Those Braves

[Guest]

Now, please tell me how you arrived at your asinine "you need to bat your best hitter 3rd" mantra, which completely ignores any statistical analysis. You're basically saying "This is the way it should be and I don't need any facts to prove it!".

Forgive me for not bolding the words you overlooked in my original statement in anticipation of your reading comprehension failure:

I've always been under the impression managers believed your best overall hitter batted 3rd.

Do I believe this? Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...

Now as for your asinine response about "I take the statistical point of view, these sabermatricians tell it is true and I've taken a class from Prof. Stangl which makes me the smartest person on this board so I confirm it is true!" One aspect of statistics and any high level math that you use to approach a complex question is that it really becomes an art and not a science. Sure calculating a mean or using a fancy jackknife method for getting the variance of an estimator has only one answer and has science within it, but these are not answering a question but merely describing the data. Now with your response (clearly just parroted from "The Book"), these guys are taking a certain approach to answering the question of line-up choices. I don't know all the caveats, but it seems they are taking an interesting perspective of using historical data to determine the frequency at which the orders will come to the plate along with historical averages of amount of men on base. After this it appears there is an optimal control problem where they wish to minimize outs (or maximize out avoidance as the blog calls it) subject to the historical constraints.

That is a cool story, however in baseball there isn't a concept of duality. In many fields, duality exists so that you can derive certain properties by going from A to B exactly the same as going from B to A. Right now I am not seeing where this would hold with baseball, so if the authors of the books instead decided to maximize expected runs subject to the long run historical averages and 27 outs would they not receive different results? I don't know, I guess since I didn't read "The Book" then I am not the ultimate authority on this matter, I might as well let you tell me what is right and wrong. You certainly seem compelled to respond more with insults and appeals to authority than spending time on actually answering the question.

[AHawks89]

And this is what I'm talking about Fredi making the bad choices of putting the wrong pitchers in at the wrong time.

[CBAreject]

One aspect of statistics and any high level math that you use to approach a complex question is that it really becomes an art and not a science.

An art is something that you can't reliably quantify, and this is why it stands in opposition to a "science". As such, the above statement is absurd.

Sure calculating a mean or using a fancy jackknife method for getting the variance of an estimator has only one answer and has science within it, but these are not answering a question but merely describing the data.

In your mind, statistics boils down to "calculating a mean"? In most cases, a mean isn't even a statistic. It's a parameter. Further, in the cases it is a statistic, it is an approximation of the true mean, derived from a sample. As such, they don't "merely describe data". They use data to get as close to truth as possible, with a margin of error that can be stated with knowledge about the distribution of said data. From what you just wrote there, I can conclude you don't understand statistics (of course I already knew that). Statistics just isn't high-level math, in the first place, especially not the form that is employed by sabermetricians.

Now with your response (clearly just parroted from "The Book"), these guys are taking a certain approach to answering the question of line-up choices. I don't know all the caveats, but it seems they are taking an interesting perspective of using historical data to determine the frequency at which the orders will come to the plate along with historical averages of amount of men on base. After this it appears there is an optimal control problem where they wish to minimize outs (or maximize out avoidance as the blog calls it) subject to the historical constraints.

Why are you now disparaging me as a "parrot" when I told you myself I have zero original ideas about sabermetrics. I told you that. Up front. Did I plagiarize? Did I claim the ideas were my own? You don't ever miss an opportunity to insult do you?

That is a cool story, however in baseball there isn't a concept of duality. In many fields, duality exists so that you can derive certain properties by going from A to B exactly the same as going from B to A. Right now I am not seeing where this would hold with baseball

Now you're just trying to sound smart because you got your pride hurt, but you don't have a strong enough grasp on what you're talking about to make it work. Don't get me wrong, some will be fooled...just not me. If you want to dismiss statistics as esoteric and impractical with baseball, you can't use an esoteric and impractical concept to dismiss it. Get it?

I don't know, I guess since I didn't read "The Book" then I am not the ultimate authority on this matter,

To this point, you have spoken as if you are the authority on all matters baseball, including baseball statistics (even if just to say that they don't matter).

I might as well let you tell me what is right and wrong. You certainly seem compelled to respond more with insults and appeals to authority than spending time on actually answering the question.

Don't cry about insults if you're going to be insulting yourself. You started off by saying "I hate it when people start using statistics" with respect to baseball. You made absolute, inflexible claims such as "statistics don't tell the game of baseball" without backing them up with any evidence/logic/reasoning. You called my arguments "ridiculous" in your first response to me without giving any objective reason why. You've since followed up with sarcasm and calling my arguments "asinine".

You may disagree with me, but I always defend my reasoning. You have done no such thing. You simply state what you want to be true with maxims and aphorisms, failing to use evidence or examples or logic to back them up. Despite that, in your mind, it is I who has failed to adequately 'answer the question'. Turn the lens on yourself, pal.

[jy23]

well it seems to me that like hawksfanatic said...most teams have their best hitter batting 3rd. Bautista in Toronto, Pujols in St. Louis, Hafner in Cleveland, Chipper batted 3rd all those years in his prime, Bmac is batting 3rd now, Pence bats 3rd for houston, Gonzalez bats 3rd for Boston, Votto bats 3rd for Cincy, Braun for Milwaukee and so on and so on.....

[CBAreject]

well it seems to me that like hawksfanatic said...most teams have their best hitter batting 3rd. Bautista in Toronto, Pujols in St. Louis, Hafner in Cleveland, Chipper batted 3rd all those years in his prime, Bmac is batting 3rd now, Pence bats 3rd for houston, Gonzalez bats 3rd for Boston, Votto bats 3rd for Cincy, Braun for Milwaukee and so on and so on.....

You are correct. This is generally what teams do, and it's not too sub-optimal. The main error Fredi Gonzalez makes is to bat his absolute worst two hitters 1st and 2nd. The result is limited RBI opportunities for his best hitter (McCann). There are other psychological effects that go beyond raw statistical analysis; e.g., players may prefer batting in certain spots and as such be more productive in those spots. Chipper always preferred hitting 3rd and he may have performed better there than if he'd hit clean-up or 2nd (dunno for sure, and there's probably too small a sample to say). All that's fine, and I don't really care how you order 3rd-5th. What's certain is that Gonzalez performs about equally poorly hitting in any spot. You don't want him 2nd because he'll get maximum plate appearances there. Given that he makes outs at a higher frequency than anyone on the team, he is costing us runs hitting there and ultimately wins. When Bobby hit Heyward 2nd last year, I thought he must have finally figured out how important walks are to scoring runs. Maybe it was an accident, but it was still nice to see. Shafer first is also a mistake, but it's at least more understandable/defensible since he steals bases. Two things to note: one, he only steals at about a break-even rate (70% or so, where the cost of making outs 30% of the time is balanced by the benefit of gaining a base 70% of the time; admittedly, 70% becomes better than break-even in certain situations, such as having 2 out with a singles hitter up); two, steals are generally less important when you have sluggers up (McCann, Chipper, Uggla), since they're likely enough to get extra-base hits that having a runner at 2nd isn't a huge advantage. In other words, Shafer is in scoring position at first base with a slugger up, and the cost of making an out sometimes is generally greater than the benefit of advancing a base most of the time. You'd prefer to have a base-stealer hitting in front of singles hitters, since the advantage becomes more pronounced when they are very unlikely to score the runner from first.

The combination of Shafer and Gonzalez in the 1-2 hole means that we are maximizing plate appearances for the two players who make outs most frequently. We are sending up McCann with the bases empty more frequently than we would if McLouth/Heyward were batting 1-2. There's something to be said for left-right balance as well, but you'd be much better off with McLouth/Uggla, for example, than Shafer/Gonzalez.

[jy23]

I completely agree that batting those 2 at the top of the order is asinine, he really doesn't have any idea as to what he's doing, this I think we all can agree on.

[CBAreject]

I completely agree that batting those 2 at the top of the order is asinine, he really doesn't have any idea as to what he's doing, this I think we all can agree on.

But Hawksfanatic doesn't agree. He thinks Fredi is "doing a pretty good job" and when given a list of his egregious errors, he only concedes that the bullpen management is terrible (NB: bullpen management is far and away the single most important factor in managing baseball, particularly in the NL). He doesn't seem to think batting AGon 2nd is a big deal at all.

[jy23]

Freddi is doing about as well as any of us would given that staff and that bullpen. We have a good record in spite of him not because of him...almost like the hawks were with Woody.

[AHawks89]

I don't agree with having Gonzales batting at the 2 spot, that's dumb.

Anyways, when healthy, our team has only played 11 games together. That's pretty damn good shuffling around the line up to produce enough runs to get us wins.

Edited July 10, 2011 by AHawks89

[CBAreject]

Freddi is doing about as well as any of us would given that staff and that bullpen.

So you're saying that either 1) any of us would make as bad decisions as Fredi does, or 2) the bad decisions haven't cost us any games as of yet. I disagree in either case. The corollary of the latter is that managers don't affect the outcome of baseball games, and some would agree with you. It's hard to quantify, but I think it's reasonable that the difference between the best and worst managers on in-game decisions alone is about 4 wins over the course of a season. If bad managing leads to injuries to Kimbrel and/or Venters, it could be 8 wins and a playoff appearance.

We have a good record in spite of him not because of him...almost like the hawks were with Woody.

I agree we're winning in spite of him, but that contradicts what you said before, which was that he's doing as well as anyone could do.

[jy23]

No no no...I'm saying that just a normal joe off the street could do just as well as freddie has bc he's only done as well as he has bc of our rotation and the bullpen. I've never coached a little league team let alone a major league team but I would do just as good as freddie has....thats what i was saying

[CBAreject]

No no no...I'm saying that just a normal joe off the street could do just as well as freddie has bc he's only done as well as he has bc of our rotation and the bullpen. I've never coached a little league team let alone a major league team but I would do just as good as freddie has....thats what i was saying

Oh I see. I misread. Fredi is quickly gaining a reputation as the worst in-game manager in baseball.

I enjoy this twitter feed called "Frediot":

http://twitter.com/#!/Frediot

[Eddielives]

I don't care how good our pitching has been. This series against the Phils proves that we cannot compete offensively if we can't make a move to get at least one more reliable hitter in this lineup. With Prado coming back soon, trading either Gonzales or Mclouth plus one top prospect for a REAL HITTER(by this I mean not another career .250ish hitter please Mr. Wren) could be just what the doctor ordered to take this team to the top. Come to think of it, if someone wants to take Lowe off our hands for a good hitter, that would be even better. There's plenty of young arms ready to assume the 5th spot and bump everyone else up a notch. Please don't waste this opportunity Wren. GET A LEGITIMATE HITTER!

[AHawks89]

I agree. We need big right handed hitter. I wouldn't mind see Lowe head out the door along with Alex.

[jy23]

yeah we definitely need a right handed bat badly...I doubt anyone takes Lowe off of our hands with that horrid contract of his but hey if they do thank God...but very doubtful none the less.

I dont really know who's available so I cant do much speculating but I think a package of Mike Minor, Mclouth/Gonzo (or both) and another prospect could get us something....possibly throw in Medlen as well....I love Medlen I really do but if he can get us a bat I'm all for it, and I know he's coming off of the TJ surgery but do u guys think any teams would still be interested?

Edited July 11, 2011 by jy21

[CBAreject]

I agree. We need big right handed hitter. I wouldn't mind see Lowe head out the door along with Alex.

If Lowe is traded, we won't be getting much of value back. The best we could hope for is a B-level prospect, maybe an outfielder. Boston is kind of stacked with young middling outfielders, so that's a possible destination. Keep in mind that if we trade Lowe, it won't be to get better this year; it will be for salary relief. The only possible way trading Lowe would make us better is if we then used the salary relief to add a bat in a second trade. The bat won't be coming back for Lowe, though. He simply doesn't have that much value.

Re: trading Alex Gonzalez, I would absolutely love to see him shipped off, but we can't replace him, so he just won't be traded this year unless we get a SS back. Reyes is very unlikely and would probably cost too much. JJ Hardy is more likey and would cost less. The best option is probably to go back in time and not trade Escobar for him. That .360 OBP he posts every year looks awfully good compared to AGon's .260. My God, a .260 OBP.

[Guest]

CBA, I suggest you go back and reread my two posts in this thread. I am fairly confident you are mixing up me with a different poster (probably because of the avatar). I am far from one to hate on statistics, I am actually a major proponent of becoming more acquainted with it in sports and regularly people on here call me a stathead as some sort of an insult. I think your knee-jerk reaction to me asking a question is a defense mechanism on your part that stems from previous interaction with me on this board. You're already formulating the opinion that I am in disagreement with you, which is very laughable because I agree with your approach to most things within this thread.

I find it humorous as well that you're going to pull an asinine response of claiming a mean is not a statistic but a parameter along with claiming I have no knowledge of statistics. You're just putting a more precise definition down (eh...maybe. its only a parameter if you've got a model you're working with and I have not given any indication of a model), I chose to give a lame example so as to not have a discussion turn largely into jargon for those who don't have a wide grasp on statistics. If you knew what I do then its pretty clear that I have well beyond a working knowledge in statistics.

[CBAreject]

I am fairly confident you are mixing up me with a different poster (probably because of the avatar).

Probably so. My bad. There's so much "GTFO u idiot" and flat contradictions without reasoning that I get mixed up.

I think your knee-jerk reaction to me asking a question is a defense mechanism on your part that stems from previous interaction with me on this board.

If you knew what I do, you wouldn't bring up "defense mechanism". But yes, your way with me has been to start out confrontational and argumentative, ostensibly because of your distaste for my style. My response has nothing to do with defense mechanisms, though. I honestly didn't realize who you were without the billy knight avatar until you just made note of prior interactions (there are too many posters with similar names). Maybe you are mixing up "defensiveness" with "defense mechanisms". Google and learn. Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense that I were reacting to you because of our history if I had mixed you up with the prior poster in the first place (which you posited, no?). It can't be both. Well, I guess you want it to be both as long as it makes me wrong across the board and you right, eh?

You're already formulating the opinion that I am in disagreement with you, which is very laughable because I agree with your approach to most things within this thread.

Based on history, you will disagree with me, even if you want to agree, just because it's me, and you don't like my style. I have no such inherent animosity toward you.. If you give a dumb argument (duality, seriously?) in opposition to me, I will counter it. Don't care who you are.

I find it humorous as well that you're going to pull an asinine response of claiming a mean is not a statistic but a parameter along with claiming I have no knowledge of statistics. You're just putting a more precise definition down (eh...maybe. its only a parameter if you've got a model you're working with and I have not given any indication of a model)

It has nothing to do with a model. It has everything to do with whether the population is finite. Your family has an average height. That is a parameter. America has an average height which we can approximate by sampling. The approximation is a statistic.

I chose to give a lame example so as to not have a discussion turn largely into jargon for those who don't have a wide grasp on statistics.

Then quit giving lame examples. I promise you there aren't many people following our discussion.

If you knew what I do then its pretty clear that I have well beyond a working knowledge in statistics.

But I don't know what you do, and all I can go from is what you've written. I''ve been through 3 degrees. I know a thousand people who've taken statistics and probably most of them even made an A (woo-hoo). The majority don't even know what statistics are for. If you have a knowledge beyond what you've conveyed here, good for you. I'm glad someone understands concepts.

[Guest]

If you knew what I do, you wouldn't bring up "defense mechanism". But yes, your way with me has been to start out confrontational and argumentative, ostensibly because of your distaste for my style. My response has nothing to do with defense mechanisms, though. I honestly didn't realize who you were without the billy knight avatar until you just made note of prior interactions (there are too many posters with similar names).

I find that hard to believe. Recently you went out of your way to insult me and I did not have the BK avatar. It had something to do with how I have no sense of humor which clearly shows you remember me. You also directly quote me with AHawks89's actual posts. It's obvious you saw my member name and started jumping to conclusions along with getting me mixed up with someone else.

It has nothing to do with a model. It has everything to do with whether the population is finite. Your family has an average height. That is a parameter. America has an average height which we can approximate by sampling. The approximation is a statistic.

When do we ever work with populations outside of theory? We almost always work in samples. And within samples, can we not estimate the sample mean? That right there is a statistic and not a parameter, we hope to capture the population mean but that is pretty hard to do with only a sample. You appear to be either forgetting or purposely forgetting that because we work with samples the estimates we derive are called statistics which aim to estimate the parameters of a model. Now also, what happens when we assume there is no underlying distribution and we just simple wish to describe the data at hand? If we do not parameterize the distribution, is there not still a mean of the sample? I guess you forgot to take that non-parametric course along the way to your three degrees (wow! you must be the only one on here with that many degrees!).

[CBAreject]

I find that hard to believe. Recently you went out of your way to insult me and I did not have the BK avatar.

If you found that comment (about your being all business) an insult, you are exquisitely sensitive. It's true, as you admitted (as I remember?) Stop getting your feelings hurt so easily. Regardless, you had some other avatar that I recognized at that time, and I did remember you, the humorless, the exquisitely sensitive, the argumentative, the insulting. Odd how insulting people are exquisitely sensitive, eh? We used to say "can dish it out but can't take it". Now that is a defense mechanism.

I truly confused you with the other poster this time, and you pointed it out yourself. You went with that until you changed your ,mind and then wanted to say I had remembered you, thought it was you all along, and had made it personal. Again, it can't be both. Your arguments as usual are weak and contradictory, as arguments with agendas tend to be. Sure, I directly quoted you with AHawk89's posts, but that's only because I thought it was him all along, not you all along. Note I also directly quoted him to himself. You make zero sense to any objective reader. The difference, of course, is that objective readers aren't blinded by hatred.

It is you who is jumping to conclusions and making things personal, so quit accusing me of doing the same. Even if I had recognized you, I'd make no bones about it, and I won't now. I don't like you, but I won't disagree with a well constructed argument just because it's yours. But understand that I don't like you only because you've never liked me. It otherwise wouldn't be personal on my end. You've always made it personal. You developed a personal vendetta against me years ago, and apparently it lives on. Stow it.

I guess you forgot to take that non-parametric course along the way to your three degrees (wow! you must be the only one on here with that many degrees!).

If you paid attention to context, you 'd see that wasn't boasting--mereley giving context. Degrees themselves are not impressive, as just about anyone can earn as many as they want. Nice sarcasm for sarcasm's sake, though. That's what I've come to expect. The thing is, and please take note, you're being completely dismissive of those degrees only because they're mine, only because it's me in question. You have such a deep-rooted hatred for me that you are blinded to even the topic of discussion. Let it go. The only conclusions I draw about you are based on what you write, and any of them are free to change. I wouldn't simply assume you were ignorant and dismiss your accomplishments because I didn't like you.