According to Max Marchi’s work on The Hardball Times presented earlier this year, Barajas is one of the game’s very best pitch framers. Among starting catchers, only Russell Martin and Brian McCann do better in that area, which was pretty much impossible to evaluate before PITCHf/x data came along.
The Pirates probably have their own proprietary data on the subject that also suggests Barajas ranks among the game’s best defensive catchers.
-Matthew Pouliot, "Why were the Pirates so quick to pounce on Rod Barajas?", NBCSports.com, 11/10/11
7 months ago
Vlad
88 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
weird
It’s almost like the author doesn’t know about the more recent and much more comprehensive pitch-framing study that was all the rage in internet baseball circles a month and a half ago. This one shows Barajas as solidly below-average. But I’m sure the Pirates do have awesome proprietary stats that show how Barajas is really, really, really great and not at all awful like he appears to all us dullards.
This
is the reason that I believe defensive metrics, at this point, should be considered with other evidence as opposed to looking at one stat and treating it as the gospel truth (I’m not suggesting this is what you were doing). Too often with defensive metrics you will have on stat that grades a player as elite and another that says they are substandard. What I get from these two studies is that Barajas is probably above average. Not one of the absolute best but better than most.
by KentuckyPirate on Nov 10, 2011 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
No kidding
The BP study was treated as absolute gospel, and it shouldn’t have been. But, obviously, the HT one shouldn’t, either. There was a very extensive study (it covered something like 30 years of ball and strike data, although no Pfx)—and I think it was in one of BP’s own books, although I’m not sure—that concluded catchers have no meaningful impact on ball/strike calls. So as far as I’m concerned, this whole area is completely up in the air.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Just as Fast’s study shouldn’t be treated as gospel, it shouldn’t be treated as nonexistent either. There’s no reason to think the “whole area” of pitch-framing by catchers is “up in the air.” It’s not. The most recent, comprehensive, and best study is Fast’s (as well as the follow-up by Tango, which largely supports Fast’s findings). It’s been reviewed and nobody within the sabermetric community has raised any concerns about the methodology or the data set. It’s almost certainly imprecise, of course, but that just means his findings should be accepted in general (Doumit is really bad at framing) rather than specifically (Doumit cost the Pirates 16 runs in 2009 through poor framing). We shouldn’t dismiss it entirely. If you don’t want to measure framing at all, that’s fine, but it would be a mistake to do so because you don’t believe that there’s good data available.
by epoc on Nov 10, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree with this
it would be a mistake to do so because you don’t believe that there’s good data available.
If you don’t believe that there’s an accurate measurement out there that doesn’t mean you should just accept the one that’s less wrong. If you were trying to figure out what 2+2 is and one mathematical formula told you it was 3 and the other said it was 8, that doesn’t mean you should just go with 3 because it’s closer. If you think both are wrong, then wait until you get an accurate formula
by KentuckyPirate on Nov 10, 2011 9:10 PM EST up reply actions
What I’m saying is that there’s no reason to believe that Fast’s data is not good data.
by epoc on Nov 10, 2011 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Up in the air may not have been the best phrase. “Unsettled” might be better. Fast himself talks about Marchi’s work as if it’s quite consistent with his own, yet it shows very different results for Barajas. It’s one thing to say that a study’s methods are sound, it’s another thing entirely to conclude that it presents accurate results in every single case. It’s not like batting average, where we know for a fact how many hits and outs a hitter made. It’s an indirect measure of the skill involved and, as such, it unquestionably presents some risk of erroneous results.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
true
Fast and Marchi were measuring different things with different methodologies, so there’s bound to be a fair amount of disagreement even though they’re both good studies. Fast’s article supersedes Marchi’s in the matter of measuring pitch-framing.
That said, I totally agree with what you’re saying. Fast’s data is, as it were, an estimate of runs saved via pitch-framing, much like UZR is an estimate of runs saved via defense or LW is an estimate of runs created via hitting. It’s almost certainly imprecise, just as those measurements are. It’s possible that it is, in a couple cases, inaccurate as well, as UZR probably is. That said, there’s no reason not to accept the results in general (especially when they’re confirmed by an independent study, a la Tango’s [which pegs Barajas as about -2 runs per 125 games]).
That was in Baseball Between The Numbers. Something about Mike Matheny, I believe.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Nov 10, 2011 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t we go through this same thing with Nyjer’s defensive metrics a couple of years ago?
by sanny manguillen on Nov 10, 2011 9:13 PM EST reply actions
Not sure the Pirates "pouncing on Barajas" needs to be treated as some kind of mystery
Explainable only by secret squirrel, proprietary defensive stats. The Pirates have a huge hole at catcher and Barajas is one of the better guys available – not that that’s saying much.
by maguro on Nov 10, 2011 9:18 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
This is a much more realistic perspective. They “pounced” on Barajas because there were two non-sucktastic catchers out there and the Pirates absolutely had to get one of them.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
It’s possible there are or will be better catchers available via trade, but it’s clear that NH doesn’t want to trade real assets for major league help at this point, which position is certainly defensible.
That said, is it really clear that Barajas is better than McKenry? Specifically, is it really clear that Barajas is good enough that the Pirates absolutely had to have him rather than McKenry? Barajas may not be sucktastic, but he’s pretty bad. He’s been worth 2.8 fWAR (3.4 rWAR) combined in the last three years, and he’s going to be 36 next year. I’m not sure the 0.5 WAR upgrade is worth “pouncing” for $4M.
In the overall context of building the 2012 roster, I’m not sure I like the idea of thinking it necessary to sign four or five Overbays in order to avoid the sucktasticness of Steve Pearces. Charlie’s talked before about the impossibility of building the 2012 roster this offseason, considering how many holes the team has. Rather than filling all those holes, I think it would be smarter to go with McKenry types at one or two spots and concentrate the money into the other couple.
Basically, this signing seems uncreative and low-upside and generally uninteresting in the typical Huntington way. Barajas will be, at best, serviceable but crappy and at worst so crappy that he’s not even serviceable.
But we need 2 catchers
I completely take your point, but McKenry can only catch so many games. And behind him are/were JJ, Fryer, and (gulp) Pags. With Barajas in place, Pags moves into “break glass in case of emergency” territory (at worst), and Fryer can comfortably hang out at AAA, seeing how good he can be.
Think of it as Barajas in place of JJ or Pags, not in place of McKenry. Fort will get 60-90 starts no matter what else happens (if he stays healthy, of course).
But what happened to Dusty?
Did we get rid of him? Is that why you’re leaving him off your list?
;)
(At least he has a beautiful wife going for him….)
by Chileburger on Nov 11, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
Per BB-Ref:
September 29, 2011: Granted Free Agency.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 11, 2011 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Nicely said, mags.
Rec’d.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 10, 2011 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, I bet Hurdle is excited about that.
You gotta aim high to fail so big. - Trace Beaulieu
by IAPiratesFan on Nov 10, 2011 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
What Are We Going To Measure Next?
There have to be more things that we can measure beside the ability to frame a pitch.
Maybe there is a ranking of the biggest bubble gum blowers or the longest spitters.
This is an absolute example of how the pendulum has swung way too far.
Why has the pendulum swung too far?
Are you interested in the best possible answers to your baseball questions or just OK answers? If you want the best possible answers then there really is no limit to how far the pendulum should swing. Of course that is not to say that scouting information should be ignored; far from it. The best possible results eloquently combine scouting information with statistical insight.
If I were making decisions for millions of dollars, I would try to get the best possible answers if I could. If you are fine with settling for OK, then OPS and ERA will give you rough ideas of a lot of things.
I think the suggestion
is that there are no more big difference-making formulas to be found, and now we’re delving into complex ways to find differences of a run or two a year — diminishing returns on larger and larger investments of time and thought.
My $.02.
Note that 2 marginal runs is worth over $80,000...
So digging for that extra run or two for a team is still very beneficial.
I also reject the premise that the gains are that small…there’s still a ton to be learned about baseball using statistics. There’s a lot more that can be done even with the widely available data, and there are new, proprietary sources of data as well that are quite valuable (namely Field f/x, Hit f/x, and Trackman)…
that's a reasonable argument
but i don’t think that’s the one most of the people opposed to sabermetrics are making.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
Not that I’m not buying the quantitative analysis, because I have to read it more seriously, but it this suggesting a “bad” pitcher framer could detract up a win or two per season for a ball club (in contrast to the best pitch framers) just based solely on the pitch framing skills?
Yes, sort of...
There are a couple recent studies out there. Some have been looking specifically at pitch framing skills while others have lumped pitch framing skills with game-calling skills.
That win or two per season is really only a run for every few hundred called pitches. That doesn’t sound crazy to me. Also note that ti’s long been accepted by non-stats people that catcher defense is particularly important while not particularly well understood among the stats people. The newer research seems to somewhat validate that conventional wisdom a bit.
i disagree
balls and strikes are called by a human being, while the pitch framing analysis is bases on the pitchFX stuff…
if the game ever gets rid of umpires, then this process would make much more sense
i havent the faintest idea what you mean
its only humans that are susceptible to this. An automated system wouldnt look at the catcher, but only at the strike zone.
then how in the world does doing an analysis of pitch framing not include the umpiring?
strike zones change on a daily basis because of the different umpires. how can one conclude whom is the best at pitch framing when balls/strikes arent determined by a machine?
it wasn't "bull dookie", as you claim below
Certainly, your point is valid that it’s not adjusting for the zone the umpire had on that day, by doing something like fitting an axis-parallel rectangle around the called balls and strikes. That doesn’t invalidate the entire premise— they make some simplifying assumptions which are reasonable, although not perfect. We can probably do better than the study is doing currently, but the study is doing better than guessing based off memory (guessing off memory is more apt as “bull dookie”).
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
if there were no umpires, then pitch framing wouldn't be an issue
The idea is that some catchers do a better job of “dressing up” the pitches on the border such that umpires call more borderline pitches as strikes, rather than balls. We’ve all seen the opposite of this. The catcher sets up on the inside and the pitcher misses to the outside, the ump calls it a ball. When you watch the pitch, it clearly went over teh zone, but sometimes, when a pitchers misses his catcher that badly, teh ump will make the incorrect call as a reaction to the miss, not the zone. Sometimes the umpire calls what the catcher does, and not where the ball crosses teh plate, especially on borderline breaking pitches. Some catchers, as this study posits, have a better skill at this, whatever it is. Electronic umpiring would always be right, and it wouldn’t matter if the catcher let the balls go to the backstop every pitch, there would be no umpire to be distracted by getting plunked in the face every pitch.
Like BK said, you missed the point entirely.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 8:20 AM EST up reply actions
no, i did not
i know pitch framing exists. some guys are really good at it. but the analysis is pretty much a useless tool because the human factor changes on a daily basis. in other words, the analysis was unnecessary bull dookie.
no offense
Any Astute Baseball Scout Or Fan ...
does not need statistics to tell whether a catcher can or cannot frame a pitch or call a game. Their eyes tell them all they need to know. Statistics only verify what they are seeing. There are no great ‘statistical’ catchers that knowledgeable baseball people miss out on.
mike sciosia
and jeff mathis beg to differ. Sciosia has been convinced for years that Mathis is a defensive whiz, while almost all methods, advanced stats or simple ones, seem to think Mathis is garbage (in addition to being an awful hitter).
by titanlord91 on Nov 11, 2011 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's a matter of degree...
These are not binary decisions of “can or cannot frame” or “good or bad player.” Even if every single scout agrees that Barajas is better defensively than Doumit, at some point the front office has to stick a dollar sign on the difference. This is hard to do through scouting alone.
by mickeyg13 on Nov 11, 2011 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
a metric for framing pitches means little because balls and strikes are called by an umpire
right now, judging whom is best at it should be the opinion of the umpires and/or the pitchers.
There are three parts to that equation
pitcher, catcher and umpire. The distribution of umpires, over the course of the season, should be pretty consistent, and teams have no control over it. The pitcher is one component, but the catcher is another. We are not talking about signing a pitcher, but a catcher, so it is absolutely relevant. Just because you don’t like stats that weren’t on the back of your baseball cards as a kid doesn’t mean that the concept that being measured is incorrect.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 8:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
lol
i actually did like the stats on the back of a baseball card, and none of the new metrics are on them.
judging a catcher on his framing should NOT be done by a 3rd party, thats what im trying to relay on here.
"judging a catcher on his framing should NOT be done by a 3rd party, thats what im trying to relay on here"
What? So scouts can’t judge catcher’s on their ability either?
scouts are at least qualified
with one metric saying that Barajas is well below average, and another says hes one of the best defensively, its time for the stat geeksquad to find another hobbie. damn shame the harry potter stuff is over, now too much free time on their hands.
posts like that really don't help your case when you say you don't insult people
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Nov 11, 2011 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
No, he doesn’t insult players. They aren’t nerds.
by thecheeseisblue on Nov 11, 2011 8:51 AM EST up reply actions
neither does talking down to a person who doesnt share your opinions
but that wasnt meant to insult anyone on here, it was a slam against the guys who created that metric…
but if anyone is offended, my apologies to you
typically, no one who understands the process has talked down to you...
…or anyone else who believes in scouting.
it was a slam against the guys who created that metric
This is essentially the equivalent of slamming players that are bad at (major league) baseball that seems to cut you up so much. I don’t see why you have a right to “slam” a process that’s looking for better info, has made a reasonable effort, and analysis is almost certainly better with the info than without.
You can choose to enjoy baseball whichever way you want, but it doesn’t mean that it’s the right or only way to enjoy the game.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
those metrics you speak of lead you and others to slam those players that i defend
you slam the players, i defend them. and it will continue.
thats the first time i slammed the metrics creators, by the way. yet the players get obliterrated on a daily basis. fair?
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
you slam the players, i defend them. and it will continue.
To be clear, your stand on the issue is mistaken. I don’t “slam” the players, I “slam” their play .
thats the first time i slammed the metrics creators, by the way. yet the players get obliterrated on a daily basis. fair?
Depends on what you’re asking for fairness of or in terms of. I have no problem with anyone slamming anything as long as it is backed up by cogent arguments. Whenever I have “slammed” anyone’s playing ability, it’s based off a set of arguments.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
thats a good point, slamming the play. i think i do go a tad overboard on my defense of them
or i lump guys like yourself with true haters. when i see someone saying XPaul sucks, i want to bitch slap them with my size 13 sketchers…
plus i dont think XP is that bad, so that plays some into it
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
but slamming a players "play" is an opinion, and a disagreement could be warranted, or accepted
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
when i see someone saying XPaul sucks, i want to bitch slap them with my size 13 sketchers…
I think you are overreacting. Everything said here is in teh realm of sports. If I say he sucks, it means he sucks at baseball, not at life. It would be silly to qualify every adjective by saying “at baseball” at the end. I’m pretty sure people on here aren’t commenting on the person, but on thier play. I, for one, don’t give a shit what the person does outside the field, as long as its not outside the realm of common morality. I give two shits if a player is an asshole, or adopts children from Africa, as long as he plays well he is good, and when he has a .250 OBP he sucks. If it makes you feel better, just consider everything I say to have “at baseball” at the end of it.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
It's really "at *Major League* Baseball"
If a player is criticized, it mostly means that he is, for instance, only one of the top 500 people in the whole world at his craft rather than one of the top 100 or 200. That’s still amazing. To take XP, he is amazing at the game of baseball…he might be better at his job than anyone you or I know is at theirs. It’s just that he is judged only against the rest of the group of “best in the world” rather than against the population at large.
So then a 3rd party can evaluate pitch framing...
….as long as it isn’t through scary math equations, gotcha.
Scouts have differing opinions as well, they just don’t publish them daily, so it is hard to tell exactly where, when those differences occur.
I don’t see any reason why scouts and sabremetrics can’t both be used.
actually i use math with my job quite a bit
but baseball, to me, isnt a job. when metrics first came out i was actually interested in them. but over the last few years there have be so many that have flooded the baseball world, with most being useless.
yes, i believe that many are a waste of time and truly turn a game into homework.
i also believe it takes away from observation and relies too heavily on numbers, which i believe doesnt give the players enough credit. of course numbers matter.
so my apologies to all that are numbers friendly, but remember that ya’ll are dissing the non-believers as much as we you
We're not saying to ignore observations...
Scouting observations are great, and the best possible analysis uses them along with statistical information.
As for your point about the human umpires, they most definitely influenced the studies. Speaking broadly, the analyses looked at what the pitches should have been called according to the strike zone (not sure if it’s the book strike zone or what is actually called) and compared them with what was actually called. The whole reason there is an effect is because of the human umpires. Now each umpire is different so an even better study would incorporate individual umpire identity since some umpires might be more susceptible to a good framer, etc.
Also note that although baseball or data analysis is not a job to you, to some people it is a job. I encourage those people to try to get the best possible results rather than sticking with what is familiar to them.
but the umpires dont have the same strikezones on a daily basis
for example, our beloved Jerry Meals. on day he could be showing a low inside strikezone, while the next time behind the plate he has a middle down.
framing pitches is a definate skill, im not denouncing it. im denouncing the metric that judges it because there are wayyyyyy too many variables that can affect the numbers
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
The difference in those strikezones
could be influenced by anything, including the catcher. If one catcher seems to influence more umpires to call his pitchers’ pitches as strikes, there is some kind of skill there.
You are still missing the point with umpires. If all of the games are counted, then the individual variations start to wash out. This is where sample size comes in. When you look at any one game, or pitch, sure, but when you look at the bigger picture, a pattern develops. The pattern is what is being looked at.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, there are always more variables than we can account for....
and we have to make assumptions…but there always more variables than scouts can account for too.
by element1286 on Nov 11, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Enjoy the game however you want...
…but it doesn’t make the research any less valid.
by element1286 on Nov 11, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
research
for the sake of research isn’t much. while many of the stats are awesome and can tell you a lot, I think we do in fact rely too heavily on them at times.
Yeah occasionally Ill use WAR, OPS+, some crazy defensive metric but at the end of the day, I watch the games and can in a general sense tell you who sucks, who is slumping compared to what Ive seen, who is doing good etc. There are things to look at beyond the stat sheet.
In terms of research, what does it matter if we have oh idk three or four different ways to calculate one certain thing, its a little over the top, don’t you think?
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
In terms of research, what does it matter if we have oh idk three or four different ways to calculate one certain thing, its a little over the top, don’t you think?
It matters significantly. The scenarios in which it doesnt matter include not caring about how close to the truth you can get or believing that you know all there is to know about the question. If you believe either of those (and possibly a bunch of other things I m not thinking of right now), then I can see why you wouldn’t care about newer or better methods, and that’s perfectly fine. If you feel that others should be satisfied with things as they are, then you’re probably wrong.
My take on this is that even if we have 3 or 4 methods, they aren’t necessarily correct, or as close as we can get, and can be improved. If you care about a “general sense” then I see your point. If you care about getting closer than the general sense, you’ll need to explore various alternative avenues.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I mean in the general sense
but to combat, having multiple ways to conduct one statistic or something doesn’t really help when your base data will stay the same, ie, the number of hits someone gets wont change, how you manipulate a formula to get a value using a players hits or something along similar lines is just using algebra to get a value that better suits what you want.
this is where im saying i dont think it matters much. while i agree having different statistics to look at is great, i just feel that some of it is repetitive and not as useful as we make it out to be, simply because the numbers involved to get the desired statistic haven’t changed
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
how you manipulate a formula to get a value using a players hits or something along similar lines is just using algebra to get a value that better suits what you want.
I don’t have a clear sense of what you mean here— using algebra to look for a better answer is science, using it to artificially obtain a value that better suits what you want is pseudoscience.
i just feel that some of it is repetitive and not as useful as we make it out to be, simply because the numbers involved to get the desired statistic haven’t changed
Depends on what you’re thinking of. I’d say baseball analysis has changed a great deal from the days of using batting average to looking at wOBA, or WAR, and from the days of ERA to FIP or xFIP.
At the same time, there is a significant lack of understanding of the evaluation of defense, and while there hasn’t been significant headway made, there should be efforts made to do so.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Agree but the point is a catcher adept at framing....
adapts to the given umpire on a particular day. That being said, my own eyes can tell me and told me many times that Ryan Doumit could not frame a pitch and was a bad defensive catcher. The metric tries to measure just how bad he is. Sometimes your stats lie, always have and always will.
You can never convince me that Ronny Cedeno contributes positively to a team even though statistacally he isn’t worthless. From what i have seen, statistics be damned, guys like Ronny Cedeno and Ryan Doumit at catcher are the stuff that losing teams need to shed. Doumit may hit .300 for 80 games but defensively he likely gives it back. That being said, McKenry is solid defensively but terrible offensively. Both get to the same result just one has higher highs and lower lows.
Stats don't lie, people do.
People often lie or mislead (intentionally or not) with statistics, but stats themselves don’t lie.
depends
stats can lie in a sense, depending on how they are taken, the fairness of them and if they are skewed or not.
in terms of people, stats can be interpreted differently and in that sense, depending on which way you look at things, the stats can also “lie”.
maybe the term “lie” isn’t the best here but i think you get what i mean
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Just like in polling data
its how, and to whom, you ask the question. That’s one thing that makes the SABRE stuff so interesting to me. It is constantly peer reviewed, and the concepts are not so hard that a non-mathematician can understand and process it. We are past the point where someone can just assert a point. We all want proof, and we want to analyze the method.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
stats may not lie, but they are not false proof
WAR is based partly upon a ficticious player compared to current players. that in itself is the reason why i dont take it seriously. throw in UZR which i believe is seriously flawed and not anywhere near reliable, and its a wasted stat.
anyone can look at Matt Kemp’s old school stats and see that he kicked ass this year. he lead the league, or was at the top, in numerous categories. figuring WAR for him seemed like a waste of energy.
then you use WAR to figure out cost/value of contracts which none of us, including me, have a clue on how they are laid out. this is NOT an insult to anyone on here, its just the truth.
comparing maholm to a capuano should be quite easy, yet some rely on metrics that try a little too hard in finding a new way to evaluate.
research is great. im a believer in science and math. i also believe that alot of these metric guys are creating formulas just to get their name out there, which is what i believe happened with this pitch framing thing.
i respect almost everyone of you gentlemen on this board. i know im in the minority about my anti-metric beliefs. but im not anti-stat. i just believe in the old standards, and even some of the almost recent ones. I like WHIP a great deal, and its a metric that makes sense. Even BABIP, which sounds ridiculous, has its merits. but, IMO, the majority of the metrics that have come out are either a waste of time or has major holes in theory.
that being said, i dont like the new metrics much, yet many on here go through them like its a baseball bible. its almost cult like how the metrics are god and those who dont believe are subject to ridicule.
once again, total respect for nearly everyone on this site. this is why im on here constantly Monday thru Friday. great blog and keep up the awesome work.
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
You’ve raised some reasonable points but I’m not going to dwell on them much, since I’ve stated my position elsewhere on most of them. Except this one:
that being said, i dont like the new metrics much, yet many on here go through them like its a baseball bible. its almost cult like how the metrics are god and those who dont believe are subject to ridicule.
I resent the generalization. In fact, most people here understand and admit the limitations of the various stats they cite. Almost by definition, science rejects the notion of an “absolute truth” (that you call the baseball bible) and very few people are arguing that the metrics are an absolute truth. The primary argument is that they are less flawed than other options available.
Finally, I don’t think anyone who doesn’t believe is subject to ridicule. I, for one, take the opinions of various commenters on scouting perspectives to players very seriously (including your perspectives), although I don’t rely on them in isolation. As far as I can tell, the majority here do the same, and the argument that people-get-ridiculed-for-not-agreeing-to-the-stats is a strawman that you keep attacking for a reason that’s not clear to me at all.
by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
well written, well said...
but what strawman am i attacking? i feel like im defending MYSELF and my beliefs that most metrics are a waste of time, and that the old school reliable stats are not that old school.
lets do an example: Xavier Paul. the guy takes a lot of shit on this blog for his WAR and a few other things, yet the only thing I saw was a very hard working player who busts his ASS on a nightly basis, does whatever his coach needed him to do and from all accounts was a great teammate. his biggest issue was pinch hitting, and yes he was awful at it.
so yes, i defend him because i believe he to be not as bad as others claim. this puts myself in a bad light because my single opinion is outnumbered by the metric community who apparently believes that stats is all that matters. i expect to have my opinion “not rec’d”, im in the minority. im fine with that.
now if XP were a loaf or toad putting up those K numbers, like ryan f’ing church, then yes my opinion of him would be much less favorable. but the dude has skills, uses them well and busts his ass. he deserves to be defended.
by white angus on Nov 11, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
What gets me fired up is that every time someone starts a discussion on metrics, you jump in and try to argue. Sometimes, it would be nice to have a discussion about metrics without the metric haters jumping in just to bash them. Its a bit annoying to read your same arguments over and over, and the same people explain the same points. The discussion devolves, and we end up bantering about metrics instead of the specific topic that was started.
We all know you hate metrics. If you could just say that every time some brings it up, and leave it there, there would be much less of this. I feel like I read the same 10 arguments every month.
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
its done
i’ll find something new to rant about. ya got my word.
if only someone else here talked about something other than metrics… sigh.
okay, now im done.
strawman
its almost cult like how the metrics are god and those who dont believe are subject to ridicule.
The bolded part is the strawman. There isn’t ridicule for disagreeing with metrics. It’s not something you need to repeat over and over as Wiz says.
"now if XP were a loaf or toad putting up those K numbers, like ryan f’ing church, "
Church’s K% with Bucs = 25.1%
XP’s K% with Bucs = 22.7%
Not a whole helluva lotta difference.
Yes, XP hustles. And yes, he probably has the best arm in the OF. That does not take away from the fact that he’s not a very good hitter.
And I agree with Woz above. There’s a difference between advancing a conversation / argument and putting your fingers in your ears and saying “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”
I’ve agreed with you many times, angus, and defended you many times when I disagreed, but this is getting tiresome.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Nov 11, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
good point on xp
I “like” xp in the sense that he does hustle and work hard. But I dislike xp in the sense that he’s a terrible hitter. Aside from a few triples that we seem to remember because they often happened in prominent situations (like the no-out, bottom of the ninth triple he had in the one-run game and no one got him home), he was not a very good hitter. He struck out too much. He didn’t have much power. He was an awful pinch hitter. He was redundant on a team with 3 speedy outfielders already.
actually i meant Church was loafing, not really about the K's... i need to put more commas in my rants
since cocktails is one of the few who doesnt let things bother him, yet my ranting aparently has annoyed him, thats a good sign to tone it down.
so shall it be done.
I like you, man (or cow)
this just bugged me.
We coo?
by Wizard of Woz on Nov 11, 2011 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
ive never been pissed off at anyone here
too many things in the real world to be pissy at, not on a blog
Okay, well here is my opinion on Xavier Paul based on watching him play, without statistics.
I see a player who takes horrible routes to the ball in the outfield, making him ineffective despite his speed, similar to what Milledge was criticized for. I see a player who strikes out far too much, walks far too little, and has no power to make up for either deficit. And I see a player who has speed, but cannot effectively use it on the basepaths, like Nyjer Morgan.
I see a player with one main talent in speed, but he does not seem able to grasp the mental aspects of the game. I don’t care if he busts his ass or not, all that means to me is that if this is him busting his ass, I don’t want to see him if he ever decides to take a day off.
by thecheeseisblue on Nov 11, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
easy tigers
hey – this is what i’m excited about with Roddy B. It will be interesting/fun to watch and see if this pitch framing makes a noticeable difference with our pitchers. From day one it will be great to watch and see if Barajas can get calls for pitchers like Chuck Mo who need them. can you imagine how much better Chaz Mo’s electric stuff will be when he gets an occasional call or two that he wouldn’t of before. this could make a HUGE difference all things considered. Even though i don’t expect us to win the pennant, the little things like this will make this a very exciting year to watch our bucs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
