Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:20 am

    IN 2016, Chicago's newest hero Avisail Garcia had 413 at bats.  He struck out in 27.8% of them.  The remainder are 40.4% groundballs, 17.0% line drives, 14.8% flyballs.

    In 2017, Garcia so far has reduced his K's and grounders to 23.2% and 39.8% respectively.  Meaning he increased the balls hit in the air, 20.4% line drives, 16.6% flyballs.

    So this notion that the great Garcia turn around is being driven by lucky groundball hits is nothing but bad math and faulty analysis by a certain someone.

    Yes Garcia is now hitting 321 v 216 on grounders.  But he is also hitting 343 v 213 on flyballs.  Not only that, his slugging on flyballs has increased from 721 to 1171!!!!!!!   So why are groundballs lucky and flyballs for real?!?!?!  Have yet to here an explanation from the guy that gives sabr a bad name.

    A sane person would see that Garcia is batting 80 points higher and just assume all his splits would be better.  (they are actually worse for line drives)

    A sane person would place no significance on what Garcia did with groundballs last year.  There is no rule stating a player can only get a hit 1/4 of the time on groundballs.  Again, this is just bad math and faulty analysis.

    Now I doubt anybody here expects Garcia to challenge for a batting title.  I suspect most wouldn't be surprised to see him dip below 300 by years end.  But for one person here to act like last years batting average on groundball is some kind of harbinger of doom for Avisail Garcia is just plain retarded.

    Gee, you would think the person who touted him all spring long would simply do a victory lap instead of acting the fool and not only deliberately disagree with the KARK, but himself as well.

    So let's all pray that this is the real Avisail Garcia and he stays healthy.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:47 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:IN 2016, Chicago's newest hero Avisail Garcia had 413 at bats.  He struck out in 27.8% of them.  The remainder are 40.4% groundballs, 17.0% line drives, 14.8% flyballs.

    In 2017, Garcia so far has reduced his K's and grounders to 23.2% and 39.8% respectively.  Meaning he increased the balls hit in the air, 20.4% line drives, 16.6% flyballs.

    So this notion that the great Garcia turn around is being driven by lucky groundball hits is nothing but bad math and faulty analysis by a certain someone.

    Yes Garcia is now hitting 321 v 216 on grounders.  But he is also hitting 343 v 213 on flyballs.  Not only that, his slugging on flyballs has increased from 721 to 1171!!!!!!!   So why are groundballs lucky and flyballs for real?!?!?!  Have yet to here an explanation from the guy that gives sabr a bad name.

    A sane person would see that Garcia is batting 80 points higher and just assume all his splits would be better.  (they are actually worse for line drives)

    A sane person would place no significance on what Garcia did with groundballs last year.  There is no rule stating a player can only get a hit 1/4 of the time on groundballs.  Again, this is just bad math and faulty analysis.

    Now I doubt anybody here expects Garcia to challenge for a batting title.  I suspect most wouldn't be surprised to see him dip below 300 by years end.  But for one person here to act like last years batting average on groundball is some kind of harbinger of doom for Avisail Garcia is just plain retarded.

    Gee, you would think the person who touted him all spring long would simply do a victory lap instead of acting the fool and not only deliberately disagree with the KARK, but himself as well.

    So let's all pray that this is the real Avisail Garcia and he stays healthy.

    A sane person understands the subject before making accusations. If you did, you'd see only two things a batter does can make his GB hit rate better than league average .245  - hit more groundballs harder than normal   and/or have a lot more speed than normal. Neither of which applies to Avi Garcia in 2017.

    Garcia is like many other players who see 100-150 pt swings from one year to the next in their GB rate due to bad or good luck.  Last year he unluckily hit .216 on GB's.. This year he's luckily at .320. Actually, his luck was primarily in his first 18 GB's, 9 of which went for hits.   Since then his GB hit rate has been .272 much closer to league average.   Neither his early or more recent GB hit rate is due to him hitting scorchers more often either - he's only at 22% "hard" GB rate v. 30% league.

    A sane person also represents other people's positions fairly and accurately instead of making
    hysterical accusations like "for one person here to act like last years batting average on groundball is some kind of harbinger of doom for Avisail Garcia is just plain retarded."...
    First of all, I've never said his GB rate will drop down to last year's - I've said it will probably be closer to league average.   Second, I've used leag avg GB rate and said he's still a .280-.290 hitter which is damn good.  Third, I've said since mid April he's made REAL improvements where he needed to in lesser K's and more power.  Stop acting as though I don't see something as simple and basic as his 213 ISO this v. 140 last year.

    If Avi has a "normal" GB hit rate of .250-ish the rest of the year, he will end up .290/.330/500.
    The .290 would only be inflated 10 pts  by his early hot start but the 500 would be from REAL improvements in HR's, doubles.

    Last, for me to take a "victory lap" on Garcia this year would be totally dishonest and you would be the first to point it out.  I never said he WOULD be good this year, simply that at his age power spikes are POSSIBLE.  We still have a long way to go to prove power spike will hold though. 




































    .
    avatar
    Jack Brickhouse
    Andy the Clown

    Posts : 852
    Join date : 2014-04-03

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Jack Brickhouse on Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:31 pm

    Did you know MURPH got the last two House votes to build the Stadium and SAVE THE SOX?


    HE TOLD ME HIMSELF.


    The Board of Directors of his Lobbying firm meets once per month.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:41 pm

    Jack Brickhouse wrote:Did you know MURPH got the last two House votes to build the Stadium and SAVE THE SOX?


    HE TOLD ME HIMSELF.


    The Board of Directors of his Lobbying firm meets once per month.


    This is the same guy who doesn't tip at restaurants ?
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:38 am

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:IN 2016, Chicago's newest hero Avisail Garcia had 413 at bats.  He struck out in 27.8% of them.  The remainder are 40.4% groundballs, 17.0% line drives, 14.8% flyballs.

    In 2017, Garcia so far has reduced his K's and grounders to 23.2% and 39.8% respectively.  Meaning he increased the balls hit in the air, 20.4% line drives, 16.6% flyballs.

    So this notion that the great Garcia turn around is being driven by lucky groundball hits is nothing but bad math and faulty analysis by a certain someone.

    Yes Garcia is now hitting 321 v 216 on grounders.  But he is also hitting 343 v 213 on flyballs.  Not only that, his slugging on flyballs has increased from 721 to 1171!!!!!!!   So why are groundballs lucky and flyballs for real?!?!?!  Have yet to here an explanation from the guy that gives sabr a bad name.

    A sane person would see that Garcia is batting 80 points higher and just assume all his splits would be better.  (they are actually worse for line drives)

    A sane person would place no significance on what Garcia did with groundballs last year.  There is no rule stating a player can only get a hit 1/4 of the time on groundballs.  Again, this is just bad math and faulty analysis.

    Now I doubt anybody here expects Garcia to challenge for a batting title.  I suspect most wouldn't be surprised to see him dip below 300 by years end.  But for one person here to act like last years batting average on groundball is some kind of harbinger of doom for Avisail Garcia is just plain retarded.

    Gee, you would think the person who touted him all spring long would simply do a victory lap instead of acting the fool and not only deliberately disagree with the KARK, but himself as well.

    So let's all pray that this is the real Avisail Garcia and he stays healthy.

    A sane person understands the subject before making accusations. If you did, you'd see only two things a batter does can make his GB hit rate better than league average .245  - hit more groundballs harder than normal   and/or have a lot more speed than normal. Neither of which applies to Avi Garcia in 2017.

    Garcia is like many other players who see 100-150 pt swings from one year to the next in their GB rate due to bad or good luck.  Last year he unluckily hit .216 on GB's.. This year he's luckily at .320. Actually, his luck was primarily in his first 18 GB's, 9 of which went for hits.   Since then his GB hit rate has been .272 much closer to league average.   Neither his early or more recent GB hit rate is due to him hitting scorchers more often either - he's only at 22% "hard" GB rate v. 30% league.

    A sane person also represents other people's positions fairly and accurately instead of making
    hysterical accusations like "for one person here to act like last years batting average on groundball is some kind of harbinger of doom for Avisail Garcia is just plain retarded."...
    First of all, I've never said his GB rate will drop down to last year's - I've said it will probably be closer to league average.   Second, I've used leag avg GB rate and said he's still a .280-.290 hitter which is damn good.  Third, I've said since mid April he's made REAL improvements where he needed to in lesser K's and more power.  Stop acting as though I don't see something as simple and basic as his 213 ISO this v. 140 last year.

    If Avi has a "normal" GB hit rate of .250-ish the rest of the year, he will end up .290/.330/500.
    The .290 would only be inflated 10 pts  by his early hot start but the 500 would be from REAL improvements in HR's, doubles.

    Last, for me to take a "victory lap" on Garcia this year would be totally dishonest and you would be the first to point it out.  I never said he WOULD be good this year, simply that at his age power spikes are POSSIBLE.  We still have a long way to go to prove power spike will hold though. 


    Excuse me, but it is you that shows a complete lack of understanding.  Above average hitters will tend to be above average in their splits.  so for you to conclude Garcia must converge upon the league average for groundballs only is just another example of how much of your analysis is faulty.  Can you explain why his groundballs should converge to the league average but his flyballs and line drives shouldn't?


    And to expose your faulty analysis even more, Garcia has better than average speed, so are are simply wrong to has he doesn't  As for the speed of the groundballs, that is wrong to.  sure it helps.  also helps to aim for the hole.  so again you are just making crap up.  I can make up crap to.  For example, since the infield will play Garcia deep, hitting slow groundballs will give Garcia more time to get to first.  That's just as plausible as your theory that its nothing but dumb luck.


    As for misrepresenting your argument, maybe if your arguments weren't so inconsistant and contradictory, then maybe I would better understand them.  for example, yesterday you are citing Garcia's 2016 average.  but today, you are using the league average.  Then there is your constant double talk.  the sox need to keep Garcia because he might get good.  Now that he is good, you claim its a fluke because of some bad math regarding groundballs.  I also notice you completely ignored what Garcia when he hits fly balls.  the league average is only 211.  Garcia is at 343.  why isn't that luck?!?!?!?


    Maybe the real problem is that you can't answer a simple question with giving a term paper filled with stats that may or may not have anything to do with the central point.  which is why I feel the need to simply your arguement.  the other problem is that you constantly insist that you can somehow predict future events with past statistics and then you insult anybody who disagrees with your conclusions as illogical.  For example, your claim that Tim Anderson will never ever slug 850
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:23 pm

    We still have a long way to go to prove power spike will hold though. 


    *********************************************************


    WHAT KIND OF FANTASY WORLD DOES ROGER LIVE IN?!?!?!?!?


    Avisail Garcia is 6'4" 240lbs.  Has been considered one of the greatest physical specimens to put on a White Sox uniform since day one, spends the entire winter working out extra hard....


    He ain't exactly Harry Chappas!!!!!!


    Garcia has always been as strong as a bull.  Yet the board's statistical bullshit artist wonders if the power is for real


    LMAO!!!!!!


    BTW, if somebody here would pull their dick out of their laptop and actually listen to a game, he may notice that the White Sox broadcast team has been stating all year how Garcia always hustles everything out.


    Gee, I wonder is running everything out at 100% might have something to do with all those alledged lucky groundball hits


    And the board is still waiting to hear why a groundball is luck but a flyball is for real.


    I VOTED FOR AVISAIL BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST HIM


    LMAO!!!!!


    ROGER FOR SENATE
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7126
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by alohafri on Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:26 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    I VOTED FOR AVISAIL BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST HIM


    LMAO!!!!!


    ROGER FOR SENATE

    And you voted against Avisail before you voted for him!
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 am

    I also I admitted I was wrong about Garcia

    If anybody should be buying into this lucky ground all crap it's me, but then I have never had a problem admitting to being wrong about something

    PS, maybe the line drives are lucky.  When I checked a few weeks back, Garcia was hittin 743 on liners. Now it's 698.  League average is 611.  So while grounders and flies are maintaining, all those lucky liners appear to be converging to the league average.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:26 am

    <>>
    How quickly history gets revised by the ultimate bullshit artist.  I wasn't the one who claimed for two solid months that the odds of a power spike by a 26 year old Garcia were virtually impossible. 
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:39 pm

    also I admitted I was wrong about Garcia If anybody should be buying into this lucky ground all crap it's me, but then I have never had a problem admitting to being wrong about something
    PS, maybe the line drives are lucky.  When I checked a few weeks back, Garcia was hittin 743 on liners. Now it's 698.  League average is 611.  So while grounders and flies are maintaining, all those lucky liners appear to be converging to the league average.  >>


    Because you're so eager to insult rather than get at the truth, you're making a habit of being wrong.
    Baseball Savant has a great website that shows the "expected BA" for every type of hit ball based on its speed and angle and it's documented on 1000's of cases.  
    For Garcia, his "expected" BA on LD is 668 v. 698 actual.  On FB's it is 413 "expected" v. 433 actual.  Not much difference.   On GB's, Garcia is 326 actual v. 241 "expected".  Big difference.

    There's one simple reason Garcia's FB avg. is higher this year - HR's. There's no fielding luck to those.  But do FB averages correlate to GB averages ?  NO - they have poor correlation on the whole.  Guys frequently have below avg GB rates with above avg FB rates and vice-versa.

    You may think if Avi hits more of his FB's flush, he has to be hitting GB's harder too. Nope.
    Last year 47% of his GB's were hit at 89 mph+, this year only 42% have been.   Garcia has simply been luckier on the outcomes this year. 
                                                     2017 Bat Avg.           2016 Bat Avg.    League Avg. on >89mph  
    88 mph and below GB                    .200                            . 046           .110   

    He was unlucky on slow GB's last year, he's evened that out with better than average luck this year.
    Even if his footspeed has increased some this year (a dubious assumption since guys' peak speed is usually below age 25), it hasn't increased enough to add 160 pts to his slow GB average. 

    Last but not least, for the 15th time, I will say only PART of Garcia's success this year has come from his GB rate and virtually all that came when he went 9-18 on GB's in early April.  Since then, his GB rate has reverted much closer to league average. The BIGGEST part of Garcia's improvement is in FB hit rate (due to HRs).  It's what he needed to improve on most. 

    But ponder this question:  If Garcia had only had leag avg luck on slow GB's last year, he'd have hit .260/.321/.400 and if he had this year's luck on slow GB's he'd have been .276/337/416 last year. Would you really been screaming for his scalp this winter if that had been the case ? 

    Before you go off in one big huff and start hurling insults about "stat guys", maybe you can realize that GB BA's unravel part of this mystery about Leury Garcia and Sanchez's turnaround and how Anderson's 116 pt plunge in under 89 mph GB average v. last year explains his lower overall BA.

    The surest way to remove fielder luck from batted balls is to hit more of them over the fence.  THAT has been the key to MOST of Avi's turnaround this year.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 pm

    Before you go off in one big huff and start hurling insults about "stat guys", maybe you can realize that GB BA's unravel part of this mystery about Leury Garcia and Sanchez's turnaround and how Anderson's 116 pt plunge in under 89 mph GB average v. last year explains his lower overall BA.>>

    I will correct anything misleading about the above statements. Sanchez 85 pt improvement
    in GB's is a big factor this year.   But for Leury, although his 41 pt jump GB rate helps what's helped more is his 34% drop in K's  and 34% increase in power.   

    With Anderson, yes, he's hitting 116 pts lower on slow GB's but he's offset that by hitting 160 pts higher on hard GB's (89 mph+) so his overall GB average is same v last year. That said, IMO, hard grounders are more deserving especially for speed demons who can beat them out when fielders knock them down.  But his worse luck on slower GB's this year explains the 25 pt drop in BA, IMO.
    As a speedster he should have better than avg. success on slow GB's. 

    All of this goes to the wisdom of Crash Davis who asked "what's the difference between a .300 hitter and .250 hitter " ?   Answer: "one more hit a week, one more bleeder or bloop, one more seeing eye groundball."  Ever since the advent of baseball, GUYS WHO ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME have recognized why SHORT TERM BAT AVGS CAN BE SUCH A PHONY STAT.    Guys go from heroes to goats and back again based on things totally out of their control - where fielders are stationed and how good those fielders  are. 
    I think major league GM's are lapping up this new Statcast exit velocity data because that tells the true tale of which guys hit the ball hard enough or not to have LASTING success over time.  They aren't placing such a premium on the flawed BAT AVG STAT anymore.   That's a good thing.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:23 pm

    I VOTED FOR AVISAIL BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST HIM
    LMAO!!!!!  >>
    My only knock on Avi came in mid-April when he was hitting .357 with only 1 HR and the same ISO as last year.  I said he'd not yet shown the power gains he needed to. 

    Then his power kicked in, and I was as quick as you to recognize it.  Now I will go on record that
    80% of his improvement has come from non-GB sources.  OK ?  
    You might say his GB success is also a byproduct of him hitting the ball harder period.  The evidence wouldn't support that, however. This year 32% of his GB's are 92 mph scorchers v.  39% last year.  Plus he's not even having good luck with his scorching GB's this year.  He's only hitting .393 v. .423 "expected" on them.
      

     
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:05 pm

    rmapasad wrote:All of this goes to the wisdom of Crash Davis who asked "what's the difference between a .300 hitter and .250 hitter " ?   Answer: "one more hit a week, one more bleeder or bloop, one more seeing eye groundball."  Ever since the advent of baseball, GUYS WHO ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME


    Got to call myself out on this one.  Obviously Crash Davis never "actually played the game" except in the movies.  Very Happy Very Happy   But have to assume that someone who did came up with that line.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:36 am

     NEVER HAS SO MUCH BEEN SAID ABOUT SO LITTLE
    avatar
    Jack Brickhouse
    Andy the Clown

    Posts : 852
    Join date : 2014-04-03

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Jack Brickhouse on Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:44 am

    WIN THE DIVISION FOR MURPH!!!
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:46 am

    For Garcia, his "expected" BA on LD is 668 v. 698 actual.  On FB's it is 413 "expected" v. 433 actual.  Not much difference.   On GB's, Garcia is 326 actual v. 241 "expected".  Big difference.


    ***********************************


    EXPECTED BY WHOM?!?!?!?!?

    PEOPLE WITH WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS?!?!?!?

    AMAZING HOW NONE OF THESE SABR GEEKS PREDICTED THE AVISAIL BREAKOUT.

    THE GAME IS PLAYED ON THE FIELD, ITS NOT A COMPUTER SIMULATION

    PLUS YOUR THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS LUCKY GROUNDBALL BULLSHIT BY TRYING TO READ SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EXIST AFTER JUST TWO WEEKS.

    YOUR MULTIPLE TERM PAPERS SOUND LIKE MORE OF YOUR 1.8 BS, WHICH WAS PROVEN 100% FALSE.  BTW, EVER LEARN WHAT MULTICOLINEARITY MEANT?!?!?
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:57 am

    Before you go off in one big huff and start hurling insults about "stat guys"


    *******************************************************


    I hurl insults at your piss poor explanations of their work!!!!!!


    1.8


    Not knowing at bats times OBP times SLG is your basic runs created formula.


    stiff to star studies you have to redo 3 times because you don't know how to sample.


    Retarded comments about power kicking in


    again, your the one that came up with lucky groundball hits and wasted everybody's time the past 2 months trying to claim Garcia is some kind of fluke after wasting the two months prior that he deserved a chance


    And even that you double talked.  Claiming only dumb jock Kenny Williams would believe in his tools.  Then your absolutely stupid assertion that the front office wouldn't know about Garcia's offseason work out program


    In fact, late April, you claimed Garcia was nothing but a tool.


    Now please bore everybody again with a term paper explaining why you voted for Garcia before you voted against him before realizing you were right the first time.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:05 am

    rmapasad wrote:<>>
    How quickly history gets revised by the ultimate bullshit artist.  I wasn't the one who claimed for two solid months that the odds of a power spike by a 26 year old Garcia were virtually impossible. 


    And again, I admitted to being wrong about Garcia

    But again, you lie.  I never said it was impossible for a 26 year old, I just thought Garcia was a stiff.  Unlike you, I don't over analysis every single at bat until I get to my predetermined conclusion.

    I used a much simplier approached.  He basically sucked since he got here.  Like most on this board, I was tired of looking at him.  Thank God Kenny Williams believed he had the tools.  Because without that belief, he in nontendered regardless of how many imaginary conversations you invent about what happens in the front office.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:18 am

    But ponder this question:  If Garcia had only had leag avg luck on slow GB's last year, he'd have hit .260/.321/.400 and if he had this year's luck on slow GB's he'd have been .276/337/416 last year. Would you really been screaming for his scalp this winter if that had been the case ? 

    Before you go off in one big huff and start hurling insults about "stat guys", maybe you can realize that GB BA's unravel part of this mystery about Leury Garcia and Sanchez's turnaround and how Anderson's 116 pt plunge in under 89 mph GB average v. last year explains his lower overall BA.


    *****************************************


    Perfect example of Rogers piss poor analysis.  Once again trying to force everything to the league average.  Well if you applied this type of thinking to every hitter in the game, they they'd all hit about the same!!!!!


    Not only that, drawing absolute conclusions from limited data that can change drastically from week to week


    A sane person looks at Luery Garcia, sees he has never batted this well before, and claims its probably a fluke.  End of discussion.  And anal rententive sabr geek wannabe with obvious compensation issues dumps game logs into excel and psycho analizes every at bat then acts like his conclusions are the only possible ones a logical person would reach.


    Gee, I wonder how lucky Rod Carew would have been considered had Al Gore invented the internet 50 years earlier.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:22 am

    PS, LUERY GARCIA IS 26.  IS ROGER NOW CLAIMING A POWER SPIKE FOR 26 YEAR OLDS IS NOW IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!?
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1704
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:29 am

    PSS, I'M SURE THIS POINT WILL FLY RIGHT OVER ROGERS HEAD.  BUT WHAT HE IS REALLY SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULD COMPLETELY CHANGE HOW WE EVALUATE PLAYERS.  INSTEAD OF AVG/OBP/SLG WE SHOULD GO TO

    HITS THAT ARE REAL
    HITS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUTS
    OUTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HITS
    OUTS THAT ARE REAL.

    SURELY THE KARK ISN'T THE ONLY ONE TO SEE HOW THIS COULD LEAD TO 50 SHADES OF GRAY, BUT IT GETS BETTER

    HOW ABOUT SINGLES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR EXTRAS BASES.  AND ITS CONVERSE, EXTRA BASES THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SINGLES.

    AND ROGER WONDERS WHY EVERYTIME HE WRITES ONE OF HIS SILLY TERM PAPERS ALL THE KARK HEARS IS STEVE MARTIN IN THE JERK EXPLAINING TO BERNADETTE PETERS WHY THERE 2 MONTHS TOGETHER IS MORE LIKE 87 DAYS
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:07 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:For Garcia, his "expected" BA on LD is 668 v. 698 actual.  On FB's it is 413 "expected" v. 433 actual.  Not much difference.   On GB's, Garcia is 326 actual v. 241 "expected".  Big difference.


    ***********************************


    EXPECTED BY WHOM?!?!?!?!?

    PEOPLE WITH WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS?!?!?!?

    AMAZING HOW NONE OF THESE SABR GEEKS PREDICTED THE AVISAIL BREAKOUT.

    THE GAME IS PLAYED ON THE FIELD, ITS NOT A COMPUTER SIMULATION

    PLUS YOUR THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS LUCKY GROUNDBALL BULLSHIT BY TRYING TO READ SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EXIST AFTER JUST TWO WEEKS.

    YOUR MULTIPLE TERM PAPERS SOUND LIKE MORE OF YOUR 1.8 BS, WHICH WAS PROVEN 100% FALSE.  BTW, EVER LEARN WHAT MULTICOLINEARITY MEANT?!?!?

    A completely stupid and juvenile response.  This IS the game played on the field which is now being videoed and tracked by Statcast and TV broadcasts now show ball velocities consistently.  
    The people who run baseball teams are now looking at this data as part of their evaluation of players, and  you can rail all you want, but that's the way it is.

    "Expected BA's" are based on what happens to groundballs, line drives, flyballs hit at certain speeds, angles and distances.  For example, groundballs hit at 100 mph have a .404 BA  and grounders hit at 75 mph have a .150 BA...These are based on ACTUAL events, not someone's made-up computer model. 



    As to your constant and typically false claim about this 1.8 stuff, it still has not been proven to be fundamentally wrong by the community that truly understands this stuff.   This study (now at 1.7 apparently) was revisited about 4 years and the issue you raised was also covered:

    "Also: it's true that when you have two dependent variables that correlate with each other, the coefficients are unpredictable. But that would show up in confidence intervals and significance. In this case, we have enough data that the mutual correlation is not a problem, that way. "
    http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2013/05/the-obpslg-regression-puzzle.html

    Bottom line: these guys who understand statistics to a PHD level aren't going to ignore an easy-to-spot flaw in their study and still go on record with their findings.  Somehow you think that because YOU spotted something that no one else in the Statistical community did even though they typically rip apart any study with flaws.  LMAO...


    .
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:05 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    stiff to star studies you have to redo 3 times because you don't know how to sample.
    Retarded comments about power kicking in   >>
    Studies which are proven RIGHT when it comes to 26 year old power surges.
    "Retarded comments about power kicking in"?   You're saying he hasn't had a major power surge since April 17th ? So those HR's he's hit since then are imaginary?
    .Once more this shows just how eager you are eager to use 13year old level insults as some sort of "argument" rather than get at the truth. 

    <again, your the one that came up with lucky groundball hits and wasted everybody's time the past 2 months trying to claim Garcia is some kind of fluke after wasting the two months prior that he deserved a chance >>
    So you're saying he didn't deserve a chance then ?   
    As to "claiming Garcia is some kind of fluke for the past two months", you know that is a total lie.  I've said a dozen times since mid-April he's shown the power he needed to.  His GB avg is still high but most of that came from an early 9-18 start on GB's.  You completely ignored the comment that I made that "80% of his improvement this year has come from non-GB sources" in order to repeat the same lie that "for past two months" I've claimed "Garcia is some kind of fluke."
    Guess you subscribe to the Goebbels theory that if you keep telling the same lie often enough it becomes the truth.   Like the lie you keep telling about the 1.8 theory being discredited because of some concept YOU discovered even though guys with  degrees in statistics already took it into consideration before publishing their results.  LMAO....
    I don't profess to have a knowledge of regression analysis or esoteric grad-level stat models, but in reading stuff of people who do I certainly see how you're not even remotely qualified to blast their work.  Had you been sitting next to one of them and started into one of your Emily Latella-like rants about multicolinearity and they had just laid you out, there would be little left for you to say except for "never mind".


     
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:36 pm

    Sure, Kenny might still have believed in him but it was logical to tender Garcia whether Kenny believed in him or not.   The Sox weren't contending so it made no sense to cut Garcia and then shop for a better (and more expensive) FA alternative.  Nor did they have any surefire inhouse alternatives in  Davidson, Engel or Liriano.  $ 3 mil wasn't that much and best of all, the Sox weren't even fully committed to paying all of it. If someone beat him out in ST, they could only pay 1/4. 

    You would have us believe that all these practical and logical issues were ignored when discussions about tendering Garcia occurred. Because all that counted was Kenny's fervent belief in Garcia's "tools" which had failed to produce for three solid years.  So who's inventing imaginery concepts of what went on in the front office ?
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2413
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by rmapasad on Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:06 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Perfect example of Rogers piss poor analysis.  Once again trying to force everything to the league average.  Well if you applied this type of thinking to every hitter in the game, they they'd all hit about the same!!!!!
    Not only that, drawing absolute conclusions from limited data that can change drastically from week to week
    A sane person looks at Luery Garcia, sees he has never batted this well before, and claims its probably a fluke.  End of discussion.  .

    A sane person looks at Leury Garcia and asks what part is fluke and what isn't.  Reducing K's explains a lot of his BA boost. With the same >20% K rate he hit .300-ish in AAA in both 2015 and 2016.  Plus with his speed his good GB avg. this year makes some sense.   Doubt he'll keep hitting .300 but .275+ might be possible.

    What might be fluky is the power.  He hit 6 HR's in 350 PA's in AAA last year, but has 6 already in 200 AB's in majors.  Yeah, at 26 he may get a power burst.  But he's only 5'8", 170 - hardly the physical specimen you'd think would turn into 15 HR hitter when he's only averaged 2-3 his whole life.
    We shall see by September.  End of discussion.

    Sponsored content

    Re: LUCKY FLYBALLS

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:59 pm