.
Somewhere on the 'net, we read that Masuhiro Tanaka went 26-and-0 last year "if you're into that kind of thing. It doesn't mean much except that he went deep into games, I guess."
We know what they were trying to say. I like that author. But "26-0 if you're into that kind of thing"? HEH!!
It is just too good to pass up, mate. Hopefully we can still be friends :- )
....
Dr. D is into that kind of thing, yes, the kind of thing where a baseball pitcher completes a season undefeated. He's into perfect games, 116-win seasons, and 190-RBI seasons, and the Heat's 27-game winning streak, and the Yankee$' 27 (?) championships, and all kinds of things like that.
In fact, he's way into performance records before they have been "normalized" -- that is, "tuned" so that we can see what they hypothetically might have looked like given perfectly average conditions in every respect. A lot of the time, Dr. D is interested in knowing what did happen, as opposed to what might happen if you re-played the game. Go figure.
The 2001 Mariners won 116 games. He's interested in knowing about the season that occurred. After he knows about what occurred, he's often also interested in knowing what would most likely happen if you replayed the season -- the answer is, the Mariners would probably win 93-98 games -- but not as much.
.
Debate Sleight-of-Hand Dept.
You'll hear a saber-snob try to suppress the use of information that he doesn't favor. He'll sniff, "There is no point in using ERA when better stats are available."
The short answer is: We use all stats, not one favorite stat. Every stat contains unique information. In any given chess position, the key information is liable to come from anywhere! You can't limit yourself to one type of information ... strategic, tactical, whatever.
xFIP tells you what a pitcher might have done, with an average defense. But ERA tells you what a pitcher actually did, given the defense that he did have. Iwakuma's ERA was excellent, with dubious outfielders behind him; Joe Saunders' ERA was pathetic, with those same dubious outfielders. This is information! What we do with it is another matter.
...
As a freshman in college, I watched two grad students debate Harry Truman. One of them, defending Truman against a vicious attack, turned the debate around with a very handy tactic. He asked, "So what is the single stupidest thing you consider Truman to have done?"
It stopped the attacker short. "Hmmmmm. That's a tough one!," he smirked.
But! it went downhill for the smirker, from there. He wheeled out some gaffe or other, and the defender proceeded to show that Truman's actions were reasonable. Wow, the worst thing he ever did ... wasn't that bad?! The emotional tide went against the attacker.
In the immortal words of James Bond, "That's a neat trick."
....
It's like you are prosecuting O.J. Simpson for murder, and the defense challenges you. "So what is the SINGLE BEST piece of evidence you have against O.J.?"
The minute that you answer, you've lost. You have swept items #2 through #10 off the table as irrelevant. And of course #1 isn't enough by itself.
The right answer is? "My single best piece of evidence is that I have 32 pieces of evidence, and they're all substantial. Would you like to see my 10th-best piece?."
....
Anyway, the "Single Best Thing" gambit ... you can very easily win coffeehouse debates with that little tactic. That is, if you're intellectually dishonest enough (or tongue-in-cheek enough!) to use it.
Don't fall for it!
The moral is: a piece of evidence is just that. Don't let people con you into thinking that it is the whole case, when that is never what it was meant for. In fact, if you are capable of mistaking a single piece of evidence (say, Earned Run Average) for the whole case, then what does that tell you about the worth of that piece of evidence?
ERA isn't the end of the discussion; it's not the whole discussion, in and of itself. Neither is 24-and-0. But you know what, 24-and-0 contains so much information that we might, for a moment, confuse it with the entire discussion!
Suppose I told you that my father went 24-and-0 in the National League in 1971. Would that tell you anything about whether he could throw a baseball? It would tell you almost everything.
....
When somebody says, "Why would you use W/L records, when there is xFIP available?"
Don't let him get away with it. Tell him you're not in the habit of analyzing players using only one statistic.
Tell him you look at all information. You search for the most relevant information that pertains to the problem at hand. Why would you ignore any information? You might review it, and decide that it isn't relevant. That's different from deciding, before the fact, that you don't want to know.
After I know the xFIP, why wouldn't I want to know the ERA also? And if the W/L was 24-0, why wouldn't I want to have that information as well?
If he says that W-L records contain no information?!, indulge yourself. :- ) You just found yourself in a turkey shoot.
.
The blood trail (something like 1 in 170 Million people matched it. More according to some DNA tests) AND the two bloody gloves?
Is that just one piece of evidence or two?
You mean I can't use the Size 10 Bruno Magli shoes? YOu're making it tough!
Anyway.....Denny McLain won 31 games once. I wish we could use that number to establish that he had a fair season. But we better not, you know.....
moe
If we've got 30 pieces of evidence, and #5 tells you only things that are already told to you by #1, #18, and #24, it makes some nonzero amount of sense to "clean up" your argument (that is to say "make it more concise") by not discussing #5 and letting the other pieces of evidence do that work for you.
In this comment, right here.
If you wouldn't mind replying to that question, I'll be glad to reply to yours.
................
The nature of the problem with "heckling" is that the heckler is not an organic part of the community, part of the give-and-take, but is only there to post challenges, questions, and interruptions. He doesn't give. He just takes. "I'd like an answer to my concern, please." Right away, sir.
The "heckling" adds friction to a frictionless idea exchange. It slows everything down. When Spec writes a brilliant post, he gets up the next morning hoping that people will have been info-tained. If all he ever got were "hey, you got something wrong there!" then he would stop writing for us. Do Unto Others, babe.
It is disruptive to chime in, only when you're attempting to issue a FULL STOP order. "Hey! Wait! Do you really have the right to say that?" If that's your only function here, then ... you inadvertently have made a troll out of yourself. Troll = frequent starter of arguments.
.................
In this specific topic, the value of W-L records is germane. But in your specific case, Logan, you're building a 24-and-0 winning streak of challenges and disputes. It's not one specific comment that is the issue. It is the pattern of your interruptions that is the issue.
And Tanaka's last three seasons:
19-5, 1.27 in 2011 (27 games)
10-4, 1.87 in 2012 (22 games)
24-0, 1.27 in 2013 (27 games)
Become one little piece of evidence. But if I don't care for W-L and ERA, then...
...............
I wonder how a pitcher personally wins 24 games out of 27 starts. I'll bet that has not been done in ML history, 24-0 over any 27-start stretch.
Yes,
W-L does provide some unique information. It provides the one piece of information that implies "perfection". The ERA, xFIP, WAR, WPA, etc., would not (by their nature) alert a viewer to any level of "perfection" - unless the ERA or xFIP were to actually reach 0.00. (And the irony here is that even with a 0.00 ERA, one can actually still lose.
Mind you - the information reveals "something" unique. But, how one would choose to interpret that data could lead in a lot of different directions.
19-5; 1.27 in 2011
24-0: 1.27 in 2013
Maybe you look at those two seasons and conclude he was just lucky in 2013. Maybe you conclude he was unlucky in 2011.
But, end result - in 2013 - he NEVER lost.
Seems to me your issue is that I'm not contributing original thought here - only responding to what others are posting. I'd like to point out that, if you want to read Logan's Original Thoughts On Baseball, you can do so at www.lookoutlanding.com. I flat out don't have the time to write for two different Mariners blogs. I drop in here to comment on articles because I like getting your guys' point of view and conversing with you, not because this is my forum for expounding my own baseball beliefs.
If you want to talk "Do Unto Others"... personally, as a writer, I love it when commenters point out the flaws in what I'm doing, and I hate it when they shower me in praise. I don't get better by being told I'm awesome. I get better by being told when I'm making a mistake, because it enables me to avoid that mistake in the future. Or by being told when something I'm doing is novel and good, because then I can keep doing it. If no one at LL ever challenged what I was saying, I'd stop writing there. Admittedly not everyone has my boundless self-esteem, and other people appreciate compliments once in a while. If you're one of those people, then I apologize for not having thanked you for your work in so long. (If you're not one of those people, then doesn't stopping to say "thank you" after every article slow down idea exchange?)
I'd argue, by the way, that idea exchange needs friction. If everyone in the room is thinking the same way, then somebody in the room's not thinking. There needs to be some level of disagreement, some level of fact-checking, just to make sure you're not going off the rails.
Admittedly the Iwakuma correction, unaccompanied by actually addressing the point of the article, was perfunctory and not particularly helpful. My bad on that one. But I don't see any problem with challenging your arguments as a general rule. If you want me to say "thanks, I agree" more often, I can do that - I don't really appreciate it when commenters do so on my pieces, but I can understand that you might and will by your requests in your space. But I can't be posting regular original essays over here, and I think biting my tongue when I disagree with something is good for none of us.
Actually that is NOT my issue, no, that you're not contributing original thought. You misread me entirely.
My issue is that if (1) you don't have time to be part of the discussion, then (2) you don't have time to interrupt with challenges and disputes, either.
.............
You completely misunderstand the idea of "friction," also.
Dissenting opinion is not friction; that is idea exchange. SSI and D-O-V have welcomed dissenting opinion since 2001. There is simply no place in online baseball where a dissenting opinion is as welcome as it is here.
...............
"Friction" is that which interferes with idea exchange. "Friction" is what you, uniquely, are providing at SSI right now.
We've got a discussion going, and you want us to abandon the main discussion in order to stop and attend to some little side issue where you think you've caught an error. You're too busy to chat with us, but you've got plenty of time to say "gotcha" when you spot a mistake. No thanks.
Spec, for example, works hard on his stuff, and if all he were going to wake up to was "You missed this" and "you got that wrong," he'd stop writing. If Bat571 works hard to produce a fine piece of info-tainment for us, he's got a right to expect a friendly and enjoyable balance of reaction back.
Gordon would be perfectly fine to comment, "Hey, actually Iwakuma doesn't get arb," because he's naturally part of the discussion and it's relevant. But! For the fat kid to plomp himself down at the lunch table, loudly say "that's the stupidest thing I ever heard," grab a handful of fries, and bounce back up to walk away ... well, that's a different thing.
................
If you want to sit down and chat, fine. If you want to be allowed to just drive by when you feel like saying, "That's stupid," not fine.
If you want to give-and-take as one of the commenters here, with a healthy balance of "I agree" and "I disagree," then you're welcome to do so. If you see your role as Auditor General, please do so at another website. I'd personally enjoy watching you attempt the Auditor General role with Sullivan or Cameron, for example.
Cheers,
Jeff
is to look at the team's record without that pitcher - call it the Lefty Carlton Gambit. Rakuten was 82-59 for the season and won the pennant for the Pacific League. Without Tanaka, they were 58-59, not figuring Tanaka's 3 ND (which I believe the Eagles still won). Like Lefty, he was a major part of the team's success. W-L has value. W-L pct. has value, particularly if the pitcher made all his scheduled starts during a season. And W-L pct of a pitcher compared with the W-L pct of a team tells you if he's cruising or dominating. The 'cat can be skinned many ways, all are work, all reveal some of what's inside.
faced Yomiuri on 10/27 and equaled a series record by striking out at least 1 batter every inning. Twelve K's total in a 9 IP CG. Against the top team in the Central League, which had a better record than Rakuten. The guy is showing dominance -- and he has won (no big surprise) the Sawamura Award (their Cy Young).
I sure hope Nintendo is paying attention. At this point, with the Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers all expressing interest, it will be a Nintendo corporate decision, like Ichiro was, rather than anything JackZ can do.
Why is this discussion here? Is my above comment actually a problem, or did you respond to it solely because you wanted to get my attention about a previous response I'd missed? If the latter, then we're good. If the former, then we have a disagreement on our hands.
I've already told you that I now recognize the Iwakuma comment was pretty uncool. There've been a couple others on the last five pages; notably one linked below.http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/92918#comment-92918
And now that you've told me to stop doing it, sure thing. I can see how it's not helpful to you, and this is your blog.
(If you read USSM, which you don't, you'd see that I do in fact point out mistakes in Dave's posts. Not Jeff's, because he's typically far less number-heavy.)
But I'm not sure that that's what you're really saying. The comments about demanding an answer to a question "right away, please", the little grey-poupon snark in your latest article subtitle, they make me think that you are annoyed with the "unique information" comment. Which, as you pointed out, was germane. And when I go back and look at my last five pages' worth of comments, I find that the "24-and-0" trend I'm building isn't one of irrelevant side nitpicks. I do that sometimes - too much, you're right - but the 24-and-0 trend, the thing I constantly do, is offer dissent. So when you type up these responses, they lead me to think that the real reason you're annoyed with me is that I disagree with people here: not occasionally, but often. Consistently.
To clarify, that's a misperception partly caused by my own commenting practices. When I agree with everything an author says, and have nothing to add, or when I don't feel qualified to comment, I post nothing. I agree with the majority of stuff written here; I just don't say so. But I repeat myself. I wrote this in the last post.
Anyways. You say you're dissent-friendly, but then you make jokes about SABRdweebs and fat kids coming down to the cool kid table. I'm getting some mixed messages. You want me to stop nitpicking, sure, I get that. You want me to start saying "I agree" in the comments when I see a great post, OK. You want me to stop disagreeing, that's... an issue for my future participation here.
It's as simple as that.
If you want to be an organic part of the discussion, great. You see a potential role as Study Hall Monitor, the custodian for everybody else's precision?, then see you later.
The "gotcha!" poster --- > slows things down, he starts arguments, he directs attention to tedious points of detail, he's just no fun to have around. That's "trolling" by definition: a lot of a troll's posts --- > start arguments.
You don't have time to chat, but you do have time to correct us, eh? We don't need an outside auditor. We can audit ourselves.
Clear enough?
.............
Seattle Sports Insider maintains a unique community tone. We're friendly, positive, forwardgoing, and adult. We didn't get that tone by --- > giving contentious posters a free hand to indulge themselves.
A man receives ten pancakes to take out to his friends. He puts Tabasco on them, because sometimes he likes Tabasco on his pancakes.
His friend says "Hey, man, don't put Tabasco on the pancakes! We all have to eat these!"
The man doesn't hear his friend.
He goes back in to get ten more pancakes; this time he puts blueberries on them. He brings them out.
His friend says "Hey, man, did you hear me? I said don't put Tabasco on the pancakes!"
This time the man hears him. "Oh," he says. "Sorry. You're right. It was inconsiderate of me to put Tabasco on the pancakes. I shouldn't have assumed that you like what I like. Hey, can I still put blueberries, though?"
His friend says "I'm not sure you understood me. I said no Tabasco."
He says, "yeah, I got that bit. No more Tabasco on the pancakes. Still, I feel like you're mad at me for the blueberries - are you sure these are OK?"
"No seriously, I mean it. NOBODY GETS TO PUT TABASCO ON MY PANCAKES."
Then the first man gets all confused and writes a slightly snarky analogy.
The point being, yes, I understood the "no playing editor" complaints the first time I read them. I apologized, and I told you that I would stop doing it, two posts ago. And again last post. At this point we're not talking to each other any more; our conversation has diverged. We're discussing different things. Can we just wrap things up before this discussion gets even more disjointed?
I am probably being foolish by contributing to this discussion, but I like SSI and I like your ideas Thirteen and I see this quickly leading you to leaving the community unnecessarily. So please indulge my intrudence.
============================
Thirteen I would summarize your comments as, "I said I'm sorry, what more do you want?" When I read what you have written in respond to Jemanji, I perceive irritation on your part. You don't understand why your manners have been called into question, rather than your content. What I perceive is that you want a debate, you want to present desenting positions when you disagree, and you don't want to trouble yourself with the time consuming 'fluff' required for a more gentile or Victorian conversation.
============================
When I was a kid, I grew up in a household where swearing was not forbidden, not encouraged, but also not forbidden. As a consequence, every once in a while I would let slip a vulgar word in the presence of my grandparents and I can assure you it got real uncomforable real fast. They didn't yell or send me to bed without supper, but their disapproval hurt. If I wanted to enjoy time with my grandparents, I needed to be more cognizant of the language I used. SSI is a stickler on presentation. In fact, SSI is only a stickler on presentation. All ideas about baseball are welcome, no matter how antiquated, or state of the art.
I missed the part, Thirteen, where you indicated that you'd adjust.
Going back and taking a look again, I can see now what you meant, after your last post. It was comments like "I don't have time to write at two blogs" and comments such as these:
...........
The 24-and-0 trend, the thing I constantly do, is offer dissent. So when you type up these responses, they lead me to think that the real reason you're annoyed with me is that I disagree with people here: not occasionally, but often. Consistently.
To clarify, that's a misperception partly caused by my own commenting practices. When I agree with everything an author says, and have nothing to add, or when I don't feel qualified to comment, I post nothing. I agree with the majority of stuff written here; I just don't say so. But I repeat myself. I wrote this in the last post.
Anyways. You say you're dissent-friendly, but then ...
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/93230#comment-93230
...............
I had read this to say, "that's what I do, and if you have a problem, deal with it." After your last post, I can see a different angle. I apologize for mis-reading you.
We sometimes get posters who want to do *nothing* but play "gotcha!," and they're not allowed to do that. I mistakenly thought that you were arguing for the right to do so. But in retrospect, I can see that your intent was otherwise. My reaction was therefore out of place. My bad.
.................
Yes. We'll re-boot from here. Blank page. We welcome your next comment here, and if it happens to be errata, that's fine; it will be the first one. ;- )
As you know, we all have a very high regard for your work, Logan. And thanks for the effort to reach middle ground.
Best,
Jeff
Glad we were able to reach an understanding. And just to reiterate: I'm going to make an effort to stop nitpicking asides, and to compliment top-notch posts more often. On the other hand, I'm going to continue to offer dissent when I dissent. Sounds like a plan to me.
Good talk,
-Logan
And seeing that your intent, whether agreeing or disagreeing, is to forward the discussion ... as an 'organic element' in the idea exchange, as it were ... there isn't any tension left in the relationship.
I regret not understanding you earlier Logan. :- ) 'Seek first to understand, then to be understood' ... sigh, lesson learned on my part ...
but I don't think anyone was out of line here. I know that I *ONLY* read SSI because of the tone, which is a direct result of its founder's vision. If this place was like any other on the net, I wouldn't frequent -- and I suspect such is the case for many other posters, as well.
Tangentially, I would much rather sign Tanaka for 7/$130 than Ellsbury for the same. With one I get a prime player who is a virtual lock to be above average for the entirety of his contract, and with the other I get a player (albeit at a position of need) who can probably only be counted on for 4-5 such seasons before suffering a pretty severe decline.
Personally I love the philosophy of building from a position of strength, rather than plugging holes out of panic. It's much easier to trade a SP for something you need than it is to trade a CF for the same, since everyone can use another quality arm in the rotation. Build the rotation into a monster and the rest will work itself out.
Think of it another way...what happens to the community's concern about trading Paxton/Walker if the M's sign Tanaka? For me, my concern diminishes about losing one of them, although I'm still of the opinion that they should fight it out in the rotation so we end up with another #2 pitcher under club control.
One thing I've learned in my own life: if you have a strength, play to it. Your weaknesses will NEVER become the pillars upon which your winning strategy is built, so while ignoring your weaknesses is obviously foolish, spending too much time addressing them diminishes your ability to compete.