Guess you missed this then….

“Through this, the Phillies have done more by seeing less over the last few seasons”

So he gets the answer e was looking for not really the story the stats tell him…

These stats show you the story I want you to believe and if they don’t tell you that story they WOULD if that team had done better in the category I say is important….Because they would have been better statistically…

It’s a pile of crap….

Here is something I cooked up to twart X’s 30 years of research about how High OBP relates to HIGH RS…

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/does-ops-correlate-better-to-runs-scored-than-rbi.html

Truth is most statistical analysis isn’t done to find truths about baseball…
They are used to prove theories people have about baseball and the problem with that is the analysis is usually created by the thought and as a result the equations and weights used are a product of the bias and constructed to come up with the answer they WANT to see not the answer that the Stats really tell.

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/01/should-the-new-york-mets-pursue-jair-jurrjens.html#comment-334656

I think it’s a very weak correlation and I would contend the decrease in runs is due to a team decrease in on base percentage and slugging percentage, but that’s not the point. The point is, the author was mistaken is his findings, which would have lended itself to your ridiculous assessment if in fact he was right. They weren’t scoring more with lower PPPA, they were scoring less, which agrees with the general principle. But you think that gives you license to undermine anything you don’t agree with or understand. In other terms, you’re agreeing with a factually incorrect statement.

Came across this interesting article from a Phillie writer trying to contend a correlation between run scoring and PPPA. He uses a few years to show run production going up with higher PPPA with certain players. However, when he came across a period when the Phillies were scoring more with a lower PPPA from certain players he excuses it by saying “if they were seeing more pitches, they would likely score more runs.”

So when a statistical correlation shows an opposite affect has it now come down to the addition of a disclaimer in order to dismiss it? I can imagine Sandy coming on television to downplay the Mets scoring more runs by saying they could be scoring even more following his methodology. The other side of the coin – saying maybe they would have scored less by taking more pitches – would never enter the conversation.

Bottom line is an average of four could be result in a 2-2 count as much as a 1 ball 3 strike plate appearance. It’s a stat but is really a quite useless piece of information

http://ianriccaboni.wordpress.com/tag/pitches-per-plate-appearance/

He has 30 Years of research under his belt…It all came to the wrong conclusion and was showed to be wrong in about an hour but he has that 30 years of work in you know…

LOL

Technically your reputation is not at stake – after all, you were looking at that picture through a computer monitor!

But recalling how Palmer and Hoffman gripped the ball and what such a placement causes the ball to do makes me also believe if asked in the broadcast booth you would have been able to point out some things Ike Davis was doing differently with his mechanics instead of saying you were just an “observer”. l

That is why I gave kudos to you and others who were looking at the way he was gripping the baseball instead of his stats. That’s how it’s done, not through a computer.

But I agree just losing a fastball is no reason to say a guy is no longer able to be successfl…

Harang & Young= Pass.
Capuano & Marcum= Yes. Been pushing for Marcum for a while now, being that like Jurrjens, is the type of guy the Mets like in those “low-risk, high reward” type of deals.