Our SS Situation

[Dipre]

Exactly! It covers both.

 

But batting average is solely for hitting.

 

Lol are you for real dude?

[Dojji]

I understand this, and OBP is very important to scoring runs.

 

But it doesn't record hits per at-bats. It records getting on base per at bats. There's a difference.

 

Yes, and it's a beneficial difference, since walks are just as legitimate a way to extend a rally as, say, infield hits, and are much easier to obtain without insane luck.

 

And actually it measures getting on base per "plate appearance" since a walk is not an official at bat. Yes, that means it's possible to have an OBP *lower* than your AVG.

[Dojji]

Exactly! It covers both (I already knew that).

 

But batting average is solely for hitting. That's what we were talking about, hitting the ball, not walks.

 

Actually, we're not just talking about hitting the ball. Not any more than talking about pitching is talking about throwing the ball, or talking about fielding is talking about catchin the ball. There's a whole lot of layers to this that you're just not gonna get if you stick to such a simplistic outlook.

[PWNdroia]

Actually' date=' we're not just talking about hitting the ball. Not any more than talking about pitching is talking about throwing the ball, or talking about fielding is talking about catchin the ball. There's a whole lot of layers to this that you're just not gonna get if you stick to such a simplistic outlook.[/quote']

 

Well, I tend to look at things simple. But I agree with your philosophy on OBP. But this does not support JJ Hardy in any way.

 

Which is whyI shall put us back on topic: Tulo or Hanley?

[Dojji]

Well, I tend to look at things simple. But I agree with your philosophy on OBP. But this does not support JJ Hardy in any way.

 

It supports him as a better option than Alex Gonzalez.

[PWNdroia]

It supports him as a better option than Alex Gonzalez.

 

True, the stats don't lie, but seriously, can we move on?

 

All I've said is I like what Gonzo has done for this team. It doesn't mean I think he is the best. But to me, he's been great on this team so far. I don't know why that is so hard to accept.

 

Now can we back on topic?

[Dojji]

That topic isn't going anywhere. Neither is Troy Tulowitzki for that matter. the Rockies wouldn't trade Helton for Lester and Lowell, they sure as heck won't trade Tulo.

[PWNdroia]

That topic isn't going anywhere. Neither is Troy Tulowitzki for that matter. the Rockies wouldn't trade Helton for Lester and Lowell' date=' they sure as heck won't trade Tulo.[/quote']

 

I wish they would. Hanley is more possible IMO.

[jacksonianmarch]

Neither are going anywhere. Drop it

[PWNdroia]

Neither are going anywhere. Drop it

 

Probably not, but it's a nice pipe dream.

[Dojji]

when devising a trade, you have to figure out some way it makes sense to the other team. Very very few possible scenarios involve a franchise caliber cost controlled elite offensive and defensive SS being available on the trade market.

 

I'd rather go for defense anyway. It's easier to find and we have other issues to resolve -- and what we're really looking for isn't really a top flight SS, just an alternative to Jed Lowrie in case he gets healthy and still can't cut it.

[Dojji]

Probably not' date=' but it's a nice pipe dream.[/quote']

 

You want a pipe dream that has a snowball's hellchance of happening?

 

Jose Reyes. He's looking at a $3.5M pay hike on an already bloated payroll. If that Madoff stuff is worse than everyone assures us, Reyes might be on the move.

[Spudboy]

No' date=' it's stupid because it's really ill-informed, a bit intellectually dishonest, and professes a determination to ignore anything that doesn't support your point.[/quote']

 

Like any good Republican.

[example1]

I don't see how it's inaccurate. I looked up his stats' date=' and his BA is .295 with the Red Sox. How can this be ill-informed? Obviously I did not make up this statistic. Therefore it is true. I'm being blatantly obvious so you understand.[/quote']

 

You are both right and wrong.

 

You are right because his BA is what you say it is.

 

You are wrong because his BA isn't an accurate reflection of how good a hitter he is.

 

 

The whole point of sample size isn't to make you look stupid PWNdroia. The point of sample size is to give you (and everyone else) an idea of how reliable the numbers you are looking at are.

 

If I flipped a coin 5 times and got heads 4 times one might think that coin flips naturally result in 80% heads. You could walk away saying "coinflips result in 80% heads", but you and I both know this would be a hasty generalization based on too-little data.

 

We both know that if I flipped that coin 100 times I would get closer to 50 heads and 50 tales. It's a 50-50 chance, right? The more times I flip the coin, the closer I get to 50-50, which is the TRUE result. After 100,000 flips I might have 49,790 tales, and 50,210 heads, which would be very close to 50-50 (49.790% tales/50.210% heads).

 

Why talk about coinflips? Because they are something we know should result in a perfect 50-50 split.

 

What does this have to do with Alex Gonzalez? We KNOW, from 4753 ABs against MLB pitchers that he's NOT a .295 hitter. Over that time he's been a .248 hitter. When he bats against this level of pitching he gets a hit about 24.8% of the time. 4753 ABs is a very good sample size.

 

Your argument that he is, in fact, a .295 hitter is actually just wrong. It is the equivalent of me walking in during coinflips #98,543 and #99,102 and noting that you actually got 60% heads during that time. It may be TRUE that you got 60% heads during that time, but you would know (and anyone else who watches all 100,000 flips would know) that my statement about the ACTUAL RESULTS OF YOUR AVERAGE COIN FLIP was wrong. I could have walked in during another stretch of 100 coinflips and see the exact opposite--60% tales, 40% heads.

 

I could walk around talking about how PNWdroia's coin flips at 60% heads, but you would know I was wrong. Nobody believes that Gonzo is a near-.300 hitter.

 

 

My take on it is that he has been a good producer for Boston. It has been absolutely wonderful that he has contributed to this team during the stretch run. A great acquisition by Theo at a very important time. I just don't take it for more than it is worth.

 

Be happy he did okay, but don't suddenly start bragging about how great a hitter he is in Boston. He's been good, but a .311 OBP isn't much to write home about. He isn't killing the team, so in that sense he's been a great addition. Don't get ahead of yourself otherwise.

[Dipre]

^ That is a long-ass post.

[Spudboy]

when devising a trade, you have to figure out some way it makes sense to the other team. Very very few possible scenarios involve a franchise caliber cost controlled elite offensive and defensive SS being available on the trade market.

 

I'd rather go for defense anyway. It's easier to find and we have other issues to resolve -- and what we're really looking for isn't really a top flight SS, just an alternative to Jed Lowrie in case he gets healthy and still can't cut it.

 

LOL!

 

You want defense, implying that offensive production is subordinate.

 

Yet you don't want Gonzo?

 

Well thought out there.

[example1]

^ That is a long-ass post.

 

I type quickly.

 

I'm not one who belives that coherent and thorough arguments can be made in two sentences. I don't think Supreme Court opinions should be one paragraph long, and descriptions about the basics of probability and sample sizes take up long chapters in statistics books because they require thorough arguments to make the point.

[example1]

^ That is a long-ass post.

 

Schwindenhammer-ian, perhaps?

[Dipre]

I type quickly.

 

I'm not one who belives that coherent and thorough arguments can be made in two sentences. I don't think Supreme Court opinions should be one paragraph long, and descriptions about the basics of probability and sample sizes take up long chapters in statistics books because they require thorough arguments to make the point.

 

Depends on the situation.

 

Example:

 

Dumb argument:

 

"Gonzo's batting average with the Sox is .290!".

 

Short but sweet answer:

 

"SSS".

 

Problem solved.

 

And how the f*** does your country get a one-paragraph SC ruling.

 

They're f***ing books here.

[example1]

Depends on the situation.

 

Example:

 

Dumb argument:

 

"Gonzo's batting average with the Sox is .290!".

 

Short but sweet answer:

 

"SSS".

 

Problem solved.

 

And how the f*** does your country get a one-paragraph SC ruling.

 

They're f***ing books here.

 

The answer is no good if someone doesn't understand what the implications of a "small sample size" are.

 

I don't believe there are one-paragraph SC rulings.

[Dipre]

The answer is no good if someone doesn't understand what the implications of a "small sample size" are.

 

I don't believe there are one-paragraph SC rulings.

 

If he doesn't understand the implications of a small sample size, he probably won't understand the implications of the law of averages either, even if you use an example as simple as a coin.

 

About the one paragraph ruling thing, i was going off of what you said.

[example1]

If he doesn't understand the implications of a small sample size' date=' he probably won't understand the implications of the law of averages either, even if you use an example as simple as a coin. [/quote']

 

I don't assume that everyone has had exposure to the rudimentary arguments grounding more complex ideas. I wouldn't start a discussion about the nuclear bomb with a disucssion about nuclear ions... I would start with atoms--protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

Every probability discussion should start with coin flips if it appears your partner doesn't know his right from his left foot.

 

It's the Socratic philosophy major in me, I suppose.

 

About the one paragraph ruling thing, i was going off of what you said.

 

I know you were. I just meant that intelligent discussion doesn't usually happen in brief statements.

[Dipre]

I don't assume that everyone has had exposure to the rudimentary arguments grounding more complex ideas. I wouldn't start a discussion about the nuclear bomb with a disucssion about nuclear ions... I would start with atoms--protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

Every probability discussion should start with coin flips if it appears your partner doesn't know his right from his left foot.

 

It's the Socratic philosophy major in me, I suppose.

.

 

Wrong use of the Socratic line of argument by the way.

 

Socrates would let their opponent make their argument, then tear it down brick by brick.

 

He wouldn't use rudimentary arguments or try to enlighten them as to their mistakes.

 

It went like this:

 

Pre-argument.

 

Opponent's random ********.

 

Pwnag3.

 

Rinse and repeat.

[example1]

Wrong use of the Socratic line of argument by the way.

 

Socrates would let their opponent make their argument, then tear it down brick by brick.

 

He wouldn't use rudimentary arguments or try to enlighten them as to their mistakes.

 

It went like this:

 

Pre-argument.

 

Opponent's random ********.

 

Pwnag3.

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Ha! Yeah, you're right about the Socratic method. I was speaking more about Socrates' love of knowledge and his having been the inspiration for knowledge in two-thousand years of Western thought. Thanks for the clarification though! Socrates would actually say something more like "all I know is I know nothing" and he would have run (rhetorical) circles around both the "Alex Gonzalez is a .295 hitter" argument, and the "sample sizes matter" argument. He would have broken it down into the fundaments of language and left us all scratching our head, wondering why we invited this guy to the party.

 

Okay, it was my Baconian love of teaching and knowledge that inspired the lengthy post above. Not my Socratic reflex.

[Dipre]

Ha! Yeah, you're right about the Socratic method. I was speaking more about Socrates' love of knowledge and his having been the inspiration for knowledge in two-thousand years of Western thought. Thanks for the clarification though! Socrates would actually say something more like "all I know is I know nothing" and he would have run (rhetorical) circles around both the "Alex Gonzalez is a .295 hitter" argument, and the "sample sizes matter" argument. He would have broken it down into the fundaments of language and left us all scratching our head, wondering why we invited this guy to the party.

 

Okay, it was my Baconian love of teaching and knowledge that inspired the lengthy post above. Not my Socratic reflex.

 

Damn straight.

 

Socrates was the balls though.

[TheKilo]

Which is why it's stupid. Why are we playing musical left fielders when we have one that we already know can get the job done and be a productive bat in the AL East?

 

The marginal gain on Holliday over Bay is ridiculously small.

 

Disagree very strongly.

[ORS]

Wow, really? Smells a whole lot like the "marginal" upgrade from Teixeira to our 3B statue.

 

20x all-star, FTW.

[Cocos Disciples]

Wow, really? Smells a whole lot like the "marginal" upgrade from Teixeira to our Cuban statue.

 

20x all-star, FTW.

 

This is completely false.

 

He's Puerto Rican.

 

EDIT: Bah, you edited your post.

[TheKilo]

Well, next year we will need a shortstop. Several people don't want Gonzo to come back. Several mentioned JJ Hardy. Well, I think we can get someone even better: Troy Tulowitzki. I say we package Bowden in a deal and try to land Tulo. He can hit with power and field decently. I think he would be a great addition.

 

I think Gonzo has been great, but landing Tulowitzki would be sooooooooooo much better IMO...

 

Maybe trade Josh Reddick and Bowden in a deal?

 

Well, next year we need a third baseman. Several people don't want Lowell to come back. Several have mentioneed Mark Reynolds. Well, I think we can get someone even better: Albert Pujols. I say we package Wakefield in a deal and try to land Pujols. He can hit with power and field decently. I think he would be a great addition.

 

I think Lowell has been great, but landing Pujols would be sooooooooooo much better IMO...

[ORS]

This is completely false.

 

He's Puerto Rican.

 

EDIT: Bah, you edited your post.

Yeah, I wasn't sure, so I went with the edit.

 

He's got connections to Miami, and the largest hispanic poulation in Miami is Cuban, but it didn't sound right.