Murray Chass, Baseball Dinosaur

[TruffleShuffle]

Also, in 1999 Jeter finished 6th in MVP voting, but looking at it again, I think he should have either won or placed second.

 

Nomar did just as much as Jeter in 1999 in 100 less at bats.

 

No he didn't. They drove in the same number of runs, but Jeter scored 30 more and created 16 more runs. No question that Nomar had a great year, but he wasn't healthy the whole year, and Jeter was.

 

I'd have gone:

 

Pedro

Jeter

Manny

Palmeiro

Pudge

Alomar

[Magnetic Curses]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?

 

statistics would tell you that situations are static for everyone. bad backs exist for every major league team, particular umpires call the same particular strike zones, pitchers get sore arms, hitters who sleep with 4 hookers will tend to do that a lot and either learn to live with it or lose their jobs, and as far as i can tell, it rains in every major league city.

 

that's part of understanding the game, what you're talking about is enjoyment.

[Soul]

I don't have a problem with new stats. By all means, come up with whatever statistics you want. I fail to see how that affects anyone negatively.

 

 

However, when one fan starts touting his incredible knowledge of every stat in the universe, and then uses it to declare that another person isn't as good a fan because he/she doesn't know about all of them, then that's where I draw the line. Stat snobbery is bogus.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't have a problem with new stats. By all means, come up with whatever statistics you want. I fail to see how that affects anyone negatively.

 

 

However, when one fan starts touting his incredible knowledge of every stat in the universe, and then uses it to declare that another person isn't as good a fan because he/she doesn't know about all of them, then that's where I draw the line. Stat snobbery is bogus.

 

I don't really know of people who make such claims.

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't have a problem with new stats. By all means, come up with whatever statistics you want. I fail to see how that affects anyone negatively.

 

 

However, when one fan starts touting his incredible knowledge of every stat in the universe, and then uses it to declare that another person isn't as good a fan because he/she doesn't know about all of them, then that's where I draw the line. Stat snobbery is bogus.

 

i think "stat snobbery" is largely imagined. most of the people that i know who understand sabermetrics far better than i do are pretty down to earth people.

[CuseCubFan69]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?

 

statistics would tell you that situations are static for everyone. bad backs exist for every major league team, umpires call the same strike zones, pitchers get sore arms, hitters who sleep with 4 hookers will tend to do that a lot and either learn to live with it or lose their jobs, and as far as i can tell, it rains in every major league city.

 

that's part of understanding the game, what you're talking about is enjoyment.

 

I disagree. Enjoying the game is the smell of the park and taste of a beer while listening to the PA announcing Wood is on the mound in the 9th.

 

See, you're talking about the percentages and what will probably happen that day. Are you telling me that being in Chicago in April is the same as being in Florida in April?

 

It doesn't rain the same amount in each city.

[Magnetic Curses]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?

 

statistics would tell you that situations are static for everyone. bad backs exist for every major league team, umpires call the same strike zones, pitchers get sore arms, hitters who sleep with 4 hookers will tend to do that a lot and either learn to live with it or lose their jobs, and as far as i can tell, it rains in every major league city.

 

that's part of understanding the game, what you're talking about is enjoyment.

 

I disagree. Enjoying the game is the smell of the park and taste of a beer while listening to the PA announcing Wood is on the mound in the 9th.

 

See, you're talking about the percentages and what will probably happen that day. Are you telling me that being in Chicago in April is the same as being in Florida in April?

 

It doesn't rain the same amount in each city.

 

1. most of the cities where it rains more often have domes.

 

2. situations will even out. while a hitter has to bat in cold weather in chicago in april, a pitcher also has to pitch there.

 

3. this is exactly what i'm talking about, a season is 162 games, 1 game isn't even part of a snapshot of a season.

[CuseCubFan69]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?

 

statistics would tell you that situations are static for everyone. bad backs exist for every major league team, umpires call the same strike zones, pitchers get sore arms, hitters who sleep with 4 hookers will tend to do that a lot and either learn to live with it or lose their jobs, and as far as i can tell, it rains in every major league city.

 

that's part of understanding the game, what you're talking about is enjoyment.

 

I disagree. Enjoying the game is the smell of the park and taste of a beer while listening to the PA announcing Wood is on the mound in the 9th.

 

See, you're talking about the percentages and what will probably happen that day. Are you telling me that being in Chicago in April is the same as being in Florida in April?

 

It doesn't rain the same amount in each city.

 

1. most of the cities where it rains more often have domes.

 

2. situations will even out. while a hitter has to bat in cold weather in chicago in april, a pitcher also has to pitch there.

 

3. this is exactly what i'm talking about, a season is 162 games, 1 game isn't even part of a snapshot of a season.

 

So by your theory the teams with the best record play in the WS and the team with the best record wins?

[Magnetic Curses]

Meaningless details? I disagree that the game has those. I love the little nuances that the game brings that numbers do not even come close to seeing.

 

okay, i was using hyperbole there. but you get the idea. and i disagree that numbers cannot catch nuance. in fact, the title of the book i quoted pretty much captures the point i'm trying to make. baseball must be looked at in perspective--the perspective of a 162 game season. numbers catch the invisibility of what actually is going on.

 

So a number can tell me that an ump just called a ball when it was a strike? It can tell me the pitchers arm is sore? A hitter has a bad back? The SS slept with 4 hookers the night before and is exhausted and couldn't get to a slow roller up the middle? It's raining and the ball and field are wet?

 

statistics would tell you that situations are static for everyone. bad backs exist for every major league team, umpires call the same strike zones, pitchers get sore arms, hitters who sleep with 4 hookers will tend to do that a lot and either learn to live with it or lose their jobs, and as far as i can tell, it rains in every major league city.

 

that's part of understanding the game, what you're talking about is enjoyment.

 

I disagree. Enjoying the game is the smell of the park and taste of a beer while listening to the PA announcing Wood is on the mound in the 9th.

 

See, you're talking about the percentages and what will probably happen that day. Are you telling me that being in Chicago in April is the same as being in Florida in April?

 

It doesn't rain the same amount in each city.

 

1. most of the cities where it rains more often have domes.

 

2. situations will even out. while a hitter has to bat in cold weather in chicago in april, a pitcher also has to pitch there.

 

3. this is exactly what i'm talking about, a season is 162 games, 1 game isn't even part of a snapshot of a season.

 

So by your theory the teams with the best record play in the WS and the team with the best record wins?

 

i don't see the logic behind your assertion. show me.

[CuseCubFan69]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

[rocket]

if football announcers can constantly mention qb rating, there's no reason for baseball announcers not to mention eqa and vorp.

[Magnetic Curses]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

[goonys evil twin]

if football announcers can constantly mention qb rating, there's no reason for baseball announcers not to mention eqa and vorp.

 

The key is explaining. Throw up top ten lists and compare the players. There's plenty of time to show graphics that would help people understand previously unheard of stats. A QB rating means nothing unless you see them repeatedly and realize what the better QBs would have. Likewise, if you never heard of OBP you might think a .315 OBP is good, because you think a .315 AVG is good. The first time you see an OPS, you have no idea whether 750 is good or bad. But if people keep showing it, and giving examples of good, bad or average, others will learn.

 

 

What's not helpful is whiny coots telling people there's no place in baseball for these stats.

[CuseCubFan69]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

If you don't like that, say the Cubs and Cards are tied for first going into the last game of the season. The Cards are playing the Pirates who have the worst record in baseball. The Cubs are playing the Phillies who have the best record. The Cubs win and the Cards lose. Why? your stats told me that the percentages would be the other way around.

 

sully, I just don't see how you can look at numbers as being absolutes like you do. Yes, they help and give you the best possible of chance of something happening but one of the beauty things of sports is that other factors can happen. A bad call. Remember that call by the ump in the playoffs last year with that fathom strike 3? Did a stat tell me that was going to happen then?

[Soul]

if football announcers can constantly mention qb rating, there's no reason for baseball announcers not to mention eqa and vorp.

 

The key is explaining. Throw up top ten lists and compare the players. There's plenty of time to show graphics that would help people understand previously unheard of stats. A QB rating means nothing unless you see them repeatedly and realize what the better QBs would have. Likewise, if you never heard of OBP you might think a .315 OBP is good, because you think a .315 AVG is good. The first time you see an OPS, you have no idea whether 750 is good or bad. But if people keep showing it, and giving examples of good, bad or average, others will learn.

 

 

What's not helpful is whiny coots telling people there's no place in baseball for these stats.

 

I can't disagree. Why would anyone want to simply exclude something from all discussion? Even if it's a stat someone came up with that ultimately proved to be of little value, at least talk about it and come to that conclusion before simply lopping it off at the head.

[goonys evil twin]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

[Magnetic Curses]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

If you don't like that, say the Cubs and Cards are tied for first going into the last game of the season. The Cards are playing the Pirates who have the worst record in baseball. The Cubs are playing the Phillies who have the best record. The Cubs win and the Cards lose. Why? your stats told me that the percentages would be the other way around.

 

sully, I just don't see how you can look at numbers as being absolutes like you do. Yes, they help and give you the best possible of chance of something happening but one of the beauty things of sports is that other factors can happen. A bad call. Remember that call by the ump in the playoffs last year with that fathom strike 3? Did a stat tell me that was going to happen then?

 

someone who understands stats also understands that luck is a huge part of the game. over 162 games, the luck will, most of the time, even out. over a 7 game series, it usually doesn't and while the better team has an advantage, the advantage become much smaller.

 

stats do not tell you who will win every game, which is why you have bad teams beating good teams. numbers are not absolute from game to game, but the best teams generally stand tall at the end of the regular season.

 

it's a huge victory for statheads that the cardinals won the series last year, it proves that a 7 game playoff system is a virtual crapshoot in which luck doesn't have the time to even out, if you will.

[CuseCubFan69]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

 

What's the difference between best chance and should?

[Magnetic Curses]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

 

What's the difference between best chance and should?

 

the way you're using "should" implies the absolute.

[CuseCubFan69]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

 

What's the difference between best chance and should?

 

the way you're using "should" implies the absolute.

 

Should isn't an absolute, even in that statement.

[Magnetic Curses]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

 

What's the difference between best chance and should?

 

the way you're using "should" implies the absolute.

 

Should isn't an absolute, even in that statement.

 

look and answer my last post to you in the discussion we were having.

 

and, btw, you were using "should" as a synonym for "will".

[CuseCubFan69]

sully....you just said that one game doesn't show you a season. I went over the whole 162, wouldn't that by your terms, show me who would win the WS?

 

no, because none of those 162 games are playoff games.

 

But aren't the percentages for the team with the best record say they should win?

 

What? The percentages say which team has the best chance to win, not who "should".

 

What's the difference between best chance and should?

 

the way you're using "should" implies the absolute.

 

Should isn't an absolute, even in that statement.

 

look and answer my last post to you in the discussion we were having.

 

and, btw, you were using "should" as a synonym for "will".

 

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

[goonys evil twin]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

[Magnetic Curses]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

the last longer one.

[CuseCubFan69]

Then replace it with best chance then. And...answer what last post?

 

Yes, they show you who has the best chance, but not who will win.

 

Ok...now is it always right? No. It gives you the best chance and that's it.

 

Now, for what we were talking about earlier the variables that happen during a game that are not measured by numbers. A pitcher that is a starter his whole career and struggles late and is an alcoholic. He stops drinking gets traded and is one of the greatest closers of all time. What stat told me this was going to happen?