Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Chauncey Billups Injures Achilles Tendon

Thoughts

So that was a fun weekend. Where things were looking grim after the loss to Cliff Lee, three games later we're right back in the thick of this and everyone's feeling pretty good about the way the team's playing. Every time you get frustrated with the Mariners for remaining on the edge of the race, remember one thing - as long as you're on the edge of the race, the games still matter. We're nearing the trade deadline, and the M's are still playing important baseball. After five months of irrelevance a year ago, I can't express how thankful I am to have the team be in this position. Sure, they could easily fall short - they're still in third place and four back of the lead - but if we get to invest ourselves and feel emotional about the bulk of the season, then that's still something. We're playing Detroit tomorrow. I would like to win. And as long as we can care about the outcomes - that's why we're here in the first place. Fuck off, 2008.

  • My understanding is that Erik Bedard didn't look very good yesterday, but if you missed the game and just look at his line score, you're left with a different impression. Plus strike rate, plus swinging strike rate. The successful results weren't all there, but the components were, and in the big picture I find the latter to be more important. It's obvious that Erik isn't totally right, but I'm actually more encouraged by his start than I thought I'd be when I was just getting brief updates over the course of the afternoon. 

  • Anybody who's ever argued about pitcher control over HR/FB% just needs to watch the clip of Ichiro's game-ending catch at the wall. Aardsma's still only allowed one home run on the season, but it's not like the fact that the ball came up six inches short is evidence that Aardsma did something right. He gave up a long fly ball and got lucky. He's a good reliever, but hits like that are why he'll always make me nervous. Closers who put the ball in the air like Felix keeps the ball on the ground aren't the most comforting arms in the world. 

  • I'm not a big fan of Jarrod Washburn the pitcher, and I don't think I'm a big fan of Jarrod Washburn the person, but I'm a big fan of Jarrod Washburn the personality:

    "I wasn't sharp at all,'' he said. "I don't know how many spots I hit all night, but it wasn't many. The guys played good defense behind me. I had good life on the fastball, even though I wasn't hitting spots with it. I didn't square too many up.

    There was a lot of fly balls tonight. My sinker wasn't sinking as well. I wasn't locating very good. It worked. We won. You go into a game and find out as the game progresses what you have that day and try to make it work."

    There aren't a lot of starters who would be that honest about themselves after allowing one run over 6.2 innings, but this is just the latest refreshing example of Washburn's self-awareness. I'm pretty sure a big chunk of the fan base thinks Jarrod's better than Jarrod does.

  • It seems that Rob Johnson has officially taken over as the regular catcher. Kenji Johjima will still get his playing time, but if Johnson is going to be the personal catcher for three starters, then that makes him first-string, whether the team will admit as much or not. And, well, whatever. Dave's already made the case that his bat is better than people think, and while I don't think it's on the same level as Kenji's, the difference is small enough that I might as well trust that the coaches know what they're doing. There's never been any good evidence that catcher ERA means anything, but if pitchers are more comfortable with one guy over another - and I think it's pretty clear that Rob's the preferred receiver around here - then you don't really have much choice. There's a reason why some of the guys would rather throw to Rob than Kenji, and regardless of what that reason is, comfort's important, and not to be ignored. Most pitchers won't respond very well if they ask to be caught by one guy and you tell them "tough titties."

  • Me on June 24th:

    Actually, I don't think Ronny Cedeno has a clue against anyone. In-season ZiPS projects him for a rest-of-season line of .246/.289/.366, but I think this might be one of those times where we have enough visual evidence to overrule the computer forecasts, because Cedeno has looked as bad as any Major League hitter I have ever seen in my life.

    Ronny Cedeno since June 24th: .257/.286/.446. He still looks like total crap, and his plate discipline numbers over the course of this "hot streak" are embarrassing, but yet the results have still been there, so chalk another one up for in-season ZiPS. I wonder if this is what Ronny has always looked like. At the plate, he's visually repulsive, but he's still managed to hit more balls 400 feet than Jose Lopez. Though the Mariners could still use an everyday shortstop, you have to give it to Cedeno - for the past few weeks, he's helped.

  • Turns out RRS was sitting at 88-91 again in his most recent start, that being the dominant game in Las Vegas. He's now back at his standard starting velocity and has racked up 34 strikeouts and six walks in 42.2 innings over his last seven starts. Garrett Olson, meanwhile, can't throw strikes, miss bats, or keep the ball on the ground. Right now, Olson has the support of the coaching staff, but these things can change in a hurry, and with RRS beginning to look like a guy in Tacoma who's better than his league, Olson's going to need a good game tomorrow if he wants to hang on to his job. Man, it's good to have Ryan back.

  • King Felix is pretty good.

Comment 172 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I hope you had a good weekend, the Mariners sure did.

To start, I would only say that it is wonderful to feel passionate about baseball again this season. I’m not saying we are going to do this, but right now there is no reason why we can’t. Yes, there are weaknesses, but every team still has to play the games.

by Sinking Away on Jul 20, 2009 8:27 PM PDT reply actions  

Agreed

I’ve never been more into Mariners baseball, for lack of a better word.

My Mariners blog - SodoMojo Twitter Feed

by gregrabble on Jul 20, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't mean to annoy you and I'm not picking a fight, I'm not a big fan of Rob myself, but...

Yes, he’s not a big bat, but he seems to be the catcher that 3 of our starting pitchers feel the most comfortable pitching too. By the numbers, Johjima is not that much better offensively. Yes, Johjima actually catches better and is able to throw runners out, but Rob is just fine if Felix, Washburn and Bedard can continue to rack up the W’s when he catches them. Jeff’s description of Cedeno is similar to how I used to feel about Rob. I’ve moved on, he’s not that bad (lately) and if we get the wins, I can live with his offense and defense.

by Sinking Away on Jul 20, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would like a catcher who is good at tangible things.

.But if Rob Johnson actually being there helps the pitchers I guess he can stay.

You got slurved!

Hehehe Mark Reynolds is so awesome.

by Slurvey on Jul 20, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rob Johnson is the new Willie Bloomquist.

In that, no matter if it’s right or wrong, the team is gonna love him anyways. So we might as well get used to it.

The Rise of a Superstar:Justin Upton-.398wOBA, 21 years old.

by Goose on Jul 20, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pretty much

and as long as Rob isn’t blocking someone who is obviously, inarguably superior, then it’s hard to be too upset unless you’re Graham.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 20, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wash and Bedard will most likely be gone by then.

And if Felix really insists on RJ as his personal catcher, then that can be his day of work as the backup catcher.

by Fuckmikereilly on Jul 20, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

My thoughts exactly for this season.

Although, we really should be carrying Johjima’s salary if he’s only a backup catcher. Since it is (hopefully) unlikely that Washburn and Bedard are with us through the end of the year, and certainly not with us next year, if we can’t unload Johjima, he’s got to be our starting catcher until Moore is ready.

by Sinking Away on Jul 20, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, he's their Ronny Cedeno.

Bloomquist was taking ABs from someone better (anyone), whereas Johnson’s only ‘blocking’ Johjima, a guy who isn’t as good of a hitter anymore (seriously), and who the pitchers don’t like throwing to. Maybe their reasons are shitty, and maybe Johjima has the advantage in the running game. Still, it’s a very different situation to Bloomquist.
WFB was more beloved by the commentariat and Rick Rizzs. Johnson’s fans include Bedard and Felix. That alone makes it a different situation. (The whole catcher position also makes it sort of an odd comparison, but that’s neither here nor there.)

by marc w on Jul 20, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I have to say that it's pretty frustrating when your mediocre team outperforms expectations

but two of the other mediocre teams in the division outperform theirs even more. What the fuck is with the Angels sweeping NY? Goddammit. The only way I’ll let Jesus make that one up to me is if he makes them lose at least two in KC

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 20, 2009 9:17 PM PDT reply actions  

"You have a winning way. Keep it." -- in my fortune cookie at Uptown China

Maybe we need to start looking in the I Ching and other sources of ancient wisdom to explain what’s happening.

Chicks dig the long ball.

by LauraBu on Jul 20, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

I have a question, it's not really on topic, but maybe someone can help.

My renter is coming back for what he calls a “Mariner’s press conference with the bloggers” on August 8th. Why doesn’t FSN show the statistics that he thinks (and I think most of you think) are more important on the screen? He says BA/Hits/HRs/ERA etc, what they usually show are not very important. What if they showed wOBA, wRAA. WAR, etc? Could the press conference be the place to bring this up? Could the announcers start talking about statistics that make more sense and educate the general public?

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 20, 2009 9:53 PM PDT reply actions  

In that same vein, could the announcers stop talking about stuff that makes no difference...

Ichiro is batting .450 against x pitcher, because the sample size will always be too small, or Rob Johnson has the best CERA in the AL, or the M’s have the most defensive errors in the AL, could Dave and Dave and Mike be told to talk about things that educate the fans rather than babble on about what amounts to “old wives’ tales”? Could the press conference be the place to plant this idea?

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 20, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

The things that the bloggers like to say is important is not yet widely recognized as being important

and broadcast networks will tend to be the last ones to jump on the wagon since they have to make their broadcasts accessible and enjoyable for everyone. They’re in the entertainment business, not the education business and many, many fans think the new stats are a bunch of malarkey. Most of the people who read this site are used to all these things because we’ve been reading about them for years, imagine a viewer who doesn’t think that OBP is an important stat, and try explaining WAR to them. There are a lot of abstract concepts involved – like replacement level and run values…

And in any case, I think there is nothing wrong with the new stats beign confined for the time being to online communities and front offices. For those wo want to know about these things, the info is out there. And those who don’t will only get ornery if it starts to creep into their broadcast.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 20, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well they could

but it would be an entire reeducation. Most fans know only those old stats. And to explain them as well as broadcast a game would be very difficult and crammed.

Thug Life

by Slow Country on Jul 20, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

My thinking is that to gain new fans (younger fans who didn't grow up memorizing BA),

it would be important to bring up the next generation of fans with the more reasonable and realistic statistics. Fans who could easily be convinced that defense matters a lot to a pitcher’s ERA.

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 20, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

There are ways to be more educational, and they've taken steps forward by bringing up things like RZR and UZR

but you can’t just bash people over the head with stuff they’ve never heard before. You can mention things, and the people who’re interested will look them up.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 20, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm trying to think about the future. I'm in marketing and baseball needs to reach

the future market. I don’t want to hit anybody on the head, but in a couple of years it will be possible for people to pick what they want displayed on their TV/computer during a baseball game. They won’t have to settle for BA/ERA/HRs/etc. Maybe they can choose from what is available online now, wOBA, wRAA, WAR, VORP, whatever they want. Wouldn’t the Mariners be out front if they started to think along those lines now? I don’t think the education would be that daunting. Sims could just explain how x is determined and how it makes more sense than y. Oh, and check out why Gutierrez is the best at x on our website. People would catch on, expecially younger viewers. Get there first, Mariners.

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 20, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

They're already getting more educational

Realistically, the improvement has been swift. I don’t think they could do much more than they have.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 20, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think part of it is the phrasing

Try to give people the definition of wOBA tossed around here and most people will go cross-eyed after “linear weights.” But if you tell people that wOBA is the chance that a PA will result in a run, it won’t be the best explanation, but close enough to the truth that it should at least get them started on learning about the more advanced stats.

by Tube on Jul 21, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Baker and Stone are doing just that

Already, you see things like OPS in broadcasts, which five years ago was quite rare. There was a network that played around with win expectancy a year or two back (it was the D-backs broadcasts but I don’t know if they still do it). It’s happening, but it’s slow. You can’t expect the networks and their audiences to outpace baseball’s management in terms of what stats are deemed valuable. Once all of MLB is on board with linear weights, DIPS, and objective quantification of range, you’ll see these things creep onto the screen.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 20, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the OPS thing.

OPS seems to be mentioned more often this year on all networks than I can remember in the past. That seems like a logical first step.

by Zwakamatsu on Jul 20, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

OPS has been mentioned more on all networks, a very good first step.

I’m going to recommend the second thought. How about if commentators stop with the “Old wives tales”. Yesterday, Blowers waxed on about cERA for much longer than I cared to listen. Also, the SSS of batter verus a particular pitcher. If they stop perpetuating these myths it would help a lot.

by Sinking Away on Jul 20, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

I fully understand that x player vs y pitcher is super SSS

But from my playing time, I always knew when I dominated a particular pitcher. I am not convinced that it is a myth. Granted I don’t care to hear the announcer go on about it for the whole game, but I feel like it exists.

by d0nkey on Jul 21, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's also possible you just were outstanding against that pitcher because you had a lot of lucky grounders get through

or vice versa, that you hit the ball hard but made a lot of outs.

A sample of that size will always be meaningless – even if hitter x really does dominate pitcher y, it would never stabilize in such a quick fashion

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

At what point would it?

I don’t have any numbers on hand, but I remember looking up some random batter vs pitcher numbers with a buddy of mine a while back. I was shocked to see some of the matchups between the great hitters and pitchers. How long would it take something like this to actually stabilize into meaninful data?

by d0nkey on Jul 21, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

I really don't know, to be honest

just that thanks to the volatility of BABIP, it really can’t be over a 50-100 AB sample (which is pretty generous for batter vs pitcher).

I’d guess it’s the same as the stabilization of standard BABIP/BA, which could be a whole season’s worth of at-bats or more.

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Probably depends on the person you are having the discussion or argument.

Also the strength of your position. Protecting your flanks from SSS attacks appears to be difficult, I’ve personally witnessed well defended positions overwhelmed in the blink of an eye by SSS. It can really shift the momentum of a battle in a hurry.

by Kermit. on Jul 21, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

I know you're almost certainly right, but I still have a hard time grasping this idea myself in the most extreme cases.

Example: Edgar Martinez vs. Mariano Rivera, career
PA AB H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS SH SF IBB HBP GDP
 20 16 10 3 .. 0.. 2 … 6 .. 3 .. 4 .625 .700 1.188 1.888 0 0 2 1 0

by Decatur on Jul 21, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

So would the proper sized sample be, what 200-250 PA for a good read on whether a hitter "owns" a pitcher?

From Pizza Cutter’s work:

50 PA: Swing %
100 PA: Contact Rate
150 PA: Strikeout Rate, Line Drive Rate, Pitches/PA
200 PA: Walk Rate, Groundball Rate, GB/FB
250 PA: Flyball Rate
300 PA: Home Run Rate, HR/FB
500 PA: OBP, SLG, OPS, 1B Rate, Popup Rate
550 PA: ISO

by Decatur on Jul 21, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

So five singles and three doubles - how do we know that those weren't just well placed grounders?

Similar to the point I’m making above, the problem with this type of analysis is that you get results-based analysis very quickly – if a guy is 8 for 15 with eight ground ball singles, it feels a lot better than 2 for 15 with six lineouts.

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

could you adjust?

I suspect you would say that a batted ball profile (for a particular pitcher/batter matchup) wouldn’t be possible either because of small sample size, right?

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

you could be lucky

but there are odds of you being lucky.

Shouldn’t the expected wOBA against a particular pitcher be higher if a player does well? example

if batter A is 10 for 10 against pitcher B. I agree that that is not stabilized at all. He’s not a 1.000 hitter against that pitcher. But aren’t the odds now higher that he is a .350 hitter than a .250 hitter? or is 10 PA’s so low that the odds difference between .350 and .250 is so minimal as to be zero?

I’m asking this from a generalized statistics perspective and not a baseball knowledge perspective. But if I have a d10 (ten sided die) and some of the faces have ‘hit’ and some have ‘out’ on them, but I don’t know how many of each. Then I start to role that die and I have a graph of the odds that there are a certain number of ’hit’s on the die, from 0-10. If I role 10 ‘hits’ in a row than the odds that the die has only one face with ‘hit’ on it are very low. My distribution of expected faces with ‘hit’ should change, even with a small sample size.

Is there something wrong with that analysis? or is it the fact that BABIP and fielding factors throw such a huge wrench into pitcher/batter matchups that it’s impossible to even adjust this expected distribution?

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

The batter/pitcher matchup samples are so small that you cannot tell the difference between a .250 and a .350 hitter

Bayesian inference will tell you that going 10-10 against someone implies that yes, you are better than .250 against them, but weighting it properly results in the difference being completely negligible.

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're right -

A hitter being, say, 10-10 against a pitcher does tell you something. It just doesn’t tell you very much. There are way, way, way too many variables in there for a fan to be able to say anything more than “hey neat”.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 21, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ok

So we are just talking about going 10-10 against a certain pitcher. Could you use LD%, contact rate, k%, P/PA, GB%, GB/FB, HR% etc to come to a better conclusion for the batter vs pitcher matchup?

Could you also use those SSS and compare with season stats to come up with something that says Hey, this guy dominates this pitcher?

by d0nkey on Jul 21, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

They could improve the picture a little bit, but not by much

Let’s take the Edgar/Rivera example. Edgar went 10-16 against Mo with three walks. However, his 20 plate appearances were accumulated between 1995-2004. Players change a lot in a decade.

You would need a big sample from one or two seasons, and those just don’t really exist very often.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 21, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

It would just make the picture more confused than not looking at it at all.

Take Ronny Cedeno. He has hit five home runs this season, against five separate pitchers – Chamberlain, Wakefield, Millwood, Porcello, and Cliff Lee. He has faced considerably more than five pitchers.

Trying to use that to demonstrate that Cedeno is a home run monster against those guys and incapable of hitting against the rest of the league is taking things in entirely the wrong direction. Those pitchers just happened to be the ones Cedeno homered against; just happened to throw mistakes to a guy who can punish every tenth mistake pitch thrown to him. It is not demonstrative at all of Cedeno having some special anti-Porcello mojo.

A similar argument applies to every single statistic you can cite. They just aren’t applicable to 5 day’s worth of at-bats.

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with you

I’m just saying that if something like this were EVER meaningful, it would be because a guy faced another guy a bunch of times over a brief window of time.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 21, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Roy Halladay faced David Ortiz 34 times between 2007-2008

That has the potential to contain somewhat interesting information about swinging strikes and tendency to chase.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jul 21, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's 138 pitches, of which probably 60 were swung at.

You get to the point there where like three less swinging strikes than usual might lead you to conclude that Ortiz is really good at making contact against Roy Halladay

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right but my point is that just because the numbers aren't predictive doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen.

I feel that way about a lot of things that are impossible to reliably quantify in baseball. Analysts shouldn’t waste time thinking about it, but I find it impossible to believe that certain hitters do not “own” (in the parlance of our time" certain pitchers and vice versa.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 21, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes.

You can’t tell and it is foolish to try to do so. But I’m sure that in actuality it happens.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 21, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Functionally nothing I suppose

but I think it is important to acknowledge that something is plausible even if it cannot be quantified. I suppose that is splitting hairs to some extent, but there you are.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 21, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

You've got 20 cases of a batter going 15-20 with 4 HRs or whatever against a decent pitcher.

In 19 of those cases, it’s purely luck. In one case, the batter ‘sees the ball well’ or whatever and he has some weird true talent ability to hit the pitcher that’s significantly above his career numbers.

The numbers can’t tell you which guy is the outlier and which guys are just ‘hot.’ I think that’s what Aaron’s saying, and I agree.

by marc w on Jul 21, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

So the same thing as pitching mechanics and injuries, essentially

right now, there’s no point in wasting time trying to quantify, but there’s probably a link somewhere out there between the two

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Even less than that

Following batter-pitcher matchups is like paying attention to Steve Phillips’s preseason projected standings

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

This one will probably be difficult for everyone.

Even though you know intuitively it’s a SSS, you want the numbers. If your batter is 0-12 against a particular pitcher, is he going to be 0-13 or is he due, since there’s a runner on second and you’re in the 8th.

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 21, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

The DBacks broadcast(more specifically Daron Sutton) used win expectancy quite a bite over the last two seasons.

I haven’t seen it yet this year, though I haven’t watched as many games this year and obviously Arizona hasn’t won that many. They’ve also brough up UZR and OOZ before(in regards to Upton and Drew mainly). I’ve also seen UZR used in a Brewers broadcast, as well as an Indians broadcast, but that’s not surprising really.

I’ve also noticed that ESPN has begun using not only OPS but league average OPS in relation to the current batter. Now, I’m not sure if they use positional adjustments, but there yeah are.

The Rise of a Superstar:Justin Upton-.398wOBA, 21 years old.

by Goose on Jul 20, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

OK, Good to read.

This would seem like something that MLB is going to eventually “get”. It would be very cool/possibly profitable if the Mariners’ were way out in front of. (I don’t normally end a sentence with a preposition, and I hope it’s not one of LL’s unspoken rules, but there it is).

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 20, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't believe I'm about to make a fifth hand reference here but

There’s a fanshot now (statistical trash, I think) that links to a story by some chucklehead (Chad Norman? sis I remember that right?) who is, in turn, spewing on and on about how much he doesn’t like stats, and his case in point is a USA today article. Now, he doesn’t link the article, but he quotes it as discussing how ERA is misleading, K/BB ratio, strand rates… basically everything in Dave Cameron’s evaluating pitching post. That was in USA today.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 20, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

WE%

Shows up on ESPN for Football and Baseball (possibly also Basketball)now I think. Not in broadcasts but in box scores and recaps. As much as we like to hate on ESPN things like that have a lot of penetration and will get more people started looking at deeper stats.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Jul 21, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

evaluation vs. enjoyment of the game

I think there’s a problem with what you’re suggesting that a lot of people here tend to miss.

Watching a baseball game isn’t about player evaluation, it’s about the game as a whole and certain levels of enjoyment. The average fan isn’t trying to assess trade value for every batter, they just want to set their expectations for a certain encounter, understand the generalities of what kind of hitter they are looking at.

I will give a couple examples of how this is different, and how people at LL have statistical blinders.

ERA is cited here as a ‘useless’ stat. It’s not useless. It is useless in evaluating a pitcher in isolation. But if a new pitcher comes out of the bullpen and I want to get an idea of the dynamics of this new situation I want to know his ERA, not his tRA or his FIP. Why? because in the game he has a defense behind him. He’s playing in a ballpark (lets say he’s at his home field). I don’t want that defense taken out of the equation, nor do I want that ballpark taken out of the equation. I want them in. I don’t care how good this pitcher is. I care how difficult it will be for the Mariners to score runs against him. Guess what? that’s ERA. So while ERA is useless for ‘evaluation’ it isn’t useless for my personal enjoyment and understanding of the game.

Batting average overvaluse singles and undervalues HR’s and triples and doesn’t even count walks and so we want to use wOBA. That gives us a player’s ‘value’ and how much he contributes to a win. But sometimes, maybe most of the time, the fan viewing a game doesn’t want all of that. I just want to know what the chances are that this player will get a hit, any hit. Why? because hits are exciting, they’re fun. walks are valuable, but they aren’t as much fun. And triples are exciting, but probably not in proportion to their value. A guy like Ichiro is more exciting to watch than a guy with the same wOBA who has a lower average.

A lot of this is me playing devil’s advocate. But I think it’s important for us to realize that all these tools we use to evaluate players and discuss baseball here are clearly very valuable. I’ve gone on a learning spree recently and I can honestly say that it has enjoyed my personal enjoyment of the game. But I also took a lot of college level math, including statistics. If I were an average fan, no someone who read several Mariners blogs everyday, I’m not sure I would want to know about all these numbers, I wouldn’t want an education.

Ultimately I think a smattering of these things in various places would be interesting. But an attempt by the media to ‘educate’ people on the ground about these advanced tools might be a mistake. The fact is that most fans don’t want to be a play along General Manager, they just want to enjoy the game.

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

So you want to know his R/9, not his ERA

You also want to know his R/9 with a regressed HR/fly rate rather than straight up. You want to park adjust for current park rather than neutral.

All in all, you don’t want ERA at all, do you?

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was going to say that, actually

but I would guess that ERA isn’t that far off. How often does an unearned run happen? And I would like it adjusted for current park. I’d like to see how much a difference this makes for an average pitcher.

Of course there are more acurate numbers. My point is that most people want to enjoy watching a baseball game. Most people don’t mind numbers that are close but not perfect. And if they had to choose between a baseball game with numbers that are interesting and tell them something (even if that ‘something’ isn’t the players value or skill level) and a baseball game with acurate evalutaion numbers that come with a statistics lesson, most people will choose the first.

Personally I love what I’ve learned here. I love your posts on these numbers and the time that people here have taken to explain their meaning, to create posts that explain them and to show how they should be applied. I’m just saying that for the average fan, getting a batting average and a HR number might be good enough for them to enjoy what they want to enjoy.

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree that throwing more stats at most people wouldn't enhance their enjoyment of the game

If someone doesn’t want to learn statistics (although sabremetrics as currently constructed is about logic over statistics) nobody should force them to.

I just disagree that we have statistical blinders on, so to speak.

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

misunderstanding

by ‘statistical blinders’ I meant to refer to enjoyment. That it seems like people here feel like the way to enhance enjoyment of the game is to understand these statistics. I think that an argument can be made that from an average enjoyment perspective the standard statistics are a good enough approximation of things that people care about and want to know. If you want to enhance the average viewers enjoyment of the game I think there are many nuances to baseball that would come before the numbers (even just explaining what the different pitches are and how they work and vertical and horizontal break and arm-speed would vastly enhance most baseball broadcasts that I see).

Of course even in my devil’s advocate mode I’d have to admit that there are exceptions. Pitchers wins-losses have no value in my mind. I do think that the average fan could have enjoyment increased by statistics that fill a current void, I’m thinking particularly of UZR.

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think you're misrepresenting the way most people here enjoy the game

Game threads, for example, are pure exercises in fandom. It’s not like everyone is trying to wear an analyst’s hat all the time; we’re screaming morons when there’s a game going on.

by Graham MacAree on Jul 21, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

well

I was responding to a post that specifically called for ‘wOBA, wRAA. WAR’ and other such numbers to be displayed normally as part of a baseball broadcast.

perhaps that opinion is a minority one around here. I will admit that my generalizations applied the opion/idea of that poster to the community at large. Maybe that wasn’t fair. I’m certainly not trying to disparage anyone’s ‘fanness’. Especially anyone here.

My original post was meant to simply point out that I think we should remember to keep a dividing line between player evaluation and game enjoyment. They are different worlds, as the game threads here illustrate.

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

I disagree with this:
They are different worlds, as the game threads here illustrate.

The closer I get to objectively understanding what wins ballgames, the more I enjoy watching the games because I know what to root for (swinging strikes! for example) and what the hell is actually going on. All truth is enjoyable, whether it’s knowing that Franklin Gutierrez has 3.5 WAR this year, making him the second most valuable CF in baseball, or seeing Gutierrez SEX BOMB FELIX HUG AHAHAHA S:JSLKDSJLKJSDSKJ!!! and knowing it was truly the best moment of the year, Mariners-wise.

by Decatur on Jul 21, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

thanks

you helped to demonstrate what I was suggesting, that people around here do feel that the way to enhance enjoyment of the game is through these numbers.

I agree, personally. This has enhanced my enjoyment of the game. But I disagree, generally. I think that there are many many ways that would enhance the enjoyment of the game for the average fan more and easier before they would get to these numbers. I’d guess that most people sitting in Safeco couldn’t articulate the difference between a slider and a curve, and I honestly wonder what percentage could even explain a changeup. Maybe that’s an underestimation of the average baseball fan and reveals my family’s baseball knowledge (season ticket holders for years, who I’m sure couldn’t describe what a changeup is).

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 21, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm the one who specifically called for 'wOBA, wRaa, WAR'.

I didn’t even know what those initials stood for 4 months ago. My brothers collected cards and memorized BA, ERA, ETC. I know now that those are pretty meaningless. I think we need to give kids the best we’ve got. Adults, over 40 might not appreciate that, but I think that kids need the best we can give them. We’re all fans, let’s teach our youngest fans the “best we can give them”. It’s not just player evaluation, it’s always game enjoyment that is primary. But let’s tell them the truth about the players they love most.

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 21, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would say the only reason the average fan likes this is because they don't know better

If batting average had never been invented, and wOBA was the mainstream hitting statistic, then fans would be on board.

by Poochie on Jul 21, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

So, we think outside the box and throw away batting average and earned run average and give them the metrics that make more sense. How would this hurt anyone? How would it ruin their enjoyment of the game? It seems to me, this would make all the “my guy’s better than your guy argument” so much better. Ten-year-olds could be arguing about something that mattered.

by Mrs. Robinson on Jul 21, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah know, for all the talk of how horrible this division is, if we were in the AL Central, we'd be leading by a half a game.

And if we were in the NL Central, we’d only be about a game back of the Cards.

The Rise of a Superstar:Justin Upton-.398wOBA, 21 years old.

by Goose on Jul 21, 2009 1:17 AM PDT reply actions  

If the Ms were in the NL Central

they would be winning by around three or four games.

The NL sucks.

by Matthew on Jul 21, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well yeah, but I was just simply going off of the current records.

The Rise of a Superstar:Justin Upton-.398wOBA, 21 years old.

by Goose on Jul 21, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Games that are still meaningful after the All Star break!

I’m not complaining.

"If I'm in a slump, I ask myself for advice." -Ichiro

by Big Jared on Jul 21, 2009 1:42 AM PDT reply actions  

...
The Dodgers have summoned scouts to look at several relievers including George Sherrill of Baltimore, John Grabow and Matt Capps of Pittsburgh, and a three relievers from Cincinnati, David Weathers, Francisco Cordero and Arthur Rhodes.

Arthur Rhodes is still alive?

by I Lick Squirrels on Jul 21, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Dodgers need relievers?

Only because Joe Torre is trying to blow out the arms of all the ones he has I guess.

Torre is such an awful manager.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Jul 21, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love Larry Stone

sheerly for having the foresight to be OK trading one of our big prospects… provided that the player we get in return helps in 2010 as well

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

I wouldn't trade Rob Johnson unless it helped the team in 2010

oh wait. What? You mean getting rid of a below replacement-level catcher will help us this year and next?! Who’da thunk it?!

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey! The Mariners have Stud Pitching!

It wins Post Season Games! Fain says so!

by msb on Jul 21, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions  

I had no idea how bad Joe Saunders has been this year

but then again, it also just looks like a fluky HR/FB rate, since his other peripherals indicate he is nearly the exact same pitcher as he was last year – it’s actually kind of spooky.

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 11:19 AM PDT reply actions  

Just another reason the Angels are annoying

there is no quantifiable reason for them to be as good as they are.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Jul 21, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Note

I don’t actually mean there is no reason, as I’m sure there is one or more but it feels like they are just stupidly lucky.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Jul 21, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Both KJR & 710 are pinging off a Neyer quote from ESPN overnight

that if the Mariners lose a shot at the playoffs by a game or two, you can lay it all at the feet of Griffey, and having him in the line-up

by msb on Jul 21, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions  

HE RUINED BASEBALL IN SEATTLE!

NOW THAT’S SYMMETRY!

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Jul 21, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rob might actually be wrong on this one

Griffey’s like a .5-1 WAR DH – they really weren’t going to do much better since Abreu didn’t want to sign with them and Dunn wanted a long-term deal

by seattlebruin on Jul 21, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum
Small
2012 Seattle Mariners: Playoff Team
Smell-the-glove_small
OT 1/24/12 - How Do You Survive Winter?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew