Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Hawk Harrelson
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=107810		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Seacrest [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Caller Bob wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Nomination denied, Yaz had his year in one that was dominated by pitchers. He probably has higher numbers if that season occurs in Williams' era. In fact 1967 was such a pitcher dominating year that it led to them lowering the mound 2 years later.

Heck, just Google the White Sox pitching staff numbers that season and you'll see what I mean.


Teddy Ballgame gave up many of his prime seasons to kill Nazi's. Was Yaz shooting zipper heads in Quảng Trị Province during his prime? I think not.


Caller Bob, Trump's Ambassador to the UN
Author:  formerlyknownas [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.


You don't see an issue with an aggregate stat that can't even be agreed upon?


Do you see an issue with the standard model because of string theory? Does the existence of both disprove the veracity of either?


:lol: I'm not going to pretend I know the slightest thing about string theory, but I do know enough not to compare it to different guys attempting to create a single number to value a ballplayer.

That's structured like the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer argument, but I have to agree.

Would have love to have seen that season. Boston is still nuts about that team.
Author:  formerlyknownas [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Hatchetman wrote:
Williams led the league in about 20 categories in 1941. Maybe more.

and finished second to the swarthy DiMaggio in the MVP race. what a season.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.


You don't see an issue with an aggregate stat that can't even be agreed upon?


Do you see an issue with the standard model because of string theory? Does the existence of both disprove the veracity of either?


:lol: I'm not going to pretend I know the slightest thing about string theory, but I do know enough not to compare it to different guys attempting to create a single number to value a ballplayer.


What exactly is improper about the metaphor as posed? Both schools of thought (standard model vs. string theory)** attempt to explain the observable and theoretical, and both go about it in slightly different ways. That they both exist and attempt to explain the same phenomenon doesn't disprove either. The same holds for the "f" and "b" variants of WAR.

**My metaphor was slightly off, because string theory is actually poised to be the glue that binds the standard model with general relativity. It is not, in and of itself, running contrary to the standard model. It is SM and GR that are at odds with one another in certain instances. The fact remains, that we (meaning scientists smarter than I can even imagine) cannot "agree" on either one being the Grand Unifying Theory, but we know both do a bang up job of explaining 99.99999% of things we observe.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.


You know that OPS+ from different seasons are unrelated. It's simply a measure of how the player compares to the average in that league in that season. And you also know the adjustments are far from exact or even "scientific". Or maybe you don't, but I believe you do.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.


You know that OPS+ from different seasons are unrelated. It's simply a measure of how the player compares to the average in that league in that season. And you also know the adjustments are far from exact or even "scientific". Or maybe you don't, but I believe you do.


OPS+ is the adjustment for the run environment in which a given OPS was created. It is literally the codification of what you say a pitching "win" is, except for OPS. Odd that you want to point out how a given OPS+ isn't transferable across multiple games or seasons...kind of like a given pitching performance with a lack of run support. What could explain your sudden 180 on this? Guess we'll never know.

Anyway, to your point: Yes, OPS+ gives a measurement of how a player's performance stacked up against the league in which he gave that performance, resolved down to a single season. This means that Ted Williams had 6 seasons that were considerably more dominant over the league in which he performed, than Yaz's single best season.
Author:  Don Tiny [ Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Seacrest wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Nomination denied, Yaz had his year in one that was dominated by pitchers. He probably has higher numbers if that season occurs in Williams' era. In fact 1967 was such a pitcher dominating year that it led to them lowering the mound 2 years later.

Heck, just Google the White Sox pitching staff numbers that season and you'll see what I mean.


Teddy Ballgame gave up many of his prime seasons to kill Nazi's. Was Yaz shooting zipper heads in Quảng Trị Province during his prime? I think not.


Caller Bob, Trump's Ambassador to the UN

Image
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.


You know that OPS+ from different seasons are unrelated. It's simply a measure of how the player compares to the average in that league in that season. And you also know the adjustments are far from exact or even "scientific". Or maybe you don't, but I believe you do.


OPS+ is the adjustment for the run environment in which a given OPS was created. It is literally the codification of what you say a pitching "win" is, except for OPS. Odd that you want to point out how a given OPS+ isn't transferable across multiple games or seasons...kind of like a given pitching performance with a lack of run support. What could explain your sudden 180 on this? Guess we'll never know.

Anyway, to your point: Yes, OPS+ gives a measurement of how a player's performance stacked up against the league in which he gave that performance, resolved down to a single season. This means that Ted Williams had 6 seasons that were considerably more dominant over the league in which he performed, than Yaz's single best season.


Again, the value of the adjustment is questionable. But there's a more significant question if you're going to attempt to use OPS+ to compare players in different seasons. Do you think anything may have occurred in baseball to make competition significantly tougher in 1967 than it was in the early 40s?
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.



Of course you did. Because you aren't interested in the real answer. You just want to beat people over the head with stats. There is some truth the idea that stats are more often used the way a drunk uses a light pole- for support rather than illumination.

As I said above, the popular SABR opinion is that the only better seasons any hitter ever had than Yaz's 1967 were by Babe Ruth:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/lead ... ason.shtml
Author:  formerlyknownas [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.


You know that OPS+ from different seasons are unrelated. It's simply a measure of how the player compares to the average in that league in that season. And you also know the adjustments are far from exact or even "scientific". Or maybe you don't, but I believe you do.


OPS+ is the adjustment for the run environment in which a given OPS was created. It is literally the codification of what you say a pitching "win" is, except for OPS. Odd that you want to point out how a given OPS+ isn't transferable across multiple games or seasons...kind of like a given pitching performance with a lack of run support. What could explain your sudden 180 on this? Guess we'll never know.

Anyway, to your point: Yes, OPS+ gives a measurement of how a player's performance stacked up against the league in which he gave that performance, resolved down to a single season. This means that Ted Williams had 6 seasons that were considerably more dominant over the league in which he performed, than Yaz's single best season.


Again, the value of the adjustment is questionable. But there's a more significant question if you're going to attempt to use OPS+ to compare players in different seasons. Do you think anything may have occurred in baseball to make competition significantly tougher in 1967 than it was in the early 40s?

Yes--a larger strike zone. A few larger stadiums.
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
formerlyknownas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Again, the value of the adjustment is questionable. But there's a more significant question if you're going to attempt to use OPS+ to compare players in different seasons. Do you think anything may have occurred in baseball to make competition significantly tougher in 1967 than it was in the early 40s?

Yes--a larger strike zone. A few larger stadiums.


Pssst... he means balcks.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
1941,1949 Ted Williams better year than 1967 Yaz.


I don't believe that's the case if you PROPERLY adjust for run environments.


Yaz had a 193 OPS+ in '67.

Williams posted 200+ OPS+ figures (as high as 235) in '41, '42, '46, '47, '54 and '57.

I'd like to see your argument (read: figures and facts) that the OPS+ run environment adjustments were off by some 42 percentage points in Williams' favor.


You know that OPS+ from different seasons are unrelated. It's simply a measure of how the player compares to the average in that league in that season. And you also know the adjustments are far from exact or even "scientific". Or maybe you don't, but I believe you do.


OPS+ is the adjustment for the run environment in which a given OPS was created. It is literally the codification of what you say a pitching "win" is, except for OPS. Odd that you want to point out how a given OPS+ isn't transferable across multiple games or seasons...kind of like a given pitching performance with a lack of run support. What could explain your sudden 180 on this? Guess we'll never know.

Anyway, to your point: Yes, OPS+ gives a measurement of how a player's performance stacked up against the league in which he gave that performance, resolved down to a single season. This means that Ted Williams had 6 seasons that were considerably more dominant over the league in which he performed, than Yaz's single best season.


Again, the value of the adjustment is questionable. But there's a more significant question if you're going to attempt to use OPS+ to compare players in different seasons. Do you think anything may have occurred in baseball to make competition significantly tougher in 1967 than it was in the early 40s?


The relative difficulty of the league is made irrelevant by the league adjustment. That is literally what "league-adjusted" means. It highlights the difference between a .900 OPS put up in a league where the average OPS is .899, and .900 OPS put up in a more difficult league where the average OPS is .600. Williams' dominance of those earlier leagues was still, comparatively, more dominant than Yaz's individual dominance of what may have been a more difficult league in '67.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.



Of course you did. Because you aren't interested in the real answer. You just want to beat people over the head with stats. There is some truth the idea that stats are more often used the way a drunk uses a light pole- for support rather than illumination.

As I said above, the popular SABR opinion is that the only better seasons any hitter ever had than Yaz's 1967 were by Babe Ruth:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/lead ... ason.shtml


STATS ARE A CRUTCH USED BY EGGHEADS TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM SMART. NOW HERE ARE SOME EGGHEADS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, EGGHEAD.

:lol: Get a grip, JORR, you're looking sillier by the minute.
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.



Of course you did. Because you aren't interested in the real answer. You just want to beat people over the head with stats. There is some truth the idea that stats are more often used the way a drunk uses a light pole- for support rather than illumination.

As I said above, the popular SABR opinion is that the only better seasons any hitter ever had than Yaz's 1967 were by Babe Ruth:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/lead ... ason.shtml


STATS ARE A CRUTCH USED BY EGGHEADS TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM SMART. NOW HERE ARE SOME EGGHEADS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, EGGHEAD.

:lol: Get a grip, JORR, you're looking sillier by the minute.


:lol: You're the guy who looks silly. "Let me pick whatever version of WAR helps me support my argument of the moment." And look, I don't even mind that. We all do that kind of shit. But you're arrogantly acting like you have some superior knowledge or "science" on your side which is utterly ridiculous in this case.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
what part of .406 do you not understand?
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.



Of course you did. Because you aren't interested in the real answer. You just want to beat people over the head with stats. There is some truth the idea that stats are more often used the way a drunk uses a light pole- for support rather than illumination.

As I said above, the popular SABR opinion is that the only better seasons any hitter ever had than Yaz's 1967 were by Babe Ruth:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/lead ... ason.shtml


STATS ARE A CRUTCH USED BY EGGHEADS TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM SMART. NOW HERE ARE SOME EGGHEADS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, EGGHEAD.

:lol: Get a grip, JORR, you're looking sillier by the minute.


:lol: You're the guy who looks silly. "Let me pick whatever version of WAR helps me support my argument of the moment." And look, I don't even mind that. We all do that kind of shit. But you're arrogantly acting like you have some superior knowledge or "science" on your side which is utterly ridiculous in this case.


For what is now the third time, then, please give me your facts and figures that paint the OPS+ league adjustment as "dubious" or "improper". Because all you've said to this point is that it is dubious and improper, without showing how that is the case. And before you start in: Yes, the leagues were different, that's exactly the point of league adjustment.
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
The relative difficulty of the league is made irrelevant by the league adjustment. That is literally what "league-adjusted" means. It highlights the difference between a .900 OPS put up in a league where the average OPS is .899, and .900 OPS put up in a more difficult league where the average OPS is .600. Williams' dominance of those earlier leagues was still, comparatively, more dominant than Yaz's individual dominance of what may have been a more difficult league in '67.


It attempts a little more than that. I believe there is a park adjustment in there as well. In any case, there's a whole lot of noise being added to the mix in that adjustment.

But regardless, the difficulty of the league is hardly irrelevant. You seem to be suggesting that a 120 OPS+ in the 2010 American Association is equivalent to the same OPS+ in the 1956 National League. That's just wrong.
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
One season. Different game that year, that era.

Yaz had a truly inspired year, a few great seasons, and a lot of good seasons. Hawk saw the most important part of his best season.

Wow--the stats site says Yaz's WAR for '67 was 12.4. Yikes.


fWAR says 11.1. I choose the WAR outlet that best suits my argument. Sue me.



Of course you did. Because you aren't interested in the real answer. You just want to beat people over the head with stats. There is some truth the idea that stats are more often used the way a drunk uses a light pole- for support rather than illumination.

As I said above, the popular SABR opinion is that the only better seasons any hitter ever had than Yaz's 1967 were by Babe Ruth:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/lead ... ason.shtml


STATS ARE A CRUTCH USED BY EGGHEADS TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM SMART. NOW HERE ARE SOME EGGHEADS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, EGGHEAD.

:lol: Get a grip, JORR, you're looking sillier by the minute.


:lol: You're the guy who looks silly. "Let me pick whatever version of WAR helps me support my argument of the moment." And look, I don't even mind that. We all do that kind of shit. But you're arrogantly acting like you have some superior knowledge or "science" on your side which is utterly ridiculous in this case.


For what is now the third time, then, please give me your facts and figures that paint the OPS+ league adjustment as "dubious" or "improper". Because all you've said to this point is that it is dubious and improper, without showing how that is the case. And before you start in: Yes, the leagues were different, that's exactly the point of league adjustment.



Give me the formula for the adjustment.
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Let me ask you this. You "chose the WAR outlet that suited your argument". Fine. But which WAR outlet you do actually feel is correct?
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Let me ask you this. You "chose the WAR outlet that suited your argument". Fine. But which WAR outlet you do actually feel is correct?


For historical players, FanGraphs and Baseball-Reference are using the exact same defensive calculations, so the biggest difference (for historical players at least) is in their baseline offensive calculations of value. I like that FanGraphs uses wOBA as its base offensive metric, BR uses wRAA, which is a downstream massaging of wOBA data. I like that wOBA has a more simple adjustment for the league run environment, and doesn't try to further adjust the inputs of any given player until the positional adjustments are made.
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
Williams hit over .400 for a season. He wins since no one else has gotten close (RIP 1994 Tony Gywnn).
Author:  likemarsen [ Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
I know this is a Douchebag thread, and I didn't want to create a Shout Out thread for him, but this is one reason why this man is a legend...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-hawk-harrelson-white-sox-wrigley-field-20170806-story.html
Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hawk Harrelson
likemarsen wrote:
I know this is a Douchebag thread, and I didn't want to create a Shout Out thread for him, but this is one reason why this man is a legend...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-hawk-harrelson-white-sox-wrigley-field-20170806-story.html

Image
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/