Fuck Zorp You Stathead Turds

[Philberto]

Zack Greinke: Statchugger

"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."

To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.

"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.

Secksy... I'm very impressed the voters overlooked the wins. That seems to be one stat people can't stop looking at (at least on the pitching side of things). It's been nice to see some changes in the journalism world where people are using these advanced metrics (Bruce Miles). Also, Kaplan got all statfaggy on us. I have yet to take the time to completely read the article to see if he analyzes it right, but I was just impressed he mentioned WAR and BABiP

[Oleg]

Zack Greinke: Statchugger

"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."

To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.

"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.

Secksy... I'm very impressed the voters overlooked the wins. That seems to be one stat people can't stop looking at (at least on the pitching side of things). It's been nice to see some changes in the journalism world where people are using these advanced metrics (Bruce Miles). Also, Kaplan got all statfaggy on us. I have yet to take the time to completely read the article to see if he analyzes it right, but I was just impressed he mentioned WAR and BABiP

I didn't read the artricle, but I'm glad he finally caught up to 2005.

[Eli]

Zack Greinke: Statchugger

"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."

To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.

"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.

Good for Greinke, but I'm not sure "pitching for fly balls" makes a lot of sense.

[Philberto]

File this under the utterly depressing category

I'm off to bed soon so I'm going to wait to explain this until tomorrow.  I just wanted to put this up.  Bill James came up with a method to predict whether or not a player who had 400 or more PA's in a season would be at least as good the following season.  This was published in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010.  High scores are better, but all of these correspond to a percentage that will still be around 50%.  For example, Dioner Navarro scored the highest among players in 2009 at 26 points.  Throughout history, 333 players have had that same score and 173 were "at least as good or better" the following season.  That's 52%.  The lowest score in 2009 was Jorge Posada who had just 8 points.  22 players in history have had exactly 8 points and only 4 of them were at least as good or better (18%).  In other words, it's not at all likely that Posada has as good a season in 2010 as he had in 2009.  Below are the Cubs players points:

Mike Fontenot: 21
Alfonso Soriano: 20
Ryan Theriot: 19
Milton Bradley: 19
Kosuke Fukudome: 15
Derrek Lee: 11

Fontenot has a 42% chance of being at least as good or better in 2010
Soriano: 39%
Theriot: 38%
Bradley: 38%
Fukudome: 27%
Lee: 16%

At least as good or better means an OPS within .020 of the base season (2009) and at least 80% of the plate appearances as in the base season.  Basically, there is a 42% chance that Mike Fontenot will get at least 336 PA and have an OPS of .657 or higher.  There is a 58% chance that he does not.

[Andy]

Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was.  Why he'd ask me, I don't know.  But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.

One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number. 

Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog

http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/

Multi-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason.  That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase.  The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011.  The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million.  The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years.  Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.

Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008.  It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts. 

Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.

But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit. 

[Philberto]

Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was.  Why he'd ask me, I don't know.  But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.

One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number. 

Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog

http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/

Multi-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason.  That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase.  The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011.  The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million.  The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years.  Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.

Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008.  It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts. 

Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.

But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit. 

Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.

[Eli]

FWIW, here's the explanation of the wins/dollar values concept:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six

[Chuck to Chuck]

Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was.  Why he'd ask me, I don't know.  But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.

One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number. 

Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog

http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/

Multi-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason.  That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase.  The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011.  The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million.  The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years.  Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.

Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008.  It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts. 

Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.

But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit. 

Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.

So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.

This method doesn't adjust for the current market.  Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure.  Payrolls are going to be going down.  Grabow is now vastly overpaid.

[Richard Chuggar]

Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was.  Why he'd ask me, I don't know.  But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.

One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number. 

Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog

http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/

Multi-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason.  That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase.  The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011.  The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million.  The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years.  Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.

Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008.  It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts. 

Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.

But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit. 

Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.

So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.

This method doesn't adjust for the current market.  Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure.  Payrolls are going to be going down.  Grabow is now vastly overpaid.

Who fucking wins ballgames?  That's the stat I want to know.  I'll pay a guy 9 zillion MW bucks if it means the Cubs win the World Series.  Who cares how big his GAP is?  You can take your stats and stuff them in a sack.

[Philberto]

Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was.  Why he'd ask me, I don't know.  But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.

One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number. 

Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog

http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/

Multi-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason.  That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase.  The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011.  The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million.  The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years.  Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.

Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008.  It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts. 

Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.

But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit. 

Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.

So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.

This method doesn't adjust for the current market.  Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure.  Payrolls are going to be going down.  Grabow is now vastly overpaid.

Who fucking wins ballgames?  That's the stat I want to know.  I'll pay a guy 9 zillion MW bucks if it means the Cubs win the World Series.  Who cares how big his GAP is?  You can take your stats and stuff them in a sack.

That was directed at Chuck? I like stats and video games... It's a wonder TDubbs doesn't treat me like Kurt and BC.

[Pre]

Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.

So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.

This method doesn't adjust for the current market.  Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure.  Payrolls are going to be going down.  Grabow is now vastly overpaid.

WAR<-->Money makes tons of sense, what makes no sense in the world is that bullshit adjusted WAR shit they are showing there.

A WAR of 1.0 would have made Grabow the Cubs most effective reliever by about double last year.

Grabow's WAR for last season was .2, worth about $1 million.

[Andy]

THI.

I knew those numbers were bullshit.

[Yeti]

Baseball Reference: Mostly obsolete or completely obsolete

And yes I picked Milty on purpose

[morpheus]

Baseball Reference: Mostly obsolete or completely obsolete

And yes I picked Milty on purpose

Racist.

[PenFoe]

Bump.

IT'S SAFE TO COME OUTSIDE

The Sports Guy has finally decided that advanced statistics are now acceptable...