moonslav59

He played for Houston until '69.

Good. Piss on Kershaw and praise the clown.

Wow, just 4 pitchers! We can't even get that in one game anymore!

Here's a scenario: Poster A: John has been in such a bad slump! Poster B: But he has an .875 OPS the last week and .85o the last month. Poster A: But he never get hits with men on base. Poster B: He has a .350 BA with men on base and .380 with RISP. Poster A: But never when it matters. Poster B: He has a .950 OPS when Late & Close and .925 in high leverage situations. Is Poster B right, or is he a dick for using stats as the final argument ender?

I have countless examples like that, too. Times where I gave my opinion only to find out I was wrong and the data either proved me wrong or all but proved me wrong.

Here's a look back at the World Series winners and the runner- ups and their W-L league ranking that year (not that W-Ls sets who are the best teams): 2019 1HOU or 3WAS 2018 1BOS 2LAD 2017 2HOU 1LAD 2016 1Cubs 2CLE 2015 1KCR 5NYM 2014 5SFG 4KCR 2013 1BOS 1STL 2012 3SFG 7DET 2011 4STL 2TEX 2010 2SFG 4TEX 2009 1NYY 2PHI 2008 2PHI 2TBR 2007 1BOS 2COL 2006 5STL 3DET 2005 1CWS 3HOU 2004 2BOS 1STL 32 Teams made the WS in the last 16 seasons: 21 were a top 2 team in their league 11 were ranked 3 or worse in their league. Of the 15 teams that won the WS: 11 were a top 2 team that year. (12 were top 3.) 4 were ranked 3rd or worse. I'm just taking the top 4 teams vs the other 6 and look at the massive tilt to the better teams. 21 to 11 on just making it and 11 to 4 on winning it all. If we gave the top 4 all equal odds, then those 4 should have gone to the WS 40% of 32... 12.8 times NOT 21. If The Astros win, that means a top 2 team has won 12 out of 16 years, when the odds show 40% of 16 at 6.4 times. It's really not even close. Sure, a lowly ranked team can win every now and again, but it is far from a crap shoot.

I said "more" pure not pure. Certainly the opening line takes into account bettor trends. As it turns out the odds are pretty darn accurate. They are a lot more accurate than calling the playoffs a total crap shoot- not that anyone is saying every team has 10:1 odds going in.

The opening line is more pure, then the line moves as people bet more on one team. To me, 2-3 teams combined have a way better chance than the other 7-8 teams every year. That is far from a crap shoot.

Here's a personal example: Jacoby Ellsbury. When he first came up, I saw him make a few very nice plays. I knew he has speed, so I naturally thought he was a great defensive player. When he finally became the FT CF'er, a poster on that other site claimed he was not plus and had slow reaction times and took the wrong routes to balls hit to him. I started defending JE. Then, I noticed his UZR/150 was negative, so I started watching every ball hit to him more closely. I did notice bad routes and slower breaks on the plays I was able to see on TV (not all that many). It's hard to know what my bias was before and after I started focusing on him more often. To make the example even more complex, the next few years, I didn't notice the mistakes as much and went to check the numbers- sure enough, he had big plus numbers in 2010 and 2011 and was barely plus afterwards. The numbers seemed to support my observations that yes he was worse than I thought in 2009 but then did get better afterwards. Was this just an example that supports my beliefs, so I use it, or not?

Better known as trickled on.

Strasburg?

It's probably just as easy to find data to support opposing claims as it is for two observers to have opposite evaluations after watching the exact same thing.

Or, scum has reached the upper middle class.

No doubt- absolutely true. Nobody claims otherwise. Both sides are biased and both use their own types of evidence or supporting information to back their claims.

They also reset the tax this year. So did the Dodgers. Short memory.

What stat geek ever uses the words "always represent the true value...?"

Exactly! None of this sign a 5th starter crap.

Yes, the $27M will keep a lot of teams out of the running, but it's still a lower price than a FA of his stature.

Eye witness convictions are overthrown on DNA evidence every day.

Teams have given up multiple prospects for 2 month rentals of worse ability than Betts. You may not think we get back what one year of Betts is worth, but we will get very good value back- maybe 2-3 very good prospects or 1-2 excellent ones and a throw in.

I doubt his base running added much to the 8 WAR baseline, and although his defense is certainly helped by his speed, it's not everything, and besides, it's not like we should expect Betts's speed to diminish all that much over the next 8-10 years. His offense has been boosted by his quick reaction times, power and getting on base skills. His BB totals have risen steadily: 46, 49, 77, 81, 97 He's hit 29 or more HRs in 3 of his last 4 seasons. He just turned 27. Many of his next contract years will be in prime or near prime. This is why I like the idea of re-signing him (maybe after we trade him).

1) We don't know if Betts doesn't want to be in Boston. 2) Betts did not want to sign a contract. It was more him who forced the arbs not the team. 3) His defense is helped by his speed, but his offense not so much. He has extremely quick twitch reflexes. Do we have any evidence how well or poorly that ages?

That's just not true, except maybe back in the days of Perry Mason. Finger prints, video/audio recordings, GPS, phone records and DNA evidence is more reliable than eye witnesses.

I try my hardest to always keep an open mind and be unbiased. I try not to pre-judge people or discriminate, yet I know I am biased- maybe even more than many are. With objectivity and truth under assault, these days, it's hard to know anything is real anymore. It seemed like a .300 BA was something one could grasp and hold onto.

How many new threads are there on the Yankees losing? I can't keep up!