This is, again, a terrible interpretation of data using a laughable method.Originally Posted by bostopz
You are ignoring every other factor that may have contributed to Cespedes' "impact" on either team because it helps your viewpoint, yet you dare speak of bias. Your conclusions are laughable, and the method is too.
We miss you Mike.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they're typing too fast to spell.
This guy is acting more and more like a troll, probably one who's been here before.
I'm not ignoring the data. The data shows there was a collapse. The data does not show that the cause of the collapse was Cespedes' departure. That is quite a jump you're making there.
Bellhorn is right. It's difficult to respond because you're kind of all over the place, and you ask 100 questions. It's hard to know where to start. I don't have a lot of time to post on weekdays, and there are several other posts in here that I would like to respond to. It would be helpful if you would focus on one topic at a time, and limit the questions.
The A's just went into the shitter.
Losing Cespedes did not help but it was hardly the root cause of the collapse.
I think that's the gist of it right there, and the reason why many people don't understand the relative unimportance of stolen bases.
As I've posted before, in the season where Henderson stole 130 bases (along with 42 times being caught), he was worth a grand total of 1.6 base stealing runs to his team over the course of the season. Some of those stolen bases were probably huge, but some of those caught stealings probably were just as huge.
The most precious commodity in baseball is still the out.
This is a very good read on why sabermetricians should be confronting the sabermetric skeptics, rather than just letting them believe what they've always believed. Those with more traditional views are probably not going to like it, but IMO, this guy is spot on. This is my goal in life - to stop the misinformation! LOL
http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-cas...tric-skeptics/
Now, now...
Folks with wildly misinformed opinions have feelings too!
The comments following the article are also interesting. I especially liked the ones by Marc Schneider, probably because his viewpoint seems so close to mine.
Kimmi -- All I have to say is -- YIKES! I'm getting lambasted by a poster for my observations calling them laughable which certainly our replies are about one or two posts away from each of us hurling insults at one another --and then inevitably of course others chime in. I'm being called a troll by another poster who somehow has tied my typos (yes I make a lot of them = I'm sorry - I try to correct them which anyone can look at a lot of my prior posts and see I have made revisions to my posts- but I also think I mentioned I was in a hurry on this thread. How my typos got tied to troll - I don't know but whatever.). In addition I'm supposedly another poster. I can tell you I'm not -- but for anyone to suggest it - it means this topic I'm not really welcome - possibly further insults would come about and hijack your thread.
In fact on this thread I was the one that sent you a post on the jbj thread that others could be bored of this topic that if we wanted to continue you could create another thread and I'd oblige. But now "I'm a troll."
Well- anyhow the point is this is your thread and I don't want to hijack it. I'll refrain from posting on your thread if you wish. It's your decision - it's your thread. You come on here with a certain expectation of fun - and you start a thread - I don't have to post. I'm not into pyssign the whole damn world off. It's not that important.
With all that said - whether you want me posting on this or not -- please keep in mind - probably this comment more of others-- Kimi you and I look at things completely differently. You had replied to a post of mine that YOU disagreed with nearly everything I said.-- And it's the same with me to you- which is why in part I think you specifically mentioned to me that you were creating this thread. SO it seems like I'm just being a pain in the azz with you when I disagree so often but in fact I'm not meaning to - it just happens. I know you don't take offense but I wonder if others do and they think I just want to be contrarian.
Final point- if we disagree as often as we do-- one point I had brought up previously is that I don't believe how you are using data draws the conclusion you say it does. For me to counter that - I have to bring in other points - as you call it- all-over-the-map --as you said to me --- There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.
I'm trying to show or ask or understand what you or talking about or mean. For example when you say "you are a strong believer in grit" --
I have no idea what that general comment means vs why you are or aren't a strong believer in momentum too. Which, by the way, I'm not clear if you are or aren't. None of them are quantifiable. Why does grit get edge if it does? Because you say so? Or maybe you aren't really "a strong believer/" Now I've asked you more than one question. But that is how I have to prove my points. Your use of stats in some cases that just define an area of the game that is more than just the stats you provide. There are unquantifiable factors. Using examples and then responding to other posters etc -- can't all be done with one question. If that is what you want me to do - I can't -- thus tell me you want it -- then I'll just refrain. Let someone else who believes in things like- knows they exist - like "a clutch hitter" wage "war" with you.
It's your call on this- I don't want to hijack your thread.
Last edited by bostopz; 04-16-2015 at 08:19 PM.
Man, this isn't a post, it's a thesis!
My eyes hurt. You still don't make any sense. You still can't interpret data.
We miss you Mike.
hang in there. It means they really like you.
Yeah. I gave up. A post has to be very interesting for me to spend the time to read a wall of text.
Here's something that came as a revelation to me recently. There was some sort of discussion about Mickey Mantle's career on the other board and I looked him up on B-R. It has often been said that Mantle hung on too long, that he was a shell at the end, etc.
His last year was 1968. The big tragedy was that he hit .237. But his slash line was 237/385/398 for an OPS of 782. That was the Year of the Pitcher, and his OPS+ was 143. Not that bad at all! The lowest OPS+ he had for any year from 1952 to 1968 was 137.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote