

The Giants hitters have the 2nd lowest OBP at only .303 just ahead of the Mariners.

All of these signs suggest that regardless of their starting rotation, they shouldn't be winning this many games. I know with the recent skid I picked a bad time to make this thread but I figured we could all use a distraction from the recent shenanigans.

Take their record in 1 run games as well (28-15, 10-6 in extras,) and It seems like the Giants are winning games almost entirely due to being better in the last few innings than their opponents (about 3 WAR from bench players plus 4.1 WAR from the bullpen.)

Combine all of these with the fact that the Giants have Matt Cain, and it should be no mystery why most sabermetric themed writers seem to dislike the Giants. Guys like Keith Law, Dave Cameron (get well soon,) and Rob Neyer seem to hate the Giants due to the fact that they rely on the facts above to judge this team almost exclusively.

I know this is all very unscientific, but please give me some thoughts (I threw this together in a hurry in an attempt to reinject some baseball discussion to the board.)

 

[gp956]

I agree almost totally with this quote that came from a comment thread at fangraphs:

What often surprises me about Fangraphs and the sabremetric community generally is how unscientific it really is. The scientific method starts with observation, then hypothesis, then measurement and testing. The true scientist tries to prove the null of their hypothesis to standard of 99.5% confidence. A true scientist approaches their subject without bias.

So we have a hypothesis that controlling HR/FB ratio isn't a controllable skill, yet we have all these pitchers that are apparently doing it. Rather than conclude that the hypothesis is wrong the conclusion is formed that these pitchers are just lucky?

This conclusion is all the more indefensible when contrasted with direct observation and qualitative data from experts in the industry that says these players are very good.

The longer the “matt cain is not that good” meme continues to be perpetuated on this site it only serves to undermine the credibility of your methodology and approach.

I can't remember which of the saberist writer it was (law or neyer), but in their pre-season assessment of the Giants they predicted a regression for each player to levels below their respective historical means, because, you know, players regress TO THE MEAN. I could not believe that they could consider themselves saberists and write something like that.

But, whatever, it's not a big deal what these guys write. The media is in constant search for content of any type whether the quality is questionable or not. Most poeple wont know the difference.

 

[Heathbar012]

^What he said.

 

[gp956]

Just to continue the theme here a bit......

I wonder if what appeals to some saberists is access to insights to pro-ball without having to go through the years of learning its nuances, i.e. it's easier to learn the game through the math than it is through direct observation - given that mathematical ability is a lot more widespread in the general population than is intimate knowledge of rounders. Don't get me wrong, Sabermetrics is not a bad thing per se, but I think more than a few Saberists I've met are a little disingenuous when it comes to the reasons they reject "old-school" knowledge.

Anyway....just floating that thought out there.

 

[nateistheshi]

Just to continue the theme here a bit......

I wonder if what appeals to some saberists is access to insights to pro-ball without having to go through the years of learning its nuances, i.e. it's easier to learn the game through the math than it is through direct observation - given that mathematical ability is a lot more widespread in the general population than is intimate knowledge of rounders. Don't get me wrong, Sabermetrics is not a bad thing per se, but I think more than a few Saberists I've met are a little disingenuous when it comes to the reasons they reject "old-school" knowledge.

Anyway....just floating that thought out there.

It's like you read my mind. I love the underlying idea behind sabermetrics "lets use data, math, and trends to learn more about baseball." However, it has gotten to the point where the more famous saberists are becoming very set in their ways; they aren't willing to acknowledge that what we know now can and will be proven to be false one day. Telling Dave Cameron about the problems with using xFIP is like telling Joe Morgan that Felix won the CY last year because he deserved it.

I remember the great Fangraphs winter debates about Matt Cain. The argument went from "Cain is lucky and will regress" to "the entire Giants staff is lucky and will regress" to "stupid AT&T ballpark protects them from being bad" to what everybody was really thinking all along "this team won the WS and we don't like them now."

 

[gp956]

It's like you read my mind. I love the underlying idea behind sabermetrics "lets use data, math, and trends to learn more about baseball." However, it has gotten to the point where the more famous saberists are becoming very set in their ways; they aren't willing to acknowledge that what we know now can and will be proven to be false one day. Telling Dave Cameron about the problems with using xFIP is like telling Joe Morgan that Felix won the CY last year because he deserved it.

I remember the great Fangraphs winter debates about Matt Cain. The argument went from "Cain is lucky and will regress" to "the entire Giants staff is lucky and will regress" to "stupid AT&T ballpark protects them from being bad" to what everybody was really thinking all along "this team won the WS and we don't like them now."

Well, ultimately it came down to not be able to let go of the assumption that pitchers can't induce weak contact, which had been the the conclusion of Voros McCracken looking at a couples years worth of data. So "they" to come up with all manner of contrivances to explain away pitchers like Cain.

 

[tzill]

Just to continue the theme here a bit......

I wonder if what appeals to some saberists is access to insights to pro-ball without having to go through the years of learning its nuances, i.e. it's easier to learn the game through the math than it is through direct observation - given that mathematical ability is a lot more widespread in the general population than is intimate knowledge of rounders. Don't get me wrong, Sabermetrics is not a bad thing per se, but I think more than a few Saberists I've met are a little disingenuous when it comes to the reasons they reject "old-school" knowledge.

Anyway....just floating that thought out there.

+1. Then add in a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger as the community rallies around itself to dig further into the minutia rather than doing a meta-analysis to question basic premises.

I love advanced stats. I'm geeky enough to track PQS for example, but unwilling to tout it as the panacea of pitching stats. Loving stats and getting blinded by your cognitive bias is a bad combination.

That said, fangraphs is a pretty good site.

 

[tzill]

Well, ultimately it came down to not be able to let go of the assumption that pitchers can't induce weak contact, which had been the the conclusion of Voros McCracken looking at a couples years worth of data. So "they" to come up with all manner of contrivances to explain away pitchers like Cain.

Not to stray too off topic here, but that whole controversy reminds me of the "AIDS is a viral disease" red herring trotted out in the late 80s/early 90s. Researchers kept moving the yardsticks as researchers kept trying in vain to find a virus.

2011 and still no virus.

Old ideas die hard.

 

[nateistheshi]

Well, ultimately it came down to not be able to let go of the assumption that pitchers can't induce weak contact, which had been the the conclusion of Voros McCracken looking at a couples years worth of data. So "they" to come up with all manner of contrivances to explain away pitchers like Cain.

It's almost indefensible at this point. If a pitcher cannot control whether a batter hits a ball weakly, then the pitcher cannot control whether a batter hits a ball hard. In short, it's assuming the pitcher throws the ball and their control ends...yet for some reason hr/fb is a huge part of xFIP. This causes these saber writers to consistently underrate the Giants and assume that their entire HR suppressing staff is lucky. Cameron didn't even have Madbum or Cain as honorable mentions on his top 50 trade value series.

I understand that the difference between a regular line drive and a homerun is that defense doesn't play a role in the homerun. My overall point is that if a pitcher isn't responsible for hitting a corner and having a batter hit one off the end of the bat, then the pitcher isn't responsible for throwing a meatball and getting taken deep.

 

[nateistheshi]

Not to stray too off topic here, but that whole controversy reminds me of the "AIDS is a viral disease" red herring trotted out in the late 80s/early 90s. Researchers kept moving the yardsticks as researchers kept trying in vain to find a virus.

2011 and still no virus.

Old ideas die hard.

HIV is a virus, AIDS is a state of having a very low T Cell count.

 

[tzill]

HIV is a virus, AIDS is a state of having a very low T Cell count.

Nate, all due respect, but the "virus" has never been found. It's been 30 years. AIDS is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms. Check the CDC if you don't believe me.

Duesberg had his career ended by the HIV fascists, and what he was writing in the 80s still stands as essentially correct. It isn't a retrovirus as claimed and in fact they've still never found a virus. As possibilities get closed down, the HIV establishment keeps changing the terms of the discussion, just like the Fangraphs folks regarding a pitchers ability to induce weak contact.

 

[nateistheshi]

Nate, all due respect, but the "virus" has never been found. It's been 30 years. AIDS is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms. Check the CDC if you don't believe me.

Duesberg had his career ended by the HIV fascists, and what he was writing in the 80s still stands as essentially correct. It isn't a retrovirus as claimed and in fact they've still never found a virus. As possibilities get closed down, the HIV establishment keeps changing the terms of the discussion, just like the Fangraphs folks regarding a pitchers ability to induce weak contact.

No disrespect taken at all buddy. I was completely unaware of anything different being proclaimed by the CDC, however "HIV is a Retrovirus that infects T Cells" is what I was recently taught in both Cell Biology and Human A&P, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism.

Here's my question to you then, if it isn't caused by a virus, what is the cause of HIV?

 

[Mays-Fan]

No disrespect taken at all buddy. I was completely unaware of anything different being proclaimed by the CDC, however "HIV is a Retrovirus that infects T Cells" is what I was recently taught in both Cell Biology and Human A&P, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism.

Here's my question to you then, if it isn't caused by a virus, what is the cause of HIV?

Lack of government funding.

 

[tzill]

No disrespect taken at all buddy. I was completely unaware of anything different being proclaimed by the CDC, however "HIV is a Retrovirus that infects T Cells" is what I was recently taught in both Cell Biology and Human A&P, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism.

Here's my question to you then, if it isn't caused by a virus, what is the cause of HIV?

I don't know that anyone has the definitive answer to that, but the fact that the AMA has spent billions on AIDS research while chasing this "retrovirus" phantom and not looked at other possibilities is criminal. Duesberg theorized that it was a combo of repeated STD infection coupled with drug abuse. He also believed that the African illness and the Western illness were not necessarily connected.