Article: Gleeman and the Geek, Ep 87: Opening Day

[Shane Wahl]

Yes, in real life the extra 7 times Joe Mauer gets on base throughout the year could mean 7 more wins. If ANYTHING, the math tempers things a bit.

[SDTwinkie]

But you can't move Mauer around based on every at bat......so the goal is to get him the most at bats in each game as possible. Not sure how that is even up for debate, really. It just seems obvious on its face, let alone when you look at the math*

 

*math is for predicting the likely future, not the certain future, of course it does not always work, again, not sure how that is up for debate either.

 

No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

[Mr. Brooks]

No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

 

I don't see how trying to define 'x' does that at all.

[Shane Wahl]

When talking about Gardy, we are generally talking about statistical analysis vs. "gut" ("gut" to me is pretty dismissive). I would be surprised if this particular batting order change would mean less than 2 wins. But anything above 0 wins is enough for me to warrant the change. Clearly.

[Shane Wahl]

No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

 

It's not just an assumption. It's probability based on statistical analysis. 1.5 wins seems a bit conservative when compared to common sense. And 1.5 wins matters.

[Shane Wahl]

I have said this before and it is NOT directed to anyone in this thread, but I often get the same vibe from anti statistical analysis people as I do from anti-evolutionists. "Well, your theory isn't perfect, so . . . I'll just go back to what I *feel* is true." Clearly, evolution is more well-established since "theory" in science is *NOT* "theory" in general parlance, including baseball statistical analysis, but I do think there are similarities in the general acceptance of the two.

[Alex]

No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

 

 

My point was John specifically asks Aaron to quantify it, which Aaron avoided doing until asked. When John replies that the number insignificant, Aaron tries to use other numbers to put it in perspective. At which point John gets high and mighty says the number doesn't matter and rips Aaaron for quantifying it. It's hilarious!

 

As many have pointed out, it's less about an exact number than about a more specific way to evaluate the value of doing something in baseball. Is it perfect? No, but it can be useful as a reference point.

 

Furthermore, missed in the discussion was that John quoted chance happenings as being more useful to a team, but a manager can't control that, but he can control how many ABs a bad player gets.

[SDTwinkie]

I have said this before and it is NOT directed to anyone in this thread, but I often get the same vibe from anti statistical analysis people as I do from anti-evolutionists. "Well, your theory isn't perfect, so . . . I'll just go back to what I *feel* is true." Clearly, evolution is more well-established since "theory" in science is *NOT* "theory" in general parlance, including baseball statistical analysis, but I do think there are similarities in the general acceptance of the two.

 

 

Oh Gosh, I do sound like this, don’t I?!? Ouch. Please don’t count me in this camp.

 

I guess all I am attempting to say is that baseball outcomes are predictable and random at the same time—and sometimes human factors and performance in critical situations (e.g., Parmalee at bat yesterday) are important. I am not ant-stats, just am sometimes put off when some individuals (no one in this discussion) overemphasize them in an arrogant manner.

 

OK, I am quitting now--thanks for the respectful discussion everyone. Go Twins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't get this argument. It doesn't matter if one run is added or fifty. If the team is better by even the smallest margin and there are no significant downsides, you make the move. It's that bloody simple.

[Shane Wahl]

Oh Gosh, I do sound like this, don’t I?!? Ouch. Please don’t count me in this camp.

 

I guess all I am attempting to say is that baseball outcomes are predictable and random at the same time—and sometimes human factors and performance in critical situations (e.g., Parmalee at bat yesterday) are important. I am not ant-stats, just am sometimes put off when some individuals (no one in this discussion) overemphasize them in an arrogant manner.

 

OK, I am quitting now--thanks for the respectful discussion everyone. Go Twins.

 

No, it did not apply to anyone in particular. It is a general thing that I have found.

[PseudoSABR]

To overemphasize the “hard core smart person” side of sabremetrics and de-emphasize its correlational nature that inherently includes varying levels of imprecision (i.e., the third place Angels had the highest WAR in their division last year) signals a higher level of critical thought is needed. Make no mistake sabremetric analysis contributes to our knowledge of the great game, but I would appreciate it if some people could broaden their perspective and reduce their sabremetric elitism. Blast away all of you that are smarter than me.

Honestly, I agree. And I get the disdain, but to be fair that probably won't play well here.

 

Many sabermetricians remind me of that hipster that brags about reading Socrates, yet fails to discern the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

I have said this before and it is NOT directed to anyone in this thread, but I often get the same vibe from anti statistical analysis people as I do from anti-evolutionists. "Well, your theory isn't perfect, so . . . I'll just go back to what I *feel* is true." Clearly, evolution is more well-established since "theory" in science is *NOT* "theory" in general parlance, including baseball statistical analysis, but I do think there are similarities in the general acceptance of the two.

I think this is a sloppy comparison. There are real technical and philosophical problems with many of the metrics sabermetricians espouse. From simply adding onbase percentage to slugging to the mysteriously derived coefficients that some metrics employ--this is hardly science. Not to mention defensive metrics. Sabermetrics is burgeoning in terms of its capacity for precision, much of it remains totally convoluted and very flawed. I scoff at the notion that sabermetrics is somehow as elegant or as scientifically hard-won as evolution.

 

Sure statistical analysis is valuable, but only if its put into a larger context in which we can interpret that data. We should be guarded about anything that claims to totalize, anything that claims to quantify which before was abstract.

[glunn]

The Twins could surprise, certainly. I think 70 wins is my over/under. That's a four-game improvement from last season. Health plus an improved rotation could push that further to 72+.

 

I am hoping that you are correct. I bet the over in Vegas with 68 as the break point.

[Shane Wahl]

Honestly, I agree. And I get the disdain, but to be fair that probably won't play well here.

 

Many sabermetricians remind me of that hipster that brags about reading Socrates, yet fails to discern the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

I think this is a sloppy comparison. There are real technical and philosophical problems with many of the metrics sabermetricians espouse. From simply adding onbase percentage to slugging to the mysteriously derived coefficients that some metrics employ--this is hardly science. Not to mention defensive metrics. Sabermetrics is burgeoning in terms of its capacity for precision, much of it remains totally convoluted and very flawed. I scoff at the notion that sabermetrics is somehow as elegant or as scientifically hard-won as evolution.

 

Sure statistical analysis is valuable, but only if its put into a larger context in which we can interpret that data. We should be guarded about anything that claims to totalize, anything that claims to quantify which before was abstract.

 

You don't think I qualified the comparison enough?

[Brock Beauchamp]

You don't think I qualified the comparison enough?

 

You did. There are valid comparisons in how the two are received, as opposing viewpoints are often nothing more than a plugging of the ears and yelling "LALALALALALALA" over the speaker. It has little to do with the theory/metric themselves, more how they're "refuted" (basically, without logic-based debate of the information).

 

Of course, this does not apply to everyone. There are weaknesses that can be debated about both but that's generally not what happens. An example of this is USAChief, who has huge issues with WAR but instead of just saying "that's BS", he actually gets into the nitty-gritty of why he thinks it's BS. I may not agree with him but he's definitely putting thought into his reasoning why it's a bad metric.

[Shane Wahl]

True, Brock. And I have far less of an issue with anti-WAR people than those who will say "OPS doesn't actually measure anything" (yes, I have read that before).

[Seth Stohs]

I was thinking I would listen to the podcast on my drive to Cedar Rapids this afternoon, thinking I'd try it again now that there might be some new topics... Reading this thread, I think I'll just listen to music.

 

A couple of thoughts on the topics addressed above:

 

Mauer batting second has always made sense. Mauer batting third has always made sense. As Gardy said in his pre-game presser, "I'd like to bat him 1st, 2nd and 3rd, but they only let me bat him in one spot." I think that the hope is that Brian Dozier will be able to relax and adjust better by hitting 8th in the lineup early in the season and be what he was in 2011 when he hit for average, took a lot of walks, was able to do all the things a prototypical #2 hitter should do. Once he can show that consistently for a little while, it would be great to move him to the #2 spot and slide everyone else down one spot and extend the lineup. That should be, and likely is, the hope and plan. But until there, Mauer is a great #2 hitter and it makes sense for the early season.

 

Regarding Wilkin Ramirez getting that bases loaded, down 3-0 at bat, it only made sense. Seriously, if he's not going to pinch hit in that situation, they might as well have Butera sitting on the roster. Ramirez hit something like 15 homers in half of a season in Rochester last year. He's fully healthy. He's still just 27. He's a team-first guy. He took a and aggressive, yet patient plate appearance. He just didn't come through on that occurrence. It was the right move, and hopefully Gardy would do the same thing in that same situation if it comes up today.

 

The "I'm right, you're wrong. There's only one way to think about baseball topics" thing bothers me to no end. Baseball is a game, played by humans. Managers should go by gut feel sometimes. In my opinion, there are no absolutes in baseball, and there shouldn't be. That's what makes the game great.

[Willihammer]

The "I'm right, you're wrong. There's only one way to think about baseball topics" thing bothers me to no end.

 

Did someone say that? I have read through the entire thread and don't see it.

 

Or are you just railing against logic or mathematics based debate in general?

[Mike Sixel]

Once again, Seth and I are in total agreement.