Why two points for a sacrifice bunt or fly? That’s as many points as a double.: Well, if I were creating the system I might not have given two points for a sac bunt or fly, but Clint Hurdle once told me the most important thing you can do as a manager is convince 25 guys that the team is more important than they are. Once you do that, amazing things are possible.
Lee Judge, "Why Ron Polk's MVP Chart works for me."
I... I have nothing to say.
5 months ago
WHYG Zane Smith
23 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yogi Berra can’t hit and think at the same time. This guy can’t write and think at the same time.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
thats cause its 90% mental and the other half is physical.
by karreemofwheat on Jan 4, 2012 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
Sank you...
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 4, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
The White Sox did.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 5, 2012 7:42 AM EST up reply actions
It’s not Judge who worries me here.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 4, 2012 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
Why would you be worried by any of it?
Surely what Hurdle said is unobjectionable enough. Gotta get all 25 guys to pull together, that’s what any manager or oach would say.
Yeah, I guess Judge (or Polk) is adding the bit about how sacrifice bunts and flies exemplify this. If Hurdle just said the thing about teamwork, that’s fine. I just get all twitchy when I see his name so close to something like this about bunting.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 4, 2012 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
#Hurdled
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 5, 2012 7:43 AM EST up reply actions
Spoken like a true douchebag savant
What, did he write something before that totally invalidates this concept? One that he repeatedly admits is subjective and merely an attempt to inform from a different point of view?
I encourage everyone to read the article, and the comments, in which Judge is very active. From one of his comments:
OK, everbody remember this because I’m about to defend advanced metrics: Advanced metrics have an important place in the game and can reveal a great deal about a player. If I were a GM, I’d want those numbers.
I’ve said this just about every time the subject comes up and I just said it again.
What I’ve objected to is the idea that these statistics are infallible. Systems of measurement have flaws (and that includes the one I’m using). UZR, WAR, range factor and Ron Polk’s system have flaws and that’s why you can’t just look at one number and say that’s it: this is the answer. Yuni’s got a bad UZR rating so he’s a horrible shortstop.
Lots of people are trying to make a contribution into how the game is viewed. My effort is just one of many, but nobody (including me or Ron Polk) would say it’s the only way or even the best way to measure players.
But it is a legitimate way and reveals some interesting things that might have been missed otherwise. Having said that, the results should be taken with a grain of salt.
And I’d say the same thing about advanced metrics.
It’s probably that last sentence that turns off the geniuses. On the whole, this is a very worthwhile article, and if it doesn’t interest you, I don’t understand why you even like baseball, unless it’s to just analyze compiled stats.
I find the discussion at Royals Review helpful
here.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 5, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
The thing is, that advanced metrics I'd say are better, MUCH better, at telling you who contributed what to winning a ball game then a system like this
That’s like saying that because RBI and wRC+ both tell you something you might not have noticed otherwise, but they do not tell you EVERYTHING about what is going on at the plate, they should both be taken with a grain of salt. I’m sorry, but one of those is MUCH, MUCH, better at telling you how good a player performed than the other one.
That paragraph by him pretty much perpetuates the gray fallacy, that the truth is always close to the middle of two arguments. Sometimes one side IS much more correct than the other.
Disagree, in one way
I agree things like wRC+ are much better over time. It’s not like I analyzed the hell out of it, or could even tell you more than a couple of Polk’s categories, but I think some might tell you much more about who contributed in a single game than any advanced metric.
For example, a catcher that blocks a pitch in the dirt with a runner on third, and that runner doesn’t end up scoring, that’s a big play. In a one run game, players and coaches would say it was a huge play, no matter the inning. It doesn’t show up in any box score I know of. Accumulated over time, a full season for example, it’s probably close to irrelevant to a meaningful evaluation of a catcher. But that day, it was heroic.
So I’m disagreeing with you in a semantical, perhaps nit-picky way. Many advanced stats tell you nothing at all about “who contributed what to winning a ball game.” They tell you more about who contributed to winning many ballgames over time.
the advanced stat for that is WPA
Of course, if you mechanically look at the straight-up win probability graphs on Fangraphs, it won’t tell you anything about the blocked ball in the dirt. You have to know that a catcher blocked a ball in the dirt, and then you can use Win Probability to calculate the difference between his team’s chance of winning if he doesn’t block the ball, or if he does. That gives you a pretty good idea of how much that play contributed to winning the game. Maybe you want to judge the probability that an average catcher blocks the ball, and of course straight-up Win Probability isn’t perfect — it doesn’t account for exactly who’s pitching and who’s hitting — but it does a pretty good job of helping you focus on the plays that contributed to winning a ball game.
And it does a better job than Polk Points because systematic thought and analysis was put into it. Polk Points seem like they might be a fine motivational tool; maybe you could get Ronny Cedeno to keep his head in the game more by awarding him points on the system, while awarding him points for HRs still isn’t going to turn him into Barry Bonds. (But the two points for a bunt thing would still be dumb. Ronny didn’t need any more encouragement to bunt.) But the overall number you get out of them is still basically meaningless, because they were pretty much pulled out of nowhere.
I think this is kind of Tango’s point (Tango is gnomic as usual). No, there is no settled fact of the matter about these things; we’re still in the research and learning phase. Yes, it’s worth thinking about whether a called strikeout is better or worse than a swinging strikeout. But you have to try to do some analysis to look at it. It could easily turn out that swinging Ks are a more suspect indicator than called Ks, because swinging at pitches out of the zone is worse than looking at pitches in the zone.
Oh, and if you want to know how open-minded Judge is:
Getz should be the poster boy for Ron Polk’s system: It was designed to reveal the worth of players like him. Tell a sabermetrics guy that Getz is a better all-round ballplayer than Billy Butler and he’ll have an asthma attack and ask his mom to bring him a fresh box of Pop Tarts.
There you have an assertion that Polk Points tell you how good an all-round ballplayer someone is, as well as a real shot of concentrated dickishness.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 7, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sigh
If the advanced stat for that is WPA, I think it’s a slam dunk point in favor of Polk points. If it’s the same thing, why do an equation where you need historical data, when you can just award a point or two or whatever?
I don’t really know or care about Judge or whatever he’s done, said, or believes. He wrote a good post about an alternative way of valuing baseball plays.
sigh? really?
Per your first paragraph, you seem to think you have made an argument that supports a position, but I can’t tell why
I was kind of hoping that that last comment would lead to a little self-awareness on your part about how you combine civility-trolling with calling people “douchebag savants,” but I suppose that was too much to expect.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 8, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, sigh, really
If you don’t think assigning two points for blocking a pitch in the dirt is easier than “us(ing) Win Probability to calculate the difference between his team’s chance of winning if he doesn’t block the ball, or if he does” then… I really don’t have a response other than to each his own.
I don’t understand your second paragraph. I don’t know how any of my comments could be construed as civlility-trolling when I just wrote, “I don’t really know or care about Judge or whatever he’s done, said, or believes.” I took this post in isolation and judged it’s value thusly.
I know name-calling doesn’t flatter me, but I stand by the use of it here. Again, to each his own.
If you don’t think assigning two points for blocking a pitch in the dirt is easier than "us(ing) Win Probability to calculate the difference between his team’s chance of winning if he doesn’t block the ball, or if he does" then… I really don’t have a response other than to each his own.
Polk Points may be easy, but they aren’t at all an accurate representation of the way the game works. And if you’re going to go to all the trouble to design a new metric and then use it in an analysis, why not make one that’ll, y’know, give you the right answer? If you just want to say “Player X is better than you think because shut up, that’s why,” then you can do that even more easily without any metric at all.
by Vlad on Jan 9, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Read the thread again
This went down a path it didn’t need to. My point wayyy back up there was that at least some things that Polk evaluates (of THIRTY) tell you more about who contributed to a single game, than advanced metrics can, and used one example.
In fact, I agree with Justin Mos’s post, except in that one “emantical, perhaps nit-picky” way. (I’m quoting myself there.) So when you now write “Polk Points may be easy, but they aren’t at all an accurate representation…” it seems kind of pointless to me. On the whole, you’re right, as was Justin. Why the flip are we still talking?
The thing with WPA was just a sidetrack to point out just how simpler Polk points are. Not more useful, but in regard to a pitch in the dirt, a whole lot simpler.
Wanted to emphasize "single game"
Polk points over a season are not useful.
what I mean by "civility-trolling"
is this.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 9, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
Nicely done, first of all
I don’t expect you to be aware of this, but I don’t think I’ve been uncivil to anyone but WTM. (Uncivil to the douchbag savant degree). My issue with him didn’t start with this thread. He’s way smarter than me, and really is like a baseball savant I think.
He’s also a bully.
My comment in Troggs’ post is about WTM, basically. He is first in line to ridicule, demean, mock, etc., if you use anything but a stat he’s vetted to make an argument.
I’m also clearly not as articulate at Troggluddite. Because his post is part of what I’m trying to say. He took a long analytical route. I distilled it down to “douchebag savant”. That’s how it goes down here with the unwashed.
Thanks for listening. I hadn’t posted for weeks until this thread, and the irritation coming through should have gone all to WTM, not you. I apologize.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
