Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need look no further for any explanation as to why the "best" teams do not always grab the championships. The post season isn't long enough for the established advantages to have an impact.
I don't disagree that the postseason has shortcomings in terms of judging whether one team is truly better than another. After the LDS, for instance, the pitching rotations don't entirely reset; the continue into the next series with whatever pitcher is available. I'm not so much claiming the postseason *is* the best way to determine the 'best' team; I'm just pointing out that the regular season doesn't really do what it purports, either. There are many reasons for this. For one thing, there are major personnel changes during the season due to injuries, performance, call-ups, minor league assignments, and other transactions.
Show me something that indicates that batting average reflects overall offensive performance
It doesn't by the way.
This may also happen in the post season, correct?
A team may also go into a cold stretch in the regular season, correct?
A team may also go into a cold stretch in the post season, correct?
What point were you trying to make?
I disagree. Support your assertion.
True.
Not true.
Well, the Mariners stadium, pitching and defense actually do a very good job of preventing the opposition from scoring. Not easy to run up the stats on those guys.
Most sportswriters don't understand squat about statistics.
THe real reason that it's difficult to predict post season baseball is because baseball is based on a lot of unpredictable events.
No, and no.
How about this: I predicted that the Giants would win this series, and you didn't. Right now, that's looking like a pretty good pick. I picked them because I know more about how the game is played than you do. It's not played with computers and stats.
How about this: I predicted that the Giants would win this series, and you didn't. Right now, that's looking like a pretty good pick. I picked them because I know more about how the game is played than you do. It's not played with computers and stats.
Verlander was getting the outside strike vs the A's which he wasn't getting in SF. That's the difference...they do K a lot, but they also walk alot and are trained to wait for their pitch. With Verlander getting such a wide zone, they had no choice but to be aggressive and swing at what he was dealing...in SF he was forced to throw it down the middle.
In other words, a game outcome may be determined at least to some extent by the arbitrary strike zone of whoever the home plate umpire happens to be on a given day. This, coupled with some of the bad calls that seem to occur every day, are causing some of us to lose confidence in the game's integrity.
How about this: I predicted that the Giants would win this series, and you didn't. Right now, that's looking like a pretty good pick. I picked them because I know more about how the game is played than you do. It's not played with computers and stats.
!!!!!!!!
I recently read an interesting interview with Mark Shapiro of the Indians about how extensively they use metrics, and we see how well that has been working out for them. They even hired a few of the metrics world superstars the past few seasons, Keith Woolner, Jason Pare and Sky Andrecheck to help out with their critical analysis.
Though I respect the amount of information mined in these efforts, I still don't see how they contribute much in terms of new player acquisition. For example, the Indians never would have acquired players such as Ryan Vogelsong or Marco Scutaro, yet they are key parts of the Giants efforts to win the World Series.
I think the metrics stuff is very interesting, but only within a limited context.
How about this: I predicted that the Giants would win this series, and you didn't. Right now, that's looking like a pretty good pick. I picked them because I know more about how the game is played than you do. It's not played with computers and stats.
So much ridiculousness packed into one short post that I can only bring myself to address some of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I predicted that the Giants would win this series, and you didn't.
I don't recall posting my prediction regarding this series.
Quote:
I picked them because I know more about how the game is played than you do
You picked the Giants based upon your perception of our relative knowledge of the game? How does that even make sense? If I knew more about baseball you would have picked the Tigers to win? What?
Quote:
I know more about how the game is played than you do
This may be true, it may not be true, but like most things that you've posted in this forum, I see no evidence that you are correct.
Quote:
It's not played with computers and stats.
This is one of the few things you've posted that is actually correct. Baseball is also not played with carrots and celery. But no one is claiming that baseball is played with computer, carrots or celery.
Quote:
It's not played with computers and stats.
That you decided to post this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what statistics are. This 'discussion' is analogous to this conversation:
bananas: It's cold in Seattle today
filihok: It's 70 degrees. The average temperature in October is 60 degrees. Why do you say it's cold?
bananas: I know more about the weather than you and it isn't formed with thermometers and degrees.
Computers and statistics don't create baseball. What happens on a baseball field can certainly be recorded and measured though.
If Seattle is a terrible hitting team that should somehow be reflected in what happened on the field. If it happened on the field there should be some evidence for it in the statistical record. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand and I don't understand how some people can misunderstand it by such a wide margin.
I recently read an interesting interview with Mark Shapiro of the Indians about how extensively they use metrics, and we see how well that has been working out for them. They even hired a few of the metrics world superstars the past few seasons, Keith Woolner, Jason Pare and Sky Andrecheck to help out with their critical analysis.
Though I respect the amount of information mined in these efforts, I still don't see how they contribute much in terms of new player acquisition. For example, the Indians never would have acquired players such as Ryan Vogelsong or Marco Scutaro, yet they are key parts of the Giants efforts to win the World Series.
I think the metrics stuff is very interesting, but only within a limited context.
I think metrics can be useful when used the right way. For instance, if you've got an aging Albert Pujols and you want to compare his stats in his option year to those of previous years, sure, by all means, use metrics. Contrary to a lot of other statisticians, though, I don't believe in looking at the raw data; I don't believe it's necessarily valid to compare his batting average, his homerun total, or his OPS, in 2012 to 2011, 2010, or 2009. Rather, if you're going to compare a player, you look at where he ranks in relation to other players. A slugger's average and home run total could be significantly down, but if he's still in the top five in the league, it's worth it to try to retain him, provided you don't get locked into a 10-year deal if he's over the age of 30. Pujols would have been worth it had he not asked for a quarter bil all the way into his 40s. St. Louis had no choice but to let him hit the market, and I think the Angels will get a good year or two out of it, but will come to regret that deal in the years to come, for the same reason the Yankees now regret having A-Rod.
What a stunning turn of events. I totally didn't have you pegged as the can-dish-it-out
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I know more about how the game is played than you do.
but-can't-take-it type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I don't believe it's necessarily valid to compare his batting average, his homerun total, or his OPS, in 2012 to 2011, 2010, or 2009. Rather, if you're going to compare a player, you look at where he ranks in relation to other players.
You're absolutely right about this.
Quote:
A slugger's average and home run total could be significantly down, but if he's still in the top five in the league, it's worth it to try to retain him
You're sort of right about this.
Total offense has been trending downward recently
2008 league wOBA: .328
2009 league wOBA: .329
2010 league wOBA: .321
2011 league wOBA: .316
2012 league wOBA: .315
So one wouldn't say a player who had a .328 wOBA in 2008 and a .315 wOBA in 2012 was declining, he was staying the same relative to the league average.
Of course, there are plenty of player who are not top 5 players that are still worth having on your team. There are also players who are in the top 5 who are not worth having on your team.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
