Sabermetrics

[clement]

Tony said recently that Albert's numbers this year are even more impressive than they look given the kinds of pitches he sees. That's not just a protection argument; it's also about pitchers and managers realizing how tough Pujols is and being extra stingy with him regardless of who is batting behind him. But it's just common sense that if you have runners on base before him, and serious threats behind him, pitchers will be more constrained in their ability to pitch around Albert. Traditionalists call it protection, sabremetricians call it putting as many good hitters in a lineup as possible. Neither is wrong. While someone like Jeff Kent has a point about sample sizes, when the results of a small sample produces the expected outcome, there is nothing wrong with pointing it out.

I'd also say that both of the examples given where Tony Larussa is "wrong" are debatable, and therefore not wrong.

I still say if you get the right guy in the 2 hole to protect AP in the 3 hole, and then get some guy with some thump in the 4 hole and get some little speed daemon in the 1 hole, and make sure that guy in the 2 hole has good bat control and doesn't K much, and back that up with a real slugger in the 5 spot who can protect the guy in the 4 spot who protects AP who drives in the guys in the 1 and 2 hole unless we decide to bunt with the 2 guy which doesn't make sense because the guy in the 1 hole has the speed to take the base on his own in which case we would want the 2 guy to swing away plus we really don't want our 3 hitter up with a base open so they can pitch around us and completely nullify what we are trying to do, then we hit the pitcher 8th so we get an extra leadoff hitter so that our 1 guy who really isn't fast could bunt him over so our 2 guy could drive him home.... oh man he better drive him home because if he doesn't we got our 3 guy coming up with a base open and oh my god they might walk him which causes the wheels to fall right off the cart, and then if we can figure out by looking at 10 AB's or so off the opposing pitchers and maybe shuffle our order up a little bit to take advantage of this guy owning that guy or vice a versa... well then I think we have a ballclub that can score some runs.

I'm old school though.

Well you said in about 400 words what I said in about 20. So yeah, I guess you can make things complicated if that's what you want to do.

I think most would agree that one of Larussa's philosophies as a manager is to get his role-players a lot of playing time. So the question becomes, which games should he get starts in for the Miles/Taguchis/Bartons/Spieizios etc? He can just do it randomly, or he can take into account things like past performance and maybe talk to the players and see if they feel they have a good read on a particular pitcher or not. And 75 at-bats is actually a pretty decent sample size. 5 not so much, but still it might be better than complete randomness. These are at-bats we're talking about not coin tosses.

[jim]

Tony said recently that Albert's numbers this year are even more impressive than they look given the kinds of pitches he sees. That's not just a protection argument; it's also about pitchers and managers realizing how tough Pujols is and being extra stingy with him regardless of who is batting behind him. But it's just common sense that if you have runners on base before him, and serious threats behind him, pitchers will be more constrained in their ability to pitch around Albert. Traditionalists call it protection, sabremetricians call it putting as many good hitters in a lineup as possible. Neither is wrong. While someone like Jeff Kent has a point about sample sizes, when the results of a small sample produces the expected outcome, there is nothing wrong with pointing it out.

I'd also say that both of the examples given where Tony Larussa is "wrong" are debatable, and therefore not wrong.

I still say if you get the right guy in the 2 hole to protect AP in the 3 hole, and then get some guy with some thump in the 4 hole and get some little speed daemon in the 1 hole, and make sure that guy in the 2 hole has good bat control and doesn't K much, and back that up with a real slugger in the 5 spot who can protect the guy in the 4 spot who protects AP who drives in the guys in the 1 and 2 hole unless we decide to bunt with the 2 guy which doesn't make sense because the guy in the 1 hole has the speed to take the base on his own in which case we would want the 2 guy to swing away plus we really don't want our 3 hitter up with a base open so they can pitch around us and completely nullify what we are trying to do, then we hit the pitcher 8th so we get an extra leadoff hitter so that our 1 guy who really isn't fast could bunt him over so our 2 guy could drive him home.... oh man he better drive him home because if he doesn't we got our 3 guy coming up with a base open and oh my god they might walk him which causes the wheels to fall right off the cart, and then if we can figure out by looking at 10 AB's or so off the opposing pitchers and maybe shuffle our order up a little bit to take advantage of this guy owning that guy or vice a versa... well then I think we have a ballclub that can score some runs.

I'm old school though.

Well you said in about 400 words what I said in about 20. So yeah, I guess you can make things complicated if that's what you want to do.

I think most would agree that one of Larussa's philosophies as a manager is to get his role-players a lot of playing time. So the question becomes, which games should he get starts in for the Miles/Taguchis/Bartons/Spieizios etc? He can just do it randomly, or he can take into account things like past performance and maybe talk to the players and see if they feel they have a good read on a particular pitcher or not. And 75 at-bats is actually a pretty decent sample size. 5 not so much, but still it might be better than complete randomness. These are at-bats we're talking about not coin tosses.

Ah, but they are coin tosses. Because he is using a purely statistical approach, based on purely statistical data and not observational data. Those are his words, I've heard them repeated enough to believe that there are times where he really is going simply off the data.

It is exceptionally rare for a player to have enough AB's to make an informed decision based simply on the results. A player with 1,500 random AB's you are going to have to exceed 60 to get to any sort of statistical meaning. More random AB's, add more.

You say the notecards are better than nothing, even if it's not accurate it essentially shuffles the deck and results in a positive outcome - that being players get their playing time in which has benefits. So here we are, people claiming that Tony (or other managers) don't need to resort to fancy math because of their infinite baseball wisdom - and yet it's the math nerds calling for the manager to just go old school and use his baseball instincts.

Basically, it seems to me that if you criticize a manager for using statistics incorrectly or you criticize a manager for not using data available to him - all the same. In the former case, there is some reason (excuse really) to justify it, and the latter you get the ol' mysticism of baseball explanation that only a very few and chosen have been able to figure out.

His notecards are a bad idea, he should throw them away and use his baseball judgement as if player X will be successful against player Y.

[clement]

I'm sure Larussa's baseball instincts come into it whether he says so or not. If he has no instinct in a particular situation, perhaps he will use his notecards and nothing else. Miles is 4 for 7 against one pitcher, he gets the start. If he's 0 for 6 against another one, he sits. It's no big deal. It's not like he is using them to sit Albert Pujols in favor of Adam Kennedy. It's about Miles vs. Kennedy types of situations.

[skmsw]

Lots of fun stuff in this thread. New blood does a forum good. Now, Steverino's two cents:

The best example of this, I think, is the entire notion of "protection" in a lineup. I find it hard to believe that haltz, jim, steve, etc. have greater knowledge about baseball than people that have watched thousands of games like Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre and, well, almost every manager in baseball.

I don't actually claim to have "greater knowledge" than anybody. But sometimes I'm right. And sometimes guys like TLR, Joe Torre, and, well, almost every manager in baseball -- are wrong. It's really that simple. They don't always know more about everything, every single time, just because they are on the inside. Some of the people on the inside really shouldn't be.

Although they have sabermetrics on their side, and I'm sure TLR has seen them since he is largely a stats manager

TLR is NOT a stats manager.

it just doesn't seem that they are correct. And, I'll go to my grave believing Albert Pujols would be a better hitter with Babe Ruth (in his prime) batting behind him than Ryan Ludwick.

It may not seem that way. But it didn't seem like the earth could possibly be round, either, once. I don't say that to be demeaning; until we were able to actually sail around it, until we were able to see the earth from a different perspective, it just flew in the face of common sense of even the brightest, most educated people, that it might be round. But sometimes in truth, things simply are not what they seem. Disregarding evidence because it does not fit the preconceived view is a historically poor way to approach new information.

"WATCHING A GAME" to quote AWvsCB, is well and good but your eyes can deceive you.

In my humble, honest opinion, statistics serve a few basic purposes. They help us ask better questions. They help us verify OR CHALLENGE what we think we know, what we think we saw. And they help plug the gap that comes from the fact that no one can be everywhere or see everything.

The guys you mention have their own stats they look at. Are some of these stats involved? Probably. But, they probably have much more concise stats that they trust.

Don't be too sure. Some owners, GMs, and managers have very sophisticated, mathematically validated, carefully researched systems -- and others would still, to this day, make Grady Little look like a Rhodes Scholar. But don't assume that just because someone makes a living in baseball and uses "concise" stats, that those stats are valid.

why do organizations send scouts to watch players before trading for them? Couldn't they just look at their numbers?

Why are you so bent on making this either/or? For all the flak that "stats people" get for "not believing in scouting" or"not watching games," I pretty much only see these either/or positions come from people who devalue objective measures of performance and data.

But, I'm not at this point going to put sabermetrics above 100+ years of baseball logic.

My black and white TV was great. The color one made the experience of watching TV even better. The flat-screen one gave the best picture yet. The LCD got bigger, yet takes up less space, gives a clearer picture and is lighter-weight.

Why are you viewing "sabermetrics" as something separate from 100+ years of baseball knowledge, rather than a continuation and advancement of it?

it boggles my mind that there isn't evidence that is readily availble to back up that there is protection from better hitters because I have always heard and thought it makes sense that there is. And, unlike most everything else, what I think isn't matching up with the sabermetrics. Like you said, sabermetrics confirms common sense most of the time. So, it just becomes a case of: Do I think there is something screwy going on with sabermetrics (because let's be honest, they can be flawed) or is something screwy with baseball logic since the beginning of the game.

So, most of the time, what you believe and what the numbers say match up; in those instances the numbers are fine. But the time the numbers do not tell you what you expect, you figure that time, the numbers are wrong and you're right?

For 75 years, baseball did not let people of color play; were the people using "logic from the beginning of the game" right about that? Or, was more forward kind of thinking necessary?

And this is where I have a bit of a problem with sabermetrics. You can say his power numbers aren't down, and that may be true. But, why have his homeruns (I think he has an average of 42/yr before 07) dipped considerably in 07 (32) and 08 (on pace for 33)? That's over a 20% dip two years in a row.

Lots of reasons maybe -- random variation, for one. Regression to the mean, for another. Steverino's Axiom of Hall of Fame Caliber Players, for a third.

It seems and this is just my view which doesn't mean it's right, that his approach or something has changed since the beginning part of 06. Homeruns, which should be completely independent of everything else if there is no protection, shouldn't fall off at such a considerable rate, should they? He's close to his career HR/FB. While that may be true, doesn't that just mean he's hitting less fly balls?

a) If his "approach has changed," is that not under his control? Tell him to change it back!!!
b) Who says HRs are completely independent of everything?
c) Hitting less fly balls is not a throwaway point. Getting the ball into the air instead of on the ground is dependent on many things -- how hard you hit it, how much topspin you give it, your batspeed, your reaction time, how well you center the ball on the bat, how well you recognize the pitch, and of course, random variation (a 300 hitter does not get three hits every ten at bats) and chance events (a lot of luck comes into play when you're using a round bat to hit a round ball coming at you at incredible speeds).

Tony said recently that Albert's numbers this year are even more impressive than they look given the kinds of pitches he sees. That's not just a protection argument; it's also about pitchers and managers realizing how tough Pujols is and being extra stingy with him regardless of who is batting behind him.

And the thing is, nowadays we can use pitchf/x data to look at whether pitchers pitch differently based on who is or is not on-deck; whether batters are swinging at pitches differently now vs when they used to; and so forth. Guess what???

[stewie13]

I'm going to chime in briefly here. Hopefully I add some more in-depth insight later.

Regarding Pujols and protection:

I think you start to get into a gray area when you are dealing with someone like Pujols simply because he has so few comps. The average star player may not get a benefit from protection but Pujols is different. If Babe Ruth was batting in front or behind him that would be outside the model.

I believe that I have read some things that stated that Bonds was actually overrated by traditional measures due to his lack of protection (by traditional I mean things like VORP, linear weights, etc.)

[clement]

It may not seem that way. But it didn't seem like the earth could possibly be round, either, once. I don't say that to be demeaning; until we were able to actually sail around it, until we were able to see the earth from a different perspective, it just flew in the face of common sense of even the brightest, most educated people, that it might be round. But sometimes in truth, things simply are not what they seem.

Sometimes yes. But it's quite rare. Your point of view as stated provides a good and healthy skepticism about things we blindly take for granted. But in reality, the prevalence of things that fly in the face of common sense actually being wrong are rare. But it does happen of course.

nowadays we can use pitchf/x data to look at whether pitchers pitch differently based on who is or is not on-deck; whether batters are swinging at pitches differently now vs when they used to; and so forth. Guess what???

What? What exactly does pitchf/x data measure and what has it shown? By all means feel free to share more information or point to the studies.

If the answer is that it shows that pitchers don't pitch differently in different situations, I can't help but be skeptical about the measurement validity. If it shows that in the aggregate that pitchers tend to pitch the same then what does that tell us? I find it hard to believe that pitchers don't try to vary their approach depending on who is batting and the situation they are in. They certainly claim that they do. But I guess it's possible that a pitcher can't vary their approach as much as they think they can. It's also possible that a radar gun cannot measure something as precise as a major league pitch to the level of precision necessary to detect those variations (in speed, location, movement, break, etc.).

[haltz]

I think you start to get into a gray area when you are dealing with someone like Pujols simply because he has so few comps. The average star player may not get a benefit from protection but Pujols is different. If Babe Ruth was batting in front or behind him that would be outside the model.

I agree with this. There's a reason it's outside the model though, of course.

I think I read somewhere (maybe I mentioned this the in the first version of this conversation) that a certain study showed players were pitched to differently, but their overall stat lines didn't change much. I'll try and actually look for it.

I did find this, though:

“It just doesn’t match up with reality,” Epstein said. “If you look up the numbers … in David Ortiz’s entire career with the Red Sox, his OPS with Manny hitting behind him is identical to his OPS without Manny hitting behind him.”

EDIT: Not what I was looking for, but it's touched on here and here.

[New Pagodi]

What? What exactly does pitchf/x data measure and what has it shown? By all means feel free to share more information or point to the studies.

If the answer is that it shows that pitchers don't pitch differently in different situations, I can't help but be skeptical about the measurement validity. If it shows that in the aggregate that pitchers tend to pitch the same then what does that tell us? I find it hard to believe that pitchers don't try to vary their approach depending on who is batting and the situation they are in. They certainly claim that they do. But I guess it's possible that a pitcher can't vary their approach as much as they think they can. It's also possible that a radar gun cannot measure something as precise as a major league pitch to the level of precision necessary to detect those variations (in speed, location, movement, break, etc.).

Pitchfx data is collected with cameras not radar guns. It measures the trajectory of the baseball from c. 50 feet from home plate to the time it crosses the plate. speed, location, movement, break, etc can all be defined in terms of the trajectory.

[jim]

It may not seem that way. But it didn't seem like the earth could possibly be round, either, once. I don't say that to be demeaning; until we were able to actually sail around it, until we were able to see the earth from a different perspective, it just flew in the face of common sense of even the brightest, most educated people, that it might be round. But sometimes in truth, things simply are not what they seem.

Sometimes yes. But it's quite rare. Your point of view as stated provides a good and healthy skepticism about things we blindly take for granted. But in reality, the prevalence of things that fly in the face of common sense actually being wrong are rare. But it does happen of course.

I hope I don't come off as arrogant here, because that is not my intent. While I didn't play professionally, I played under coaches who did coach and play and scout at the professional/MLB baseball. You know what I learned from that experience? There are alot of stupid people that have no idea what they are doing in all walks of life, baseball included. I don't want to put words in steve's mouth, but actually the fact that I did play a little advanced ball and got the chance to meet some of these people is sometimes the reason I question alot of things. Basically I don't trust alot of people in charge, and I think I have my reasons.

Of course there are smart people. If you want to know of a no-name guy that I think would make one helluva GM someday it's a guy by the name of Mike Arbuckle (asst GM for the Phillies). First off, he was smart enough to scout me when he was an area scout for the Braves. But really, I had the opportunity to talk to him several times when I was in HS and the guy gave me more baseball coaching in a couple of 15 minutes sessions that I probably received in my entire HS and Little League career. He was a good guy who saw me play one time and found something significant in one game that nobody had noticed before. And it doesn't surprise me when I read about Arbuckle being a stats guy - smart people just don't throw information away.

So I'm not trashing everyone, or anyone in particular, just saying I've met some real dopes in positions where you would not expect to see them. And I met some really smart people.


edit ... by the way, since we are on the subject. Steverino's post above had an OPS of 1.250, a VORP of 90, and a WARP3 of 12.8. Very well explained imo.

[skmsw]

If the answer is that it shows that pitchers don't pitch differently in different situations, I can't help but be skeptical about the measurement validity. If it shows that in the aggregate that pitchers tend to pitch the same then what does that tell us? I find it hard to believe that pitchers don't try to vary their approach depending on who is batting and the situation they are in. They certainly claim that they do.

I know I must not be explaining this clearly, because in a couple other recent threads on this topic I get the same sort of counter-arguments as this one.

I am not saying that pitchers do not change their approach. I am also not saying that batters do not change their approach.

I am saying that whether or not they change their intended approach, the overall outcome is pretty much the same. Pitchers very well may change their approach when hitters are unprotected -- and batters may change their approach too, in reaction to the pitcher's changes, or because of their own belief about who is up next. But the end result is not that batters make worse contact and hit less effectively when they are unprotected. Protected hitters do walk a little less often, but they also strike out a little more often, and for balls put in play, protected hitters hit the ball about the same as when they are unprotected. Overall, a hitter's OPS does not change much as a result of "protection." The idea that a protected hitter can HIT better, DRIVE the ball better because they see "better pitches to hit" is not true. When they put the ball in play, they hit it about the same and get about the same results when they are protected as when they are not (or, as I said elsewhere, maybe even a tiny bit worse when protected, as pitchers seek to avoid baserunners ahead of a protected hitter not only by limiting walks, but by limiting hits too -- which in general is the goal almost all of the time anyhow).