Master Index of Archived Threads


A Stat for Overrated Players

MFS62 Dec 20 2005 07:14 PM

Check out LoDuca and Reyes. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/oops_here_it_is.php Stat guys, how vaild do you think it is? Later

Edgy DC Dec 20 2005 07:25 PM

It seems to be based on the fallacy that people "rate" based on batting average. Mr. Lederer would be, by now, about the four millionth guy to suggest batting average isn't as important as all that, so it's rather disingenous to suggest that he's smashing the substance of other folks' ratings.

KC Dec 20 2005 08:17 PM

It's a lazy answer, but my answer would be, "please better define over-rated". I'd also probably add, "as advertised by whom"? Other than that, yawn. I mean is anyone banging the LoDuca or Reyes are offensive juggernauts drum any- where? I haven't seen it, if they are.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 20 2005 08:52 PM

Stop yawning, KC. You'll get me doing it too. More interesting perhaps is this article http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/daily-graphing-heath-bell/ about Heath Bell's emergence in 2006. Scroll down a bit.

Elster88 Dec 20 2005 09:09 PM

KC wrote: I mean is anyone banging the LoDuca or Reyes are offensive juggernauts drum anywhere? I haven't seen it, if they are. Maybe not, but some bang the "Sign Reyes to a long-term contract NOW card though.

RealityChuck Dec 21 2005 09:00 AM

]By definition, the players who meet the above criterion are singles hitters who only walk on occasion and rarely slug home runs. Clearly, that's the issue. If that's your definition of overrated, fine. It's not mine and it really looks at the issue with tunnel vision (one of the two main pitfalls of all statistical analysis, the other being the issue of factors that don't show up in the box score).

Bret Sabermetric Dec 21 2005 09:26 AM

Chuck, not to pick a fight with you, but that's kinda like saying, "Hey, if you choose to accept all this scientific crap, that's fine, but I know there are tiny people inside my TV set." The stuff that doesn't show up in box scores? That's what? Chemistry, heads-up baserunning, what? If it results in extra runs, then it does show up in the box score, right under the "R" column and the "RBI" column. If it doesn't show up, guess what? It ain't worth squat.

metsmarathon Dec 21 2005 09:51 AM

while i agree with bret, i also think that what chuck means by "doesnt show up in a box score" is perhaps better stated as "difficult to quantify"

Bret Sabermetric Dec 21 2005 09:54 AM

Which is why we sabermetric types go to such trouble to quantify it, only to have people like Chuck saying "all that quantifiable bullshit makes my head hurt. Please stop."