Douche blogging against sabermetrics (it's kind of old)

[David]

http://johnnygoodtimes.com/2011/10/sabermetricians-ruining-baseball-for-the-rest-of-us/

[MWV]

An anti-SABR blog post that offers as a central point of its "thesis" the Cubs' 2003 NLCS game six collapse? Are you just scouring the internet for stuff that makes you unhappy?

[Guest]

An anti-SABR blog post that offers as a central point of its "thesis" the Cubs' 2003 NLCS game six collapse? Are you just scouring the internet for stuff that makes you unhappy?

 

Stupidity doesn't make me unhappy...it amuses me.

[MWV]

In that case, enjoy!

[Soul]

He even whips out the old photo of the internet nerd. Pulling out all the stops, he is.

[Guest]

In that case, enjoy!

 

Weren't a fan of FJM?

[Guest]

My favorite parts..

 

Yes, WHIP can be a valuable tool for understanding the value of pitchers, and OPS tells us more about a hitter than RBIs.

 

WHIP and OPS! Cutting edge sabermetrics!

 

 

But not the sabermetrics guys. After all, according to their calculations, the Cubs still had a 68% chance to win after that foul ball, wild pitch, and that error. To them, there was no momentum shift. Which only proves one thing; the sabemetricians know a lot more about math than they do about baseball.

 

lol

[MWV]

In that case, enjoy!

 

Weren't a fan of FJM?

Yeah, absolutely. Just being facetious.

[SouthSideRyan]

But not the sabermetrics guys. After all, according to their calculations, the Cubs still had a 68% chance to win after that foul ball, wild pitch, and that error. To them, there was no momentum shift. Which only proves one thing; the sabemetricians know a lot more about math than they do about baseball.

 

These are probably my favorite types of quotes in these pinata articles/posts. I feel like it happens more with KenPom probabilities, oh yeah where's your math now tough guy???? You said there was a 68% chance of them winning, but they didn't win did they? Only 68% off there nerd

[Sammy Sofa]

32%, 0%...it's the same thing, really.

[Clem Fandango]

Haaaaaaaaaaa! The computer nerd picture.

 

"I am Meph, VORP you!"

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Haaaaaaaaaaa! The computer nerd picture.

 

"I am Meph, VORP you!"

 

Oh wow, remember when VORP was a thing?

 

Anyone here ever hear of Bill Shanks? Used to cover the Braves for scout.com, run their board, and also wrote an ENTIRE BOOK meant to attack the crap out of sabermetrics (er, MoneyBall as it was known to a certain crowd) under the guise of expounding the virtues of makeup. If you can find anything he's written about statistical analysis in 2003-2004 you will have some great material. I don't know why I never sent his stuff to FJM way back when. They would have had a field day. He was Joe Morgan without the medium except 100x more angry about it.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

From a review on Shanks' book on Hardball Times:

 

What's selling this book isn't the story of the Braves. The anti-Moneyball marketing strategy makes this book sexy to the masses. The problem is that Shanks just didn't get, or even read, Moneyball, and not because the message was a difficult one to grasp. Shanks’s relationships with scouts, which allowed him to provide such a good picture of what goes on within the Braves, unfortunately caused him to take what Lewis had to say personally. And in his blind rage to strike back he reveals that he is not all that familiar with the book that boils his blood. Take for example Shanks’s interpretation of Moneyball:

 

There are two differences that set the A's and other "Moneyballers" apart from the rest of baseball. First, their use of statistics is extreme, believing that on-base percentage is the primary indication of big league success, and that stats override makeup in determining who will make it to "the show." Also, speed and defense are trivial. It's all about OBP.

 

Secondly, due to their financial restrictions, the A's claim that if they're going to spend money on draft picks, they must not miss. They feel the best way to get a value pick is to emphasize college players and to almost ignore talent from the high school level.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/scouts-honor-a-review/

[bcl412]

But not the sabermetrics guys. After all, according to their calculations, the Cubs still had a 68% chance to win after that foul ball, wild pitch, and that error. To them, there was no momentum shift. Which only proves one thing; the sabemetricians know a lot more about math than they do about baseball.

 

These are probably my favorite types of quotes in these pinata articles/posts. I feel like it happens more with KenPom probabilities, oh yeah where's your math now tough guy???? You said there was a 68% chance of them winning, but they didn't win did they? Only 68% off there nerd

 

I read it more as the wind was sucked so much out of the Cubs sails that the game was pretty much over at that point. Basically, there was no way the Cubs would overcome the huge loss of momentum and anyone who actually watches baseball games knows this as opposed to people who solely read box scores.

 

Whatever was meant though, it's a really stupid point.

[SouthSideRyan]

But not the sabermetrics guys. After all, according to their calculations, the Cubs still had a 68% chance to win after that foul ball, wild pitch, and that error. To them, there was no momentum shift. Which only proves one thing; the sabemetricians know a lot more about math than they do about baseball.

 

These are probably my favorite types of quotes in these pinata articles/posts. I feel like it happens more with KenPom probabilities, oh yeah where's your math now tough guy???? You said there was a 68% chance of them winning, but they didn't win did they? Only 68% off there nerd

 

I read it more as the wind was sucked so much out of the Cubs sails that the game was pretty much over at that point. Basically, there was no way the Cubs would overcome the huge loss of momentum and anyone who actually watches baseball games knows this as opposed to people who solely read box scores.

 

Whatever was meant though, it's a really stupid point.

 

Momentum's easy to spot after the fact. Too bad you have 19 spazzes every game thread trying to point out dumb [expletive] like this in advance.

 

They're wrong A LOT