THE END IS NEAR: Ron Gardenhire Knows About Fangraphs.com

[The Wise One]

The umpires zone will continue to be a problem until MLB lets technology call balls and strikes.  Without umpires calling balls and strikes, batters with a good eye will be rewarded and pitchers with good control will be rewarded. You will find that flame throwers will lose their value and "pitchers" will gain value, and probably batting averages, hits and runs will all rise.

The can star using the technology when it can be calibrated to each batters zone as every batter has a slightly different shape. The technology would also have to be able to sense if the ball moves over the plat from the side, drops in from the top. I do not think that technology currently exists

[The Wise One]

In reality I don't think anyone here really knows how the Twins gather and use data. I don't think anyone knows how the Twins prepare for a game. There is a legitimate question with some of the players of the last few years if they can even use the information.

I do think some here think that Gardenhire's game preperatiYou can't tell Deduno where to throw the fastball, and where not to.on is 2 cheeseburger,a beer and a talk to Provost.

[RedBull34]

Please read the last line of my post.

 

I'm not saying that we should only use stats that are facts.  I'm arguing that other stats can be useful.  But that they are not facts. 

 

And an RBI is an RBI.  If you get a hit and somebody scores without an error, it's an RBI.  That's a fact.  How useful that is is debatable though.

 

A stat based on theory like FIP can be more useful then a stat based on fact, like RBI's.  This is not always the case, but it can be.

[Oxtung]

Please read the last line of my post.

 

I'm not saying that we should only use stats that are facts.  I'm arguing that other stats can be useful.  But that they are not facts. 

 

And an RBI is an RBI.  If you get a hit and somebody scores without an error, it's an RBI.  That's a fact.  How useful that is is debatable though.

 

A stat based on theory like FIP can be more useful then a stat based on fact, like RBI's.  This is not always the case, but it can be.

 

An RBI is an RBI right up until the point when the fielder makes a questionable play on a ball and a human has to make a subjective decision on whether that was an error or not.  It's an RBI right up until you realize that the ump made a bad strikes/ball call on a 1-2 count allowing the batter to get another chance on a 2-2 count that led to the hit allowing that run to cross instead of having to go sit down.

 

Almost everything in baseball is influenced by human subjectivity.  It's just a matter of how much.

[Paul Pleiss]

True or False: Ron Gardenhire uses AOL.com and has a stock-pile of AOL CD's that he uses month after month to sign up for free internet access, and then uses AskJeeves.com to search for FanGraphs on his old Apple II computer which someone has someone hooked up to a CD drive and the internet.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

False, he does all his firing of things through the internet at the public library.

[Mike Sixel]

Knowing something exists, and being willing to evolve yourself through its use are two different things.

[RedBull34]

An RBI is an RBI right up until the point when the fielder makes a questionable play on a ball and a human has to make a subjective decision on whether that was an error or not.  It's an RBI right up until you realize that the ump made a bad strikes/ball call on a 1-2 count allowing the batter to get another chance on a 2-2 count that led to the hit allowing that run to cross instead of having to go sit down.

 

Almost everything in baseball is influenced by human subjectivity.  It's just a matter of how much.

An RBI is an RBI.  That a fielder made a questionable play is irrelevant to an RBI being scored an RBI.  That the ump made a bad call on the pitch before is irrelevant to it being an RBI.  No way is it debatable that Miguel Cabrera had 139 RBI's in 2012.  Otherwise we are in the "nothing is true" territory.

 

As noted, theories can be more useful but that doesn't make them fact. 

[Oxtung]

An RBI is an RBI.  That a fielder made a questionable play is irrelevant to an RBI being scored an RBI.  That the ump made a bad call on the pitch before is irrelevant to it being an RBI.  No way is it debatable that Miguel Cabrera had 139 RBI's in 2012.  Otherwise we are in the "nothing is true" territory.

 

As noted, theories can be more useful but that doesn't make them fact. 

So who gets to decide which subjective calls are "real" and which are "fake"?

[RedBull34]

So who gets to decide which subjective calls are "real" and which are "fake"?

The official scorer and the umpires interpret the rules and apply them.  If a grevious error has been made the MLB has been known to correct them.  Or the Replay.

 

Just like a judge at a court case many things can be up for interpretation.  Somebody has to make the call. 

 

Here is a metaphor for what you are arguing vs. what I am arguing.

 

You are arguing that all the evidence says that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson, and I would not disagree. 

 

I am arguing that he was found not guilty.  That is a fact.  That there was human interpretation is irrelevant.  He may have done it or not, but he was found not guilty.

 

The scorer ruled it an RBI, therefore it is.

[Oxtung]

The official scorer and the umpires interpret the rules and apply them.  If a grevious error has been made the MLB has been known to correct them.  Or the Replay.

 

Just like a judge at a court case many things can be up for interpretation.  Somebody has to make the call. 

 

Here is a metaphor for what you are arguing vs. what I am arguing.

 

You are arguing that all the evidence says that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson, and I would not disagree. 

 

I am arguing that he was found not guilty.  That is a fact.  That there was human interpretation is irrelevant.  He may have done it or not, but he was found not guilty.

 

The scorer ruled it an RBI, therefore it is.

 

So if the Scorer were to compile the Fip, xFip, WAR data then it would be fact?  That is your point?

[RedBull34]

So if the Scorer were to compile the Fip, xFip, WAR data then it would be fact?  That is your point?

That's a strawman argument and I won't respond to it.

[Oxtung]

The official scorer and the umpires interpret the rules and apply them.

 

The scorer ruled it an RBI, therefore it is.

 

 

So if the Scorer were to compile the Fip, xFip, WAR data then it would be fact?  That is your point?

 

 

 

Looks like that's exactly what you're saying to me...

[bird]

Do you suppose those smart people at Fangraphs will ever discover there's such a thing as managing a clubhouse, and find a way to measure it? Of course, Gardy won't have any use for that, since he's about as good as it gets at that.

[Mike Sixel]

They've tried, and not found out how yet. of course, just a few years ago, people couldn't figure out how to make a car drive itself, doesn't mean we should give up hope.....

[RedBull34]

Looks like that's exactly what you're saying to me...

 

Looks like that's exactly what you're saying to me...

The Rule

(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores:

        (1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter's home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, unless Rule 10.04 applies;

        (2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or

        (3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.

     The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in

        (1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or

        (2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play.

    © The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice.

 

TL;DR

When you find it in the rulebook how to define WAR, then you would be correct.  As to then there is a clear definition as to what MUST constitute an RBI or a HR.  FIP, WAR, xFIP are all more useful then an RBI.  That does not make them a fact.  That has all I've been arguing.  You seem to be on a bend to make it sound as if I hate advanced stats.

[RedBull34]

Most importantly WAR can be determined using different formula's therefore it is not a FACT but an OPINION.  One which should be regarded with a measure of respect (although WAR is by far and away my least favorite advanced stat as people use it, FIP I find more useful).

 

A fact is fairly useless without interpretation, which exactly what advanced stats are.  They are what people should really be paying attention to.

 

IMO people have been looking at advanced stats like they are facts, which the Baltimore O's have frequently proved they aren't.  They are interpretations.  However there can be disagreements on interpretations, hence my whole argument.

[Mike Sixel]

Wow. Just. Wow.

[Oxtung]

The Rule

(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores:

        (1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter's home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, unless Rule 10.04 applies;

        (2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or

        (3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.

     The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in

        (1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or

        (2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play.

    © The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice.

 

TL;DR

When you find it in the rulebook how to define WAR, then you would be correct.  As to then there is a clear definition as to what MUST constitute an RBI or a HR.  FIP, WAR, xFIP are all more useful then an RBI.  That does not make them a fact.  That has all I've been arguing.  You seem to be on a bend to make it sound as if I hate advanced stats.

 

I really don't appreciate the insinuations that I some old-school stat person. 

 

 

I'm not insinuating any such thing.  I'm merely following what you're saying.   Since the definition of an error is highly subjective so is an RBI.  Because a "ball" is so subjective so is an RBI.  Because whether someone crosses home plate before a second player is determined out is subjective so is an RBI.  "Fact" and "subjective" don't go together.

[RedBull34]

I'm not insinuating any such thing.  I'm merely following what you're saying.   Since the definition of an error is highly subjective so is an RBI.  Because a "ball" is so subjective so is an RBI.  Because whether someone crosses home plate before a second player is determined out is subjective so is an RBI.  "Fact" and "subjective" don't go together.

That was a mistake, and not targeted at you.  I should have made that more clear and have since deleted it.

 

As for the rest, I guess that's why the MLB changes rulings on the field that are incorrect (you know they have done this) both after the game (more for errors) and during the game (the whole second player situation).

 

I'm not saying they aren't up for interpretation themselves, but isn't that what makes RBI's a flawed stat is that it is so subjective to both good and bad circumstances?

 

I am a believer that errors are under-attributed but once they are recorded, it has become fact.  It might not really be fact. (like the whole O.J. situation above.  It's a fact he wasn't guilty, but he probably was.)  But once ruled as an RBI, in essence it really is because unless the MLB changes it after the game, it is recorded in the statbook as a fact.  I've never seen a person question wrc+ because maybe there are some misattributed stats swaying it.  People just accept that as normal circumstance.

 

A most perfect example of what I'm saying is Armando Galaragga's "perfect" game.  He threw it.  The Ump admitted it was.  The MLB didn't change their mind.  Therefore in fact it isn't a perfect game...Even though it was.

 

BTW I edit an immense amount, sort of like drafts a paper..

[Oxtung]

That was a mistake, and not targeted at you.  I should have made that more clear and have since deleted it.

 

As for the rest, I guess that's why the MLB changes rulings on the field that are incorrect (you know they have done this) both after the game (more for errors) and during the game (the whole second player situation).

 

I'm not saying they aren't up for interpretation themselves, but isn't that what makes RBI's a flawed stat is that it is so subjective to both good and bad circumstances?

 

I am a believer that errors are under-attributed but once they are recorded, it has become fact.  It might not really be fact. (like the whole O.J. situation above.  It's a fact he wasn't guilty, but he probably was.)  But once ruled as an RBI, in essence it really is because unless the MLB changes it after the game, it is recorded in the statbook as a fact.  I've never seen a person question wrc+ because maybe there are some misattributed stats swaying it.  People just accept that as normal circumstance.

 

A most perfect example of what I'm saying is Armando Galaragga's "perfect" game.  He threw it.  The Ump admitted it was.  The MLB didn't change their mind.  Therefore in fact it isn't a perfect game...Even though it was.

 

BTW I edit an immense amount, sort of like drafts a paper..

We've reached the point that we are arguing semantics so let's move past the word "fact". 

 

My original point was that people see things like RBI and ERA (or insert whatever traditional baseball statistic) as divorced from human subjectivity.  They have been with us for so long they are seen as gospel and infallible when in reality they are as flawed and dependent on interpretation as any of the newer metrics.  If all statistics in baseball are based on human subjectivity then what exactly sets apart new statistics such as FIP?  They are all derived from the same flawed counting stats.

[RedBull34]

We've reached the point that we are arguing semantics so let's move past the word "fact". 

 

My original point was that people see things like RBI and ERA (or insert whatever traditional baseball statistic) as divorced from human subjectivity.  They have been with us for so long they are seen as gospel and infallible when in reality they are as flawed and dependent on interpretation as any of the newer metrics.  If all statistics in baseball are based on human subjectivity then what exactly sets apart new statistics such as FIP?  They are all derived from the same flawed counting stats.

I concur.  You are correct.  We were pretty much arguing semantics