Please start Hermida over Cameron

[Dipre]

re-posted from another thread:

"But... I still watch baseball for love of the game. It's one of my passions, not my job. I just want to discuss today's Sox, yesterday's Sox, the Sox from 30 years ago... I know a lot of people are really into statistics and I don't begrudge them their passion/hobby but I'm more into the emotional side of the game. Do the numbers say what kind of leftfielder Yaz was? Frankly, I don't give a crap! I think he was great and since I'm not a G/M that's really good enough for me."

 

So my friend you're wasting your time. In your opinion (and yes it is just an opinion) it's the only way to assess a player.

 

Did id say it was the "only" way to asses a player?

 

I said only "real reasonable" way. It is just an opinion, but please don't distort it.

[Dojji]

Forum discussions lend themselves to stats and sabermetric analysis, since MLB's draconian policies about video from big league ballgames showing up on Youtube makes it hard to do video analysis. Also, since it's a number that you can give a link to and have a simple basis of comparison between players and their contemporaries.

 

If you really want a sport that defies statistical analysis, watch hockey. It's the sport of all the major sports that's the hardest to break down into individual plays, and therefore the most statistically impenetrable. All the others can be broken down either into individual plays or at least in basketball's case into discrete possessions. With hockey, things just happen too fast and too fluidly for that. There's also a lot more action in an average game, and it's the major sport where the players spend the least amount of time standing there doing nothing but stare at each other.

[YeAuldBroade]

Did id say it was the "only" way to asses a player?

 

I said only "real reasonable" way. It is just an opinion, but please don't distort it.

 

"Stats are the only really reasonable way to asses a player's ability and worth, specially on offense."

Actually what you truly said is a bit more condescending than how I paraphrased it.

 

Dipre I don't have a problem with stat dudes all I ask is that they accept I'm going to ignore their stats and just discuss the game. If my non-stat approach to a hobby offends you, I'll understand if you choose to not respond to me in the future. I certainly have no problem with your statistical approach, I'm just not interested.

[Dipre]

I didn't say it offended me. It just seemed like i went out of my way to bash anyone who didn't like them by saying they're the "Only way". They are not the only way, but i said only "really reasonable" because it's the type of analysis ML teams use when drafting a player/ signing a FA.

[YeAuldBroade]

Forum discussions lend themselves to stats and sabermetric analysis, since MLB's draconian policies about video from big league ballgames showing up on Youtube makes it hard to do video analysis. Also, since it's a number that you can give a link to and have a simple basis of comparison between players and their contemporaries.

 

If you really want a sport that defies statistical analysis, watch hockey. It's the sport of all the major sports that's the hardest to break down into individual plays, and therefore the most statistically impenetrable. When I get sick of the saberstuff, that's what I do.

I've been posting on baseball boards for 20 years and it's possible to have truly awesome conversations without ever mentioning a statistic. In fact, baseball conversations used to be a billion times more enjoyable before the sabermetric generation took over. Now baseball boards often look more like a calculus exam than a discussion of the Grand Ole Game.

[YeAuldBroade]

AND: I actually sometimes feel like the new stats first generation is really missing something when it comes to baseball. I think they would do themselves a favor if the turned off the computers for a month and just watched for the pure enjoyment of the sport - and made decisions based on visuals, intuition and just plain gut reactions. Their opinions wouldn't be so easy to back up (since they're based on heart, not numbers) but they'd probably enjoy the conversations and the game a lot more.

[Dipre]

Two things:

 

1)I'd be very much tempted to agree if watching the game for the sake of enoying the game through visuals didn't lend itself to the creation of an unreal perception of the value and ability of a ballplayer.

 

Examples: Juan Pierre, JD Drew.

 

 

2)I personally watch at least 90% of all Red Sox games, and have been doing so for years. Following stats does nothing to interfere with my actual enjoyment of the game, but rather opens up other possibilities and allows for deeper comprehension of the nature of the game. It's quite possible to enjoy the actual game, and enjoy the possibilities that statistical analysis open up in regards to it.

[YeAuldBroade]

Dipre, fine. That's great, good for you. But I don't care about your stats. That was my entire point from post one. I hate the statistics overkill, that's me. I watch 100% of all Sox games a year (and have since 1973 - ok I listened to most of them on the radio for the first 20 years or so) and feel no need to do more. Enjoy your stats and I'll continue to ignore them and enjoy the game just as much.

[italstallianion]

Dipre' date=' fine. That's great, good for you. But I don't care about your stats. That was my entire point from post one. I hate the statistics overkill, that's me. I watch 100% of all Sox games a year (and have since 1973 - ok I listened to most of them on the radio for the first 20 years or so) and feel no need to do more. Enjoy your stats and I'll continue to ignore them and enjoy the game just as much.[/quote']

 

 

Then what's the point in arguing/debating something without stats? That's like having a leper give you a facial, or having Bush talk about business ethics--it just doesn't work. You'd pretty much guarantee that you'd lose every debate you stepped in. Sometimes, ignorance isn't bliss.

[Spudboy]

No Francona doesn't suck. No Hermidia and Reddick are not better choices than Cameron and JD Drew. No JD Drew does not suck either. No JD Drew is not one of the best hitting outfielders in baseball and probably not worth his $14 million but I do think he's a huge asset to the team.

 

Is there some place where we can vote for stupidest thread of the year?

 

:lol:

 

Great post.

[Spudboy]

AND: I actually sometimes feel like the new stats first generation is really missing something when it comes to baseball. I think they would do themselves a favor if the turned off the computers for a month and just watched for the pure enjoyment of the sport - and made decisions based on visuals' date=' intuition and just plain gut reactions. Their opinions wouldn't be so easy to back up (since they're based on heart, not numbers) but they'd probably enjoy the conversations and the game a lot more.[/quote']

 

This post is sig worthy. I hope I can get it to fit.

[YeAuldBroade]

Then what's the point in arguing/debating something without stats? That's like having a leper give you a facial' date=' or having Bush talk about business ethics--it just doesn't work. You'd pretty much guarantee that you'd lose every debate you stepped in. Sometimes, ignorance isn't bliss.[/quote']

My how incredibly narrow-minded and biased of you. I guess the decades of great baseball discussions on sports talk shows, message boards, at ball parks, in living rooms all across America were just a heyday for lepers. Step back and think about what you just posted and then think about all the conversations that take place - even here - even today where stats aren't even mentioned.

 

I think anyone that uses defensive metrics but doesn't bother to actually watch the games is probably the one that will lose every debate he ever enters, that is if someone could convince him that defensive metrics aren't 100% - which you can't of course because in his OPINION they are.

 

Stat debates that I've read here, I've yet to see anyone a clear winner because every time someone comes up with one nebulous stat, someone else pulls a contradictory one out and no one ever agrees which stat holds more weight.

 

At least with non-stat discussions you have people with the foresight to use phrases like "in my opinion", "I saw a game where he..."........

[YeAuldBroade]

This post is sig worthy. I hope I can get it to fit.

 

Thank you.

[a700hitter]

AND: I actually sometimes feel like the new stats first generation is really missing something when it comes to baseball. I think they would do themselves a favor if the turned off the computers for a month and just watched for the pure enjoyment of the sport - and made decisions based on visuals' date=' intuition and just plain gut reactions. Their opinions wouldn't be so easy to back up (since they're based on heart, not numbers) but they'd probably enjoy the conversations and the game a lot more.[/quote']If I wasn't already married, I'd propose to you.

[YeAuldBroade]

If I wasn't already married' date=' I'd propose to you.[/quote']

*blushes*

[a700hitter]

There is a reason why the top organizations rely heavily on their scouting department. They are not stat compilers. They watch the games.

[Dipre]

There is a reason why the top organizations rely heavily on their scouting department. They are not stat compilers. They watch the games.

 

It's a 50-50 proposition.

 

You have to watch the games but handle the stats as well.

[Dojji]

There is a reason why the top organizations rely heavily on their scouting department. They are not stat compilers. They watch the games.

 

The successful ones recognize that the two principles are not at odds and that both scouting and stats can provide valuable insights.

 

The difference of course being that we aren't scouts. Most of us wouldn't really know great baseball if it crapped on our shoes, no matter what we personally believe about our own scouting skills. But we do have numbers, and numbers are something you can quote and link to in forums, so that's where the discussions tend to center. Kicking against that isn't wonderfully productive.

[YeAuldBroade]

The successful ones recognize that the two principles are not at odds and that both scouting and stats can provide valuable insights.

 

The difference of course being that we aren't scouts. Most of us wouldn't really know great baseball if it crapped on our shoes, no matter what we personally believe about our own scouting skills. But we do have numbers, and numbers are something you can quote and link to in forums, so that's where the discussions tend to center. Kicking against that isn't wonderfully productive.

You shouldn't so off-handedly disregard that many of your fellow posters have watched decades of baseball and probably know the game very well. Especially when it's just to try and make a point that stats (which as I said everyone has a favorite, 1/2 the time they contradict each other and no one ever agrees whose stat is the most relevant) are the only way to go because YOU PERSONALLY LOVE THEM.

 

and if someone wanted to they could say... well obviously you don't understand stats the way those employed by baseball organizations do so you'd do well to stick to the tried and true (for roughly the past 100 years) and learn to observe, process and evalute using nothing more complicated than a scoredcard, a sharp pencil and an experienced set of eyes.

[Spudboy]

If I wasn't already married' date=' I'd propose to you.[/quote']

 

Take a number!

[a700hitter]

The successful ones recognize that the two principles are not at odds and that both scouting and stats can provide valuable insights.

 

The difference of course being that we aren't scouts. Most of us wouldn't really know great baseball if it crapped on our shoes, no matter what we personally believe about our own scouting skills. But we do have numbers, and numbers are something you can quote and link to in forums, so that's where the discussions tend to center. Kicking against that isn't wonderfully productive.

Most of us are even less expert in the use of statistics. We can quote them, but we don't know the significance or the weight placed on certain stats by a particular baseball organization. If your argument is that we as fans know more about stats than we do about what we are watching, I think you are making a losing argument.

[Dipre]

It's Gom all over again.

 

You can't scout without stats, and you can't stat without scouts.

 

Judging players only by what your eyes see is an easy to get an incorrect gauge on a player's actual skillset. (Juan Pierre).

 

Judging players without actually seeing them play is an easy way to not identify flaws/virtues otherwise only identifiable by watching the actual game. (Dustin Pedroia).

 

People who dismiss stats are wrong.

 

People who dismiss scouting and talent evaluation are wrong.

 

It's a combination of both, but bare in mind that advanced scouts now use statistics such as FB/GB ratio and PPA when evaluating how a player's skillset would translate from college to the minors/major leagues.

[Spudboy]

It's a 50-50 proposition.

 

You have to watch the games but handle the stats as well.

 

A century of baseball defies this comment.

 

Some "new stats' are very useful, others, not so much.

[Spudboy]

The successful ones recognize that the two principles are not at odds and that both scouting and stats can provide valuable insights.

 

The difference of course being that we aren't scouts. Most of us wouldn't really know great baseball if it crapped on our shoes, no matter what we personally believe about our own scouting skills. But we do have numbers, and numbers are something you can quote and link to in forums, so that's where the discussions tend to center. Kicking against that isn't wonderfully productive.

 

Well put.

[Spudboy]

You shouldn't so off-handedly disregard that many of your fellow posters have watched decades of baseball and probably know the game very well. Especially when it's just to try and make a point that stats (which as I said everyone has a favorite, 1/2 the time they contradict each other and no one ever agrees whose stat is the most relevant) are the only way to go because YOU PERSONALLY LOVE THEM.

 

and if someone wanted to they could say... well obviously you don't understand stats the way those employed by baseball organizations do so you'd do well to stick to the tried and true (for roughly the past 100 years) and learn to observe, process and evalute using nothing more complicated than a scoredcard, a sharp pencil and an experienced set of eyes.

 

The I.Q. Of Talksox just went up 40 points with this one post.

[Dipre]

A century of baseball defies this comment.

 

Some "new stats' are very useful, others, not so much.

 

Everything evolves. If it wasn't before, it is now.

 

The planet earth used to be square.

 

The "I have watched two more decades of baseball than you" argument is a poor argument to make when referring to baseball knowledge.

 

By that statement, that century of baseball also defines Brian Cashman's and Theo Epstein's regimes as GM's, and lots of people here have also watched two decades of more baseball than those two.

 

Times change, baseball has changed, and while there are useless stats, i just don't see how you can argue that statistical analysis has gained a new level of importance in the current spectrum of the baseball world.

 

What once was, is not anymore, and what now is, will probably not be tomorrow.

[rhet]

Stats have always been used. The whole Hall Of Fame entrance exam is a stat-fest.

 

But stats cannot overrule what the eye can see. For example, even though Nomar made only one error in July 2004, everyone knew he couldn't field the position anymore just by watching him.

 

Stats help analyze the game, but they aren't the game.

[Spudboy]

Everything evolves. If it wasn't before, it is now.

 

The planet earth used to be square.

 

The "I have watched two more decades of baseball than you" argument is a poor argument to make when referring to baseball knowledge.

 

By that statement, that century of baseball also defines Brian Cashman's and Theo Epstein's regimes as GM's, and lots of people here have also watched two decades of more baseball than those two.

 

Times change, baseball has changed, and while there are useless stats, i just don't see how you can argue that statistical analysis has gained a new level of importance in the current spectrum of the baseball world.

 

What once was, is not anymore, and what now is, will probably not be tomorrow.

 

I guess the need to have the final word has overcome your ability to be reasonable.

 

No one here has said that the new metrics don't have their place in baseball. I'm a Darwinist and have spent almost my entire life in a laboratory and involved in the sciences.

Statistics are an essential component in almost all technical disciplines. I am not resistant to change or evolution. Christ, the evolution of mathematics and semiconductor technology (Spud stuff) have enabled all of us to be able to discuss this very topic.

 

In a discussion of a GAME, one which was devised to provide enjoyment both for those who play and those who watch, one can not, in all good conscience, discount subjectivity (observation) and an appreciation for athletics.

[Spudboy]

Stats have always been used. The whole Hall Of Fame entrance exam is a stat-fest.

 

But stats cannot overrule what the eye can see. For example, even though Nomar made only one error in July 2004, everyone knew he couldn't field the position anymore just by watching him.

 

Stats help analyze the game, but they aren't the game.

 

Not an example I would have used, but well said!

[a700hitter]

Vin Scully said it best when he said the following about statistics:

 

Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.