Feb
12
2012
12
2012
Clubhouse Confidential On Bay’s Struggles
An article by Craig Lerner
It’s Jason Bay Day on MMO. Okay, just kidding, but check out this video from MLB Network’s Clubhouse Confidential.
Host Brian Kenny does a nice job pointing out some revealing stats on Bay.
- From 2004-2009, Bay posted a .280/.375/.519 slash.
- From 2010-2011, Bay posted a .251/.337/.386 slash. Look at that drop in slugging percentage!
- His ground-ball rate has risen from 31% to 43%, definitely not a good sign for hitters.
- Citi Field has not hurt his offense, he’s been a significantly better hitter at home than on the road.
Kenny points out that Bay may have stopped pulling the ball because of Citi Field which has impacted him negatively.
About the Author: Craig Lerner
I'm a data systems engineer who loves life and is hooked on the Mets. My girlfriend and I go to about 15 games a year. Give me a cold beer, a summer day, and a Mets game, and I'm good to go. I bleed blue and orange.
79 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nationals | 26 | 17 | .605 | - |
| Braves | 26 | 18 | .591 | 0.5 |
| Marlins | 24 | 19 | .558 | 2.0 |
| Mets | 23 | 20 | .535 | 3.0 |
| Phillies | 21 | 23 | .477 | 5.5 |
Last updated: 05/23/2012
Recent Comments
- Just Some Internet Guy You Dont Know: on Why The Ike Davis Decision Must Be Made By Thursday: Valley fever took out Conor Jackson...you never...
- Just Some Internet Guy You Dont Know: on Kirk Nieuwenhuis Should Not Lose Playing Time For Anyone: No one is taking Bay or Torres...
- Metsie: on Kirk Nieuwenhuis Should Not Lose Playing Time For Anyone: What eally needs to happen is either...
- Metsie: on Kirk Nieuwenhuis Should Not Lose Playing Time For Anyone: what I saw from Kirk early is...
- Metsie: on Why The Ike Davis Decision Must Be Made By Thursday: Actually I just read something in the...
Write Your Own Mets Post
IMO, Citi got inside his head. It got into DW’s head too. And Francouer’s…and many of us fans too. We’ll soon know IF that’s the case or it is ‘age’ and his hitting skills have flagged. Won’t we? And since we can’t do anything about either scenario, how about we just play ball?
i think Bay will hit a bunch of HRs this year, as will DW, Ike, and Duda. And i do not think the offense will be an issue. It’s our rotation i worry about. i think both Dickey and Niese will have nice campaigns. And maybe Pelfrey rebounds. i have no clue about Santana, but many trepidations about his shoulder. Gee may be okay or he may flounder in his sophomore year. Again, let’s play ball.
Agreed, while I still think the offense will be as good or better than last year it’s just not enough considering the staff and it’s concerns. But hey anything can happen.
Agreed. Even tho his stats at Citi were better than those on the road, I still think Citi field got in his head. You can see statistically he changed his approach (less pulling big jump in punch and Judy swings to right); but when he went on the road, I think he tried too hard to make up for being a singles hitter at Citi Field.
Kinda like in poker, after a bad beat going all in on the flop with a low straight flush draw.
I just think he is going to have a monster year, like 40 HR and 120 RBI; top 5 MVP kind of season… maybe its me going all in with suited 3, 4. The thing that I really respect about him is that no matter how bad he was playing, never stopped hustling, and never snuck out the side door; he faced the press and his teammates every day.
Very true about all the reports of him being a great clubhouse guy and a professional. Don’t expect a monster year but a return to productivity I can see.
You know, I’ve never understood whole “in your head” thing about the field. How is a feld really going to affect one’s swing? If you can’t jack a HR at the major league level then, well, how can a field mess that bad with one’s swing? I just don’t understand that whole concept.
It can make you change your approach mostly. And make you do/try things you normally wouldn’t do.
so if you have power to the alleys/RF (and use the whole field), but find that you can’t get the ball out that way anymore, you change. Start overswinging, trying to pull everything, etc.
That isn’t confidence in your head stuff, just more of a practical adjustment IMO.
But if you go away from your strengths, it is messing with you. especially if you start K’ing like crazy trying to yank outside pitches you should be driving the other way.
So you need Brian Kenny to tell that Citi Field had an effect on Jason Bay. Go ahead and don’t trust your own judgement.
I leave that show on while i’m working and if i have on MLBNetwork. Learning more about stupid sabermetrics through that show has convinced me even MORE how silly it is. I feel like I’m watching the Fantasy Baseball Network when i’m watching that show. And when they have the opposing view at the end people like Al Leiter, Billy Ripken, John Hart, etc. eat them up and you can see it in their body language what they think of that stuff for the most part. I’ll never forget Billy Ripken’s appearance at the show – he looked like he could not wait until it was over.
And posting those slash lines is a disgrace to Jason Bay because from 2004-2009 what got him that big contract and what made him famous was his ability to hit HRs and drive in runs and drive in runs in big spots.
I guarantee you he’s not going to get a big contract from anyone with just slash lines. But he will if you list his HRs, his RBIs, and his AVG from 2004-2009. You can’t deny that.
Kenny does have some cool guests like Jay Jaffe who’s cool regardless of his POV. But for the most part the analytical breakdowns are comical. But if you want to spend a lot of time perusing through statistical analysis to help find you the best journeyman ballplayers you can than knock your socks off – cuz if that stuff is good for anything it’s that.
Maybe Sandy should try it lol.
I was considering writing a post about this, I have been thinking he’ll have a bounce back year. The guy is ready to have a come back year. I’m not saying 30 and 100 by any means, but 22 and 85-esq numbers are possible.
Your #’s wouldn’t be too bad, Clayton. But i’m greedy, i’m going for 30/100…!
If he plays all year pencil in Ike for no less than 35 HRs in 2012.
Tejada
Murph
Ike
That’s what i would put up there in the 1st inning.
And Tejada is not the ideal leadoff hitter but the way he improved his approach last year and nobody on that team worked the pitcher deeper into counts than Ruben.
That’s the guy i want leading off. If he can start the game taking a pitcher deep into the count than Murphy is the perfect kind of hitter to follow that approach.
Top it off with a guy who rises in big spots and can drive the ball over the fence and into the old Shea. That’s Ike.
And that’s why that’s my perfect 1-2-3 for the Mets. All that talk about Murphy leading off has so many things wrong with it i don’t know where to begin
See when you talk baseball we have a lot in common. I don’t mind that lineup but you are going to then have to bat Wright 4th.
The funny thing is i think the offense revives with a TB barrage, 4-deep, we haven’t seen in awhile, 4 – 6 years. That’s IF all are healthy and stay that way. i’m a huge believer that CITI’s ridiculous dimensions messed up our big guys big time the past 2 years and that these more sensible distances will be pure tonic to their confidence.
Let’s play ball, but that’s my gut.
I hope you are right, Tejada, Murphy, Davis, Wright, Duda, Bay, Thole, Torres could at least be ok. I think ultimately you may see Tejada, Murphy, Wright, Davis, Bay, Duda but I would not be upset either way.
I agree trs86, except I think Torress is going to lead off… even though I think Tejada is an ideal hitter in the 1 or 2 hole. The way he takes so many pitches, he can wear down a pitcher pretty effectively.
I’m up for that too TRS I just hope they don’t put too much on Tejada in replacing Reyes at SS as well as leadoff. Give Torres the shot and then just tell Tejajda ‘we’re going to try a couple different things and we’re going to see how you look at leadoff.”
He’ll be the best choice by far of anyone on the roster right now.
Collins already said months ago that he has no intention of batting Tejada anywhere near top of the lineup to keep the pressure off, an announcement I find as foolish as his premature annointing of Pelfrey as ace last year. I like Collins a lot but this is an example of not learning from his mistakes.
I think Tejada has the chops to bat first or second and do the job right. My preference is second as table setter which also deepens the lineup rather than highly thins it with Thole and Tejada 7trh and 8th.
My Lineup:
Torres
Tejada
Murphy
Davis
Wright
Duda
Bay
Thole
Very, very foolish comment by Collins. He just say he’ll wait until ST before making any decisions. They did this crap last year
You can’t have Torres, Tejada and Murphy getting drastically more AB’s than Davis, Wright and Duda. 2/3 is fine but all three is too much.
Like iaid before the mets don’t know to train their hitters right to hit the ball. You need a coach who really knows about the game, how use your power in all areas of the outfield, know when to bunt, know how to use the count in their favor. Also be smart at the plate whatching the strike zone, but go for bad pitches. maybe just maybe they can help bay with the hole in his bat. I really think jason can hit, i believe he is doing this because the mets were the only team to give some money, not the real money he wanted, because he’s been in game now a while, so please jason grow up and start producing. Mets inside group start doing the same cus us mets fans are getting tired with the same owners crap. Please for the love of the game , the mets , and it;s fans please sell this team, please sell this team and finally make it right
Larman, Bay should grow up? I haven’t noticed Bay doing anything that exhibits even a speck of immaturity. This man epitomizes respect for the game and those around him on and off the field. Save your immaturity tags for players who are indeed immature and are worthy of such, like Hanley Ramirez.
As for cries for the Wilpons to sell their controlling interest, it’s not going to happen. Move on. I could make a strong case that fixating on fantasy over and over is not a mature act. .
Do think Citi Field was a shock to the system for Bay because like David, Carlos and Jeff learned beforehand, he learned quite quickly that balls that would bounce off or over the wall would not even make it to the warning track.
Brian Kenny is an example of fans becoming so involved in sabremetrics that they lose touch with what baseball is all about. Since his arrival in Flushing all we heard from from both players and the media how evident it was about something being different with his swing. Ralph Kiner commented last spring that Bay wasn’t uppercutting enough which would result only in soft liners to the outfield and any fly he would hit would be a pop-up.
Saw a segment of his show a few weeks back where Kenny proclaimed that analysis showed Lance Berkman being the fifth greatest productive first baseman in baseball history. Now, not taking anything away from Berkman’s accomplishments, however, the four above him did not include those like Wilie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew. Now let us look closely at the late Killer. Even though Harmon was a measly lifetime .256 hitter, which hardly qualifies for hall of fame status on any level, he still remains 36th on the all-time RBI list, which means he got his hits and his home runs when they counted most – in the clutch. Also, back in 1963 he had the highest home run ratio per at bat than any player in history – including Babe Ruth.
Willie Stargell is 43rd on the all time RBI list.
And Don Drysdale once said of McCovey that he would get out of a hospital bed to face him. Stretch hit some unbelievable shots off Tom Seaver.
Also, what Kenny did not take into account is that McCovey and Killebrew’s prime years came during the six year span when the strike zone was the biggest (1963 to 1968). Those also represent the early years of Stargell’s careers.
That’s why baseball productivity cannot be measured in terms of rigid statistical analysis for that does not allow for flexibility and discussion of the many intangibles that makes up a player’s truth worth. Stats are fun but it’s true appreciation is not in black and white for it’s a game played in Kodachrome. The reference to Berkman being the fifth greatest first baseman in all time is a prime example. If one wants to argue it looking at the player’s achievements and what he meant on the field, that’s fine. But if one wants to defend his or her’s conclusion based on formulas and equations, that’s something more in tune with fantasy baseball, not the real-life game.
Brian Kenny talks out of his ass and 80% of the conclusions he comes to make no sense. I was shocked when he completely disagree with Billy Beane’s insane moneyball gone amuck off season in Oakland. Feel sorry for those fans – trading top of the line pitchers in their 20s – unbelievable.
Kenny also always talks in absolutes as if everything has a definite finality and when the guests do a counter point with that Ombudsman deal at end of show it just makes him look bad.
Nerd City.
I meant to say Jeff Bagwell and not Lance Bergman but both being first basemen and former Astros with a last name starting with the second letter of the alphabet I have a habit of mixing the two’s names up while not mixing up their two careers.
I purposely did not bring up the allegations of steroids in the case of Ber…, err, I mean Bagwell, because I wanted to take up the issue of being the fifth greatest first baseman of all time based on the issues, not suspicions. I do have my doubts with Bergman due to him not being a power hitter in the minors and that his weight went up 25 pounds from what it was in the minors as he got to the majors.
But getting back to the intangibles that I contend say more about a player than sabremetrics, attached is an article from last year looking at both sides of the equation.
http://baseball.dailyskew.com/2011/03/jeff-bagwell-hall-of-fame-the-case-for-and-against.html
heavier whe it’s still not proven. But I do have my
….. and notice I still made the mistake of saying Bergman instead of Bagwell in the above post. There are just some habits one can’t shake so easily. Sorry Lance.
You’ve moved on to Bergman. We started with Lance Berkman and we’re gonna finish up with Ingmar Bergman
Bayonne,
LMAO – hope that doesn’t mean the next step after Bergman is the “Black Death” for the 2012 season!
Didn’t see the change you made about Berkman to Bagwell. Bagwell makes far more sense but I’ve never personally thought of him as a top 5. He wasn’t even the most feared hitter of era. I remember watching the likes of Kilibrew and McCovey scaring the heck out of me the way Pujols does today.
I don’t think Stargell qualifies given he didn’t play enough games at first.
Off Topic: Watched the Grammys. Though they did a good job overall. Watching the finish with McCartney, Springsteen and everyone else was awesome. Foo Fighters were great. Wasn’t feeling the Beach Boys, Maroon 5 performance but the Glen Campbell tribute was well done. Anyone noticed jason aldean’s mic fail torward the end of his performance with Kelly Clarkson?
Kenny’s conclusions is example of what happens when the art, impact and actual influence and performance of players and the game itself is reduced to X’s and O’s without the benefit of its many nuances and and the application of context.
In the case of Berkman, he’s spent the bulk of his career playing in the outfield, only once in his career did he play first base the equivalent of a full season – 152 games in 2008. His next highest totals were 131, 126, 126, 112, 96. Berkman doesn’t even belong in the conversation.
I was trying to remember who had said that saber/analysis was diminishing the accomplishments of these players but not necessarily those exact words and you’re right.
It reduces the importance of individual’s accomplishments. It reduces it to these snapshot stats and that’s what i was saying the other day. It’s not gonna be as easy to get familiar with baseball players anymore because everything it becoming a WAR, an OPS, a FIP, etc.
We grew up appreciating the details of a player’s accomplishments and that was a fun part of it. Like if you’re looking at the back of a baseball card and you see, for example, a Ken Phelps and see he had only 107 ABs a certain year but hit 10 HRs – i used to think that was awesome. Now all those accomplishments are abbreviated down and rendered virtually meaningless – it’s getting all clustered together in these text msg abbreviations and you’re gonna have to wind up knowing the details anyway
It’s like leaving point A, holding a magnifying glass to points B-Z only to wind up at point A again
And what more does anyone really learn about a player from all this new computer analysis? The game is played over a 162 game season and I have yet to hear any broadcaster talk about one’s WAR, OPS, etc. as opposed to how one hits against the opposing pitcher, whether or not he’s been in a slump or been hot, etc.
If one wants to look at it in terms of seasonal or career stats, sabremetrics can go so far as to take it to a level in which the information becomes trivial.
“And what more does anyone really learn about a player from all this new computer analysis? ”
A lot actually.
“The game is played over a 162 game season and I have yet to hear any broadcaster talk about one’s WAR, OPS, etc. as opposed to how one hits against the opposing pitcher, whether or not he’s been in a slump or been hot, etc. ”
You understand that broadcasts are not geared towards hardcore baseball fans, right? That they are meant to appeal to a wide base of people? It is a facet of entertainment that is trying to cash in on as many people as possible. To be blunt, it is made for the idiot masses. Using your logic, the Jersey Shore is high art because those morons are all over the TV.
I’m not saying that GKR don’t bring valuable insight to the games, but they are the exception, not the rule. Look at most out of town broadcasts. They are quite terrible for a variety of reasons.
So maybe, just maybe “I don’t see it on TV” is not the best argument.
Missed this
“If one wants to look at it in terms of seasonal or career stats, sabremetrics can go so far as to take it to a level in which the information becomes trivial.”
We’re talking about a bunch of grown men playing with a ball. All of the information is trivial.
I agree there’s a real problem with sabermetrics distorting value in the real heart of the game – the game itself. It turns the human element into non-factors which essentially diminishes baseball’s essence.
Baseball is art played by humans who ever evolve, while sabermetrics, particularly when misused, draws finite conclusions predicting futures before they’re able to develop and/or refine. I find there’s a built in arrogance coming from some of those postulating online, relying on new age numbers who believe they have the power to predict a player’s future and adamantly state so and so minor leaguer has limited ceiling, something I find ridiculous. I’ll take talent, work ethic, and an on-field thinker and student of the game, over sabermetrics any day.
And look at all the people who wrote off Jeff Francouer at such a young age which I think was ridiculous and shown to be such in 2011. There are many writing off Jason Bay which I think is another mistake. There are some minor league amateur “experts” who’ve already written off Cory Vaughn,convinced they know his ceiling after a bit of struggle in 2011. Silly.
I disagree somewhat with the understanding some have of sabermetrics.
Sabermetrics, at its core, is just a tool to be used that should lead to the question of ‘can I believe what I’m seeing’. I don’t think they were ever designed to be the ‘end all’ of player evaluation, nor should they be.
Going back to the original point here (something about Berkman), that is exactly what saber tries to do. Adjust for the fact that these guys did not all play together. Plus, many people never saw the old timers play in person, so to some extent what we “know” about them is filtered by what the media perception was of them.
looking at it another way, it is like saying what would Berkman have done if he played in the late 50s/early 60s, and what would Killibrew have done playing in the 90s? because they really were different eras.
entirely up to to each person to decide what is important to them, and who was “better”, and all the fancy stats are trying to do in this context is adjust the raw #s to make them comparable.
In some ways, it is like adjusting for inflation. Who cares if a new car in 1950 was $2,000, if people only made $100/week?
“I agree there’s a real problem with sabermetrics distorting value in the real heart of the game – the game itself. It turns the human element into non-factors which essentially diminishes baseball’s essence. ”
No. You are completely wrong. IT is measuring the production of those humans. The human element is vital.
If you want to say it doesn’t measure the squishy soft sugar coated human interest stuff…well neither do tradtional stats.
And why do you say they take away from it? You can have both. Really, you can. I have no idea where people get this all or nothing attitude.
“It reduces the importance of individual’s accomplishments”
No it doesn’t. It actually gives a deeper look into individual contributions and what really helps a team win.
LT,
Sorry you didn’t catch me apologizing for saying it was Berkman when I meant to say Bagwell and thus you wasted your time looking up the wrong player due to my error. Wonder if this confusion would cause money ball guys to go after signing the wrong player.
Joe
Joey D., no problem. I initially missed what you wrote because I was slowly writing my reply during the Grammy’s and didn’t go back to read any potential new posts in the interim. It happens but I don’t mind. I love the game and any research just increases my knowledge of its rich history.
I remember five years ago or so when sabermetrics was just starting to gain interest online, that a numbers geek did a feature analysis on Jose Reyes on his website, concluded Reyes had no value or baseball future and proudly declared he never even once saw him play and didn’t need to.
“Kenny’s conclusions is example of what happens when the art, impact and actual influence and performance of players and the game itself is reduced to X’s and O’s without the benefit of its many nuances and and the application of context. ”
Quite the opposite actually. Deeper statistical analysis is used to emphasize things like context that you just don’t get from looking at regular traditional stats or “just watching the game”.
I’ve defended this guy before, well, after the first year i felt he got a HUGE pass, last year was his year to step up and he folded again… this guy is nothing but a bum, i wish i am wrong about this, but this year it’s gonna be the same.. another wasted year of our lives with this guy in the lineup.. ugh.. i don’t care the #’s he put up in boston anymore, he’s had 2 years to prove he’s worth some of the contract at least, but he’s just proven to be pathetic.. but hey, he hustles to first base everytime he gets a groud ball (Roll Eyes)
Despite some comments above, I think CC is a great show. I think the people that view it negatively are once again using tunnel vision to draw conclusions. The reason all they do is come up with “opinions” based on sabermetrics is because it’s a show … about sabermetrics. It’s not a fantasy baseball show, it’s a show that lets an audience see in extreme absolute fashion what some of the tools being used behind closed doors are.
You can go anywhere and find shows with guys looking at average HR RBI and gut instinct. They talk about what they know 100% of the time and that’s what Kenny’s show does. He’s not suggesting this is the only way to evaluate talent. He’s showing a fan who may not understand sabr how it’s used. The only way to do that is to solely use sabr, and not confuse things with “this is what we see”
There isn’t a team out there that only uses sabr. Not 1. Not a team out there that doesn’t listen to their scouts. Not 1.
It’s all about bringing every tool you have for the job, to get the best results. Sabr, Scouts, Coaches, Managers, GMs… all have a hand in helping make decisions. All Clubhouse Confidential does is show you the side that very few people understand in that formula.
If there was a show solely based on what a scout sees, he’d be talking in absolutes also.
“This kid is going to be a star.” and then you look at the kid and he’s Lastings Milledge.
That’s 1 of the tools a team uses. Just like sabr
Last year Mike Diaz did an analysis of Bay’s swing and the year before, I think one of the guys at fangraphs did it. They both noted that Bay picked up an extra hitch and is upper cutting more compared to his time in Boston. He is most likely trying to over compensate for the deeper field.
The thing is, he had no problem hitting them out in Pittsburgh, which is also a deep field. He’s got to get back to the level swing.
Bay’s issue is that he appears to let his home park factors impact him on the road also.
PNC is a big park you’re right but look at this
Home/Road HR
2004 15/11
2005 9 HR/23
2006 13/22
2007 7/14
Then he went to Fenway and hit 15/21 in his 1 full year in Boston
If a park isn’t built for a guy, it happens. But if you can’t take the show on the road, it’s less about Citi Field and more about Jason Bay.
I’m sure there is a huge mental issue there. I’m just saying, they noted a different approach. Maybe he’s taking his frustrations on the road with him.
I think SRT raised a point which might explain why so many of us “traditionalists” (for lack of a better word) are so afronted by the use of sabremetrics when he said:
“I don’t think they were ever designed to be the ‘end all’ of player evaluation, nor should they be.”
Unfortunately, so many claim sabremetrics enables us to discover vital information never understood before and point to Bill James as a source of enlightment. Will give an example between me and a friend who so often quotes James as just that type of guru.
He said he learned through Bill James’ ballpark calculations why, when coming over to Atlanta, Davey Johnson suddenly hit hit 43 homers in 1973 when never hitting above 18 in any of his seven prior seasons. I answered we already knew the multiple reasons why that occured: a new league in which pitchers were not familiar with him; Johnson’s swing combined with the dynamics of the air currents being a perfect match at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium and also having power surrounding him in the lineup with Hank Aaron and Darrel Evans also hitting over 40 home runs that year.
Another factor was that 1973 seemed to be a year for home run hitting in the National League. The Braves were first in home runs that year with 206 . The following season the Braves were still third in round trippers but with a total of just 120. There were 270 less home runs in the league the year as well. There are cycles in everything and 1973 was that for power (in fact, Evans power never approached the 40+ mark again until 12 years later when at the age of 38 he found hmself playing in Detroit – not known to be a pitcher friendly ballpark, either.
That’s what I find so offensive about both sabremetrics and money ball – nothing really new is learned except for those who might not have been as astute as others before them.
Nor can one say it enables baseball insiders to better appreciate certain aspects of the game like getting on base, etc. Like power and pitching, the style of play also comes in cycles. During the height of the steroid era, swinging at pitches was emphasized more than taking pitches. Doesn’t matter that so many were juiced up – it was the style of play when both the elements of sabremetrics and performance enhancing drugs had come into play.
And most important, the on base percentage factor. Did managers not want players on base when sluggers like Killebrew, McCovey, Aaron, etc. came to bat. Of course they did. A solo shot is never as good as Earl Weaver’s best friend – the three-run homer. Even Ted Williams, who many consider the greatest natural hitter of all time, would not swing at a pitch he thought was outside the strike zone, which resulted in a high on base percentage that cost him many a batting title because at that time it was at-bats that were counted, not plate appearances. It also prevented him from driving in even more runs than he could if he went for the bad balls, like Yogi Berra did.
Seriously? You’re criticizing Ted Williams’ hitting approach because you need to go after deeper statistical analysis that badly?
You don’t see a problem with that?
I won’t even go into the usual misrepresentation of the facts like so many have to do to justify their fear of new stuff.
Look how far you had to bend over.
TED FRAKIN WILLIAMS!
You lost the whole point of what I was trying to make – that getting on base whatever way one could is not a new concept and that Williams would take the walk rather than swing at a bad pitch to get on base.
There is such a thing as having too much information that it becomes useless. In 1962 Marv Thronberry asked Jay Hook (a physicist) how a curve ball worked. Jay wrote down the scientific formula explaining in exact terms why a pitcher could throw a curve. I doubt that any pitching coach would use that in teaching a prospect how to throw one.
That’s what going overboard with sabremetrics is all about. Take for example the attached:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/runs-per-game/
Did any fan need to decipher this information to get a better appreciation of run distribution? Anyone who knows of the 1960 world series knows all there is to know about the importance of when runs are scored. In their three victories, the Yankees creamed Pittsburgh by scores of 16-3, 10-0 and 12-0 (combined 38 -3). Pittsburgh beat the Yankees by scores of 6-4, 3-2, 5-2 and 10-9 (combined 24 – 17). Who won the world series?
How important is this type of detailed information? Does it have any value except for those interested in mathematical analysis and fantasy leagues? Does it show one has more insight of the game over those who get into a heated argument about who is better, Mantle or Mays (or The Duke for those Brooklyn fans)?
It is no different from Jay Hook’s teaching of the curve ball – factual, but un-necessary.
“You lost the whole point of what I was trying to make – that getting on base whatever way one could is not a new concept and that Williams would take the walk rather than swing at a bad pitch to get on base.”
No. that is not what you said at all. Also, no one has ever EVER said that plate discipline is something new.
“There is such a thing as having too much information that it becomes useless. In 1962 Marv Thronberry asked Jay Hook (a physicist) how a curve ball worked. Jay wrote down the scientific formula explaining in exact terms why a pitcher could throw a curve. I doubt that any pitching coach would use that in teaching a prospect how to throw one.”
Mainly because pitching coaches should already know how to throw a curve ball. Also, no one wants to use sabermetrics to change a player’s technique.
That also assumes there is only one way to throw a curve. Considering how many different types of deliveries there are, that can’t be true.
That said, you don’t think knowing exactly why it works and what forces are at play is useful to teaching kids how to throw one?
“Did any fan need to decipher this information to get a better appreciation of run distribution? Anyone who knows of the 1960 world series knows all there is to know about the importance of when runs are scored. In their three victories, the Yankees creamed Pittsburgh by scores of 16-3, 10-0 and 12-0 (combined 38 -3). Pittsburgh beat the Yankees by scores of 6-4, 3-2, 5-2 and 10-9 (combined 24 – 17). Who won the world series?
How important is this type of detailed information? Does it have any value except for those interested in mathematical analysis and fantasy leagues?”
Do you know what sample sizes refers to? Because it is a tenet of sabermetrics and renders your argument moot.
“Does it show one has more insight of the game over those who get into a heated argument about who is better, Mantle or Mays (or The Duke for those Brooklyn fans)? ”
Yup. Pretty much. It tells you exactly how much one guy benefited from playing in a certain park or against certain pitchers in a certain era. The funny part is, you argue a bunch of assumptions that using things like sabermetrics will solidify one way or the other.
“Even Ted Williams, who many consider the greatest natural hitter of all time, would not swing at a pitch he thought was outside the strike zone, which resulted in a high on base percentage that cost him many a batting title because at that time it was at-bats that were counted, not plate appearances.”
How can that be construed as not saying Williams wouldn’t swing at a bad pitch and take the base on balls? I only added that taking so many walks hurt his chances of qualifying for the batting title for being the hitter he was, I’m sure the Skinny Splinter would have been able to hit those pitches outside the strike zone for base hits as well. At that time, it was the amount of at-bats and not plate appearances that qualified one for the batting title.
And as far as ” you don’t think knowing exactly why it works and what forces are at play is useful to teaching kids how to throw one?”, well, other than Jay Hook I don’t know of many other pitchers with that type of knowledge – and Warren Spahn threw a mean curve without it.
Donal, let’s both agree to continue our good natured debate on this issue with the acceptance that we are both pretty much entrenched in our ways.
Saw an interesting post on Fangraphs last week where they defined sabermetrics and attempted to rate each MLB club where they believed they stood – using 3 categories:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-sabermetrics-and-which-teams-use-it/
We know fangraphs is heavy on the statistical but the author tried to break it down into a simple math formula:
“Personally, I see sabermetrics as breaking down into three separate, equally important distinctions, and one massively important, yet fully amorphous unknown element. Again, fastening on our mathematics overalls, we would describe this as:”
“f(Sabermetrics) = statistics + scouting + business + ε”
“In words: Sabermetrics the study of baseball statistics, baseball scouting, baseball business, and anything yet-known or missed by myself (which is the “ε” epsilon).”
*********************************
It’s this author’s opinion that sabermetrics includes both scouting and business, along with stats.
Interesting to note they had the Mets as a ‘Tier II’ club – somewhere in the middle of new school and old school.
Just now had a chance to read the comments on this article. Interesting to see how many disagreed with this author’s definition of sabermetrics.
I am one of them. I get what he is trying to say, but sabermetrics are a very specific thing. They are a certain group of statistics.
That is not to say the other 2 legs are worthless or anything. Quite to the opposite. Just that they don’t fall under the sabermetrics umbrella.
I’d have to agree with this as well – but just my opinion.
I never saw sabermetrics as including scouting or the business end of an organization.
I think the Angels are going to be in the middle very soon. DiPoto is very open to the idea of it all.
Look, I think there are some people who use sabr way, way too much. I think there are some people who use what they see with their eyes, way, way too much.
I think the best teams will use a combination of scouting and sabr. Not every team can have the best scouts.
But I think when you look at teams like Boston, Tampa, Yankees, Texas for example and they have GMs who openly admit they are use an abundance of statistical analysis, that should tell you something. They have scouts, and they do their work on that front but if you’re a team like say Dodgers, Orioles, Reds and you’re saying “to hell with all that stuff,” then you’re clearly doing something wrong.
It’s about how you use the information you receive. If you refuse to take in more information to help you come to a decision then you’re doing a bad job. I don’t care if that means refusing to listen to scouts, refusing to look at sabr or refusing to listen to your coaches etc.
If we admit making baseball decisions is not easy, then IGNORING information that has proven for some of the most successful teams to have worked is just a bad job.
Not 1 team has 0 scouts. Not 1. Everybody has a scouting department. Everybody has player development systems. Nobody’s saying that information is not useful.
For teams that rely more on obtaining players with an already established Major League track record the study of that track record would be much more important than those who rely more on players without one. An Elijah Dukes would never cost you a season or three but a John Lackey, Chone Figgins or Adam Dunn can.
Sabermetrics would also be much more important to teams that cannot out spend their mistakes, like Tampa for instance. Tampa has to make gambles on guys early in their careers and they have to be right about about them and fill in intelligently behind or they’ll never be able to compete with NYY, Boston and Toronto. Both scouting and sabermetrics together along with top picks and development is what has allowed Tampa to average 92 wins over the last four years.
I’m a huge believer in flooding the amateurs with scouting as well as other teams minor league systems and the Majors as well because when an opportunity presents itself you really need to have a clear idea of who you want to be talking about but I still cannot understand not throughly examining a players recent performance by statistical measurement as well. sure you can know who’s better but how can you say for sure by how much or for how much longer or who’s a better fit?
I would bet that scouting at the Major League level affirms many sabermetric opinions and vice versa. When there is a big divide that would indicate the need to look even longer and solicit even more input in order to get it right and isn’t that the bottom line? Getting it right? How can more information be worse?
Measuring performance has been around forever. BA, RS, RBI, HR, E, ERA all attempted to put into context where a players performance placed him in terms of other players. From there studies and stats have just evolved no differently than the financial medical or any other industry. That’s how we wound up with platoon splits for one, things like WHIP, OB, and 2 out RBI’s, by looking into the stats a little deeper.
In math you learn to check your work, Why? Cause the idea is to get it right, If in checking your work in the scouting dept your able to identify where you’ve done well and where you could have done better and why and then use that check to help make better decisions going forward how is that going to hurt you down the road?
At one time mercury was thought to be a cure all and arsenic was used for appearance, without looking into things further who knows when it would have been discovered that these things were bad for you?
Being ahead of the curve is what’s important and one way to do that is to do more of the things that worked out well and less of the one’s that didn’t and come to some sort of a conclusion on why they worked out the way they did.
agee: Another aspect to sabr is that while teams do scout other MLB teams, the amount of scouting that would have to go into everybody else’s minors and majors is just far too great.
A scouting group for the Angels isn’t going to see a ton of Blue Jays mlb games or minor league games. Not enough to come up with a full detailed report to the point where sabr is useless.
It also answers the question “why?” For example, lets say the Mets call up the Rangers in November 2010. And they say “we have Mike Pelfrey available 15-9 3.66 ERA 204 innings, 33 starts.”
On the surface, he sounds like a solid pitcher. And maybe they had a few scouts at Pelfrey’s games by chance, but most likely they did not. So is Jon Daniels going to get tapes of 33 starts and watch every game Pelfrey has pitched in 2010 and prior in enough time for him to answer the Mets?
Or is he going to see Pelfrey’s numbers and then go find out why they look so good. Is Pelfrey really as good as that stat line says he was? Or is it masking the truth? Was Pelfrey a product of solid defense? A friendly home park? Luck?
There’s just so much more to a player than what a scout sees because that same scout isn’t there for 30+ games. If Pelfrey throws a 1 hitter, a scouts report could be vastly different than if he comes back a week later and Pelf doesn’t escape the 3rd inning.
Good points Jessep. Stats wouldn’t be a big help at all in the minors until after A+ at best and even then pretty sketchy since guys are supposed to be working on things they need to get better at in game competition rather than relying on what has gotten them to that point.
Maybe it’s the scouting model that needs to change. Hire two part time scouts to see every home game in whichever affiliate works the best for the scout. Obviously they’d see the “home” team the most often but they’d also have two different perspectives on all the teams as they come through. Those 2 scouts would see their “home base” team 35-70 times and every other affiliate 6-12 times each. That’s 12 opportunities between the two of them for an A- league and 24 for a AA team and two different perspectives from which to draw a conclusion. Add in your own affiliates coaching staff’s ideas from their 12 games vs. each team and a pretty fair perspective can be gained.
13 minor leagues times two guys in each is 26 part time scouts. What could it cost? In no time you’d have a fair idea and can send a regional scout followed by a cross checker for confirmation. You would also presumably have had some work done on many of these guys before they were drafted, maybe even twice or 3 times so that’s another resource.
Identifying guys in other teams systems is such a vital part of avoiding talent shortages 2-3 years later and can give you a huge leg up over everyone else by filling in where the prospects aren’t panning out like you had hoped. Anyone obtained through this method would be a huge cost saver for a team in that the prospects signing bonus has already been paid and having a guy enter your system in A- to AA can prevent the need 2-3 years down the road for the crippling free agent signing due to need and can place AAA depth in your system that still has a future in front of them.
What amazes me is how normal stats get counted as saber stats. WHIP, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ even are not “saber” stats. They are just good ole stats.
In most cases people do not even understand what sabr stats are. Does a guy who values sabr value OBP more than a guy who doesn’t and they value AVG? Yes. But that doesn’t make it a sabr stat. It makes it an area of focus and evaluation that those folks prefer.
I still think when it comes to team’s front office sabr techniques, things are being done that we have no idea about. Teams come up with concepts and their stat guys come up with ways to find the best guys that fit those concepts.
What Tampa Bay’s guys are doing behind closed doors is totally different than what Texas is doing for example.
It really is funny when “real baseball men” would never use those “new” stats even though they were created and used by guys like Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver. Meanwhile, the holy and sacred statistic of Batting Average was actually first used by and English sports writer for the New York Times. It was a statistic used in cricket that he transferred over to baseball so he could better express himself.
It is things like this that make me believe there is no such thing as a “baseball traditionalist”. The only real tradition in baseball is change.
Some stats are just natural though. BA, OBP, SLG, WHIP, ERA, OPS they are all just by products of themselves. A way of compiling stats and then dividing them by opportunities. That is why I am surprised that RBI/RBI Opportunities is not a more compelling stat.
well, there is measuring how a guy does with RISP and such. You’d probably find some satisfaction in Runs Created.
I have seen RC, not big on it yet. However, RBI/RBIO would be a much better judge of if someone is a “great” RBI guy. Example Howard has a ton of RBI but he also led the league in RBIO over that span. I think one of the knocks on Wright was that he had a lot of RBI but should have had many more…
Also yeah you could use the amount of RBI a player has with RISP but I am not sure anyone makes that sortable. Using just BA or some other slash line with RISP does not tell enough as you could get a hit with a guy on 2B and not drive him in or not get a hit and drive a runner in from 3B.
Used by Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver?
Rickey died in 1965 and Weaver retired in 1986. I doubt they had access to these “new” stats in lieu of the “sacred” ones like batting average, etc. And I also doubt that they relied upon the simplicity of those sacred ones either. Then all they would have had to do was to look at one’s bubble-gum card.
Yes, baseball evolves and changes. But remember that platoonng didn’t suddenly develop when Bill James came on the scene (even stratomatic evolved from three columns to six to account for a player’s performance against lefty/righty pitching or hitting before that). Same with the relief specialist. Nor did the transformation from swinging away in the fifties to the return of the hit and run in the seventies.
My argument is that sabremetrics is a valuable tool that makes it easier for general managers to get an understanding of the player’s performance than having to rely on a written analysis by those who observe the players and their team day in and day out and also have to rely on memory and note taking that could easily be misconstrued over time. But that’s a question of speed generating precise information at an instant – not revelation. No doubt Rickey would have used it too but it wouldn’t tell him anything that his baseball know-how couldn’t have figured out on his own, anyway.
I think he is talking about common sense stats like OBP and WHIP….
Also as a coach, I think that there is still a lot of uses for stats (advanced or not). Your eyes become trained but they also become biased as well. As SRT said, stats are a great way to look to see if your eyes are really saying what you think they are. Also, as a coach or manager you get to see your own players every day but not the other team… so to gain as much information as possible about the other team, why wouldn’t you?
“Rickey died in 1965 and Weaver retired in 1986. I doubt they had access to these “new” stats in lieu of the “sacred” ones like batting average, etc. ”
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FMEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=twopage&q&f=true
Joey, you’re not like some of those other ones. You can have a conversation with a person you disagree with without (purposefully) insulting him and that is something that can’t be said for certain people here.
That said, you’ve got 2 main problems here
1) You’re ill informed. There are a lot of these you obviously were unaware of or are using baseless assumptions of to have a productive conversation about the value of advanced statistics.
2) Your biases are over whelming your reason. There is nothing wrong with this per se. It is perfectly human, The problem is you are saying things that are demonstrably false and getting close to insulting as nothing more than a reaction.
Hi Donal,
Guess Bill James is taking credit away from Branch Rickey.
But remember that I did state that Rickey and others knew one could not rely on simple stats like batting average, home runs, etc. In fact, the attached article I think provides how astute baseball people began to understand this long before the formulas advanced by the author evolved.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4970
That’s why I say a lot of the analysis goes way too over the top for those other than mathematicians. The formulas are fun and can verify one’s conclusions but remember John McGraw and Casey Stengel appreciated and utilized how simple batting averages didn’t tell the whole story without the aid of the blackboard that Branch RIckey stood in front of.
And thanks for the nice words. Sending them back to you, too.
And it is expressing those gut feelings into something solid and expanding on them. That is just one advantage of the current crop of advanced stats.
Thanks for sharing the link Donal. I saw a documentary about Rickey 20 or so years ago and a lot of this was a part of it.I can’t remember the name of the documentary,it was something related to his Brooklyn Dodger days. Basically it was about how Rickey was an innovative mind ahead of the times and how he was the first executive to place emphasis on OBA. This puts a wrinkle into the so called tradtional baseball fans way of thinking. And if you’re old enough to remember when Ralph Kiner was in his prime years as a broadcaster for the Mets,one of the things Ralph would always talk about when his career was brought up by McCarver or whoever else was in the booth was his OB% and how he felt it was way more important than a players BA.
Anybody realize that if Jason Bay had productive seasons with the Mets we wouldn’t be having this intense discussion about the pros and cons of sabremetrics? LOL.
Exactly
If Bay had 30 HRs and 95 RBIs last year those are the ONLY 2 numbers you would need to know that he got better. The rest you can fill in.
That’s just it… LOL. His slash line (which does not include even one saber stat, learn what a saber stat is first) would be high as well if he had those numbers. What OBP, SLG and OPS do is actually give some value to guys who are not necessarily HR hitters or have weak lineups around them and do not have RBI opportunities. Not too many 30 HR/110 RBI guys with bad slash lines unless they are Adam Dunn like anyway.
If Bay had 30 HRs, 95 RBIS the Mets win more games.
I’m only interested in winning so you know what u can do with the rest of that garbage.
Now let trs have the last word cuz he has to
LOL, of course if Bay had those numbers the Mets would win more games and if Wright had a .333, .425, 1.015 they would win more games as well. Boy you sure are astute. Here’s a Larry Bird quote for you…
Team that makes the most baskets scores the most points and the team that scores the most points usually wins the game.
Well, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There’d be one some place else though. Its not like there is a shortage of guys not performing on this team.