Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Meh... people cling to what they think is important and what will help them. They had these stats, OBP, SLG back in the dark ages. What they didn't understand is what they meant in the larger context and why they were important. We collect strikeout figures because they are a measure power... we know that good strikeout pitchers can make good batters seem small. Its that perception though... they seem small... it doesn't mean that they get them out more often. All that's being done by using different measures is shifting the window by which we view things... ironically its being shifted to a more objective area where we can more accurately say what's important in the grand scheme. OBP is more important than AVG in the grand scheme of things because OBP is more conducive to run scoring than AVG is as a measure. Sure, discounting average takes away the machismo a bit... you express very little power and strength by watching a guy throw 4 of 6 pitches outside some tiny box. Also realize that by walking you aren't magically taking away a double or a home run... which is really what these OBP vs. AVG discussion are about. You think that by focusing on OBP that you lose doubles, triples, and home runs.
Oh, so you can make runs just happen. That's the difference here... I see performance in baseball as a natural process of ability. it is a process... sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. You are still holding onto the notion that somebody can will behavior. They can will that hit. I think such ideas are smoke and mirrors... techincally its true... you get into a hyperfocused rhythm and you know exactly what the other guy is going to do... the next thing you know the State Police are called out to Pike to deal with a car ending up in a jersey barrier. In reality all things happen because somebody made it happen. On the other hand, we could end up in that same moment, a bug crosses the player's *** at the wrong time and the game ends.
Nevertheless, whether a player wills himself to success or not we're talking about the adequacy of a summary measure. Numbers that summarize a performance. If what you say is indeed true... that players can will themselves in certain situations then you should be able to find exceptions a holes to this "stat nerd" crap and do it, ironically, with their own tools.
Assuming things are random (or even worse, independent events) takes the reality out of the person's hands. No man wants to believe he is a machine. Heck, we've seen the failures of such nerd tools when the derivatives markets blew up last year. But, I'm going to take my rules of thumb over yours... and so will most MLB general managers.
If you think MLB has gotten nerded out... the NFL guys wish their sport could be nerded out like that because the better they can nerd out they know they can build their teams better and get that much closer to winning. Ironically the NFL is more concerned about the result than the process of the sport.
edit: I find it funny... there's a sharp correspondence between the strength of a sport's old-boy network and their affinity for adaptation (in this case using numeric tools). Take a look at the 4 major sports and they fall right in line with this rule.
Good, because that means statsnerding will not be used to determine HoF eligibility.
What you're missing for the umpteenth time is that reviewing stats 20 years later does not replace watching the guy's career when it happened. People 'back in the dark ages' had access to plenty of these stats already, as both on base % and slugging % were well known stats (unless of course adding those two together gives some mind blowing insight that people didn't have 20 years ago). Ever wonder why the guys you want in the Hall aren't in, while the ones I think belong are? Could it be, maybe, that I'm right and you're wrong.
Or is the world just out to screw you and the rest of the pocket protector class?
Meh... people cling to what they think is important and what will help them. They had these stats, OBP, SLG back in the dark ages. What they didn't understand is what they meant in the larger context and why they were important. We collect strikeout figures because they are a measure power... we know that good strikeout pitchers can make good batters seem small. Its that perception though... they seem small... it doesn't mean that they get them out more often. All that's being done by using different measures is shifting the window by which we view things... ironically its being shifted to a more objective area where we can more accurately say what's important in the grand scheme. OBP is more important than AVG in the grand scheme of things because OBP is more conducive to run scoring than AVG is as a measure. Sure, discounting average takes away the machismo a bit... you express very little power and strength by watching a guy throw 4 of 6 pitches outside some tiny box. Also realize that by walking you aren't magically taking away a double or a home run... which is really what these OBP vs. AVG discussion are about. You think that by focusing on OBP that you lose doubles, triples, and home runs.
To your second point, talk about wimpily passing the buck to the next guy. Maybe you match up better against the pitcher than the next guy. Maybe the other guy might not get a good pitch to hit like you did (again about how its humans, not machines, playing the game). How about exercising some personal responsibility and taking it upon yourself to drive in that run.
Oh, so you can make runs just happen. That's the difference here... I see performance in baseball as a natural process of ability. it is a process... sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. You are still holding onto the notion that somebody can will behavior. They can will that hit. I think such ideas are smoke and mirrors... techincally its true... you get into a hyperfocused rhythm and you know exactly what the other guy is going to do... the next thing you know the State Police are called out to Pike to deal with a car ending up in a jersey barrier. In reality all things happen because somebody made it happen. On the other hand, we could end up in that same moment, a bug crosses the player's *** at the wrong time and the game ends.
Nevertheless, whether a player wills himself to success or not we're talking about the adequacy of a summary measure. Numbers that summarize a performance. If what you say is indeed true... that players can will themselves in certain situations then you should be able to find exceptions a holes to this "stat nerd" crap and do it, ironically, with their own tools.
Assuming things are random (or even worse, independent events) takes the reality out of the person's hands. No man wants to believe he is a machine. Heck, we've seen the failures of such nerd tools when the derivatives markets blew up last year. But, I'm going to take my rules of thumb over yours... and so will most MLB general managers.
If you think MLB has gotten nerded out... the NFL guys wish their sport could be nerded out like that because the better they can nerd out they know they can build their teams better and get that much closer to winning. Ironically the NFL is more concerned about the result than the process of the sport.
edit: I find it funny... there's a sharp correspondence between the strength of a sport's old-boy network and their affinity for adaptation (in this case using numeric tools). Take a look at the 4 major sports and they fall right in line with this rule.
Last edited:
So now you're saying we should go by eyewitness accounts when evaluating players, even though you said repeatedly that you can get everything you need from stats. 