good Fangraphs article

[ten ocho recon scout]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-best-and-worst-teams-two-months-in/

[Halos of Anaheim]

Sometimes these advanced stats just rub me the wrong way. The Angels are as good as their record tells them they are, no if's and's or but's about it.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Halos of Anaheim

[Angelsjunky]

Sometimes these advanced stats just rub me the wrong way. The Angels are as good as their record tells them they are, no if's and's or but's about it.

 

I think you miss the point of such stats. Yes, you're right - a win is a win and a loss is a loss, no matter what sabermetrics say. That said, the point of them is to project forward. The Fangraphs article implies that the Angels should continue to improve.

 

There's a lot of luck and chance in baseball - these things even out over time (thus "regression to the mean"). Obviously more is needed to win a pennant and especially a World Series, but in terms of overall performance the predictive stats work pretty well.

 

At this point I think the Angels have a good chance of making the postseason, if only a Wildcard. After the last four years I can live with that. But I'm hoping they can turn on the jets and pass the Athletics later on.

[Inside Pitch]

Remember when the Angels were 2-8 in one run games and these numbers argued that would turn around?   The Angels are currently 7-8 in one run games.

Stupid stats.

[Guest]

I think you miss the point of such stats. Yes, you're right - a win is a win and a loss is a loss, no matter what sabermetrics say. That said, the point of them is to project forward. The Fangraphs article implies that the Angels should continue to improve.

There's a lot of luck and chance in baseball - these things even out over time (thus "regression to the mean"). Obviously more is needed to win a pennant and especially a World Series, but in terms of overall performance the predictive stats work pretty well.

At this point I think the Angels have a good chance of making the postseason, if only a Wildcard. After the last four years I can live with that. But I'm hoping they can turn on the jets and pass the Athletics later on.

I actually think the talk in the saber community about "regression to the mean" is no different than the gamblers fallacy. Just because the team has suffered bad luck before doesn't mean they're necessarily due for a period of better luck to make up for it.

[Ohtaniland]

I think you miss the point of such stats. Yes, you're right - a win is a win and a loss is a loss, no matter what sabermetrics say. That said, the point of them is to project forward. The Fangraphs article implies that the Angels should continue to improve.

 

There's a lot of luck and chance in baseball - these things even out over time (thus "regression to the mean"). Obviously more is needed to win a pennant and especially a World Series, but in terms of overall performance the predictive stats work pretty well.

 

At this point I think the Angels have a good chance of making the postseason, if only a Wildcard. After the last four years I can live with that. But I'm hoping they can turn on the jets and pass the Athletics later on.

 

I like articles that say nice things about our team but they can't predict the future. I actually liked the article Jeff Fletcher wrote a month ago about our young arms but since that time our young arms have taken a dive. Fletcher was right that our young arms got us off to good start but we don't have any idea what they will be doing in August.

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/skaggs-612341-richards-angels.html

 

May numbers since that article

 

Santiago 5.73 era

Richards 4.67 era

Skaggs 4.70 era

[Blarg]

The Angels are 16-11 in May.

[Blarg]

There's a lot of luck and chance in baseball - these things even out over time (thus "regression to the mean").

 

I always wonder why saber guys are always so fatalistic that they have to look at stats long term and use regression to the mean to describe a season. What about improvement to the mean? When a team starts off slow then improves to win a division it is not an act of regression and yet that catch phrase seems to be a mantra when talking stats. It is like astronomers that want to talk about the universe and then the discussion always centers around a black hole.

[Ohtaniland]

The Angels are 16-11 in May.

 

But the three youngsters were 4-6 with a combined era of 5.03. Not the end of the world.

[Docwaukee]

I always wonder why saber guys are always so fatalistic that they have to look at stats long term and use regression to the mean to describe a season. What about improvement to the mean? When a team starts off slow then improves to win a division it is not an act of regression and yet that catch phrase seems to be a mantra when talking stats. It is like astronomers that want to talk about the universe and then the discussion always centers around a black hole.

do you like the word reversion better? 

 

Regardless, I think it's a bit presumptive to assume regression for any individual team in a given season.  Individual teams have certain variables that affect the outcome that could easily have them fall above or below the mean for extended periods of time.  It's not always accounted for by sequencing. 

 

For the Halos in particular, maybe where they should be relative to where they are is explainable.  It's also assuming similar performances going forward.  To me, this sort of analysis doesn't necessarily tell me that they are likely to eek out more wins with similar play but that they have missed an opportunity.   The regression might be that they end up with a similar number of wins with a lesser run differential.  Sorry for deflating the balloon. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I actually think the talk in the saber community about "regression to the mean" is no different than the gamblers fallacy. Just because the team has suffered bad luck before doesn't mean they're necessarily due for a period of better luck to make up for it.

 

That's not what regression to the mean "means." The expectation is not for good luck, but for the team to perform up to expectation going forward, and thus for the total to "regress towards the mean."  

[Stradling]

It's funny that when we show the stats of our three young starters it includes Santiago who hasn't started for us in weeks but it doesn't include Shoemaker who was 3-1 with a 3.5 ERA in May.

[Ohtaniland]

It's funny that when we show the stats of our three young starters it includes Santiago who hasn't started for us in weeks but it doesn't include Shoemaker who was 3-1 with a 3.5 ERA in May.

Shoemaker wasn't part of the original article because of timing but he's been pretty solid.

[ettin]

I always wonder why saber guys are always so fatalistic that they have to look at stats long term and use regression to the mean to describe a season. What about improvement to the mean? When a team starts off slow then improves to win a division it is not an act of regression and yet that catch phrase seems to be a mantra when talking stats. It is like astronomers that want to talk about the universe and then the discussion always centers around a black hole.

 

Eric, regression to the mean is a catchphrase that includes both good and bad performances. It is simply the idea that numbers will tend to revert to the mean or baseline. Your second sentence is actually a possible result of regression to the mean.

 

The Angels started off poorly and yet they have regressed back towards the mean (what their baseline average performance would normally net them in total wins and losses). The Brewers started off red hot but they are regressing back towards the mean.

 

In your astronomers analogy it would really be that a larger portion of the group would be discussing the black hole while some others are discussing the surrounding stars in the galaxy and a handful of the rest would be discussing other galaxies and the universe.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Bottom line, what the article stated, this is a good team. That doesnt mean it will last all year. But the only flaws are pitching depth and bullpen. We have two gems in the minors who can help the bullpen this year. The SP depth is obviously still a concern. It is for most teams though.

There are maybe 4 or 5 teams who are better than us right now. And the gap between isnt all that great. I het that we are all jaded after last year, but 2 months in is a decent enough sample size to sat 2013 is over.

And hamilton coming back likely ends ibanez' time here...

[Inside Pitch]

I always wonder why saber guys are always so fatalistic that they have to look at stats long term and use regression to the mean to describe a season. What about improvement to the mean? When a team starts off slow then improves to win a division it is not an act of regression and yet that catch phrase seems to be a mantra when talking stats. It is like astronomers that want to talk about the universe and then the discussion always centers around a black hole.

 

Understand the point you're making but its worth noting that saber inclined places like FGs and BBP argued the Angels would be better than most people were willing to believe.

[LBHalos17]

I knew we were the best!  Gonna frame those stats.

[dimitrig]

Bottom line, what the article stated, this is a good team. That doesnt mean it will last all year. But the only flaws are pitching depth and bullpen. We have two gems in the minors who can help the bullpen this year. The SP depth is obviously still a concern. It is for most teams though.

There are maybe 4 or 5 teams who are better than us right now. And the gap between isnt all that great. I het that we are all jaded after last year, but 2 months in is a decent enough sample size to sat 2013 is over.

And hamilton coming back likely ends ibanez' time here...

 

The only flaws are pitching depth and bullpen? LOL! Is that all?!

[ten ocho recon scout]

The only flaws are pitching depth and bullpen? LOL! Is that all?!

yes

Do you guys follow any other team?....outside of the giants and oakland, is there any team out there thats kicking our ass in the standings? What about in the numbers?....

Were still like 4th in runs scored and close to it in runs allowed....so I guess im missing it. What other flaws are you seeing? Besides youre pissed about the last two games?

[YouthofToday]

I love how some bash advanced stats without any basic understanding of statistics. Hilarious.

Every team has weaknesses. If you look at the dearth of offense in the league (Royals slugging % is impressive) I would much rather have the bullpen be the issue than offense. You can find BP answers FAR easier than bats.

[Brent Maguire]

Right on YOT.

This team can call up Bedrosian/Alvarez or trade for an arm and they fix what's been the biggest issue. This team is good, possibly great.

It's just a bummer that the best team in baseball plays in this division.

[YouthofToday]

Kudos to Beane for his success the past few years with a payroll of only $52-$82 mill a year.