Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PFSIKH

What is it Skank Fans? Good hitting or Poorr hitting?

Good Hitting or Poor Pitching?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Good Hitting or Poor Pitching?

    • Red Sox pitching sucks because they suck.
      3
    • Red Sox pitching sucks because the Yankees can hit
      6


Recommended Posts

I and other people who understand the way baseball stats should be viewed, use OPS the way other people use BA, RBI's, Runs ect becuase it's a more much acctuare measure of how good a hitter that player is than those stats.

You make it sound as if you rub shoulders with the greatest of sports statisticians. Amazingly, you decide to use your talents on an internet message board. Mom and Dad must be proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make it sound as if you rub shoulders with the greatest of sports statisticians. Amazingly, you decide to use your talents on an internet message board. Mom and Dad must be proud.
All it takes is common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All it takes is common sense.

Common sense is derived from subjectivity. The statistics you speak of are an attempt at OBJECTIVITY. You need BOTH to make an accurate description of a player's effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Common sense is derived from subjectivity. The statistics you speak of are an attempt at OBJECTIVITY. You need BOTH to make an accurate description of a player's effectiveness.

Most intelligent post on this thread.

Any fool can make numbers speak in the manner he wants them to speak for his point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most intelligent post on this thread.

Any fool can make numbers speak in the manner he wants them to speak for his point.

Exactly. One always has to ask the question: "WHOSE information is it?"

For example, research done by the Tobacco Companies on the effects of nicotine would end up with results VERY DIFFERENT that research done by a group of anti-smokers, even if they are looking at similar information.

The Tobacco companies may say "nicotine treats Parkinson's" whereas the anti-smokers would say "nicotine is harmful, addictive, and is highly correlated with lung cancer"

In this case, a Yankee fan (madmike) may use stats to support his argument about a Yankee player, whereas a Red Sox fan (thor?) could use similar stats to make an opposing argument, and a neutral fan (Scott Dierking?) could use similar stats to make a fair assessment.

Either way, stats CANNOT be relied upon with 100 % confidence. Sometimes, some qualitative analysis (actually WATCHING THE PLAYERS PLAY and commenting thusly) are needed to triangulate (use multiple methods of analysis) and get an accurate picture of how a player performs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. One always has to ask the question: "WHOSE information is it?"

For example, research done by the Tobacco Companies on the effects of nicotine would end up with results VERY DIFFERENT that research done by a group of anti-smokers, even if they are looking at similar information.

The Tobacco companies may say "nicotine treats Parkinson's" whereas the anti-smokers would say "nicotine is harmful, addictive, and is highly correlated with lung cancer"

In this case, a Yankee fan (madmike) may use stats to support his argument about a Yankee player, whereas a Red Sox fan (thor?) could use similar stats to make an opposing argument, and a neutral fan (Scott Dierking?) could use similar stats to make a fair assessment.

Either way, stats CANNOT be relied upon with 100 % confidence. Sometimes, some qualitative analysis (actually WATCHING THE PLAYERS PLAY and commenting thusly) are needed to triangulate (use multiple methods of analysis) and get an accurate picture of how a player performs.

I stand corrected-That is the smartest post on this thread.

Watching players tells you much more than stats can. I don't care what the stat or how much people are in agreement to the viability of that stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand corrected-That is the smartest post on this thread.

Watching players tells you much more than stats can. I don't care what the stat or how much people are in agreement to the viability of that stat.

I would only disagree in that it depends on how you go about doing your analysis and how objective you are. Stats can be as useful or moreso than watching a player play if you are doing the analysis without being biased towards one player or another. Stats can be used unethically to prove your point, but used wisely, can paint an accurate picture.

Meanwhile, watching a player play requires a good baseball mind. If you've never watched a game before, you can't say a player "sucks" without being able to make a comparison. A MLB scout, however, can make a quality analysis because he/she has been immersed in the sport for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. One always has to ask the question: "WHOSE information is it?"

For example, research done by the Tobacco Companies on the effects of nicotine would end up with results VERY DIFFERENT that research done by a group of anti-smokers, even if they are looking at similar information.

The Tobacco companies may say "nicotine treats Parkinson's" whereas the anti-smokers would say "nicotine is harmful, addictive, and is highly correlated with lung cancer"

In this case, a Yankee fan (madmike) may use stats to support his argument about a Yankee player, whereas a Red Sox fan (thor?) could use similar stats to make an opposing argument, and a neutral fan (Scott Dierking?) could use similar stats to make a fair assessment.

Either way, stats CANNOT be relied upon with 100 % confidence. Sometimes, some qualitative analysis (actually WATCHING THE PLAYERS PLAY and commenting thusly) are needed to triangulate (use multiple methods of analysis) and get an accurate picture of how a player performs.

Please stop introducing logic to this argument.

He's pitched against one decent hitting team and got bombed. And he leads the majors in run support.

He did get alot of run support, but he pitched 18 innings and surrendered 10 hits and 3 runs. While increasing his Ks and lowering the amount of blasts he surrenders. Even his Yankee game showed improvement from last year. Last year if he gave up runs early, he would tank and the Sox end up losing 14-3. This year he showed perseverence and did not let the game get out of hand.

He sucks though right? I suppose you want Karsten and Bean as oppossed to Beckett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please stop introducing logic to this argument.

He did get alot of run support, but he pitched 18 innings and surrendered 10 hits and 3 runs. While increasing his Ks and lowering the amount of blasts he surrenders. Even his Yankee game showed improvement from last year. Last year if he gave up runs early, he would tank and the Sox end up losing 14-3. This year he showed perseverence and did not let the game get out of hand.

He sucks though right? I suppose you want Karsten and Bean as oppossed to Beckett.

Heh, looks like madmike stayed the heck away from this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, looks like madmike stayed the heck away from this thread.

He his his opinion I have mine. We'll see who's right after a sample size of more than 4 starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...