|
JediGandalf posted:This is in regards to the article I posted about possible realignment in MLB but I figured my question is best suited here. Practically every sport I know has interleague/interconference play almost all the time and it's really no big deal to anyone. Yet in baseball if we were to have interleague play (almost) all 162 games some of you would be up in arms. Why is that so? Is it because there are actual rules (DH) differences between the two leagues? The actual rules difference is pretty big. The other problem is that unless interleague was done so extensively that the schedules were balanced, teams could end up playing better NL teams than their own AL division rivals. This already happens and is already a reason to be annoyed at interleague, so expanding it just seems like more of a headache.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 21:30 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 06:31 |
|
|
toadee posted:The actual rules difference is pretty big. The other problem is that unless interleague was done so extensively that the schedules were balanced, teams could end up playing better NL teams than their own AL division rivals. This already happens and is already a reason to be annoyed at interleague, so expanding it just seems like more of a headache. The interleague schedule could be easily balanced without expanding it. Each team plays what, 5 interleague series this season? I know the Giants play one home and one away series with Oakland, their "rivals," and one series each with 3 teams from the AL Central: Minnesota, Detroit and Cleveland. All MLB would have to do is eliminate the stupid rivalry games and have every team face all the teams from one division, on a 3 year rotating schedule, like in the NFL. i.e. The NL West would play the AL West this year, the Central in 2012, and the East in 2013.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 21:54 |
|
|
it's mainly just tradition, i think. the NL and AL hated each other for a really long time, and that built up a tradition of no interleague play.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 22:21 |
|
|
OdinsBeard posted:Either I'm confused or this word doesn't mean what you think it means. He meant cumulative, it's all good
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 22:30 |
|
|
A drat FOG posted:But I'm saying that I don't think that is the case because it is harder to go from 90 wins to 95 than it would be to go from 80 wins to 85. Isn't it true that every win is "harder" to achieve statistically than the last as you progress from the average? Albert Pujols wouldn't take a 120 win team to 130 wins even if he replaced Bill Bergen at first base because of diminishing returns or some poo poo, no? OdinsBeard posted:Either I'm confused or this word doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 22:34 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:
Ok that makes much more sense. I was seriously wondering if there was some use of the word commutative in statistics that didn't jive with the normal definition. I couldn't find any such thing on the internet, with good reason, I suppose. OdinsBeard fucked around with this message at Jun 14, 2011 around 22:41 |
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 22:39 |
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:it's mainly just tradition, i think. the NL and AL hated each other for a really long time, and that built up a tradition of no interleague play.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 22:58 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:I don't think that's how WAR works, at least. I think as far as WAR is concerned, every win is equal. Hypothetically that may be wrong I guess though. I'm not sure I understand why you feel you'd get diminishing returns, though. I mean I sort of understanding diminishing returns when it comes to "too much pitching" or "too much hitting" (IIRC Baseball Between The Numbers talks about this), but a 120 win team can "make up ground" a number of ways by improving its players further still can't it? No, I'm pretty sure he's right. WAR is actually just RAR/10, because someone did a regression or whatever and figured out that 10 runs ~= 1 win on average. But really, runs translate into wins proportionally to the number of runs the rest of the team scores/allows: turning a +500 run differential into +510 is probably going to do less than turning +0 into +10. So 10 runs = 1 win is in fact an estimate; very good or very bad teams will probably see less improvement, mediocre ones will probably see more. I couldn't say how much more/less, though.
|
| # ? Jun 14, 2011 23:50 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:I don't think that's how WAR works, at least. I think as far as WAR is concerned, every win is equal. Hypothetically that may be wrong I guess though. I'm not sure I understand why you feel you'd get diminishing returns, though. I mean I sort of understanding diminishing returns when it comes to "too much pitching" or "too much hitting" (IIRC Baseball Between The Numbers talks about this), but a 120 win team can "make up ground" a number of ways by improving its players further still can't it? Basically it's easier to go from 75 wins to 80 than it is to go from 85 wins to 90 and so on. If you go back to the All Replacement team, if you replace even one of them with a league average player you've improved drastically (2.5-3 WAR). If you have a team made up entirely of league average players and are right around 83 wins, you can't replace any of them with league average talent and improve. Now you have to get an All Star to improve. If you're a 95 win team entirely of All Stars, now you need MVPs to improve. It's easier and cheaper to get your team from horrible to bad than it is to go from good to great. The other thing that BBTN discusses is the monetary value of those wins. 80 wins never gets you to the playoffs (Please ignore the Cardinals). 85 wins will often get you to the playoffs. 90 wins virtually guarantees you'll get to the playoffs. It costs more to build to a 90 win team, but there is a very tangible monetary return from doing so. 120 wins is so far past the playoff threshold that while it might be theoretically possible to improve the team further with more WARs, the expense isn't really worth the return. TL;DR WAR per player is cumulative/linear but translated to team wins it's not, and you have to figure in the scarcity of talent and the expense of increasing it.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 00:30 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:If you go back to the All Replacement team, if you replace even one of them with a league average player you've improved drastically (2.5-3 WAR). If you have a team made up entirely of league average players and are right around 83 wins, you can't replace any of them with league average talent and improve. Now you have to get an All Star to improve. If you're a 95 win team entirely of All Stars, now you need MVPs to improve. It's easier and cheaper to get your team from horrible to bad than it is to go from good to great. quote:The other thing that BBTN discusses is the monetary value of those wins. 80 wins never gets you to the playoffs (Please ignore the Cardinals). 85 wins will often get you to the playoffs. 90 wins virtually guarantees you'll get to the playoffs. It costs more to build to a 90 win team, but there is a very tangible monetary return from doing so. 120 wins is so far past the playoff threshold that while it might be theoretically possible to improve the team further with more WARs, the expense isn't really worth the return. Nate RFB fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2011 around 01:54 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 01:42 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:But you're not going to have a team consisting of nothing but All Stars, there's always going to be some room for improvement. The 2007 Red Sox were tied for best record in baseball with Julio Lugo at SS and Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter. Now if we're talking about run differential (which in a sense is really what you're adding with WAR I guess), then that makes more sense. What's the difference in pythag W-L between the best run differential of all time (no clue who this is, 1927 Yankees?) if you added +20 runs to it? E: And did the same for the worst, the 1962 Mets. Well here are three of the best teams in history. '27 Yankees (110 win, 109 Pythag, +375 run diff), '98 Yankees (114 win, 108 Pythag, +309 run diff), '01 Mariners (116 win, 109 pythag, +300 run diff). http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1927.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1998.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2001.shtml And METS http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/1962.shtml (40 win, 50 pythag, -331 run diff) You can go here or here to calculate pythag winning percentage. +10 runs scored for all teams: '27 Yankees 110 win pythag '98 Yankees 109 wins '01 Mariners 110 wins '62 Mets 51 wins +20 runs scored: '27 Yankees 110 wins '98 Yankees 110 wins '01 Mariners 110 wins '62 Mets 52 wins +30 runs scored: '27 Yankees 111 wins '98 Yankees 110 wins '01 Mariners 111 wins '62 Mets 53 wins I'm not going to do it for the other teams, but if you go the other way for the Mets: -10 runs allowed is 51 wins -20 runs allowed is 51 wins -30 runs allowed is 52 wins The pythagorean difference between a 400 run diff 154 game season and a 330 run diff 162 game season is basically non-existant. 110 wins is about as good as you can get.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 02:25 |
|
|
I haven't watched baseball since I was a kid but I'd like to get into it again, especially since I have my own kids now and we enjoy watching sports together. I've enjoyed browsing this thread and I need some help deciding which team to root for. I get two regional sports networks that broadcast all the Rockies (Root) and Diamondbacks (Fox Sports Arizona) games, so I want to choose between them. I have lots of family and friends in Denver, but none in Phoenix. Phoenix is much closer to me though (6 hours by car vs 13 to Denver). I already live in the desert and it sucks being hot all the time, so Denver is nice in that aspect. I've noticed after watching a few games that I prefer the Diamondbacks' TV announcers, and it appears that FS Arizona has a much nicer production value that Root, even though they're both in HD. Rockies players seem more likeable to me, just a hunch as I have no facts to back that up at all. So I'm kind of torn, although leading towards the Rockies just because I'd be more likely to visit and maybe watch a real game. Any compelling reasons why I should choose one or the other?
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 21:26 |
|
|
Choose the Diamondbacks because Mark Grace is the best announcer in baseball
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 21:28 |
|
|
Kimasu v2.0 posted:So I'm kind of torn, although leading towards the Rockies just because I'd be more likely to visit and maybe watch a real game. Any compelling reasons why I should choose one or the other? choose the rockies because we have funny names and nicknames. who's the dback's star shortstop? drew? got nothin on tulo. our ace's name is ubaldo. there's chacin the machine (is that still in vogue?). Plus you can rage with me at the casual fans who think iannetta is crap because he's hitting .234 without noticing that he's obping .390 and slugging .468. But in reality, follow the D'backs, because we could use more than 1 D'back fan here.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 21:39 |
|
|
If you have the ability to catch both, watch some games from both teams, then just ask your kids which one they like. They'll pick a reason just as arbitrary as we can suggest, and it'll make them happy.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 21:52 |
|
|
Looking at that 27 Yankees team is fun. They had 2 hitters with 12+ WARs which is crazy. Also their pitchers didn't strike anyone out. It was a different game back then. The best pitchers had a 1.0-2.0 k/bb. Not it is like 5.0 or better with the league average for k/9 around 7.0. Other than that the stats in 1927 looks pretty similar to today.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2011 22:49 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:If you have the ability to catch both, watch some games from both teams, then just ask your kids which one they like. They'll pick a reason just as arbitrary as we can suggest, and it'll make them happy. This is the only possible correct answer. Sports are best as a communal event; you can watch them alone and it's nice and all, but with friends and family they get better. If you have no firm opinion on which team to root for, let your kids pick.
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 01:48 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:'27 Yankees (110 win, 109 Pythag, +375 run diff) But it's not the same in both directions. For the 27 Yankees, if you take the 10 runs off of pitching, their pythag goes up faster. For each of -10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 runs allowed, they gain a win, ending up at 114.
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 12:59 |
|
Terrorism
|
Nate RFB posted:I don't think that's how WAR works, at least. I think as far as WAR is concerned, every win is equal. Hypothetically that may be wrong I guess though. I'm not sure I understand why you feel you'd get diminishing returns, though. I mean I sort of understanding diminishing returns when it comes to "too much pitching" or "too much hitting" (IIRC Baseball Between The Numbers talks about this), but a 120 win team can "make up ground" a number of ways by improving its players further still can't it? Since WAR is wins above replacement, and a replacement team would win x number of games (around 20-something on B-R using WARP1) in a given season, if WAR works then it should be a direct addition. You should be able to add a certain number of wins just by adding that player. I don't think it works that way in reality though, only in sabermetrics world. Since WAR only works looking backward, like you said, you can only know after the fact who would have changed what. There's no guarantee a player will live up to their past or projected WAR. According to B-R, a 65-70 WAR team is playoff caliber since you're talking about a team that wins 85-90 games. So if you have a 60 WARP team and add a 5 WARP1 player, then you should be "playoff caliber". There is a huge caveat, though. It would seem that if you're on pace to be a 60 WAR team and you add a 5 WAR player mid-season, you're only going to take advantage of 2-3 WAR from that player's season. So you're not really moving yourself up to a playoff caliber team? Correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't include the "addition by subtraction" of a possible negative WAR player So if you acquire Jose Reyes to replace Ryan Theriot, you might be getting somewhere fast. WAR i supposed to include all aspects of that player's game, right? ON B-R, they use Batting Runs Above Replacement (BRAR), Fielding Runs Above Replacement (FRAR) and Pitching Runs Above Replacement (PRAR) to determine WARP1 (for "comparing players within a certain league and year") so it really doesn't matter if there's a problem with his fielding. Fielding is included in WAR so it's the only number you need to look at. I don't know if I trust Fangraph's cumulative WAR now that they're including base running. I don't trust their base running WAR. It doesn't pass the smell test.
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 14:38 |
|
|
The baserunning values at the most would affect someone's WAR by like .3. The issues with UZR is a much bigger problem that BSR
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 18:54 |
|
|
tadashi posted:I don't trust their base running WAR. It doesn't pass the smell test. What did you smell
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 19:59 |
|
|
The baserunning data is legitimate you jerk 
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 23:16 |
|
|
I CHALLENGE THEE posted:The baserunning data is legitimate you jerk Sucker who recorded it in the logs spotted
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 23:26 |
|
|
leokitty posted:Sucker who recorded it in the logs spotted Well it's drawn from all the game scoring data and then they apply some algorithm and that's how WAR is made
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 23:32 |
|
|
where in god's name is the data from that fieldfx system anyway
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 23:36 |
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:where in god's name is the data from that fieldfx system anyway Not ready until next year iirc
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2011 23:44 |
|
|
Run expectancy for the poo poo that ICT faithfully plots on his nerd machine is just as easily calculated as run expectancy for at bat outcomes or whatever, so I'm wondering what kind of "smell test" was applied here, who did the sniffing, and how good their nose is, is all. edit: by "the poo poo" I mean baserunning advancements in case that wasn't clear stuart scott irl fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2011 around 17:12 |
| # ? Jun 17, 2011 00:06 |
|
|
I just finished reading Moneyball. If I recall correctly, towards the end of the book Paul DePodesta states that OBP is about three times more important than slugging percentage in determining a player's offensive worth. Wouldn't this make the OPS stat incorrectly skewed towards sluggers with lower OBP? Was DePodesta wrong or did I not read it correctly?
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2011 23:13 |
|
|
Boy Wunder posted:I just finished reading Moneyball. If I recall correctly, towards the end of the book Paul DePodesta states that OBP is about three times more important than slugging percentage in determining a player's offensive worth. Wouldn't this make the OPS stat incorrectly skewed towards sluggers with lower OBP? Was DePodesta wrong or did I not read it correctly? Yes, OPS overvalues slugging. The extent to which it does so is a matter of some debate in the sabermetric community and perhaps not entirely linear to begin with, but the common numbers are that OBP is somewhere around 2-3 times more valuable than slugging.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2011 23:15 |
|
|
On the other hand, OPS+ is 50% OBP relative to league average, and 50% SLG relative to league average. So it's a little better in that regard. The reason OPS is popular is because it's easy to calculate, and for the majority of players, it correlates surprisingly well with actual run production.
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2011 23:40 |
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:What did you smell Man flesh
|
| # ? Jun 21, 2011 23:41 |
|
|
It's not like I think somebody doesn't knows how to push buttons correctly, but we're talking about a stat that is supposed to give some sort of cumulative value to base running except we're not going to include: Runners on third base advancing, not advancing, or getting thrown out at home on a ground ball Runner advances or outs on WP or PB are not considered either. Also: On batted balls to the outfield, only whether it was hit to LF, CF, or RF is considered, not the depth or actual vector or zone within the three outfield positions. So we're going to try to give a more complete picture of the player's value by adding a stat which is incomplete? I get WP and PB because those are related to SB and CS and don't happen in relation to a batted ball. It gives some picture of base running but I don't see this as a stat that I'm going to hang a lot of weight on. Also, there is no way to factor in whether or not base running errors are made on account of coaching mistakes? Each of these things has a small impact on the final UBR, but there is still an impact. Also, when I look at BSR from 2009-2011 it basically shows me that middle infielders, outfielders, and younger players are usually the base runners with impact; while old guys, guys with poor SB %, corner infielders, and catchers can hope for neutral at best. It's a good start but it's an incremental and unfinished improvement to quantifying player value. tadashi fucked around with this message at Jun 22, 2011 around 15:46 |
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 13:24 |
|
|
Boy Wunder posted:I just finished reading Moneyball. If I recall correctly, towards the end of the book Paul DePodesta states that OBP is about three times more important than slugging percentage in determining a player's offensive worth. Wouldn't this make the OPS stat incorrectly skewed towards sluggers with lower OBP? Was DePodesta wrong or did I not read it correctly? Just to add to what Jefferson Olives said, a guy named Tom Tango created wOBA a few years ago, which (in a few words) is an OBP-heavy version of OPS. It's a great stat, though it doesn't seem to be that much more effective than OPS+ (except on the Juan Uribe test).
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 15:20 |
|
|
I guess these might too basic compared to all the stat questions, but I think it is within the purview of this thread. Is there some sort of maximum distance set to how much of a lead a runner can take when attempting to steal? Or can you theoretically walk almost all the way from first to second before the pitch if the pitcher wasn't looking and did not pick you off? Also the team makeup (Pitcher, Catcher, 3 basemen, 3 outfielders, shortstop) seems much more solid than say, basketball or football, where you change what kind of players you have out situationally. I looked at the MLB official rules and didn't think I saw anything, but is there anything preventing a team from running with say, no shortstop and 4 outfielders?
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:17 |
|
|
Basically, the fact is that even some of the more basic metrics (even just straight OBP) are so effective at measuring a batter's ability that the difference between them and hyper-advanced super mathemagic like wOBA and wRC+ is always going to be slight. e: ^^^ 1) No, there's no limit to how far you can lead off. You could just have a leisurely stroll around the bases if the other team let you. 2) It may be required that someone be listed as officially playing each of those positions, but in general the players can line up anywhere they want on the field. Check out some of the defensive alignments against guys like David Ortiz, where the 1B plays right on the line, the 2B plays at their normal position, the SS plays right behind second base, and the 3B plays in short right field. Also, I know I've heard of someone (probably TLR) using a 5-infielder alignment once or twice. Mornacale fucked around with this message at Jun 22, 2011 around 18:23 |
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:19 |
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Also the team makeup (Pitcher, Catcher, 3 basemen, 3 outfielders, shortstop) seems much more solid than say, basketball or football, where you change what kind of players you have out situationally. I looked at the MLB official rules and didn't think I saw anything, but is there anything preventing a team from running with say, no shortstop and 4 outfielders? If you watch games with some of the more powerful (but slow) left hand hitters, you'll see most times that the entire infield shifts to the right (1B) side. Second Basemen usually plays shallow right, SS plays where the 2B would play, if not closer to the bag and 3B usually plays where the SS plays. So yes, it is possible to adjust your fielders accordingly. edit - above guy is probably more correct TUS fucked around with this message at Jun 22, 2011 around 18:25 |
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:23 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:Basically, the fact is that even some of the more basic metrics (even just straight OBP) are so effective at measuring a batter's ability that the difference between them and hyper-advanced super mathemagic like wOBA and wRC+ is always going to be slight. I imagine it also has to do with the fact that most batters fall in a certain median range of the average obp and slg, so when you average it out across all players OPS is going to predict runs as well if not better. If you somehow only used players on extreme ends of the spectrum like Daric Barton and Alfonso Soriano I bet wOBA would predict runs better.
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:23 |
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Or can you theoretically walk almost all the way from first to second before the pitch if the pitcher wasn't looking and did not pick you off? Yeah and this happens, too, but it's never a leisurely walk because there's a whole infield watching you too who are about to scream "RUNNER!" What happens when the runner realizes the pitcher isn't paying attention is he will just break into a run and hope the pitcher either balks or doesn't realize what's going on in time (more often just not chance it, though, because at the MLB level that kind of fuckup should happen very rarely).
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:25 |
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:I guess these might too basic compared to all the stat questions, but I think it is within the purview of this thread. No maximum distance. The runner is free to take as big or small of a lead as he wants. Sometimes(though rarely) with slower players, pitchers will pretty much ignore them at first base. They'll end up getting a big lead and going into second uncontested. This kind of happened with David Ortiz last night: http://www.sportsgrid.com/mlb/david...e-a-base-video/ quote:Also the team makeup (Pitcher, Catcher, 3 basemen, 3 outfielders, shortstop) seems much more solid than say, basketball or football, where you change what kind of players you have out situationally. I looked at the MLB official rules and didn't think I saw anything, but is there anything preventing a team from running with say, no shortstop and 4 outfielders? You can set up your defense any way you like. A lot of teams during the course of a game will use a shift for certain batters based on where they usually hit the ball. Take a look at this picture, and notice that it isn't an outfielder in right field, but the second baseman: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgor/559522172/
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 06:31 |
|
|
I guess I'll throw this in, since my wife asked me the other day, and I didn't have an answer; is there any rhyme or reason to where teams have their minor league affiliates, other than geographic concerns for league/travel concerns? Looking over the AAA list, the affiliates are more often than not fairly close to the ML team, so that's fine, I get that, but below that, it's mostly a crapshoot. The follow-up question was "Why do teams change affiliations?", coming from us being at a Kane County Cougars game, who are now a Royals affiliate, but where an A's affiliate last year (and Marlins before that). My best guess was something involving stadium leasing/rights, but if anyone has an actual answer, that'd be great.
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2011 18:39 |
|
