Jason Giambi Wins AL Comeback Player of the Year

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by oykib

I always assumed that a major part of the resistance to sabermetrics had to do with the fear of mathematics. As a country we, in the U.S., don't have much of a foundation in mathematics. We're terrible.

But that fear is obviously not present in your case. As a professional accountant, you couldn't perform your duties if you were afraid of math. So your resistance to sabermetrics has no good basis.

You are just willfully remaining ignorant. That scares me a lot. This is the same phenomena that sees us continuing to vote for the same jerks (on both sides of the aisle). This same unreasoning stubborness keeps us from attempting solutions to many of the problems of society.

I wasn't trying to be cute or insulting when I said that your attitude scared me. It's the literal truth. I'm not calling you incompetent or stupid. I'm saying that your attitude toward a new idea that you should be able to see is clearly superior to your previously held ones is disturbing.

I find the criticism to be a bit strong here--I think you are overstating the superiority of statistical analysis. I do quite a bit of statistical modeling for a living--the most important thing that I have learned in the years that I have been doing this is to never take the numbers that you see at face value.

We can do amazing things with statistical analysis, as you know. However, statistics are not infallible--they can also be quite misleading without competent analysis of those statistics. I've always viewed statistics as a tool, not something that would do my job for me.

[oykib]

The point is that you don't disregard them totally.

Only paying attention to the old triple crown stats is essentially what a lot of baseball fans do. That's blindly following statistics. Recognizing that a stat like win shares, RC, or EQA is superior to going by the traditional avg/hr/rbi is something everyone should be able to see.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by oykib

To me it's a question of context. The margin of error with Win Shares is +/-3. So there's not an significant difference between them. Considering that Giambi did it in less time, I'd give him the nod when I include the other factors.

A small but important clarification here - you shouldn't give Giambi extra credit for nearly matching Sexson in Win Shares despite less playing time. It's the fact that Giambi had better rate stats than Sexson despite less playing time that allowed Giambi to narrow the gap in Win Shares as much as he did. One of the great things about Win Shares is that it's a way to balance the positives of high rate production vs. the negatives of not being in the lineup frequently. Giambi was helping his team win more effectively when he was in the lineup, but he wasn't in the lineup as much as Sexson.

While Giambi had the better OPS, he wasn't in the lineup as much to help his team win. That's one of two reasons Sexson has the higher Win Share total - that and a more positive fielding impact.

Now, the points about what Giambi did in a superior lineup as well as contributing more to a playoff winning team vs. a team that was in the cellar all season are valid ones, and I can see why you'd give him the edge based on that.

[oykib]

But the reason Giambi had less plate appearances was because his team was a contender. He had to get to a certain level just to stay in the lineup.

Early in the year when his power numbers and batting average were bad but he was leading the league in walks, the Yanks tried to send him down. Then, when he refused, they didn't play him regularly. That month long stretch, when he was playing intermittently, he'd have definitely earned two more win shares.

He was contributing. But he wasn't doing it at the rate Tino, who was on fire at the time, was. A cellar-dwelling team would've let Giambi work it out while in the lineup. The Yanks didn't have that luxury. So Giambi had to sit more than half the time.

[dawgfan]

I understand your point, but it can be a trap to engage too much in "what ifs" and "what should've beens" and get too far away from what actually happened.

I think we can both agree that both Giambi and Sexson were very good candidates for the award.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sorry, but you display a complete lack of understanding of baseball statistics, and to compound this error you belittle those that do understand them. It would be like someone in the days well after Copernicus ridiculing those that realized that the earth revolves around the sun.

Trying to justify insulting behavior by your "superior" knowledge is another form of self aggrandizement!

[WSUCougar]

Quick, somebody throw a bucket of rain water on the quarreling Seattlites!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Quick, somebody throw a bucket of rain water on the quarreling Seattlites!

Doesn't God do that daily?

SI

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't God do that daily?

SI

LOL.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't God do that daily?

SI

*sigh* Subtle as a slug.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

*sigh* Subtle as a slug.

I put the "S" in subtle!

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by oykib

None of the major sports tests for HGH. Why should baseball be held to a higher standard.

And to G-man: My comments weren't meant to be insulting.

I always assumed that a major part of the resistance to sabermetrics had to do with the fear of mathematics. As a country we, in the U.S., don't have much of a foundation in mathematics. We're terrible.

But that fear is obviously not present in your case. As a professional accountant, you couldn't perform your duties if you were afraid of math. So your resistance to sabermetrics has no good basis.

You are just willfully remaining ignorant. That scares me a lot. This is the same phenomena that sees us continuing to vote for the same jerks (on both sides of the aisle). This same unreasoning stubborness keeps us from attempting solutions to many of the problems of society.

I wasn't trying to be cute or insulting when I said that your attitude scared me. It's the literal truth. I'm not calling you incompetent or stupid. I'm saying that your attitude toward a new idea that you should be able to see is clearly superior to your previously held ones is disturbing.

I agree completely. To quote Joe Morgan: this is how we got "Enron."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

*sigh* Subtle as a slug.

Get used to disappointment.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

Trying to justify insulting behavior by your "superior" knowledge is another form of self aggrandizement!

Whatever. Keep believing the world is flat despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

What was your excuse for your insulting behavior Mr. Pot?