What is the deal with Cobb
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by harry lime » Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:01 pm
[quote:7e6cba70ed] There is no way to quantify errors forced, pitchers rattled, infielders reduced to ineptitude.[/quote:7e6cba70ed]
Sure there is. You can do a study and see what happens when there is a base-stealing threat on 1st. Someone did this once-- and what they found out is that it rattles the pitchers so much that they pitch better. They also found that errors did increase, but it was microscopic. I'll try to find a link to that study.
Certainly in Cobb's day things were different. But I think the sabre crowd is doing just fine. No single approach is best, but to ignore sabremetrics is just as silly as putting all your faith in it.
Here's a couple of sabre-minded GM's who did pretty well-- Sandy Alderson, Branch Rickey. Beane's done well and Epstein won a World Series. There's more than 1 road to the Promised Land.
Sure there is. You can do a study and see what happens when there is a base-stealing threat on 1st. Someone did this once-- and what they found out is that it rattles the pitchers so much that they pitch better. They also found that errors did increase, but it was microscopic. I'll try to find a link to that study.
Certainly in Cobb's day things were different. But I think the sabre crowd is doing just fine. No single approach is best, but to ignore sabremetrics is just as silly as putting all your faith in it.
Here's a couple of sabre-minded GM's who did pretty well-- Sandy Alderson, Branch Rickey. Beane's done well and Epstein won a World Series. There's more than 1 road to the Promised Land.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by gkhd11a » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:03 pm
The White Sox past season is a totally renunciation of all things sabermetric Harry. They lead the league in sacrifices, bunt attempts and near the tops in attempted steals. They played totally unsabermetric baseball. Their success rate on successful steals was actually pretty low. But in watching the playoffs, I didn't note that the pitchers pitched better when Posednick or Willie Harris got on, I saw quite the opposite. Posednick gets hit pitcher single walks batter Grand Slam Konerko.
To suggest that the pitchers have a better chance of getting Konerko out if Posednick is not on base requires a total statistical approach and forgoing a watch of what is going on in the game.
Yes BA may be lower, the batter may take a few pitches and "give himself up on a ground ball to 2nd. But a walk to Posednick, SB GBto2b Posednick to 3rd and fly ball sacrafice to Dye may result in lower batting averages than the players would have had would Posednick not gotten on, but it was not "better for the pitcher".
Watching Ricky Henderson or Maury Wills or even Vince Coleman in their hey dey a fan knows they dominate the game. And those were always dangerous teams.
The difference is in a team that believes in the approach and works to make it successful and the one who bunts or steals because they feel it is that type of situation but is not commited to the baseball philosophy required.
Good pitching combined with baserunning ability leads to wins in real baseball and ATGII more consistently than any other single strategy. The realization of that has lead to incredible number of small ball teams and premiums on drafts for the best small ball players in ATGII.
Intestingly the Houston Astros were the second best at the same strategy as the White Sox, only not as committed to it. You frequently saw the Astros forgo bunts or missing a chance for a suicide squeeze when the situation availed itself.
The biggest problem of sabermetrics is the very fact it is looking to optimize runs when the reality is you need to only win by 1 not 3. Ozzie Guileen realizes that and is unconcerned about following
The White Sox where last in baseball in batting average with runners in scoring position yet still won 99 games. How? They led the league in sacrifices and pitching.
To suggest that the pitchers have a better chance of getting Konerko out if Posednick is not on base requires a total statistical approach and forgoing a watch of what is going on in the game.
Yes BA may be lower, the batter may take a few pitches and "give himself up on a ground ball to 2nd. But a walk to Posednick, SB GBto2b Posednick to 3rd and fly ball sacrafice to Dye may result in lower batting averages than the players would have had would Posednick not gotten on, but it was not "better for the pitcher".
Watching Ricky Henderson or Maury Wills or even Vince Coleman in their hey dey a fan knows they dominate the game. And those were always dangerous teams.
The difference is in a team that believes in the approach and works to make it successful and the one who bunts or steals because they feel it is that type of situation but is not commited to the baseball philosophy required.
Good pitching combined with baserunning ability leads to wins in real baseball and ATGII more consistently than any other single strategy. The realization of that has lead to incredible number of small ball teams and premiums on drafts for the best small ball players in ATGII.
Intestingly the Houston Astros were the second best at the same strategy as the White Sox, only not as committed to it. You frequently saw the Astros forgo bunts or missing a chance for a suicide squeeze when the situation availed itself.
The biggest problem of sabermetrics is the very fact it is looking to optimize runs when the reality is you need to only win by 1 not 3. Ozzie Guileen realizes that and is unconcerned about following
The White Sox where last in baseball in batting average with runners in scoring position yet still won 99 games. How? They led the league in sacrifices and pitching.
- gkhd11a
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by dwightskino211 » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:50 pm
did sabermetrics make david ortiz hit a game winner off a lefty to beat the angels to get into the world series, or did it just measure it after it happened. its called winning ugly boys. sabermetrics would have told you to pinch hit for ortiz with say someone like mirabelli etc. sabermetrics is a joke to someone like canseco or strawberry who in their prime didn't even know if that day's starter was a lefty or righty until they got up to hit!!!
- dwightskino211
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by harry lime » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:20 pm
[quote:e675c12c99]The White Sox past season is a totally renunciation of all things sabermetric Harry. [/quote:e675c12c99]
With all due respect-- that's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. All things sabremetric? That's like saying that the Red Sox winning in 2004 was a total renunciation of everything traditional.
[quote:e675c12c99]The biggest problem of sabermetrics is the very fact it is looking to optimize runs when the reality is you need to only win by 1 not 3. Ozzie Guileen realizes that and is unconcerned about following
[/quote:e675c12c99]
Well, if you maximize runs you take a lot of the luck out of it. Take the Red Sox-- they had some very bad luck with pitching- yet they still managed to win 95 games-- why? Because they maximized runs. If the White Sox don't get the pitching they got this year--then they will fall back to the middle of the pack.
And here's the funny thing-- they are not really a small ball team. Yeah, they can run and bunt-- but they hit 200 HR's. Yet, they still were only middle of the pack in runs scored. You could very well say that they did a really lousy job of scoring runs given their power numbers. I think they were a pretty lucky team this year. And I don't mean to take anything away from them, but I will be surprised if they win 99 again next year. They won because of thier pitching
[quote:e675c12c99]Good pitching combined with baserunning ability leads to wins in real baseball and ATGII more consistently than any other single strategy. The realization of that has lead to incredible number of small ball teams and premiums on drafts for the best small ball players in ATGII.
[/quote:e675c12c99]
I don't think I have to say that real baseball and ATG2 are very very differnet animals.
Here's another thing. There's a common misperception that sabremetrics says "never bunt" there are clearly situations that call for a bunt. And it is very good to have a team that can do it when needed.
I love small ball. I love to watch it and I love to read about the old teams that thrived on it. Many of my ATG teams are small ball. And I would even love to see a true small ball team do well. But the White Sox play in a HR park and hit 200 HRs. They waste a lot of outs and that will catch up to them.
I watched the playoffs too. And I saw a couple of games that shouldn't have been as close as they were. Yeah, they swept the Astros, but every game was close and they should have destroyed that team. A break here and there and things are different. That Astro team was terrible in the WS. Their offense ain't much to start with and their clean-up hitter was useless. Their vaunted pitching was mediocre. The White should have killed them.
Again, I don't mean to take anything away from the White Sox-- they were an exciting team to watch and they won. But it does not mean that everything sabre is out the window. It means there are different ways to win. In 2004 a sabre-based team won it, in 2005 a more well rounded team won.
With all due respect-- that's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. All things sabremetric? That's like saying that the Red Sox winning in 2004 was a total renunciation of everything traditional.
[quote:e675c12c99]The biggest problem of sabermetrics is the very fact it is looking to optimize runs when the reality is you need to only win by 1 not 3. Ozzie Guileen realizes that and is unconcerned about following
[/quote:e675c12c99]
Well, if you maximize runs you take a lot of the luck out of it. Take the Red Sox-- they had some very bad luck with pitching- yet they still managed to win 95 games-- why? Because they maximized runs. If the White Sox don't get the pitching they got this year--then they will fall back to the middle of the pack.
And here's the funny thing-- they are not really a small ball team. Yeah, they can run and bunt-- but they hit 200 HR's. Yet, they still were only middle of the pack in runs scored. You could very well say that they did a really lousy job of scoring runs given their power numbers. I think they were a pretty lucky team this year. And I don't mean to take anything away from them, but I will be surprised if they win 99 again next year. They won because of thier pitching
[quote:e675c12c99]Good pitching combined with baserunning ability leads to wins in real baseball and ATGII more consistently than any other single strategy. The realization of that has lead to incredible number of small ball teams and premiums on drafts for the best small ball players in ATGII.
[/quote:e675c12c99]
I don't think I have to say that real baseball and ATG2 are very very differnet animals.
Here's another thing. There's a common misperception that sabremetrics says "never bunt" there are clearly situations that call for a bunt. And it is very good to have a team that can do it when needed.
I love small ball. I love to watch it and I love to read about the old teams that thrived on it. Many of my ATG teams are small ball. And I would even love to see a true small ball team do well. But the White Sox play in a HR park and hit 200 HRs. They waste a lot of outs and that will catch up to them.
I watched the playoffs too. And I saw a couple of games that shouldn't have been as close as they were. Yeah, they swept the Astros, but every game was close and they should have destroyed that team. A break here and there and things are different. That Astro team was terrible in the WS. Their offense ain't much to start with and their clean-up hitter was useless. Their vaunted pitching was mediocre. The White should have killed them.
Again, I don't mean to take anything away from the White Sox-- they were an exciting team to watch and they won. But it does not mean that everything sabre is out the window. It means there are different ways to win. In 2004 a sabre-based team won it, in 2005 a more well rounded team won.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by harry lime » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:24 pm
[quote:c75c6264db]did sabermetrics make david ortiz hit a game winner off a lefty to beat the angels to get into the world series, or did it just measure it after it happened. its called winning ugly boys. sabermetrics would have told you to pinch hit for ortiz with say someone like mirabelli etc. sabermetrics is a joke to someone like canseco or strawberry who in their prime didn't even know if that day's starter was a lefty or righty until they got up to hit!!!
[/quote:c75c6264db]
Huh? No sabremetrics wouldn't tell you to do that. Sabremetrics doesn't make anyone do anything. I'm not sure what you're talking about Dwight.
[/quote:c75c6264db]
Huh? No sabremetrics wouldn't tell you to do that. Sabremetrics doesn't make anyone do anything. I'm not sure what you're talking about Dwight.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by harry lime » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:37 pm
[quote:14060c56c8]Intestingly the Houston Astros were the second best at the same strategy as the White Sox, only not as committed to it. You frequently saw the Astros forgo bunts or missing a chance for a suicide squeeze when the situation availed itself.
[/quote:14060c56c8]
As for smallball tactics, one could make the argument that Phil Garner's failure to play for the big inning of the first inning of WS Games 3 and 4 (he basically unnecessarily gave up outs by having Taveras attempt to sacrifice) cost the Astros both of those games. As Earl Weaver is credited with saying, "if you play for just one run early, you will lose by one run late."
I think it's safe to say the more things you do well the better off you will be. A team that can hit, field. pitch, run and hit situationally is going to be better than a team that can just hit well. Or just field and pitch well.
[/quote:14060c56c8]
As for smallball tactics, one could make the argument that Phil Garner's failure to play for the big inning of the first inning of WS Games 3 and 4 (he basically unnecessarily gave up outs by having Taveras attempt to sacrifice) cost the Astros both of those games. As Earl Weaver is credited with saying, "if you play for just one run early, you will lose by one run late."
I think it's safe to say the more things you do well the better off you will be. A team that can hit, field. pitch, run and hit situationally is going to be better than a team that can just hit well. Or just field and pitch well.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by gkhd11a » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:13 pm
[quote:534a39b2b0]With all due respect-- that's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. All things sabremetric? That's like saying that the Red Sox winning in 2004 was a total renunciation of everything traditional. [/quote:534a39b2b0]
The Red Sox were not trying to make a statement with their type of baseball. The White Sox definitly were. They traded Carlos Lee for Scott Posednick. Why they thought running and bunting were more important than high average and home runs. It was a renunciation of the style that Sabermetrics says you should follow. They named it "smartball" later called Ozzieball as a direct jab at Billy Bean's "money ball" or sabermetrics as it is called here. This was not just a team that happens to play this way. Ozzie saw how it worked at Florida and said get rid off all these high run guys I want a certain style of player.
What the White Sox did was an intentional slap to conventional wisdom in baseball. Their management beleives the sabermetric approach is foolish and lived the season to prove it. If that is not a renunciation then I don't know what is. As far as I know Boston never intentionally tried to do anything except get the best players money can buy, that's as traditional as it gets for top teams.
The Red Sox were not trying to make a statement with their type of baseball. The White Sox definitly were. They traded Carlos Lee for Scott Posednick. Why they thought running and bunting were more important than high average and home runs. It was a renunciation of the style that Sabermetrics says you should follow. They named it "smartball" later called Ozzieball as a direct jab at Billy Bean's "money ball" or sabermetrics as it is called here. This was not just a team that happens to play this way. Ozzie saw how it worked at Florida and said get rid off all these high run guys I want a certain style of player.
What the White Sox did was an intentional slap to conventional wisdom in baseball. Their management beleives the sabermetric approach is foolish and lived the season to prove it. If that is not a renunciation then I don't know what is. As far as I know Boston never intentionally tried to do anything except get the best players money can buy, that's as traditional as it gets for top teams.
- gkhd11a
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by gkhd11a » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:24 pm
[quote:13318b6823] watched the playoffs too. And I saw a couple of games that shouldn't have been as close as they were. Yeah, they swept the Astros, but every game was close and they should have destroyed that team[/quote:13318b6823]
As I said the White Sox play to win by one run. I don't see how you win 20 of your last 22 in a pennant race by luck. They were better at the fundamentals of baseball by the end of the season because they practice them all 162 games.
As I understand it you believe they won with a fundamentally flawed strategy in a park that dramatically favors another style. I don't really believe in 99 games of luck myself so I think there must be something extrodinarily powerful in their style and it is the determination to make it work, which does not show up in statistics at all.
As I said the White Sox play to win by one run. I don't see how you win 20 of your last 22 in a pennant race by luck. They were better at the fundamentals of baseball by the end of the season because they practice them all 162 games.
As I understand it you believe they won with a fundamentally flawed strategy in a park that dramatically favors another style. I don't really believe in 99 games of luck myself so I think there must be something extrodinarily powerful in their style and it is the determination to make it work, which does not show up in statistics at all.
- gkhd11a
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest