02 Sep 12
Originally posted by sh76The last line doesn't concede any such thing. Of course, a pitcher has more control over Ks and BBs than whether after the ball is struck it becomes a hit - that's obvious (though even then individual batters strongly affect the probability of Ks and BBs). But that doesn't mean that what happens when and after the ball is struck is luck. Tippett's final line in the piece:
All that shows is that a pitcher's BABIP is not 100% luck, which of course I conceded earlier. There are meaningful differences between the results and actual results, but there are also unexplainable random results that indicate a luck factor. That was McCraken's point as , AFAIK, the leading sabermatricians still subscribe to that basic point.
Edit: The la ...[text shortened]... ss control over balls in play than on other outcomes, thereby conceding that luck is a factor.
Using power or control or deception or a knuckleball, pitchers can keep hitters off balance and induce more than their share of routine grounders, popups, and lazy fly balls.
02 Sep 12
I did a little back of the envelope calculations based on 2011 figures given in Baseball Reference.com. The average variation from the final Pythagorean to real win losses was 3.2 win/losses with a range of 0-8. That's not overly impressive to me given that its a measurement of past events and can vary up to 5% or more.
Total WAR is even less accurate; a 4.6 win/loss average deviation with a range of 0-11.9.http://orioles-nation.com/2011/10/03/is-war-accurate-2011/
Neither seems to be a particularly accurate predictor of future events. We are left with either the "enormous amount of luck" hypothesis of sh76 or the possibility that there are either extraneous or not weighted properly to these measures non-luck factors which influence game results like strength is certain critical areas (like the bullpen which many critics have said is very undervalued in WAR).
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAggregate WARs would be fine- it's a tertiary measure. Run differential is an excellent secondary measure.
Then a better "predictor" would be totalling individual WARs. Pythagoreans are just as much an aggregate measure as wins, but are a secondary one. Using them instead of wins to measure how good a team is spurious.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderHuman interaction and also non-human factors that are often random. Just to take one example: wind. The wind blew the ball fair. The wind blew the ball foul. The wind blew the ball away from the fielder, etc.
"Luck" is incorrect terminology. ALL results in baseball are generated by human action; there are no random results.
But more so, the timing of microseconds that can make the difference between hitting a double play groundball to shortstop and a hitting a base hit in the hole is not always attributable to skill or execution but sometimes is attributable to random chance.
02 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's common sense. Is the guy whose foul pop lands in the first row more skilled than the guy whose foul pop is caught by the third baseman against the railing?
So other teams should hire a black cat to walk across Joey Votto's path so he'll stop being so damn lucky?
Saying that "luck is an enormous factor in baseball" is quite different from showing that it is.
Edit: Joey Votto is obviously not just lucky. He's also very skilled. But luck can make a difference on the margins, which is a proposition I can hardly believe you'd dispute. While luck tends to even out the bigger the sample size, it doesn't always even out completely.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by sh76Both teams play in the wind.
Human interaction and also non-human factors that are often random. Just to take one example: wind. The wind blew the ball fair. The wind blew the ball foul. The wind blew the ball away from the fielder, etc.
But more so, the timing of microseconds that can make the difference between hitting a double play groundball to shortstop and a hitting a base hit in ...[text shortened]... is not always attributable to skill or execution but sometimes is attributable to random chance.
The timing of microseconds is due to human action, not random chance.
03 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76sh76: that this Reds team is a great team (it is probably not) or that it will win the WS this year (the odds are fairly long on that one too).
It probably is. The 1990 was not that good. IIRC, it went 35-15 early and played .500 ball for the rest of the season. They beat a better Pitt team in the NLCS and a much better A's team in the WS. That sometimes happens in baseball, anomalous as it is.
That they might have been better than they 1990 obviously does not mean that this Reds team is a great tea ...[text shortened]... probably not) or that it will win the WS this year (the odds are fairly long on that one too).
Not that long. Vegas has them listed at 8.3 to 1 only the Rangers and Yankees around 5:1 and the Nats at about 7:1 have shorter odds.http://www.nsawins.com/world-series-odds.shtml
Of course, Vegas odds are not an assessment of team strength but on where the bookmakers think they can get the public to split their money bets 50-50. I've looked at a number of "expert" power ratings done in the last few days: ESPN, FoxSports, Washington Post, etc. etc. and a few have the Reds #1 - none have them lower than #3.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauder8:1 seems about right. That's what I meant by fairly long odds. Any team against the field is going to have fairly long odds.
sh76: that this Reds team is a great team (it is probably not) or that it will win the WS this year (the odds are fairly long on that one too).
Not that long. Vegas has them listed at 8.3 to 1 only the Rangers and Yankees around 5:1 and the Nats at about 7:1 have shorter odds.http://www.nsawins.com/world-series-odds.shtml
...[text shortened]... Sports, Washington Post, etc. etc. and a few have the Reds #1 - none have them lower than #3.
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderReds lose to the Phillies today 4-2 and Cueto gets victimized.
Back to brass tacks; the Reds rally for 5 in the 8th to beat the Astros and win 2 out of 3 in Houston. The Cards drop 3 of 4 in Washington and it looks like the Bucs will get swept in Milwaukee. The lead is 9 1/2 and it's getting to counting down the magic number time: 19 right now.
Stl Louis beats the Mets 5-4
Lead is back to 8 1/2.
05 Sep 12
I'm glad that is over; the Phillies have killed us the last few years. Thank you Jay Bruce for the game winning HR yesterday and welcome back Joey Votto who only goes 2 for 3 with a BB after not playing a MLB game for 7 weeks. The Mets help out and salvage one against the Cards. so the lead stays at 8 1/2 games and the magic number moves down to 17.
08 Sep 12
2 edits
Just in case any Reds fan missed the Chapman line from tonight's humiliating loss to the
Houston Lastros...here it is......
A Chapman.......IP............ H......R......ER....BB....K......HR.....PC-ST
(L, 5-5; B, 5).... 1.0 .........4...... 3...... 3...... 0...... 1......1...... 23-17
Basically, he threw it in the zone and the anemic Lastros hit the hell out of it.
Who hit the shot out of the park? Matt Dominguez.
08 Sep 12
Originally posted by shortcircuitYes, his ERA shot up all the way to 1.61. It was his first blown save since June.
Just in case any Reds fan missed the Chapman line from tonight's humiliating loss to the
Houston Lastros...here it is......
A Chapman.......IP............ H......R......ER....BB....K......HR.....PC-ST
(L, 5-5; B, 5).... 1.0 .........4...... 3...... 3...... 0...... 1......1...... 23-17
Basically, he threw it in the zone and the anemic Lastros hit the hell out of it.
Who hit the shot out of the park? Matt Dominguez.
Despite this gigantic "humiliation" of losing a game, the magic number dropped to 16 and the lead stayed at 8 1/2 as the Cardinals lost to the Brewers in extra innings.
08 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderMatt Dominguez!!! LMAO!!!!
Yes, his ERA shot up all the way to 1.61. It was his first blown save since June.
Despite this gigantic "humiliation" of losing a game, the magic number dropped to 16 and the lead stayed at 8 1/2 as the Cardinals lost to the Brewers in extra innings.
Lucas Harrell out-pitched Homer Bailey too.
Unless, of course, you think the Reds hitters are worse than the Lastros hitters.
08 Sep 12
Originally posted by shortcircuitI think the Reds are going to win the World Series and the Astros will be watching them on TV doing it. I realize you don't have much to chirp about, but ranting and raving about one game is pathetic.
Matt Dominguez!!! LMAO!!!!
Lucas Harrell out-pitched Homer Bailey too.
Unless, of course, you think the Reds hitters are worse than the Lastros hitters.