MLB Top 32

[outofplace]

Were the people posting that Ichiro Suzuki is somehow a better hitter than Albert Pujols kidding? I know it was pages ago, but I just started reading this thread and I still can't get past that.

Suzuki had a slightly higher average last year, but he also walked less than half as much, hit 36 fewer home runs and had a fairly pedestrian .736 OPS. Kind of a big gap from the 1.039 Pujols put up.

Out. I'm an old school seamhead. I'm not into crunching numbers because you can skew them to back any argument.
Pujols is a great hitter, arguably best in the NL. But the best pure hitter in baseball, in my opinion, in Ichiro. He's like Rod Carew, he hits em where they ain't.
Now if you want power, Ichiro isn't your guy, but he does have some pop.

Is anybody else picturing Drip shoving his fingers in his ears, saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALA"

An old-school seamhead who was interested in actually knowing who the better hitter is would take one look at the home run totals and tell you it is Pujols. Nobody needs to skew the numbers at all. The 300-point gap in OPS makes it very clear who the better hitter is.

Power isn't everything, but you seem to think it is completely irrelevant in judging a hitter. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion -- as long as you don't mind being wrong.

Again, for the last time, that's my opinion. I like Ichiro as a hitter. I enjoy watching him break a pitcher down. Pujols is great at as well, I just prefer Ichiro's style at the plate.

You enjoy watching Ichiro more. But if you were a GM, would you take him over Pujols? (Basing on productivity alone, not the age difference).

It would depend on how my team was formed. Pujols will give me better power numbers, no question about it.

And he will hit for a comparable average. And he will get on base a lot more. In other words, he will be the better hitter and it's not even close.

 

[LongTimeListener]

In 2001, in a room full of sportswriters, I argued that it was an abomination that Ichiro got the MVP award over Giambi, my point being that everyone was so mesmerized by Ichiro's singles and never-before-seen playing style that they neglected Giambi's incredibly superior OBP (.477 vs. .381) and especially that nobody seemed to care that Giambi hit THIRTY-NINE!!! more home runs and 13 more doubles. Nobody could see how I could be so clueless.

I'd love to see voters go back and reassess their votes 10 years later.

 

[Dick Whitman]

No one has to take either one over the other. Ichiro is a great leadoff hitter, and Pujols is a great hitter in the middle of the order.

These types of discussions are great among sane people. Here, not so much.

You're so smart. Thank you for gracing us with your posting presence. It is appreciated.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Ichiro would still win. He was the best player on a team that won 116 games. Don't overthink how the voting process goes. I would also note that in the Yankees win over the Mariners in the playoffs, Joe Torre said that stopping Ichiro, not Bret Boone (his real MVP competition, being the leading RBI guy on the 116-win team), was the key to victory.
Hitting is not all of what a ballplayer does, you know. Fielding and base running count, too. Award voters (and managers I might add) tend to value all-around ability more than do people who rely on numbers as a measuring stick. Not arguing the merits of the position, just pointing out a fact.
Ever read "The Right Stuff?" In the opening chapter on deaths in flight testing, Wolfe talks about a pilot who was such a student of flying he kept reading his instruments right until he went into the ground, because he believed in them more than looking out the window. There's a lot of baseball arguments on this board that remind me of that chapter.

 

[secretariat]

You got me. I haven't watched a baseball game in years. I recreate each season using box scores and stat tables from BaseballReference and FanGraphs.

 

[RickStain]

For statistics to be honest, the pools of comparison have to be numerically similar. Just picking out a chronological sample fails the sniff test.

No, they don't, so long as both are above the threshold of significance. Further proof that they don't teach math well in j-schools.

Or at your school. Anyone (except you) should know a bigger pool provides a more accurate/measurable/transferable result.

Yes, but there is a significantly diminishing return. The relationship is not as simple as "bigger sample sizes are always better."

How large of a sample would you consider enough to show you that the 1st and 3rd is better? If I come up with 10 years of data that shows the same results, would you find it acceptable? 20?

 

[JC]

Ichiro would still win. He was the best player on a team that won 116 games. Don't overthink how the voting process goes. I would also note that in the Yankees win over the Mariners in the playoffs, Joe Torre said that stopping Ichiro, not Bret Boone (his real MVP competition, being the leading RBI guy on the 116-win team), was the key to victory.
Hitting is not all of what a ballplayer does, you know. Fielding and base running count, too. Award voters (and managers I might add) tend to value all-around ability more than do people who rely on numbers as a measuring stick. Not arguing the merits of the position, just pointing out a fact.
Ever read "The Right Stuff?" In the opening chapter on deaths in flight testing, Wolfe talks about a pilot who was such a student of flying he kept reading his instruments right until he went into the ground, because he believed in them more than looking out the window. There's a lot of baseball arguments on this board that remind me of that chapter.

Leading RBI guy? Wow.

I think voters are much smarter than even 10 years ago.

 

[RickStain]

I'll try to help you. Let's say I go out and conduct a very simple survey -- maybe 3 questions -- of 100 people. That would probably cross the threshold of significance.

If I repeat the same survey with 1,000 people, my results are going to be a lot more reliable. Both have significance, but one is way more significant.

Sort of. It depends on the size of the population that you are sampling is. 1,000 will frequently be only marginally better than 100.

 

[RickStain]

Ichiro is the best hitter if your definition is "person who gets hits."

When most people discuss "hitters," they mean "player who creates offensive value for his baseball team," and under that definition, Ichiro doesn't belong in the discussion with Pujols.

 

[Drip]

Ichiro is the best hitter if your definition is "person who gets hits."

When most people discuss "hitters," they mean "player who creates offensive value for his baseball team," and under that definition, Ichiro doesn't belong in the discussion with Pujols.

THANK YOU RICK!!!!! That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Azrael]

Nelson Mandela, Ryan Seacrest and the International Red Cross have petitioned the Vatican and the World Court to ask that this thread be euthanized.

 

[Drip]

Nelson Mandela, Ryan Seacrest and the International Red Cross have petitioned the Vatican and the World Court to ask that this thread be euthanized.

Upset that you didn't get a response the first time you posted something similar?

 

[MartinonMTV2]

For statistics to be honest, the pools of comparison have to be numerically similar. Just picking out a chronological sample fails the sniff test.

No, they don't, so long as both are above the threshold of significance. Further proof that they don't teach math well in j-schools.

Or at your school. Anyone (except you) should know a bigger pool provides a more accurate/measurable/transferable result.

Yes, but there is a significantly diminishing return. The relationship is not as simple as "bigger sample sizes are always better."

How large of a sample would you consider enough to show you that the 1st and 3rd is better? If I come up with 10 years of data that shows the same results, would you find it acceptable? 20?

Um, what? "Significantly diminishing return"? In what way? We're not talking about product comparison.

I'd like to see some comparable numbers, as I'm quite certain 1st and 3rd is the more common scenario. Also, as I said before, batters are going to be walked, intentionally or quasi-intentionally, when there are open bases.

I know, you said you don't look at situations.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

I'll try to help you. Let's say I go out and conduct a very simple survey -- maybe 3 questions -- of 100 people. That would probably cross the threshold of significance.

If I repeat the same survey with 1,000 people, my results are going to be a lot more reliable. Both have significance, but one is way more significant.

Sort of. It depends on the size of the population that you are sampling is. 1,000 will frequently be only marginally better than 100.

You should bow out of the statistical theory discussion, as it's clear you really don't have much to offer.

First you say difference in sample sizes doesn't matter. Then you say something else. Then you say something different from the first two.

 

[outofplace]

Ichiro is the best hitter if your definition is "person who gets hits."

When most people discuss "hitters," they mean "player who creates offensive value for his baseball team," and under that definition, Ichiro doesn't belong in the discussion with Pujols.

THANK YOU RICK!!!!! That's exactly what I've been saying.

So, now you are just saying you have an odd, narrow-minded view of what a hitter is. Got it.

Because that really is what you have if you are judging a hitter based only upon total hits. By your way of thinking, Juan Pierre was a better hitter than Joey Votto last season. And not only would Suzuki have been better than Pujols, but Adrian Beltre, Billy Butler, Martin Prado and Michael Young were, too.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5960162_importance-sample-size-research.html

This should help with the questions about sample sizes.

There is one part at the end that might throw the people who are tripping over the significance of small sample sizes. Yes, it does say there are problems with large sizes, but those relate to the expense of getting the data.

 

[RickStain]

I'll try to help you. Let's say I go out and conduct a very simple survey -- maybe 3 questions -- of 100 people. That would probably cross the threshold of significance.

If I repeat the same survey with 1,000 people, my results are going to be a lot more reliable. Both have significance, but one is way more significant.

Sort of. It depends on the size of the population that you are sampling is. 1,000 will frequently be only marginally better than 100.

You should bow out of the statistical theory discussion, as it's clear you really don't have much to offer.

First you say difference in sample sizes doesn't matter. Then you say something else. Then you say something different from the first two.

This isn't difficult.

1) There is a threshold of significance for any sample (well, several, that you can choose from). If your sample is statistically significant, there's nothing wrong with comparing it to another, much larger sample that is also significant.

2) There is a diminishing return on increased accuracy that comes with sample size. You keep implying that the relationship is linear, and it's not.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

I'll try to help you. Let's say I go out and conduct a very simple survey -- maybe 3 questions -- of 100 people. That would probably cross the threshold of significance.

If I repeat the same survey with 1,000 people, my results are going to be a lot more reliable. Both have significance, but one is way more significant.

Sort of. It depends on the size of the population that you are sampling is. 1,000 will frequently be only marginally better than 100.

You should bow out of the statistical theory discussion, as it's clear you really don't have much to offer.

First you say difference in sample sizes doesn't matter. Then you say something else. Then you say something different from the first two.

This isn't difficult.

1) There is a threshold of significance for any sample (well, several, that you can choose from). If your sample is statistically significant, there's nothing wrong with comparing it to another, much larger sample that is also significant.

2) There is a diminishing return on increased accuracy that comes with sample size. You keep implying that the relationship is linear, and it's not.

Where are you getting this diminished return stuff? It's the opposite of what the link says. Did you bother to look at it?

As sample size increases, we become more confident about our estimate, and our intervals become smaller. For instance, with a million women, we could say we are 98 percent confident that the true, average weight of women is between 115 and 117 pounds. In other words, as sample size increases, our confidence in our measurements increases and the size of our confidence intervals decreases.

If you're going to keep discounting statistical theory and trying to say things that sound good to you, then there's no purpose in continuing here. You're simply wrong about the way the process works.

 

[Drip]

Ichiro is the best hitter if your definition is "person who gets hits."

When most people discuss "hitters," they mean "player who creates offensive value for his baseball team," and under that definition, Ichiro doesn't belong in the discussion with Pujols.

THANK YOU RICK!!!!! That's exactly what I've been saying.

So, now you are just saying you have an odd, narrow-minded view of what a hitter is. Got it.

Because that really is what you have if you are judging a hitter based only upon total hits. By your way of thinking, Juan Pierre was a better hitter than Joey Votto last season. And not only would Suzuki have been better than Pujols, but Adrian Beltre, Billy Butler, Martin Prado and Michael Young were, too.

I've covered enough MLB games and been around the game long enough to know if a guy is a pure hitter. Ichiro is a pure hitter. You're acting like an ass-clown to compare him to Juan Pierre just for the sake of keeping a one-sided debate going. You're better than that outofplace.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

By the time you guys finish arguing, there might actually be a Dodger deserving of inclusion on this list.