ESPN Player Ratings
Moderator: TyCobb
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
I'm pretty sure Crawford has more of an impact on games than Bonds. Bonds gimps around in leftfield all day long. If he was a DH he would probably be more valuable, but hes not. Give me CC
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
HCYanks wrote:Nate Silver wrote a nice article on the specific problems with these ratings:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=405
OPS, RBIs, ESPN
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Not once in that article is skill or baseball IQ ever mentioned. This is why anyone who has any knowledge about baseball should discount anything mentioned. I'm pretty sure if you ask any player who has ever played the game, any manager ever to lead a team; they would all say they could pick out the best players without using any sort of statistical formula. Done and done.
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
34Celtic wrote:Sounds a little racist.
Don
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Nah you've got it wrong again. I went to college as a Finance major, aced statistics courses, had people pressuring me to go into actuarial science. I get the whole number thing. Problem is....I think outside the box too much, I see the whole picture, I don't need numbers to prove me the worth of something. I see with my eyes and have an idea of how something will turn out before it does.
I'm now in marketing.
But don't get me started on how I don't understand what empirical measurement is. Please. I can tell you stats of players, believe me. But I would much rather look at a players whole at bat in a big spot. See how they swing the bat, see how they react to a 2-0 breaking ball, see what type of look is in their eyes, see how they handle the pressure. Kind of like how someone is in a sales meeting...you can state numbers all you want, but if you can look a customer in the eye, and make them completely confident in you, they will have more faith in you. Just like I will have more faith in someone in the game of baseball if I can see them perform in a big spot, see that they are comfortable, not flustered by anything. I guess what it boils down to is numbers cant tell you who has 'it' Just like in real life. The only way to know who really has 'it' is by watching them perform.
I'm now in marketing.
But don't get me started on how I don't understand what empirical measurement is. Please. I can tell you stats of players, believe me. But I would much rather look at a players whole at bat in a big spot. See how they swing the bat, see how they react to a 2-0 breaking ball, see what type of look is in their eyes, see how they handle the pressure. Kind of like how someone is in a sales meeting...you can state numbers all you want, but if you can look a customer in the eye, and make them completely confident in you, they will have more faith in you. Just like I will have more faith in someone in the game of baseball if I can see them perform in a big spot, see that they are comfortable, not flustered by anything. I guess what it boils down to is numbers cant tell you who has 'it' Just like in real life. The only way to know who really has 'it' is by watching them perform.
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
That is the biggest load of hot, steaming dookie I have ever read*.
*Exaggerated for effect.
*Exaggerated for effect.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Basketball Jesus wrote:That is the biggest load of hot, steaming dookie I have ever read*.
*Exaggerated for effect.
Glad you now realize I understand your arguement and that I understand the importance of numbers. You can't seriously tell me you would rather look at numbers than watch how someone performs. It's the same way for say, any retail outlet. If a store is in a prominent location, they will have better numbers. It doesn't mean they are run better than a store in a less prominent location. You can't seriously tell me if you had to choose between statistics...and analyzing every aspect of them, or watching something as it unfolds...then analyzing every aspect of it, that you would choose the numbers.
I'm going to win this arguement, I'll be right here waiting for your response. It started as purely baseball, but now I'm carrying it over into life because you decided to question my understanding of statistics and empirical measurements. Numbers can only tell you so much, but they can't judge for uncontrolled variables.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Working, friend. Flow before bros.
I really don
I really don
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,213
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 17, 2003
34Celtic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
You can't seriously tell me you would rather look at numbers than watch how someone performs.
Two questions:
(1) Why do they keep score?
(2) If you have been hired to manage a team, let's just say the Brewers, whom would you rather have batting cleanup: Prince Fielder or Tony Graffanino? Why? No looking at numbers!
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
hippie wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Two questions:
(1) Why do they keep score?
(2) If you have been hired to manage a team, let's just say the Brewers, whom would you rather have batting cleanup: Prince Fielder or Tony Graffanino? Why? No looking at numbers!
Or by being around the two at Spring Training, knowing the inside and outs of each guys swing, knowing how they respond to situations with guys on base, seeing first hand how their swing looks. Come on, if any manager relied simply on numbers in each situation he would be out of a job soon.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Thanks, and hey ya never know, maybe I'll use numbers to defend my arguements sometimes.
Make sure you give me a shout-out in the acknowledgements if you do.
I guess its just that I've been around baseball since I was a little kid. My dad was in Spring Training with the Expos and blew out his knee, never to play again, and my Grandfather is still a scout for the Reds. So I see things a little differently. I was conditioned to look for things in players on the field, like how quickly a first baseman gets off the base after holding a runner. Maybe something like that does show up in range factor. But if I can watch 10 games of 2 players I can tell who has the better range at 1B.
I fully respect this POV and I actually agree that stats aren
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
hippie wrote:
(2) If you have been hired to manage a team, let's just say the Brewers, whom would you rather have batting cleanup: Prince Fielder or Tony Graffanino? Why? No looking at numbers!
Oh so Prince Fielder. See the belly on that dude? He could clean the meat off of a live chicken.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,213
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 17, 2003
34Celtic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Or by being around the two at Spring Training, knowing the inside and outs of each guys swing, knowing how they respond to situations with guys on base, seeing first hand how their swing looks. Come on, if any manager relied simply on numbers in each situation he would be out of a job soon.
So now you're not the manager and you just want to know who's going to hit more home runs. You have a fantasy draft or something. I suppose, in the real world outside of fantasy sports, it doesn't matter to you if Fielder hits 50 home runs and Graffanino hits 5; their relative impact can't be measured by numbers. Right?
Return to The General MLB Board