Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005 |
The Dodgers' Ticking Rule 5 Clock, Meta, And Sabermetric Mal-de-Mer
Tom has some good points here about the Rule 5 clock ticking in 2005 for some of its better draftees, which, translated, means the Dodgers will almost certainly start making some trades. This, I think, comes as no surprise considering the overheated free agency market this year, but I wanted to make a brief comment regarding this bit:
Now, I think Rob McMillin is an excellent blogger, but his analysis of that trade was as offensive to me as a Myrow/Saenz platoon at third base ever could have been to him. I mean, to me the notion of using year-old PECOTA projections as one's primary source of data is amazingly objectionable. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it was very difficult for me to take his arguments seriously. So I got out my torches and rallied the townspeople, looked up Dr. Frankenstein's address on mapquest, and got ready to bring it. But the more I wrote, the less comfortable I felt writing, not because I felt I was wrong but because I sensed that I was looking at the data to find the things that matched up with what I wanted to say, and even though I looked for everything and tried to balance the arguments to evaluate them I still couldn't eliminate the bias, and that was the vary same trait that I had gotten me so riled up about Rob's write-up. There's a line between opinion and analysis, and though I'm not sure how fine that line is I know I was too close to encroachment for my comfort.While I take the left-handed compliment with all the cold enthusiasm it was delivered, I defend my actions as follows:
- PECOTA is what we have to get to VORP, a single number indicating offensive player performance.
- Year-old projections, like it or not, are the only complete data we have in many cases; and rather than try to cast an incomplete or constantly changing set of ZiPS projections into a single number (such as EqA or OBP, both of which certainly have their own problems relative to VORP), I'll take the straightforward if, yes, somewhat superannuated data.
James discusses how the relationship with his readers changed over the years from a “virtual love fest” to one in which he was getting “more and more letters that irritate the living hell out of me. People have started assuming that I am a goddamn public utility or something. I get letters from people telling me that I do this well but that I shouldn’t do that and I should do more of that and less of this and try some of the other. If they irritate me enough, I write back “Dear Jackass: I am not your employee. It is not my function to write about what you are interested in. I write about what I am interested in. If you want to read it, read it. If you don’t, don’t. But DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT.”I should note that I'm far from there now. But -- well, let me say I understand James's dilemma.James says that he only wrote about 30 such letters the last year but was concerned about how many more he would need to write in the future. “I think that whenever a writer finds that he is beginning to dislike his own readers, it’s a very clear sign that he’s heading down the wrong road.”
Comments:
Perhaps what I should have said was "PECOTA is what we have to get to projected VORP".
As to the "VORP is very simple" comment, you of all people should know that the "replacement position runs" term in the equasion above is the tricky bit to calculate. It's like saying, "magic goes here". One beef I've always had with VORP is that the mechanism for determining what, exactly, a replacement player looks like isn't well documented, and I suspect may not match the real world very closely. That dig taken, I still think VORP is probably the best offensive/pitching metric around.
As to whether my analysis of the trade -- as opposed to my earlier, rather emotional response -- was based on old data, well, upon re-reading it, I plead guilty to confusing the reading audience, for I indeed failed to mention that I was using old PECOTA data. Even so, I stand by it; it's what I have that I can readily use.
However -- what I really don't get is this:
>>I guess my point is, if you're not willing to critically analyze your own analysis of a trade, you really shouldn't be comparing the trade to prison rape.<<
You will notice the latter (emotional name-calling) came before the former (actual analysis). I'm not sure how you get me being unwilling to look critically at my own analysis, because I did exactly that. Has my initial reaction to the trade colored your subsequent judgement of what I wrote about it? I think it has, and that's unfortunate.
I'm certainly open to discussing improved methods of using, say, ZiPS projections for analyzing these things, but if you're going to sneer at me in print for making honest mistakes or omissions, or for simply being human, then I'm not really interested in that kind of discourse. For that, I could wander over to the Dodger Fan Forum.
As to the "VORP is very simple" comment, you of all people should know that the "replacement position runs" term in the equasion above is the tricky bit to calculate. It's like saying, "magic goes here". One beef I've always had with VORP is that the mechanism for determining what, exactly, a replacement player looks like isn't well documented, and I suspect may not match the real world very closely. That dig taken, I still think VORP is probably the best offensive/pitching metric around.
As to whether my analysis of the trade -- as opposed to my earlier, rather emotional response -- was based on old data, well, upon re-reading it, I plead guilty to confusing the reading audience, for I indeed failed to mention that I was using old PECOTA data. Even so, I stand by it; it's what I have that I can readily use.
However -- what I really don't get is this:
>>I guess my point is, if you're not willing to critically analyze your own analysis of a trade, you really shouldn't be comparing the trade to prison rape.<<
You will notice the latter (emotional name-calling) came before the former (actual analysis). I'm not sure how you get me being unwilling to look critically at my own analysis, because I did exactly that. Has my initial reaction to the trade colored your subsequent judgement of what I wrote about it? I think it has, and that's unfortunate.
I'm certainly open to discussing improved methods of using, say, ZiPS projections for analyzing these things, but if you're going to sneer at me in print for making honest mistakes or omissions, or for simply being human, then I'm not really interested in that kind of discourse. For that, I could wander over to the Dodger Fan Forum.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.