Sabermetrics: Prepare to be destroyed

[CubInOK]

How does this thread go a page without someone putting a quote from the synopsis in big letters?

[Sosa21MVP]

When I first joined this board I was still hung up on basic stats like batting average and I scoffed at all the sabermetric talk here but over time I have learned to repent and cleanse my heathen mind of all the old-timey baseball non-sense. :good:

 

Also I think the snarkiness of this place is part of the charm of it and quite frankly most of the people who get "bullied" usually bring it on themselves.

 

Now excuse me while I go plug myself back into the collective NSBB space brain. :hello:

[CubInOK]

You can't process this board with a normal brain.

[erik316wttn]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

 

There really is no reason to attack someone personally because you don't like their opinion. Way back when I first joined at NSBB, the #1 rule was "attack the argument, not the poster" but somewhere along the way that fell by the wayside.

 

You know, the same could be said for someone who engages in personal attacks--- if you really feel that negatively about what is said, either put the poster on ignore or find someplace else to post. That works both ways.

[erik316wttn]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things.

 

Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter.

 

Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling.

 

With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad.

 

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[erik316wttn]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things.

 

Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter.

 

Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling.

 

With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad.

 

There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show.

 

And would you care to explain exactly where he's wrong?

[javy knows my name]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

 

There really is no reason to attack someone personally because you don't like their opinion. Way back when I first joined at NSBB, the #1 rule was "attack the argument, not the poster" but somewhere along the way that fell by the wayside.

 

You know, the same could be said for someone who engages in personal attacks--- if you really feel that negatively about what is said, either put the poster on ignore or find someplace else to post. That works both ways.

 

From my vantage point, it seems that more often that not, when someone like Mojo cuts down a foolish post, he does it scathingly but without a personal attack. But the original poster gets all vulnerable and defensive, and HE tends to be the one who makes it personal.

 

Case in point - one poster offered an opinion that the majority disagreed with, and the most vocal of them hurt his feelings (without getting personal). This person lashed out and started calling people jerks and elitists and sheep and now the thread has gone to hell.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Castro's Spray Chart

[javy knows my name]

When I first joined this board I was still hung up on basic stats like batting average and I scoffed at all the sabermetric talk here but over time I have learned to repent and cleanse my heathen mind of all the old-timey baseball non-sense. :good:

 

Also I think the snarkiness of this place is part of the charm of it and quite frankly most of the people who get "bullied" usually bring it on themselves.

 

Word. In fact, a lot of that snarkiness drives away people who really had nothing of value to contribute, anyway.

[bukie]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things.

 

Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter.

 

Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling.

 

With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad.

 

There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show.

 

And would you care to explain exactly where he's wrong?

 

- Assuming many folks leap to the conclusion that the other poster is an idiot.

- Assuming they attack the poster and not the post.

- Assuming that instantly sends the thread to the gutter.

- Assuming the other side is simply "contrarians".

- Assuming the popular side "abuses" the "contrarians".

- Assuming moderators just look the other way when stuff goes on.

- Assuming when moderators join in, it's belittling.

- Assuming he knows the "solution" to the "problem" of "group think" "abusing" the "contrarians"

- Assuming Meph was very bright.

- Assuming this place is perpetually hostile for no reason.

 

Do you see how the faulty assumptions just continue to build on each other until he reaches a supposed factual conclusion based on complete nonsense?

[erik316wttn]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

 

There really is no reason to attack someone personally because you don't like their opinion. Way back when I first joined at NSBB, the #1 rule was "attack the argument, not the poster" but somewhere along the way that fell by the wayside.

 

You know, the same could be said for someone who engages in personal attacks--- if you really feel that negatively about what is said, either put the poster on ignore or find someplace else to post. That works both ways.

 

From my vantage point, it seems that more often that not, when someone like Mojo cuts down a foolish post, he does it scathingly but without a personal attack. But the original posted gets all vulnerable and defensive, and THEY tend to be the ones who make it personal.

 

Case in point - one poster offered an opinion that the majority disagreed with, and the most vocal of them hurt his feelings (without getting personal). This person lashed out and started calling people jerks and elitists and sheep and now the thread has gone to hell.

 

While I don't disagree that things like what you've stated do happen, you can't deny that a lot of times an unpopular opinion is met with either a personal attack or some sort of snide comment aimed at someone (but does not name anyone in particular) that's sort of an "under the radar" personal attack.

[davearm2]

Also I think the snarkiness of this place is part of the charm of it and quite frankly most of the people who get "bullied" usually bring it on themselves.

The bolded is a fascinating concept. Maybe I just don't get it.

 

Perhaps there's some mission statement somewhere that reads, "NSBB: a place for Cub fans to discuss baseball, run smack, and act like [expletive]."

 

Seriously. Perhaps I'm missing the point of this place, and the atmosphere I'm railing against is actually completely by design. It would explain a lot.

[erik316wttn]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things.

 

Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter.

 

Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling.

 

With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad.

 

There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show.

 

And would you care to explain exactly where he's wrong?

 

- Assuming many folks leap to the conclusion that the other poster is an idiot.

- Assuming they attack the poster and not the post.

- Assuming that instantly sends the thread to the gutter.

- Assuming the other side is simply "contrarians".

- Assuming the popular side "abuses" the "contrarians".

- Assuming moderators just look the other way when stuff goes on.

- Assuming when moderators join in, it's belittling.

- Assuming he knows the "solution" to the "problem" of "group think" "abusing" the "contrarians"

- Assuming Meph was very bright.

- Assuming this place is perpetually hostile for no reason.

 

Do you see how the faulty assumptions just continue to build on each other until he reaches a supposed factual conclusion based on complete nonsense?

 

I still don't see where he's totally wrong. While none of the things he stated are absolutes or even happen the majority of the time, there are many cases of just about every single one of those things happening.

[davearm2]

- Assuming many folks leap to the conclusion that the other poster is an idiot.

- Assuming they attack the poster and not the post.

- Assuming that instantly sends the thread to the gutter.

- Assuming the other side is simply "contrarians".

- Assuming the popular side "abuses" the "contrarians".

- Assuming moderators just look the other way when stuff goes on.

- Assuming when moderators join in, it's belittling.

- Assuming he knows the "solution" to the "problem" of "group think" "abusing" the "contrarians"

- Assuming Meph was very bright.

- Assuming this place is perpetually hostile for no reason.

 

Do you see how the faulty assumptions just continue to build on each other until he reaches a supposed factual conclusion based on complete nonsense?

Are we even talking about the same messageboard?

 

All of the above allegedly "faulty assumptions" happen with regularity here.

[javy knows my name]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

 

There really is no reason to attack someone personally because you don't like their opinion. Way back when I first joined at NSBB, the #1 rule was "attack the argument, not the poster" but somewhere along the way that fell by the wayside.

 

You know, the same could be said for someone who engages in personal attacks--- if you really feel that negatively about what is said, either put the poster on ignore or find someplace else to post. That works both ways.

 

From my vantage point, it seems that more often that not, when someone like Mojo cuts down a foolish post, he does it scathingly but without a personal attack. But the original posted gets all vulnerable and defensive, and THEY tend to be the ones who make it personal.

 

Case in point - one poster offered an opinion that the majority disagreed with, and the most vocal of them hurt his feelings (without getting personal). This person lashed out and started calling people jerks and elitists and sheep and now the thread has gone to hell.

 

While I don't disagree that things like what you've stated do happen, you can't deny that a lot of times an unpopular opinion is met with either a personal attack or some sort of snide comment aimed at someone (but does not name anyone in particular) that's sort of an "under the radar" personal attack.

 

Nope, I can't deny that. But I do believe that my scenario above happens more often than not.

[davearm2]

I think what should really be taken from this whole thing is, if you're going to espouse uninformed baseball opinions on a really progressive message board, you need to grow a thicker skin or find more like-minded people.

 

I think it's really funny when people get flamed for espousing unpopular opinions in the face of solid evidence to the contrary and then complain about the "message board bullies." If you're going to be annoying and consistently contrarian, you need to either get used to being made fun of (a la Kyle and Erik) or leave.

 

There really is no reason to attack someone personally because you don't like their opinion. Way back when I first joined at NSBB, the #1 rule was "attack the argument, not the poster" but somewhere along the way that fell by the wayside.

 

You know, the same could be said for someone who engages in personal attacks--- if you really feel that negatively about what is said, either put the poster on ignore or find someplace else to post. That works both ways.

 

From my vantage point, it seems that more often that not, when someone like Mojo cuts down a foolish post, he does it scathingly but without a personal attack. But the original posted gets all vulnerable and defensive, and THEY tend to be the ones who make it personal.

 

Case in point - one poster offered an opinion that the majority disagreed with, and the most vocal of them hurt his feelings (without getting personal). This person lashed out and started calling people jerks and elitists and sheep and now the thread has gone to hell.

 

While I don't disagree that things like what you've stated do happen, you can't deny that a lot of times an unpopular opinion is met with either a personal attack or some sort of snide comment aimed at someone (but does not name anyone in particular) that's sort of an "under the radar" personal attack.

 

Nope, I can't deny that. But I do believe that my scenario above happens more often than not.

I wouldn't guess about the more often than not part, but the defensive, reactionary attack (counterattack?) is surely a real phenomenon.

[Sosa21MVP]

When I first joined this board I was still hung up on basic stats like batting average and I scoffed at all the sabermetric talk here but over time I have learned to repent and cleanse my heathen mind of all the old-timey baseball non-sense. :good:

 

Also I think the snarkiness of this place is part of the charm of it and quite frankly most of the people who get "bullied" usually bring it on themselves.

 

Word. In fact, a lot of that snarkiness drives away people who really had nothing of value to contribute, anyway.

 

From what I recall the entire reason for creating this board was to escape the nonsense at cubs.com because I remember originally posting there with some current and former members of NSBB. And that is how I heard about NSBB to begin with. Most of the people that get run off remind me of bad cubs.com posters anyways so to me it is just this board working as intended.

[Sosa21MVP]

Also I think the snarkiness of this place is part of the charm of it and quite frankly most of the people who get "bullied" usually bring it on themselves.

The bolded is a fascinating concept. Maybe I just don't get it.

 

Perhaps there's some mission statement somewhere that reads, "NSBB: a place for Cub fans to discuss baseball, run smack, and act like [expletive]."

 

Seriously. Perhaps I'm missing the point of this place, and the atmosphere I'm railing against is actually completely by design. It would explain a lot.

 

It is part of the personality of the board. There is no denying it. And I don't think it is for everyone and well quite frankly I am glad that NSBB is not for everyone because like I just said in another post, we aren't trying to recreate cubs.com here. Now I don't think that by simply presenting a contrarian view that somebody is going to get flamed here but the problem I see is most of the people presenting those contrarian views do so with a massive chip on their shoulder and/or fail to do so intelligently. That isn't to say there is some collateral damage sometimes but oh well. No biggie. :good: You can't be easily offended or take everything too serious if you expect to post here and keep your sanity. I've learned the lesson myself. For the most part anyways. :P

[imb]

What happens is that someone is wrong and annoying once or twice, so you nicely explain why they're wrong. The 100th time they're wrong, you're sick of it so you just call them fat.

[erik316wttn]

What happens is that someone is wrong and annoying once or twice, so you nicely explain why they're wrong. The 100th time they're wrong, you're sick of it so you just call them fat.

 

Hrm... if only there were some sort of button that you could use to ignore people who you're "sick" of.

 

Nope, can't think of anything like that. Darn. Because if there were such a magical "ignore button" so to speak, people could just make the posters they don't like GO AWAY and not have to deal with it.

 

Someone should really pitch that to Tim.

[imb]

how did you even see my post

[TruffleShuffle]

how did you even see my post

 

hahahahahaha

[javy knows my name]

how did you even see my post

 

Awesome.

[erik316wttn]

how did you even see my post

 

It appeared on my screen, good sir. I do believe you're implying that a magical "ignore feature" exists. I must disagree and say that it does not, for surely if it did, one as wise and as sage as you would have surely utilized such a magical device by now.

[Sammy Sofa]

The "you ignore me but I won't ignore you" defense; almost as brilliant as the "I WANT EVERYONE TO BE NICE AFTER I [expletive] FLIP OUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE BASEBALL LIKE I DOOOOOOAAAAARRRRGGGGH!!!" defense.

[imb]

I learned my lesson after cubbiebum and redflash were B&. Every good hero (me) needs a foil.