WSCR Rumor?

[USSoccer]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

I honestly thought this was settled like 4 pages back. How can this still be debated?

 

You cannot quantify this. You might as well spend your time hunting leprechauns. You can't make a physchological hypothesis based on solely observable behavior and then demand statistical data to refute what basically comes down to an uneducated, underinformed opinion.

[imb]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

I honestly thought this was settled like 4 pages back. How can this still be debated?

 

You cannot quantify this. You might as well spend your time hunting leprechauns. You can't make a physchological hypothesis based on solely observable behavior and then demand statistical data to refute what basically comes down to an uneducated, underinformed opinion.

 

That's what's so laughable about the whole thing. They know there's no way to put that into a statistic. It's that they think it somehow validates their argument is what is so insane.

[ctcf]

Are people really saying they can tell what Prior felt and thought via watching him on tv?

[snoodmonger]

Are people really saying they can tell what Prior felt and thought via watching him on tv?

 

 

HD must be way more high-tech than I thought.

[USSoccer]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

I honestly thought this was settled like 4 pages back. How can this still be debated?

 

You cannot quantify this. You might as well spend your time hunting leprechauns. You can't make a physchological hypothesis based on solely observable behavior and then demand statistical data to refute what basically comes down to an uneducated, underinformed opinion.

 

That's what's so laughable about the whole thing. They know there's no way to put that into a statistic. It's that they think it somehow validates their argument is what is so insane.

 

See, but I even called it a circular argument like yesterday afternoon or something, and it was like "no, no, it makes perfect sense".

 

It's the bloody definition of a circular argument, or some crazy extistential thought wank. It's like if you can't prove it wrong metrically, then it must be right, which is absolutely insane, considering no evidence other than opinion is being offered. It's like the anti-scientific method.

[imb]

The best part is that they're so confused by their own argument that they don't even know what they're arguing anymore. It's fascinating to watch.

[snoodmonger]

Keep in mind, we can't just provide Prior's "Lost Confidence in Himself" Stats. We also need to provide the league average in losing self-confidence, because what's important here is the question "Is Prior mentally weak?" To answer that, we need a baseline number for mental strength.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

this is the thread that just keeps on giving...

[Rob]

The best part is that they're so confused by their own argument that they don't even know what they're arguing anymore. It's fascinating to watch.

 

I'm just having trouble keeping up with who is joking and who isn't.

[USSoccer]

Keep in mind, we can't just provide Prior's "Lost Confidence in Himself" Stats. We also need to provide the league average in losing self-confidence, because what's important here is the question "Is Prior mentally weak?" To answer that, we need a baseline number for mental strength.

 

Will this be a companion stat to G.R.I.T.F.actor?

[OleMissCub]

I'm still not even sure what the heck is going on. Can someone summarize what this debate is all about? I only originally commented because I wanted to know what LD% was.

[snoodmonger]

I'm still not even sure what the heck is going on. Can someone summarize what this debate is all about? I only originally commented because I wanted to know what LD% was.

 

Sure. While traveling through the unpopulated countryside of Estonia, Cuse stumbled upon a pair of x-ray glasses that allow him to peer into Mark Prior's soul. This has helped him determine that Prior is soft and loses confidence under adverse conditions at an abnormal rate.

 

The rest of us, of course, have no way of knowing this, because the Trilok (the alien race that made the aforementioned glasses) made only one pair, which only Cuse has access to.

[UK1679666180]

The odd thing for me is that I don't even know if anyone has agreed or disagreed with me, or just wants me to be quiet.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

[SouthSideRyan]

Prior may pitch better with me on base, but.....

 

how did they get there?

 

think about it

 

To me, prior was always too much of a nibbler for a guy with his stuff.

 

That suggests a certain mental makeup. A certain lack of confidence, or killer instinct.

 

Good pitchers challenge you, but make you swing at their pitches at their count.

 

If this is true then Carlos Zambrano is really unconfident(definitely not a word), and has negative killer instinct.

[David]

This thread is hilarious. I wish I could say the things I think about some of the things that have been said and the people that said them, but I'd probably be yanred for it.

[David]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

 

 

Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

 

 

Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless.

 

facts was not the word used.

 

it was stats.

[minnesotacubsfan]

This thread is hilarious. I wish I could say the things I think about some of the things that have been said and the people that said them, but I'd probably be yanred for it.

 

 

it quite fine. i feel the same way.

 

say, on my way to work I drive by a street called "Davern". I have to laugh, especially the whole Davhern/daveharm thing here on NSBB..

[David]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

 

 

Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless.

 

facts was not the word used.

 

it was stats.

 

Cuse was the one who asked everyone else to find stats (stats that are probably impossible to get) for him to back up his claim.

 

On top of it, unless I've missed something, he has yet to provide one piece of support for his argument, other than that it's his opinion.

 

Maybe I could actually be swayed to buy into it (doubt it, but maybe) if there was any sort of support.

[David]

This thread is hilarious. I wish I could say the things I think about some of the things that have been said and the people that said them, but I'd probably be yanred for it.

 

 

it quite fine. i feel the same way.

 

say, on my way to work I drive by a street called "Davern". I have to laugh, especially the whole Davhern/daveharm thing here on NSBB..

 

 

lol

[imb]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

 

 

Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless.

 

facts was not the word used.

 

it was stats.

 

Cuse was the one who asked everyone else to find stats (stats that are probably impossible to get) for him to back up his claim.

 

On top of it, unless I've missed something, he has yet to provide one piece of support for his argument, other than that it's his opinion.

 

Maybe I could actually be swayed to buy into it (doubt it, but maybe) if there was any sort of support.

 

The part that got me was that even if someone got those stats for him, what's the point? We don't know his normal LD% allowed, we don't know the league's and we don't know anyone's after they've allowed four runs (which is stupidly arbitrary, anyway). Stats are useless unless you have something to compare them to.

 

Not to mention, he wouldn't even know what the stats meant had someone gotten them for him. Just bizarre.

[David]

Yea, I've definitely gotten a kick out of this... Epic thread.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Just so I can get this straight in my head, you guys are asking for stats that you know cannot possibly exist in a way to validate your theory that you can read Mark Prior's mental makeup from seeing him pitch on tv 30 times?

 

no, I am simply pointing out that if you base all your opinoins on stats, and keep saying that those types of opinoins are the only ones that can be made, you cannot have an opinoin (or at least one that has any meat to it) on an issue that has no stats to validate or deny it.

 

it really has nothing to do with Mark Prior. I am just pointing out what i find to be troubling with the whole stats analytical or else arguement.

 

I really dont think its that crazy to understand. but mayne OMC was right

 

 

Facts, not stats. An opinion that isn't based to any extent on facts and rational logic is worthless.

 

facts was not the word used.

 

it was stats.

 

Cuse was the one who asked everyone else to find stats (stats that are probably impossible to get) for him to back up his claim.

 

On top of it, unless I've missed something, he has yet to provide one piece of support for his argument, other than that it's his opinion.

 

Maybe I could actually be swayed to buy into it (doubt it, but maybe) if there was any sort of support.

 

part of this whole thing was me wrapping my head around the sabermetric arguement. I am not really trying to sway anyone, more thinking this through "with a lil help from my friends".

 

but abuck asserted the idea that unless your opinion is based on stats, it isnt worth the time or effort to put forth. I dont deny Cuse's arguement against Prior was unjustified, and even taht he was wrong on Prior. Hell, like the majority here, I think they really shold have tried to get Prior back, and I will miss him. but, if you look back, none of that is what I was arguing for. just the stats and opinoins part.

 

I think there is more to baseball then stats tell. the more I see the saber-arguement, the more I believe this.

[Guancous]

I'm still not even sure what the heck is going on. Can someone summarize what this debate is all about? I only originally commented because I wanted to know what LD% was.

 

LD% = Line drive percentage. This somehow spiraled to ridonkulous heights.