Travis Snider Pirate perfomance thread

[crrr]

There's not much difference between .270 and .220 over a weekly basis, and therein is the uniqueness of baseball. Failure is the only option, but those who fail the least are revered as superstars. If a goalie in any sport with a goalie had a save percentage of .320, they wouldn't make it out of junior A, but in baseball, a success rate of 32% is the stuff of heroes.

 

What I'm saying is this: a single player getting a hit 5% more often is not statistically significant. What you're saying is "well, if 5% doesn't matter for one player, then 5% doesn't matter cumulatively across the whole team or a 20% improvement for that player doesn't matter" which is ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part (argument ad absurdum). This is not, nor has it ever been the argument I've put forward.

 

At no point in my completely non-controversial statement did I say that "no percentage of anything matters." But please, feel free to feel superior because all numbers are essentially the same anyway, right?

 

Hey man, if we had a whole team of Melkys, would it be better than half a team of Sniders and half of Rajais?

[Deadpool]

Hey man, if we had a whole team of Melkys, would it be better than half a team of Sniders and half of Rajais?

 

Absolutely, Melky is unquestionably better than Davis and is better than what Snider currently provides (though I still have completely unreasonable faith that Snider will put it all together eventually). Of course, then you'd have a whole team of left fielders who couldn't play any other position on a dare, but I'll just limit this to hitting.

[Olerud363]

There's not much difference between .270 and .220 over a weekly basis, and therein is the uniqueness of baseball. Failure is the only option, but those who fail the least are revered as superstars. If a goalie in any sport with a goalie had a save percentage of .320, they wouldn't make it out of junior A, but in baseball, a success rate of 32% is the stuff of heroes.

 

What I'm saying is this: a single player getting a hit 5% more often is not statistically significant. What you're saying is "well, if 5% doesn't matter for one player, then 5% doesn't matter cumulatively across the whole team or a 20% improvement for that player doesn't matter" which is ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part (argument ad absurdum). This is not, nor has it ever been the argument I've put forward.

 

At no point in my completely non-controversial statement did I say that "no percentage of anything matters." But please, feel free to feel superior because all numbers are essentially the same anyway, right?

 

Just because something isn't statistically significant doesn't mean it "doesn't matter". If I get hit by a car it's not statistically significant, it doesn't increase the chances you'll get hit by a car, but it matters to me.

 

If Melky hits .320 over .270 it matters... it means probably a couple of extra wins for the Blue Jays. Is it statistically significant?? A little bit. Not huge.

 

To construct a baseball team you have to assign value to every assett. You have to devise a system to acquire those assetts. You can't say "I don't care if a player hits .320 or .270" it doesn't matter. It sure as hell does matter. The team is constructed through a series of small decisions. In order to make those decisions you have to assign values to every skill. You have to assign a value to the difference between a .320 hitter and a .270 hitter, you have to assign values to all kinds of different players, the .320 hitter vs. the .270 hitter with power... the .220 hitter whos a defensive wiz, and so on and so on.

 

In the end the players one acquires will not perform as predicted, but you have to hope that the errors even out. But to begin the process of designing a team you need a system to value players. And batting average is part of that.

[G-Snarls]

Absolutely, Melky is unquestionably better than Davis and is better than what Snider currently provides (though I still have completely unreasonable faith that Snider will put it all together eventually). Of course, then you'd have a whole team of left fielders who couldn't play any other position on a dare, but I'll just limit this to hitting.

 

Yes. 9 Melky Cabrera's in one lineup would score a lot of runs.

[Olerud363]

Yes. 9 Melky Cabrera's in one lineup would score a lot of runs.

 

Do you mean 9 2012 Melky Cabrerras?? I don't know if there has ever been a team that hit like that. Maybe something from the 30s (edit, I meant 30s that's the era of high averages).

 

9 "career" Melky's would score about 750 runs or so. I did a quick look at bbref to find teams that hit as "career" Melky does, .280 .335 .410 or so. There were actually a few from 83 that were close (that's one of the first years I checked, I'm sure one could find tonnes of them if they looked). An interesting year as if you order the teams by batting average the top four all look very "career Melky" like.

 

All scored between 760 and 795 runs. A good but not amazing total for 2010s AL East.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1983.shtml

[Deadpool]

You can't say "I don't care if a player hits .320 or .270" it doesn't matter.

 

Here is where your "debate" with me falls flat, I have never ever said anything close to this. I said that it is statistically insignificant, that it is well within the margin of error.

 

I would also posit (though, realistically I haven't got the data handy) that a single player improving their batting average by .050 will most likely NOT lead to "a couple of extra wins for the Blue Jays". Though your assertion that if every player increased their batting average, it would increase the number of wins is, obviously, accurate.

 

If a guy who usually hits .270 had a year where he hit .320, would you say "he's turned a corner" or "he had a great season"? If a player who usually hits .320 (because those exist, right?) has a year where he hit .270, would you say "he's finished" or "he had a bad year"?

 

The reason you (assuming you are a rational human being) would say "he had a great season" or "he had a bad year" is because he is still the same player, capable of the same things, but due to a minor statistical anomaly he performed outside of his expected norms.

 

Also, if *I* were to build a team, batting average would be fairly low on my list of consulted stats, just saying.

[Olerud363]

Can I have 9 Jose Bautista's instead please?

 

One can find teams from the 90s and 2000s that hit like "career" Bautista does. They scored about 950 runs a year.

 

Not sure how many runs a team hitting like 2010-2013 Bautista would get. That would be a .280 .400 .600 geam. I'm guessing 1100 runs.

[Olerud363]

It would score about 1234 runs, by Baseball Musings' lineup analysis tool. That would be amazing.

 

cool tool.

[Olerud363]

Here is where your "debate" with me falls flat, I have never ever said anything close to this. I said that it is statistically insignificant, that it is well within the margin of error.

 

I would also posit (though, realistically I haven't got the data handy) that a single player improving their batting average by .050 will most likely NOT lead to "a couple of extra wins for the Blue Jays". Though your assertion that if every player increased their batting average, it would increase the number of wins is, obviously, accurate.

 

If a guy who usually hits .270 had a year where he hit .320, would you say "he's turned a corner" or "he had a great season"? If a player who usually hits .320 (because those exist, right?) has a year where he hit .270, would you say "he's finished" or "he had a bad year"

The reason you (assuming you are a rational human being) would say "he had a great season" or "he had a bad year" is because he is still the same player, capable of the same things, but due to a minor statistical anomaly he performed outside of his expected norms.

 

Also, if *I* were to build a team, batting average would be fairly low on my list of consulted stats, just saying.

 

Just checked out the baseball musings lineup tool (suggested by North of 49), designed a 715 run team, then cranked up one of the players on base percentage by 50 points. According to the tool the team then scored 738 runs.

 

Then found a pythagaran calculator and plugged in 738 runs scored and 715 against... which gives 83 or 84 wins (they supply results from 2 models or something).

[Deadpool]

Just checked out the baseball musings lineup tool (suggested by North of 49), designed a 715 run team, then cranked up one of the players on base percentage by 50 points. According to the tool the team then scored 738 runs.

 

Then found a pythagaran calculator and plugged in 738 runs scored and 715 against... which gives 83 or 84 wins (they supply results from 2 models or something).

 

This doesn't give me information...

 

83 or 84 wins compared to what? You didn't give a number based on the 715 run team.

[Olerud363]

This doesn't give me information...

 

83 or 84 wins compared to what? You didn't give a number based on the 715 run team.

 

715 runs allowed and 715 against = 81 wins.