Barzilla makes it so easy...

[CJM]

...to dislike him.

 

Quote:
I applied to work with the Astros to use my statistics background. They said they were impressed, but it was suggested I start at the minor league level and move my way up. At this point in my life, that is not a realistic possibility, but it might be for him. I'd maybe check with Corpus or Round Rock and see if they have any openings. Then, he might be able to work his way up the ranks.

  link

What a pompous asshole.

[toddthebod]

Yeah but . . .

A couple of years ago, the Astros were offering a reporting position where you would cover the team for Astros.com.

The salary was in the low 20s.  If I had just graduated college, I might have considered applying for the job.  But I was 34, I had two kids, a mortgage, and a much higher paying job.  While this might have been a "dream job" it didn't make a whole lot of financial sense to apply.  

I think that Barzilla's saying the same thing.  If he were younger, taking a job as a statistician for a minor league team might have been okay.  But it's not realistic for him right now.  Given what I know about salaries paid to minor league executives, I understand his position.

[strosrays]

Quote:


 

Quote:
I applied to work with the Astros to use my statistics background. They said they were impressed, but it was suggested I start at the minor league level and move my way up.

link

By "minor league", they meant kid-pitch.

[CJM]

Quote:
Yeah but . . .

A couple of years ago, the Astros were offering a reporting position where you would cover the team for Astros.com.

The salary was in the low 20s.  If I had just graduated college, I might have considered applying for the job.  But I was 34, I had two kids, a mortgage, and a much higher paying job.  While this might have been a "dream job" it didn't make a whole lot of financial sense to apply.  

I think that Barzilla's saying the same thing.  If he were younger, taking a job as a statistician for a minor league team might have been okay.  But it's not realistic for him right now.  Given what I know about salaries paid to minor league executives, I understand his position.

Why would the Astros be impressed with somebody that keeps stats?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah but . . .

A couple of years ago, the Astros were offering a reporting position where you would cover the team for Astros.com.

The salary was in the low 20s.  If I had just graduated college, I might have considered applying for the job.  But I was 34, I had two kids, a mortgage, and a much higher paying job.  While this might have been a "dream job" it didn't make a whole lot of financial sense to apply.  

I think that Barzilla's saying the same thing.  If he were younger, taking a job as a statistician for a minor league team might have been okay.  But it's not realistic for him right now.  Given what I know about salaries paid to minor league executives, I understand his position.

Why would the Astros be impressed with somebody that keeps stats?

They still haven't figured out how to train monkeys to do that?

[Limey]

Quote:
Why would the Astros be impressed with somebody that keeps stats?

He doesn't even do that.  He burrows around for the most obscure stats available, then completely misinterprets them.  Can's see why they'd let a catch like that slip away.

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:
...to dislike him.

 

Quote:
I applied to work with the Astros to use my statistics background. They said they were impressed, but it was suggested I start at the minor league level and move my way up. At this point in my life, that is not a realistic possibility, but it might be for him. I'd maybe check with Corpus or Round Rock and see if they have any openings. Then, he might be able to work his way up the ranks.

  link

What a pompous asshole.

what a bizarre thread that is!  first somebody's hyping their quadroplegic high-school graduated brother for a job with the astros, who is admittedly "limited" but who "no doubt could do something in radio or voices in animated films".  then barzilla chimes in out of nowhere to relay his anecdote.  what is the source of this zaniness?

"hi, go Astros..."

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:
...to dislike him.

 

Quote:
I applied to work with the Astros to use my statistics background. They said they were impressed, but it was suggested I start at the minor league level and move my way up. At this point in my life, that is not a realistic possibility, but it might be for him. I'd maybe check with Corpus or Round Rock and see if they have any openings. Then, he might be able to work his way up the ranks.

  link

What a pompous asshole.

what a bizarre thread that is!  first somebody's hyping their quadroplegic high-school graduated brother for a job with the astros, who is admittedly "limited" but who "no doubt could do something in radio or voices in animated films".  then barzilla chimes in out of nowhere to relay his anecdote.  what is the source of this zaniness?

"hi, go Astros..."

You know, I hate they way they use famous and beautiful actors for voices in animated films. Uma Thurmond, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Damnbareass...it's not like they can't get a real acting gig. Hollywood should only use ugly unknown people for cartoon voices. Ugly unknown people need work too. I didn't go to Shrek to hear Eddie Murphy or Mike Myers voice the parts. If the story is good it shouldn't matter if it's voiced by Laurence Olivier or Darren Oliver.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Why would the Astros be impressed with somebody that keeps stats?

I can't remember if I read this in "Moneyball" or somewhere else, but the Astros were one of the very first teams in baseball to hire an in-house "stat-guy."  And, for what it's worth, I also read that they for the most part ignored him.

[NeilT]

The Link

[astro pete]

Quote:
The Link

Thanks. And thanks, your review (and DinJ's endorsement) prompted me to purchase Numbers Game for my father's birthday a few weeks ago.  He, like you, is a Houston lawyer who loves baseball.  I think he'll enjoy the read.

[NeilT]

That's a good book. DinJ's favorite, or thereabouts.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
...to dislike him.

 

Quote:
I applied to work with the Astros to use my statistics background. They said they were impressed, but it was suggested I start at the minor league level and move my way up. At this point in my life, that is not a realistic possibility, but it might be for him. I'd maybe check with Corpus or Round Rock and see if they have any openings. Then, he might be able to work his way up the ranks.

  link

What a pompous asshole.

what a bizarre thread that is!  first somebody's hyping their quadroplegic high-school graduated brother for a job with the astros, who is admittedly "limited" but who "no doubt could do something in radio or voices in animated films".  then barzilla chimes in out of nowhere to relay his anecdote.  what is the source of this zaniness?

"hi, go Astros..."

Arrogance.  The certainty that what other people know is not that complicated and that if he's just interested in something, and reads a couple books, he can be just as expert as someone who spends their waking hours being paid to do it.  I have more of a statistical background than this clown (2 stat classes to his zero.)  The real waltzing mouse lunacy comes in where he's surprised (at least to the point where he feels he has to remark on it) that they wont pay him what they'd pay someone who really has training and experience.

[jasonact]

Quote:
Yeah but . . .

A couple of years ago, the Astros were offering a reporting position where you would cover the team for Astros.com.

The salary was in the low 20s.  If I had just graduated college, I might have considered applying for the job.  But I was 34, I had two kids, a mortgage, and a much higher paying job.  While this might have been a "dream job" it didn't make a whole lot of financial sense to apply.  

I think that Barzilla's saying the same thing.  If he were younger, taking a job as a statistician for a minor league team might have been okay.  But it's not realistic for him right now.  Given what I know about salaries paid to minor league executives, I understand his position.

I don't think those jobs were intended to be a person's sole income. I think they were listed as part-time jobs, essentially to supplement one's income while attending school or working elsewhere at the same time. If I lived in Houston, I might have considered, given my relatively flexible schedule.

[Arky Vaughan]

There's an interview in this year's Baseball Prospectus between Gary Huckabay and an MLB executive that demonstrates the ridiculousness of this.

The executive is explaining that (1) most of the candidates that apply aren't qualified from a technical standpoint ("they were fanatical fans who didn't have the fundamentals of real-world analysis") or (2) if they were qualified, they were too pricey ("the cost of bringing either of them in was absolutely ridiculous").

Huckabay: "To me, that's a complete copout. There's no team that hasn't wasted ten times the cost of one of those guys on a bad player contract."

Exec: "It's not that simple, and you know it."

Does Huckabay really believe that a team is going to say, "Hey, that back-up catcher we signed last year who batted .200, if we cut him, and we can afford a top-flight stats guy?" I mean, I like baseball stats too, think they have some value, but I just don't think that's realistic.  Later on:

Exec: "I can't justify the cost, the risk, and the upheaval of hiring a Keith Wolner at the salary it'd take to get him, and the other costs and commitments that invariably come with him, or one of the people we already talked to."

Huckabay: "But you can afford to throw away $40 million on crappy player contracts that you'd now like to duck."

Exec: "Oh, be serious. Against, it's not that simple, and you know it. And every time you mention something like that, you either imply or explicitly state that the club doesn't understand the concept of aging, or doesn't know the contract's going to be a rock around their neck down the road. In the case you're speaking of, we knew the last two years of a couple of deals were going to be bad, but we wanted those first couple of years so we could make a run at a title."

But Huckabay never does get serious or respond to the fact that it's not as easy as he thinks it is.

This is precisely why I think the BP guys are out of touch.  I don't even find them particularly clever or funny as much as mean-spirited.  I'm not going to put down the metrics they use.  I think their research dredges up interesting things that probably do have some practical use.  But the idea that everything works just so in the universe they've constructed in their minds and computers, I just don't buy it.

[Foghorn]

Quote:

This is precisely why I think the BP guys are out of touch.  I don't even find them particularly clever or funny as much as mean-spirited.  I'm not going to put down the metrics they use.  I think their research dredges up interesting things that probably do have some practical use.  But the idea that everything works just so in the universe they've constructed in their minds and computers, I just don't buy it.

This is the first time in forever I didn't buy their book.  They've lost the ability to make me laugh, the actual "writing" is shitty and uneven, the analysis is hardly much more beneficial than simple AVG/OBP/SLG adjusted for age, league, and home park.  ANd worst of all they seem to feel they are the sole protectors of knowledge and information, yet they're projections/predictions are often times as shitty as everyone elses, even Cam Bonifays.  

I think it was around 2002 when they wrote that Doug Mirabelli (I think it was him) would be an MVP candidate in the next few years.  Or that the Pettitte signing was horrible because we over-paid.  Or that Toby Hall was going to be the All Star catcher for years in the AL.  Or that Jimy WIlliams was using his bullpen incorrectly actually having Lidge in more pressure situations that Dotel in early 2004.  Or that the 2005 Reds would finish ahead of the Astros.  Or that...

[barzilla]

I will say this. I have made it easy on you guys. I can certainly understand why many of my statements make you laugh. The funny thing is that I never would have applied to work for a ML team or even mentioned if other people who are involved with baseball hadn't encouraged me to do so. Looking back I realize it was silly to think a team would hire me with my minimal background.

Yes, I do come back every now and then just to see what you guys say. What I can't understand is why many of you would choose to read my stuff on the numerous sites I write for if you think I'm and idiot and can't string more than a few words together. One of you before said all I wanted to be was a Rob Neyer and you said that was sad. I would love to do what Neyer does and that is perfectly fine by me. He certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge, but I hope I can learn enough, so my commentary can reach that level some day.

What I realize is that I made an ass out of myself when I came over here. That made things a lot worse. I try not to waste too much of my time by coming over here. It's something I do every few months. I'm will continue to write. Hopefully, some people find it informative and interesting.

[CJM]

 

Quote:
What I can't understand is why many of you would choose to read my stuff on the numerous sites I write for if you think I'm and idiot and can't string more than a few words together.

Why do people slow down to look at a car wreck on the interstate?

[Waldo]

Quote:
What I can't understand is why many of you would choose to read my stuff on the numerous sites I write for if you think I'm and idiot and can't string more than a few words together.

...

I'm will continue to write.

Did they teach that kind of grammar and spelling in your top-3% classes?

[BizidyDizidy]

HE IS A TEACHER!

[barzilla]

Ah yes, I am a teacher and I make mistakes. I guess I should try to attain perfection before I move on.

[Craig]

Quote:
Ah yes, I am a teacher and I make mistakes. I guess I should try to attain perfection before I move on.

Or at least proofread.

[CJM]

Quote:
Ah yes, I am a teacher and I make mistakes. I guess I should try to attain perfection before I move on.

It's not about perfection.  It's about someone that thinks of himself as a "writer" not being able to string a few paragraphs together without looking like he failed his "English as a second language" class.

[Waldo]

Quote:
Ah yes, I am a teacher and I make mistakes. I guess I should try to attain perfection before I move on.

If I were going out of my way to elevate myself above others at every turn, I would at least make sure that what I had to say exuded whatever intelligence I pretended to have.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
Ah yes, I am a teacher and I make mistakes. I guess I should try to attain perfection before I move on.

If I were going out of my way to elevate myself above others at every turn, I would at least make sure that what I had to say exuded whatever intelligence I pretended to have.

Zing!

Good lord, Waldo. I figured being engaged and all would free you of bitterness. I guess this gal is doing a good job.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

If I were going out of my way to elevate myself above others at every turn, I would at least make sure that what I had to say exuded whatever intelligence I pretended to have.

As a boy I would pretend I had an imaginary friend. I never really had an imaginary friend, I just pretended that I did.

[JimR]

try to reach mediocrity first, Borezilla. then move on toward perfection.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
try to reach mediocrity first, Borezilla. then move on toward perfection.

Any surprise that the Astros would suggest a minor league gig for Mr. Sabremetrics?  Learn about baseball first, then keep stats... at least that is what would happen in the "development" league, where scouts would have a great time with Borezilla.

[barzilla]

Incidentally, I would like to point out that I have apologized for saying something that in hindsight I realize is idiotic. I also admit that I probably considered myself to be more of an expert than I really am. Is there a probationary period I am not aware of, or are you guys simply going to bash everything I say until the end of time?

The funny thing is that I've been watching baseball as long as many of you have. So, I don't understand the "learn about baseball" comment. Do I make grammatical errors? Sure, I don't proofread my stuff as thoroughly as I should. Just because I like to use statistics doesn't mean I don't know baseball. It just means I use a different tools in addition to my observation. Sure, you can disagree with that and I respect that opinion. You can say I misuse the tools I use. That's fine as well. I disagree with others all the time. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes they're right. It's not a big deal and neither of us ever have to resort to insulting each other.

[jasonact]

Quote:
Just because I like to use statistics doesn't mean I don't know baseball. It just means I use a different tools in addition to my observation. Sure, you can disagree with that and I respect that opinion. You can say I misuse the tools I use. That's fine as well. I disagree with others all the time. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes they're right. It's not a big deal and neither of us ever have to resort to insulting each other.

Baseball is a religion around here (and elsewhere). Speaking as someone on the relative outside of whatever feud is going on, it seems that you attempt to slaughter what some here consider sacred cows, and they disregard your liturgy (i.e. Sabermetrics or whatever statistical philosophy you adhere to). Just like feuds between different denominations of the same religion, you each see reasonable validation for your differing views in what happens on the field, and it is almost impossible to convert the other side for that reason. I guess they see you as an idiot, and you see them as uninformed, stubborn, or something like that. Of course, I don't speak for anyone other than myself, but that's what appears to me to be the primary reason some people here have a problem with you. Just my opinion.

[homer]

Quote:
Incidentally, I would like to point out that I have apologized for saying something that in hindsight I realize is idiotic. I also admit that I probably considered myself to be more of an expert than I really am. Is there a probationary period I am not aware of, or are you guys simply going to bash everything I say until the end of time?

I have come to find that everyone is on probation forever around here; no one is exempt from being called out. Come strong or don't come at all.

I have also come to find that the regulars here have extremely long memories. Your idiotic comments last year have also somewhat entered the 'culture' of the board. That doesn't mean you can't post here, but you are definitely playing from behind. Either deal with it or take a hike... but please, please, please don't continue whine about it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
Just because I like to use statistics doesn't mean I don't know baseball. It just means I use a different tools in addition to my observation. Sure, you can disagree with that and I respect that opinion. You can say I misuse the tools I use. That's fine as well. I disagree with others all the time. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes they're right. It's not a big deal and neither of us ever have to resort to insulting each other.

Baseball is a religion around here (and elsewhere). Speaking as someone on the relative outside of whatever feud is going on, it seems that you attempt to slaughter what some here consider sacred cows, and they disregard your liturgy (i.e. Sabermetrics or whatever statistical philosophy you adhere to). Just like feuds between different denominations of the same religion, you each see reasonable validation for your differing views in what happens on the field, and it is almost impossible to convert the other side for that reason. I guess they see you as an idiot, and you see them as uninformed, stubborn, or something like that. Of course, I don't speak for anyone other than myself, but that's what appears to me to be the primary reason some people here have a problem with you. Just my opinion.

B.S.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Incidentally, I would like to point out that I have apologized for saying something that in hindsight I realize is idiotic. I also admit that I probably considered myself to be more of an expert than I really am. Is there a probationary period I am not aware of, or are you guys simply going to bash everything I say until the end of time?

Probably?

Quote:
The funny thing is that I've been watching baseball as long as many of you have. So, I don't understand the "learn about baseball" comment.

Take the Astros up on going to the minors to see how much you need to "learn".  Hanging out with scouts, or Jackie Moore, or Dave Clark, or Lind or Billingham, Spillman, Berry, et. al. might open your eyes... just a tad.

Quote:
Do I make grammatical errors? Sure, I don't proofread my stuff as thoroughly as I should. Just because I like to use statistics doesn't mean I don't know baseball. It just means I use a different tools in addition to my observation. Sure, you can disagree with that and I respect that opinion. You can say I misuse the tools I use. That's fine as well. I disagree with others all the time. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes they're right. It's not a big deal and neither of us ever have to resort to insulting each other.

No whining allowed.

[jasonact]

Quote:
B.S.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
 

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
 

Your opinion is flawed given how much respect either point of view get around here.  I wish TZers would just realize the truth about this place once and for all, instead of continuing with this myth.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
 

Your opinion is flawed given how much respect either point of view get around here.  I wish TZers would just realize the truth about this place once and for all, instead of continuing with this myth.

I understand the stated truth about this place, but I also believe that truth is only surface-deep, as most visible aspect of life often are. It's only my opinion, so truth is relative, especially in cyberland. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion, just throwing it up there like a clay pigeon to be annihilated by thows who disagree.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
 

Your opinion is flawed given how much respect either point of view get around here.  I wish TZers would just realize the truth about this place once and for all, instead of continuing with this myth.

I understand the stated truth about this place, but I also believe that truth is only surface-deep, as most visible aspect of life often are. It's only my opinion, so truth is relative, especially in cyberland. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion, just throwing it up there like a clay pigeon to be annihilated by thows who disagree.

Facts are not relative.  I find the more I stick to them, the less likely I get my ass handed to me.  But maybe that's just my opinion....

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
 

Your opinion is flawed given how much respect either point of view get around here.  I wish TZers would just realize the truth about this place once and for all, instead of continuing with this myth.

I understand the stated truth about this place, but I also believe that truth is only surface-deep, as most visible aspect of life often are. It's only my opinion, so truth is relative, especially in cyberland. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion, just throwing it up there like a clay pigeon to be annihilated by thows who disagree.

Ah yes, the "i admit that it's just my opinion and i might be wrong in case i am" non-argument argument!  It's one of the classic rhetorical devices for bullshitters; a cousin of the "i'm courteous and ethical so you can't dislike me" style prominently used by barzilla (a second cousin of the "look at me, i'm openly making fun of myself" strategy commonly used by politicians and entertainers to deflect embarrassing and unflattering public mistakes).

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
try to reach mediocrity first, Borezilla. then move on toward perfection.

Any surprise that the Astros would suggest a minor league gig for Mr. Sabremetrics?  Learn about baseball first, then keep stats... at least that is what would happen in the "development" league, where scouts would have a great time with Borezilla.

None.  The silly part comes when he continues to talk about his attempts to secure a job with the Astros, now even adding the puzzling excuse that he was invited to apply.  The problem is not with trying to get a job.  The problem is acting surprised when it's suggested he try the minors first.  And then ignoring what should be embarassing by repeating the story as if he's providing an imprimatur of validity to his opinions.  Pretending expertise is not unique, nor is it unique to baseball commentary.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I understand the stated truth about this place, but I also believe that truth is only surface-deep, as most visible aspect of life often are. It's only my opinion, so truth is relative, especially in cyberland. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion, just throwing it up there like a clay pigeon to be annihilated by thows who disagree.

I'm not sure there is a stated truth here, other than if you post the wrong thing the wrong way, you're going to draw fire. How you present your opinion is at least as important as the substance of your opinion.

[doran's mullet]

anybody know why they wouldn't show the stros on dish network today?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
anybody know why they wouldn't show the stros on dish network today?

It's on FSH on DirecTV.

[doran's mullet]

dish network sucks.  they didn't show opening day, either.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
dish network sucks.  they didn't show opening day, either.

Good thing I couldn't get the signal with Dish Network and got DirecTV instead.  Do you not have Fox Sports Houston on there?  The games aren't on Fox Sports Southwest anymore.  You ought to call them and make sure you've got FSH on there.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
dish network sucks.  they didn't show opening day, either.

Yes, they did.

[CapnTim]

 

Quote:
B.S.

Is it really?  When was the last time any of the scouting types around here challenged one of Jim R.'s opinions?  I admit to not having been around here in quite a long time, but when I used to be here regularly there was never any accountability on opinions made based on personal scouting or on popular opinions based on scouting.  An example being the Penny/Choi for LoDuca/Mota trade made in 2004, which around here was largely proclaimed a runaway for the Marlins while the Dodgers were routinely mocked.  The Dodgers collapsed last year, but the Marlins did nothing after they got LoDuca (some leadership) and Mota has been crap on a stick since he got to Florida.  How many people around here said "yeah, maybe we were wrong?"

The fact of the matter is that anytime somebody makes an assessment based on statistical analysis that runs counter to the common scouting opinion here, that person is mocked as an idiot and a know-nothing.  I remember an argument I had at the end of 2003 with yourself and with Pravata, where y'all were saying that Harville would be good in 2005 based on adjustments he made that September, while I said that his history suggested he would return to sucking one way or another.  Toward the end of the thread Limey posted a needlessly vitriolic comment to me.  Did anybody next season say "you know what?  Harville DOES suck, and maybe we were reading too much into September."  Not from anything I saw.

Now, I don't agree with a lot of what barzilla posts, but pretty much all he does is write articles full of his opinions on things with an air of authority.  No different from what a lot of people on this board do.  Barzilla doesn't even post his articles here; they're being brought in to cut up.  Unless I misjudge the tone of the opinion around here towards him, you get on him because of his know-it-all-ness.  But the people around here with the same qualities go unattacked.  The key difference between barzilla and people around here are his statistical sensibilities.

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, Noe, but I think your own scouting sensibilities are clouding your judgement about this.  The scouting types around here have lots of opinions on a lot of things, and a lot of time they are completely full of ####.  But they don't get attacked with such hate.  Why is that?

[Limey]

Quote:
Baseball is a religion around here (and elsewhere). Speaking as someone on the relative outside of whatever feud is going on, it seems that you attempt to slaughter what some here consider sacred cows, and they disregard your liturgy (i.e. Sabermetrics or whatever statistical philosophy you adhere to). Just like feuds between different denominations of the same religion, you each see reasonable validation for your differing views in what happens on the field, and it is almost impossible to convert the other side for that reason. I guess they see you as an idiot, and you see them as uninformed, stubborn, or something like that. Of course, I don't speak for anyone other than myself, but that's what appears to me to be the primary reason some people here have a problem with you. Just my opinion.

Barzilla's a pompous, elitist prick.  And I'm English, so I know one when I see one.  His first foray here involved him proclaiming his intellectual superiority over us all (the famous top three percentile comment), not realising that this site isn't just made up of truckers in Dakota pretending to be 12 year olds.  This is why many, including myself, have an issue with this tosser.

[Limey]

Quote:
...you are definitely playing from behind. Either deal with it or take a hike... but please, please, please don't continue whine about it.

Bingo!

[Limey]

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that anytime somebody makes an assessment based on statistical analysis that runs counter to the common scouting opinion here, that person is mocked as an idiot and a know-nothing.

The mocking comes from thowing up stats as the sole justification for an opinion.  This goes doubly so for relief pitchers.  Remember when Powell got run out of Houston on a rail?  He came into a game-deciding situation with the runners on and induced the requisite ground ball to get the threat-ending double play.  That ball dribbled beyond Biggio's T-Rex-like reach at 2nd, and on through to allow the go ahead run.  He was booed off the park and never pitched for the Astros again.

Stats show that he gave up the game without recording an out, but no earned runs.  Fans cut him no slack because of his previous troubles.  But none of that would show what a studied eye would know: that he did exactly the job he'd been asked to do, and that it simply didn't work out.

Stats have a role to play.  Come here with some whizz-bang set of crunched numbers and nothing else, and expect to get challenged.

[CapnTim]

I missed the "top 3 percentile" comment.  Care to enlighten me further, or is pretty much just like it sounds?

 

Quote:
Stats have a role to play. Come here with some whizz-bang set of crunched numbers and nothing else, and expect to get challenged.

I don't have any problem with getting challenged, as I'm usually pretty cheerful about admitting where I'm wrong.  (I was certainly way off in expecting Hee Seop Choi to be really good in LA.)  The thing is that the same courtesy usually isn't returned.  Somebody with a fair amount of respect around here could come in saying "Mike Gallo has looked good with improved control and a new splitter, and he'll be much better this season," and nobody will say "so what?  Where are the numbers?"

Certainly, a guy can come in here with a bunch of stats and be talking completely out of his rear end, and be wrong, and rightfully called on it.  But what happens if the guy is right?  It does happen, believe it or not, that the stats can tell us something the scouts either miss or judge incorrectly.  But that leeway usually isn't given: if somebody comes in here with an opinion backed up by stats that somebody disagrees with based on a scouting report, the guy with stats is judged guilty without trial.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Is it really?  ...

I just love these types of posts.  "There was this one time, I wrote something and nobody agreed with me, but now I'm coming back and and and and, I'm telling you I was right."  Dude.  You been sucking on that bottle and you've just got air, it's going to your brain.  

About Harville, that was about the Astros going away from the slop throwing types for relievers.  It was different from the A's plan to go with pitchers who threw strikes, a novel idea.  Because nobody else cares about that. But now that Duchscherer and Saarloos are the mainstays of their staff, I guess you've showed us.  Because the Astros haven't a clue about relievers.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Is it really?  When was the last time any of the scouting types around here challenged one of Jim R.'s opinions?  I admit to not having been around here in quite a long time, but when I used to be here regularly there was never any accountability on opinions made based on personal scouting or on popular opinions based on scouting.  An example being the Penny/Choi for LoDuca/Mota trade made in 2004, which around here was largely proclaimed a runaway for the Marlins while the Dodgers were routinely mocked.  The Dodgers collapsed last year, but the Marlins did nothing after they got LoDuca (some leadership) and Mota has been crap on a stick since he got to Florida.  How many people around here said "yeah, maybe we were wrong?"

The fact of the matter is that anytime somebody makes an assessment based on statistical analysis that runs counter to the common scouting opinion here, that person is mocked as an idiot and a know-nothing.  I remember an argument I had at the end of 2003 with yourself and with Pravata, where y'all were saying that Harville would be good in 2005 based on adjustments he made that September, while I said that his history suggested he would return to sucking one way or another.  Toward the end of the thread Limey posted a needlessly vitriolic comment to me.  Did anybody next season say "you know what?  Harville DOES suck, and maybe we were reading too much into September."  Not from anything I saw.

Now, I don't agree with a lot of what barzilla posts, but pretty much all he does is write articles full of his opinions on things with an air of authority.  No different from what a lot of people on this board do.  Barzilla doesn't even post his articles here; they're being brought in to cut up.  Unless I misjudge the tone of the opinion around here towards him, you get on him because of his know-it-all-ness.  But the people around here with the same qualities go unattacked.  The key difference between barzilla and people around here are his statistical sensibilities.

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, Noe, but I think your own scouting sensibilities are clouding your judgement about this.  The scouting types around here have lots of opinions on a lot of things, and a lot of time they are completely full of ####.  But they don't get attacked with such hate.  Why is that?

I don't know what went on with you and Noe and pravata, but the rest of this is crap.  Arky and others here provide stats related stuff but don't get run out on a rail.  Disagred with, yes; vehemently, sometimes.  But, they don't post here with the expectation their opinion is going to be met with awe and all bowing down to their genious.  They provide information and opinion without telling the rest of us that we must either believe them or we are some kind of archaic nut-scratcher who's been left behind.  Barzilla's problem isn't his "know-it-all-ness"; it's his superiority complex compounded by his use of and what appears to be pseudo-knowledge of application of statistics.  He appears to be the kind of person who knows just enough about stats to throw out big words to those who know less and make himself appear to know a great deal more than he does.  He's using the hip and cool stats driven hype to prop himself up as some kind of expert, and he's not.

As for those here who rarely have their opinion challenged, it could be because they, generally speaking, know more than the rest of us because of their history in and around baseball.  If you ask, sincerely, you'll find that most if not all of them will tell you that stats have a place in baseball, perhaps not a primary place, but an evaluative place at some level.  A major problem with baseball, from a stats point of view, is that much of it defies quantification.  That's been discussed ad nauseum here so I won't go into it.  But, it's true.  I think I know quite a bit, but I'll be the first to admit that others here know a hell of a lot more than I do.  On top of that, I find very little value in challenging those who I believe understand the game in a way that holds real value to improving my understanding of the game.  It's not that I see them as gods of baseball who must not be challenged, but instead I realize they are people who can be wrong but nonetheless have a greater, and in some cases far greater, understanding than I.  If their opinion turns out wrong, rather than saying I told you so, I find the maximum value in asking what went wrong, even if I'm pretty sure I know.

[Waldo]

Quote:
I missed the "top 3 percentile" comment.  Care to enlighten me further, or is pretty much just like it sounds?

Here you go.  This was his first post ever on this site:

Quote:

Quote:
What the fuck is RCAP?

I thought it was a hoax when I read that.

RCAP stands for runs created above average at that position. I'm sure y'all would be happy to know that my IQ has been tested and registers within the top three percentile, but I'm thankful that you guys are looking out for me.

Further reading material

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
I missed the "top 3 percentile" comment.  Care to enlighten me further, or is pretty much just like it sounds?

 

Quote:
Stats have a role to play. Come here with some whizz-bang set of crunched numbers and nothing else, and expect to get challenged.

I don't have any problem with getting challenged, as I'm usually pretty cheerful about admitting where I'm wrong.  (I was certainly way off in expecting Hee Seop Choi to be really good in LA.)  The thing is that the same courtesy usually isn't returned.  Somebody with a fair amount of respect around here could come in saying "Mike Gallo has looked good with improved control and a new splitter, and he'll be much better this season," and nobody will say "so what?  Where are the numbers?"

Certainly, a guy can come in here with a bunch of stats and be talking completely out of his rear end, and be wrong, and rightfully called on it.  But what happens if the guy is right?  It does happen, believe it or not, that the stats can tell us something the scouts either miss or judge incorrectly.  But that leeway usually isn't given: if somebody comes in here with an opinion backed up by stats that somebody disagrees with based on a scouting report, the guy with stats is judged guilty without trial.

There aren't many with the knowledge and skills to run, interpret, and apply statistics in a useful way as it relates to baseball, and then provide an informed opinion.  Those people are not, in my experience, likely to post to a fan board.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
I missed the "top 3 percentile" comment.  Care to enlighten me further, or is pretty much just like it sounds?

 

Quote:
Stats have a role to play. Come here with some whizz-bang set of crunched numbers and nothing else, and expect to get challenged.

I don't have any problem with getting challenged, as I'm usually pretty cheerful about admitting where I'm wrong.  (I was certainly way off in expecting Hee Seop Choi to be really good in LA.)  The thing is that the same courtesy usually isn't returned.  Somebody with a fair amount of respect around here could come in saying "Mike Gallo has looked good with improved control and a new splitter, and he'll be much better this season," and nobody will say "so what?  Where are the numbers?"

Certainly, a guy can come in here with a bunch of stats and be talking completely out of his rear end, and be wrong, and rightfully called on it.  But what happens if the guy is right?  It does happen, believe it or not, that the stats can tell us something the scouts either miss or judge incorrectly.  But that leeway usually isn't given: if somebody comes in here with an opinion backed up by stats that somebody disagrees with based on a scouting report, the guy with stats is judged guilty without trial.

There aren't many with the knowledge and skills to run, interpret, and apply statistics in a useful way as it relates to baseball, and then provide an informed opinion.  Those people are not, in my experience, likely to post to a fan board.

On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The mocking comes from thowing up stats as the sole justification for an opinion.

Stats are not the only kinds of evidence sometimes used as the sole justification for opinions on these threads.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I don't know what went on with you and Noe and pravata, but the rest of this is crap.  Arky and others here provide stats related stuff but don't get run out on a rail.  Disagred with, yes; vehemently, sometimes.  But, they don't post here with the expectation their opinion is going to be met with awe and all bowing down to their genious.  They provide information and opinion without telling the rest of us that we must either believe them or we are some kind of archaic nut-scratcher who's been left behind.  Barzilla's problem isn't his "know-it-all-ness"; it's his superiority complex compounded by his use of and what appears to be pseudo-knowledge of application of statistics.  He appears to be the kind of person who knows just enough about stats to throw out big words to those who know less and make himself appear to know a great deal more than he does.  He's using the hip and cool stats driven hype to prop himself up as some kind of expert, and he's not.

As for those here who rarely have their opinion challenged, it could be because they, generally speaking, know more than the rest of us because of their history in and around baseball.  If you ask, sincerely, you'll find that most if not all of them will tell you that stats have a place in baseball, perhaps not a primary place, but an evaluative place at some level.  A major problem with baseball, from a stats point of view, is that much of it defies quantification.  That's been discussed ad nauseum here so I won't go into it.  But, it's true.  I think I know quite a bit, but I'll be the first to admit that others here know a hell of a lot more than I do.  On top of that, I find very little value in challenging those who I believe understand the game in a way that holds real value to improving my understanding of the game.  It's not that I see them as gods of baseball who must not be challenged, but instead I realize they are people who can be wrong but nonetheless have a greater, and in some cases far greater, understanding than I.  If their opinion turns out wrong, rather than saying I told you so, I find the maximum value in asking what went wrong, even if I'm pretty sure I know.

Like I wrote, form is as important here as substance. Citing your IQ won't earn any points, even if you're Albert Einstein.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
I missed the "top 3 percentile" comment.  Care to enlighten me further, or is pretty much just like it sounds?

Here you go.  This was his first post ever on this site:

Quote:

Quote:
What the fuck is RCAP?

I thought it was a hoax when I read that.

RCAP stands for runs created above average at that position. I'm sure y'all would be happy to know that my IQ has been tested and registers within the top three percentile, but I'm thankful that you guys are looking out for me.

Further reading material

Fair enough. But a better conversation might have ensued if people didn't start out calling him mentally retarted. There are lots of ways to counter a faulty argument besides personal insults.

If what he has to say is so worthless, why do some continue to link to his columns, other than just to call him an asshole? What a waste of time. I'm pretty that's not what we set up shop here to do -- find what people are posting on other Web sites just to villify them.

[CapnTim]

 

Quote:
About Harville, that was about the Astros going away from the slop throwing types for relievers.

Baloney, pravata, that had nothing to do with what the argument was about.  But it ain't worth arguing over.  I don't like you and you don't like me, and this isn't about that argument anyway.  So why bother?  I was asking Noe his opinion, not you yours.

Quote:
Here you go. This was his first post ever on this site:  

Wooh.  That is rough.  On the other hand, that whole thread drips with arrogance and elitism, so it seems to be an example of the pot calling the kettle black.  But hey, I'm a pot too.

Quote:
There aren't many with the knowledge and skills to run, interpret, and apply statistics in a useful way as it relates to baseball, and then provide an informed opinion. Those people are not, in my experience, likely to post to a fan board.

So, you can't look at A-Rod's stats and say he's a better player than Neifi Perez, without having to either go watch them play or ask somebody who has watched them play?

Everybody here can use statistics to understand baseball in a useful way.  The problem is that once you start getting out of the standard statistics everybody uses, people start expressing incredulity that the statistic can be useful.  Look at Bizidy laughing at the idea of 'RCAP' in the thread Waldo links.  I don't know exactly how RCAP is computed, but the idea behind it is a damned useful one.  But if I were to come in here with an argument that so-and-so is a useful player based on RCAP, I'd be run out on a rail, as you say, because if people can't run and interpret the statistics, they probably can't understand them when somebody else does.  Not saying that I can; I know I can't do it on a really high level, which is why I almost never post, here or elsewhere.  But everybody coming in here with a statistical argument has to deal with an anti-statistical bias which certainly exists.

Oh, and to be perfectly honest, I'm rather shocked that Arky still posts here.  I thought a lot of the attitude toward him to begin with was completely out of line.  But he stuck it out, more power to him.  I'm not sure if a single other regular poster that has been around here a long time is statistically inclined; they all eventually leave. If this place is truly open-minded toward statistics, why is that?   Hell, I used to love reading the Astrosconnection forums even when I wasn't posting; I almost never come here.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
About Harville, that was about the Astros going away from the slop throwing types for relievers.

Baloney, pravata, that had nothing to do with what the argument was about.  But it ain't worth arguing over.  I don't like you and you don't like me, and this isn't about that argument anyway.  So why bother?  I was asking Noe his opinion, not you yours.

Sorry saw my name referenced, thought you were commenting on something I had written.  If you only want one person to respond, you do realize that you can send private messages, do you not?

[Waldo]

Quote:
If what he has to say is so worthless, why do some continue to link to his columns, other than just to call him an asshole? What a waste of time. I'm pretty that's not what we set up shop here to do -- find what people are posting on other Web sites just to villify them.

Personally, except for the snippets that get posted here, I haven't read anything the guy has written since last summer.

I think someone said it best earlier - it's a morbid curiosity for some.  Why do some liberals watch Fox News?  Why do some conservatives listen to Air America?  Why do UT fans read TexAgs.com, and why do A&M fans read HornFans.com?  Why do we enjoy the occasional foray into the Post-Dispatch forums?  It certainly isn't to get a well-rounded viewpoint.  I think it's a defect.

And I somewhat disagree regarding OWA's purpose; reposting other people's stuff and ragging on it has happened pretty much since day one.  It certainly isn't the only function of the TZ, but it is a pastime.  Barzilla may not be of the same media pedigree (FWIW) as a Joe Morgan or Whitey Gammons, but he's posting Astros-related articles online so he's probably fair game.  That he came to the TZ and defended himself is somewhat unique.  That, and the way in which he did so, is probably why this whole issue has blown up the way it has.  I don't disagree that cooler heads could've prevailed, but that seems like a chicken-or-the-egg debate to me.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
There aren't many with the knowledge and skills to run, interpret, and apply statistics in a useful way as it relates to baseball, and then provide an informed opinion. Those people are not, in my experience, likely to post to a fan board.

So, you can't look at A-Rod's stats and say he's a better player than Neifi Perez, without having to either go watch them play or ask somebody who has watched them play?

Everybody here can use statistics to understand baseball in a useful way.  The problem is that once you start getting out of the standard statistics everybody uses, people start expressing incredulity that the statistic can be useful.  Look at Bizidy laughing at the idea of 'RCAP' in the thread Waldo links.  I don't know exactly how RCAP is computed, but the idea behind it is a damned useful one.  But if I were to come in here with an argument that so-and-so is a useful player based on RCAP, I'd be run out on a rail, as you say, because if people can't run and interpret the statistics, they probably can't understand them when somebody else does.  Not saying that I can; I know I can't do it on a really high level, which is why I almost never post, here or elsewhere.  But everybody coming in here with a statistical argument has to deal with an anti-statistical bias which certainly exists.



Intellectually deficient here.  The very extreme A-Rod/Perez arguement isn't what Barzilla has been doing.

Another problem is that some who want to be statheads tout a single statistic as evidence enough of whatever it is they are arguing.  It's crap.  Anyone who knows anything about stats knows a single statistics is incomplete when provided as evidence in at least a minimally complex situation.  But, this isn't necessarily what Barzilla has been doing, so I digress.

"Everybody here can use statistics to understand baseball in a useful way."

Yes, but only in a rudimentary way.  When situations start to get difficult to parse (ie not A-Rod/Perez) statistics become useless in understanding the situations to those who don't really know how to use them.  This is where the more "exotic" statistics come in.  Few really know how to use, apply, and make informed decisions with them and those that do don't generally post to fan boards.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

I think there are a hell of a lot more people who understand baseball through watching it than there are people who can understand baseball through statistics.

[barzilla]

Even though some of my statements might not reflect this, I actually do have a tremendous amount of respect for scouting. What I know is that I don't know as much as scouts know about the game. I also know that there are a lot of people out there that know stats more than me. I think the problem with the BP interview expressed earlier is that some stats people think stats are the key. I think stats are part of the answer. I also think baseball could take a page from the NFL and do a better job looking at the psychological side. Certainly, neither stats people nor scouts would have predicted that Tim Redding would have been a headcase coming out of high school. Maybe someone adept at analyzing players in that way would be useful as well.

I watch baseball religiously as many of you do, but I admit I have limitations. I think the key is for clubs to integrate scoutings, stats, and psychological analysis. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I think there are a hell of a lot more people who understand baseball through watching it than there are people who can understand baseball through statistics.

I don't think it's mutually exclusive, and I think people can expand their understanding through both. I also don't think you need advanced statistical training to benefit from use of baseball statistics -- but I agree that there is a lot of amateurish stuff out there. For 99% of people it's a hobby, not a vocation.

But that's really beside the point. I don't fool around with baseball statistics because I think they'll make me a better baseball fan.  I fool around with baseball statistics because I find them interesting.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
And I somewhat disagree regarding OWA's purpose; reposting other people's stuff and ragging on it has happened pretty much since day one.  It certainly isn't the only function of the TZ, but it is a pastime.  Barzilla may not be of the same media pedigree (FWIW) as a Joe Morgan or Whitey Gammons, but he's posting Astros-related articles online so he's probably fair game.  That he came to the TZ and defended himself is somewhat unique.  That, and the way in which he did so, is probably why this whole issue has blown up the way it has.  I don't disagree that cooler heads could've prevailed, but that seems like a chicken-or-the-egg debate to me.

Fair enough, but as you point out, it's not like he's Little Joe or Whitey. Posting a link every time he publishes something in order to call him an asshole even when he hasn't posted here in a year is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO. Not that there's any rule against such waste, of course.

[CapnTim]

 

Quote:
Intellectually deficient here. The very extreme A-Rod/Perez arguement isn't what Barzilla has been doing.

I didn't make the argument in reference to barzilla's arguments; I made the argument in response to your claim that people who understand statistics well enough to use them don't come to message boards, as it isn't true.

Quote:
Few really know how to use, apply, and make informed decisions with them and those that do don't generally post to fan boards.

You say generally; what about specifically?  Will the people around here recognize that the statistical arguments are sound, or will they think RCAP is a hoax?

 

Quote:
Another problem is that some who want to be statheads tout a single statistic as evidence enough of whatever it is they are arguing. It's crap.

Yes, it is crap, but if somebody comes in here with some silly single stat that shows that Everett is a good shortstop, people will say "yeah, ya think?" and ignore him.  But if somebody comes in with several well-developed stats that suggest Everett is a bad fielder, people will tear into him, regardless of the strength of the statistical argument.  Which is why I was asking Noe if he really doesn't think a lot of this is about the whole scouts/stats thing.  Perhaps barzilla invited attacks when he came here and posted, but before he got here they were already insulting him without even understanding the stats he was using. Thats pretty weak.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are a hell of a lot more people who understand baseball through watching it than there are people who can understand baseball through statistics.

I don't think it's mutually exclusive, and I think people can expand their understanding through both. I also don't think you need advanced statistical training to benefit from use of baseball statistics -- but I agree that there is a lot of amateurish stuff out there. For 99% of people it's a hobby, not a vocation.

But without a fundamental understanding of how statistics are derived and the limitations of any stat, much less how to know which questions to ask so as to know the limitations, you're better off listening to someone else's opinions rather than forming your own from the stats.  I'm not saying you do this.

Quote:
But that's really beside the point. I don't fool around with baseball statistics because I think they'll make me a better baseball fan.  I fool around with baseball statistics because I find them interesting.

As do I.  Honestly, though, I get hyped up about this because I'm a bit of a stats snob.  I know what it takes to become an expert in the field, a person who understands the formulas and theories and knows how to form informed opinions with or at least in part with the stats.  Unfortunately in this country a dwindling number of young people are willing to do what it takes to get there.  But, that's way off topic.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
Intellectually deficient here. The very extreme A-Rod/Perez arguement isn't what Barzilla has been doing.

I didn't make the argument in reference to barzilla's arguments; I made the argument in response to your claim that people who understand statistics well enough to use them don't come to message boards, as it isn't true.

Ok, if you want to take it to absolutes then I'm sure a very few people who truly understand stats visit message boards.  Trouble is, there are very few who truly understand stats, at least in a way to know which stats to use, interpret the results, and make informed opinions with them.

Quote:

Quote:
Few really know how to use, apply, and make informed decisions with them and those that do don't generally post to fan boards.

You say generally; what about specifically?  Will the people around here recognize that the statistical arguments are sound, or will they think RCAP is a hoax?

I won't speak for anyone else.  But, I've worked with enough statistical analyses and discussed stats with enough true statisticians that I believe I can recognize a sound arguement using statistics.  Every single time without fail? No. I'm not perfect.  But, I believe very often.

[CapnTim]

 

Quote:
I won't speak for anyone else. But, I've worked with enough statistical analyses and discussed stats with enough true statisticians that I believe I can recognize a sound arguement using statistics. Every single time without fail? No. I'm not perfect. But, I believe very often.

But then, do you represent the average person's when it comes to an opinion on statistics?  If not, you're unrepresentative of the population.  (Oh, I kill me.)

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
Even though some of my statements might not reflect this, I actually do have a tremendous amount of respect for scouting. What I know is that I don't know as much as scouts know about the game. I also know that there are a lot of people out there that know stats more than me. I think the problem with the BP interview expressed earlier is that some stats people think stats are the key. I think stats are part of the answer. I also think baseball could take a page from the NFL and do a better job looking at the psychological side. Certainly, neither stats people nor scouts would have predicted that Tim Redding would have been a headcase coming out of high school. Maybe someone adept at analyzing players in that way would be useful as well.

I watch baseball religiously as many of you do, but I admit I have limitations. I think the key is for clubs to integrate scoutings, stats, and psychological analysis. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I'm sure they do already.  Trouble is when you put something as complex and shadowy as psychological development with something as complex and shadowy as baseball development you get an incredible amount of variance and imperfection.  Not to mention there is surely a great deal of overlap between the two.  And, it's unlikely we have a strong understanding of that overlap.

*I define shadowy here as a lack of understanding of what really goes on inside the individual.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
I won't speak for anyone else. But, I've worked with enough statistical analyses and discussed stats with enough true statisticians that I believe I can recognize a sound arguement using statistics. Every single time without fail? No. I'm not perfect. But, I believe very often.

But then, do you represent the average person's when it comes to an opinion on statistics?  If not, you're unrepresentative of the population.  (Oh, I kill me.)

1)I think you're right.
2)Unfortunately for me I'm not a statistician.  I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from and discuss stats with experts at great length.  And, I think a relative few have had that opportunity.  To me, that's sad.
3)As I said in another post there are a dwindling few young people willing to do what it takes to become experts in that field.  So, I don't expect those who understands stats in a very developed way to become more representative of the population than today.  And, that's sad too.

[CapnTim]

 

Quote:
As I said in another post there are a dwindling few young people willing to do what it takes to become experts in that field. So, I don't expect those who understands stats in a very developed way to become more representative of the population than today.  

It is sad, but not really surprising.  I have a much better head for numbers than most, and I'm not at all willing to make the effort necessary to understand truly high-level statistical analysis.  For most people, it just isn't worth the time to track down the information and learn it.  Which is why its so damn important to make statistical analysis mainstream; the more often you see it, the more familiar it is, and the less difficult it is to learn more about it.

Yeah, we're a little off topic now.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

I think there are a hell of a lot more people who understand baseball through watching it than there are people who can understand baseball through statistics.

Most of us use statistics at some level in baseball.  Is a pitcher good?  What's his win/loss record.  What's his ERA.  How often does a particular batter strike out, and does he hit for power?  I don't think you mean to say that those of us here aren't generally sophisticated enough to look at baseball statistics and think that a guy's a pretty good hitter, or that a team has a pretty good win/loss record.

There are some pretty complex statistical constructs in baseball, and, frankly, life's too short for me to waste time figuring them out.  That said, I doubt that anybody, anywhere, figures baseball out just by watching it.  When the fundamental question of the game is who gets the most runs in 9 innings, well, there's always some level of statistical analysis going on.

What happens here more often than not is that a wall is created between what is helpful to a fan and what's helpful to a team.  For instance.  To me, OPS is a useful number.  I can glance at OPS and get a snapshot of what the hitter is doing.  If his OPS is around .900, he's having a great year.  Now as I recall, we have here a village idiot.  Every time OPS used to be mentioned, this idiot would dogmatically march out his tired argument to the effect that no one could prove that OPS was being used in management, not even by Billy Beane.  This was before Dierker wrote This Ain't Brain Surgery.  The guy would point to the section of Moneyball where Depodesta would talk about how OPS was too simple, and how he preferred a formula that gave greater value to OBP.  If I recall, it was something like 2OBP+S.  The VI's argument was that Beane thought OPS was simple, and that OPS had no value.

The Idiot wasn't smart enough to realize that Depodesta was using an OPS variant, but he was also incredibly arrogant:  As a fan, what do I care what a team is using?  How would I even know?  When I look at numbers, I'm simply trying to get some description of what's going on, the same way I would read a newspaper article.  What I can understand may be simplistic.  2op+s may be a better statistical basis than OPS, but all the number really tells me is that I should look at the player with a .900 ops in a different way, and with different expectations, than a player with a .700 ops.  

A second example, from the same Village Idiot.  When the Fielder's Bible came out a few weeks ago, it ranked players numerically based on analysis of their previous three year's fielding.  The VIs argument, which he repeated ad infinitum, was that ranking fielders by numerical value had no value in the real world of baseball.  Now teams apparently buy the information, but even if no teams placed value on the information, so what?  From my purely subjective point of view, if the information helps me as a fan watch the game in a different way, or if I just like the numbers in and of themselves, isn't that enough?

I'd suggest the following.   First, no one who's smart about baseball judges baseball by one game.  Let's call this the  Mazeroski error.  Maz had a great hit, so he was a great hitter.  We know Maz was a great ambassador for the game, and a great defender, but he was not a great hitter.  How do we know this?  Not by watching every game Maz played in, but by looking at his stats.  In baseball, as a fan, you always test any single event against numbers.

Second, for a fan, numbers don't have to be useful in the same way they are to a team.  Let's call this the Depodesta error.  Depodesta may have used 2op+s for Billy Beane to identify undervalued talent, but that doesn't mean if I glance at a column of ops numbers to see how guys are hitting, my analysis is wrong.  As a fan I'm using the number in a different way.  For me, ops puts what's going on in the field in broader context: in the context of a career, in the context of a season.  For the fan, statistics are the vocabulary of baseball over time.  It's ok for a statistic to have value only for the fan, or for the fan to use the statistic in a different way than management.

Third (and this is different from the Mazeroski error), people don't really judge what they see very well.  Call this the Robert Parker error.  People see for crap, that's why a change up works.  HH tells us that sliders always leave a true line.  Noe tells us that sliders can fall straight.  Any two people watching the same event are likely to disagree on what they saw, and over time, our memory of what we saw can be really poor.  The fish I caught was this big.   Robert Parker judges wine: the reason Robert Parker judges wine better than anybody else is because (1) he has an incredible memory for taste and (2) he has very good taste.   In all of the world of wine drinkers, he's about the only one who does.  None of us are Robert Parker for baseball, though some of us act a bit like Miles from Sideways.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
anybody know why they wouldn't show the stros on dish network today?

With DishNetwork, you have to check the alternate channels.  I am in Austin and have watched every came FSN has aired.  Browsing the schedule by "theme", I was able to find the opening day game.  Check the times you know the game is on and you'll find which alternate channel the game is carried on.

[barzilla]

NeilT,

I think you made some great points there. I think there will always be a human element in baseball that stats simply can't touch. The argument surrounds how much of a human element and what we should do about it. Personally, what I find frustrating is the notion of resisting criticism of a team based on the stats angle.

The point is often made that the team knows what they are talking about. In a large way this can be true. Tim Purpura has said on several occasions that the Astros have their own metrics. Until we find out what those are we really can't criticize them completely because if their metrics tell them a player is good then they need to trust that analysis.

Whether you come from a scouting background or a stats background you will see teams make mistakes you think are glaring. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. We usually don't have all the facts, but a part of the fun of being a fan is voicing our opinion when we thing the mistake has been made.

Does anyone think ardent Devil Ray fans (if there is such a thing) sat on their hands while their team lost 100 games year after year? No, they probably criticized Chuck LeMar and the moves he made. Who knows, maybe LeMar had a good reason for doing what he did.

I think for me the key is learning as much as I can while I criticize. The Fielding Bible wasn't a revelation of sorts, but it did crystallize how I view fielding. It wasn't the methadology so much as someone going through the long hours of compiling the data. The data is compelling and people outside of Houston have to look at Adam Everett differently. It doesn't necessarily change my opinion on evaluating every player based on their offensive and defensive contributions, but it does give his defensive contributions a little more weight.

I will say that there is some debate about RCAP and it's usefulness. Any statistician or anyone who applies their tools knows you cannot base the evaluation of a player on one metric. I just fear that people do that on the defensive end while others do it on the offensive end. I was reading one of the other threads "Everett turns Barzilla into a Pretzel" where Everett was credited with saving the game.

That statement makes several assumptions I'm not particularly comfortable with. First, it assumes that other shortstops wouldn't have made that play. Given the Fielding Bible data and our own eyewitness accounts that might be true. Yet, it also fails to realize the possibility that a different shortstop might have contributed more offensively, thus making the play less important. I was amazed by the play and I was glad we had Everett in that moment, but baseball is a game of hundreds of small events. I think it is important to take the totality of them instead of focusing on just one.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I will say that there is some debate about RCAP and it's usefulness. Any statistician or anyone who applies their tools knows you cannot base the evaluation of a player on one metric. I just fear that people do that on the defensive end while others do it on the offensive end. I was reading one of the other threads "Everett turns Barzilla into a Pretzel" where Everett was credited with saving the game.

Where I differed with your article on RCAP was precisely the practicality of its usefulness. Several years ago I took the free database at the Baseball Almanac and set it up to calculate batting runs beyond positional average for every player in baseball history. I found the results interesting, not only as to which players exceeded the average, but also studying the results to see how the average fluctuates.

But this is a very different pasttime than arguing about team moves on this basis. The free agent market and minor leagues are not teeming with "average" players that you can just go out and purchase and plug into your team in place of someone who's below average at his position. (This doesn't even begin to discuss defensive and payroll considerations.)

And beyond the handful of top players at each position, you've got a lot of statistical noise to deal with, which I think is part of what Jacksonian is pointing out about understanding statistics -- recognizing where the deviations represent a real difference in performance or ability, and where they represent randomness or the lack of sample size. (This is even the case with the top players, although when the same guys are at the top of the league by a large margin year after year, the significance of that tendency has some meaning.)

In other words, I think it's a rash judgment to calculate that Ausmus and Everett are below average offensive performers at their positions and then to declare that the Astros are imprudent if they don't replace those two guys.

And while I found your defensive piece on the Yankees interesting in that it did indicate that the Yankees, as they have aged, have become a poor defensive team, I think drawing the conclusion that this is why they've not won the World Series in awhile is a stretch. You're still talking about a team that makes the playoffs every season, in which case you're taking one weakness in an otherwise strong club and extrapolating that that one weakness only manifests itself conclusively in a handful of playoff games. That's a statistical noise and sample size issue too.

I think suggesting rather than asserting that certain factors might be the case based on statistics is a more conservative and less aggressive way to go about presenting these kinds of conclusions. Packaging matters. I'm not putting this out there to insult you -- I'm trying to explain why, from a statistical perspective, I've found some of these points unpersuasive.

[Astroholic]

It is unbelivable what one can miss by not coming to this site over a weekend.  I am sure glad it is Monday and I am back at "work".  Long live OWA.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

Even though you are being facetious I am sure, this statement is perfectly Barzillian in its logic.  

The conciet that there are a lot of fans who look at this all as a war between "stat-heads" and the "scout-oriented", I mean.  It's an easy way to throw the argument back at the 'other side', whomever they are.  But the truth is, on this site and others, the vast majority of people who propound the 'us vs. them' model are the "us'es", the put-upon fellows who sashay in with some arcane metric they just thought up and then, as soon as they are challenged or ridiculed on/about it, fall into the lonely revolutionary role... they feel like Che Guevara, being martyred in order to free all of us from the ignorance of the 'scouts' and their way of watching the game.

Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.  And it obfuscates the truth to say it was, and it elevates that retard far beyond any stature he has or ever will have to equate him with anyone even on that low level of the evolutionary scale.

The truth is, our boy is just another nobody who thinks he can log on and run a bunch of bullshit and people will buy it and allow him to give himself an air of importance and even superiority that he could not even dream of in the real world.  And maybe some people do buy it... okay, some people do, apparently.

But not here.  The question is not why people here continue to link to his "articles".  As has been pointed out, it's morbid fascination, normal human nature.  The better question is why someone who has his ass handed to him every time he even pops his head up out of his hole continues to come back in here from time to time and continue the self-abuse (and remember, Barzilla-who-only-checks-in-every-once-in-awhile, I am pretty sure they log IP addresses here.)  Maybe he thinks he's so fucking smart he'll just eventually bullshit everyone here, too, like he has his buddies over at You-Know-Where.  

It doesn't matter and I don't care.  Leave it to the abnormal psychologists.  Ultimately, Barzilla is just Exhibit Z in a case long ago made; that for all its plusses and minuses, the truth is the internet for the most part caters to the absolute lowest common denominator.

OWA just happens to be one island in the vast sea where the bullshit meter is set low, and the first instinct when some yahoo like Ass- er, Barzilla wanders in with his weak-ass shit is to whack him over the head with a carp.  Or a garfish.  Or whatever the virtual equivalent is.  Repeatedly.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

Even though you are being facetious I am sure, this statement is perfectly Barzillian in its logic.  

The conciet that there are a lot of fans who look at this all as a war between "stat-heads" and the "scout-oriented", I mean.  It's an easy way to throw the argument back at the 'other side', whomever they are.  But the truth is, on this site and others, the vast majority of people who propound the 'us vs. them' model are the "us'es", the put-upon fellows who sashay in with some arcane metric they just thought up and then, as soon as they are challenged or ridiculed on/about it, fall into the lonely revolutionary role... they feel like Che Guevara, being martyred in order to free all of us from the ignorance of the 'scouts' and their way of watching the game.

Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.  And it obfuscates the truth to say it was, and it elevates that retard far beyond any stature he has or ever will have to equate him with anyone even on that low level of the evolutionary scale.

The truth is, our boy is just another nobody who thinks he can log on and run a bunch of bullshit and people will buy it and allow him to give himself an air of importance and even superiority that he could not even dream of in the real world.  And maybe some people do buy it... okay, some people do, apparently.

But not here.  The question is not why people here continue to link to his "articles".  As has been pointed out, it's morbid fascination, normal human nature.  The better question is why someone who has his ass handed to him every time he even pops his head up out of his hole continues to come back in here from time to time and continue the self-abuse (and remember, Barzilla-who-only-checks-in-every-once-in-awhile, I am pretty sure they log IP addresses here.)  Maybe he thinks he's so fucking smart he'll just eventually bullshit everyone here, too, like he has his buddies over at You-Know-Where.  

It doesn't matter and I don't care.  Leave it to the abnormal psychologists.  Ultimately, Barzilla is just Exhibit Z in a case long ago made; that for all its plusses and minuses, the truth is the internet for the most part caters to the absolute lowest common denominator.

OWA just happens to be one island in the vast sea where the bullshit meter is set low, and the first instinct when some yahoo like Ass- er, Barzilla wanders in with his weak-ass shit is to whack him over the head with a carp.  Or a garfish.  Or whatever the virtual equivalent is.  Repeatedly.

One important aspect you touched on is that these dilettantes use this stuff to get books published.  Which other Unappreciated Experts can buy to revel in their shared understandings of The Mysteries.  The tension is among the fan factions, the managements of teams are fully aware of every single iteration of form and function of statistic.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

Even though you are being facetious I am sure, this statement is perfectly Barzillian in its logic.  

The conciet that there are a lot of fans who look at this all as a war between "stat-heads" and the "scout-oriented", I mean.  It's an easy way to throw the argument back at the 'other side', whomever they are.  But the truth is, on this site and others, the vast majority of people who propound the 'us vs. them' model are the "us'es", the put-upon fellows who sashay in with some arcane metric they just thought up and then, as soon as they are challenged or ridiculed on/about it, fall into the lonely revolutionary role... they feel like Che Guevara, being martyred in order to free all of us from the ignorance of the 'scouts' and their way of watching the game.

Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.  And it obfuscates the truth to say it was, and it elevates that retard far beyond any stature he has or ever will have to equate him with anyone even on that low level of the evolutionary scale.

The truth is, our boy is just another nobody who thinks he can log on and run a bunch of bullshit and people will buy it and allow him to give himself an air of importance and even superiority that he could not even dream of in the real world.  And maybe some people do buy it... okay, some people do, apparently.

But not here.  The question is not why people here continue to link to his "articles".  As has been pointed out, it's morbid fascination, normal human nature.  The better question is why someone who has his ass handed to him every time he even pops his head up out of his hole continues to come back in here from time to time and continue the self-abuse (and remember, Barzilla-who-only-checks-in-every-once-in-awhile, I am pretty sure they log IP addresses here.)  Maybe he thinks he's so fucking smart he'll just eventually bullshit everyone here, too, like he has his buddies over at You-Know-Where.  

It doesn't matter and I don't care.  Leave it to the abnormal psychologists.  Ultimately, Barzilla is just Exhibit Z in a case long ago made; that for all its plusses and minuses, the truth is the internet for the most part caters to the absolute lowest common denominator.

OWA just happens to be one island in the vast sea where the bullshit meter is set low, and the first instinct when some yahoo like Ass- er, Barzilla wanders in with his weak-ass shit is to whack him over the head with a carp.  Or a garfish.  Or whatever the virtual equivalent is.  Repeatedly.

Dude, don't disrespect Che!  Cheers to everything else....

[Limey]

Quote:
The truth is, our boy is just another nobody who thinks he can log on and run a bunch of bullshit and people will buy it and allow him to give himself an air of importance and even superiority that he could not even dream of in the real world.  And maybe some people do buy it... okay, some people do, apparently.

I think the ultimate irony is that he came here touting his smarts - being in the top three percentile 'n' all.  What he failed to realise is that, assuming his claim to be true, there are over 1,000 registered zone dwellers.  That means that there are 30 of us at least as smart as he is, and 20 who are smarter.

All this assumes, of course, that the TZ registrants is made up of a similar sample of humanity as Barzilla's IQ test.  I doubt this to be the case because this site is quite successful at running off the "We rool!  U drool!" crowd, thus skewing the deomgraphic towards the smart end of the distribution.

Of course, anyone well versed in statistical analysis would know to take this into account.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
On the other hand, the guys who know how to scout professional baseball abound on fan boards.

Must be all those fellows out of a job thanks to the nefarious Beane/DePodesta/Ricciardi takeover of MLB front offices. The false dogma of sabermetrics is sweeping the nation, don't you know?

Even though you are being facetious I am sure, this statement is perfectly Barzillian in its logic.  

The conciet that there are a lot of fans who look at this all as a war between "stat-heads" and the "scout-oriented", I mean.  It's an easy way to throw the argument back at the 'other side', whomever they are.  But the truth is, on this site and others, the vast majority of people who propound the 'us vs. them' model are the "us'es", the put-upon fellows who sashay in with some arcane metric they just thought up and then, as soon as they are challenged or ridiculed on/about it, fall into the lonely revolutionary role... they feel like Che Guevara, being martyred in order to free all of us from the ignorance of the 'scouts' and their way of watching the game.

Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.  And it obfuscates the truth to say it was, and it elevates that retard far beyond any stature he has or ever will have to equate him with anyone even on that low level of the evolutionary scale.

The truth is, our boy is just another nobody who thinks he can log on and run a bunch of bullshit and people will buy it and allow him to give himself an air of importance and even superiority that he could not even dream of in the real world.  And maybe some people do buy it... okay, some people do, apparently.

But not here.  The question is not why people here continue to link to his "articles".  As has been pointed out, it's morbid fascination, normal human nature.  The better question is why someone who has his ass handed to him every time he even pops his head up out of his hole continues to come back in here from time to time and continue the self-abuse (and remember, Barzilla-who-only-checks-in-every-once-in-awhile, I am pretty sure they log IP addresses here.)  Maybe he thinks he's so fucking smart he'll just eventually bullshit everyone here, too, like he has his buddies over at You-Know-Where.  

It doesn't matter and I don't care.  Leave it to the abnormal psychologists.  Ultimately, Barzilla is just Exhibit Z in a case long ago made; that for all its plusses and minuses, the truth is the internet for the most part caters to the absolute lowest common denominator.

OWA just happens to be one island in the vast sea where the bullshit meter is set low, and the first instinct when some yahoo like Ass- er, Barzilla wanders in with his weak-ass shit is to whack him over the head with a carp.  Or a garfish.  Or whatever the virtual equivalent is.  Repeatedly.

I don't think there are many people who worry too much about some mythical battle in the cosmos between scouts and stat-heads, nor think one side is somehow predominant.  Most of us watch games, read articles, listen to commentary, don't get scouting reports, and look at stats from time to time.  Think about what we've learned here from our own scouting analysis.  Biggio will be benched in 2005.  Burke will never hit anything but singles.  Carlos Beltran will be a real leader on the Mets, and he is exactly what the Astros need in 2005.  Berkman, on the other hand, is not a team leader.  We come up with some real gems.

I thought the discussion had moved off Barzilla and onto the nature of the discussion of the regulars here.  I don't have much opinion about Barzilla one way or the other.  He's welcome to post all he wants and publish all he wants.  It's beyond me why anybody cares, unless it's a heresy kinda thing.  I personally have little patience for burning witches, even real witches.

As for bullshit, there's plenty of bullshit here. Some people even know they do it.

One interesting thing I learned, was that actor who played Miles in Sideways is Bart Giamatti's son.  Who knew?

[mihoba]

Quote:
As for bullshit, there's plenty of bullshit here. Some people even know they do it.

You can always tell when I'm bullshitting... I'm typing.

There's several 'scout' and several 'stat' types here in the TZ, a good mixture IMO, a virtual baseball gumbo. Many of us have been posting for 7-8 years or more, so we have a long history of calling out twerps who think they can come in and get instant respect due to their 'knowledge.'

Bring it strong or be prepared to suffer the wrath. One problem I see quite often, as I'm sure Barzilla fell for this too, is posting here without reading content first. Read more, post less is good advice for someone who wants to stay around and learn. Of course, most people just jump right in and make an ass out of themselves quickly.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Which is why I was asking Noe if he really doesn't think a lot of this is about the whole scouts/stats thing.

Yes.  I hate the generalization about the OWA the most.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I thought the discussion had moved off Barzilla and onto the nature of the discussion of the regulars here.  I don't have much opinion about Barzilla one way or the other.  He's welcome to post all he wants and publish all he wants.  It's beyond me why anybody cares, unless it's a heresy kinda thing.  I personally have little patience for burning witches, even real witches.

Witch-burning masquerading as morbid fascination, actually.

Quote:
As for bullshit, there's plenty of bullshit here. Some people even know they do it.

No doubt.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.

THANK YOU!  Running an argument into the bunny trail is an agendizing move for sure and deviates from the actual truth in this matter.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
One important aspect you touched on is that these dilettantes use this stuff to get books published.  Which other Unappreciated Experts can buy to revel in their shared understandings of The Mysteries.  The tension is among the fan factions, the managements of teams are fully aware of every single iteration of form and function of statistic.

I'm surprised this has risen to such a level of importance that it must be described in such mythic terms.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.

THANK YOU!  Running an argument into the bunny trail is an agendizing move for sure and deviates from the actual truth in this matter.

Oh come on, Noe.  If we didn't run off down bunny trails we'd have to post from time to time about baseball.  It's not Friday.  It's too early to turn this into a beer thread.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
As for bullshit, there's plenty of bullshit here. Some people even know they do it.

No doubt.

Something many of us, heck just about all of the TZ is very comfortable with saying to and about each other.  Has that changed that I didn't know?  This place has never been a place for the thin-skinned, why it has to start now is beyond me.

Take yourself seriously around here and it bites you in the arse.  That is the truth about this whole thing, everything else is just pompous noise.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Only problem is, it's all a bunch of fucking bullshit.

In spite of the direction this thread has run the last 10 or 15 posts, the truth is the whole thing with Barzilla was never about stats vs. scouts, or whatever one calls it.

THANK YOU!  Running an argument into the bunny trail is an agendizing move for sure and deviates from the actual truth in this matter.

Oh come on, Noe.  If we didn't run off down bunny trails we'd have to post from time to time about baseball.  It's not Friday.  It's too early to turn this into a beer thread.

Me hates hidden agendas when the truth is actually more comfortable and there for all to see.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
One important aspect you touched on is that these dilettantes use this stuff to get books published.  Which other Unappreciated Experts can buy to revel in their shared understandings of The Mysteries.  The tension is among the fan factions, the managements of teams are fully aware of every single iteration of form and function of statistic.

I'm surprised this has risen to such a level of importance that it must be described in such mythic terms.

If you don't think that there's an element of true believers vs the great unwashed for the Truth of Baseball, you haven't been paying attention.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
B.S.

Is it really?  When was the last time any of the scouting types around here challenged one of Jim R.'s opinions?  I admit to not having been around here in quite a long time, but when I used to be here regularly there was never any accountability on opinions made based on personal scouting or on popular opinions based on scouting.  An example being the Penny/Choi for LoDuca/Mota trade made in 2004, which around here was largely proclaimed a runaway for the Marlins while the Dodgers were routinely mocked.  The Dodgers collapsed last year, but the Marlins did nothing after they got LoDuca (some leadership) and Mota has been crap on a stick since he got to Florida.  How many people around here said "yeah, maybe we were wrong?"

The fact of the matter is that anytime somebody makes an assessment based on statistical analysis that runs counter to the common scouting opinion here, that person is mocked as an idiot and a know-nothing.  I remember an argument I had at the end of 2003 with yourself and with Pravata, where y'all were saying that Harville would be good in 2005 based on adjustments he made that September, while I said that his history suggested he would return to sucking one way or another.  Toward the end of the thread Limey posted a needlessly vitriolic comment to me.  Did anybody next season say "you know what?  Harville DOES suck, and maybe we were reading too much into September."  Not from anything I saw.

Now, I don't agree with a lot of what barzilla posts, but pretty much all he does is write articles full of his opinions on things with an air of authority.  No different from what a lot of people on this board do.  Barzilla doesn't even post his articles here; they're being brought in to cut up.  Unless I misjudge the tone of the opinion around here towards him, you get on him because of his know-it-all-ness.  But the people around here with the same qualities go unattacked.  The key difference between barzilla and people around here are his statistical sensibilities.

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, Noe, but I think your own scouting sensibilities are clouding your judgement about this.  The scouting types around here have lots of opinions on a lot of things, and a lot of time they are completely full of ####.  But they don't get attacked with such hate.  Why is that?

I appreciate a tome as the next windbag (meaning me of course), but did your *really* have to type all this crap just to ask me "why"?  You're full of shit on just about all you said in this post it's not even funny.  You really think LoDoca/Mota, Barzilla or any stuff like that mean anything... I mean *ANYTHING* other than fun sidebar discussions to prove just how silly we *all* can get?  Nobody takes themselves seriously enough to hang such life or death attributes to it.  If your problem is Jim R. and how many time he may of told you to "fuck off", then join the masses that have had the same displeasure or pleasure if you will.  Jim R. conversely takes some of biggest abuse in here as well.  He has proven to have the thick enough skin to take it as much as he dishes out, so where is the problem?

Lastly, there is no "scouts vs. stats" atmosphere here.  That you think so proves how little you either know, understand or choose to ignore about this place.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Something many of us, heck just about all of the TZ is very comfortable with saying to and about each other.  Has that changed that I didn't know?  This place has never been a place for the thin-skinned, why it has to start now is beyond me.

Take yourself seriously around here and it bites you in the arse.  That is the truth about this whole thing, everything else is just pompous noise.

Yep. If we never unloaded our bullshit here, what else would we do with it?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
Something many of us, heck just about all of the TZ is very comfortable with saying to and about each other.  Has that changed that I didn't know?  This place has never been a place for the thin-skinned, why it has to start now is beyond me.

Take yourself seriously around here and it bites you in the arse.  That is the truth about this whole thing, everything else is just pompous noise.

Yep. If we never unloaded our bullshit here, what else would we do with it?

The world, the real world, is a better place because of it!  And safer too.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
If you don't think that there's an element of true believers vs the great unwashed for the Truth of Baseball, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who think this way.  What I'm saying is they're Don Quixotes or conspiracy theorists.  I wouldn't raise them to the level of being described as some kind of identifiable movement.

And I could be paying attention and not interpreting what I see the same way you do. Deviation from your perception does not always imply ignorance.

[Foghorn]

The TZ is not about scout versus stats, regulars versus visitors, popes versus the clarks.

Its not even those who give supporting eveidence versus those who just fling shit around, hoping for something that sticks.

Its not about "WFW", or VORP, or "Whitey Gammons says...", or even "FUCK THE JAKES".

Its about nothing.  This whole place is nothing.  It is unimportant, time-wasting, self fellating, goofiness that people take way to fucking seriously.  Dammit, baseball is not a mythic confrontation between good and evil, where the sublime beauty of a 4-6-3 double play brings together the generations and fathers and sons can have a catch and make right all the past problems.  Fuck all that noise.  Baseball is a pretty fucking sweet diversion, an awesome way to kill a summer's evening.

TZ is a gathering place for a bunch of goofballs, fucking around, looking for a laugh, a different point of view, or perhaps just a reason to ignore the boss/wife/husband for 30 minutes.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
If you don't think that there's an element of true believers vs the great unwashed for the Truth of Baseball, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who think this way.  What I'm saying is they're Don Quixotes or conspiracy theorists.  I wouldn't raise them to the level of being described as some kind of identifiable movement.

And I could be paying attention and not interpreting what I see the same way you do. Deviation from your perception does not always imply ignorance.

I've seen enough of your interpretations not to expect you to think so.

[Astroholic]

"TZ is a gathering place for a bunch of goofballs, fucking around, looking for a laugh, a different point of view, or perhaps just a reason to ignore the boss/wife/husband for 30 minutes."  

Or half a day at the office, five days a week.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
The TZ is not about scout versus stats, regulars versus visitors, popes versus the clarks.

Its not even those who give supporting eveidence versus those who just fling shit around, hoping for something that sticks.

Its not about "WFW", or VORP, or "Whitey Gammons says...", or even "FUCK THE JAKES".

Its about nothing.  This whole place is nothing.  It is unimportant, time-wasting, self fellating, goofiness that people take way to fucking seriously.  Dammit, baseball is not a mythic confrontation between good and evil, where the sublime beauty of a 4-6-3 double play brings together the generations and fathers and sons can have a catch and make right all the past problems.  Fuck all that noise.  Baseball is a pretty fucking sweet diversion, an awesome way to kill a summer's evening.

TZ is a gathering place for a bunch of goofballs, fucking around, looking for a laugh, a different point of view, or perhaps just a reason to ignore the boss/wife/husband for 30 minutes.

And fuck anyone who thinks otherwise!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I've seen enough of your interpretations not to expect you to think so.

From you, I'll take that as a compliment.