Pedro HOF Induction

[Kimmi]

I clearly wasn't talking about these stats. I was talking about data used in advanced Sabremetrics, not old school stats.

 

This is good information -- something that I had not previously heard or read.

 

THis means nothing to me. Volkswagen's sole purpose was to make automobiles that comply with local regulations.

 

This is what statisticians do. They question everything. If there is something that you have questioned about stats, it's highly likely that they have questioned it themselves and tested it. They are very good about being able to eliminate variables and isolate those that they are trying to test. As much as humanly possible anyway.

 

There are things that don't work. There are things that they once thought worked, but with the advancement of new technology, later realized didn't work. There are things that they think are true or false, but have yet been able to prove or disprove statistically. But at least they are always testing and making improvements and corrections. They are not willing to accept that something is good or true just because it's been that way for 100 years.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I think you might be taking too much from a story written by a retired player in a book published a decade after the action was allegedly taken. Pedro mentioning that Theo added a couple MPH to a radar gun shouldn't really cast any doubt on the entire process of collecting and analyzing data. If data falsification was something that happened regularly, I'm sure something far more damaging would have been revealed as a scandal by now. These things don't stay quiet for long. The cocaine thing in the 80's, the multiple steroid scandals, clubhouse problems. The only doubt this should raise in any of us is in the readings of radar guns, and most of us never trusted those readings anyways. I've been pulled over for speeding too many times to believe what a radar gun says.

[a700hitter]

I think you might be taking too much from a story written by a retired player in a book published a decade after the action was allegedly taken. Pedro mentioning that Theo added a couple MPH to a radar gun shouldn't really cast any doubt on the entire process of collecting and analyzing data. If data falsification was something that happened regularly, I'm sure something far more damaging would have been revealed as a scandal by now. These things don't stay quiet for long. The cocaine thing in the 80's, the multiple steroid scandals, clubhouse problems. The only doubt this should raise in any of us is in the readings of radar guns, and most of us never trusted those readings anyways. I've been pulled over for speeding too many times to believe what a radar gun says.

I think you all made too much of a simple question I asked about the safeguarding of data collection and integrity. I did not impugn stats or their use. That is a projection being made by you and kimmi. I just asked about how the data is collected and verified. With the exception of a portion of one post explaining this, I have just been answered with posts telling me that stats are reliable with no explanation of how that is ensured.

[Kimmi]

Questioning is never unwarranted. If there is an answer that addresses the concerns, it should be offered, but that never invalidates the question. Just the way you phrased this ^indicates that you think any questioning of the process is an attack.

 

I don't know who said this. I certainly did not. I have been pouring over stats before your parents met. LOL! Because I look at stats, I want to be able to rely on them, which is why I was concerned about the possibility of a team's ability to manipulate them. I don't need stats to tell me about the Red Sox, because I watch almost every single inning of every single game. That is not true of the other 29 teams and 725+ players.

 

IMO, some of the questioning is unwarranted. I'm not saying that the poster does not have the right to question it. Any poster has the right to question whatever he/she wants. I'm saying that the reasoning behind certain questions is unfounded, making the questioning unwarranted. Henc, I will provide my defense of the questioning. And no, I do not see any questioning of stats as an unfathomable attack. Do not presume that you know what I'm thinking or feeling.

 

As far as the second paragraph in this post is concerned, did you even read the rest of my response?

 

That said, when you say that you don't need stats to tell you about the Red Sox, I disagree. That is not a shot at your knowledge of baseball or the Red Sox. But you, nor anyone, can fully understand or assess the game without looking at the stats, even if you watch every game for 100 years. I know you're going to believe otherwise, but you won't convince me.

[a700hitter]

IMO, some of the questioning is unwarranted. I'm not saying that the poster does not have the right to question it. Any poster has the right to question whatever he/she wants. I'm saying that the reasoning behind certain questions is unfounded, making the questioning unwarranted. Henc, I will provide my defense of the questioning. And no, I do not see any questioning of stats as an unfathomable attack. Do not presume that you know what I'm thinking or feeling.

Asking for information about the processes that are in place to insure data integrity and reliability is not an attack, nor an unwarranted question. It is a request for information.

 

Edit: There is no reason to provide a defense unless one believes there has been an attack or criticism.

Edited October 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

As far as the second paragraph in this post is concerned, did you even read the rest of my response?

 

Yes, I did. And I believe that my post was responsive.

[a700hitter]

 

That said, when you say that you don't need stats to tell you about the Red Sox, I disagree. That is not a shot at your knowledge of baseball or the Red Sox. But you, nor anyone, can fully understand or assess the game without looking at the stats, even if you watch every game for 100 years. I know you're going to believe otherwise, but you won't convince me.

It is a far better use of my time to look at the stats for the other 29 teams and 725+ players who I don't know as well as the Red Sox. Looking at stats for the Red Sox is almost always an exercise that results in confirming what I already know.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's a perfect example of something the advanced stats uncovered and then confirmed: in spite of the Gold Gloves, Jeter was a poor defensive shortstop after a certain point in his career. Not because he made a lot of errors, he didn't, because he was very sure-handed. But his range eroded over the years until he was a virtual statue compared to many other shortstops.

[a700hitter]

Here's a perfect example of something the advanced stats uncovered and then confirmed: in spite of the Gold Gloves, Jeter was a poor defensive shortstop after a certain point in his career. Not because he made a lot of errors, he didn't, because he was very sure-handed. But his range eroded over the years until he was a virtual statue compared to many other shortstops.

Living in NY, I watch the Mets and Yankees almost as much as the Red Sox. If you watched Jeter enough, you didn't need advanced stats to confirm that, but yes the voters that didn't watch a lot of him should have checked those stats and talked to some players.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Yeah, Jeter's last few Gold Gloves were won due to the name on the back of his jersey, combined with the logo on the front of it. If he had only one of those two things, his legacy and retirement would have been accompanied by far less fanfare.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, Jeter's last few Gold Gloves were won due to the name on the back of his jersey, combined with the logo on the front of it. If he had only one of those two things, his legacy and retirement would have been accompanied by far less fanfare.

Most of his gold gloves were undeserved.

[Kimmi]

Asking for information about the processes that are in place to insure data integrity and reliability is not an attack, nor an unwarranted question. It is a request for information.

 

Edit: There is no reason to provide a defense unless one believes there has been an attack or criticism.

 

I never said it was an attack. You keep putting that word in my mouth.

 

And please, the whole nature of a discussion board is to debate and defend one's position/opinion. Every poster here provides a defense of his/her opinion almost daily. It has nothing to do with believing that there was an unfathomable attack. Stop with that nonsense.

[Kimmi]

It is a far better use of my time to look at the stats for the other 29 teams and 725+ players who I don't know as well as the Red Sox. Looking at stats for the Red Sox is almost always an exercise that results in confirming what I already know.

 

I have no disagreement with this post. It still does not negate the fact that you cannot fully assess the Red Sox players without looking at the stats.

[a700hitter]

I never said it was an attack. You keep putting that word in my mouth.

 

And please, the whole nature of a discussion board is to debate and defend one's position/opinion. Every poster here provides a defense of his/her opinion almost daily. It has nothing to do with believing that there was an unfathomable attack. Stop with that nonsense.

The point of the board is to have a discussion. It is not always about taking and defending positions. I was neither taking a position, nor attacking or criticizing a position, so there was no reason to feel compelled to defend anything. Conversation and discussion is not always adversarial. You need to work on that. Edited October 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

I have no disagreement with this post. It still does not negate the fact that you cannot fully assess the Red Sox players without looking at the stats.

But I do.

[sk7326]

The stats are good for looking at the bigs - without a doubt, both the Sox and elsewhere. Using them on minor leagues is much dicier - since not every player or team has the same goals. And that does not even account for more basic things (like the prevalence of launching pads in the PCL - for instance Syndegaard's superficial numbers were lousy last year, but his quality was taken as a given).

[Kimmi]

The point of the board is to have a discussion. It is not always about taking and defending positions. I was neither taking a position, nor attacking or criticizing a position, so there was no reason to feel compelled to defend anything. Conversation and discussion is not always adversarial. You need to work on that.

 

Defending a position does not mean one is being adversarial, nor does it mean that one sees another's post as adversarial. Stop telling me what I think or what I feel, and stop trying to make something adversarial that was not.

[SCM33]

Defending a position does not mean one is being adversarial, nor does it mean that one sees another's post as adversarial. Stop telling me what I think or what I feel, and stop trying to make something adversarial that was not.

 

 

Kimmi looks/reads/sounds a lot like Emmz.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Kimmi looks/reads/sounds a lot like Emmz.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. Except for the savant-level encyclopedic knowledge of even the most obscure music, of course. No one knew music like her, including people whose actual jobs are to know music.

[a700hitter]

Defending a position does not mean one is being adversarial, nor does it mean that one sees another's post as adversarial. Stop telling me what I think or what I feel, and stop trying to make something adversarial that was not.

"Defending a position" Your words. I was asking for information, not advocacy of a position. Note, I am not telling you what you think or feel.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi looks/reads/sounds a lot like Emmz.

 

I don't know Emmz, but I've read a lot her posts from before. I'm not seeing any similarity between us.

[a700hitter]

I don't know Emmz, but I've read a lot her posts from before. I'm not seeing any similarity between us.

Completely different.

[Spudboy]

I don't know Emmz, but I've read a lot her posts from before. I'm not seeing any similarity between us.

 

 

You both have ovaries. That's about it.

[Youk Of The Nation]

There's no similarity in personality, but there is in writing style, especially when you're debating things. And also the ovaries, as Spud pointed out.