Sabermetrics: Prepare to be destroyed

[Butterscup1679666578]

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it. Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

 

Pretend this part was written by FJM to Joe Morgan

 

these two words just blew my mind: "an Slightly."

 

why is an being used, and why is Slightly capitalized? possibly the most incredible two words in the history of internet forums.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Butterscup

[imb]

i'm guessing iphone

[Butterscup1679666578]

i'm guessing iphone

 

dont give him a technology pass.

[mookie]

i wonder if the book talks about the bees in san diego or where ever. remember the BEES!?!?!? i don't because i was looking up the day/night splits of aaron miles.

[sneakypower]

ahhh no, not the bees

[Sammy Sofa]

They're defending themselves somehow.

[Tarver]

Bill James would've gotten away with it to, if it hadn't been for those snooping kids and their damn bird.

[Guest]

Perhaps reading something with an Slightly open mind might be better than simply making fun of something without even knowing anything about it. Its ridiculous to completely discredit something without even reading it.

 

Pretend this part was written by FJM to Joe Morgan

 

these two words just blew my mind: "an Slightly."

 

why is an being used, and why is Slightly capitalized? possibly the most incredible two words in the history of internet forums.

 

Doesn't even crack HCCF's top-50.

[Guest]

While one probably shouldn't cast judgment on something they have never read, it's probably not a good idea to defend it either. You have no idea what you are defending.

[davearm2]

While one probably shouldn't cast judgment on something they have never read, it's probably not a good idea to defend it either. You have no idea what you are defending.

Which is precisely why I haven't defended the book. It quite possibly could be a big huge pile of nonsensical baloney.

[davearm2]

You're trying to paint the authors of being far too reasonable. You're also assuming that they understand Moneyball. They don't.

Haha priceless. Yes, *I'm* the one assuming things here.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, it's not our fault you can't read your own posts.

[Sammy Sofa]

And I love how this guy is acting he never judges anything before he has a chance to watch/read/listen/etc. fully. At least he came pretty close to copping to that he's only doing this because he's the book's target audience.

[Formerly Snayke]

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

Again, this is insane.

 

The book is about how sabermetrics are foiled because of random events like pigeon [expletive]. That's [expletive] stupid. You don't throw out 80 years of data and scrap player evaluations because of random events.

 

Besides, randomness has already been accounted for and it's called BABIP. For chrissakes, we've known that since Crash Davis.

[Derwood]

A book based on a flawed premise is guaranteed to be flawed.

 

And I love how when 99% of us think one way (ie the right way) and a couple disagree, that means it's just groupthink, not that the 1% is completely wrong

[Jon]

Short Hops GM: "I read about Schrodinger's Cat. Then I signed Brad Ausmus to a 30 year deal, because the future is unknowable."

 

How many fingers am I holding up? You don't know, do you? That's why math is stupid and you should just do whatever. #shorthops

 

I don't know what's going to happen in five minutes, so I'm going to liquidate my assets and jump off a bridge.

[Outshined_One]

Short Hops: baseball through the eyes of Luis Bunuel and Salvadore Dali.

[Derwood]

#BillOReilly: A guy has a .297 BABIP but hits a pigeon. You can't explain that

[flyseye]

Jut when I think that many of you perhaps didnt spend your childhood playing with your baseball cards in the attic, a thread like this comes along.

 

Here is a great idea, dont condem or defend something you know little about. Read the book. At the very least read the preface, and the table of contents. Or read a couple of proper reviews about it. Or talk to someone who has read it. Something. I am going to stick my neck out and guess that the entire book isnt about a ball hitting a bird. Jesus.

 

Advertising is designed to draw in and excite the masses.Looks like it is working very well in this case.

 

Baaa .

[davearm2]

It's conceivable that in the process you might actually learn something, or gain a new perspective.

 

Again, this is insane.

 

The book is about how sabermetrics are foiled because of random events like pigeon [expletive]. That's [expletive] stupid. You don't throw out 80 years of data and scrap player evaluations because of random events.

I'd bet an enormous sum of money that the authors are not advocating throwing out 80 years of data or scrapping player evaluations.

 

And again with the stupid bird.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, "again with the stupid bird" because the authors themselves made the stupid bird stupidity a key selling point. I don't know why you're acting like the bird isn't a big deal for the authors given how they've presented it. Do we need to quote it for you again?

 

It's [expletive] hysterical how the anti-sabermetrics crowd are trying to paint the people who see this book for being fundamentally flawed (and yes, we can tell that without reading the book. It's already been quoted ad nauseum how the authors' own summaries expose this) as being "sheep." How the hell does THAT work?

 

And I'm baffled as to why the three anti-sabermetrics posters we've seen in this thread so far (and yeah, that's what you are if you're defending this garbage so adamantly) are even here. That kind of analysis is basically why this site exists in this first place.

[Sammy Sofa]

Like does something like this...

 

how's his plate discipline developing? That's what i'm really concerned with. If he can get on base at a clip around .390+ then i won't really care about power deficiency

 

 

IMHO, the only way he's getting to .390+ OBP is if he hit .330+... I don't think he going to get like 70+ BBs consistently (might do it once or twice)... John Sickels projects him to be in the 50s consistently and a couple of 60s, which sounds about right for Castro. From looking at that crystal ball projection, Castro looks like a good bet for 55 BBs:85 Ks in his prime. I like to see the Ks to come down a little, but I'm not gonna argue with a 55:85 rate for a SS who hits .300 or so.

 

Power deficiency??? If you mean by HRs, then ok, but he's not gonna be that bad in HRs (compared to other SS). He'll be in the double digits and hopefully a couple of 20+ HRs season. I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, Castro is going to consistently hit a LOT of doubles. If he can consistently hit 35+ doubles with like 3-5+ triples, then I could care less if he hits only 12 HRs as his doubles/triples makes up for it. It's like with Fukudome in 2009, he had only 11 HRs, but he had 38 doubles and 5 triples. That was good for a IsoP of .162, which is pretty good if you ask me.

 

Castro last year had a IsoP of .108... If he can get his IsoP up to at least .120+ (Jeter career IsoP is .139 and top 2 seasons were .179/.203) and have a few .140+ seasons, then that's very good to great for a SS.

 

...just drive you insane?

[imb]

what's his FB/Pigeon death ratio? Ohhhhh, can't tell me that can you WATSON. SUCK IT.

[davearm2]

I'm not anti-sabermetrics.

 

I'm anti-acting like it's heresy to question sabermetrics.

 

I'm anti-leaping to conclusions based solely on preconceived notions.

 

Basically all you know is that this book purports to expose the flaws and shortcomings of sabermetrics. And based on that limited information alone, you condemn and mock it.

 

But yet at the same time, you are at least sensible enough to acknowledge that sabermetrics isn't perfect... i.e. it has flaws and shortcomings.

[davell]

I think that this entire premise and book seem ridiculous. So, I'm going to go WAAAAY out on a limb and say that I believe this guy did it for the probable money of opposing a book as well-read at this point as Moneyball. I don't think the guy is stupid at all. I think he wants to make some money and this is probably a pretty solid way to getting one really good payday. In fact, shame on ALL of us for not thinking about this and taking the same avenue.