Why do people resist change/improvement in understanding baseball...

[rmilia1]

I know.

Hey, you never did tell me if you've been tested for autism.

Nope. I've been tested for mostly STDS in my lifetime but that happens when you're a playa

 

[Omar 382]

But you can't accurately predict those. You can only come up with those figures after the season is done.

I sure as hell can predict them. Harper will hit 50 home runs this year. There. Now can I make a reasonable prediction, given his past performances in seasons past and how players with his track record have performed in subsequent years in the last 150 years of baseball? Easily. I may not be right, but I'm a hell of a lot closer than saying there's a 50% chance that Jedd fucking Gyorko will be better than him

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

It just wasn't a MVP year I'm and I've said why.

There are 30 folks who vote on the MLB MVP awards. Would you care to guess how many of them didn't pick Bryce Harper as their 1st choice last year?

 

[Omar 382]

Lol. No. But you're proving mine. Harper had a great year. It just wasn't a MVP year I'm and I've said why. I could give stats as to why as well but I did that last year. The point is that every person assigns different value to what each stats means as it pertains to their ultimate idea of success. To me, as in my opinion, success is most shown by wins. It's why teams still make the playoffs by record instead of run differential. I'm not arguing against your advanced metrics. I simply don't value them as much

Oh this should be good

 

[rmilia1]

To be fair, the Nats were injury riddled all last season and they possibly had the worst defense in the Majors.

I know the mentality is next man up, but when your starting center fielder, left fielder, third baseman and first baseman(Span, Werth, Rendon and Zimmerman) all miss significant time, and your shortstop is a huge defensive liability, it's hard to overcome.

The Nats definitely didn't underachieve because of Harper.

When Steve Carlton won 27 games on a Phillies team that only won 59 games, was that not a historic season because of the lack of team success?

One player can't do it all.

Of course they didn't underachieving because of Harper but he didn't do enough to prevent them from underachieving overall. They're off to a great start this year so hopefully they get it done

 

[rmilia1]

There are 30 folks who vote on the MLB MVP awards. Would you care to guess how many of them didn't pick Bryce Harper as their 1st choice last year?

So?? I don't form an opinion based on others. I look at what I value and go from there

 

[Omar 382]

Of course they didn't underachieving because of Harper but he didn't do enough to prevent them from underachieving overall. They're off to a great start this year so hopefully they get it done

So please tell me what he could have done

 

[Chewbaccer]

Of course they didn't underachieving because of Harper but he didn't do enough to prevent them from underachieving overall. They're off to a great start this year so hopefully they get it done

What more could he have done other than being the best offensive player in the game last season?

Tell his teammates that play important roles to not get hurt and miss significant time? Tell his shortstop to stop booting grounders and airmailing throws?

 

[Chewbaccer]

That short stretch of time when the Braves owned the Nats a few years ago, I think most of the credit had to go to Desmond's defense at short and Zimmerman's defense when he played third.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

So?? I don't form an opinion based on others. I look at what I value and go from there

...which is a method that I can respect. However, when what you value leads you to a conclusion that is in direct opposition of 99.8% of people who are smarter than you, you might want to reevaluate what it is that you value.

You're not a scientist flying some brilliant revelation against conventional and archaic wisdom. You're a guy saying dumb shit on the internets.

 

[rmilia1]

...which is a method that I can respect. However, when what you value leads you to a conclusion that is in direct opposition of 99.8% of people who are smarter than you, you might want to reevaluate what it is that you value.

You're not a scientist flying some brilliant revelation against conventional and archaic wisdom. You're a guy saying dumb shit on the internets.

Lol. I take no issue with people valuing something to a higher degree than me. Baseball is the only sport that values stats at the level requisite to name a guy on a shit team MVP of the league consistently. Part of the fabric and history of the game. I just don't agree with it. No big deal. Baseball would consider Karl Malone a better player than Michael Jordan. Just the way it is.

 

[obxyankeefan]

But how many wins does that seriously add a year? I'm not talking about statistics, because there are none for this case. Think about it- there are a thousand things that can help a team win or lose. Why are we looking at something so infrequent, and sometimes insignificant as a guy picking a ball? A guy who sticks out with the bases loaded in the first inning significantly decreases his team's chances of winning a game. A first baseman may have 30 picks a year. If he can't pick it cleanly when there's two outs and no one, you have two outs and a guy on first. The chance of a team scoring a run that inning went up- but not by that much. I'm all for the novelties of the game and as a lefty who played first base for most of my time playing baseball, I prided myself on picking balls. I loved it, and I would be so mad if I couldn't pick it cleanly. But the truth is, the outcome of the game is not affected all that much more times than not.

Just as an example that contradicts what you are saying. the 2008 Yankees had an infield of Giambi, Cano, Jeter, and A Rod, that was bad defensively. In 2009 you change out Gianni with Tex, and all the sudden the Yankees defense became one of the best all time. Tex scooping the ball at first made the other three look that much better.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Just my two cents on the whole stats thing.

All stats be them old stats or new stats have value and each one of us appoint different values to different stats. The problem being most people today do not want to hear an opinion that is different than their own, be it baseball or another part of life.

A good example is MLB.TV the other day was discussing reliever usage. The main stat they used to show that baseball is misusing relievers today was the the fact that the top 20 reliever WAR seasons all had the reliever pitching over 100 innings. So their conclusion was the top relievers need to pitch more. Whereas my thinking was if WAR is a cumulative stat, then it makes sense that the more IP the higher the WAR if the rest of the stats are close.

 

[Omar 382]

Just as an example that contradicts what you are saying. the 2008 Yankees had an infield of Giambi, Cano, Jeter, and A Rod, that was bad defensively. In 2009 you change out Gianni with Tex, and all the sudden the Yankees defense became one of the best all time. Tex scooping the ball at first made the other three look that much better.

Maybe. Or maybe Cano, Jeter, and A-Rod just got better. It's certainly possible that Tex dramatically helped that infield. But do we know how many balls he scooped? Looking at defensive metrics, which like I've said a million times are not nearly as advanced as hitting and pitching stats, Teixeira had a down defensive 2009, with only a 0.6 UZR/150.

If you want to look at the impact Tex had on the infield, let's look at ErrR, since that's where he would help with leaps or good stretches or picks. Jeter's ErrR went from 4.5 to 4.8 from '08 to '09; Cano went from -2.3 to -1.3; and A-Rod went from 3.9 to 2.4. That's a net total of -0.2. I don't know that you could say for sure that Tex improved the defense of others around him, and if he did, it's a very small improvement.

 

[Omar 382]

Just my two cents on the whole stats thing.

All stats be them old stats or new stats have value and each one of us appoint different values to different stats. The problem being most people today do not want to hear an opinion that is different than their own, be it baseball or another part of life.

A good example is MLB.TV the other day was discussing reliever usage. The main stat they used to show that baseball is misusing relievers today was the the fact that the top 20 reliever WAR seasons all had the reliever pitching over 100 innings. So their conclusion was the top relievers need to pitch more. Whereas my thinking was if WAR is a cumulative stat, then it makes sense that the more IP the higher the WAR if the rest of the stats are close.

I hear a lot of things like that. Why are people mad at the statistics in that case? The statistics didn't do anything wrong- it was a faulty inference.

 

[Omar 382]

Just as an example that contradicts what you are saying. the 2008 Yankees had an infield of Giambi, Cano, Jeter, and A Rod, that was bad defensively. In 2009 you change out Gianni with Tex, and all the sudden the Yankees defense became one of the best all time. Tex scooping the ball at first made the other three look that much better.

By the way, this is an intelligent response that had no usage of statistics. The person gave a real life example and claimed a cause and effect. He didn't prove it quantitatively, but then something like that is hard to do in this case. Notice he did not attack me when he disagreed, he did not call me a nerd, he didn't claim he was inherently superior in intellectuality because his opinion is different than mine. He simply disagreed and gave an example that is based in logic to back it up.

@handicappers @Iffster @dougplayer @rmilia1 take notes...

 

[rmilia1]

By the way, this is an intelligent response that had no usage of statistics. The person gave a real life example and claimed a cause and effect. He didn't prove it quantitatively, but then something like that is hard to do in this case. Notice he did not attack me when he disagreed, he did not call me a nerd, he didn't claim he was inherently superior in intellectuality because his opinion is different than mine. He simply disagreed and gave an example that is based in logic to back it up.

@handicappers @Iffster @dougplayer @rmilia1 take notes...

I didn't call you a name buddy. And I don't dismiss your stats. What I and Obx said are exactly the same thing. I put different value on stats than you do. It's not a big deal. I don't begrudge you your opinion as its based on facts. How we value them is simply different.

 

[Omar 382]

I didn't call you a name buddy. And I don't dismiss your stats. What I and Obx said are exactly the same thing. I put different value on stats than you do. It's not a big deal. I don't begrudge you your opinion as its based on facts. How we value them is simply different.

I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned the name-calling. You're more in the "disagreed and failed to give a logical explanation to back it up" category.

I don't know what you mean by "value." Do you not value wins? If you're trying to lose, I wouldn't want Bryce Harper on my team either. But other than that, I really haven't a clue what you're talking about with your "valuing"

 

[obxyankeefan]

I hear a lot of things like that. Why are people mad at the statistics in that case? The statistics didn't do anything wrong- it was a faulty inference.

Not mad at the stats,I just value the stat in that example differently than the talking heads do.


As far as the disagreement with Rmilia, I believe he is saying Harper had a great season but he prefers someone from a playoff team for the MVP.

 

[Omar 382]

Not mad at the stats,I just value the stat in that example differently than the talking heads do.


As far as the disagreement with Rmilia, I believe he is saying Harper had a great season but he prefers someone from a playoff team for the MVP.

Yeah, but that's not what it measures