Die by the sac bunt, die by the sac bunt

[AHF]

Ross hit into a nice bases loaded, 1 out double play last night. Couldn't get the ball in the air against Livan. Despite your high regard for Ross he is a backup catcher for a reason. He's a mediocre hitter. Fredi should have tried a squeeze last night i guess. :derisive:

Given that outstanding baseball players get an out more than 60% of the time, I'm not sure what (if any) value a single at bat has in evaluating someone. If making the right managerial call results in a 60% chance of an out and the wrong call results in a 70% chance of an out, the manager is not proven right or wrong by the result of a single at bat - only by whether he is putting his team in the best % chance to succeed.

[CBAreject]

Ross hit into a nice bases loaded, 1 out double play last night. Couldn't get the ball in the air against Livan. Despite your high regard for Ross he is a backup catcher for a reason. He's a mediocre hitter. Fredi should have tried a squeeze last night i guess. :derisive:

If Ross had hit a grand slam last night, it would've no more proven my point than his GIDP proved yours. Ross will hit into double plays sometimes, just as all players will. He will hit grand slams sometimes, just as all players with power will. Citing a double play in a specific case only tells us what we already knew. Process > Results. This is the concept in baseball that helps us favor objective analysis over visceral reactions to a specific result. FYI, the name for the emoticon you posted at the end of your comment was "derisive". While it doesn't help strengthen your case, it gives clear evidence that you're more interested in taunting me than you are in finding the truth.

[AHF]

FYI, the name for the emoticon you posted at the end of your comment was "derisive". While it doesn't help strengthen your case, it gives clear evidence that you're more interested in taunting me than you are in finding the truth.

I don't see much evidence of that on this thread. Let's just stick to the substantive discussion here people.

[macdaddy]

I don't see much evidence of that on this thread. Let's just stick to the substantive discussion here people.

Thanks. I didn't know the name of it when i picked it and was just looking for a smiley honestly. I agree the fact that he hit into a dp doesn't prove much about the situation you brought up other than i don't think the fear of Ross hitting into a dp is unfounded.

[CBAreject]

I agree the fact that he hit into a dp doesn't prove much about the situation you brought up other than i don't think the fear of Ross hitting into a dp is unfounded.

Who was arguing that the fear of Ross hitting into a DP was unfounded?

[Guest]

Thanks.  I didn't know the name of it when i picked it and was just looking for a smiley honestly.  I agree the fact that he hit into a dp doesn't prove much about the situation you brought up other than i don't think the fear of Ross hitting into a dp is unfounded.

Don't pay mind to CBA, he actually isn't interested in the truth just trying to sound important and prove his opinion with fluffed up vocab. But you are right to point out the fear of hitting into a DP is not unfounded and it really sparkd me to think about this moneyball idiom of "process > results" much more. There is something amiss at only looking at averages and then judging "only ye move which yield ye greatest expected runs shall ye choose". If I give you the option of choosing between two players, both of which have an OPS of .400 which should you choose? Ignoring the other stats right now, most sabermatricians (the not very good ones, and from here out I will always refer to those) will say "gee both have the same OPS, it doesn't matter who you choose!" In one context that is right, but that is a context that isn't realistic and is usually termed "risk neutral". If I go back to the hypothetical of two players with OPS .400 and then add on that player A's standard error for OPS is .020 while player B's standard error for OPS is .100, would that change your opinion on who to select? In less statistics lingo, you are 95% sure that player A's OPS will be between .361 and .439 while player B's OPS will be between .204 and .596. Anyone selecting player A is "risk averse" while those for player B are "risk loving". Note that in reality there isn't a truly correct answer, selecting A, B, or being indifferent are all acceptable answers they just indicate one's willingness to accept/avoid risk.

Now granted most of the sabermatricians are statisticians with poor social skills so its understandable they would not understand risk aversion, but to forget about variance is a sin! Just sitting around and making claims about "hey this process yields the highest expected runs so it must be taken!" ignores variance and if you are ignoring variance you don't understand statistics. So where does this fit in with the Ross instance? Well, in effect Fredi is trading away lower expected runs for more certainty (i.e. showing risk aversion). Sabermatricians are coming out of left field and screaming "oh see this is stupid, just look at expected runs!" But if you ignore what their in your face arguments mislead you to believe, its really a question of confidence intervals. You've got two scenarios, on the one hand you could be 95% sure that you will score between 0.25 and 1.75 runs and on the other you could score between 0.75 and 1.15 runs (numbers purely made up to illustrate a point). One has a lower expected runs scored, but you're more certain you will score a run. Usually risk aversion is best illustrated with an example of fire insurance, so for anyone more interested you can google that and I'm sure wikipedia will do a better job explaining it.

To be risk neutral the entire season will maximize your runs, but last I checked you want to win games and not necessarily score as many runs as possible. And last I checked, there is no reason that one must remain at a given risk level the entire game, much less season.

[coachx]

Don't pay mind to CBA, he actually isn't interested in the truth just trying to sound important and prove his opinion with fluffed up vocab. But you are right to point out the fear of hitting into a DP is not unfounded and it really sparkd me to think about this moneyball idiom of "process > results" much more. There is something amiss at only looking at averages and then judging "only ye move which yield ye greatest expected runs shall ye choose". If I give you the option of choosing between two players, both of which have an OPS of .400 which should you choose? Ignoring the other stats right now, most sabermatricians (the not very good ones, and from here out I will always refer to those) will say "gee both have the same OPS, it doesn't matter who you choose!" In one context that is right, but that is a context that isn't realistic and is usually termed "risk neutral". If I go back to the hypothetical of two players with OPS .400 and then add on that player A's standard error for OPS is .020 while player B's standard error for OPS is .100, would that change your opinion on who to select? In less statistics lingo, you are 95% sure that player A's OPS will be between .361 and .439 while player B's OPS will be between .204 and .596. Anyone selecting player A is "risk averse" while those for player B are "risk loving". Note that in reality there isn't a truly correct answer, selecting A, B, or being indifferent are all acceptable answers they just indicate one's willingness to accept/avoid risk.

Now granted most of the sabermatricians are statisticians with poor social skills so its understandable they would not understand risk aversion, but to forget about variance is a sin! Just sitting around and making claims about "hey this process yields the highest expected runs so it must be taken!" ignores variance and if you are ignoring variance you don't understand statistics. So where does this fit in with the Ross instance? Well, in effect Fredi is trading away lower expected runs for more certainty (i.e. showing risk aversion). Sabermatricians are coming out of left field and screaming "oh see this is stupid, just look at expected runs!" But if you ignore what their in your face arguments mislead you to believe, its really a question of confidence intervals. You've got two scenarios, on the one hand you could be 95% sure that you will score between 0.25 and 1.75 runs and on the other you could score between 0.75 and 1.15 runs (numbers purely made up to illustrate a point). One has a lower expected runs scored, but you're more certain you will score a run. Usually risk aversion is best illustrated with an example of fire insurance, so for anyone more interested you can google that and I'm sure wikipedia will do a better job explaining it.

To be risk neutral the entire season will maximize your runs, but last I checked you want to win games and not necessarily score as many runs as possible. And last I checked, there is no reason that one must remain at a given risk level the entire game, much less season.

Well said.

You took me back to my old risk management and statistics courses. I was literaly having flashbacks.

[AHF]

Don't pay mind to CBA, he actually isn't interested in the truth just trying to sound important and prove his opinion with fluffed up vocab.

This part is not well said. People are having good discussions on Braves baseball so why do we keep stooping to personal insults?

The next personal attack on these threads is going to result in an official warning. Let's not go there.

[AHF]

here out I will always refer to those) will say "gee both have the same OPS, it doesn't matter who you choose!" In one context that is right, but that is a context that isn't realistic and is usually termed "risk neutral". If I go back to the hypothetical of two players with OPS .400 and then add on that player A's standard error for OPS is .020 while player B's standard error for OPS is .100, would that change your opinion on who to select? In less statistics lingo, you are 95% sure that player A's OPS will be between .361 and .439 while player B's OPS will be between .204 and .596. Anyone selecting player A is "risk averse" while those for player B are "risk loving". Note that in reality there isn't a truly correct answer, selecting A, B, or being indifferent are all acceptable answers they just indicate one's willingness to accept/avoid risk.

Good post for thought/discussion.

IMO, however, there is only one correct answer there - Player B. A .400 OPS is so bad that the player is not even rosterable. A .596 OPS is barely rosterable. Since only one outcome yields a potential player worthy of a major league roster, that is the correct choice.

By way of illustration, there is not a single player in baseball with 100 at bats and a sub .400 OPS this year. There are only 3 such players with a minimum of 50 at bats.

[coachx]

This part is not well said. People are having good discussions on Braves baseball so why do we keep stooping to personal insults?

The next personal attack on these threads is going to result in an official warning. Let's not go there.

I agree.

When I said "well said" I shouldn't have included the opening remark in the quoted referenced. My intention was to focus on his statements surrounding statistics, variance, and risk assesment.

[Guest]

Good post for thought/discussion.

IMO, however, there is only one correct answer there - Player B.  A .400 OPS is so bad that the player is not even rosterable.  A .596 OPS is barely rosterable.  Since only one outcome yields a potential player worthy of a major league roster, that is the correct choice.

By way of illustration, there is not a single player in baseball with 100 at bats and a sub .400 OPS this year.  There are only 3 such players with a minimum of 50 at bats.

You are looking waaaay too hard at specific numbers and missing the point. To be more correct/applicable why not keep the standard errors and change OPS to .800. Now player A will be between .761 and .839 while player B will be between .604 and .996. Again, which you chose there is no "correct" answer even though you can construct a persuasive argument for any.

I believe I meant to say OBP not OPS, but I can't remember. Also the numbers for my expected runs example should be changed to more accurately reflect my point but I am too lazy to go through. The numbers aren't the point anyway, it's the message that typical sabermetric analysis ignores variance which becomes applicable to risk.