MLB Off-Topic

[Majingir]

In a game though we see multiple pitchers pitching.

The stat is more to determine individual performance. Like seeing how many times a starter actually left while his team was winning the game. Or a reliever, if they might not have been officially on the hook for a win, loss, save, hold, still seeing the types of scenarios they were pitching in, such as being ahead or behind.

[stlducks]

Baseball already has enough stats that people don't understand. Just go back to the simple stats and make the game enjoyable again.

Advanced stats are stupid. The DH is stupid. Removing starters in the 4th inning is stupid. Making relievers face a minimum number of hitters is stupid. The commissioner is stupid. Owners are stupid. Games in March are stupid. The Brewers are stupid.

I don't even know why I like baseball now that I think about it.

[NYJets]

People don’t need to follow advanced stats if they don’t want to. I don’t see how they could detract from liking baseball


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[parent22]

Quote: Originally Posted by stlducks

Baseball already has enough stats that people don't understand. Just go back to the simple stats and make the game enjoyable again. Advanced stats are stupid. The DH is stupid. Removing starters in the 4th inning is stupid. Making relievers face a minimum number of hitters is stupid. The commissioner is stupid. Owners are stupid. Games in March are stupid. The Brewers are stupid. I don't even know why I like baseball now that I think about it.

Why get rid of advanced stats? You can follow basic stats. Just because you don't think that advanced stats matter doesn't mean that we should cut them out entirely.

I think that making a baseball game enjoyable isn't about the advanced stats. It's definitely about pace of game. If a starter lets up 5 runs after 3, he's going to have thrown a lot of pitches. And if he throws a lot of pitches, he's going to be tired. The only reason that teams remove their starting pitcher after 3 or 4 innings is injury or 4+ runs.

Advanced stats really help people judge players. RBIs aren't a measure of a player. neither are wins or losses. Those so called "basic stats" are very messed up. Baseball is a game of logic and thinking. If you don't like baseball, then why do you still pay attention?

Thanks.

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by stlducks

Advanced stats are stupid. The DH is stupid. Removing starters in the 4th inning is stupid. Making relievers face a minimum number of hitters is stupid. The commissioner is stupid. Owners are stupid. Games in March are stupid. The Brewers are stupid. You're out of order. They're out of order. This league is out of order. The whole damn sport is out of order. I don't even know why I like baseball now.

...fixxed...

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by parent22

Why get rid of advanced stats? You can follow basic stats. Just because you don't think that advanced stats matter doesn't mean that we should cut them out entirely. I think that making a baseball game enjoyable isn't about the advanced stats. It's definitely about pace of game. If a starter lets up 5 runs after 3, he's going to have thrown a lot of pitches. And if he throws a lot of pitches, he's going to be tired. The only reason that teams remove their starting pitcher after 3 or 4 innings is injury or 4+ runs. Advanced stats really help people judge players. RBIs aren't a measure of a player. neither are wins or losses. Those so called "basic stats" are very messed up. Baseball is a game of logic and thinking. If you don't like baseball, then why do you still pay attention? Thanks.

The first 21 parents couldn't get it right, but you, sir, did!

Anyway, in a twisted sense I like RBI's as they are a slight indicator of what you've done, but it's certainly not any sort of predictor on what you will do.

In fact, like many of you, I'm understanding of how overstated RBI's can be, but there was at least one OS member back in the day who didn't quite grasp that. Check out this decade-old thread where Scottdau was in favor of Ryan Howard being chosen for the last NL ASG team slot over Joey Votto. He doesn't say it immediately, but by post #170 he finally drops the RBI-bomb.

I chime in on post #174 where I shed light on [url="https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/pro-baseball/423917-all-star-game-roster-discussion-complaint-thread-5.html#post2041275350"]why RBI's are useless to look at in this comparison between the two players.

The most bizarre part about Scott's argument is: despite Votto outperforming Howard in virtually every other offensive statistic, they were tied in RBI's. Even if the RBI was his smoking gun, his argument still can't hold water for that very fact. I don't know where he was going with his statement.

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

The first 21 parents couldn't get it right, but you, sir, did! Anyway, in a twisted sense I like RBI's as they are a slight indicator of what you've done, but it's certainly not any sort of predictor on what you will do. In fact, like many of you, I'm understanding of how overstated RBI's can be, but there was at least one OS member back in the day who didn't quite grasp that. Check out this decade-old thread where Scottdau was in favor of Ryan Howard being chosen for the last NL ASG team slot over Joey Votto. He doesn't say it immediately, but by post #170 he finally drops the RBI-bomb. I chime in on post #174 where I shed light on [url="https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/pro-baseball/423917-all-star-game-roster-discussion-complaint-thread-5.html#post2041275350"]why RBI's are useless to look at in this comparison between the two players. The most bizarre part about Scott's argument is despite Votto outperforming Howard in virtually every other offensive statistic, they were tied in RBI's. Even if the RBI was his smoking gun, his argument still can't hold water for that very fact. I don't know where he was going with his statement.

rbi, when looked at correctly, I have no problem with. I just dont want to come to any conclusion using only that raw number. give me an rbi stat something like rbi/rbi opportunity

[parent22]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

The first 21 parents couldn't get it right, but you, sir, did! Anyway, in a twisted sense I like RBI's as they are a slight indicator of what you've done, but it's certainly not any sort of predictor on what you will do. In fact, like many of you, I'm understanding of how overstated RBI's can be, but there was at least one OS member back in the day who didn't quite grasp that. Check out this decade-old thread where Scottdau was in favor of Ryan Howard being chosen for the last NL ASG team slot over Joey Votto. He doesn't say it immediately, but by post #170 he finally drops the RBI-bomb. I chime in on post #174 where I shed light on [url="https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/pro-baseball/423917-all-star-game-roster-discussion-complaint-thread-5.html#post2041275350"]why RBI's are useless to look at in this comparison between the two players. The most bizarre part about Scott's argument is: despite Votto outperforming Howard in virtually every other offensive statistic, they were tied in RBI's. Even if the RBI was his smoking gun, his argument still can't hold water for that very fact. I don't know where he was going with his statement.

I agree that the first 21 parents got it wrong-hopefully parent23 makes some slight improvements. Lmao