Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 129 of 129
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/89...placement-stat

    So home runs are valuable but RBI's aren't? But HR's contribute RBI's?

    But which WAR do you use? there's more than 1 WAR rating, whose to say one is better than the other?

    How many versions of woba, wrc+, wpa are there?

    What about FIP, xfip, siera, wpa gb% and swstr%? - who says they're accurate, and whose version is the right one?

    I'll point out at this juncture that one of your 'clan' told me last year that the standings didn't tell you how good or bad a team was...

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    55,326
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly View Post
    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/89...placement-stat

    So home runs are valuable but RBI's aren't? But HR's contribute RBI's?

    But which WAR do you use? there's more than 1 WAR rating, whose to say one is better than the other?

    How many versions of woba, wrc+, wpa are there?

    What about FIP, xfip, siera, wpa gb% and swstr%? - who says they're accurate, and whose version is the right one?

    I'll point out at this juncture that one of your 'clan' told me last year that the standings didn't tell you how good or bad a team was...
    Yeah, Soriano had 46 HR in 2006 but only 96 RBI. Why? He batted lead-off. Are those 46 HR any less valuable?

    I think fangraphs WAR is better(fWAR) for hitters because it factors more things in and does it better than Baseball reference.

    There is only one version of those stats. They are accurate and make sense in how they are calculated. You should read up on them and decide if you want to use then on Fangraphs.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    31,022
    vCash
    1500
    Traditional stats are just as valid a part of the baseball conversation as sabers. It's all about how you put it into context. Jomota nailed it when he said sometimes, you just don't need to dig so deep into the hows and whys when you're talking baseball. Traditional stats are the whats. Sabers are the hows and whys.

    A guy hits .300 it's good. A guy hits 20 or more homers its good. A guy hits 90 or more RBI. Good. Now, many of us at that point would leave it at that and go about our busy lives, head to our jobs, pay the bills, fight with our wives, girlfriends, whatever.

    But some of us want to do a little exploring. And that's fine too. You want to delve deeper into whether that .300 BA was really good, fine. And it's true, sometimes a .300 BA is misleading.

    But not always. So we don't always need Saber to further explain things. Sometimes its nice though.

    The problem is when Saber becomes the first reference of conversation. It's just not necessary. To use a simile, starting a baseball conversation with Saber instead of traditional numbers would be like a doctor first examining your heart with an X-Ray machine instead of a stethoscope.
    "Mr. Martin Tanner, Baritone, of Dayton, Ohio made his Town Hall debut last night. He came well prepared, but unfortunately his presentation was not up to contemporary professional standards. His voice lacks the range of tonal color necessary to make it consistently interesting. Full time consideration of another endeavor might be in order."

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    55,326
    vCash
    1500
    Player A: .300/.330/.380
    Player B: .230/.280/.380 20 HR 90 RBI

    Both of those players aren't good unless they play exceptional defense at a premium position.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    Traditional stats are just as valid a part of the baseball conversation as sabers. It's all about how you put it into context. Jomota nailed it when he said sometimes, you just don't need to dig so deep into the hows and whys when you're talking baseball. Traditional stats are the whats. Sabers are the hows and whys.

    A guy hits .300 it's good. A guy hits 20 or more homers its good. A guy hits 90 or more RBI. Good. Now, many of us at that point would leave it at that and go about our busy lives, head to our jobs, pay the bills, fight with our wives, girlfriends, whatever.

    But some of us want to do a little exploring. And that's fine too. You want to delve deeper into whether that .300 BA was really good, fine. And it's true, sometimes a .300 BA is misleading.

    But not always. So we don't always need Saber to further explain things. Sometimes its nice though.

    The problem is when Saber becomes the first reference of conversation. It's just not necessary. To use a simile, starting a baseball conversation with Saber instead of traditional numbers would be like a doctor first examining your heart with an X-Ray machine instead of a stethoscope.

    This is exactly what I think. It's overdone. And calling trad stats useless is ridiculous. They're what the game is made up of.

    I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say 'Ya know what? the Mets need to increase their xfipa rating or we're not going to turn this round'.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungStuna28 View Post
    Player A: .300/.330/.380
    Player B: .230/.280/.380 20 HR 90 RBI

    Both of those players aren't good unless they play exceptional defense at a premium position.

    What if they steal 40 bags? What if they're a veteran leader?

    Ray Lewis was years past his best, yet they would not have won without him, they would not even be there without him - stats can't measure that.

    See, your approach is as limited and inaccurate as you think other people's is, this is the trouble with sabr freaks, they use numbers to bludgeon opposition to death with, WAR being the dullest and dumbest tool of all.

    So and so is no good because chrtteuyv+ plus says so...

    Look at Jason Bay, according the adv stats he was an awful defender, was he? far from it....


    People have stopped using their eyes and common sense, they have closed their ears about anything that's not number related, and have withdrawn to spreadsheets.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    29,344
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    Traditional stats are just as valid a part of the baseball conversation as sabers. It's all about how you put it into context. Jomota nailed it when he said sometimes, you just don't need to dig so deep into the hows and whys when you're talking baseball. Traditional stats are the whats. Sabers are the hows and whys.

    A guy hits .300 it's good. A guy hits 20 or more homers its good. A guy hits 90 or more RBI. Good. Now, many of us at that point would leave it at that and go about our busy lives, head to our jobs, pay the bills, fight with our wives, girlfriends, whatever.

    But some of us want to do a little exploring. And that's fine too. You want to delve deeper into whether that .300 BA was really good, fine. And it's true, sometimes a .300 BA is misleading.

    But not always. So we don't always need Saber to further explain things. Sometimes its nice though.

    The problem is when Saber becomes the first reference of conversation. It's just not necessary. To use a simile, starting a baseball conversation with Saber instead of traditional numbers would be like a doctor first examining your heart with an X-Ray machine instead of a stethoscope.
    Or telling time with Cell Phone instead of a sun dial.


    "You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    29,344
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    Traditional stats are just as valid a part of the baseball conversation as sabers. It's all about how you put it into context. Jomota nailed it when he said sometimes, you just don't need to dig so deep into the hows and whys when you're talking baseball. Traditional stats are the whats. Sabers are the hows and whys.

    A guy hits .300 it's good. A guy hits 20 or more homers its good. A guy hits 90 or more RBI. Good. Now, many of us at that point would leave it at that and go about our busy lives, head to our jobs, pay the bills, fight with our wives, girlfriends, whatever.

    But some of us want to do a little exploring. And that's fine too. You want to delve deeper into whether that .300 BA was really good, fine. And it's true, sometimes a .300 BA is misleading.

    But not always. So we don't always need Saber to further explain things. Sometimes its nice though.

    The problem is when Saber becomes the first reference of conversation. It's just not necessary. To use a simile, starting a baseball conversation with Saber instead of traditional numbers would be like a doctor first examining your heart with an X-Ray machine instead of a stethoscope.
    RBI is not a good indicator whether a player is good or not. This isn't about using advanced stats or not. It's a crude stat to describe if a player is clutch, and it's not god at that.


    "You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    55,326
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly View Post
    What if they steal 40 bags? What if they're a veteran leader?

    Ray Lewis was years past his best, yet they would not have won without him, they would not even be there without him - stats can't measure that.

    See, your approach is as limited and inaccurate as you think other people's is, this is the trouble with sabr freaks, they use numbers to bludgeon opposition to death with, WAR being the dullest and dumbest tool of all.

    So and so is no good because chrtteuyv+ plus says so...

    Look at Jason Bay, according the adv stats he was an awful defender, was he? far from it....


    People have stopped using their eyes and common sense, they have closed their ears about anything that's not number related, and have withdrawn to spreadsheets.
    If judging players accordingly makes me a sabr freak, then so be it. Petty insults don't bother me.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •