Miscellaneous Stuff

[filosofy29]

Without consulting stat logs, match the player to the line (line since August 1):

Line_01 .258/.328/.377/.705 - Sandoval
Line_02 .333/.391/.500/.891 - Belt
Line_03 .371/.452/.634/1.086 - Posey
Line_04 .221/.290/.387/.677 - Pence
Line_05 .287/.343/.388/.730 - Pagan
Line_06 .311/.371/.522/.892 - Crawford
Line_07 .357/.379/.467/.846 - Scutaro


Players: Pence, Pablo, Posey, Scutaro, Belt, Crawford, Pagan, Arias


^^^^ Yes, there is one extra player (just to make it a little more interesting).

My guesses above.

 

[SFGRTB]

Without consulting stat logs, match the player to the line (line since August 1):

Line_01 .258/.328/.377/.705
Line_02 .333/.391/.500/.891
Line_03 .371/.452/.634/1.086
Line_04 .221/.290/.387/.677
Line_05 .287/.343/.388/.730
Line_06 .311/.371/.522/.892
Line_07 .357/.379/.467/.846


Players: Pence, Pablo, Posey, Scutaro, Belt, Crawford, Pagan, Arias


^^^^ Yes, there is one extra player (just to make it a little more interesting).

Pablo, Pagan, Posey, Pence, Crawford, Belt, Scutaro

 

[calsnowskier]

Without consulting stat logs, match the player to the line (line since August 1):

Line_01 .258/.328/.377/.705 -- Herk
Line_02 .333/.391/.500/.891 -- Belt
Line_03 .371/.452/.634/1.086 -- MVP
Line_04 .221/.290/.387/.677 -- Fish
Line_05 .287/.343/.388/.730 -- Panda
Line_06 .311/.371/.522/.892 -- Oxy
Line_07 .357/.379/.467/.846 -- Moped


Players: Pence, Pablo, Posey, Scutaro, Belt, Crawford, Pagan, Arias


^^^^ Yes, there is one extra player (just to make it a little more interesting).

I am not cheating, so I am probably WAY wrong...

 

[gp956]

Nice guesses all around. I'll post the answer at game time, or thereabouts.

 

[filosofy29]

This has probably been brought up before, or it may even have a Sabermetric tag that I'm unaware of.....that said, instead of RBI's or Runs (obviously still keep track of them individually as well) why not have an "Aggregate Runs" accounted for column? When they show a batter coming up, why not have Average, HR, AR? At the risk of sounding stupid, aren't Runs just as important as RBI's?

 

[calsnowskier]

This has probably been brought up before, or it may even have a Sabermetric tag that I'm unaware of.....that said, instead of RBI's or Runs (obviously still keep track of them individually as well) why not have an "Aggregate Runs" accounted for column? When they show a batter coming up, why not have Average, HR, AR? At the risk of sounding stupid, aren't Runs just as important as RBI's?

You mean RCs? (Runs+RBI-HR)

 

[gp956]

answers (batting line since August 1):

Pablo .258/.328/.377/.705
BBelt .333/.391/.500/.891
Posey 371/.452/.634/1.086
Pence .221/.290/.387/.677
BCraw .287/.343/.388/.730
Pagan .311/.371/.522/.892
Scoot .357/.379/.467/.846

 

[SFGRTB]

answers (batting line since August 1):

Pablo .258/.328/.377/.705
BBelt .333/.391/.500/.891
Posey 371/.452/.634/1.086
Pence .221/.290/.387/.677
BCraw .287/.343/.388/.730
Pagan .311/.371/.522/.892
Scoot .357/.379/.467/.846

Damn so close! Look at Craw swinging it. If he keeps that up, he's a very solid SS in the league, in terms of value.

 

[gp956]

This has probably been brought up before, or it may even have a Sabermetric tag that I'm unaware of.....that said, instead of RBI's or Runs (obviously still keep track of them individually as well) why not have an "Aggregate Runs" accounted for column? When they show a batter coming up, why not have Average, HR, AR? At the risk of sounding stupid, aren't Runs just as important as RBI's?

Yes. Although this assumes it takes no "extra" skill to drive in a run. But you're kinda caught in a no mans land to propose an "AR" stat. Old school guys believe in "clutch" and therefore the RBI stat is pretty important to them - although surely not irrespective of the overall slash line. This inevitably leads to how to determine the relative importance of the RBI vs. the slash line. And for the most part, that's answered on an individual basis, probably without much need to see an "AR" stat next to a hitters line.

And, at the other side of the "battle line," the sabermetric community discounts the importance of the RBI. It's assumed that a hit that drives in a run is no more important than one that doesn't, or, as in our previous terminology, it doesn't require any "extra" skill to drive in runs. "Clutch" is statistically insignificant to the sabermetric community. For them, not making outs is the paramount offensive consideration. But they do, however, have an "AR" stat, although it's called "runs created", and it attempts to combine the weighted relative importance of everything (at least everything that is recorded) in the game that contributes to run scoring - and the best of those adjust their weights for the overall run scoring environment, which, when you start getting into details of scoring runs, is a pretty important thing to do (although that's more of meta-analysis consideration, considering that "run scoring environments" usually change only slightly over the average player's "lifetime").

 

[filosofy29]

Thanks gp for the response. That definitely answers the questions I had (rep). If you have the time/inclination (if not, then no worries), I'd like to keep digging. Your answer brought about new questions that I had (I'll put them in italics below). ***DISCLAIMER - the views I am going to pose below are not meant to assume that you are saying/implying something else (or that you are saying/implying anything really), it's more or less me just "talking" out loud. I just want you to know where I'm coming from so that you can further educate me on/discuss this topic. This could be a slippery slope for me though as delving into Sabermetrics (and to some extent "old school" baseball thought) is uncharted waters..........or just a nicer way for me to call myself ignorant.

Yes. Although this assumes it takes no "extra" skill to drive in a run. But you're kinda caught in a no mans land to propose an "AR" stat. Old school guys believe in "clutch" and therefore the RBI stat is pretty important to them - although surely not irrespective of the overall slash line. This inevitably leads to how to determine the relative importance of the RBI vs. the slash line. And for the most part, that's answered on an individual basis, probably without much need to see an "AR" stat next to a hitters line.

I also believe in clutch (even though I know "luck" can be a "noisy" variable). I think you said it best in 2010 after Renteria's HR off of Lee that things like that reaffirm belief in "clutch". Having a runner on 2nd and/or 3rd can definitely change a hitters approach whether it's being over-eager or "spinkster problems" or something else altogether.

And, at the other side of the "battle line," the sabermetric community discounts the importance of the RBI. It's assumed that a hit that drives in a run is no more important than one that doesn't, or, as in our previous terminology, it doesn't require any "extra" skill to drive in runs. "Clutch" is statistically insignificant to the sabermetric community. For them, not making outs is the paramount offensive consideration. But they do, however, have an "AR" stat, although it's called "runs created", and it attempts to combine the weighted relative importance of everything (at least everything that is recorded) in the game that contributes to run scoring - and the best of those adjust their weights for the overall run scoring environment, which, when you start getting into details of scoring runs, is a pretty important thing to do (although that's more of meta-analysis consideration, considering that "run scoring environments" usually change only slightly over the average player's "lifetime").

This second paragraph of yours is what really got me thinking. I do believe that it takes extra skill to drive in runs many times. I think some hitters are much better at finding the right pitch in the AB to be able to drive to the outfield and get a SF instead of a guy who just swings as hard as he can at the sinker/splitter/low changeup and grounds out and some RBI guys just have the right mindset (stay relaxed, immense focus or whatever). This is where I guess I distance myself from some of the Saber-heads. However, I do believe that maybe "old school" guys (although I'm not sure I have the definition of "old school" right, I may start to say exactly what they'd say) don't put enough value on the "Run" (or I could be talking out of my ass). Once again, obviously there are variables such as errors that don't really aid in the skill (although sometimes the ability to anticipate errors could be a skill), but wouldn't "old school" guys admit there is a definite skill (whether it's anticipation/smarts/sense) of going from 1st to 3rd to get into scoring position for/or going 2nd to home to give that "clutch" guy the RBI/potential RBI. I.e. - Blanco walks and then goes from 1st to third on a single by using great anticipation/smarts that he can beat the throw from CF to 3B. In this case, studied tape on all 3 outfielders arms before the game. Then, our RBI guy comes up and hits a mid to shallow fly ball that Blanco's speed is able to beat the throw home and our "clutch" guy gets a SF/RBI even though Blanco seemingly did the lion's share of the work. Do I have this right? Or would "Old School" guys be saying the same thing? Obviously there are exceptions to every rule and I don't think that "Old School" guys think that every RBI has the same "clutch" factor.....this is more just intriguing to me.

 

[gp956]

I also believe in clutch (even though I know "luck" can be a "noisy" variable). I think you said it best in 2010 after Renteria's HR off of Lee that things like that reaffirm belief in "clutch". Having a runner on 2nd and/or 3rd can definitely change a hitters approach whether it's being over-eager or "spinkster problems" or something else altogether.

Yeah, clutch exists no doubt. But think about a player like Pete Rose - he never gave away an AB. How could he be "clutch" when every AB for him was a clutch situation? How you define clutch is important: is it a guy who gets better in high leverage situations, is it a guy who plays the same no matter the situation (i.e. a non-choker), or perhaps it's better to simply say it's a player who does not shrink in high leverage situations. The player that does "get small" isn't going to last long, hence, IMO, there is selection bias in baseball for guys who are clutch. And the further intrigue is: given the single combat nature of the pitcher/batter match-up, you often get two clutch players squaring off against each other. You might see the difficulty in finding "clutch" in stats.

wouldn't "old school" guys admit there is a definite skill (whether it's anticipation/smarts/sense) of going from 1st to 3rd to get into scoring position for/or going 2nd to home to give that "clutch" guy the RBI/potential RBI.

For sure. I intentionally left out base running from my post to keep the point focused.

i.e. - Blanco walks and then goes from 1st to third on a single by using great anticipation/smarts that he can beat the throw from CF to 3B. In this case, studied tape on all 3 outfielders arms before the game. Then, our RBI guy comes up and hits a mid to shallow fly ball that Blanco's speed is able to beat the throw home and our "clutch" guy gets a SF/RBI even though Blanco seemingly did the lion's share of the work. Do I have this right? Or would "Old School" guys be saying the same thing?

Yeah, it's right. Here's the thing for me: the old school understands the nuances of the game, and can recognize a situation that isn't the average situation. And can then strategize and/or parcel out credit for run scoring events appropriately. Anyone that's watched enough games, and understands what there seeing, does this intuitively. But, frankly, most fans don't understand the game well enough to do this. So, yeah, old school guys do this.

But saberists won't, which is why I mentioned the caveat of "everything that is recorded". Most saberists will miss this nuance, because the data isn't there in fine enough detail. With enough data of similar situations, it's possible to see a player who deviates from the average in your given scenario, but no one bothers to do this on a regular basis as it would take years of data. This last point will be moot if the league starts to release fieldfx data (teams are infinitely more sophisticated than your average non-team affiliated saberist).

 

[Heathbar012]

answers (batting line since August 1):

Pablo .258/.328/.377/.705
BBelt .333/.391/.500/.891
Posey 371/.452/.634/1.086
Pence .221/.290/.387/.677
BCraw .287/.343/.388/.730
Pagan .311/.371/.522/.892
Scoot .357/.379/.467/.846

I knew I switched Pablo and Pence! Fuck me!

 

[gp956]

I knew I switched Pablo and Pence! Fuck me!

I'm glad you didn't change it. You'd have blown the exercise away right off the bat, and then I would have been disappointed.

 

[Heathbar012]

I'm glad you didn't change it. You'd have blown the exercise away right off the bat, and then I would have been disappointed.

Fuck you and your science! I wanna be right. Very interesting exercise on "what have you done for me lately?" and the glitz and glamor of the all-mighty RBI swaying fan perception. I'm glad both of them are on the team.

 

[tzill]

Yeah, clutch exists no doubt. But think about a player like Pete Rose - he never gave away an AB. How could he be "clutch" when every AB for him was a clutch situation? How you define clutch is important: is it a guy who gets better in high leverage situations, is it a guy who plays the same no matter the situation (i.e. a non-choker), or perhaps it's better to simply say it's a player who does not shrink in high leverage situations. The player that does "get small" isn't going to last long, hence, IMO, there is selection bias in baseball for guys who are clutch. And the further intrigue is: given the single combat nature of the pitcher/batter match-up, you often get two clutch players squaring off against each other. You might see the difficulty in finding "clutch" in stats.



For sure. I intentionally left out base running from my post to keep the point focused.



Yeah, it's right. Here's the thing for me: the old school understands the nuances of the game, and can recognize a situation that isn't the average situation. And can then strategize and/or parcel out credit for run scoring events appropriately. Anyone that's watched enough games, and understands what there seeing, does this intuitively. But, frankly, most fans don't understand the game well enough to do this. So, yeah, old school guys do this.

But saberists won't, which is why I mentioned the caveat of "everything that is recorded". Most saberists will miss this nuance, because the data isn't there in fine enough detail. With enough data of similar situations, it's possible to see a player who deviates from the average in your given scenario, but no one bothers to do this on a regular basis as it would take years of data. This last point will be moot if the league starts to release fieldfx data (teams are infinitely more sophisticated than your average non-team affiliated saberist).

The bolded is exactly right. If I may speak for the majority of the saber community, it's not that there isn't "clutchness" but rather that we can't really measure it. At least not yet. And RBIs are not a good way to go about doing it since your "clutch" pitchers and "clutch" hitters are often dueling in "clutch" situations. In sum, too much noise to get an accurate reading.

 

[gp956]

Crunching some crude numbers... looking at how the giants match up against the Reds.

The likely starting 8 position players for the Giants have an OPS+ of 118
Reds likely starting 8 have an OPS+ of 114

That's pretty close to even. Now looking at how the starters matchup against each team's position players:

	      Giants OPS
Mat Latos 	0.534
Homer Bailey	0.646
Johnny Cueto	0.731
Bronson Arroyo	0.864
Mike Leake	0.925
		
	      Reds OPS
M. Bumgarner	0.53
Tim Lincecum	0.786
Matt Cain	0.809
Ryan Vogelsong	0.817
Barry Zito	0.836

Pitching seems to favor the Reds.

A Madbum/Arroyo match-up favored us big-time. But then Arroyo pitches the game of his life, and Madbum......not so much. That's baseball.

 

[msgkings322]

A Madbum/Arroyo match-up favored us big-time. But then Arroyo pitches the game of his life, and Madbum......not so much. That's baseball.

Yep. The randomness of the playoffs. Broke our way in 2010, against us this year.

 

[msgkings322]

A Madbum/Arroyo match-up favored us big-time. But then Arroyo pitches the game of his life, and Madbum......not so much. That's baseball.

Speaking of Arroyo, anyone else catch the hilarious plugs on MLB Network with him (and Aroldis Chapman) strumming a guitar and doing Adam Sandler's 'Sweatshirt' song? Hilarious.

I got nothing against Arroyo even after last night. It wasn't personal, strictly business.

 

[Robotech]

A Madbum/Arroyo match-up favored us big-time. But then Arroyo pitches the game of his life, and Madbum......not so much. That's baseball.

Arroyo's peaking at the right time, while MadBum's performance has dropped compared to earlier in the year. Hopefully, Vogey can give us a lift. Who was it that said that momentum = your next day's starting pitcher? I know I heard that somewhere.

 

[SF11704]

Speaking of Arroyo, anyone else catch the hilarious plugs on MLB Network with him (and Aroldis Chapman) strumming a guitar and doing Adam Sandler's 'Sweatshirt' song? Hilarious.

I got nothing against Arroyo even after last night. It wasn't personal, strictly business.

Have to agree here. Arroyo did what he had to do and did it much better than I expected. Now on the other hand ....... Latos ..... If there is any reason I would want to see the REDS knocked out somewhere along the line .... he would be that reason.