DRA: The new standard?

PickSix

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 9, 2015
Posts:
2,673
Liked Posts:
1,459
143 pitchers better than Arrieta, including Lackey. Bwaaah.
I think he has a little "tweaking" to do on his glorious new metric.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,672
Liked Posts:
9,485
143 pitchers better than Arrieta, including Lackey. Bwaaah.
I think he has a little "tweaking" to do on his glorious new metric.

Im sure people told Bill James the same thing and the majority of GM's and assistant GM's in the early 2000's.
 

Crystallas

Three if by air
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
19,890
Liked Posts:
9,618
Location:
Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
Deserved Run Average, because you deserve it! Next will be CPBRA! Could possibly be run average. Then a few years after that, it will be BMTYOSSRA, the stat that decides all Cy Young awards. Because my two year old said so run average.

Still like to hear how this factors in often used strategies for double plays and managers field adjustments out of the players hand.

It's one of those stats that will get thrown in the back of splits and scouting sheets, and only come in play when teams justify keeping shitty players because the management likes them.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
507
Im sure people told Bill James the same thing and the majority of GM's and assistant GM's in the early 2000's.

You really think Pedro Strop was the 13th best pitcher in all of baseball?

For my money, the stat tries to count TOO much. For example it tries to evaluate the manager, the catcher, the weather, etc and when a pitcher is on the mound, how often is he thinking of those things? Unless it's extreme, I don't think that players are thinking or evaluating those things.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,672
Liked Posts:
9,485
You really think Pedro Strop was the 13th best pitcher in all of baseball?

For my money, the stat tries to count TOO much. For example it tries to evaluate the manager, the catcher, the weather, etc and when a pitcher is on the mound, how often is he thinking of those things? Unless it's extreme, I don't think that players are thinking or evaluating those things.

Thank you for a specific example. I know data does not level out over time. You had great analytical breakdown on why it does not work based on the data sufficed. There was a reason there was a ? in the title. To dismiss a game that has changed so much in evaluation over just the past decade could never possible have a new metric that could prove viable for the future. Im sure this author on a major sports new network just wanted clicks with an article that few would care to understand.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
I personally have difficulty believing in something that has so many moving parts. I tend to find simpler to be better. It really doesn't help that it's proprietary which means it's a black box and you don't really know how it works. That's not to say it doesn't have some value. I think the best way to use statistics is never to use 1 catch all but instead look at what their data suggests. There's a rather famous phenomena where you can have individuals guess at say the number of marbles in a jar or the weight of something. However accurate one individual may be, more often than not, if you take a large sample of people and use them instead to average their guesses you'll usually find that guess is more accurate than any one person. Obviously any model tries it's best to model what's happening but there's almost always going to be flaws. Using multiple aspects allows you to use the wisdom of them all.

I will say this though, the system seems to be overrating Arizona pitchers for some reason. Robbie Ray is #44, Brad Ziegler was #46, Rubby De La Rosa was #47, Zachary Godley was #81, and Zack Greinke was #90. Those examples strike me as fairly odd.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
I will say this though, the system seems to be overrating Arizona pitchers for some reason. Robbie Ray is #44, Brad Ziegler was #46, Rubby De La Rosa was #47, Zachary Godley was #81, and Zack Greinke was #90. Those examples strike me as fairly odd.

I have not done a deep dive into the data on this, but it seems to me that Arizona fudges with the system. Players there tend to rate higher in defensive metrics then when they play for other teams. My guess is that the tools used to gather the data in some ballparks are more accurate (honest) than others.

I think we are still years away from really good single number quantification of players impact. Without a doubt we have seen people try to come up with new stats in the past that did not take. We also have seen different groups uses different equations for things like WAR.

I know for a fact that there are some advanced basketball stats that are complete garbage. All of the Hollinger stats are crap. They use a normalizer, and when you replace the normalization with the actual numbers you get really wonky stats outputs. Baseball seems to be the furthest ahead in advanced stats, by a great distance. My guess is baseball will be the first sport to come up with a single number to rante a players value accurately. I am not sure this will be the one to do it though.

This new stat does not give us any insight into its calculation. I don't like that at all. I suspect two years from now we will have a better idea how accurate this data is and if this data took. Team now are looking for an advantage and if this stat has value, it will be used in decision making.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
DRA - the stat that should have remained in the creator's brain.
 

Top