PDA

View Full Version : ping: Cincy baseball fans

dawgfan
03-10-2008, 03:04 PM
Sorry you have to read this clown: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/COL03/803090373
JPhillips
03-10-2008, 03:22 PM
See Shorty's Reds 2008 thread.
rowech
03-10-2008, 04:08 PM
All about balance. The stats can tell you a lot but sometimes you do just have to play a hunch. The whole discrediting of stats as basis though is just clueless.
Neuqua
03-10-2008, 07:03 PM
Hah. At first I thought it was written tongue in cheek.
Crapshoot
03-10-2008, 08:26 PM
All about balance. The stats can tell you a lot but sometimes you do just have to play a hunch. The whole discrediting of stats as basis though is just clueless.

What does "play a hunch" mean? Giving someone else an AB because you think he's feeling today - that's a reasonable. Giving Darin Erstad 300 AB's? That' not a hunch - that's idiocy.
dawgfan
03-10-2008, 08:40 PM
Hah. At first I thought it was written tongue in cheek.
That's the 2nd cro-magnon/"I hate sabermetrics and want the old-fashioned stats back" column I've read in the last couple of weeks (other one was someone on ESPN's Page 2, can't find the link at the moment).

Makes me think that the sabermetrics revolution has reached critical mass - the old fashioned stats guys are seeing the baseball analysis landscape changing in a significant way, and are lashing out at the inevitable tide of change.

I look forward to a day, maybe 10 years from now, when most on-air analysts and beat writers recognize and espouse the superiority of OBA to BA, use OPS regularly, talk about DIPs stats as much as ERA and never mention fielding percentage as the main way of judging defense. It's already starting, but there are still a number of the old guard that are resistant (hello Joe Morgan).
Crapshoot
03-10-2008, 08:46 PM
Nah, the ESPN one was satire - that's consensus now. This one was real - just another ornery old fart who's afraid of what he doesn't understand.
dawgfan
03-10-2008, 09:14 PM
Nah, the ESPN one was satire - that's consensus now. This one was real - just another ornery old fart who's afraid of what he doesn't understand.
See, I couldn't tell at the time - I thought it might be. But when I see stuff like this moron at the Cincy Enquirer, it makes it easier to believe that it could've been real.

BTW, loved Posnanski's latest blog post which deals with this issue.
Atocep
03-10-2008, 09:15 PM
BTW, loved Posnanski's latest blog post which deals with this issue.

That was incredibly long for a blog entry, but well worth the read.
Toddzilla
03-10-2008, 09:28 PM
link?
Atocep
03-10-2008, 09:32 PM
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/

Great read whether you're a fan of sabermetrics or not.
rowech
03-11-2008, 04:53 AM
What does "play a hunch" mean? Giving someone else an AB because you think he's feeling today - that's a reasonable. Giving Darin Erstad 300 AB's? That' not a hunch - that's idiocy.

Mostly, that you ride hot hands even if the stats say not to. There are times when guys get hot and the manager sits them for no reason other than "the book" says he should. I don't understand that. Same thing happens when managers change pitchers sometimes and end up losing a game they should have won. All because they played things by the book instead of going with the guy who was obviously on top of his game.

I'd say 80-90% of decisions should be based upon stats and whatever you can take from them. There are times though where they need to throw that damn book out the window.