TheLeviathan

Those are all fair criticisms of OPS, some of which I share. None of them, however, are human error. None of them are a misrepresentation of what actually happened. None of them are a criticism that the stat subjectively interprets what happened. It is a measure of what actually did happen that cannot be disputed, whether it propery values a player or not is a different problem. Whether it is the best tool to measure value is a different problem. As a measurement of what happened it is indisputable. WAR and pitch framing are not, but they are often wrongly misrepresented as having the same feature.

People think that because it is often poorly argued and employed. Maybe Fangraphs has never been guilty of that (a claim I'd find a bit dubious tbh), but there are many who have been. That perception didn't come out of nowhere. Again, as has been my point all along, that isn't the metrics fault but it is once again being misused in the hands of those using it. Also, I get that almost all stats are bad at projection. It is, afterall, a guess about the future. I don't hold a lack of precise prognostication against WAR or anything else. That's another common theme I've seen when the metric faces some tough questions: we hide behind everything being weak at projection. The problem with WAR is that it's not even all that great at telling us what has already, actually happened. OPS needs a larger sample to get a fuller sense of value, but it is absolute, objective truth about what actually happened in the given sample. UZR needs a larger sample to weed out human error. Those are two VERY different problems - let's not conflate them.

They are likely to be significantly less accurate in a one year interval. We use WAR every year as a comparative tool to judge what players accomplished. Even though in Fangraphs own description of UZR it recommends always taking three years worth of data. Apparently when we imbed UZR in another stat that recommendation somehow vanishes? When did we finally see some recognition of that problem? When Alex Gordon forced some recognition last year. So no, I'm not sure it's my opinion of "used correctly", the problem is the metric isn't being employed based on the recommendations of the people that designed and computed it. Hell, those same people are seemingly forgetting that in their own evaluations sometimes. So it's simple to me, if you want to employ the metric in a not-entirely proper manner without caveat that's fine. Just make sure you have a healthy respect for skepticism, because it's well earned.

Then maybe I took your post more strongly then you meant it in this case, but it's a phenomenon that is quite frequent in these discussions in the larger statistical community. I hear all the time that "the guys that invented it said..." and yet that does nothing to dissuade the adherents to misuse it. As an example, I can't recall a single time WAR has been used correctly on this forum given it incorporates a statistic knowingly inaccurate but for larger 3-5 year sample sizes. Yet if you say "Eh...not sure about WAR in this case" you get treated like you just claimed the earth was flat. TD has been pretty good about not getting preachy about advanced metrics, it just rubbed me the wrong way when skepticism was expressed and then slammed down. I'm bothered about that in the larger debate and would hate to see that start happening here.

Absolutely not. Jimmer's initial response was about framing stats being "facts". As people talked about the subjectivity in the metric of pitch framing, ashbury and jimmer suggested people were questioning the existence of framing by questioning the metric used to measure it. That's the slippery slope to what I have an issue with. I don't question the value of pitch framing - I think some catchers are good at that and it's a nice skill to have. I also don't question the idea that players are more valuable than others or have varying defensive abilities if I'm questioning a metric. I am merely questioning how factual the metric is as opposed to one way to approximate it. This happens frequently in these debates - I say something like "I'm not sure I really buy UZR here" and the response is "So you don't think defense is important?" Or "I'm not so sure about framing stats" becomes "So you don't think framing is a helpful thing?" Of course I understand that, but it feels like people are willing to fall on any sword to defend their metric as long as they don't have to admit "hey, the metric isn't perfect".

No, I think we're generally ok here. I hope it stays that way.

I believe a series of posters missed the point. Never once did I suggest we get rid of framing stats or that they're evil or they need a caveat in every post or any of that. The problem isn't the metric or the practice of developing metrics. The problem is the people employing them. The borderline zealotry with which they are idolized and the abhorrence of skepticism. That's the problem, not the metrics. The metrics are fine and valuable when used appropriately and fairly and many people are able to do that. But because there has been a rise in anti-metrics people (of which I'm not a part), the pro-metrics people have started taking a similarly polarized stance. Personally, I prefer to keep my options open to both traditional measures and new measures and I never discount anyone's skepticism. Certainly not when major components of a metric are not as objective as they are portrayed to be. Baseball is beautiful because, at times, it can produce statistics without variables that are totally objective and measurable. I appreciate how many have tried to take the game when it is not so precise and find similar value. But pitch framing, defense, and other statistics step outside of those strict measurables and start introducing concepts with uncontrolled variables and subjective analysis. It is so fundamentally important that isn't forgotten when you're arguing the merit of a particular metric. There is valid room for significant skepticism. If you're someone that can argue your metric with that in mind, you're doing fine. But my perception is that pro-metric zealotry is rising every year, it's been really noticeable since Mike Trout came into the league to put a time-table on it.

This is my biggest fear with Buxton - that suddenly what seems like a series of bad luck turns into a chronic issue.

I have repeatedly, and clearly, been taking a general tone in my comments. In any case, just because you've derived a metric from a complicated set of calculations doesn't really change my point. There is still way too many subjective assignments of value going on for me not to be skeptical.

That was an appropriately lengthed 1,000th post. For you.

Not to mention that Lucroy alone gets credit for that if indeed it would have such an effect. It's so far down the hypothetical rabbit hole it really loses me as anything more than a curiosity.

Of course they are tackling something that is subjective, my criticism is not in the attempt to measure the subjective. My criticism is in the interpretation of the metrics. Somehow through an equation many seem to believe something objective comes out of what is inherently subjective. Then we question why anyone might have skepticism. The infiltration aspect of my comment is because so many stats are NOT subjective, or contain an insignificant amount of subjective variables. These stats (OPS, batting average, OBP, etc.) have limitations, but one of their limitations is not subjectivity. Too often we prop up WAR or UZR and put them in the same class as these stats as a way to ostensibly seem as objective as they are. WAR and UZR have their own strengths and limitations, but one chief limitation among them is that they have a ton of subjectivity inherent in their calculation. Something OPS does not. A lot of the metrics people use are due some healthy skepticism, but they are treated more like biblical verses than helpful guides. I guess I've just noted a really pervasive mindset around this with baseball stats lately. Not a fan personally.

It also depends on if Danny Santana is a SS or a CF.

Framing is definitely real and important, but this is the quote that comes to mind for me: "Not all that matters can be measured, not all that is measured matters" I think we've reached a point in baseball metrics where people are devout to issues simply because they're math that some statitician tells us is a good thing. We've begun to completely ignore how much subjectivity has infiltrated these stats and seemingly forgotten how extremely important it is to remember that.

Ok, can someone help me with the details: We trade a first for a guy that doesn't have a position making 9.7M with one year left. We then trade that guy for an old dude making 12M and extend him two extra years at the same cost. Why are we doing this? Is there something I'm missing?

That's fine, but if you understand why people are skeptical, rebutting them doesn't seem to reflect that opinion. Framing is interesting, it's a concept that I think is real. Whether these derived formulas accurately reflect it is a wholly different matter that is too often conflated. (Like many metrics these days it seems)

Like, perhaps, pitch framing will someday proven to be wrong? You keep trying to present yourself as being balanced and understanding about doubts with the study of framing, but this is what you lead with: That is clearly a declaration of the stat as fact. Except, the analysis may not be all that useful, relevant, or accurate for any number of reasons. Framing as an advanced metric has so many uncontrolled variables that cast doubt on it, that skepticism should be accepted. I find it interesting to read and consider, but I have doubts about how seriously we should take it as a means of evaluation.

I think the point tobi is that at this point you're counting eggs as hatched and using that to fill in a hypothetical future depth chart and saying "See, I like this one better!" But that opens up all sorts of issues, it's far more reasonable and comparable just to judge the talent and not worry about how many of any particular position there is.

They have a SS and a 3B just in the top three - that alone counts for a ton. Our 3B and SS are 15 and 72. They graduated Baez last year as a SS. I'd argue they have you beat by your own reasoning right there.

I still really don't understand why they should be penalized for these things. They have more prospects at premium positions than we do, or at least as many. Your argument seems to be one that the best system should have balance, but that's not how talent development works. Lots of prospects fail, so how many are pitchers or outfielders or infielders should really be irrelevant. Things aren't going to go perfectly so there is no point in trying to pretend to fill out a depth chart with them for the future. What's relevant is how much talent there is, how high the ceilings are, and how close they are.

No, I was though and more than a few times in the past that tip of the hat to the Cubs has been met with scorn.

Good stuff tobi, I just bristle because when you compliment the Cubs for their strategy, people take it as a backhanded slap at the Twins. The Cubs are able to do something the Twins can't, I wouldn't expect them to approach things the same way all the time.

I know that's what we've been told will be the case, but I'm wondering if that changes at all as things play out. It could just be my passionate belief that we have a mess out there talking too.

I think how the outfield shakes out is one of the biggest stories of the next month. That and the rotation are 1A and 1B for me.

Teams do treasure pitching prospects, but they also seem to have a higher bust rate than elite hitting prospects. That's my perception, I'm not sure if anyone has studied that. (I would imagine the Cubs did) I think a note of caution is important - Epstein's strategy here is really interesting and pretty compelling, but not every strategy can work for every team. Part of what the Cubs are banking on is that they have the finances to solve problems in FA and it seems as though most elite players that hit the market are pitchers and not hitters. (Likely because hitters are seen as a more reliable long-term investment by their controlling clubs, so they never hit the market) So some of the brilliance of what the Cubs are doing is a luxury not everyone is afforded, but that just means Epstein and Co. effectively recognized their organization's strengths and weaknesses and the idea model for their ascension. It may not work, but the more I look at the strategy for that team - the more ideal it looks.