Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    Because it's trendy and the Wall Street-like thing to do. It's very similar to the hype and mis-aligned praise for the so-called Dell methodology. In the evolution of both, the lustre will wear from the pumpkin and the truth will become more clear.
    But here's the thing...

    All those GM's aren't using the some single dogmatic methodology. Beane's methodology differs from that of Shapiro which differs from that of Epstein.

    The only methodology replication in play right now is that folks feel that the incorporation of statistical analysis can benefit their team by allowing them to minimize risk and maximize performance. That's not "trendy" as much as it is smart business practice. And it's just a continuing of the incorporation of objective analysis that began way before scouts started using radar guns.

    It's unfortunate that the layperson tends to interpret sabermetrics to be an "objective instead of subjective" argument. It's not. Never has been, regardless of what Joe Morgan tries to tell us about "Moneyball" (a book he claimed was written by Billy Beane himself).

    See, player personnel decisions have long been driven by statistics- particularly since the implementation of the modern free agent system. Teams have traditionally payed big money for things like Batting Average, Runs Batted In, and pitchers' Win totals. Problem was that teams ended up blowing a ton of that cash because they were paying for the WRONG statistics. Not sure why folks are so critical of other folks making an effort to figure out what's actually worth paying for. Baseball is littered with stupid decisions that could have been avoided had someone with an ounce of sense noted that people were making decisions based on bad information (just like if NHL teams were grabbing players just because of their +/- ratings).

    What we're seeing is teams getting smarting about what to pay for and how to find players worth paying. As this continues, you're going to see more methodology variations based on a statistical analysis theme. You're also going to see some GMs win and some GMs lose. And yeah, you're going to see some GMs whose methodologies don't pay off as well as others (which is what we've always seen anyway).

    The lazy fan is going to look at the failure of one of these new "stat head" GMs and point to that as an indictment of statistical analysis in general. That's kind of silly because you could remove every "new age" GM from the game and you'd still have "traditionalist" general managers who'd be falling flat on their faces while some would succeed.

    The simple truth is that the more information you have and the better you are at analyzing it, the better off you're going to be. The crux of the objective/subjective debate is and always will be about the level of incorporation. Unfortunately, the more traditional-minded folks are ill-equipped to enter into that sort of debate because they tend to lack an understanding of the stats and whatever methodology they're attempting to denigrate. In many cases, they won't even make an effort to understand statistical analysis because, after all, math is hard and change is difficult.

    On the flip side, the sabermetricians were borne of traditionalist cloth. Any "stat guy" you run into already has the knowledge of the "subjective" side of the game. Let's face it- no one just wakes up one day with a laptop in hand and then decides they like this whole baseball thing but ONLY the statistics.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.
    Gee, I'm not sure I can go on.... Did your mom help you write that?

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    And I'll also ask, "If statistical analysis is just 'trivia', then why are all these teams hiring guys who are so good at it?"
    Because it's trendy and the Wall Street-like thing to do. It's very similar to the hype and mis-aligned praise for the so-called Dell methodology. In the evolution of both, the lustre will wear from the pumpkin and the truth will become more clear.

    That said, that was a VERY impressive diatribe, laden with some very insightful detail. The only part I'll argue is that you haven't tried to convince us that it's ALL about stats. I have neither the energy or inclination to go back and rehash it, but that's how we got here.

    And yes, hockey stats leave a lot to be desired. Baseball stats are so broad and pervasive and manipulative that only they can produce this kind of debate and meteoric thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    Allow me to explain why I respect Johncap. He is a human being, and the proof that he is human is that he responds with intense feelings to the game of baseball (and he does not, as far as I know, allow these intense feelings to draw him into a life of crime). Furthermore, his agonizing over what the Phillies have been doing for the past 25 years makes perfect sense: his pain is the pain of a person who respects the game so much that it kills him to see it being brutalized by Phillie owners who do not respect the game but who give lip service to doing so. If you root for the Phillies, you not only have to put up with awful baseball, but you have to cut through the verbal crap of owners who swear they are striving for quality. You witness the dreck; and then you listen to the lies and the euphemisms of an Ed Wade, a Dave Montgomery, a Ruben Amaro, and a Bill Giles. And after you listen to them, you want to grab them by their throats.

    Johncap is responding primarily to that kind of corrosive dishonesty. And even though it may be difficult rooting for a team like the Cincinnati Reds these days, it is much worse rooting for the Phillies for the simple reason that the Phillies are the worst team in the history of professional sports. The Reds and Phillies are losers these days, but the Phillies have a longer history of losing than anybody.

    That kind of background engenders a kind of frustration that may make the Phillies' fan somewhat intemperate in his criticism of his team. However, we are all capable of admitting a mistake and learning from it; I am sure you are, too. (Now I have to organize my thoughts and respond to some of Steel's thoughts. There is so much material on this thread that I am going crazy trying to decide what to respond to.)
    Well put Don, and thank you. I'm not sure if I stated this before, but I am a Reds fan, so believe me, I(John Allen) feel(Dan O'Brien) your(Rich Aurilia whining) pain(Eric BLEEPING Milton). It would be nice however for someone to offer a different viewpoint without resorting to insults, stubborness and outright obliviousness to any good point that differs from their own. You have done this. Many others in this thread have. Even Hardiman, though I suspect it pains him :noidea . Johncap has done none of this, thus I have no respect for him. I'm done on this topic...thanks everyone for some great debating.

    Leave a comment:


  • LP fan
    replied
    Originally posted by SABR Matt
    Are you actually suggesting that not only is Abreu a good outfielder...but Guillen is too? Wow...that is truly spectacular how much the eyes can fool people.
    What I meant was....considering the whole package...defense, offence and speed......Abreu is a quality player.....do you seriously disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.
    Allow me to explain why I respect Johncap. He is a human being, and the proof that he is human is that he responds with intense feelings to the game of baseball (and he does not, as far as I know, allow these intense feelings to draw him into a life of crime). Furthermore, his agonizing over what the Phillies have been doing for the past 25 years makes perfect sense: his pain is the pain of a person who respects the game so much that it kills him to see it being brutalized by Phillie owners who do not respect the game but who give lip service to doing so. If you root for the Phillies, you not only have to put up with awful baseball, but you have to cut through the verbal crap of owners who swear they are striving for quality. You witness the dreck; and then you listen to the lies and the euphemisms of an Ed Wade, a Dave Montgomery, a Ruben Amaro, and a Bill Giles. And after you listen to them, you want to grab them by their throats.

    Johncap is responding primarily to that kind of corrosive dishonesty. And even though it may be difficult rooting for a team like the Cincinnati Reds these days, it is much worse rooting for the Phillies for the simple reason that the Phillies are the worst team in the history of professional sports. The Reds and Phillies are losers these days, but the Phillies have a longer history of losing than anybody.

    That kind of background engenders a kind of frustration that may make the Phillies' fan somewhat intemperate in his criticism of his team. However, we are all capable of admitting a mistake and learning from it; I am sure you are, too. (Now I have to organize my thoughts and respond to some of Steel's thoughts. There is so much material on this thread that I am going crazy trying to decide what to respond to.)
    Last edited by donzblock; 11-13-2005, 04:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    So, if you think you've won, enjoy it, I'm sure it's a lonely place to have such a narrow view of life. But maturity will open a lot of new horizons for you if you let it.
    Hmm, that would be the pot calling the kettle black if ever I read it. You call my view narrow, yet I am very open to anyone who can show me anything that proves their point. I suggest you take your own advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    Admitted defeat? You're out of your mind. You guys have no clue what baseball is about. These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is. I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports. The perception of the recipients is humorously similar to the reception we give you. The unstated opinions of the people who my stats are intended for, lack the depth of understanding that these numbers are merely an overview of performance that needs to be framed by the subjectiveness and other considerations that give them validity. At this time those stats are for ice hockey. The validation and subjectivity involves such issues as what line a player is on, how that line is used, what the player's specific role on the line is, etc. While a bit different than the individual aspect of baseball stats, nonetheless, one player's 32 points and +18 must be framed to give it proper perspective against another's 9 points and +4. The stats alone do NOT constitute one's contribution versus the other's, nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player. THAT is the essence of this debate, and on THAT, there is no defeat.

    Not to mention, I don't come here to win, or lose. Presumably I come here to be "entertained" and to enhance my exposure to trivial details and other perspectives on the game I like most. Having always been an avid stats person, especially for baseball stats, and an amateur statistician, I've grown my disdain for the Bill James set gradually but more fervently because of the application and misguidance in debates over hall of fame qualifications, first and foremost. But that's a topic for another day and already of more than a handful of threads. But it's the same argument and the same kind of misapplied logic as this Abreu debate.
    Do you even bother to read before you start typing? I said no one admitted defeat, and the first thing you question is that I said you did. PAY ATTENTION!
    You question my knowledge of the game, well I question yours. I have considerable knowledge in every area of the game, including(but not limited to)

    ~ Watching 50+ games for the last 24 years, and most years well over 100
    ~ Playing baseball and softball for the last 28 years.
    ~ Playing baseball board games like APBA and Strat, as well as running leagues using Diamond Mind
    ~ Reading every book in the library about baseball before I graduated high school, and most since then
    ~ Participating in countless message boards etc. online for nearly 10 years

    So what great enlightenment have I missed? You on the other hand stand firm on a single old fashioned ideal, while berating any and all opposing viewpoints without any consideration of their possible merits. You prefer to invent your own opposition instead of actually responding to any that has been given you. The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.
    Last edited by baseballPAP; 11-13-2005, 03:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    Sorry to dredge up a post from way back when...I just got directed to it so I'm catching up with this thread...LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    Originally posted by LP fan
    Sometimes you can overlook a good thing when its right in front of you. Abreu is a quality major league outfielder, and has been for years. Burrell is getting close. Rollins is on the verge of being a great player...Utley and Howard look like they have potential.... there is a good nucleus here...

    as for Abreu, who is better in the NL? the only other option may be Guillen...
    Walker is too old and hobbled up, and a lot of the other RFs were journeymen or young guys...
    Are you actually suggesting that not only is Abreu a good outfielder...but Guillen is too? Wow...that is truly spectacular how much the eyes can fool people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravenlord
    replied
    and while reading a BP article (Baseball Prospectus), it occurs to me to say that i have the utmost respect for everyone in thread. Steel for his incredible knowledge of stats, which i'm still (unfortunately for me) learning from, and Donzblock for his knowledge and reverance for the history of the game (which unforutanatly, i don't find applicable to me at this time).
    Last edited by Ravenlord; 11-13-2005, 12:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravenlord
    replied
    having not read a single post in this thread since my last post on it (but knowing the people involved as i do...), i am going to state three things.

    1. when two players have nearly the same statistical evaluation, i'm going to go with the one scouts like (unless money becomes an issue). you can also read that as the one that the subjective thinks more highly of.

    2. the goal of people like me and Steel, and SABRMatt, isn’t' to totally replace the subjective with hard statistical analysis. it's actually to blend the two. however, because the numbers DO often outweigh the subjective, it is often, and sadly so, comes across as being overlooked by the 'new generation' (for lack of a far better term).

    3. to quote from Rob Neyer's Big Book of Lineups:
    "In 1992, the Phillies won forty-three percent of their games and finished in sixth. In 1994, the Phillies won forty-seven percent of their games and finished fourth.
    And in between, the Phillies won sixty percent of their games, finished first, and came pretty damn close to winning the World Series. At the time, the big story was the personality of the Phillies. They were a plain-talkin’, tobacco spittin’, hard-livin’, bunch of ballplayers, epitomized by their dynamic leadoff man, Lenny Dykstra. Nails.
    But you know, if it was personality that won the pennant, why didn’t the Phillies play nearly so well in 1992or or 1994? The answer, of course, is that the Phillies didn’t win in ’93 because of their great chemistry; they won because a huge number of their players enjoyed uncharacteristically great seasons. Just look at the Single-Season Lineup.
    …three 1993 Phillies, and they weren’t the only ones. Third basemen Dave Hollins had two great seasons in the majors, and one of them was 1993. Shortstop Kevin Stocker arrived from the minors in July, batted .324 in seventy games; he finished his career with a .254 average. Tommy Greene won thirty-eight games in his career, and sixteen of them came in 1993."

    the thing behind SABR/stats isn't to create a soulless game, nay, it is to answer the questions generated by the game that the subjective has never been able to. for me, the stats have deepened the game. the most fun i have is watching the stuff of a pitcher, comparing his stats to pitchers with lesser or greater stuff, and trying to figure out what will happen (assuming health of course).

    stats have deepened mine, and many others enjoyment of the game. while at the same time, it has diluted it for many others. but the truth is, much of baseball, and its front offices, often don't understand what the numbers say. numbers which are just records of what actually happened.

    if Derek Lowe has pitched 200 innings, he's recorded 600 outs. but sometimes people don't look deep enough into that, or they look too deeply into that.

    which i guess brings me to Bobby Abreu (even though i've used entirely pitcher analogies til this point). Abreu is the only player i have ever seen who is wildly successful sabermetrically and traditionally who is hated. i don't understand it in the least, and due to the massive stubbornness of most Phils' fans, i don't expect to ever change. but that's part of the culture of the city/team and as weird as it seems to me, it's part of what makes baseball truly great

    just because you don't believe in statistics doesn’t make it any less true than it actually is. just enjoy the game for how you perceive it. in part, my enjoyment of the game comes from trying to find perfect balance of stat and subjective. Abreu, B. Giles, Dunn, Thome, etc all found this with me. Giambi is notably left off, because scouts said he'd be nothing (unlike the rest), though even without juicing, he's proven he can still be great (or had he just found an undetectable? given Giambi's personality, i doubt that).

    but i'm drunk now, so what does it matter, since the level of just about everyone in this thread's arrogance makes MY megalomania seem non-problematic.
    Last edited by Ravenlord; 11-13-2005, 12:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    ...nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player.
    And yet, no one with an opposing view has- even once- attemted to position that statistics are the end-all-be-all of player evaluation and anaylsis. That's a strawman- a deceptive attempt at creating a non-existant opposing argument.

    In fact, I've spent many posts explaining that the true goal is to understand how to be incorporate the objective and subjective in order for teams to give them the best understanding of a player's true value. The more information the better.

    These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is.
    Or maybe the other guys have "tempered" themselves because they have the ability to acutally read and comprehend the views of folks who may not be in total agreement with them. I'd suggest that a far more plausable explanation than your tripe considering that you keep mistaking a position that calls for incorporation to be an "all stats and nothing else" position.

    I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports.
    And that qualifies you for no points in a baseball discussion. Anyone can compile and distribute data. But it takes special skill to be able to draw relevant information from the data.

    You've talked about hockey thusfar and aptly noted that it's not exactly a direct comparison to baseball (no other sport really is). But let's talk about hockey for a moment because, like any sport, you'll find really flawed statistics there.

    Any halfway decent statistical analyst would tell you that raw Plus/Minus rating is far too subjective to be anything but mildly suggestive. It's a team-dependant metric that doesn't isolate a player's actual contribution. Instead, it simply identifies score fluctuations occuring when that player is on the ice without accounting for Defenseman quality, Goalie proficiency, and it doesn't account for ice time or average shift length. The "Production Value" statistic attempts to isolate individual scoring contribution by identifying average minutes of ice time per Point registered by an offensive player, but that metric falls short as well because it doesn't identify defensive contribution or equalize for power play or shorthanded situations. It's not measuring actual "production". Just points per minute. Again, that's something any decent statistical analyst can tell you within five seconds.

    What an EXCELLENT analyst can do is equalize for everything I've noted above and produce a metric that gives us a far more accurate representation of a player's actual performance value while on the ice for his hockey team.

    And that's all folks have been doing since Branch Rickey (you'll probably recognize the name) invented something called "On Base Average" (the precursor to the modern On Base Percentage). See, Branch Rickey isn't just the guy responsible for integrating the modern game. He's also the grandfather of sabermetrics. He was a forward-thinking innovator who, one day, noted that the most productive hitters were the guys who got on base most often rather than the guys who nubbed the most singles.

    Bill James was simply the next step in the evolutionary chain (and he's got a WS title ring BTW) and he just keeps on trucking- without ignoring the "intangibles" aspect of the game and while producing highly advanced accurate performance metrics like Runs Created (which is over 97% accurate). Billy Beane wasn't necessarily the "next" evolutionary step, but he's the most recognizable "next" guy in the chain. Beane's organization may be driven, in part, by an actuarial-like risk analysis and projection scheme, but his biggest contribution was to use highly reliable metrics to identify market inefficiencies in order to capitalize them. Beane- often maligned for a lack of focus on defense and "chemistry"- actually won't draft guys who have perceived "character" deficiencies and (piggybacking on Paul DePodesta's project) produced the best MLB defensive team in 2005.

    Theo Epstein earned his WS ring in Boston by capitalizing on massive market inefficiencies when he got a HUGE chunk of offense for a song (most prominently David Ortiz). A guy named Voros McCracken was also part of that. He's a "stathead" who figured out that Pitchers have little control over anything but Home Runs allowed and Walks.

    Paul DePodesta guided the Dodgers to their first full-season division title since 1998 in his first season as General Manager in 2004. During his brief tenure (including only one full offseason), he brought in more talent than he let go and almost every notable big money player he sent packing dramatically underperformed for their salary level. Steve Finley, Adrian Beltre, Kaz Ishii, Jose Lima, Jose Hernandez, Alex Cora, Hideo Nomo, and Guillermo Mota were 30+ Million bucks worth of awful in 2005. Sean Green, Juan Encarnacion, Tom Martin, Dave Roberts, and Paul Lo Duca were over 20 Million bucks of mediocrity. The guy pushed a ton of mediocre-to-bad players off that team both during and after the 2004 season, won the division in 2004 while playing just as well without Lo Duca as with (even though Penny was injured for almost all of that late-season run) and spent big money on actual perfomers for 2005 like Jeff Kent, J.D. Drew, Derek Lowe, and Brad Penny. That "stat head" actually got better performance at about half the price of the guys he gave up, but had his team eaten by the Disabled List in 2005 after having his payroll throttled by a clueless owner who was over-reliant on an equally clueless Tommy Lasorda for advice and that combination got a super baseball mind fired from a team that hasn't had a direction without him for, literally, over a decade.

    Cleveland had a nice run in the late nineties, and their team was perpetuated by a solid breakthrough in the market- i.e. Cleveland began signing a lot of their young players to long-term contracts; effectively buying out the first (and second at times) years of arbitration and/or free agency eligibility. This appeared to be a good idea at the time, but salaries were severely escalating and agents began demanding more and more of the team which eventually led to a large number of misses on the LTC front. As recently as 2001, the Indians had the fifth highest payroll in the Major Leagues. In 1993, the Indians were third to last in MLB payroll. They invested more money into the team that occupied their new park (1994- Jacobs). That payroll continued to escalate to a point where they could no longer afford to pay for the product they were putting on the field as the novelty of Jacobs had worn off (a small-market curse). In fact, as recently as 2001, the Indians put up the 5th highest payroll in the AL- an unsupportable 92.6 Million bucks.

    A guy named Mark Shapiro took over the Cleveland franchise in November of 2001 knowing that he'd be severely payroll limited. The Cleveland payroll dropped from 92.6M to 78.9M and that was more than they could afford. Charles Nagy wasn't working out as planned. Travis Fryman was a waste of money. Jaret Wright was being paid over four million bucks based on nothing other than the team's incessant need to sign young players to what were now over-the-top contracts. In short, the whole idea of a LTC to young players was being turned on it's ear by agents who were happy to capitalize on the stupidity of John Hart (this continued for years).

    So what does Shapiro do knowing that he's left with a bunch of high-priced crap that either won't produce or won't take the field? First, he implements a statistical evaluation system that allows the team to objectively evaluate talent (this is documented). He ships Bartolo Colon to the Expos for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. He sends Russ Branyan to the Reds for Ben Broussard. He trades Einar Diaz and Ryan Drese to the Rangers for 1B Travis Hafner (heard of him?). He ships off Chuck Finley to the Cards for Coco Crisp. And he signs Casey Blake as a minor league FA. His system is allowing him to identify undervalued talent and he worked his tail off to acquire it.

    That's the start of a comeback on the cheap. Oh, the Indians got worse in 2002 as they were destined to given the fodder left behind via indisciminate signings by Hart. Shapiro then lets an aging 1B (Thome) walk to the Phils because he knows he can't afford him and benefits from the draft picks he'll get for him. The 2004 payroll is now lower than the 2003 payroll (34.3M versus 48.6M) and the team got better. In 2005, the payroll (41.5M) ranked among the bottom five in MLB. The Indians won five more games than did the Phillies in 2005 with less than half the payroll. Why? Because Mark Shapiro understands the value of performance metrics and has set up his team to capitalize on undervalued players in other organizations while jettisoning the dreck left behind by his lesser predecessor. Shapiro is a "stat geek". Uh-oh.

    Mark Shapiro just took home the MLB Executive of the Year award without even making the Playoffs.

    And the "number cruncher" crew is growing. The Arizona Diamondbacks just hired one by grabbing former Red Sox Josh Byrnes. The Rangers have one now too after hiring 28-year-old Jon Daniels after John Hart resigned (he knows how to get when the getting is good). The fact that guys like Hart, Gillick (who the Phils actually hired...yeesh), Bowden, O'Brien, Minaya still have GM jobs or the potential for GM jobs is really a testament to how pervasive the "old boy network" currently is. In fact, Tommy Lasorda wouldn't even be a top advisor to an owner if all things were right and good. But they're not.

    Still, we're seeing an evolutionary leap in the analytical ability of current General Managers and it's not going to stop. When we watch a Milwaukee game on television, we see hitter On Base Percentages post on the screen. We see announcers talking about how important it is to get on base. Milwaukee for God's sake. It's about to become pervasive and you either understand or you get left behind in the world of the subjective wondering why your team doesn't win. That doesn't mean that every "stat guy" is going to win (see: Riccardi, J.P.) or even win every year (see: team, any). But that does mean that a goodly portion of MLB teams understand the concept behind risk analysis and performance projection.

    Now, because I don't build strawmen, I'll just ask you straight out:

    "What, if any, baseball metrics do you feel are the most accurate reflections of a player's performance from the offensive and pitching sides?"


    And I'll also ask, "If statistical analysis is just 'trivia', then why are all these teams hiring guys who are so good at it?"

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    Good lord.

    All the Yankees have done in the "new days" (I guess we'll call it that) it to produce nine division titles, 11 consecutive playoff appearances, five World Series appearances and four World Series titles since 1995. Freakin' team has been to the World Series almost half the time in a little over a decade-long dynasty run BECAUSE of their ability to perform (i.e. Run Scoring and Run Prevention).

    Your friend is daft. And shame on you for listening to that whining for a freakin' hour and THEN attempting to position some "Yankees character flawed" B.S. as truth while pushing your ridiculous agenda.

    Seriously, if you can't figure out that your buddy neither appreciates or understands how the Yankees put together such a run of excellence, then why in the world would you have any credibility at all? If that's the kind of "subjective" information you're relying on, you need to stop it because you're being fed mounds of garbage. And you don't even KNOW it's garbage? Wow.

    And the Yankees would actually do even BETTER if Steinbrenner wouldn't keep pushing Cashman to acquire "name" players who've had seasons they're not likely to repeat- particularly on the pitching side (Pavano, Wright, Vazquez, Weaver, etc.). The Yankees can cover those mistakes because they spend more money than anyone, but that team would be completely unstoppable (and less expensive) if they had someone who really knew how to interpret performance data in order to use that information to build a solid projection and risk models.
    Once again you pidgeonhole a Yankee-supporter's position on the state of his team based on statistical detail. I guess his emotional investment counts little. The expectations that those legions of titles have produced shouldn't aford him dissapointment considering they've not won a trophy since 2000. Obviously, being a Phillies' fan, I have little true understanding of what a Yankee fan expects. Afterall, growing up in the 60s my wildest hope as each new season started was for my team to make it to the lofty status of a .500 team. We each have our own aspirations and interests. I humor my Yankee and Red Sox fan friends as if I symathize with their plight, while I seeth because my team has never and probably will never have ownership driven first and last to win it all.

    Those championships in the Yankee's bank mean little to current Yankees fans. Perhaps they mean less than Abreu's stats do to knowing Phillies fans eager to see him cashed in and the team improved.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Thank you. Well, all but JohnCap, you're just a stubborn ass. You have not admitted defeat, or that the numbers are more important, but you have admitted that they are a factor. I fully admit that the numbers don't tell the whole story, but I'm stubborn enough to believe that given one or the other, opinion of fans or stats, that the stats will be closer to accurate 99% of the time. I'm curious however... are there no Phanatics out there who believe in "new-age" baseball? Not a single saber guy in the crowd?

    Anyway, thanks again for the enjoyable posting.....
    Admitted defeat? You're out of your mind. You guys have no clue what baseball is about. These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is. I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports. The perception of the recipients is humorously similar to the reception we give you. The unstated opinions of the people who my stats are intended for, lack the depth of understanding that these numbers are merely an overview of performance that needs to be framed by the subjectiveness and other considerations that give them validity. At this time those stats are for ice hockey. The validation and subjectivity involves such issues as what line a player is on, how that line is used, what the player's specific role on the line is, etc. While a bit different than the individual aspect of baseball stats, nonetheless, one player's 32 points and +18 must be framed to give it proper perspective against another's 9 points and +4. The stats alone do NOT constitute one's contribution versus the other's, nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player. THAT is the essence of this debate, and on THAT, there is no defeat.

    Not to mention, I don't come here to win, or lose. Presumably I come here to be "entertained" and to enhance my exposure to trivial details and other perspectives on the game I like most. Having always been an avid stats person, especially for baseball stats, and an amateur statistician, I've grown my disdain for the Bill James set gradually but more fervently because of the application and misguidance in debates over hall of fame qualifications, first and foremost. But that's a topic for another day and already of more than a handful of threads. But it's the same argument and the same kind of misapplied logic as this Abreu debate.

    So, if you think you've won, enjoy it, I'm sure it's a lonely place to have such a narrow view of life. But maturity will open a lot of new horizons for you if you let it.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X