JudasIscariotTheBird

True. No one thinks Robinson and Capela are better than Luka or Steph. They aren't. But they grade out higher on win shares because centers have a horsefeathers ton of utility. A more useful stat for an individual's value might be win-shares equalized for the position they play. But that's not what we're talking about. No idea what you mean about me posting WAR comparisons. I don't think that's something I do often, since I don't remember it. I just read what you said and thought "hmm, Jokic and Embiid were totally dominant this year, and most stat nerds seemed to agree" so I looked up how centers fared this year. I'm going to default tangible stats over internet take from internet guy (who claims to know the minds of insider NBA stat guys) and some dudes I've never heard of waiving their hands. I'll conceed that maybe win-shares isn't a great stat, as basketball is a much more difficult sport to quantify than baseball, but it's what I trust, given my options. I should have clarified what you do too much of I guess. I've noticed you don't believe or trust things you can't quantify in baseball (much of scouting) and want error bars and confidence intervals and the like... I mean, sure, it would be nice if we had all those things but we don't. Scouting is still very important, even if it is subjective and occasionally very off. You've never heard of John Hollinger? He invented the stat PER and worked at ESPN for many years, and then worked in the FO for the Memphis Grizzlies. He's an analyst who actually really cares about stats and trying to quantify the sport. Ah, I think the dude is pretty damn credible. You've never heard of the Second Spectrum tracking system and how it is transforming the game? I mean, I guess not everyone knows about it, but that's not my problem. You're the one who brought up win shares in this argument. A better stat or framework for evaluating a sport/hobby will always come along, so I usually like to keep it simple but I couldn't do that here obviously. I get the point you were trying to make, but experts and former players and many observers all echo what I'm saying about centers in the NBA. Jokic and Embiid are freaks, but they're also just 2 players with exceptional skill sets. Most centers can't do what they do, and most centers are terrible shooters away from the hoop. I don't especially follow the NBA. I don't know guys. The experts you're quoting are saying that centers are being drafted too high, and that's probably true. The difference in the outcome of a game between good and so-so centers is probably minimal, and the skill positions might have more differentiation, but that doesn't mean the position itself lacks utility. The fact that very tall unathletic bums keep playing in the NBA speaks to that. It's similar to the NFL figuring out that using lots of draft capital on RBs was silly. ...but it doesn't mean that RB isn't a vital position in the NFL. Disregarding Jokic and Embiid as freaks or outliers is ok...but then pointing to a few freakish outliers like Steph and Luka isn't really helping your argument. And I'd be thrilled to see how Second Spectrum and the like ranks out stuff. I went to their site. They provide no stats that I can see.

I feel like if I was publicly going after someone for sexual assault/rape (and they didn't actually do it), I'd probably not do it from an @ name that could be used against my credibility. Then if that original account got deleted, I probably wouldn't then create a new account that is also sexually explicit.

True. No one thinks Robinson and Capela are better than Luka or Steph. They aren't. But they grade out higher on win shares because centers have a horsefeathers ton of utility. A more useful stat for an individual's value might be win-shares equalized for the position they play. But that's not what we're talking about. No idea what you mean about me posting WAR comparisons. I don't think that's something I do often, since I don't remember it. I just read what you said and thought "hmm, Jokic and Embiid were totally dominant this year, and most stat nerds seemed to agree" so I looked up how centers fared this year. I'm going to default tangible stats over internet take from internet guy (who claims to know the minds of insider NBA stat guys) and some dudes I've never heard of waiving their hands. I'll conceed that maybe win-shares isn't a great stat, as basketball is a much more difficult sport to quantify than baseball, but it's what I trust, given my options.

In 2022, centers accounted for first, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh in win share. In win share per min played, centers literally make up 3/4ths of the top 20.

Dang man. It's either ankle or Achillies. You'd think he'd be in more pain if it was Achillies, but that didn't look good.

Wow. They went hard!

They've also scored 4+ runs in 10/17 games, and have yet to be shut out. Consistency we would have absolutely killed for essentially any year post 2016. Why should we care about consistency?

This is probably mostly all the groundballs. It's not perfect but that top right quadrant largely tracks with top teams in groundball rate https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=2&season=2022&month=0&season1=2022&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2022-01-01&enddate=2022-12-31&sort=5,d It makes sense too, the deader ball means fly balls are flying less far than the models are used to, but grounders and low liners should be same as ever. That why the graph skews waaayyyy to the left. I was going to ask if there was an obvious reason why the model thought a vast majority of teams were underpreforming. I didn't know the ball was dead as my fandom.

Lol, Tigers

Hosmer + Campusano + Myers + Cash for Mills + Heyward + Ortega + Bote. This is would a fun take on those &-themed t-shirts.

First Cub game I watched since the Cubs last came to Denver. Pretty enjoyable, apart from the fact that my girls were ten times more interested in the wave during the 7th inning than anything else that happened.

Pretty strange. He was hit by a dump truck while crossing an interstate on foot.

I mean...that's chalk central, apart from maybe DJ and Finau. Even when you hit, you still need to beat a ton of other line ups.

Are you mixing and matching those guys with others on a multi-entry tournament? Because a core of those guys should leave you a lot of money. I'm not a very good DFS player, but I do know that leaving money on the table is typically a good thing in tournaments. But this seems like a tournament where you should probably spend all of your money or as close to it as possible? Yeah, I'm doing a lot of line ups this year. The Mrs's asked me, "Why don't you win a bunch of money again?" when she heard the Masters was coming up (my single entry was runner-up for the milli-maker in that weird fall Masters) and since DK was offering a free 100 dollar entry with 1K in spend, I decided to take her up on her idea. As far as leaving money on the table...it really depends on what the preformance and ownership projections look like, and what kind of tournament you are playing. I'm only playing the millimaker, for which, getting duplicated is a huge bummer. For golf tournaments, in general, as long as you aren't eating all the chalk, you can be ok. But for the Masters there are much fewer golfers (and more dinosaurs that you can't really play) so duplicates in really large tourments like the millimaker become a concern. So for the Masters, you need to be more ownership-conscious, AND more apt to leave money on the table. For instance, the lineup I won all the cash with left 200 on the table, but two of my golfers wound up being much more chalky than I had guessed, and I was duped, thankfully only once. I'm leaving at least 100 on the table for all of my lineups, unless it has someone that I think is going to be super low-owned, or has 3+ players around 5% owned...and then I have some special sauce I'm not going to mention here. Oh, and 0% Tiger.

I'm loading up on Woodland, Varner, Niemann, Hatton, and DJ on draft kings.

I think that's a pretty horrible bet, myself. That's the same odds to win as Shane Lowry and Sam Burns. SAM BURNS! You could get +5500 on Conners, Fitzpatrick, Adam Scott, and Tyrell Hatton. +6000 on Paul Casey and Tony Finau. All of them are MUCH more likely to win, imho.

Elo models that aren't robust (don't have high numbers of outcomes) are garbage.

Mine was Qatar Serbia Ghana!