Old school stats vs. new school stats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances. Also in terms of the number of balls that he failed to get to how many of them resulted in a run scoring? I'm not debating his range vs others because again if you simply access his athleticism vs say Ryan in Seattle it's a no brainer...Jeter was never and will never be in the class of Pokey Reese. 

    Actually, the Yanks have more LH'd starters than most teams, so they probably see more RH'd batters than average. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I am just speculatiing on this.

     

     



    aside from Sabathia not sure i agree...Petitte Is the only other lefty that's toed the rubber for them and his numbers are better vs righties. Nova, Burnett, Hughes, Kuroda and Colon all are right handed and represent the lion share of games started in the last few years for the Yanks. 

     



    I'm talking about Jeter over the last decade. The Yanks have had more lefties than the average team over that period. But, I think you are right, they havn't had many lefties I can think of. I was mistaken with this point.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to youkillus' comment:

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.

     



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     



    I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    I haven't read all the posts yet, but I just wanted to weigh in with a thought or two.

    Regardless of whether or not they're old school or new school, any one stat is useless unless they're used in context with other stats.

    For example, OPS is a great stat, but if the batter has a low BA w/RISP -- Drew a couple of years ago -- then in my opinion that great OPS loses some luster. If a hitter has 40 HRs, that looks great, but if he's batting .210 with 70 RBIs and a .280 OBP in 600 PA, then those 40 HRs aren't so great.

    ERA is a great stat and a lousy stat. A low ERA tells a lot about a pitcher. It's hard to distort a bad (or even mediocre) ERA with two or three great starts. Yeah, those great starts will help but only two a point. On the other hand, two or three really horrible stats can easily distort an otherwise great ERA. Look at Lester and Beckett last year. I forget the exact numbers, but Beckett and Lester each had ERAs in the mid- to high 4.00s (maybe even low) after 13 starts for Beckett and 15 (maybe 17 starts) for Lester. But if you took away their two worst starts, Beckett's ERA was around 2.50 and Lester's 3.50 -- something like that. (WHIP is the same way).

    So no matter what stats you are looking at, you need to look at more than one stat and you have too look deep into individual stats to see what's going on.

     



    Don't quite understand taking away their two worst starts, or figuring, for example,

     

    Beckett's ERA taking away his first innings.  The bad starts, the bad innings, count.

     

     



    Who said the starts didn't count? (And I never said, take away a bad inning.) The point was how horrible starts affect an ERA. For example, let take two pitchers in this hypothetical example:

    Pitcher A: 20-10 in 30 starts. In the 20 wins, he went 7 IP with 2 ER every start for an ERA in those 20 starts of 2.57. In his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start for an ERA of 7.20. For the season, his ERA is 3.78. (190 IP, 80 ER). An excellent season by any standard.

    Pitcher B: He also went 20-10 in 30 starts and in the 20 wins, he went 7 IP, with 2 ER every start. And in 8 of his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start. However, in his last two bad starts, they were horrible starts -- 2 IP, 8 ER both starts. So for the season, his ERA is 4.35.

    A 3.78 ERA vs. a 4.35 ERA looks like a big difference, but can we honestly say Pitcher A was that much better than Pitcher B. They were equal in the number of good starts and equal in eight of their 10 bad starts. The only difference was that Pitcher A was simply bad in his last two bad starts while Pitcher B was horrible.

    Back to Beckett and Lester -- no one is saying don't county those bad starts. The point is, if they were simply bad -- which still means two bads starts and losses -- instead of horrible, their ERAs would have been much lower and thus, a better indicator on  how they've pitched.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

     

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     OBP is interesting because of the walk component, yet walks as % of PA was greater in losses than in wins. This might lead us to think that high OBP that is a result of a high batting average is more important than when BB inflate OBP. James' second rated component, SLG% is supported by the data I found, but it may actually be number one, as XBH were much more prevalent in wins than losses. Can you comment on IBB? Why would there be so many more in wins than losses? Is it an effect of strategy? If you're already losing, are you more likely to walk a dangerous hitter than to let him potentially pile on? Or is it causing the win itself?


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    Just took a look at some old school stats and contrasted win results to loss results for MLB 2012. Here are some interesting conclusions; batting average matters, .290 in wins, .218 in losses this is a huge gap in performance. Stolen bases matter, 1962 SB in wins, 1267 in losses, also SB% was much better in win games, 69.1% in wins, 58.2% in losses (The Wakefield effect). Walks don't help...in wins, .343 of all PA's resulted in walks, in losses it was .358. Strikeouts or DP's which would you rather have? Each is not good, and each occured as frequently in wins, SO/PA's .181 and GDP .0181.In losses there were not surprisingly, more SO's, .215 and almost as many GDP .0211. What about ROE? Very small effect from the defensive team's shortcomings, ROE/PA in wins 0.010, in losses, 0.088. (The Jeter effect) There was a significant difference in performance in a particular category; IBB, 787 IBB in win games vs just 268 in loss games. Not surprisingly, XBH had a huge impact upon winning games with almost 3200 more XBH's in games that were won. So, putting this on the back of a baseball card, here's what we get; BA, HR's, XBH, SB's and IBB matter. BB's, and ROE don't. It's important to build a team that hits for average, slugs, has speed and adequate defense. Agressiveness helps too, not waiting for a walk, and attempting more stolen bases leads to more wins, than sitting back and going station to station especially via the walk, which apparently is a formula for losing. Source for data was baseballreference.com 2012 batting stats.

     



    Good stuff; I guess it pays to intentionally walk hitters!

     

     



    I think Bill James looked at all stats and how they related to runs scored or allowed. Of course run differnetial is an important aspect of winning though teams have won here and there without great differentials.

     

    He studied what stats effected runs scored the most, and i think he found OBP was #1 and Slg% was number 2. Not BA, not HRs, and not RBI.., the 3 big stats of the triple crown or major traditional measurements.

     



    And yet, the last 4 TC winners were all on at least pennnant winners: Mantle, FRobby, Yaz, & Cabrera. Who would have thought?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    I haven't read all the posts yet, but I just wanted to weigh in with a thought or two.

    Regardless of whether or not they're old school or new school, any one stat is useless unless they're used in context with other stats.

    For example, OPS is a great stat, but if the batter has a low BA w/RISP -- Drew a couple of years ago -- then in my opinion that great OPS loses some luster. If a hitter has 40 HRs, that looks great, but if he's batting .210 with 70 RBIs and a .280 OBP in 600 PA, then those 40 HRs aren't so great.

    ERA is a great stat and a lousy stat. A low ERA tells a lot about a pitcher. It's hard to distort a bad (or even mediocre) ERA with two or three great starts. Yeah, those great starts will help but only two a point. On the other hand, two or three really horrible stats can easily distort an otherwise great ERA. Look at Lester and Beckett last year. I forget the exact numbers, but Beckett and Lester each had ERAs in the mid- to high 4.00s (maybe even low) after 13 starts for Beckett and 15 (maybe 17 starts) for Lester. But if you took away their two worst starts, Beckett's ERA was around 2.50 and Lester's 3.50 -- something like that. (WHIP is the same way).

    So no matter what stats you are looking at, you need to look at more than one stat and you have too look deep into individual stats to see what's going on.

     



    Don't quite understand taking away their two worst starts, or figuring, for example,

     

    Beckett's ERA taking away his first innings.  The bad starts, the bad innings, count.

     

     

     



    Who said the starts didn't count? (And I never said, take away a bad inning.) The point was how horrible starts affect an ERA. For example, let take two pitchers in this hypothetical example:

     

    Pitcher A: 20-10 in 30 starts. In the 20 wins, he went 7 IP with 2 ER every start for an ERA in those 20 starts of 2.57. In his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start for an ERA of 7.20. For the season, his ERA is 3.78. (190 IP, 80 ER). An excellent season by any standard.

    Pitcher B: He also went 20-10 in 30 starts and in the 20 wins, he went 7 IP, with 2 ER every start. And in 8 of his 10 losses, he went 5 IP, 4 ER in every start. However, in his last two bad starts, they were horrible starts -- 2 IP, 8 ER both starts. So for the season, his ERA is 4.35.

    A 3.78 ERA vs. a 4.35 ERA looks like a big difference, but can we honestly say Pitcher A was that much better than Pitcher B. They were equal in the number of good starts and equal in eight of their 10 bad starts. The only difference was that Pitcher A was simply bad in his last two bad starts while Pitcher B was horrible.

    Back to Beckett and Lester -- no one is saying don't county those bad starts. The point is, if they were simply bad -- which still means two bads starts and losses -- instead of horrible, their ERAs would have been much lower and thus, a better indicator on  how they've pitched.

     



    You make a good point with this post.

    I would say pitcher B did worse, but not by as much as his ERA indicated. Pitcher A did give his team a slighlty better chance of winning since letting up 4 ERs in 5 IP is not impossible to win with while 8 ERs is nearly so.

    There are also many comparisons made between pitchers who get cheap wins because their team scores for them while other get losses of no decisions due to poor run support. Consider this real life case.

    Pitcher A finishes 6th in WHIP in the AL (1.182) one season with a decent 4.13 ERA, but goes 10-11. Here are the particulars of his 30 starts:

    ERS   W-L-ND

    0       3-0-2

    1       3-2-0

    2       1-0-3

    3       1-4-3 

    4        1-1-0

    5+      1-5-0

    This pitcher had 0-3 ERs in 22 of his 30 starts (73%). He had 24 of 30 with 4 or less (80%).

    His record 8-6 with 8 no decisions in 0-3 ER allowed games and 9-7 with 8 ND is 0-4 Earned run games.

    With a little luck he might have gone 17-8 and been a hero, but instead he was called upon to retire by several posters on this board, most loudly by the clown himself, softy.

    Even after making the allstar game the following year, little changed.

     

    Pitcher B had essentially the same defense behind him, had an almost identical ERA (4.03) and WHIP (1.187), but went 12-10 with these particulars in 27 starts:

    ERS  W-L-ND

    0       2-0-0

    1       3-2-2

    2       1-2-2

    3       3-0-0

    4       1-2-1

    5+     2-4-0

    This pitcher went 9-4 in games with 0-3 ERs allowed with 4 NDs. 17 of his 27 games were 0-3 ER games (63%) and 21 of his 27 starts were 0-4 ER games (75%).

    Pitcher B had a slightly better ERA, more wins, less losses and almost the same WHIP, but who gave his team more of a chance to win?

    A or B?

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Yeah Moon, good post. That's why I alway say that no matter what stat you're looking at, you have to look a bit more in depth.

    My example, I kept it simple to make my point. In real life, you can look at Lackey and Lester from 2010. Looking at their ERAs, it looked as if Lester was considerbly better than Lackey. But it you look at their starts, Lester had just two more good starts (22-20) if memory serves me correctly and they had about the same number of bad starts. The difference was Lester was a bit mroe dominant in his good starts -- (Lackey was very good, however, in his good starts) while Lackey's bad starts were worse than Lester's bad starts.

    So in the end, there was a big difference in ERA but less of a difference in giving the Sox the chance to win. Lester's ERA accurately showed how good he was, while Lackey's ERA was a bit distorted.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Yeah Moon, good post. That's why I alway say that no matter what stat you're looking at, you have to look a bit more in depth.

    My example, I kept it simple to make my point. In real life, you can look at Lackey and Lester from 2010. Looking at their ERAs, it looked as if Lester was considerbly better than Lackey. But it you look at their starts, Lester had just two more good starts (22-20) if memory serves me correctly and they had about the same number of bad starts. The difference was Lester was a bit mroe dominant in his good starts -- (Lackey was very good, however, in his good starts) while Lackey's bad starts were worse than Lester's bad starts.

    So in the end, there was a big difference in ERA but less of a difference in giving the Sox the chance to win. Lester's ERA accurately showed how good he was, while Lackey's ERA was a bit distorted.



    the eye test....good point...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    I get your point Roy.  Mainly my reaction was knee-jerk to hearing people parade stats of guys minus their poor 1st innings or disastrous outings, and not specifically to your post.  So, sorry, I didn't really address your specific post.

    Finally the numbers though tell a lot of the story anyway.  Sure, context and details of performance matter, and there are fine lines of gradations among very good good average and poor, an important out here and there a pitcher manages at a given point can make a huge difference.  That's all the difference there is, yet give me Lester before Lackey any day, no matter the small difference in keeping a team in games, small differences count big.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    It's easy to use the "eye test" for Sox players. We watch all their games, but when you compare our players to others, it's hard judge without the stats or metrics.

    Also, if the stats don't seem to jive with your observations, they can be used to help you watch more closely to see if you are missing something or being overly generous to our own players.

    More than once, the numbers have made me look closer and sure enough, I realized I had been wrong initially.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.



    It does have an impact for sure, but does a team really have less of a chance of winning if a pitcher let's up 4 runs in the first then shuts out the team for 5 innings (4 ERs in 6IP for an ERA or 6.00) or lets up 4 in the 6th after a shutout for 5 innings (4 Ers in 6IP and a 6.00 ERA)?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances.

     



    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.

     

    Also the Yankees have been consistently near the top in pitching numbers, so they should have less fielding chances overall than other teams. 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Not helping the opps make outs that other SSs do, keeps the inning going. My guess is that if he allows 80-120 more hits than the best SSs, it make a much bigger difference than 1.5 games (which is maybe how he compares to the avg SS).

    Yes, the 1.5 games that Jeter costs his team is in comparison to the average SS.  If you compare him to the best SS, the difference is more like 4.5 games, on average.

     

    Jeter makes up for much of this with his bat and leadership, but it does not take away from the fact, yes fact, that he is one of the worst fielding SSs of the past decade.

    I'm with you all the way on this one Moon.  Despite the fact that his fielding % is usually good, it does not make up for his lack of range.  Jeter is an icon, a great SS due to his offense and leadership.  But as you said, he is one of the worst SSs defensively over the past decade.

     

    There are 23 qualifying SSs over the last 10 years.

    Jeter ranks (out of 23):

    T6 in Fldg% (.978)

    2nd ErrR  (+32.6) Proof he makes the plays he gets to.

    21st DPR (-5.0)

    23rd in RngR (-92.5) That's worse than the next bottom 2 combined!!! 

       (S Drew -35.1 and Betancourt -43.6) That closes the case for me. He's not just horrible in range, he is beyond horrible.

    21st in UZR/150 (-7.2) Betancourt is -8.2 and Hanram is -9.1.

    As I said, I would not argue with anyone who says he is only the 3rd worst fielding SS the past decade, but to me, his exponentially horrible range makes him the absolute worst of the decade.

    I'd say the same thing if he was on the Sox.


    It's hard to dispute the numbers.  To add to that, over the past 10 years, Jeter is at -142 in DRS and -136 in Plus/Minus runs, by far the worst.  Granted, Jeter has played more innings than most of the others, but if you project the others to the same number of innings Jeter has played, Jeter is still about 30 runs worse than the next worst SS.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Not helping the opps make outs that other SSs do, keeps the inning going. My guess is that if he allows 80-120 more hits than the best SSs, it make a much bigger difference than 1.5 games (which is maybe how he compares to the avg SS).

    Yes, the 1.5 games that Jeter costs his team is in comparison to the average SS.  If you compare him to the best SS, the difference is more like 4.5 games, on average.

     

    Jeter makes up for much of this with his bat and leadership, but it does not take away from the fact, yes fact, that he is one of the worst fielding SSs of the past decade.

    I'm with you all the way on this one Moon.  Despite the fact that his fielding % is usually good, it does not make up for his lack of range.  Jeter is an icon, a great SS due to his offense and leadership.  But as you said, he is one of the worst SSs defensively over the past decade.

     

    There are 23 qualifying SSs over the last 10 years.

    Jeter ranks (out of 23):

    T6 in Fldg% (.978)

    2nd ErrR  (+32.6) Proof he makes the plays he gets to.

    21st DPR (-5.0)

    23rd in RngR (-92.5) That's worse than the next bottom 2 combined!!! 

       (S Drew -35.1 and Betancourt -43.6) That closes the case for me. He's not just horrible in range, he is beyond horrible.

    21st in UZR/150 (-7.2) Betancourt is -8.2 and Hanram is -9.1.

    As I said, I would not argue with anyone who says he is only the 3rd worst fielding SS the past decade, but to me, his exponentially horrible range makes him the absolute worst of the decade.

    I'd say the same thing if he was on the Sox.


    It's hard to dispute the numbers.  To add to that, over the past 10 years, Jeter is at -142 in DRS and -136 in Plus/Minus runs, by far the worst.  Granted, Jeter has played more innings than most of the others, but if you project the others to the same number of innings Jeter has played, Jeter is still about 30 runs worse than the next worst SS.

     



    Yes.

    The UZR/150 does reduce everyone to the same inning total, and it is not pretty for Jeter.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.

     



    It does have an impact for sure, but does a team really have less of a chance of winning if a pitcher let's up 4 runs in the first then shuts out the team for 5 innings (4 ERs in 6IP for an ERA or 6.00) or lets up 4 in the 6th after a shutout for 5 innings (4 Ers in 6IP and a 6.00 ERA)?

     

     

     



    I think the 1st case is worse, because the team is much more likely to be behind 4; once you play behind, like other sports and in life in general, it's harder; you can't steal, you get impatient at the plate, you burn out your bull pen, the opposing pitcher is more aggressive/comfortable, and so on. Case in point: The 2012 Red Sox. And. this particular facet of the team for the most part cannot be blamed on BV.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances.

     



    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.

     

    Also the Yankees have been consistently near the top in pitching numbers, so they should have less fielding chances overall than other teams. 

     



    It would be useful and it also would'nt hurt to the opponents numbers at Yankee stadium too. Data I'm sure exist just not sure where to find it...

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I love baseball stats but man, do they create a lot of confusion and controversy.  The old school vs. new school battle rages on.  Some people think stats like a pitcher's won-lost record and a hitter's RBI total are meaningless.  New school stats like WAR and UZR, of course, are mocked viciously by the old school people.

    I try to take in all the stats and make sense of them.  I grew up with baseball cards and Yaz's Triple Crown in 1967 and Denny McLain's 31 wins and Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968.  I thought those numbers were spectacular at the time and I still do.  Nolan Ryan's 383 strikeouts in 1973-insane!

    And I still relate heavily to the standard numbers.  When we signed Manny Ramirez you bet I was juiced to get a guy who had 165 RBI in 147 games in 1999.

    As for the new ones, I sort of understand what numbers like WAR and UZR are trying to measure.  Then there are the ones like FIP % and ones that look like hieroglyphics that I have no clue about.

    Now what I really wanna know is: is Derek Jeter really a terrible shortstop?  That still surprises me and seems to be one of the classic conundrums of old vs. new. 



    Halifax ... I love the old school stats as well.   I don't discount them at all.  I consider the new stats a new layer of info ... and can be useful.  SOme are well beyond the effort I will give them to understand.

      Great post and start

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Sometimes observations can be deceiving, and also one can become set in one's ways and see what they want to see.

    Case: I was pretty harsh on Salty last winter. I did not like the way he handled the staff, or how he blocked the plate or threw out runners. The poor start the Sox staff had last April only furthered my frustration with Salty. 

    harness pointed out in mid-May that Salty appeared to be doing much better with the staff and behind the plate. I hadn't noticed and might not have all year had he not asked me to watch more closely. I did, and I saw a big change from 2011 and early April of 2012. 

    Then, I went back and looked at the numbers pre-April 23, 2012 and after. The numbers backed up the claim by harness and my new observational perspective. Salty's CERA declined a lot and his PBs and WPs as well (even if you take out the Wake games).

    It would have been easy for me to get lazy and look at just the 2012 numbers and conclude that Salty was not getting better, but in fact he was (post 4/23/12).

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Sometimes observations can be deceiving, and also one can become set in one's ways and see what they want to see.

    Case: I was pretty harsh on Salty last winter. I did not like the way he handled the staff, or how he blocked the plate or threw out runners. The poor start the Sox staff had last April only furthered my frustration with Salty. 

    harness pointed out in mid-May that Salty appeared to be doing much better with the staff and behind the plate. I hadn't noticed and might not have all year had he not asked me to watch more closely. I did, and I saw a big change from 2011 and early April of 2012. 

    Then, I went back and looked at the numbers pre-April 23, 2012 and after. The numbers backed up the claim by harness and my new observational perspective. Salty's CERA declined a lot and his PBs and WPs as well (even if you take out the Wake games).

    It would have been easy for me to get lazy and look at just the 2012 numbers and conclude that Salty was not getting better, but in fact he was (post 4/23/12).



    I, on the other hand, am still very skeptical about Salty. 

    Moon, have you checked Salty's CERA for August-September of last year?  I suspect it was pretty bad again in those months, and that the good stretch was May, June, and July.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.




    Here are the number of chances, by position, for the Yankees in 2012. I've also included the MLB average for each position in 2012. The numbers are courtesy of Baseball Reference.

    1B 1473 chances (21st) , league average 1500

    2B 769 chances (14th) , league average 768

    3B 405 chances (19th) , league average 425

    SS 627 chances (30th) , league average 716

    LF 291 chances (22nd) , league average 307

    CF 371 chances (28th) , league average 411

    RF 315 chances (24th) , league average 327

    P 223 chances (30th) , league average 283

    C 1407 chances (6th) , league average 1325

    Overall 5881 chances (29th) , league average 6062

     

    You are correct in your assumption that the Yankees had less chances overall than the other teams in 2012, and the catchers, who get credit for POs on strikeouts, had better than average chances.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    The new Stats on offensive production are good.  The Stats about a player's defense are bad.

    Single Vs. a Walk.  Runs scored vs. RBI.  They are all important.  The more information a person has, the better they are able to make an assessment.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Funny thing:  I'm thinking about moving firms and today had a 2nd interview.  Coincidentally, both interviewers were American.  One of the questions was about MI (Management Information) and I gave (I think) a professional answer about how it should be used, good and bad examples, how I've used it drive change, etc.  As I finished, talking about a key being understanding what it is you want to measure and isolating it from external factors, I thought I'd have some fun and segued into the ongoing debate about traditional vs SABR baseball stats.  The senior guy's response?  "Exactly, you can't drive in runs if someone hasn't got on base in front of you."  LOL

    I'm in, baby! 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    Funny thing:  I'm thinking about moving firms and today had a 2nd interview.  Coincidentally, both interviewers were American.  One of the questions was about MI (Management Information) and I gave (I think) a professional answer about how it should be used, good and bad examples, how I've used it drive change, etc.  As I finished, talking about a key being understanding what it is you want to measure and isolating it from external factors, I thought I'd have some fun and segued into the ongoing debate about traditional vs SABR baseball stats.  The senior guy's response?  "Exactly, you can't drive in runs if someone hasn't got on base in front of you."  LOL

    I'm in, baby! 



    Cool (need the sunglasses emoticon back).

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share