The smarter people among us post their deeper thoughts and analyses on The Good Phight and Phuture Phillies. Some like jeff2sf and shore don't post as much as they used to, presumably due to work/life balance stuff.

tangotiger wrote:

mcare89 wrote:I'm not sure what just happened, but I'm reasonably sure it was shocking in some way.

The summary? To the extent I can interpret things properly:

From Matt's perspective: he was being fair and balanced. He's satisfied with how it turned out.

From my perspective: I was giving him the chances to concede where he should have, and find common ground otherwise, so we can move forward on something. I think it was a failure.

From your perspective: yada yada yada.

***

By the way, what's the general sabermetric view around here?

We really, really view the world differently. My interpretation of the argument was the I am consistently keeping it real, keeping my job at BP but continuing to post at The Book Blog, even if I'm more scrutinized, but being even more open about my methods while trying to fit all that in within a successful business. You want me to poke holes in PECOTA publicly, all the while I email with Clay, Colin, and everyone at BP trying to improve it.

Meanwhile, you think everyone checks their egos at the door in your blog, and that your website is the only spot in the world where human nature doesn't seem to apply.

Fair and balanced is a good reference but it's unfair here. I keep it real, just like Colin has. On the other hand, you want me to run BP because I'm better at math, but all I can do is make suggestions, and I do.

I just don't share your view in Markov chains, which is hardly a character flaw on my part. And being an economist, I trust people only to be self-interested in most cases, and I see no harm in profit seeking if it causes no externalities. Don't paint a sinister picture of me for being skeptical about Markov chains and people's abilities to check egos at the door.

tangotiger wrote:By the way, what's the general sabermetric view around here?

The consensus view here seems to be that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

MattS wrote:We really, really view the world differently. My interpretation of the argument was the I am consistently keeping it real, keeping my job at BP but continuing to post at The Book Blog, even if I'm more scrutinized, but being even more open about my methods while trying to fit all that in within a successful business.

Fair enough.

MattS wrote: You want me to poke holes in PECOTA publicly,

Absolutely and positively. I want you to be you, just like you tested PECOTA and Chone last year, do it this year as well. Just like Colin did it last year, do it this year. I want you to be able to be free of your shackles to do what a scientist would do, without worrying about publication bias.

It would take, however, someone at BPro to commission you to do that, because I don't want you to lose your job. Because it is fairly obvious that PECOTA would be exposed as having had a horrible year last year.

MattS wrote: all the while I email with Clay, Colin, and everyone at BP trying to improve it.

Yes, sure, definitely. The two are mutually exclusive.

MattS wrote:Meanwhile, you think everyone checks their egos at the door in your blog,

Yes.

MattS wrote: and that your website is the only spot in the world where human nature doesn't seem to apply.

Sabermetric-utopia. Great, right?

MattS wrote:Fair and balanced is a good reference but it's unfair here. I keep it real, just like Colin has.

Hopefully you continue to do so.

MattS wrote: On the other hand, you want me to run BP because I'm better at math, but all I can do is make suggestions, and I do.

No, I don't want you to run anything. I want you to be true to yourself.

MattS wrote:I just don't share your view in Markov chains, which is hardly a character flaw on my part.

Character flaw?

MattS wrote: And being an economist, I trust people only to be self-interested in most cases,

Pity.

MattS wrote: and I see no harm in profit seeking

Agreed.

MattS wrote: if it causes no externalities. Don't paint a sinister picture of me for being skeptical about Markov chains

Sinister? I continue to be shocked at the way you interpret things so conclusively at things I did not say. Especially since I keep saying I am right here to answer questions. Why not say "Do you have a sinister picture of me?" Instead you assert that I do have a sinister picture of you.

Basically, you treat me as if I can only provide you with limited data, and therefore you are obligated to fill in the holes by inferring whatever you need to paint whatever picture makes the most sense.

MattS wrote: and people's abilities to check egos at the door.

One day, you'll come around. Or, maybe I will. I hope it's you, because if I have to come around, then I will have been deluded by the people I enjoy talking about baseball the most.

To everyone else: the reason I asked is because I am interested to hear what it is that you don't buy into sabermetrics, or want to buy into if you could understand it better.

Or, do you really note care to be bothered, and are happy with how things are working out for you?

math sux bro

CrashburnAlley wrote:math sux bro

Is it that you really don't want to see how things are put together, and just want to be told that, yeah, this thing works, trust me?

How far do you want to go?

I was being sarcastic. I worship at the altar of the statnerd.

tangotiger wrote:To everyone else: the reason I asked is because I am interested to hear what it is that you don't buy into sabermetrics, or want to buy into if you could understand it better.

Or, do you really note care to be bothered, and are happy with how things are working out for you?

This is a good question. I probably have the lowest math comprehension of any grown-up that I know. I use intermediate math all of the time, but it was and is a continuing struggle for me to use - mostly based on memorization and a lot of triple checking. At the same time I'm a big believer not only in metrics, but in meaninful metrics (this probably comes from my career in IT management). I believe there is little that cannot be analyzed and turned into a useful measurement - but aside from defining what I want and the factors I want included, I rely on smarter people turn my "requirements" into a product I can consume and understand. Naturally this applies to baseball.

One of the individuals, who I believe would be considered one of the brighter posters on this board, is also a close friend. He does math in his head that I can't even begin to do with a pencil, an eraser, and the best calculator money can buy. I've learned a lot from him because he's a patient teacher and enjoys explaining some of these statistics and scenarios to me in detail, using plain language and real world examples, until it gets into my thick skull.

In a slightly different context, you discuss ego with Matt. The reality is, an internet messageboard is nothing but ego, for better or worse. Folks like Matt and a few others do a good job of trying to explain themselves, but sometimes this makes it hard for folks to ask for clarification or a better description of things because inevitably someone will start breaking his or her balls over it. The link bar at the top of the site describes this group pretty well. Exclyuding "the Misconceptions", there are two sabre oriented baseball blogs and two silly internet meme type "joke" sites. We enjoy baseball but I think most of us also enjoy trying to make each other laugh. In the off-season it's mostly the latter. Though few of us fall in the meathead sports radio fan demographic, the "goof off" side probably prevents deep analytical discussions about higher mathematical concepts behind existing and new statistics.

So, to answer your question, I'm interested in understanding how things are put together to the degree that I'm capable. If the essential logic, weights, and variable parts are explained to me well enough I am interested in seeing how things are put together. When equations like:

SIERA = 6.262 – 18.055*(SO/PA) + 11.292*(BB/PA) – 1.721*((GB-FB-PU)/PA) +10.169*((SO/PA)^2) – 7.069*(((GB-FB-PU)/PA)^2) + 9.561*(SO/PA)*((GB-FB-PU)/PA) – 4.027*(BB/PA)*((GB-FB-PU)/PA)

are presented - I'm out. Explain what that means, and I'm back in.

To Matt's credit, he does a good job of attempting to explain what he's up to. Many other posters here will do the same.

tangotiger wrote:To everyone else: the reason I asked is because I am interested to hear what it is that you don't buy into sabermetrics, or want to buy into if you could understand it better.

Or, do you really note care to be bothered, and are happy with how things are working out for you?

For me, it's a matter of keeping the game fun. Complicated formulas and such just aren't fun to me. While I respect how they work, I just don't like to invest myself in them. I understand why you and Matt and the others worship the numbers, it's just not my cup of tea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "I watch the games, I don't need numbers." crowd. I respect stats. I just don't like to get neck-deep in a pool of stats.

I'll second what Vox said about being interested while I'm capable of it.

tangotiger wrote:To everyone else: the reason I asked is because I am interested to hear what it is that you don't buy into sabermetrics, or want to buy into if you could understand it better.

Or, do you really note care to be bothered, and are happy with how things are working out for you?

only maybe 3 or 4 of us on this board can understand statistics the way sabermetricians do. while i think 90% of the board will agree with whatever new stat is presented we just don't have the background education to look at the skeleton of it.

I think the "productive outs" stat is the ground-breaking stat known

To be honest, I'm really only interested in statistics insofar as they help me in fantasy leagues. If SIERA is a better predictor of future pitcher performance than FIP, xERA, etc., then I'll pay attention to it. But I have no interest in calculating it or figuring out how to calculate it or understanding why the formula is the way it is. I just don't have that kind of interest or ability in math.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'd guess 20% of people really don't care about sabermetrics at all. 70% get it enough to try and read what Matt and a few others write, but mostly defer to their conclusions because it's beyond us. A handful get into it. I'm in the group that it is beyond, so I cannot speak to the more contentious issues that the smart baseball people debate, except it's always disconcerting when mommy and daddy fight.

My own position is I think statistics are valuable, but I know just enough to know that statistics by themselves aren't all that useful in trying to understand the game.

For me, I think there's a lot of emphasis on evaluating individual players, which I suppose is useful for fantasy baseball. But to me, that's a problem. I'd really like to see more analysis of team stats. How important is a closer to winning actual games? How well does team obp correlate with wins? (I know there's been some work on this latter area, and there's a more refined version of OPS based on that idea.)

Matt and I last year had a discussion revolving around the concept of "luck" and I at least found it interesting. At the extreme, my position was there's no such thing as luck--just because we don't know what causes a variance doesn't mean there isn't some cause, or that a cause unique to a player that won't show up in a statistic isn't still a real cause. And this to me is a final problem with statistics--they're generalizations. Ryan Howard I think will outperform his statistical projections, because they don't take into account that Howard signed a big fat extension and apparently decided to become something of a workout fiend who also dedicated himself to improving his fielding.

Seems like only I posted something in this thread that went over everybody's head.

Not that I'm proud of it. So here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1326.story

From what I understand now about SIERA, it seems like the biggest objection people are going to have is the "GB*BB" term, and this will continue to be controversial until a lot more games/additional PBP data can be added to the analysis to either vindicate the creators' thinking or suggest more strongly that the term is insignificant

tangotiger wrote:
By the way, what's the general sabermetric view around here?

I can understand most of it, I just can't apply it or argue with it

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

tangotiger wrote:
By the way, what's the general sabermetric view around here?

I can understand most of it, I just can't apply it or argue with it

so you don't understand it

tangotiger wrote:To everyone else: the reason I asked is because I am interested to hear what it is that you don't buy into sabermetrics, or want to buy into if you could understand it better.

Or, do you really note care to be bothered, and are happy with how things are working out for you?

Personally, I'm sure I could understand all of these stats and develop a strong opinion like you and Matt - it's not difficult stuff. I just don't have nearly enough time to do so.

VoxOrion wrote:So, to answer your question, I'm interested in understanding how things are put together to the degree that I'm capable. If the essential logic, weights, and variable parts are explained to me well enough I am interested in seeing how things are put together. When equations like:

SIERA = 6.262 – 18.055*(SO/PA) + 11.292*(BB/PA) – 1.721*((GB-FB-PU)/PA) +10.169*((SO/PA)^2) – 7.069*(((GB-FB-PU)/PA)^2) + 9.561*(SO/PA)*((GB-FB-PU)/PA) – 4.027*(BB/PA)*((GB-FB-PU)/PA)

are presented - I'm out. Explain what that means, and I'm back in.

To Matt's credit, he does a good job of attempting to explain what he's up to. Many other posters here will do the same.

Not to sound patronizing here, Vox, but the equation above is really just an ordinary least squares estimate of a linear relationship, which is something I expect most of us first learned how to calculate back in middle school. Granted, it's using multiple regressors and a few second order terms, but still it's something anybody with a few introductory undergraduate statistics classes could readily understand and re-produce on their own.

Tango's Markov Chain simulation approach, on the other hand, for better or worse sounds like a much more complex approach that would take even someone with a PhD in Statistics a good long time to verify and validate.