Rank The GMs Of MLB - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Rank The GMs Of MLB

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby brandnew » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:51 pm

Amazinz wrote:
brandnew wrote:My only problem was you were alluding to the payroll numbers as if the Mets didn't have an advantage over the Braves, when the true numbers show they had a 30 Million advantage this year. I don't think that should matter in the standings, but I just wanted to set the facts straight.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The Braves may only pay $75M in payroll this season but they still have ~$90M in payroll value. I understand some of that is tied up in Hamption.


What? Renteria's and Baez's contracts are counted as paid in full. The Braves had to give up sizeable amounts in talent (Marte, Betemit) to make sure that that happened, that can't just be discounted. The FO has said numerous times they were willing to give up Marte because getting Renteria at that price was such a good deal.
Image
brandnew
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3599
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The 909!

Postby Amazinz » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:04 pm

brandnew wrote:
Amazinz wrote:
brandnew wrote:My only problem was you were alluding to the payroll numbers as if the Mets didn't have an advantage over the Braves, when the true numbers show they had a 30 Million advantage this year. I don't think that should matter in the standings, but I just wanted to set the facts straight.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The Braves may only pay $75M in payroll this season but they still have ~$90M in payroll value. I understand some of that is tied up in Hamption.


What? Renteria's and Baez's contracts are counted as paid in full. The Braves had to give up sizeable amounts in talent (Marte, Betemit) to make sure that that happened, that can't just be discounted. The FO has said numerous times they were willing to give up Marte because getting Renteria at that price was such a good deal.

I'm not discounting it at all. I think it was an excellent move. But I don't think it's as cut and dry as a $30M advantage.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby brandnew » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:13 pm

Well I disagree. I think had they had the payroll flexibility, they would've been able to keep Marte and gotten Renteria at full price while giving up some lesser minor league talent. Or they could've just signed Furcal. Or they could've signed someone like Wickman without trading Betemit in the middle of the year for bullpen help.

But I guess we'll always disagree, as long as you support the bad guys :-D
Image
brandnew
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3599
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The 909!

Postby Mookie4ever » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:45 pm

davidmarver wrote:
Tavish wrote:
Amazinz wrote:Ahh so now it's down from $78 to $75. This just keeps getting better. ;-)

Also, why do ESPN and THT have different RC/27 values for Dave Roberts? Look at Dave Roberts value on THT and look at it on ESPN. I have not done the math but my instincts tell me that THT messed up.


ESPN uses a fairly basic form of the James RC formula (its not much further along the line from OBP * TB), while THT uses one that incorporates all the little doodad stats like hitting with RISP and ballpark effects (something that helps out Roberts numbers fairly significantly).

It also incorporates stolen bases and caught stealings, a category in which Roberts is 35 of 39 in. The THT version also accounts for strikeouts -- he has only 37 of them, compared to 40 walks -- GIDP, which Roberts has done just three times all season. Sacrifices, Roberts has eight, are also factored in.


Sorry but I find this a little bit ridiculous.

First of all you hand pick a tiny sample size - for example NL right fielders.

davidmarver wrote:KT first signed Giles. Entering today, Giles leads all NL RFers in Runs Created, RC/G, Win Shares, Walks, and BB/K ratio.


Not just NLers, but NL RFers - why didn't you just narrow it down to NL RFers playing in SD? (btw - Giles is 15th in HRs, 11th in slg and 8th in OPS among NL RFers)


The you take the most esoteric stats - such as RC/G. Runs created per game. But not really per game b/c, as a smart person has explained to me, it really has nothing to do with games. It is runs created per 27 outs that this person records. So this has nothing to do with an actual MLB game or per 9 innings but runs created per 27 outs attributed to this player.

Are you following me?

Now what are "runs created"? Well that's not defined. At least no standard definition. "Runs created" is whatever THT or whatever source best suits Marver says it is. That's because it's different things for different people.

Example.

David Marver wrote:- Prior to '05 he traded Jay Payton for Dave Roberts. Roberts is currently the third best LFer, behind Manny, Bonds, and Ethier for RC/G.


But according to ESPN Roberts has a RC/27 of 6.91 which would place him 15th (amongst left fielders), if he qualified, which he doesn't b/c he doesn't have the requisite ABs per game.

Image

So we have variously chosen sample groups, esoteric stats with hand picked definitions to lead to the desired conclusion. Some of the worst uses of stats that I have seen.

Stuff like this is not going to "prove" whether KT is a good GM or not. Results count. You get a pass if the deck is stacked against you (eg you play in the AL east and you are not the Sox or Yankees, your owner meddles, devastating injuries etc.) but eventually it is results that determine whether a GM is good or not, ridiculous made up "stats" do not.

I also think that you tried to use "stats" to prove that Brian Giles is better than Jason Bay and that that the Padres are better off with Giles and his $7.5+M contract than with all star Jason Bay and his $1M contract. Did I read that right?

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. (Andrew Lang)
Last edited by Mookie4ever on Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 277)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Tavish » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:49 pm

thedude wrote:As for the diffence between .5% error and 1.4% error is not huge. MOst staticians are happy with a 95% correlation...

I would actually like to run the numbers myself though on those formulas, because i doubt either explains 99% if the data.[


Sure they would be happy. The point is that people felt the THT numbers appeared to be innaccurate compared to ESPN.com's. When ran across 22 seasons worth of data (1002 team seasons) both formulas came out basically even with a 94.7% R^2 when estimated runs were compared to actual runs.

Runs created has been put through the wringer since its very inception. Thats why there are 14 formulas plus several dozen of other variations out there. They will all tell you the same thing, Roberts has been damn good this season and has performed way above expectations.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davidmarver » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:09 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:Sorry but I find this a little bit ridiculous.

First of all you hand pick a tiny sample size - for example NL right fielders.

davidmarver wrote:KT first signed Giles. Entering today, Giles leads all NL RFers in Runs Created, RC/G, Win Shares, Walks, and BB/K ratio.


Not just NLers, but NL RFers - why didn't you just narrow it down to NL RFers playing in SD?

Mookie...I really don't think you understand the concept of comparison. If you looked at Derek Jeter's career statistic and asked the question 'does he deserve to be in the HOF', but you couldn't use the fact he was a SS, then the answer would be a resounding no, he doesn't. Obviously, though, you compare Jeter's statistics to other shortstops to get a better scope of how good he is. I compare Brian Giles to other RFers because that's the pool of guys our GM has to choose from to be our RFer. Yes, he could put a LFer in right, like Bay, who has created over 30 less runs over the past three seasons while playing in a much better hitting park, but he would lose the defense that Giles brings playing in a huge Petco RF area, as well as the arm Giles has. So, yes it is necessary to restrict our data to RFers. I restricted it further to NL RFers to show you that he is currently #1 of 16 in the NL at that position.

The you take the most esoteric stats - such as RC/G. Runs created per game. But not really per game b/c, as a smart person has explained to me, it really has nothing to do with games. It is runs created per 27 outs that this person records. So this has nothing to do with an actual MLB game or per 9 innings but runs created per 27 outs attributed to this player.

Well, it actually does have something to do with games, as in that is how many runs a team full of X players would score in a game. If I'm not mistaking, that COMPLETELY removes the team element from his runs created total, because, in order for Roberts to be able to compile more runs created, they have to give him more at bats, making runs created slightly more team oriented than its cousin RC/G. So instead of having the fact that the NL teams have pitchers hit, resulting in less plate appearances for Roberts, it instead projects Roberts statistics out for if there were nine Dave Roberts' on the field.

Now what are "runs created"? Well that's not defined. At least no standard definition. "Runs created" is whatever THT or whatever source best suits Marver says it is. That's because it's different things for different people.

Mookie, do you honestly have nothing better to do than point fingers at me saying that Roberts is only ahead because I'm picking and choosing my sources? You find me a more accurate formula of runs created to use -- I showed above that the THT formula is more accurate than the ESPN formula, but you seem to have glanced over that -- and I will do so, but seeing as you have little knowledge on the runs created category -- which I have explained to miner loosely in this thread, but you have seemingly glanced over -- I suggest you first examine what exactly the category is before you rant about me using THT instead of ESPN.

Example.

David Marver wrote:- Prior to '05 he traded Jay Payton for Dave Roberts. Roberts is currently the third best LFer, behind Manny, Bonds, and Ethier for RC/G.


But according to ESPN Roberts has a RC/27 of 6.91 which would place him 15th (amongst left fielders), if he qualified, which he doesn't b/c he doesn't have the requisite ABs per game.

Image

So we have variously chosen sample groups, esoteric stats with hand picked definitions to lead to the desired conclusion. Some of the worst uses of stats that I have seen.

Again, who is the one picking and choosing stats? You're using a LESS ACCURATE FORMULA! Why in the world would I use ESPNs formula when there is a better, more accurate formula readily available to use? And the fact still remains, that even if you used ESPNs formula for RC/27, that Roberts is STILL in front of Jay Payton, the man whom he was traded for. So, regardless of whether you use the better formula, the point of the statistic still holds true; the Padres got hte better end of the deal when we acquired Dave ROberts for Jay Payton.

By the way, if you checked out the screenshots I posted earlier in this thread, it has Roberts as third on the THT count.

Stuff like this is not going to "prove" whether KT is a good GM or not. Results count. You get a pass if the deck is stacked against you (eg you play in the AL east and you are not the Sox or Yankees, your owner meddles, devastating injuries etc.) but eventually it is results that determine whether a GM is good or not, ridiculous made up "stats" do not.

Ridiculous made up stat. Ehh Mookie? The fact that you write off the statistic simply because you don't know anything about it -- and don't take the initiative to read my previous posts in this various thread showing you that THT is more accurate than ESPN and how runs created works -- really shows your stubborness.

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. (Andrew Lang)

What's that supposed to do? Prove that KT isn't a good GM -- even though in 2006 he's gotten Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young for Adam Eaton and Aki, got Josh Bard and Cla Meredith for Mark Loretta while allowing Josh Barfield (who has posted better #s) to come up and play second base also allowing the Padres to have salary room to resign the NL league leader in saves, Trevor Hoffman, while letting Ramon Hernandez walk while the trio of Rob Bowen, Josh Bard, and Mike Piazza ripped his statistics to shreds, all while Mike Cameron had a superior offensive and defensive season than Xavier Nady -- even when you haven't presented anything to warrant differently rather than calling one of the most accurate statistics in all of baseball ridiculous.

"Blame Canada" - South Park
Image
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6154
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Postby perlick29 » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:37 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
Tavish wrote:
Amazinz wrote:Ahh so now it's down from $78 to $75. This just keeps getting better. ;-)

Also, why do ESPN and THT have different RC/27 values for Dave Roberts? Look at Dave Roberts value on THT and look at it on ESPN. I have not done the math but my instincts tell me that THT messed up.


ESPN uses a fairly basic form of the James RC formula (its not much further along the line from OBP * TB), while THT uses one that incorporates all the little doodad stats like hitting with RISP and ballpark effects (something that helps out Roberts numbers fairly significantly).

It also incorporates stolen bases and caught stealings, a category in which Roberts is 35 of 39 in. The THT version also accounts for strikeouts -- he has only 37 of them, compared to 40 walks -- GIDP, which Roberts has done just three times all season. Sacrifices, Roberts has eight, are also factored in.


Sorry but I find this a little bit ridiculous.

First of all you hand pick a tiny sample size - for example NL right fielders.

davidmarver wrote:KT first signed Giles. Entering today, Giles leads all NL RFers in Runs Created, RC/G, Win Shares, Walks, and BB/K ratio.


Not just NLers, but NL RFers - why didn't you just narrow it down to NL RFers playing in SD? (btw - Giles is 15th in HRs, 11th in slg and 8th in OPS among NL RFers)


The you take the most esoteric stats - such as RC/G. Runs created per game. But not really per game b/c, as a smart person has explained to me, it really has nothing to do with games. It is runs created per 27 outs that this person records. So this has nothing to do with an actual MLB game or per 9 innings but runs created per 27 outs attributed to this player.

Are you following me?

Now what are "runs created"? Well that's not defined. At least no standard definition. "Runs created" is whatever THT or whatever source best suits Marver says it is. That's because it's different things for different people.

Example.

David Marver wrote:- Prior to '05 he traded Jay Payton for Dave Roberts. Roberts is currently the third best LFer, behind Manny, Bonds, and Ethier for RC/G.


But according to ESPN Roberts has a RC/27 of 6.91 which would place him 15th (amongst left fielders), if he qualified, which he doesn't b/c he doesn't have the requisite ABs per game.

Image

So we have variously chosen sample groups, esoteric stats with hand picked definitions to lead to the desired conclusion. Some of the worst uses of stats that I have seen.

Stuff like this is not going to "prove" whether KT is a good GM or not. Results count. You get a pass if the deck is stacked against you (eg you play in the AL east and you are not the Sox or Yankees, your owner meddles, devastating injuries etc.) but eventually it is results that determine whether a GM is good or not, ridiculous made up "stats" do not.

I also think that you tried to use "stats" to prove that Brian Giles is better than Jason Bay and that that the Padres are better off with Giles and his $7.5+M contract than with all star Jason Bay and his $1M contract. Did I read that right?

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. (Andrew Lang)


Really couldn't have said it better myself. Giles came to San Diego to be the power in the middle of the order. He hasn't been great in this area, and it's not helping the team win.

As for better GM's as you asked, I like Doug Melvin for gradually giving his team direction. He has the lanes wide open for Weeks, Hardy, Fielder, Hart and others in the minors including Ryan Braun. He made an outstanding pickup of Dave Bush to give the rotation another Quality Starter. He traded a big contract for a player who is basically the same with fewer homers and cheaper in Kevin Mench. He now has a closer who could very well go back to being a top-notch and reliable guy. Of course there was all the things he's done pre 2005-2006. If it weren't for Weeks and Sheets being hurt this teams results in the standings might be 10 games better with the wins Sheets and Weeks provide. They are the favorite for next year's NL Central in my mind because Melvin has effectively moved the peices into place. He's been better than Towers in my opinion.
Image
Forget the man crush. I drop what I'm doing to watch Zack Greinke pitch.
perlick29
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
EditorCafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafecasterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4810
Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: praising the almighty Baseball Prospectus

Postby davidmarver » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:48 pm

perlick29 wrote:As for better GM's as you asked, I like Kevin Towers for gradually giving his team direction. He has the lanes wide open for Barfield, Greene, Gonzalez, Ben Johnson and others in the minors including Matt Antonelli, Cesar Carrillo, Chase Headley, George Kottaras. He made an outstanding pickup of Chris Young to give the rotation another Quality Starter.
Image
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6154
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Postby Mookie4ever » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:02 pm

Marver. I am not saying that Roberts isn't good - he's been great. I have him in my NL only keeper and I love him. I'm also not saying that KT is not a good manager. I think that he has done a fine job.

What I am saying is that you have a position then you went out and hand picked stats to support your position.

There's nothing wrong with limiting your sample size to NL RFers. Except you then go ahead and compare Giles to Bay when it suits your purposes and you compare Roberts to all LFers when it suits your purposes.

There is nothing wrong with using stats except that you hand pick the only ones that are good for your arguments - for instance saying that Giles leads all NL RFers in Runs Created, RC/G, Win Shares, Walks, and BB/K ratio and omitting how he is is 15th in HRs, 11th in slg and 8th in OPS. You pick only the stats that suit your purposes.

Do you really believe that you can COMPLETELY remove the team element from any stat (except for maybe the speed of a pitch and even then the rule of thumb is to take 3mph off of the home radar gun)? This is the RC definition on ESPN (Runs created [(H + BB + HBP - CS - GIDP) times (Total bases + .26[BB - IBB + HBP] + .52[SH + SF + SB])] divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH+ SF) (I think that THT keeps theirs a secret). H, BB, CS, GIDP, SF, SB etc are all influenced by the players around you and the players that you play against. Do you really think that Jason Bay's RC/G would be the same if he played on the Yankees? But then I don't need RC/G to tell me that Jason Bay is a far better value at $1M per than Giles at $7.5+M.

I have no stake in this one way or the other. I like KT and I like Roberts. I do think that your arguments are disingenuous and are harmed more than helped by your usage of stats IMO.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 277)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:08 pm

let me say that this is one of the better threads leftovers has seen in a while. nice job. ;-D
Image
The Miner Part 2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3757
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Throwing rocks at The Cubby Bear.

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Oct. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Kansas City
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact