Offensive Consistency - Quick And Dirty

[Blazer25]

I took this to task a little bit in another thread but it's worth another swing...

 

I do agree that stats have a place in predicting what MIGHT happen in a given circumstance.

 

HOWEVER!

 

Baseball players are not robots, they don't play the game as a set of "1"'s and "0"'s like in Playstation...

 

There are human beings involved here, emotions, tensions, and inconsistient behaviors.

 

Pitchers squeeze the ball a little harder, catchers are a little less likely to stick a pitch on the corner and infielders play in different positions with men on 3rd than with men on 2nd or 1st.

 

To sugest that there's little difference in the 2 situations just beacuse men score "about as often" from 2nd with 0 outs as from 3rd with 1 out is missing the point. I also think it's kind of telling that you stat guys use the "about as often" when your point isn't as strong.

 

There are 12 "or so" ways to score from 3rd that aren't true of 2nd base.

 

That's the situation the Brewers are failing in on the FIELD not on the spreadsheet.

 

Edit:Sp

[pogokat]

in the near future using phrases like "you stat guys" need to be cut out

 

that's just being condescending...

[rluzinski]

No way, Russ. You cannot rank 14th in the league in OPS with RISP and get those runners in an 'average' amount of the time. NO WAY.

 

I'll tell you what, if you are going to go to the trouble of quoting me by putting ' ' around words, how about not truncating it. I said, 'around average.' Hey, I'm just guessing but I have a hunch you wouldn't see a huge difference.

[1992casey]

---

I also think it's kind of telling that you stat guys use the "about as often" when your point isn't as strong.

---

There actually is a statistical definition for "about as often", but it varies from stat to stat.

[rluzinski]

To sugest that there's little difference in the 2 situations just beacuse men score "about as often" from 2nd with 0 outs as from 3rd with 1 out is missing the point.

 

All I said is that on average the two situation result in atleast a run about as often.

 

From 1999 to 2002:

 

2B & 0 out: 63%

3B & 1 out: 66%

 

 

I also think it's kind of telling that you stat guys use the "about as often" when your point isn't as strong.

 

You slam me if I overstate numbers and you slam me if I understate numbers? Does that make ANY sense at all? The numbers in question are above. I'm not going to write 63.235% because that's stupid. I KNOW they aren't that exact. The stats are from only 3 seasons and they were 3 years ago. I'd bet they are still are "about the same", however.

 

There are 12 "or so" ways to score from 3rd that aren't true of 2nd base.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Even if there are a million more ways to score from 3B than 2B, they apparently occur much less often than the couple of ways there are to score from 2B.

 

Why do people get so darn pissed about stats? Is it because you don't completely understand them? Atleast try to learn about something before you disagree with it.

 

Is it because you don't want the game dehumanized? I'm not trying to dehumanize it, but certain information can be gleaned from the game, in order to make generalizations.

[GoodGod262]

That is fascinating that a guy on second with no outs scores about as often as a guy from 3rd with one out. I wonder if someone broke it down per player on team. I wonder if lumping everyone together skews that at all. So a Billy Hall is equivalent to a JJ Hardy or something in those situations.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

All I said is that on average the two situation result in atleast a run about as often.

From 1999 to 2002:

2B & 0 out: 63%

3B & 1 out: 66%

---

 

Again...that comparison is silly...it's a completely different set of circumstances.

 

You used this point to argue HOF4canrake's point about how good teams knock in runs from 3B. How is comparing that to men on 2nd with 0 outs relevant?

 

A better comparison would be to compare how often runners score from 2B with 1 out vs 3B with 1 out.

 

Might as well compare how often the lead off man hits a 2 out home run under a full moon vs how often a man scores from 3rd.

 

Quote:

---

You slam me if I overstate numbers and you slam me if I understate numbers? Does that make ANY sense at all?

---

 

I slammed the fact that you used numbers that had little relevance to HOF4's point and then used fuzzy ones at that.

 

Quote:

---

Why do people get so darn pissed about stats? Is it because you don't completely understand them? At least try to learn about something before you disagree with it.

---

 

Not pissed about stats...I agree that there are things that can be learned from using them...BUT...I also know that predictions are only that...the best statistical guess.

 

Weathermen use similar tools to predict the weather and we all know how often they're 100% correct http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif

 

As for not understanding stats...I guess if you're not a "believer" you just don't understand right?http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif

 

Quote:

---

There actually is a statistical definition for "about as often", but it varies from stat to stat

---

 

What's your definition Casey? 1 Std Dev?...2?...How bout 3?

 

or does it change based on what point you're arguing?

 

Quote:

---

in the near future using phrases like "you stat guys" need to be cut out[that's just being condescending...

---

 

You're right pogokat...I apologize for that.

 

But it is far less condescending than the treatment people receive from some members when they dare question the almighty "SABRE" as the answer to all questions on this site.

 

Edit:formatting

[1992casey]

---

What's your definition Casey? 1 Std Dev?...2?...How bout 3?

 

or does it change based on what point you're arguing?

---

Because you're bringing up standard deviation, I think you're already understanding what I said.

 

The key, of course, is to determine what's statistically significant, what's within or outside normal statistical variance, etc.

 

I look at things this way. If I think something's going on, I like to see a stat to back it up. Observation?and especially memory?can be way off base. An example would be the (at least) two times Bill Schroeder told us that the American League didn't steal a lot of bases.

 

After getting started, we can discuss the quality of the stats involved. Discussion might have to do with sample size, reliability, validity, another stat, etc.

[rluzinski]

I slammed the fact that you used numbers that had little relevance to HOF4's point and then used fuzzy ones at that.

 

You need to read his post again. HOF4 Said:

 

The real key to any offensive consistency is scoring runs when you should score runs.

 

He then used the "runner at 3rd and less than 2 outs" example. I added runner at second and no outs because:

 

1. Both are situations that are brought up time and time against by many fans that are convinced that "should" ALWAYS result in a run (HOF4 is not one of them, BTW).

 

2. They both happen to score atleast 1 run "AROUND" the same amount of the time.

 

Yeh, that's real fuzzy math to actually look at every game between 1999 and 2002 and see how often a run was scored in those situations. That's not math at all, it's counting. Here's all the math.

 

Prob = Times Scored Atleast 1 Run / Times in Situation

 

 

My point was simply fans expect the teams to score just about 100% in those situations, whereas actual games shows they only score about 2 out of 3 times. You missed that point completely and questioned the validity of a statistic that required dividing 1 number with another.

 

I slammed the fact that you used numbers that had little relevance to HOF4's point and then used fuzzy ones at that.

 

I understood his point perfectly. You simply didn't understand mine. And there's that "fuzzy" word again.

 

Not pissed about stats...I agree that there are things that can be learned from using them...BUT...I also know that predictions are only that...the best statistical guess.

 

Where was I predicting something? All I did was tell you how often it occurs. You got defensive for no reason and went on a tirade about "statheads."

 

But it is far less condescending than the treatment people receive from some members when they dare question the almighty "SABRE" as the answer to all questions on this site.

 

You attacked my post, not the other way around. For whatever reason some people get very threatened by anything that has a number. You are one of them.

[Member]

Quote:

---

i feel like everything should start here, and be archived there...no ones reading it but the sabr junkies as it is, and its not improving discourse on the mlb board...

---

 

I'll have to agree with pogokat on that one.

[Member]

Oh, and my $0.02:

 

The Brewers are one of five teams that, according to the Pythaogrean theorem, are about three games or worse than what would be suggested by their run scoring and allowed totals.

 

Back from last week (which was when I last had time to download some stats), the Brewers had scored 581 runs while allowing 573 over 132 games. That suggests a winning percentage of .507, which was .022 more than they actually won - or about 2.92 fewer wins than you'd expect with their run totals.

 

The other four teams with less wins than expected are the Mets at 6.06 wins, the Jays and Mariners at 5.9, and the A's at 3.46.

 

Usually, when a team undershoots (or overshoots) their Expected Win total, it's a sign that there is inconsistency in their run scoring. And, in an observation that's about as old as the Brewers' last pennant, if a team wins drastically more than they are expected one year, they're almost certain to drop the next. The reverse is also true - if a team loses more than expected one year, they're likely to increase the following year.

 

I'm getting more and more optimistic about 2006 in Brew town.

[huntsvillefan]

Quote:

---

i feel like everything should start here, and be archived there...no ones reading it but the sabr junkies as it is, and its not improving discourse on the mlb board...

---

 

I want to throw in my agreement with that statement. As my sig shows, I'm far from a 'stat junkie', but the mixture of SABR like stats with more traditional discussion is one of the things that elevates this forum from most others.

Contributors here are compelled to be at least aware of some of the statistical analysis of the game that is going on and even if they disagree with some of the conclusions presented, it at least gives a framework to some of the better and more constructive discussions here.

I'd also like to go on record with my own observations of the on-going feuds that seem to have developed between the 'stat-lovers' and the 'stat-loathers'. I've had more than my share of arguments with a lot of the 'stat-guys' who post here and with rluz in particular. I've enjoyed most of them thoroughly and found them both courteous and constructive.

My own observation is that every time stats get a mention recently, no matter how constructive or neutral the post is, someone takes immediate offense. Its almost like anyone who actually uses a non-traditional stat is seen as an automatic target by certain posters.

I'm as sceptical about some of the stats around as anyone, but could we call off the witch hunt and just discuss them without throwing labels around.

[bjamesw22]

I'm as sceptical about some of the stats around as anyone, but could we call off the witch hunt and just discuss them without throwing labels around.

 

It's not the fact that stats are used...it's when they are used exclusively that it becomes a problem. Anything else that is said to effect these stats either way is considered "luck" or insignificant.

 

As your signature tells, even the most statistically minded GM's realize that stats are not perfect and there IS another element to the game. I think where people, including myself, get defensive is when that part of the game is said to be so insignificant that it doesn't matter. That part of the game happens to be something that traditionalists call common baseball knowledge it is like telling people that everything they've ever learned about the game is false. And I'm not trying to single out rluzinski but this is an example:

 

Quote:

---

I'm sarting to wonder if anything considered "common baseball knowledge" is actually true.

---

 

And when you are told that because you can't measure certain elements of the game that they don't matter it becomes frustrating because there ISN'T a way to measure it. So if you are not statistically "sold" you are said to be wrong by some because what you are trying to argue what cannot be quantified.

 

And the MOST frustrating part is that people on the traditionalist side can at least see and understand the use of the statistical side. Very few "stat guys" see, understand, or accept the other side.

 

The major criticism I've always heard is, "They score 6 runs one days and 2 the next."

 

And I agree with this criticism. You cannot say that consistency is not important. The thing is, a team that is inconsistent has a greater chance to deviate from their Pythagorean Theorem. You could possibly have team like the Washington Nationals or an even more extreme version of the Brewers even if the talent levels on both teams are exactly the same.

 

An extremely talented team can still be inconsistant in bad situations and still perform so well when they are being consistent that they will still perform at or above their Pythagorean Theorem whereas if a team like the Brewers does the same thing they will produce at or below theirs.

[pogokat]

And the MOST frustrating part is that people on the traditionalist side can at least see and understand the use of the statistical side. Very few "stat guys" see, understand, or accept the other side.

 

funny...because it seems to me that its thw other way around...

 

actually, i think everyone here is getting a little defensive...theres no reason for there to even be "sides"...the factions are a bit ridiculous, as almost nothing of what's being said is mutually exclusive...

[bjamesw22]

funny...because it seems to me that its thw other way around...

 

How on Earth could I ever be pushing for Branyan to be tried as a leadoff guy if I didn't see the statistical side of baseball? I have no idea where you could possibly get your assumption from.

 

I have OFTEN said that the statistical side of baseball is important to understand. But stats are just another tool to use when making decisions...not the ONLY tool to use. Stats are great supplementary figures...but there are many isolated situations where stats need to be thrown out the window. Because within game situations you are talking more about "how many times in 10 will a coin be heads" as opposed to "how many times in 1,000,000 will a coin be heads". The first instand could easily be 7-3 whereas the second instance would never be 700,000-300,000. I will not go into a whole discussion on what kinds of situations, etc. because I think you get what I'm coming from.

 

I would never say that stats are dumb, but I think some people here go WAY too far in saying what they actually measure.

[pogokat]

How on Earth could I ever be pushing for Branyan to be tried as a leadoff guy if I didn't see the statistical side of baseball? I have no idea where you could possibly get your assumption from.

 

you MUST stop taking things as personal attacks...

 

All i was trying to do is show that those on the other side feel the SAME as you...so no one is being overly aggressive and no one is really being attacked more than anyone else..

 

some are being entirely TOO defensive though...

[Member]

The thing to remember about statistics is that they are only describing something. People who don't realize what they are describing, or only look at one particular point, won't see the whole picture.

 

I can tell you that I'm 5'4, 250 lbs, bat and throw right handed - but that won't do any good if you're trying to determine if I drive a Ford or a Chevy. (Actually, I drive a Chrysler, but that's beside the point).

 

Here's the facts:

 

1. The Brewers are scoring more runs than they are allowing. Through Tuesday, this total was 615 scored vs. 597 allowed. A team that does that should, with the Lord willing and the creek don't rise, have a winning record. They don't. That suggests a problem, where they aren't consistently scoring runs at some point. The Expected Wins formula suggests that the difference is about three and a half games so far.

 

2. In games where the margin of difference at the end of the game was two runs or less - "close games" accoring to the Hardball Times' stat people - the Crew is 32-38. Do the math from that: they are four games over .500 when there's a three-run lead by either the Brewers or their opponents; but are six games under 500 when the score is closer than that. That indicates that they have difficulty in scoring runs in close games. Combine that with the previous observation, and you see a reason why expected wins don't match real wins.

 

3. The Brewers are second in the NL only to the Phillies is Pitches per plate appearance (3.82) and Line Drive Percentage (.212 - the percentage of batted balls that are liners, according to Baseball Info Solutions). That indicates that the Brewers do try their best to work the count, and are hitting the ball hard. However, we've already determined that the Brewers aren't consistently scoring runs, and they are having trouble winning close games. Add to this the line drives and the PPA totals, and you're seeing a team that is waiting, waiting, waiting for the perfect pitch, and then hitting it hard - but apparently not hard enough, as runners are not scoring at a consistent rate.

 

4. The Brewers do have the WORST batting average with Runners In Scoring Position of any team... in Major League Baseball (.239). That indicates to us right away that those line drives are going right into opponent gloves. The fact that the Brewers have managed to score 40.1% of the runners who were in scoring position so far this season seems to counteract that, however. That total is below the league average, but it isn't the worst in the NL (Arizona is the worst at .381, and the Nats and 'Stros are at .384). 62.0% of all of the Brewers runs have been scored by runners who were in scoring position - also tenth overall (the Reds have the worst total with a 56.9% rate). [by the way: the Brewers are tied for the fewest runs allowed per opponent RISP in the NL, with only 37.3% scoring (367 RA, 984 ORISP); they are tied with the Nats (368, 987).]

 

So we've determined that there is inconsistency in run scoring (in relation to the team's record), problems winning close games, a high number of pitches per PA, a high percentage of line drives, a bad batting average and slightly below average number of runs scored with RISP.

 

Consider this fictional piece of PBP, and see if this doesn't match up with this perception:

 

Brewers are down 2-1 in the eighth. Jenkins doubles off the wall on the first pitch. 3TO strikes out, though it takes 6 pitches to do it. Hall hit a screaming liner to second - but Jenkins got back to the bag safely. Miller draws a walk on an eight-pitch PA. J.J. pinch hits for the pitcher, and works the count full, hitting foul ball after foul ball off the pitcher. Opposing pitcher has 24 pitches on the inning, and everyone sees he's struggling. Pitch 25 on the inning is a breaking ball that Hardy slaps to the right side of the infield -and the first baseman snags it. Brewers don't score, and they go down quietly in the ninth for a 2-1 loss.

 

It's an inning that makes you shake your head, and yet it describes pretty well what we're seeing in the statistics. Ned might say something about how hard Hardy worked to get the pitch he wanted, but that he just couldn't get it to fall in. By saying that, Yost is essentially saying that it's just pure luck that's causing the Brewers to not drive in runners.

 

He does have a point, but I think it's more of a combination of things: batters who are trying to be too patient, who are trying too hard to get the "right" pitch, trying too much to do everything right.

 

I pointed out in an earlier post that the numbers regarding Expected Wins would suggest that the Crew is due for a rebound in 2006; perhaps that will come about when the younger players (Rickie, Prince, J.J.) get more comfortable and realize they don't have to be perfectionists to get runners in.

 

Once that happens... look out.

[bjamesw22]

you MUST stop taking things as personal attacks...

 

Or how about not posting things in a condescending way so that it isn't taken in a personal way.

Quote:

---

funny...because it seems to me that its thw other way around...

---

 

Thing is, I didn't take it personally. I was just appauled by the fact that you came up with such an unsubstantiated claim saying that I don't see things from the statistical point of view when in fact I do and even agree with it many times.

[Never Outhustled]

I just love your work Rluzinski. It shows where the teams real problems lie, which of course makes it easier to map out this teams future. You've shown the offense is fairly consistent, it just isn't quite good enough. A problem that should be remedied by improvement from our young talents normal maturation.

[huntsvillefan]

EDIT: I decided to withdraw my post on the basis of not adding more fuel to the fire.

[pogokat]

bjmaes--i have sent you a private message..and i'm done posting in this thread