Neither is understanding the value of a guy who can get around the bases and score runs without needing two or three other guys to get hits to get him in. Of course you have to be in the lineup to lead your team in runs, that goes without saying. But if guys came up all the time and weren't producing, they wouldn't be scoring runs and they wouldn't stay in the lineup long enough to lead the team. You don't compile runs scored by simply getting to the plate, you have to go around the bases and make it back to the plate. No, not rocket science at all, or even advanced math as some of you guys try to make out of it.Sure it is. Pierre, Furcal, and Martin are also top three on this team in at-bats and plate appearances. Of course they are going to score more total runs--they have way more opportunities. This isn't rocket science.
What in particular? We've had this same discussion many times, we just don't look at the game the same way. I don't know how that necessarily makes you right and me wrong. Different people have seen different value in different players since the beginning of time.And as mentioned several times before, there are decades and decades worth of data that have been studied to draw correlations to scoring runs... and I've already told you what the statistics that have the strongest correlation to runs scored are. Still waiting for a rebuttal on this one.
I'm familiar enough with the concept that I can discuss it. Frankly I'm not interested enough to read it and I don't have time. Had we kept DePo I was going to read it just to try and help me figure out what the **** he was doing, but thankfully the team spared me DePo and the reading assignment. I don't know that that makes me ignorant, necessarily. I'd say 30 years of watching baseball leaves me well enough informed.No, not everyone. Just ignorant people who've never read the book and yet feel obliged to comment, draw false conclusions about statistics without considering certain very relevant factors, use logical fallacies often, and say ridiculous things like Trevor Hoffman fades under pressure.
Regarding Hoffman, I've seen him blow up in enough big games, namely the post season and the World Series. And off the top of my head we tagged him for a couple HRs in a row last September in a huge game. Great reliever, no doubt, I'm not disputing that.
What you don't seem to grasp is that everyone is obviously not down with your point of view, as evidenced by the five year contract the Dodgers signed Juan Pierre to. Now that doesn't necessarily make me right and you wrong or vise versa, that's why I wasn't really looking to get into all this again. I just find it intresting that someone who bases everything on numbers would say that runs aren't important. To me that's backwards, kind of like labeling the World Series a "small sample" and therefore not important.Every team in MLB at this point uses statistical analysis. The issue here you can't seem to grasp is that this has been around far longer than a simple book, and has pretty much revolutionized the way a growing percentage of organizations view player valuation.
All teams now use a hybrid of scouting and statistical analysis--some just lean more heavily in one direction than the other. This is not really news though...
The difference is, I do both. They're complementary.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
The difference between a .280 and a .320 hitter is one hit a week. You wouldn't notice it by simply watching games, but as we all well know there is a very large difference between the two.
I judge all hitters on the same criteria: how much they individually bring to the offense. Hence my using of stats that aren't skewed by the performance of teammates. If you want to be led astray, that's your call.
Again, no surprise: you are jumbling the logic and changing the subject. Why Pierre bats at the top of the lineup or why Pierre plays every day are irrelevant to the argument. I am simply explaining why his run totals being higher than others have a lot less to do with speed than it does with an unlevel playing field.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
And again, none of this changes the fact that Pierre leads the team in runs in large part because he plays every day, bats at the top of the lineup, and as I'm surprised at myself for excluding... bats in front of the best hitters on the team.
Again, I'm sure you'll find some fallacious way of dancing around this, but it's very simple.
Yet again, the difference is mine is backed by data.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
I've linked to it countless times, but I wouldn't want to "make your head spin" by, God forbid, making you actually read, think critically, and challenge your own beliefs.
No, you really aren't, and you demonstrate that on a constant basis.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
Moneyball was a narrative of an author following Billy Beane around and figuring out how he managed to put together teams that were constantly competitive despite obvious financial difficulties. It was more about finding players undervalued by the market (economics) than anything else, yet people who haven't read the book continually mislabel it.
This is a very, very, very small piece of the puzzle when I say the word sabermetrics.
He pitched in one WS game and gave up a homer. He was also dominant in the NLDS and NLCS that year. So what? We're talking a couple of innings here--they don't define his career.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
Mariano Rivera has blown games (Game 7 of the '01 WS, a couple games in the '04 ALCS), and I would never ever ever in my wildest dreams say he fades under pressure.
Anyone who has pitched in enough pressure situations will falter just by virtue of the fact you can't win every time. Hoffman's career record demonstrates this, regardless of your ridiculous "I saw him do this once" anecdotal evidence.
Of course I grasp that. Why do you think we complain about him so much?Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
I've already clarified this. Team runs are important. Individual runs don't really tell me a whole lot about an individual player.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
It is a small sample. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, but that it's far less of an indicator of a player's performance than the entire body of work.Originally Posted by Italian Seafood
But I'm sure I'll have to repeat that 100 times too.
Last edited by Hoya; September 25th, 2007 at 11:36 AM.
Jim Rome has officially labeled this thread as "Epic!"
Yeah, 66 pages of falling out of the race and infighting. It's 2005 all over again, drop from contention and we turn on each other.