MMO Featured Post: Can The Mets Win The WAR in 2013?

58 Comments + Add Comment

• Hank February 26, 2013 at 9:34 am

  Predicting WAR in late February is akin to players saying they’re in the best shape of their lives. Sounds good and all, but it means nothing.
• jessep February 26, 2013 at 9:42 am

  I get that people like WAR (as I do not) but I’d challenge this question

  “So, the question is, what kind of an impact have this offseason’s transactions had on the team’s WAR compared to 2012? And how will it evolve in 2013?”

  And replace WAR with actual Wins.

  I really like how you break things down and bring another side to these stats though
• Met Maniac February 26, 2013 at 9:52 am

  Andre, I think your methodology is flawed. You used a stat that even it’s creators differ as to it’s computation. It’s a stat that in its various versions says different things about the same player. I once read something that in one players case there were three different WAR interpretations ranging from -0.5 to 2.3. So to me that makes the whole premise of this post and ultimate outcome flawed. Also while conservative, you seem to give the benefit of the doubt to the Mets in almost ever case, something that was harshly rebuked by even someone in this thread yesterday in another post. Odd yes, but quite the natural course of events where he is concerned.

  But I will credit you for your research and time it must have taken to put this together. I just have a problem with the methodology and that some bias was used to gain a better outcome.

  This team is not as good as the 2013 version, but sadly it could have been, and we know why it isn’t.
  • Met Maniac February 26, 2013 at 9:55 am

    I meant to say the team is not better than the 2012 version.

    We lost R.A. Dickey the reigning Cy Young, and the team’s best producing outfielder and second leading player in slugging and homeruns. We can sugarcoat that all we want, but it doesn’t make it any better or change what happened this offseason.
• srt February 26, 2013 at 9:53 am

  Even with a somewhat flawed WAR measurement, it’s so hard to predict this given the fact that starting rotations and the rest of the roster change so much throughout the season.

  Interesting to see a net gain of 11.5 wins with the speculated roster to start the season.
  • TRS86 February 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Yeah, I think that’s a little lofty but with so many unknowns it’s hard to tell. Maybe this is what the group that predicted us to go 80-82 was looking at?
    • srt February 26, 2013 at 10:07 am

      Could be – as that was the highest prediction I saw for the Mets. All the rest predicted < 80 wins, some < 75 wins.
      • TRS86 February 26, 2013 at 10:08 am

        Yeah, I am still sticking with my soft 75 wins cap. It’s just so damn hard to tell when you don’t know what you have in so many positions.
        • srt February 26, 2013 at 10:10 am

          Agree. I went with 77 wins, even though I don’t like making these predictions this early.
• Donal February 26, 2013 at 9:59 am

  WAR isn’t really used that way and I’m among those that don’t really look to it.

  I think the biggest problem here is we still aren’t sure what the final roster will look like. Also, with all the young guys who are still in unknown territory (for themselves and us watching them), I think it is hard to say who is going to move up or down.
• Dan from Whitestone February 26, 2013 at 10:27 am

  Nice job! I say the Mets will win no less than 82 games this season and I would be thrilled if that’s indeed the case. Can’t wait to get this season started already. LGM!
• Old School Mets Fan February 26, 2013 at 10:38 am

  I’m sticking with 66-96 (I had them at 76 wins last year).
  • Alex68 February 26, 2013 at 11:25 am

    THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
• Adam Rossi February 26, 2013 at 10:40 am

  Nice job, Andre. I think these projections are very reasonable, and I agree with both you and Baseball Prospectus that the Mets can win between 80-85 games this year. The pitching staff is solid, the infield is admirable, and the bullpen should be improved. Even if d’Arnaud doesn’t become an All-Star right away, John Buck is a better catcher than Josh Thole/Mike Nickeas. People are focusing too much on the negative (the OF) and not enough on the positive (everything else).
  And let’s not forget, the Phillies aren’t exactly world beaters anymore. They may have more talent right now, but they’re old and injury prone.
  • jessep February 26, 2013 at 10:41 am

    their OF isn’t much better than the Mets either
• taskmaster4450 February 26, 2013 at 10:45 am

  I still stand that a .500 record is a realistic goal. I do not see 11 wins putting this team at 85 wins. It could happen but isnt likely in my view.

  While I agree with the premise that the Mets are a better team when looked at the positions individually, I dont think that you can formulate success based upon individuals. If that was the case, a team like the Dodgers should have overtaken the Giants down the stretch. Baseball is a team game and there are many facets to it. As the Mets proved, a couple of holes (ie bp) can sink the entire team.

  Overall, on paper, this think the 2013 team is better than the 2012. However, that does not factor in injuries which exposes the Mets overall lack of major league depth. At the same time, in February, we cannot predict how other teams are affected by injuries. Over 162 games, they are a critical part of the scenario.

  Sabermetrics, eyeball analysis, or anything else done in February is about as effective as going to a tarot card reader. Just speculation which may or may not be proven.
• DrDooby February 26, 2013 at 12:22 pm

  Let´s just add that this piece isn´t necessarily about what the writer thinks is going to happen but rather taking a – granted – rather optimistic stance and try to think about a scenario that doesn´t seem totally far-fetched.

  Thing is, the Mets have several factors working in their favor:

  # 1 A young roster overall. By rule of thumb, a rather young roster generally has more upside to improve than a rather old roster. It´s also more difficult to project due to a lack of proven track record. Take a player like Ike Davis for example. He just turned 26 and will be entering his 4th season in the majors. I don´t think anyone feels that a significant improvement overall in 2013 is all that unlikely.

  # 2 An atrocious bullpen in 2012. Nobody expects the Mets bullpen to turn into a major asset anytime soon. However, due to a high number of options, the Mets at least have a much higher chance to find the right mix of people. And even if the bullpen is merely average, it will improve the entire team significantly due to the lack of success it had as a whole in 2012.

  # 3 An atrocious outfield in 2012. Again, on paper the projected Mets 2013 outfield is among the worst 5 units in the league. Then again – as a whole – it´s hard to see how it can perform below the subpar levels of 2012. And due to the generally youngish age of candidates, odds are it is bound to improve. At least on paper, Nieuwenhuis / Cowgill and Valdespin or Baxter / Byrd or Brown could form two pretty productive platoons while providing solid defense at two outfield spots. Lucas Duda will get his final chance. If he hits, fine. If he doesn´t, he´ll probably be out of the majors for good by June.

  And on a final note:
  Large parts of these improvements would be due to players brought in under Omar Minaya. So, while the organizational philosophy will be more & more on Alderson – and he´ll be held accountable for achieving or failing to achieve the goal of “sustained winning”, a lot will still depend on the performance of inherited players from the previous regime.
  So, this positive outlook has nothing to do with trying to bash / hail Minaya or bash / hail Alderson…

  Are the Mets going to win 86 games in 2013 ?
  Probably not.
  But I very much believe .500 is a realistic scenario. And 86 wins certainly isn´t as far-fetched as it would appear to be based on some predictions.
  • Bayonne Mets Fan February 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    But aren’t YOU the writer? Why the need to speak in the 3rd person?
    • DrDooby February 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm

      Indeed. 3rd person just for “dramatic” reasons or lack of native speaking ability.
      I share a trait with Omar Minaya that English only is our 2nd best language…
      • Bayonne Mets Fan February 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm

        And the reason for bringing up Omar Minaya is?

        No need for dramatic effect. Maybe you have a problem just being yourself?
        • DrDooby February 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm

          Might be the effect of so many years of suffering as a Mets fan ? Split personality ?
  • Just-Da-Damaja March 4, 2013 at 5:46 am

    “It´s also more difficult to project due to a lack of proven track record. ”

    Yup !

    in the past 2 seasons, we’ve had season ending injuries to Ike Davis, Daniel Murphy, Dillon Gee, Jennry Mejia along with Tejada now mysteriously developing hamstring issues…

    meanwhile castoffs like RA Dickey, Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran for the past 2 seasons have been healthier
• Sloatsburg Mets Fan February 26, 2013 at 12:54 pm

  At some point, at some point, i wish people who never played the game understand that bringing all these sabermetrics stats and view of the game has no impact on a game. whatever…

  Alex, with all do respect, that us just nonsense. I can pretty much guarantee that nearly everyone played some type of competitive ball regardless of the level. Having played at some advanced program doesn’t make you any more of a fan of the game.

  I’ve mentioned in the past that, in my business, we often get to rub elbows with some celebrities and athletes. I can tell you that nearly every baseball player or executive (recent activity) absolutely LOVE all the Saber stat stuff. The only two that didn’t care much about them were much older. I, personally am right down the middle with this. I think a combination of both disciplines works best.
  • TRS86 February 26, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    ” I think a combination of both disciplines works best.”

    99.9% of us feel this way.
    • Sloatsburg Mets Fan February 26, 2013 at 7:34 pm

      So you’re saying Alex is the 0.1%?
• Joey D. February 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm

  Hi Andre,

  I believe that what we see on the field in wins and losses, plus how they were achieved, is still the only way to measure a team.

  What I mean about being achieved is if we see how often the team beats itself and in that case, how poor the team is in executing fundamentals which often gets lost in the box score.
• Joe D February 26, 2013 at 2:18 pm

  Great effort on this Andre, and it’s nice to see a different way of projecting future and past performance. I appreciate how much time it must have taken to put this together. While I don’t share the opinion of a potential 85 win season, I can see how you came to that number and that how it is very possible. I always applaud yours and every Met fan’s never-ending supply of hope and enthusiasm. Sorry about some of the non-relevant gibberish in the comments and I went ahead and cleaned that up for you.
• Hotstreak March 4, 2013 at 8:39 am

  This analysis had both though and effort. If WAR was an incremental analysis which in text books as presented here then it seems very valid. But how did every other team’s WAR change. In other words the real war is competition on the field and not in a white paper. In other words whose warriors are better
• Metro12 March 4, 2013 at 9:24 am

  There is no correct or 1 way to project a season’s outcome, but WAR is as good as any other. It’s as good as the methods used by those such as Olney or Rubin — which is their opinions heavily filtered by bias. It’s as good as those in Vegas, going more on what happened last year and who signed expensive free agents than on anything else.

  And Dooby is not giving a strict projection here so much as a hypothetical scenario where the extra wins can come from. I happen to share Dooby’s optimism, dependent on two things: (1) the bullpen and (2) the team’s health. Other than that, there’s not much to be worried about and I think the outfield situation is overblown way out of proportion. No one can predict how the team’s health is going to hold up during the year. But the Mets having so many young players should not be at any greater risk than the average team. The Phillies and Yankees are the ones who need to worry about health. As for the bullpen, that’s still a worry but it’s still so early in ST that it’s too premature to be fatalistic about it (the way Rubin appears to be).
• sarge69 March 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm

  Mets teams were bad and good before WARS so what does it matter?

  This is just another number for statistically involved fans, bloggers, FO, teams to use to make excuses for losing, drafting wrong/right player, why we won, why we lost, and getting more $$$ for the player by their agent, sheesh!

  Mets will win if they have a record that is, 1st-above .500, 2nd-have a record good enough to make playoffs, LUCK, pitching comes through as it did for Gigantes last year and Cards the year before.

  Sometimes, like 2000 team, WAR wasn’t needed, we had the right manager, who was given the right players by ownership and FO plus some luck.

  How long is this insane bickering between a player winning an award based on WAR vs his actual statistics and how he helped team win going to continue, year after year?

  This is just like the QS, quality start, pushed into baseball by the same people, and used by agents to make their pitcher “seem” valuable.

  Really, 3 runs or less, in 6 innings is a measure of a good pitcher, pitching outing?
  What does that do for the ERA?

  Taking the max, 3 runs in 6 innings, that means that an ERA of 4.50 is good just because you were able to hold an opposing team to 3 runs?
  This is a stat that maybe was relevant in the scoring 90′s when some players were juiced and pitchers were being rocked so an agent or whomever came up with a stat for 2/3 of the game for the pitcher in question.

  This is why baseball is, IMHO, getting ridiculous with all the stats, defensive graphs, range factor, % of this hit or pitch or line drives!

  When will this all end because sooner or later you lose many who want to enjoy the beauty of the game w/o having to wonder if his fav player has a good WAR or not.
  Good for agents and players but just another layer of confusion for fans, especially new ones.

  How can WAR help Mets put best team on field? Does WAR account for injuries?
  Last year all the WAR mongers, just joking, were saying that Trout deserved the MVP because of his WAR over a TRIPLE CROWN WINNER, though you can’t measure how this translated into better performance in playoffs, but Cabrera was the MVP. Saber-metric fans and agents just like to have another stat to spice up conversation but I think that the emphasis being placed on it by reporters, fans and others is just so nutty at times.

  Enjoy the game for the beauty, the grace, the difficulty of trying to hit a round ball with a round bat, the weather in summer, taking your kids to enjoy your fav team but leave the calculator, abacus at home and bring your pencil to fill out your scorecard and by the way, teach your child how to fill it out while enjoying the greatest sport in the world.

  Lets Go Mets! (With or w/o our required WAR team B-))
  • Donal March 5, 2013 at 12:10 am

    You are more than welcome to enjoy the game any way you wish. Feel free to extend everyone else the same courtesy.

    Baseball has always been about statistics. A game of numbers. However, there are plenty of conversations to be had that don’t involve quantifying production. No one is putting a gun to your head to discuss or learn advanced stats or any stats. All you have to do to avoid the discussions is not jump into them.

    You don’t want to discuss WAR but posted in a discussion specifically about it.
  • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 1:08 am

    Well said, sarge69, very well said.

    Stats are fun for all of us but some I guess enjoy looking at baseball in those terms than others like you and I.

    A good example is the ninth inning of game six of the ’86 world series. With runners on first and second and nobody out, HoJo fouls off a bunt on the first pitch and hits into a double-play for the second, severely hampering the Mets chances to put the game away before all the fireworks that came afterwards.

    Vin Scully was politely but consistently chewing out Davey Johnson for making the wrong decision and not having Johnson continue trying to lay down a sacrifice. He could even be heard starting to question the move as he thought the microphone was off heading for a commercial. The books called for it. The stats would showed strategically it to be the right move. And HoJo had a poor season in 1986 hitting just .245 and .254 as a left handed batter.

    But he was about all Davey had left on the bench – and he was also aware of Johnson being a horrible bunter. So he had him bunt that first pitch to see if he could lay one down, and then go back to hitting away. Davey knew what options were available to him and all about HoJo which the hall of fame broadcaster did not.

    The point I guess I’m making is that some might have enjoyed at the time questioning Davey’s decision looking at all of HoJo’s stats – including his ability to move runners over with the bunt. But, for us, all that needed to be said was that Johnson was a lousy bunter and why is Davey having him go out and not swing away or even pinch hitting for weak hitting September call up, Kevin Elster allowing Elster to try to get his first sacrifice hit instead?

    That to me is the beauty of the sport, talking about it and not looking up figures on a spreadsheet.

    Again, to each his own. But the thing that upsets me is professionals using stats as a quantitative basis to make decisions. Anyone who understands the game does not neither need that information (beyond reference) and knows more by experience in the game itself. Those who can’t make analysis without the use of stats really is not qualified to make an analysis at all on a professional level. We’ve seen this with Sandy with his PPPA theory and inability to talk about one’s mechanics.
    • Donal March 5, 2013 at 7:18 am

      ” He could even be heard starting to question the move as he thought the microphone was off heading for a commercial. The books called for it. The stats would showed strategically it to be the right move. And HoJo had a poor season in 1986 hitting just .245 and .254 as a left handed batter.”

      The opposite of true. Davey was smart enough to know that bunting with positional players hurts your chances of scoring runs.

      “But he was about all Davey had left on the bench – and he was also aware of Johnson being a horrible bunter. So he had him bunt that first pitch to see if he could lay one down, and then go back to hitting away.”

      That makes even less sense. why start him off in a hole like that?

      ” Davey knew what options were available to him and all about HoJo which the hall of fame broadcaster did not.”

      If what you say is true, and I’m only conceding it right now for the sake of this discussion, that is not a problem with statistics. It’s a problem of Scully not checking his scorecard to see who was still on the bench.

      “But, for us, all that needed to be said was that Johnson was a lousy bunter ”

      How do you know he’s a lousy bunter if you don’t know the results of his other attempts? True, he may have bad form, but plenty of guys have what would be considered lousy form for certain tasks and still do those particular things well.

      “why is Davey having him go out and not swing away or even pinch hitting for weak hitting September call up, Kevin Elster allowing Elster to try to get his first sacrifice hit instead?”

      Because letting a hitter hit, especially a guy with power like HoJo, does way more than just surrendering the out, especially if you also risk a force out at third anyway.

      “talking about it and not looking up figures on a spreadsheet.”

      You’re asking why not try something. The answer lies within those spread sheets. are you just asking questions you don’t want the answer to?

      Generally, when I ask a question, I’m looking for the answer. I’m not doing it because I love the sound of my own voice.

      “But the thing that upsets me is professionals using stats as a quantitative basis to make decisions”

      You mean the very thing they are supposed to be used for?

      ” Anyone who understands the game”

      No True Scotsman fallacy and poisoning the well.

      ” does not neither need that information (beyond reference)”

      Because reference isn’t important or anything.

      “and knows more by experience in the game itself. ”

      What if experience tells him the stats are more often than not right? Also, experience is a weird thing, because our brains are not wired to make prudent long term decisions.

      You can’t really tell me in your experience an action is good when even in your own career, it has failed far more often than succeeded. It’s like the gambler who hits on 19 when the dealer is showing 5 and gets his 2. there is no way in the world you can tell me that was the right move.

      “Those who can’t make analysis without the use of stats really is not qualified to make an analysis at all on a professional level.”

      Wow, what an arrogant sweeping generalization. You are some guy posting anonymously on a fansite. what makes you qualified to make that assessment?

      “We’ve seen this with Sandy with his PPPA theory and inability to talk about one’s mechanics.”

      1) No one has asked him about mechnaics

      2) It’s not the GM’s job. No one has ever been hired as a GM because of his ability to describe someone’s mechanics. That is what scouts and coaches are for. When coaches and scouts are promoted to GM, it isn’t because they can assess a pitcher’s delivery. It is because they worked their way up demonstrated the qualities a team might be looking for in a GM.
      • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 9:49 am

        HI Donal,

        Certainly, the point I was making was how some like talking about the game in different languages. Only examples. One could say from knowing the team that HoJo was a lousy bunter and (as I was) afraid he was going to hit into a DP whle another can say he was –% in sacrifice situations and the probability of him swinging away and hitting into a double play is –%.

        I recorded the game on VHS when it happened and have all the post-game and follow-up News4 reports so I don’t know if Scully’s off the cuff remark is actually on any video release.

        But that is the fun of baseball in any language and that’s why I said “Again, to each his own”.

        BTW – would you have had Elster remain in the game and bunt or have taken him out just on the feeling that the intense pressure would be too much for a kid with just 20 games under his belt (remember we saw Schiraldi succumb to the same pressure – even Keith’s fly ball was well hit off him). Again, this is the fun of the game – second guessing the manager. If it was me, I would have left it to my coaching staff to decide….

        As far as the use of advanced stats by the professionals, I think those who know the game by having played it professionally, managed, scouted, coached, etc. know how to use and not use stats,and understand when to apply them either as to how the game should be played on the field or putting together that team in the front office and often they are only meant to confirm what they believe their baseball instincts and experience already tells them. Thats for those who know the game and use stats as an aid.

        Those who don’t know the game and use stats to learn about it are missing the vital ingredients on how to apply them in any of the manners above. This shows only too well with Sandy when he is speaking about the game itself. That bit about PPPA showed his lack of understanding, as well as the OBP philsolphy that was telegraphing to opposing pitchers that the Mets were going to hunt for those 13 inches early in the pitch count, being unable to decipher anything he saw wrong with Ike Davis at the plate. That is not one wants to count on calling the shots in the game professinally. In that blogger’s conference call from last week, when it came to the game itself he was talking in generalities and with the same understanding we have as fans – yet, when it came to the business and dealing with the media, etc. he was very specific on the points he was trying to make.

        If Sandy left the direction of the team and the mindset toward hitting, etc. to be handled by baseball people instead of hiring and having people do things his way (as Paul DePodesta says) then there would be no problem on my part. He’d be leaving baseball matters and the use of stats to the pros who know when and when not to rely on them.
        • Donal March 5, 2013 at 10:14 am

          “Certainly, the point I was making was how some like talking about the game in different languages. ”

          But then you go on a lengthy rant about how the other people are wrong. And you are factually wrong and use logical fallacies in your examples and arguments.

          “Those who don’t know the game and use stats to learn about it are missing the vital ingredients on how to apply them in any of the manners above.”

          Again generalizations and logical fallacies

          ” This shows only too well with Sandy when he is speaking about the game itself. That bit about PPPA showed his lack of understanding,”

          Or maybe you don’t get how stats work.

          ” as well as the OBP philsolphy that was telegraphing to opposing pitchers that the Mets were going to hunt for those 13 inches early in the pitch count, being unable to decipher anything he saw wrong with Ike Davis at the plate. ”

          How many times does this need to be said.

          You are wrong with this statement. Repetition does not make up for factual accuracy. There is no grey area, no compromise, no difference of opinion, no middle ground.

          You. Are. Demonstrably. Wrong.

          Ike was not taking pitches. He was always known as a free swinger, got more first pitch curve balls than prior in his career and was swinging right through them. When he started taking those first pitch curve balls, he got more fastballs, jumped on those and his production dramatically increased. None of this is speculation or conjecture. they are documented facts that directly contradict your claims.

          And to continue to say this and the other debunked remarks you make is making arguments in bad faith.

          “In that blogger’s conference call from last week, when it came to the game itself he was talking in generalities and with the same understanding we have as fans”

          So what? Was it supposed to be a graduate level course in running a franchise? It was a press conference. The only time those things are notable, it is because something went horribly wrong. Find me a GM who does it differently.

          “yet, when it came to the business and dealing with the media, etc. he was very specific on the points he was trying to make.”

          Again, find me someone who does it differently.

          “If Sandy left the direction of the team and the mindset toward hitting, etc. to be handled by baseball people instead of hiring and having people do things his way (as Paul DePodesta says) then there would be no problem on my part. ”

          He does that. Even DePodesta has said they aren’t slavishly devoted to their hitting approach and realize some guys have to do certain things their way.

          But every organization has an approach they want to use.
    • Donal March 5, 2013 at 10:15 am

      Wow, good catch. I didn’t even think to verify what Joey was saying about that plate appearance.
      • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 10:46 am

        Yup, congratulations Fonzie, you caught me on that one.

        But as far as Vin Scully, he kept on referring to Johnson taking the bunt sign off for the other Johnson, noting how it would “claw in his stomach” over the winter during that tenth inning. What I might try to find out of pure interest is the radio coverage of that point in the game to hear how it was or wasn’t being played up in the broadcast booth.

        It doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other – I was just pointing out the way people can talk about the game differently.

        And as far as the game itself, I don’t use stats – traditional or otherwise – to interpret things. And neither has Tony LaRussa for the reasons he stated in those past links I attached. I use observation and refer to stats as a reference tool. In this case, I should have used the DVD-R I made from my old VHS recording regarding HoJo’s at bat.

        Attached is what I think is a very fair transcription about advances stats and it’s usefulness. But notice that the author points out one important aspect of it’s usage is for reference because a manager only observes another team a certain amount of games each year. It might give the fan more understanding – but how it relates to the professionals – well, they don’t even need the basic stats to understand the points the author is making.
        • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 10:47 am

          http://www.seanlahman.com/baseball-archive/sabermetrics/sabermetric-manifesto/
          • Donal March 5, 2013 at 10:50 am

            But, you don’t adhere to half of what he says.
        • Donal March 5, 2013 at 10:56 am

          “It doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other – I was just pointing out the way people can talk about the game differently.”

          Of course it matters. Not only did you mangle the anecdote, you completely misinterpreted the bad info you used.

          ” And neither has Tony LaRussa for the reasons he stated in those past links I attached.”

          What are you talking about? why exactly do you think he’s the father of relief specialization?
  • DrDooby March 5, 2013 at 1:24 am

    Sure, the games will be played on the field and certainly not in a computer simulation. And I’ll gladly point out that “WAR” isn’t the ultimate “stat” and certainly has flaws, especially with regards to defense and relief pitching.

    However, it’s a useful tool looking at past performance and projecting future performance.
    It can’t account for injuries or clubhose conflicts and good or bad luck, of course. But it can take an unemotional look at what needs to happen where in order to improve the team. Now, pretty much every 6 year-old getting involved with Baseball can see that the 2012 Mets featured both a terrible outfield and a terrible bullpen. Pretty much at ” replacement level ” quality overall. You don’t need WAR or RBI or ERA+ or FIP to realize that. However, it won’t take much to improve in these areas in 2013 – even if they aren’t exactly filled with quality players mostly.
    However, the bullpen is a lot deeper than it has been in several years. It isn’t outlandish to expect Mets relievers to give up 40 or 50 runs less in 2013 than in 2012. It still wouldn’t match the Braves bullpen and be merely averagish. But alone that’d be worth 4 to 5 wins over a full season thatcan be made up via this rather obscure way. Or about as much as the Mets would have made up by adding Justin Upton vs. Mike Baxter / Marlon Byrd in RF if Upton has a good season.

    The outfield still looks very shaky. But the good part is that it can’t really get any worse than it was in 2012. And we all agree that it needs to become substantially better if the Mets want to seriously contend again. For 2013, 85 wins is the optimistic side of things without expecting absurd and totally unforeseeable breakouts.
  • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 8:41 am

    You couldn’t be more wrong about WAR and sabermetrics. For example, many who appreciate sabermetrics actually don’t like the quality start stat, and you’ll be hard pressed to find it even listed on sites like Fangraphs or Baseball Reference.

    No one is forcing those who don’t like stats to use them or appreciate them. If people want to use only their eyes and biases to view the game, that’s fine. But stats can give a deeper understanding of the game and break down in more clarity how individual players are impacting what’s happening on the field. No decent front office today would be caught dead without a firm understanding of advanced modern stats, and that definitely includes WAR. All the successful front offices today use advanced stats to help them acquire players.

    IMO, whether you are a fan or a front office, you need to look at all aspects of the game in both ways. If you only look at things through stats, you are blind. And if you only look at things through your eyes and heart, you are just as blind. Enjoy the game though both the intangibles and stats and you have the ideal picture. I think most successful front offices use this dual approach as well.

    One criticism of WAR is that there are various results for it based on the website you go to. But it matters little that fWAR differs from bWAR. There is an underlying logical reason why they differ, and that’s because they use different formulas, emphasizing different parts of the game. So from a fan perspective, the point is to understand why they differ, pick one method that works for what you believe in, and stick with it.

    ESPN recently had an article on the state of WAR today. Here are some quotes from the article:

    In 2012 the correlation between Baseball Prospectus’ WAR and team victories was 0.86 (where 1.0 would have meant a perfect correlation). The correlation between batting average and victories was 0.27. Teams with more WAR win more games. Teams with better batting averages don’t…

    As James told me, the war over WAR has ceased where it matters. “There’s a practical necessity for measurements like that in a front office that make it irrelevant whether you like them or you don’t.”

    Whether you do is up to you and ultimately matters only to you. In the larger perspective, the debate is over, and data won. So fight it if you’d like. But at a certain point, the question in any debate against science is: What are you really fighting and why?

    It really is an excellent article that explains WAR and why it is valued today by many. I suggest those who want to get a better understanding of WAR read it. Here is the link:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8959581/why-wins-replacement-mlb-next-big-all-encompassing-stat-espn-magazine#comments
    • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 10:27 am

      Hi Metro,

      Ron Darling has already said he doesn’t consider three runs in six innings a quality start. That would be pitching to a 4.50 ERA as we all know.

      To me, a quality start is how well the pitcher is doing – he could give up three runs in those six innings while having great stuff with the defense letting him down behind him or even just on badly hit balls that become Texas Leaguers or have seeing eyes to just get by the infielders – and having hitters poke at pitches that were not in those 13 inches or even slightly off the corners that Dave Hudgens urges they lay off of.

      Chris Capuano is the perfect example of the other way. As a Met he was usually hit hard and gave up walks at the most inopportune time which resulted in those three runs not quite through six full innings and often blew big leads just short of tying the game which resulted in extra work by the bullpen quite often (Chris got the seventh highest run support in the league that season). In fact, take away that two hit masterpiece and his ERA skyrockets to 4.78 over 30 starts and two relief appearances.

      “If people want to use only their eyes and biases to view the game, that’s fine. But stats can give a deeper understanding of the game and break down in more clarity how individual players are impacting what’s happening on the field. No decent front office today would be caught dead without a firm understanding of advanced modern stats, and that definitely includes WAR. All the successful front offices today use advanced stats to help them acquire players.”

      There you are wrong. It’s saying that all those from the late seventies and beforehand didn’t know as much about the game as those do now. As mentioned to Donal, baseball people can use advance stats for reference but it doesn’t reveal to them any quantitative information they weren’t already aware of – all it really does is provide a quick reference for seeking information that the human mindjust cannot store.

      Now the attached is, quite honestly, just one’s opinion, very general and not written in stone but I think it’s an intersting way of looking at the importance of advanced stats in the sphere of professional baseball.

      Also, keep in mind that advanced stats question how good the Orioles really were this past season. Their pythagorean record is 82-80 which suggests they were lucky to win those eleven extra game. According to Baseball Reference:

      “Pythagorean winning percentage is an estimate of a team’s winning percentage given their runs scored and runs allowed. Developed by Bill James, it can tell you when teams were a bit lucky or unlucky

      “It is calculated by

      (Runs Scored)^1.83
      ———————————————————
      (Runs Scored)^1.83 + (Runs Allowed)^1.83″

      I mean, what does all the above mean? If one goes by that, then the Pirates were lucky to win the 1960 world series. They lost 3 games to the Yankees by a combined score of 36-3. They won four games by a combined score of 24-17.

      Pirates a bit lucky? Just means it doesn’t matter what the final score is as long as one team scores at least one more run than the other. It’s irrelevant if it’s a 3-2 pitching gem (game four of the series which allowed Pittsburgh to even it with the Yankees) or 16-3, 10-0 or 12-0 blowouts like the Yankees had in Casey’s final fall appearance.

      http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-sabermetrics-and-which-teams-use-it/
      • Donal March 5, 2013 at 11:12 am

        1) Who mentioned quality starts? I have yet to meet and advocate of advanced stats who thinks highly of QS. We can all agree, QS is a stupid stat.

        ” It’s saying that all those from the late seventies and beforehand didn’t know as much about the game as those do now.”

        But, they do. That’s how it works. The more you progress, the more you see, the better conclusions you can draw. No one is saying people prior to now were stupid or didn’t understand the game. In fact, a lot of their work, especially guys like Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver, are why we have so much more insight now. And in 10 years, we’ll know even more.

        “As mentioned to Donal, baseball people can use advance stats for reference but it doesn’t reveal to them any quantitative information they weren’t already aware of ”

        Except it does. Of course, any new conclusion brought on by this evidence gets dismissed by you and others because it goes against what “we already knew”. It is a no win scenario you created that, again, shows you are not discussing this in good faith.

        “Also, keep in mind that advanced stats question how good the Orioles really were this past season. Their pythagorean record is 82-80 which suggests they were lucky to win those eleven extra game. According to Baseball Reference:”

        Well, ya. No one, advanced stathead or psuedo-philosopher, saw the Orioles making a playoff run. Shouldn’t we question whether they were really good or just lucky? You just said advanced stats offer no deeper insight to the game, but here are completely dismissing an attempt to do so. Again, you are not engaging this discussion honestly.

        “I mean, what does all the above mean? If one goes by that, then the Pirates were lucky to win the 1960 world series. They lost 3 games to the Yankees by a combined score of 36-3. They won four games by a combined score of 24-17.”

        Again, you are misrepresenting things. Pythag is meant to be used over the course of a 162 game season. A short series will give you all kinds of wacky results. but, the larger the sample size, the more things normalize.
        • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 11:43 am

          LOL, Donal, I usually agree with you, but I will disagree with you on the quality start.:)

          There are many who embrace advanced metrics who also like the quality start. Bill James is one of them, and he went to bat for the stat in his 1987 Baseball Abstract.

          Personally, I really like both WAR and the quality start stat (when used within the context of the number of quality starts within a season or the percentage of quality starts).
          • Donal March 5, 2013 at 11:52 am

            I was under the impression that due to its reliance on ERA, advanced stat advocates in general do not use it.

            Too many factors that the pitcher doesn’t control.
            • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm

              Donal, I think most in the sabermetric do not use it, but I don’t think that’s universal. Most of them also think that BABIP can’t be controlled, but there is some evidence that pitchers can control it more so than hitters.Personally, I don’t like using FIP in certain circumstances and think it’s too narrow a stat often used in too broad a context.

              Baseball Reference’s WAR stat actually does count earned runs for pitchers. I happen to like bWAR better than fWAR for pitchers (only) for that very reason. BR gives Dickey a 5.6 WAR for 2012 while his fWAR is just 4.6. Which WAR do you think better represents his 2012 value? IMO, it’s BR.

              OTOH, for position players, I prefer fWAR because I think it more realistically reflects the relative value of players.
              • Donal March 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm

                “Donal, I think most in the sabermetric do not use it, but I don’t think that’s universal. ”

                Fair enough. We are probably just talking to different people.

                “Most of them also think that BABIP can’t be controlled, but there is some evidence that pitchers can control it more so than hitters.”

                True. I always thought pitch to contact was too quickly dismissed. although, I do think it is over valued by mainstream.

                “I happen to like bWAR better than fWAR for pitchers (only) for that very reason. BR gives Dickey a 5.6 WAR for 2012 while his fWAR is just 4.6. Which WAR do you think better represents his 2012 value? IMO, it’s BR.”

                My biggest problem there is the difference between an earned run and an unearned run, when you break it down, is purely subjective. There’s no standard to determining an error. Just a guy in a booth (and never in the same spot in any stadium) deciding if “he shoulda caught that.
                • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm

                  Donal, yes, that is true, but the alternative of leaving out Runs allowed from the formula I think is more faulty, IMO, and less representative of a starters true value.
                  • Donal March 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm

                    Thats why I like FIP. It tries to determine how productive each pitcher would be given and equal setting.
        • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm

          Hi Donal,

          ” It’s saying that all those from the late seventies and beforehand didn’t know as much about the game as those do now.”

          “But, they do.”

          That is really quite a put down of all those who came before. The things that James revealed were not revelations to those on the field – or even to me.

          For example, the ballpark factor. When I was a kid I knew that the Green Monster quite often saved a pitchers life more than it allowed a Bucky Dent to hurt him. A hard line drive that had the power and projectory to be carried over any normal outfield fence would instead bounce off the wall half-way through it’s flight with the left-fielder positioning himself near the wall – but at the same time most closer to the infield as well – to play that bounce and thus a swing that would have meant a home run in most other parks became a single due to Fenway. It could also prevent a runner from scoring from first on that type of play.

          In addition, the Green Monster saved a pitcher from being victim to the Texas Leaguer to left – the left fielder has to play in more because there is so less territory to cover behind him that he can get to those bloops because he is not playing the usual normal position he would have to in other places. The same with the old Yankee Stadium in right. With it’s 344 foot distance, there were many cheap shots that went over the fence for home runs but at the same instance, there were those in between pop ups that instead would not fall in.

          In the attached 60 Minutes piece, Bob Costas states that James has proved it’s more the catcher and not the pitcher that helps prevent the stolen base. Stats can’t prove that. It depends upon who is pitching and who is catching. Was it really Jorge Posada that made Andy Petite’s pick off move so good that it caused runners on first to be more pensive with their lead? Was it Joe Torre that made Warren Spahn’s pitching motion so deceptive to runners on first even past Spahn’s advanced age of 40?

          Of course, if one has the throwing arm of a Johnny Bench, etc. that is going to deter many a base stealer, even against pitchers who don’t have good pick-off moves which could be read easily by base stealers. But how many wouldn’t risk running against Mike Piazza those last few seasons even with a pitcher with a poor pick-off move that couldn’t hold the runner close to first?

          Now, this is a point I’ve made before about people attributng things to James that he never said – including Bob Costas:

          “Why does your closer only have to pitch the ninth inning?” Costas asks. “Bill has said for a long time, ‘Why wouldn’t you bring in your best reliever with the tying or go ahead runs in scoring position and the best hitter for the other club coming up in the sixth inning or the seventh inning?’ Maybe the game turns right there.”

          This is what James has said on that issue in lieu of the Red Sox giving up the idea of a closer by commitee and thus didn’t use their best reliever in 2004 (Brandon Lyon) in earlier game situations:

          Question: The closer-by-committee theory seems to have lost it’s luster as the Sox have given the closer job to Brandon Lyon. Do you still feel that this is a viable philosophy, or did the personnel in Boston just fail to live up to expectations?

          Answer: I have never advocated anything remotely resembling a closer by committee. Neither, for that matter, has anybody else connected with the Red Sox, as far as I know. It’s a straw man argument.

          LaRussa is not alone about his take on stats. Look at what Terry Francona and Mike Lowell who were both in Boston with James said in the attached 60 Minutes piece on Bill James from May, 2009:

          —–

          But while Red Sox manager Terry Francona says James is an integral part of the Red Sox, you can’t always play strictly by the numbers. “This game’s played by people. And, you know, I mean, certainly knowing the numbers, and I care about ‘em, and it’s important. But people play the game, and I never try to lose sight of that,” Francona says.

          Of course in any given day any professional baseball player can defy all the numbers in his record,” Safer remarks.

          “Yep,” Francona agrees. “And the only reason they’re ever gonna be any good is if they believe in that. I would never wanna say, ‘Hey, you’re 0-for-20 against this guy. You can’t play.’ We don’t share that with the players a lot. We want ‘em to feel indestructible.”

          “He’s made some what sound like pretty dogmatic statements like, ‘There’s no such thing as a clutch hitter,’” Safer points out.

          “I’ve heard him say that. But then I would want him to be introduced to David Ortiz…You get my point? We feel pretty good when David Ortiz is hittin’ in the clutch,” Francona says.

          James is rethinking that one. But the players, like Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell, say theories are for the front office-not the playing field.

          “I don’t think we come into spring training and say, ‘Man, hopefully we have a .960 fielding percentage.’ I don’t think it gets that detailed,” Lowell says. “But I think more teams are realizing that when you use these numbers you’re gonna win more games.”

          —–

          And as far as James speaking about his own self , he talks about the missing “intangeables” this is from the transcript between him and Morley Safer:

          —–

          James says he’s always looking for new numbers to help the Red Sox. But even he admits the numbers will never say it all.

          “There’s something in baseball that you really can’t quantify. And that is, the mix of guys at a given moment, there’s some magic or whatever, that goes on. That all the James-ian theory in the world will never find the answer to,” Safer says.

          “It’s mostly intangible,” James says. “I mean, I don’t understand most of it. I don’t think that anybody in the Red Sox would tell you that we have that magic stuff figured out. But there are people here who understand that part of the equation a lot better than I do.”

          —-

          Now, I think this is going to present a problem to certain people who go by Bill James but not a certain player wearing the orange and blue. Take into account that this interview came in May of 2009 – after the Mets had twice blown big division leads and missed post-season this is what he was asked and why he said:

          And if he could have anyone on his team?

          “David Wright,” James says.

          Asked why, James tells Safer, “Because he does everything I like and he’s very young.”

          … That is certainly going to shake a few saber fans who also think Wright is over-rated and blew it by choking down the stretch, right?

          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-3974752.html?pageNum=2
          • Donal March 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm

            “That is really quite a put down of all those who came before. ”

            How so? People in the past have less info than people in the present. That doesn’t diminish the people in the past. As I said, we have all this insight now because of the work done in the past.

            “The things that James revealed were not revelations to those on the field – or even to me.”

            Except for the things you dismiss out of hand. like positional players bunting. Besides, didn’t you just demonstrate that maybe your recollection isn’t infallible?

            “For example, the ballpark factor.”

            You didn’t know it. You assumed it. Besides, at least now we can tell you how great the effect is.

            And your thing about Boston’s closer by committee has one big problem: It was in 2003 that the issue was brought up, when Byung-Hyun Kim was the closer and the whole pen, including Lyon, sucked. In 2004, their closer was Keith Foulke and Lyon wasn’t on the team.

            “LaRussa is not alone about his take on stats.”

            you mean that he isn’t the only one who creates strawmen to attack? Sadly, no.

            ” Look at what Terry Francona and Mike Lowell who were both in Boston with James said in the attached 60 Minutes piece on Bill James from May, 2009:”

            Yes, lets

            ” “This game’s played by people.”

            As opposed to chinchillas?

            “And, you know, I mean, certainly knowing the numbers, and I care about ‘em, and it’s important.”

            Hey, how about that.

            “But people play the game,”

            Again, duh. People are producing those numbers we’re looking at.

            ” and I never try to lose sight of that,” Francona says.”

            Good that you never lose sight of something you’re paid to see from as close a vantage point as possible.

            ““He’s made some what sound like pretty dogmatic statements like, ‘There’s no such thing as a clutch hitter,’” Safer points out.

            “I’ve heard him say that. But then I would want him to be introduced to David Ortiz…You get my point? We feel pretty good when David Ortiz is hittin’ in the clutch,” Francona says.”

            Way to go out on a limb feeling comfortable with the guy averaging 35 HR a season at the plate. Really taking a chance there.

            “James is rethinking that one. But the players, like Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell, say theories are for the front office-not the playing field.

            “I don’t think we come into spring training and say, ‘Man, hopefully we have a .960 fielding percentage.’ ”

            I would hope not. that is a terrible percentage. And fielding percentage is a lousy stat.

            But, I do agree with the idea that players shouldn’t be worried about specific numbers so much as they should be worried about performing. that is their job. It is the job of others to evaluate that performance.

            “James says he’s always looking for new numbers to help the Red Sox. But even he admits the numbers will never say it all.”

            And no one has said otherwise. I think everyone here agrees that there are things that can’t be reasonably quantified (not yet anyway). Half the fun for me when dealing with stats is seeing guys defy them.

            “And if he could have anyone on his team?

            “David Wright,” James says.

            Asked why, James tells Safer, “Because he does everything I like and he’s very young.”

            … That is certainly going to shake a few saber fans who also think Wright is over-rated and blew it by choking down the stretch, right? ”

            Wow, you are completely out of touch.
      • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 11:38 am

        Hello Joey — And you know what Dickey feels about the quality start? He has referenced it quite often during his years with the Mets and he feels it’s one of the most important stats for a starting pitcher. I happen to agree. BTW, I love Darling, Keith and Cohen to death as announcers, but they are dinosaurs when it comes to stats, and they have said some of the most ridiculous things regarding stats. So their value to me as a fan is entertainment.

        Also, you should know that both traditionalists and some sabermetrically inclined fans hate the quality start stat. I happen to like it very much.

        Now, about that 4.50 ERA nonsense, consider this:

        “An early criticism of the statistic, made by Moss Klein, writing in The Sporting News, is that a pitcher could conceivably meet the minimum requirements for a quality start and record a 4.50 ERA, seen as undesirable at the time. Bill James addressed this in his 1987 Baseball Abstract, saying the hypothetical example (a pitcher going exactly 6 innings and allowing exactly 3 runs) was extremely rare amongst starts recorded as quality starts, and that he doubted any pitchers had an ERA over 3.20 in their quality starts. This was later confirmed through computer analysis of all quality starts recorded from 1984 to 1991, which found that the average ERA in quality starts during that time period was 1.91.”

        link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_start#High_ERA

        Why is a quality start important? It gives your team a good chance to win. So if you look at the stat in terms of the number per season by a starter, that’s where the value is really apparent.

        I don’t understand your point about Capuano. He actually did very poorly in the quality start department during 2011. He only threw a quality start in less than 50% of his starts, and this is sub par. He had 14 quality starts in 2011, while Dickey had 22.
        
        “It’s saying that all those from the late seventies and beforehand didn’t know as much about the game as those do now.”

        I didn’t say that at all. You misread my comment.

        “baseball people can use advance stats for reference but it doesn’t reveal to them any quantitative information they weren’t already aware of – all it really does is provide a quick reference for seeking information that the human mindjust cannot store.”

        I totally disagree. Advanced stats can reveal many things that the mind cannot fathom. For example, a certain defensive metric can tell a GM just how much one of his position players is failing to field balls that the average fielder in the league is getting to. Without the statistical analysis, that GM may know that the player is a poor fielder, but can’t really assess just how bad. In other cases, such a defensive stat is essential to ridding the delusional of the idea that a player is a good fielder when he is not.

        Another way advanced stats can reveal more about the game — As was stated in the ESPN article I linked to, WAR has a very high correlation to winning games, but batting average does not.

        .“Their pythagorean record is 82-80 which suggests they were lucky to win those eleven extra game”

        I know you got that from BR, but I disagree with whoever wrote that. If a team exceeds or falls short of their pythagorean record, it could mean luck was a factor, but it could simply be other factors at work such as a team’s uneven performance. Such a team simply beat the odds, and luck may or may not be the reason why.

        And what is the purpose of your fangraphs link? What was your point in posting it? I took a quick look and it appears to me that Woodrum is playing semantical games.
      • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 11:49 am

        “It’s saying that all those from the late seventies and beforehand didn’t know as much about the game as those do now.”

        Joey, disregard my previous comment about that. Sorry, but I misread your comment. I actually do think that and did imply that. Those old timers didn’t know as much about the game as they do know because they only had their eyes and heart and rudimentary stats to view the game. Today, we can use our eyes, heart, basic stats, plus a wealth of advanced stats to understand why teams win and why they don’t.
        • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm

          Hi Metro,

          Glad you caught that LOL.

          But I want to continue on two points you made.

          One is about the quality start. Did I not say that the ERA or whatever figure could be so misleading as to what a quality start is? Didn’t I not say that it depends on the pitchers stuff and that sometimes he can give up three runs in six innings that were not his fault?

          Then there is your thought about positioning fielders “For example, a certain defensive metric can tell a GM just how much one of his position players is failing to field balls that the average fielder in the league is getting to. Without the statistical analysis, that GM may know that the player is a poor fielder, but can’t really assess just how bad. In other cases, such a defensive stat is essential to ridding the delusional of the idea that a player is a good fielder when he is not.”

          Good managers and players always knew the limitations of one’s range and ability to position himself properly depending upon the batter AND the way the pitcher was throwing to him. GIl Hodges positioned his players beautifully in 1969 – don’t think those extra proper steps did not result in those great catches and cutting balls off that we saw all that season.

          That’s my point about advanced stats being seen as providing revelations – as opposed to the simple storage of more information that one knows to seek out because the human memory can only do so much. That is not seeking advice on what to do from stats, that is only confirming the manager’s hunch.

          The last is when you mentioned “Today, we can use our eyes, heart, basic stats, plus a wealth of advanced stats to understand why teams win and why they don’t.” Again, who is the “we”? I’m providing so many examples of things that fans became aware of thanks to Bill James trying to get them away from the traditional mindset of statistics. Again, notice in conversations with ball players, they hardly refere to stats at all except for mostly the record books?

          And, as I said on another post, Mike Lowell mentioned that nobody comes into camp thinking they have to have a .960 fielding percentage. Not that one doesn’t want to improve on his fielding – it’s just that they know what they have to work on and do.

          Again, it’s who gets the most benefit out of advanced stats. Read my reply to Donal and that 60 Minute interview.

          Been a while since we’ve chatted, how have things been otherwise? I’m finally shaking off my head cold – at last.
          • Metro12 March 5, 2013 at 2:26 pm

            Hi Joey, sorry to hear about your cold. Chicken soup really works. At least for me. Did you try that? Thankfully I’ve had a good winter healthwise and am fine. Just really looking forward to the start of real games.

            “Did I not say that the ERA or whatever figure could be so misleading as to what a quality start is? Didn’t I not say that it depends on the pitchers stuff and that sometimes he can give up three runs in six innings that were not his fault?”

            Joey, sorry. Maybe it’s a slow (up there) day for me, but I still don’t get what point you’re trying to make about Chris Capuano and Quality Starts. Maybe you can explain it? How can an ERA be misleading as to what a quality start is? Are you saying you don’t believe in ERA?

            “Good managers and players always knew the limitations of one’s range and ability to position himself properly depending upon the batter AND the way the pitcher was throwing to him. GIl Hodges positioned his players beautifully in 1969 – don’t think those extra proper steps did not result in those great catches and cutting balls off that we saw all that season.”
            

            Not precisely. They only have vague ideas and can only guess as to how much or how little a fielder’s skills are hurting or helping his team. They can only guess the differences between TWO bad fielders on his own team. They can only guess what impact the poor fielding is having on the success or failure of his team in the long run relative to other teams.

            As for Gil, how do you know it was he that positioned the outfielders? Maybe he positioned the outfielders in such a way that Agee and Swoboda had to make spectacular catches in order to save the day. IOW, if he had better charts in terms of how the opposition hit, Agee and Swoboda would have been positioned differently and they might not have had to make those spectacular catches to save the game. The downside of better positioning is that it deprives the fans of those spectacular highlight reel plays!

            So I totally disagree. The newer stats in many cases are filing in information where there were only gaps before.

            Again, who is the “we”?

            Everyone! The coaches, players, GMs, fans, etc.

            “Again, notice in conversations with ball players, they hardly refere to stats at all except for mostly the record books?”

            You’re right. I just talked to Ike last night, and he told me he doesn’t pay attention to batting average or strikeouts!

            Seriously, I don’t believe that. I mean, first, they all know their personal stats. You better believe it. They all care because it means more money for them at contract time. Second, it’s a mixed bag in terms of following advanced stats or not. Some players probably do and some likely don’t don’t, Don’t put all ball players into the same category.

            And, as I said on another post, Mike Lowell mentioned that nobody comes into camp thinking they have to have a .960 fielding percentage.

            Why would they? Many of us know that fielding percentage is one of the poorest stats to use to measure defense. But they certainly come into camp with statistical goals in mind.

            Again, it’s who gets the most benefit out of advanced stats. Read my reply to Donal and that 60 Minute interview.

            I think the front offices get the most out of advanced stats today. Then the fans, and then the coaches and players. If the team’s manager doesn’t already follow stats, it’s a good bet the front office is sharing with him their statistical analysis and findings … and in many cases dictating to him who to play and when based on those stats. As for players, most of them care mainly about the Wins, ERA, RBIs, HRs and SBs. You know why? For the most part, those are the numbers that translate into $$$$$$$ at contract time. But that doesn’t mean many of them don’t appreciate or understand advanced stats. IMO, jocks by nature are a dumb bunch. So I think in many cases, advanced stats are too much for many of them to handle. I know that’s a stereotype … but can you imagine Parnell talking about xFIP? I don’t think he has a clue what that is, but you better believe the Mets front office does.

            Fangraphs was posted because I think it gave a fair assessment to both sides of the argument and one’s opinion of which teams might use stats more than others – which he admitted was subjective.
            
            The author admitted he was going by perception. I don’t think there is a front office today that doesn’t know and understand the WAR of its own players. They all have advanced stats people, even if the GM himself may not embrace stats. He may even ignore important advanced stats in his decision making, but if he does to any great extent, his team is likely not a winning one — unless they can buy their wins, which is what actually happens today, LOL. Though Cashman uses stats, he didn’t need to for a long time because he could just buy whatever he wanted. I think the new CBA and revenue sharing have changed the landscape making it harder for teams to build that way. So Cashman is likely making more and more decision based on stats these days.
            • Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm

              Hi Metro,

              You know, with the chicken soup, you sound a lot like my dear old 91 year old mother!

              The reason I raise Capuano is that I think although he was a feel-good story with his comeback health wise two seasons ago, some of my friends and even Bob Ojeda said he was having a fine season. Fine season must also mean quality starts. Getting knocked out by the sixth so often to me isn’t a quality start. He didn’t pitch well in 2011. I used ERA only as a reference point, eliminating that one gem of a two hit shutout to show how awful his season really was.

              Didn’t use ERA to describe a game but did give two different situations as to where a pitcher through six innings and each having given up three runs could have what could be considered a quality start by today’s statistical standard (which I think rewards mediocirity as much as the wild cards). One could give up three runs while throwing great pitches that most of the time hitters can’t touch while another can give up three runs because batters were able to easily get the meat of the bat on the ball instead.

              As far as what you are saying about advanced stats – isn’t that my point? I believe you are talking about more precise information that the stats can give one over close but less precision information one has from observation, right?

              That is my point – the stats are used for the storage of information – not new, unknown information like in a revelation or new approach. That is what I meant. But as far as that precise information, the example you give regarding fielding range would be too vague – there are so many game situations that cancel what ever more precise information the advanced stats could provide even if they include every type pitch thrown to every type hitter in every type location. That is because of the way the ball can carry – wind speed, direction wind is blowing, humidity – even the condition of the playing field one has to run on after a rain delay, etc.

              Also, I don’t think Brian Cashman is doing much of anything right now – he broke his leg in a sky diving event for charity – he’ll be OK but is in quite bad shape right now.

              Bye “mom” LOL
• Joey D. March 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm

  Metro,

  Fangraphs was posted because I think it gave a fair assessment to both sides of the argument and one’s opinion of which teams might use stats more than others – which he admitted was subjective.

  I did note that one should recognize this was indeed an opinion piece. But it gave food for thought.