|
|
#111
08-21-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] for the people who swear its all varience if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience? what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance? Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned? Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws. As for Tejada vs Moyer: He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana. [/ QUOTE ] you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta. [/ QUOTE ] So let me get this right, it would only be proof if, first, some fat scout sitting in the stands made a half-assed observation and brought it to someones attention? Wow. But if nobody assumes beforehand that a hitter can't hit a pitcher, then no pitcher can own a hitter? [/ QUOTE ] No, it still could. It would just take a hell of a lot more than 22 Ks in 27 AB. 
|
|
#112
08-21-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] for the people who swear its all varience if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience? what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance? Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned? Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws. As for Tejada vs Moyer: He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana. [/ QUOTE ] you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta. [/ QUOTE ] So let me get this right, it would only be proof if, first, some fat scout sitting in the stands made a half-assed observation and brought it to someones attention? Wow. But if nobody assumes beforehand that a hitter can't hit a pitcher, then no pitcher can own a hitter? [/ QUOTE ] No, it still could. It would just take a hell of a lot more than 22 Ks in 27 AB. [/ QUOTE ]] Whether or not an observation is made beforehand, during, or long afterwards, has no relevance on whether or not a hitter is owned by a pitcher.
|
|
#113
08-21-2007, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk- man on 3rd 1 out down by 1 in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the alcs and youre manging the indians You let peralta hit against santana if you have a similar hitter on the bench who has never faced Santana before? [/ QUOTE ] I'm going to define similar however I see fit, since you didn't give me details, and I'll say yes, I'd let Perralta hit, but of course it doesn't matter. If they are 'similar' the way I take it, the only relevant difference is that one guy has faced Santana 27 times and the other guy hasn't. I don't think this makes much difference, so I don't think PH makes much difference, so I wouldn't bring a guy in off the bench.
|
|
#114
08-21-2007, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
Also, styles make at-bats. Much like boxing. It's not like playing cards, where the "style" of the hand doesn't matter. The cards themselves have finite value, but the player playing them adds the "style", which can dominate another opponent. When AA loses all-in pre-flop to KK, it is "variance", not poor play. When AA loses to a draw at showdown in a non-all-in pot, it isn't "variance", but "poor play" or poor style by the player. Much like how Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, then George Foreman knocked Frazier down 6 times in 2 rounds and made him look like a complete fool, only to end up looking like a fool against Ali (who called Frazier the best opponent he had). Styles and ability make at-bats. Not static probabilities like in poker. [/ QUOTE ] Couldnt have said it better myself. Why the [censored] do people think hitting a baseball should be looked at the same was as flipping a coin.
|
|
#115
08-21-2007, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
In your opinion, what number of at bats would make this statistically significant in showing an "ownage" factor?
|
|
#116
08-21-2007, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
similar as in both guys have extremely close numbers in every way possible, are the same speed and play the same position to the same ability.
How can facing a guy 27 times have no bearing on the 28th ab especially if he couldn hit him with a tennis racket? Now you're just being rediculous. Even if it was all varience why would you wanna send a guy up there who cant possibly have any confidence in himself at that point?
|
|
#117
08-21-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] for the people who swear its all varience if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience? what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance? Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned? Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws. As for Tejada vs Moyer: He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana. [/ QUOTE ] you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta. [/ QUOTE ] So let me get this right, it would only be proof if, first, some fat scout sitting in the stands made a half-assed observation and brought it to someones attention? Wow. But if nobody assumes beforehand that a hitter can't hit a pitcher, then no pitcher can own a hitter? [/ QUOTE ] No, it still could. It would just take a hell of a lot more than 22 Ks in 27 AB. [/ QUOTE ]] Whether or not an observation is made beforehand, during, or long afterwards, has no relevance on whether or not a hitter is owned by a pitcher. [/ QUOTE ] In a sense, but that isn't what you are doing. You wait until after all the data is in and THEN find the outlier. I agree, it doesn't really matter if he has ALREADY hit against him or if he will in the future, but what I'm trying to explain is that, since we all watch way too much baseball, picking a future player is the only way to remove bias. It is this selection bias that is the entire problem here. Do you see this? Go back to my coin example. Would you assume that coin #74 was a lucky coin? I mean, it went 22 heads and only 5 tails. OBVIOUSLY thats not a 50/50 proposition, right? Thats pretty good evidence that that coin is lucky.
|
|
#118
08-21-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, styles make at-bats. Much like boxing. It's not like playing cards, where the "style" of the hand doesn't matter. The cards themselves have finite value, but the player playing them adds the "style", which can dominate another opponent. When AA loses all-in pre-flop to KK, it is "variance", not poor play. When AA loses to a draw at showdown in a non-all-in pot, it isn't "variance", but "poor play" or poor style by the player. Much like how Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, then George Foreman knocked Frazier down 6 times in 2 rounds and made him look like a complete fool, only to end up looking like a fool against Ali (who called Frazier the best opponent he had). Styles and ability make at-bats. Not static probabilities like in poker. [/ QUOTE ] Couldnt have said it better myself. Why the [censored] do people think hitting a baseball should be looked at the same was as flipping a coin. [/ QUOTE ] because it is? did you just ignore what everyone has been posting? it seems counter-intuitive but when you consider the many variables, it begins to make sense.
|
|
#119
08-21-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion, what number of at bats would make this statistically significant in showing an "ownage" factor? [/ QUOTE ] he could be 18 for 500 with 472 strikeouts and vhawk would swear hes just on the left side of the bell curve.
|
|
#120
08-21-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Batters who just OWN pitchers
[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion, what number of at bats would make this statistically significant in showing an "ownage" factor? [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure its very easy to figure it out, maybe someone who is better at stats than I am is interested. For any number of trials, you can calculate the standard deviation. All you need to do is determine whether Perralta's stats are many SDs above the mean. If they are, it is very unlikely it is due to chance. Anyone interested in taking this on? Its actually worth the effort for those on the opposite side of this than me, since it would conclusively prove me wrong if he is like 3-4 SDs above, and would basically do nothing to your crazy, fallacious point if he happened to be 1 SD above.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
