Hardy/Bush arbitration numbers (Latest... Bush signs: $2.55 million; see reply #90)

[Ennder]

The fact that arguably the most objective poster on this site is getting called out on this is ridiculous

 

We all have our prejudices, especially when we are emotionally evolved with a team or player.

The prejudice would reside on which stats I might check. If someone posts that Tony Gwynn stinks I'm not even going to look at the stats, I'll just assume they are right. If they said Gwynn was great and I looked at his stats and it turns out he really was great I wouldn't 'not post them' because it doesn't fit my case. I wouldn't go look for a different stat that disagreed with it. I certainly wouldn't change how i looked at his stats because he was 'on my fantasy team' that is absurd and just insulting.

[TerraceReserved]

He's just using the ones that have been proven to mean a whole lot more than ERA.

 

"Proven"? Runs created is probably one of the best stats that's shown a very good correlation to RS and RA, but it still isn't 100% accurate. I'd like to see some of the proofs that K/9IP is relevant to RS or RA, or K/BB, or LD%, or FIP, PHRAP, FRAGGLE, CHONE, FIGGINS...... Because the only numbers that matter in baseball are RS and RA. If you can't show a correlation to either of these, then you may be able to argue that a stat like BABIP has value, like a slick fielding light hitting SS, but having value doesn't imply proof.

Yes, you're correct that for team the only numbers that matter in the end are RS and RA. But I'm talking about evaluating an individual. K/9, K/BB, LD% is relevant only for assessing a single player at a time. And yes, other stats that Ennder has been using have been "proven" to mean a lot more when assesing an individual through correlation studies and such.

[TooLiveBrew]

The problem is in his strand rate. Normal pitchers sit in the low to mid 70's. Bush has had 69%, 67%, 64% and 66% (2007) the last four years. That is usually a stat that jumps around year to year so is considered largely out of the pitchers control (part of the luck factor people talk about). There are a few pitchers who set a higher or lower baseline and he seems to have set a lower one. Jeremy Bonderman is the same way with strand rates of 66%, 65%, 68%, 70% and 66% the past 5 years.

 

Others more well-informed than me have mentioned that Bush struggles from the stretch compared to the windup. Given that our IF allowed a lot of non-error 'hits', I've wondered if that's one reason Bush gives up some big innings. What I'm not sure about is if he gives up more big-run IP than the average SP.

[TheCouga23]

Jeremy Bonderman is the same way with strand rates of 66%, 65%, 68%, 70% and 66% the past 5 years.

I was just going to mention him. Both him and Bush should be All-Star caliber pitchers with the stuff they have, K/9 BB/9 stats that they put up. Bonderman has huge problems in the first inning, as well. I think it's just a nervous factor, and when they are not settled down (either very early in the game or with runners on base) they tend to melt down. Bush is a potential multiple time all-star pitcher. He is leagues above Vargas, and is better than Capuano as well.

 

[TheCouga23]

Who annointed YOU as the arbitor of which stats we're to use, to assess a player? By saying we're "wrong" by employing a universally-accepted and very widely-used stat like ERA, then you're fishing for specific stats which back your support for Bush.

"Universally accepted" and "correct" methods are certainly not the same. It was universally accepted at one point that the Earth was flat, until science proved that wrong.

What I don't think you understand is the difference between science and speculation/myth. Science has a pretty good track record of being right. That is because it uses methodological approaches to verify the truth of any theory proposed. Myth/speculation is just one ignorant person following another following another, and no one knows how or why the original myth started, or if it was proven at any time or not.

Rigorous statistical analysis has been done to weed out which stats predict future performance, which stats don't, and to what degree. Ennder uses the stats that have held up to scientific scrutiny. You use myth/popular appeal to back up the veracity of your stats, and while it might make you sound cool and almighty to yourself, the scientific community isn't impressed.

 

[mothershipconnection]

You're point is noted (and fully expected) Ennder, but the object is still to win, and 300 wins is an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame. So you can't ignore it completely when judging a starting pitcher especially in terms of salary. The leap from single season wins having any meaning and 300 wins getting you into the Hall is pretty huge. Single season wins can fluctuate a bunch based on run support, as the same ERA, FIP, WHIP, etc can yield wildly disparate W-L records. To get to 300 wins, a pitcher must pitch for a very long time, this helps to negate the effects of the statistical noise and chance that influences W-L on a yearly basis. Mediocre pitchers simply aren't going to be lucky for 20 years and get to 300 wins. Further, if you put wins aside, the pitchers who have 300 wins would get into the Hall based on other numbers. The bigger the sample, the more valid the data are. Over time, we obviously all agree that a team that outscores their opponents more will win more games. However, in a 5 game sample, a team could outscore their opponent 20-4 and still go 1-4, losing 1-0 four times and winning one game 20-0. On the other side of the coin, the inverse is possible. Over the long haul, however, you aren't going to have a .200 winning % if you outscore opponents 5:1 and you won't have an .800 winning % if you are outscored 5:1.

[Ennder]

Royals just signed Tomko for $3M +1.5M in incentives. Here is the blurb that went with it.

 

"Tomko, 34, has a 93-92 record with a 4.62 ERA in 11 seasons with Cincinnati, Seattle, San Diego, St. Louis, San Francisco and the Los Angeles Dodgers. He went 4-12 with a 5.55 ERA in 40 appearances as a starter and reliever for the Dodgers and Padres last season. "

 

If a pitcher like that is getting that type of money there has to be a market for a Bush, Capuano or even a Vargas type out there. I cannot imagine a single team in baseball would rather have Tomko than Bush or Capuano.

[Fatter than Joey]

I cannot imagine a single team in baseball would rather have Tomko than Bush or Capuano.

 

Agreed, I think sometimes (esp. in the case of Cappy), that DM is not real excited to flip them, because their value is probably lower than it could be.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"The fact that arguably the most objective poster on this site is getting called out on this is ridiculous imo. "

 

Then can you explain, TLB, why such an esteemed scientist would resort to defending a below-average pitcher by chalking up every bad performace of Bush's to bad umpiring, bad fielding, bad playing conditions and of course, bad luck? Ennder even admitted he chose Dave Bush in his fanasy league, so it's natural to feel even more invested in a player you've chosen. Doesn't make Ennder a bad guy or anything. It's just that he's human, and subject, as we all are, to supporting a favorite player. But it doesn't make him the "most objective poster on this site." Far from it. I'd have to call igor67 or RobertR or JimH the most objective. Ennder doesn't even rank in the upper half. Neither do I, by the way!

 

"We all have our prejudices, especially when we are emotionally evolved with a team or player."

 

Exactly, FTJ!

 

"That is in no way trying to make him look better. xERA is a better stat than ERA if you are looking at a season so I'll always point to it. "

 

That's a value judgment, Ennder. It's not a fact. Just a stat you believe is better.

 

"Rigorous statistical analysis has been done to weed out which stats predict future performance, which stats don't, and to what degree. Ennder uses the stats that have held up to scientific scrutiny."

 

Nah...

 

If xERA and the like are such amazing predictive stats, then what did they point to, for 2007 for Capuano and Bush? I'll bet quite a few of these formulas predicted that they'd pitch much better than they did....only they didn't. How about Jeremy Affeldt? I'll wager that the formulas said he'd be awful in 2007. How about for dozens of others whose success/failures couldn't be accurately predicted?

 

Stats and formulas can be used to compare players, which is fine. But predicting future performances? More often than not, no. So if these formulas can't comprehensively predict future performances, then they should be taken with a grain of salt, as they're inherenty flawed, which is all I'm sayin'.

 

"It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter with GSP, any time someone uses an advanced metric he assumes they are trying to dupe the other person, that simply is not the truth. "

 

And "bad luck" is an advanced metric? What's next? Dave Bush was pitching well through 4 innings against Cincinnati, but he was the victim of a voodoo curse that night?

 

"I personally don't like being called a liar"

 

Who ever called you a liar? Now you're just making crap up. You're flailing away wildly, like Jenkins against a lefty.

 

"Your post as moved from a little insulting to very insulting, I'm sorry but just because you buy into the Joe Morgan school of statistics does not make it wrong when I look deeper."

 

Joe Morgan school of statistics? And you say MY posts were insulting? That's by far THE rudest thing anyone here has posted. You're such a good and wise person.

[TerraceReserved]

I imagine Ennder will have a response to this, but here's my two cents.

 

Then can you explain, TLB, why such an esteemed scientist would resort to defending a below-average pitcher by chalking up every bad performace of Bush's to bad umpiring, bad fielding, bad playing conditions and of course, bad luck?

 

Huh? Where has he blamed his struggles to umpiring and playing conditions. The other two, fielding and luck, have played a very large role in Bush's struggles, as End has pointed out multiple times.

 

Ennder even admitted he chose Dave Bush in his fanasy league, so it's natural to feel even more invested in a player you've chosen

 

Except that he's already explained that that's not the case at all. I full support Ennders arguements and I don't play fantasy or anything else.

 

"That is in no way trying to make him look better. xERA is a better stat than ERA if you are looking at a season so I'll always point to it. "

That's a value judgment, Ennder. It's not a fact. Just a stat you believe is better.

 

Nope, that's where you're wrong. ERA has shown very weak correlation from year to year, while xERA and xFIP have shown much stronger correlations. It is a fact that it better shows how well a pitcher performed.

 

If xERA and the like are such amazing predictive stats, then what did they point to, for 2007 for Capuano and Bush? I'll bet quite a few of these formulas predicted that they'd pitch much better than they did....only they didn't.

 

Obviously xERA would have pointed to a much better 2007 for Cappy and Bush. Bad luck and defense were the reasons they didn't perform as well as they should have. Your statement is the basis of Ennders arguements, it shows that becuase of outside factors their resulting performance looked very poor, and it's something you're not grasping.

 

Stats and formulas can be used to compare players, which is fine. But predicting future performances? More often than not, no.

 

Using stats can predict future performance to some degree. It's been proven xERA is a whole heckuva lot better than ERA when predicting future performances.

[Gopher74]

I think you whiffed on what GSP was trying to say. I don't recall anywhere GSP lauded the signing of Vargas, only that the Vargas signing happened before Bush, which is an initial indication that Vargas will be on the roster.

I don't recall every saying he "lauded" it, I just thought it curious that he'd chastise Bush while specifically pointing out his ERA and his salary and not say anything about Vargas. I don't know what I "whiffed". I think it's he who "whiffed" on his analysis of Dave Bush.

 

Add those 3 to Shousie (that ultra-rare commodity - a lefty reliever) Vargas and Turnbow, and there's no room for guys with ERA's over 5, like Choate, McClung and Bush...especially pitchers with ERAs over 5 who demand $3,000,000!

Except signing FAs year to year is an expensive proposition, the Brewers need to do a better job getting the farm arms to the bigs for their BP.

Signing players is an expensive proposition no matter what. Having good player is an "expensive proposition" no matter what, this way certainly is no more so, and very likely less expensive, and much safer. And I'm sure developing BP arms is very high on the Brewers list of priorities, and something they appear to be doing. They just weren't quite ready yet.

Again, you are reading too much into what was said.

 

What Geno Said:

I won't rehash my distaste for David Bush in this thread.
already in the rotation, Boosh may very well be forced to the overcrowded pen. So why pay him $3 million to be a mop-up guy?

Sure, if you decide to only take part of what he said, it doesn't sound back, but it's pretty clear that he was chastising Dave Bush.

I think the high-end contracts vary from year to year depending on the crop of FA talent, but your back-end of the roster guys are continuely getting paid more and more.

I think it has more to do with the owners and their revenues, and then very possibly them deciding as a group to limit the top salaries.

Examples-Last year when the owners all got big bumps from a number of avenues, the MLBTV package, the sale of the Nats, ext...ext..

A few years ago when the players accused the owners of collusion for deciding as a group to limit what they're going to pay players in Free Agency.

[Gopher74]

I think the average salary clearly increases--the increase in minimum salary ensures that. What is open for discussion is the dynamics of the salaries of the elite players--that is what seems to be more herky-jerky than a continued increase.

Exactly, which is why I said that I was referring to the top players.

 

Obviously if we're having a discussion on keeping this team together, we're not worrying about if we can keep the .230 hitting backup IF'er, we're talking about keeping Prince Fielder, or Rickie Weeks. I understand that the minimum wage players, and the players on the bottom of the pay structure are going to continue to rise(I believe I even said that), but the top players, or upper echelon players do not follow that same principle every year.

 

I believe in a year or two owners will once again make it a point to keep salaries down or keep them from rising. Probably after Santana gets 20+ million, Sheets gets 14+ and Burnett gets 15+, but we'll see.

[Gopher74]

that Ennder doesn't respect any opposing viewpoints to his and disagreeing with him is a combination of ignorance and incompetence.

 

That just way off-base. The fact that arguably the most objective poster on this site is getting called out on this is ridiculous imo.

I would have to agree 100 pct.

 

Then can you explain, TLB, why such an esteemed scientist would resort to defending a below-average pitcher by chalking up every bad performace of Bush's to bad umpiring, bad fielding, bad playing conditions and of course, bad luck? Ennder even admitted he chose Dave Bush in his fanasy league, so it's natural to feel even more invested in a player you've chosen. Doesn't make Ennder a bad guy or anything. It's just that he's human, and subject, as we all are, to supporting a favorite player. But it doesn't make him the "most objective poster on this site." Far from it. I'd have to call igor67 or RobertR or JimH the most objective. Ennder doesn't even rank in the upper half.

 

 

Maybe before you post this another five times you can point out when he's used "bad umpiring"? How about bad playing conditions?

Second, bad fielding? Yea, that's not a valid excuse. The Brewers had great fielding last year, right?

And are you trying to argue that luck doesn't come into play? That luck doesn't have a huge impact on a pitchers success?

Neither do I, by the way!

 

Huh, we do agree on something.

 

Anyway Ender, I think most on here would agree that you're incredibly objective. I guess what it comes down to is sometimes people simply don't understand some of the stats being used, or the logic behind them and think it's easier to say, "he's bad" without looking further into the situation. I guess the fact that you looked at his BABIP last year and saw that it was high in the first half and that may be leading to his inflated numbers means that "you're cherry picking because you like him", and the fact that you then pointed out that in the second half that he just pitched much worse isn't relevant because it doesn't support the argument that you're "cherry picking your stats".

 

Seems to me you're engaged in a pretty pointless argument here and you're point isn't going to land with everyone. For the record, I think we all agree that it's easier to just say, "he sucks" than it is to actually form a logical analysis.

[Gopher74]

I ask this: OK, if you say there's no trading deadline in January, then who would Doug bring in, in a trade for about 2 or 3 of these 1/2-assed starting pitchers, plus a Gamel or a Brad Nelson, to cement us as a playoff contender? And who would he replace?

I fear/suspect Doug overplayed his hand, and "settled" for an old, 25-game suspended, bandage for CF, as Spring Training approached. (By the way, he also settled for a seriously aging, downward-trending solution at catcher, too, but that's another thread).

Was the Cameroon signing a BAD move? No, considering he did nothing else to bring in a prime candidate like a Blalock, Rolen, Ethier, etc. So Cameroon as a fall-back solution for a year or so, is a decent move. Was it a move you make, to alleviate the rotation logjam we have? Was it a move you make to solidify 1/3rd of your LF/3B/CF problem for the longer term? No, because my money says we'll be looking at another stopgap like Cameroon next winter.

First of all, the nicknames weren't that funny the first post, and they certainly haven't gotten funnier.

 

Second, this type of logic just baffles me. He "did nothing to bring in a prime candidate"? That's absolutely amazing. You'd almost have to be living under a rock for the past couple months to believe this. It would appear as though he exhausted nearly every option and was simply unable to make a trade without giving up more than he felt those players were worth.

Let's forget for a second that I don't consider paying a guy 36 million over 3 years for a guy who's breaking down and is a good bet to be injured and miss time next year a "prime candidate", or Blalock who was also banged up last year and has declined the last couple years, or Eithier who didn't play 3rd base and would ignore the most important upgrade this team needed this off-season.

The point is, HE DID! He DID try to acquire several of those players, but teams were asking too much. I don't know how great it'd have been to give up Capuano and Hall for Rolen as was rumored. I don't know how that'd help our team.

 

So I just think it's ridiculous to sit behind a computer and say that Melvin "didn't try", or that it's somehow this big travesty that we've still got extra starting pitchers and we don't have any holes left as if that's a bad thing.

 

AS for what we could do? We could package a couple players as was suggested in the "Greinke+Teahen" trade. Or we could package a guy like Bush/Capuano/Vargas with a prospect and get a good catching prospect back. Or we could just keep them all and wait until a team loses a starting pitcher next year.

 

It's widely accepted that position players cost more in the off-season while starting pitches have higher value in season. So really, this big giant problem that we're now faced with is really fixing our problems and upgrading our team without losing any of our trading chips? That we now still have great depth in starting pitching for when someone loses a starter and is willing to overpay. I guess I'm not as "upset" over this as you seem to be.

 

And by the way, since Cameron is under our control for the next 2 years, I don't know that this is going to be such a problem next season.

[danzig6767]

I think the average salary clearly increases--the increase in minimum salary ensures that. What is open for discussion is the dynamics of the salaries of the elite players--that is what seems to be more herky-jerky than a continued increase.

Exactly, which is why I said that I was referring to the top players.

 

Obviously if we're having a discussion on keeping this team together, we're not worrying about if we can keep the .230 hitting backup IF'er, we're talking about keeping Prince Fielder, or Rickie Weeks. I understand that the minimum wage players, and the players on the bottom of the pay structure are going to continue to rise(I believe I even said that), but the top players, or upper echelon players do not follow that same principle every year.

 

I believe in a year or two owners will once again make it a point to keep salaries down or keep them from rising. Probably after Santana gets 20+ million, Sheets gets 14+ and Burnett gets 15+, but we'll see.

 

League revenues will dictate salaries. When owners have money to spend, they generally will spend that money. If in two years the revenues keep rising, so will the players paychecks. I don't see owners the next few years making any certain point to control salaries if the money keeps rolling in to the owners.

A lot of these owners are not only extremely rich men, they are highly competitive and want to win. If in a year or two there are high quality players out there to sign, some of these owners will simply pay what it takes to get who they want signed. I can't them them sitting back with cash to spend and losing out on getting that player they badly want just to keep salaries at a certain level.

The one real correction that owners made was handing out massive 6-7 year deals like they were Tic-Tacs after quite a few teams got burned by it.

 

 

 

 

[Fatter than Joey]

I think it has more to do with the owners and their revenues, and then very possibly them deciding as a group to limit the top salaries.

 

This may very well be the case, in the context I was discussing I was talking about BP soldiers (non-closers) like Mota, Shouse, Torres, etc... Those salaries are increasing year to year, and reloading a team's BP each year is going to be more expensive -- that is the downside of the one-year deals.

 

Anyway Ender, I think most on here would agree that you're incredibly objective. I guess what it comes down to is sometimes people simply don't understand some of the stats being used, or the logic behind them and think it's easier to say, "he's bad" without looking further into the situation....

 

Ennder is one of my favorite posters on this site -- I always learn something from his efforts. I sincerely apologize if I insulted him with the "fantasy draft" comment -- however, that was the impression I was left with after our Dave Bush exchange last year, I certainly didn't mean it as it insult -- as we all defend the choices we make when we draft a player, or follow a team or hate or love Ned Yost.

 

Without a doubt, Ennder possesses one of the best understandings of baseball metrics, but let's not confuse statistical prowess with objectivity -- those are 2 independent traits.

 

Generally speaking, stats are stats, data is data, however the interpretation and application of said data, is certainly tainted by our prejudices -- whether it is defending a formula or idea, emotions tied to a favorite team, or even defending a fantasy baseball draft. If someone thinks they are objective just because they have learned to use a spreadsheet, they are kidding themselves.

 

For the record, I think we all agree that it's easier to just say, "he sucks" than it is to actually form a logical analysis.

 

When I read this, a quote from Al, came quickly to mind, which I would like to quote in its entirety:

 

"Heh"

 

A lot of the more epic battles and arguments on BFnet, has been when 2 of our resident statheads have locked horns. These sort of encounters would never happen if both were based in logic and reason, and in theory if they did they would end quickly -- but that just doesn't happen. I have seen the "He sucks" argument presented in spreadsheet form, its really all the same, just a little more drawn out.

[Ennder]

I actually did bring up a bad umpiring call that ended up resulting in the grand slam bush gave up in san diego last season. It was in the game thread and it was brought up to point out how just one bad call in a game can change a pitchers ERA by extreme amounts over a one month sample. I stand by that completely, that is why ERA is so weak over a single or partial season.

We'll basically never agree because GSP is result oriented and I am not. A stat like ERA is a team stat, a team like xERA is an individual stat with the team aspect taken out of it. ERA shows about the same correlation to itself year to year as K/9 to ERA does. That means if I told you a pitchers ERA and his K/9 you would be just as well off guessing his ERA by knowing his K/9.

xERA shows a very strong correlation year to year.

Bush - 4.33, 4.23, 3.49, 4.18 the past four years
Capuano - 4.30, 4.47, 3.94, 4.16 the past four years.
Suppan - 4.44, 4.41, 4.59, 4.77
Vargas - 5.19, 4.54, 4.46, 4.77

Their skills have not changed significantly but their ERA's are all over the place because ERA over a single season has too much 'noise', 'variance', 'luck', whatever you want to call it.

The best way to find out how good a pitcher actually was would probably to be to run a regression on his ERA compared to xERA and then you end up with a value for how much his ERA tends to be off from xERA and then adjust his xERA with that on each season to cut out the 'noise' factor.

As for your ideas on my motivations for using these stats, they are simply absurd. You still stand by the fact that I'm desperately trying to defend my pick of some guy I had in 1 of 4 fantasy leagues. What is the excuse for Capuano who I had in 0 of 4 leagues, how about Torres who I had in 0 leagues or Riske who I think is due for a regression and had in 0 leagues, did Riske do something that makes me hate him for thinking his stats were a fluke last year? Did he beat my dog or something?. This is how I evaluate pitchers and of how major league teams evaluate them now as well because the stats have shown to be stronger than things like ERA. This is why more and more teams are hiring guys from baseballprospectus.com and other sabermetric sites to help them.

We had the 3rd worst defense in the NL last year that is a fact. Dave Bush had a lot of bad things happen in the 1st half that were out of his control is a fact. He had a lot of bad pitching in the 2nd half and that is fact too(k's down, BB's up, FB% up). I'm not defending him, I'm just cleaning out some of the noise in his stats.

Have you never defended your position because you think the other person is just wrong? Do you have to be personally invested in the player in order to discuss the fact? It just baffles me that you think the only reason someone would debate a player is because they personally like them and I find it insulting that you are calling me a liar.

That really is what you are doing, you are saying that I am lying that I think Dave Bush pitched better than his ERA suggests to somehow validate a pick of him in a fantasy draft that has nothing to do with this site . That I completely changed the way I look at players in general just to try to fit this defense of this pick and have been posting these whacky stats for a year+ now just as a cover up. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[PKBadger]

First of all, the nicknames weren't that funny the first post, and they certainly haven't gotten funnier.

 

Thank you. The first time I read GSP's post, I thought to myself, "Berman posts here?"

 

Some other athletes whose names vaguely sound like African countries:

 

Michigan State center Goran Suton = Sudan

Former Cleveland Browns QB Eric Zeier = Zaire

and of course, Chad Moeller...that one's too easy

[TooLiveBrew]

their ERA's are all over the place because ERA over a single season has too much 'noise', 'variance', 'luck', whatever you want to call it.

I think when some people hear "luck", they instantly assume it's a cop-out, at least on some level. However I think the term - as noted - should be used interchangeably with 'variance' or 'fluctuation', etc.

 

It's not cherry-picking to find the stats that have provided the most year-to-year accuracy. Are predictive stats the ones that end up in a box score? No - but the 'box score' stats for pitching tend to assign all weight to one player that doesn't ever have any way to control everything for which he's receiving credit/taking heat.

 

Predictive stats don't tell you what some guy's ERA is going to be... nor can they, since a stat could never factor in the randomness of defense - even if the entire position player half of the roster were unchanged in any given year-to-year window. But what they can do is provide a much better way of understanding players individually. What else is there to know about Capuano's fluctuations other than defense & luck? As noted many times... mostly by Ennder... for the factors he can control, he's been about the same pitcher for the entire time he went from ACEz! to SUCKZERz!

[Mass Haas]

Yeah, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't get it. The Brewers seem to be alienating Hardy.

 

They offer him just a one year contract worth 3/4 of what he's asking for, and basically threaten to take him to arbitration - where they will harp on his every flaw - namely - his injury history.

 

Okay, so the team is playing it tight with Hardy. However, over a few hundred thousand dollars now, they are alienating Hardy unnecessarily. Methinks Hardy, with more of a chip on his surgically repaired shoulder than ever, will have a terrific full season this year, and in the next offseason, he will ask for a correspondingly terrific raise. His contract next year will be much bigger and meaner to sign than this year. And, if the team doesn't try to keep him happy... he'll leave before Prince, Weeks, Braun or any of them. I believe that Hardy will be tougher to replace than we think.

 

But what do I know?

Hey, this is still a Hardy arbitration thread too, right?

 

The Brewers already gave J.J. the most premium "gift" they could when he was the Opening Day 2005 starter. This will allow him to walk after 2010 instead of 2011.

 

By having J.J. play in Nashville until mid-May or so, the Brewers could have easily postponed his walk year. There was a good chance that Hardy would have still qualified for arbitration this year as a "super two", so he wouldn't have been alienated, as you believe.

Having J.J. open 2005 in Milwaukee was totally unnecessary, as so many of us voiced back then. The Brewers have been more than fair with him since the day he signed his first pro contract, or so it seems.

[Tbadder]

Generally speaking, stats are stats, data is data, however the interpretation and application of said data, is certainly tainted by our prejudices -- whether it is defending a formula or idea, emotions tied to a favorite team, or even defending a fantasy baseball draft. If someone thinks they are objective just because they have learned to use a spreadsheet, they are kidding themselves.

Wow. This was really a tough thread to read, mostly because I hope I respect everyone who fequents this site. Almost everyone has given me ideas I never woulda thunk up myself, and Brewerfan is a daily dose of entertainment and insight.

Having said that, I most agree with the statement above. While valuable in a DesCartesian sense, stats must be tempered in the Lockean observational sense in order to zero in on an approximate truth that usually defies it's own assertion.

 

This is the reason I believe we've had a proliferation of competeing data in baseball. It is a hope against hope, and yet one that is needed if one dares to look deeper. Adam Smith said, and I'm paraphrasing, statistics are an attempt to objectify preception, and so they constantly change; never being wholly satisfying or accurate, but being ever more necessary to our psyches and to our understanding..

 

All statistical evidence needs to be accepted sincerely as truth, a truth we are rightly skeptical of.

 

I, myself, am very guilty of ignoring the data all too often, and people like Ender have brought me up to speed rightfully so--neither side, observational or statistical can be ignored as both are flawed and truthful.

[sbrylski]

xERA shows a very strong correlation year to year.

 

Their skills have not changed significantly but their ERA's are all over the place because ERA over a single season has too much 'noise', 'variance', 'luck', whatever you want to call it.

 

Here's the year to year correlation for pitchers:

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/pitching.jpg

 

That's why its so much better to look at Bush's xERA last season than his ERA. That ERA is going to bounce around based on all the factors Ennder has listed and more. xERA and other metrics are more consistent and indicative of ability.

[monty57]

"Universally accepted" and "correct" methods are certainly not the same. It was universally accepted at one point that the Earth was flat, until science proved that wrong.

 

What I don't think you understand is the difference between science and speculation/myth. Science has a pretty good track record of being right. That is because it uses methodological approaches to verify the truth of any theory proposed. Myth/speculation is just one ignorant person following another following another, and no one knows how or why the original myth started, or if it was proven at any time or not.

 

Rigorous statistical analysis has been done to weed out which stats predict future performance, which stats don't, and to what degree. Ennder uses the stats that have held up to scientific scrutiny. You use myth/popular appeal to back up the veracity of your stats, and while it might make you sound cool and almighty to yourself, the scientific community isn't impressed.

 

I like statistics, I really do, however, the statistical analysis of basball has a long way to go before it creates absolute truths.

 

Let's look at science. If some scientists are building a nuclear reactor, how accurate do they have to be? They have to be nearly perfect. All of their equations have to have absolutly correct answers, or else millions of people die. When landing on the moon, how accurate do NASA scientists have to be? If they're off by thousandths of a percent, the rocket-ship will be visiting Pluto rather than the moon.

 

Now, let's look at the "science" of stastical analysis. How many statisticians predicted Colorado in the World Series last year? How many predicted Hardy as an All Star? How many a few years ago would have predicted that Ankiel would be in the outfield rather than a SP or that Josh Hamilton would've been a rookie last year?

 

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but people have to realize that there is a HUGE amount of human nature and other factors in baseball that will never allow it to be as accurate as many claim it to be. It's a best-guess effort and statistical analysis helps people make that best guess.

[monty57]

I wrote the previous post before reading "Page 4."

 

Tbadder, excellent post with some excellent quotes!

 

From sbrylski06's graph what I see is that a perfect correlation is 1.00, and statistical analysts are claiming victory by using a stat with a year-to-year correlation of 0.271. Granted, there is less room for variance than a stat with a 0.068 beta, but it's still not enough proof to convict someone who still believes in good ol' ERA of heresy.

[sbrylski]

From sbrylski06's graph what I see is that a perfect correlation is 1.00, and statistical analysts are claiming victory by using a stat with a year-to-year correlation of 0.271.

 

Whoa, whoa. There is A LOT that goes into successful pitching that statistical models are only beginning to understand and try to break down. Nobody is claiming "victory", just that there are some simple ways to deepen the evaluation of what is good pitching, and who's most likely to generate results in the future. There is still some room for subjective analysis within pitching evaluation.