WSCR Rumor?

[JockJones]

So, what's the word on us getting a prominent AL pitcher? That is what this thread was started to discuss, wasn't it?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

so where are we at with this rumor?

[rocket]

so where are we at with this rumor?

 

from my understanding jim's narrowing down the list of pitchers to obtain based on ld% after men are on base.

[WilcoFan]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

I 100% agree

[CUBZ99]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

I 100% agree

 

+1

[Guest]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

If I haven't already said so, welcome to NSBB. 8-)

[OleMissCub]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

http://www.gifflix.com/data/thumbnails/15/mdowned.gif

[muntjack]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

Did you say "Harrelsonian"?

[abuck1220]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

except there is empirical evidence showing that prior does not collapse when runners get on base. cuse's opinion was refuted statistically.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

again, his position was refuted with statistics.

[abuck1220]

high schools pitchers have about zero in common with major league pitchers. come on.

 

So your answer is that I don't have anything to do with them becoming MLB pitchers but again, what does your statement say? Do you still say that this statement you made is true?

 

yeah. 99.9% of high school pitchers have nothing in common with MLB pitchers.

 

Where did you get these numbers?

 

Sounds optimistic to say that 1 out of 1000 high school pitchers make the majors.

 

That's a different stat. I have that they are male, pitchers and play baseball. I think that alone should count for more than nothing.

 

well, i don't. the difference between some 17 year old boy who pitches after math class and a 30 year old professional athlete is immense.

 

it doesn't matter anyway. you're entitled to your opinion. if you think your experience as a high school baseball coach gives you some kind of insight into the psyche of a professional athlete, you're entitled to think that. i'm just not buying it. and so far this insight hasn't helped you much since your theory about prior was pretty obviously proven incorrect.

[NCCubFan]

This thread should be renamed the Energizer Battery thread. It keeps on going, and going, and going.....

http://www.energizer.com/_layouts/Energizer/images/backend/common/footer_keep_going.jpg

[Backtobanks]

This thread should be renamed the Energizer Battery thread. It keeps on going, and going, and going.....

http://www.energizer.com/_layouts/Energizer/images/backend/common/footer_keep_going.jpg

 

And it should have ended when it got off the topic, which was about 13 pages ago.

[C.C.]

Three words: Beaten to death.

[WilcoFan]

.

If I haven't already said so, welcome to NSBB. 8-)

 

Thanks for the welcome. Been lurking for at least a year; might as well contribute a little bit.

[WilcoFan]

 

Did you say "Harrelsonian"?

 

Yep. I think I'll copyright that one.

[WilcoFan]

 

except there is empirical evidence showing that prior does not collapse when runners get on base. cuse's opinion was refuted statistically.

 

But "runners on base" is different from "pressure situations." Its all based upon a qualitative statement ("pressure situations"). Since virtually everyone has a different interpretation of what "pressure situations" implies, its simply an argument based on everyone's opinion. There's virtually no way to disprove this particular qualitative statement.

 

 

BTW-this is NOT to say that about 95% of all baseball statements should be treated quantitatively. This just happens to be a very unique case.

[USSoccer]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

I 100% agree

 

That's not even close to what was happening. Cuse was basing his extreme dislike of Prior in part on his opinion that Prior was not mentally tough when under pressure. After proving this wrong both statistically and logically, the argument took a turn towards Kakfaesque.

 

I really love it when people try and group people into little liques like "stat-heads" and such. NSBB is a bit more complex than the old "Us v Them" thing.

[RynoRules]

I'm kind of amazed that so many who criticize people like Hawk Harrelson for being ridiculously close-minded turn around and act equally close-minded when anyone dares to give an opinion that cannot necessarily be quantified statistically, even if the criteria for that opinion is one that simply cannot be refuted statistically. To paraphrase myself from another thread, I think Godel's theorem works well here: the lack of empirical evidence supporting a theory does not automatically prove the theory false. People here seem to be forgetting that.

 

What's more disturbing is the level of condescension throw his way. Regardless of what you think of Cuse's initial argument, the condescending attitude from SOME regarding its validity is utterly Harrelsonian. Its almost if some are so frustrated by the fact that there is a limitation to their statistics (as there are to all statistical arguments) that they feel the need to overcompensate by acting as if the argument is so ridiculous that they just need to make fun of it.

 

I think people need to simply accept that they cannot refute his argument using statistics, and as such, the argument has as much validity as any other observation related to our position as fans (assuming, of course, the admitted level of distance we have from the players), and that acting as if ANY observed phenomenon that doesn't jive with your own preconceived notion of a player's state of mind is somehow stupid (which is clearly what is being implied by SOME posts) is really, really petty.

 

I 100% agree

 

That's not even close to what was happening. Cuse was basing his extreme dislike of Prior in part on his opinion that Prior was not mentally tough when under pressure. After proving this wrong both statistically and logically, the argument took a turn towards Kakfaesque.

 

I really love it when people try and group people into little liques like "stat-heads" and such. NSBB is a bit more complex than the old "Us v Them" thing.

 

Prove it. :wink:

[minnesotacubsfan]

I really love it when people try and group people into little liques like "stat-heads" and such. NSBB is a bit more complex than the old "Us v Them" thing.

 

yea, I think the vast majority of NSBB (as in posters) are quite abit more complex. But I do think there is a very interesting and lively converstation on stats-based analysis vs perceived or observed analysis. I dont have an answer for every situation, as I think there are very unique instances. I do think experience can qualify a person, although verifing that experience on a message board may be hard to do. I do think the whole converation worth discussing. I just think we need find a way to have that conversation in a level-headed kind of way. I dont think that happens alot of the time.

 

Maybe a suggestion for the board in general, a sticky thread or sub-forum for that? I would love to participate.

[CubColtPacer]

 

except there is empirical evidence showing that prior does not collapse when runners get on base. cuse's opinion was refuted statistically.

 

But "runners on base" is different from "pressure situations." Its all based upon a qualitative statement ("pressure situations"). Since virtually everyone has a different interpretation of what "pressure situations" implies, its simply an argument based on everyone's opinion. There's virtually no way to disprove this particular qualitative statement.

 

 

BTW-this is NOT to say that about 95% of all baseball statements should be treated quantitatively. This just happens to be a very unique case.

 

To be fair, I don't think cuse ever actually said pressure situations. At the same time, cuse didn't mean anytime runners get on base Prior folds (all he said to begin with was when Prior "got hit he faded", and then he clarified it to when he had been hit hard, i.e. given up 4 runs or more in a game. Nothing has been used statistically to refute that yet. Now, if someone did the legwork they could refute statistically that Prior's performance didn't suffer in those situations, but that would be a lot of work for a person to do for a small argument that in a week will mean nothing :) . The fading part is a qualitative statement that the stats can give indicators for (if he pitched well in those situations he has a greater chance that he wasn't fading at the time) but cannot prove it definitively to be wrong.

 

I also think there's been a quick rush to call an unsupported opinion as a "bad" opinion. A bad opinion is unreasonable, somthing that is incredibly unlikely given the available evidence. We know barely anything about how Prior performed after giving up 4 runs, so virtually no opinion that doesn't touch the extremes is likely to be unreasonable (for example, an extreme would be that Prior cried on the mound when he gave up several runs. We all saw that he didn't do that in those situations, so that's a bad opinion).

 

At the same time, the detractors are right that it is an unsupported opinion. Even though it's reasonable, so are a host of other opinions. Because it's an unsupported opinion, it's very unlikely that it's going to convince anyone to change to that way of thinking (it certainly hasn't changed my belief that Prior did a great job of settling down and pitching well most of the time after some early runs in games). That doesn't make it unreasonable though, not until the available evidence changes significantly.

[WilcoFan]

 

I really love it when people try and group people into little cliques like "stat-heads" and such. NSBB is a bit more complex than the old "Us v Them" thing.

 

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, I'm not really sure how I did that. I'm pretty sure I referred to "SOME (I used the caps on purpose) posts" in this thread being condescending and dismissive of the post in a manner similar to a person who (rightly) is universally loathed on the board (Harrelson). I'm not sure why you feel the need to extrapolate that out to some big "Us vs. Them" thing. I think you're reading into this a little bit too much.

 

I actually would consider myself a "stat-head," to be honest. I was making a very specific argument in relation to a very specific set of circumstances.

[WilcoFan]

 

except there is empirical evidence showing that prior does not collapse when runners get on base. cuse's opinion was refuted statistically.

 

But "runners on base" is different from "pressure situations." Its all based upon a qualitative statement ("pressure situations"). Since virtually everyone has a different interpretation of what "pressure situations" implies, its simply an argument based on everyone's opinion. There's virtually no way to disprove this particular qualitative statement.

 

 

BTW-this is NOT to say that about 95% of all baseball statements should be treated quantitatively. This just happens to be a very unique case.

 

To be fair, I don't think cuse ever actually said pressure situations. At the same time, cuse didn't mean anytime runners get on base Prior folds (all he said to begin with was when Prior "got hit he faded", and then he clarified it to when he had been hit hard, i.e. given up 4 runs or more in a game. Nothing has been used statistically to refute that yet. Now, if someone did the legwork they could refute statistically that Prior's performance didn't suffer in those situations, but that would be a lot of work for a person to do for a small argument that in a week will mean nothing :) . The fading part is a qualitative statement that the stats can give indicators for (if he pitched well in those situations he has a greater chance that he wasn't fading at the time) but cannot prove it definitively to be wrong.

 

I also think there's been a quick rush to call an unsupported opinion as a "bad" opinion. A bad opinion is unreasonable, somthing that is incredibly unlikely given the available evidence. We know barely anything about how Prior performed after giving up 4 runs, so virtually no opinion that doesn't touch the extremes is likely to be unreasonable (for example, an extreme would be that Prior cried on the mound when he gave up several runs. We all saw that he didn't do that in those situations, so that's a bad opinion).

 

At the same time, the detractors are right that it is an unsupported opinion. Even though it's reasonable, so are a host of other opinions. Because it's an unsupported opinion, it's very unlikely that it's going to convince anyone to change to that way of thinking (it certainly hasn't changed my belief that Prior did a great job of settling down and pitching well most of the time after some early runs in games). That doesn't make it unreasonable though, not until the available evidence changes significantly.

 

Well stated. I think this is fair enough.

[Sammy Sofa]

I have absolutely no idea how Hawk fits into this.

 

For one thing, I've never really heard him be "dismissive" as opposed to just simplistic and ignorant.

 

Secondly, who brought up the can of corn?

[WilcoFan]

I have absolutely no idea how Hawk fits into this.

 

For one thing, I've never really heard him be "dismissive" as opposed to just simplistic and ignorant.

 

Harrelson's attitude towards anything stat related has never been anything but dismissive-from the "Beane and all his stats would be a nothing GM without Zito, Mulder, and Hudson" quote he gave on Chicago sports radio, to "The Oakland A's won't finish within 15 games of the Angels, and there's nothing their stat-heads can do about it" comment he made later that year, I think Harrelson has distinguished himself as having a fairly condescending view of anyone who believes in any stat "other than the W."