|
|
RBIs?
Apr 29, 2014 19:13:17 GMT -5
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 29, 2014 19:13:17 GMT -5
aaaaaaand same right back at you SaraSox. Why would you think Goetze's comment was anything but a re-joke? You youngsters have more testosterone I gather. Jmei, who is often in conflict, you and Goetse are so easy to tweak and apparently feel compelled to flex your superior 'intellectual' muscles at the expense. Those who dare mention RBIs are piloried as uninformed, "anti-intellectual" midgets, and archaic idiots. But another who mentions xFIP is immediately acknowledged as being hip, superior and with it. Honestly, how self-absorbed can you be? Of interest, for all that "modern science" has discovered, aspirin (identified more than a century ago) is still the best pure pain reliever and has many other benefits... I am aware of all the micro-stats being produced and I look at them too. For the most part I think that they provide subcutaneous interest and value on a sometimes ephemoral plane. I have long been frustrated that baseball has been anachronistic, too slow to adapt and to adopt technological advances. I have championed teams that take the next step. Nevertheless, some stats are, to me, imperfect like BABIP and some are, to me, at the neutron and marginal value level. For me people who absolutely adhere to the arcane at the exclusion of other traditional data are blinded by the glare. If all this new found data were so useful why didn't we sign Abreu and/or Tanaka??? The traditional guy looking at stats would say that they were valuable enough to sign. Boston did not. Those guys, early on, are the steals in the international market. Well, what happened? Did the Sox not listen to the learned group here? Maybe we should sign an agreement with Hubble!? Look, the world is and will continue to be imperfect. We should all be more humble and tolerant. |
|
|
|
RBIs?
Apr 29, 2014 19:27:21 GMT -5
Post by James Dunne on Apr 29, 2014 19:27:21 GMT -5
There may be a good argument for using traditional statistics. But "other teams signed players who are good to expensive contracts" isn't one of them.
For the rest of my argument please see a) the "Napoli isn't a run producer" posts from before the 2013 season, followed by b) the results of the 2013 season.
|
|
|
|
RBIs?
Apr 29, 2014 20:17:06 GMT -5
Post by jmei on Apr 29, 2014 20:17:06 GMT -5
Since you called me out by name here, let me explain myself a bit.
I believe in the dialectic process-- the idea that arguing about a subject with other informed folks improves our collective understanding of it. I want to know as much about baseball as possible, especially the player development and team-building side of things. Reading what other smart people think and pushing back against stuff I disagree with forces each of us to explain why we believe what we believe and really gets at the nuts and bolts of player evaluation in a way that just passively reading analysis doesn't. I love that stuff, and it's why I have so many posts on this forum.
The fact that I have long-winded, detailed, and very technical arguments with folks here doesn't mean I get angry at those people who disagree with me. Indeed, it's the exact opposite-- if I'm having a multi-post argument with someone, it generally means I respect them enough to want to actually push them on their logic. I don't have long arguments with posters who have no clue and can't back up their opinion with any real analysis. Every once in a while I get annoyed with someone who is just being obstinate or repetitive, but that's about it. Don't assume that I'm pissed at you if I'm criticizing something you said. If you have a good basis for doing so, defend your point, and hopefully we'll both get something out of it.
That said, I will also correct misinformation. If you post something that is factually incorrect or especially misleading, I will probably chime in. It's necessary to keep the quality of the forum high enough to be worth reading.
|
|
|
|
RBIs?
Apr 29, 2014 20:31:26 GMT -5
Post by jmei on Apr 29, 2014 20:31:26 GMT -5
That said, there's a reason I never argue with you. We think about baseball in very, very different ways, and I'm just not very interested in the non-scouting traditionalist perspective (e.g., evaluating someone based on just RBIs). The fact that the SABR-perspective has come to dominate front offices (the folks who actually have skin/$$$ in the game; this is also true to a lesser extent of professional gamblers) to such a degree in the last decade or two tells me enough about which side is right more than it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
RBIs?
Apr 29, 2014 22:04:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 29, 2014 22:04:19 GMT -5
The Red Sox were interested in Abreu and came close to signing him, it had noting to do with traditional statics or advanced metrics, it was about scouting.
Tanaka is different because with the new rules for Japanese players I don't think anyone but the Yankees would have signed him. And let's not think this was some sort of bargain. It was a 175 million dollar gamble.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 30, 2014 16:44:44 GMT -5
Tanaka also is only 5 very good starts into his career. He's very different from other starters, it's an unknown his hitters will adjust. He's going to be very homer prone though.
|
|
