From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:43:34 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

Warning: I think I've rambled a lot, so you might want to skip this one.

In <1992Oct2.162733.4306@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.222859.27527@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>In <1992Sep30.144756.1661@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>
>>>>  Who says OBP is more important than 
>>>>>SLG???!!!

>>>>Oh, about 100 years of baseball teams who increase their run production
>>>>more by gaining 5 points of OBP than by gaining 5 points of SLG.  

>>>For confirmation, see this year's Detroit and Baltimore teams.

>>Sigh.  Its Mike "I Can't See The Forest, I'm Too Near The Trees Again"
>>Fester.  Listen, Mike, when something is, on average, true through 100

>Why is it than whenever someone nails you on a something, you simply MUST
>be insulting? Oh, sorry. It's the long middle name. Mea culpa.

Gee, Mike, I don't see an insult anywhere.  Pointing out that you tend to
lose the overall picture in small details, the problem with much of what
you post here, is not an insult.  If I called you a jerk, or stupid, or
whatever, that would be an insult.  I did no such thing.

If you really think that I insult everyone who disagrees with me, I suggest
you look through the posts I made discussing defensive value and try and
find one thing there that would fall into the most liberal definition of
"insult."  And that's a discussion where I very well might be wrong about
some things, unlike the discussion here, where the evidence is clear. 

I am sorry that I have tried to help you by trying to make you see where
the problems with your analysis lie.  Others advised me that this was
foolhardy, and maybe they were right. Sometimes I can be pathetically stubborn.
You obviously cannot take constructive criticism, so I won't bother
anymore.  I'm sorry, but I cannot sympathize much with people who are
willing to put forth their ideas but start ptotesting when the flaws
are pointed out.  I'm the opposite way; I relish criticism.  I remember
that I shocked numerous people in college by insisting that they criticize
my work as harshly as possible.   I had to press really hard to convince
people to go for the jugular.  And since that's the way I want to
be treated, I do unto others the same way.  But I digress.

>>years of baseball, there are going to be exceptions.  If you put together

>Fine, then you might take the time to explain that, instead of falling back
>on "100 years of baseball" pontifications.

I don't have to explain things which have been gone over time and time
before.  The fact is that 100 years of baseball does present all the
evidence I need to know that a point of OBP is more important than
a point of SLG.     

Again, the fact that after I post that there are 100 years of baseball
that show that a point of OBP is more important, you show up with the
irrelevant point of Baltimore and Milwaukee, is puzzling to me.  Why do
you think that the Baltimore and Milwaukee situation should cause anyone
to question my point?

>>a lineup as badly as Johnny Oates, does, no, you're not going to score as

>Everyone keeps saying this. Compare, position by position, Baltimore's and
>Milwaukee's lineup in the #1 -#9 slot (I did on a previous post). Sure LOOKS
>like the O's should STILL outscore Milwaukee, but they don't.

I said there were probably other factors.  I don't have infinite information
handy.  There is the matter of whether one team got less clutch base hits,
had less baserunning, less good luck, etc.

It certainly looks like Baltimore should be outscoring Milwaukee by alot.
They aren't; Milwaukee is outscoring Baltimore.  But that doesn't
present any real reason to doubt that Baltimore would benefit more from
5 points of OBP than from 5 points of SLG.

>>many runs as you should (There may be other factors involved, of course).
>>We've also discussed here endlessly that Detroit's mix of homers and walks
>>is probably more valuable than a mix of greater variety which adds up to
>>the same OBP and SLG.  But that doesn't change that in most situations
>>OBP points are more valuable than SLG points.  You can come up with all the
>>exceptions you want, and it just doesn't matter.  Unless you want to go

>What was that about "preconceived notions"?

Again, Mike, you can come up with as many exceptions as you want, and
it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because they are EXCEPTIONS.  By definition,
exceptions are exceptions.  

This has nothing to do with preconceived notions.  As Gary so eloquently
pointed out earlier, most of the preconceived notions around here come
from people who say "Well, I see ^$%$#&^*& play, and I know how good
he is, and I don't care what 100 years of studies or your stats and your
evidence say."  You don't really fit into that category, but I can't   
figure out exactly what category you fit in - you spend so much time
arguing over little unimportant details and exceptions you don't seem
to ever indicate that you even have a "big picture" view.

>>back and study every team and player in baseball history, what you say
>>is just going to be ignored.  If you want to do a major project like

>Really? Does THAT sound like open-minded analysis? And have YOU done such a
>study? Or are you merely relying on others' work? And BTW, isn't this rather
>a lot of bandwidth you're using to ignore someone?

Gee.  Mike.  I didn't know there was anything wrong with saying that if 
you do a through, intelligent job, people will pay attention, and if
you continue to post stuff worth ignoring, you will be ignored.

When there is a paradigm that has been established, you can't expect
to be taken seriously when you challenge that paradigm without having 
gone over the work which led to the creation of the paradigm.  Or, at the
very least, without coming up with a properly designed study which calls
the paradigm into question.

Why am I not ignoring you?  Because while I felt that your ideas were
worth ignoring, I didn't think you were.  I had hope.

>>that and you come back with evidence that clashes with what similar
>>research has shown, then people will listen.  

>As indicated by the open mind of the author of the underlined statement above.

I have a very open mind.  One can have an open mind and be discriminating
at the same time.  I've had my mind changed by people here and elsewhere
on a number of occassions.  Its just that you have to come up with
something persuasive, and informing me that Milwaukee has scored many more
runs than Baltimore despite a much lower OPS is not going to persuade
me that all the studies that have been done on this stuff covering - yes
-100 years of baseball - by people who know a hell of a lot more than
either you or I - are wrong.  Just like, as I believe David Tate pointed
out yesterday, the fact that Rafael Belliard goes 4 for 4 one day does
not invalidate the fact that Rafael isn't a very good hitter by major 
league standards.

>>Well, in the case of Daulton, it was a stupid move.  You're confusing
>>what the outcome was with how the move should be judged.   Good results
>>can come from bad decisions, and bad results from good decisions.  (Stewart
>>is a bit more complicated).

>Actually, no I'm not. I am pointing out that sometimes GMS make pretty decent
>moves (perhaps they have accesa to info that YOU may not. Naw). And right,
>Stewart IS a bit more complicated. He was older, and had been given more
>chances.

Yes, they do have have access to more info than I have.  That's precisely
why I think Stewart is more complicated, because I have no way of knowing
whether Dave Duncan & Tony LaRussa saw something that I didn't.  Pitching,
in general, is a lot harder to judge from my vantage point than hitting.
And I'm by no means an expert with the information I have.  Still, I
believe that someone who is an expert with sabermetrics, such as Pete  
Palmer and Steve Mann would be able to far more accurately predict the
course of major league events than most major league gms even without
the extra info the gms have.  We already know they they are far more accurate
than anyone in the media, but then again, there are no Earl Weavers or
Whitey Herzogs in the media.  

>>Again, Mike, finding exceptions doesn't have anything to do
>>with the rule.  In fact, if you couldn't find such exceptions, I'd be
>>more worried.  That would indicate something wrong, because systems just
>>don't work like that.  

>Right. That's why there are no such things as physical laws; "systems just 
>don't work like that".

I should have said these kinds of systems don't work like that.  Baseball
is more like economics, and other things studied in the social sciences,
where you can't always predict the outcome no matter how much information
you have.  As I said, if you couldn't find these exceptions, I'd be a
bit worried.

But now I have to go.  I have ballots to count, and other stuff yet to do,
and I've spent entirely too much time on rsb this week.  I have to stop
giving in to my primal desires and getting involved in these discussions.
Alas, I'm human.  As are we all. Adios.

Greg