Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:40 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 2793
sisyphus wrote:
Elmer wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
What are your qualifications as a major league scout?


Since when do you have to be a major league scout to have an opinion about baseball?

You don't. You don't to have eyesight to have an opinion on the color of the sky, either. But I'll take a scientific spectrum analysis of the color of the sky over the opinion of a blind man every time.


Then you should probably be applying for an internship with Major League Baseball or the Pirates organization, not scanning a message board and expecting the same result. :idea:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Elmer wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
What are your qualifications as a major league scout?


Since when do you have to be a major league scout to have an opinion about baseball?


Elmer, you are missing the point here. Anyone can have an opinion about baseball. But unless you are a professional baseball evaluator, why should any of us here consider your opinion (and I don't mean just "you" you... mine, Sisy's, Bucfan, etc) to be accurate or carry any weight, let alone the same weight as objective statistical measurements?

You can have all the opinions you want. But when what you say differs from what I've seen or the stats that have been produced, its your opinion that I will reject, not the stats. This applies to all fields, not just baseball. Now, if you establish some sort of track record of always being right (good luck with that) then maybe I would be more inclined to give your opinion some weight.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:46 pm 
BBF wrote:
Elmer wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
What are your qualifications as a major league scout?


Since when do you have to be a major league scout to have an opinion about baseball?


Elmer, you are missing the point here. Anyone can have an opinion about baseball. But unless you are a professional baseball evaluator, why should any of us here consider your opinion (and I don't mean just "you" you... mine, Sisy's, Bucfan, etc) to be accurate or carry any weight, let alone the same weight as objective statistical measurements?

You can have all the opinions you want. But when what you say differs from what I've seen or the stats that have been produced, its your opinion that I will reject, not the stats. This applies to all fields, not just baseball. Now, if you establish some sort of track record of always being right (good luck with that) then maybe I would be more inclined to give your opinion some weight.


You don't have to take my opinion seriously, BBF. Nor do I have to take every statistic seriously. Statistics can tell a good bit, but not everything (especially baseball defensive stats, imho).

I've seen Pujols play the OF and I wasn't impressed. That's just how I feel, and a statistic that is cold and can't observe him patrolling the outfield won't change my mind.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10207
Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Elmer wrote:
You don't have to take my opinion seriously, BBF. Nor do I have to take every statistic seriously. Statistics can tell a good bit, but not everything (especially baseball defensive stats, imho).



Its fine that you say that now, but you seem to have a long track record of demanding that everyone concede to what "you've seen" and reject every statistic that disagreed with you in any debate that has ever arisen. Maybe it is just a misinterpretation, but you come across as expecting us to value your opinion over statistics regardless of the topic- Nyjer being better than Nate, Maholm not belonging in the rotation, etc.- which is the point that I was addressing in my previous post. In other words, suck it up and don't expect your opinion to carry the same weight as stats, scouts opinions, etc.

Anyways, this has no relevance to the Pirates...so back to baseball.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:35 am 
BBF wrote:
Elmer wrote:
You don't have to take my opinion seriously, BBF. Nor do I have to take every statistic seriously. Statistics can tell a good bit, but not everything (especially baseball defensive stats, imho).



Its fine that you say that now, but you seem to have a long track record of demanding that everyone concede to what "you've seen" and reject every statistic that disagreed with you in any debate that has ever arisen. Maybe it is just a misinterpretation, but you come across as expecting us to value your opinion over statistics regardless of the topic- Nyjer being better than Nate, Maholm not belonging in the rotation, etc.- which is the point that I was addressing in my previous post. In other words, suck it up and don't expect your opinion to carry the same weight as stats, scouts opinions, etc.

Anyways, this has no relevance to the Pirates...so back to baseball.


BBF, if you don't put any weight on my observations, that's fine. I'm not going to change what I believe, though.

Most stats are very informative. Others, not so much. But no stat can stand alone when evaluating/opining about baseball, in my opinion. Stats, alone, ignore too much of the game. Seeing and observing is just as important, again in my opinion.

For those who rely solely on stats, I ask this: Why even watch the game? Just look at the box score and plug numbers into a database, right?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4558
Location: Pittsburgh
Elmer wrote:
BBF wrote:
Elmer wrote:
You don't have to take my opinion seriously, BBF. Nor do I have to take every statistic seriously. Statistics can tell a good bit, but not everything (especially baseball defensive stats, imho).



Its fine that you say that now, but you seem to have a long track record of demanding that everyone concede to what "you've seen" and reject every statistic that disagreed with you in any debate that has ever arisen. Maybe it is just a misinterpretation, but you come across as expecting us to value your opinion over statistics regardless of the topic- Nyjer being better than Nate, Maholm not belonging in the rotation, etc.- which is the point that I was addressing in my previous post. In other words, suck it up and don't expect your opinion to carry the same weight as stats, scouts opinions, etc.

Anyways, this has no relevance to the Pirates...so back to baseball.


BBF, if you don't put any weight on my observations, that's fine. I'm not going to change what I believe, though.

Most stats are very informative. Others, not so much. But no stat can stand alone when evaluating/opining about baseball, in my opinion. Stats, alone, ignore too much of the game. Seeing and observing is just as important, again in my opinion.

For those who rely solely on stats, I ask this: Why even watch the game? Just look at the box score and plug numbers into a database, right?

A silly question that underlines the fact that you don't understand the first thing about statistics. Stats tell you what happened. Watching a ball game tells you what is happening. You're correct when you say that observation can tell you things that statistics can't. You don't seem to realize that observation can fail to recognize things that statistics can find. The opinion of a knowledgeable observer can be very informative. For example, I often ask No. 9's opinion on catcher defense. I was a catcher myself, but No. 9 was good enough to make it to a higher level than I ever did, so I respect his opinion. The problem is that you want to be considered a knowledgeable observer when you have a history of spectacularly wrong judgments based on what you have seen.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:03 pm 
sisyphus wrote:
[

A silly question that underlines the fact that you don't understand the first thing about statistics. Stats tell you what happened. Watching a ball game tells you what is happening. You're correct when you say that observation can tell you things that statistics can't. You don't seem to realize that observation can fail to recognize things that statistics can find. . [/quote]

I totally agree that stats can reveal things that observation can't. 100% agree. But I also think that it's important to realize that the flip-side is also true. Observation can reveal things that stats miss.

Any argument that relies on ONLY one of those two things is weak in my opinion.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Elmer wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
A silly question that underlines the fact that you don't understand the first thing about statistics. Stats tell you what happened. Watching a ball game tells you what is happening. You're correct when you say that observation can tell you things that statistics can't. You don't seem to realize that observation can fail to recognize things that statistics can find. .


I totally agree that stats can reveal things that observation can't. 100% agree. But I also think that it's important to realize that the flip-side is also true. Observation can reveal things that stats miss.

Any argument that relies on ONLY one of those two things is weak in my opinion.

Fine, then by your own admission, your arguments are weak, as you usually do not have the statistics to back up your opinions.

Here's a question: when the statistics contradict your observations, who are we supposed to believe? Should we rely on statistics that record the occurences and results of many games, or should we rely on the opinion of a non-expert who relies solely on his observations?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:57 pm 
Willton wrote:
Fine, then by your own admission, your arguments are weak, as you usually do not have the statistics to back up your opinions.


Not quite. I don't even get into statistical arguments with "stat only" guys because it's not worth the time. You can't see the forest through the trees, lie with stats like politicians, twist stats, misconstrue them, etc.

Arguing stats with you serves no purpose. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Also, if "by my own admission" my arguments are week, wouldn't your arguments be just as weak for never making points without them?

Willton wrote:
Here's a question: when the statistics contradict your observations, who are we supposed to believe? Should we rely on statistics that record the occurences and results of many games, or should we rely on the opinion of a non-expert who relies solely on his observations?


I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4558
Location: Pittsburgh
Elmer wrote:
Willton wrote:
Fine, then by your own admission, your arguments are weak, as you usually do not have the statistics to back up your opinions.


Not quite. I don't even get into statistical arguments with "stat only" guys because it's not worth the time. You can't see the forest through the trees, lie with stats like politicians, twist stats, misconstrue them, etc.

Arguing stats with you serves no purpose. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Also, if "by my own admission" my arguments are week, wouldn't your arguments be just as weak for never making points without them?

Willton wrote:
Here's a question: when the statistics contradict your observations, who are we supposed to believe? Should we rely on statistics that record the occurences and results of many games, or should we rely on the opinion of a non-expert who relies solely on his observations?


I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.

If you placed any weight at all on statistics we wouldn't disagree on just about every aspect of baseball.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:41 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Elmer wrote:
I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.


So answer the question...what do you do when your observations disagree with the stats? Do you believe the subjective observations of your own eyes or the objective ("cold", in your words) stats? And which should the rest of us rely on? What should carry more weight in an argument?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Elmer wrote:
Willton wrote:
Fine, then by your own admission, your arguments are weak, as you usually do not have the statistics to back up your opinions.

Not quite. I don't even get into statistical arguments with "stat only" guys because it's not worth the time. You can't see the forest through the trees, lie with stats like politicians, twist stats, misconstrue them, etc.

Says you. I imagine you'll find that a majority of the folks on here disagree with that assertion.

I'm willing to bet that the real reason you don't get into statistical arguments with "stats only guys," whoever they may be, is because you have an inadequate understanding of statistical analysis and are unwilling to even try to understand what such analysis means.

Elmer wrote:
Arguing stats with you serves no purpose. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

But you've never actually tried arguing stats with me, so how would you know? Not once have you supplemented your opinions with statistical analysis. My guess is that you don't know how to responsibly use statistics.

Elmer wrote:
Also, if "by my own admission" my arguments are week, [sic] wouldn't your arguments be just as weak for never making points without them?

No, for two reasons: (1) I don't subscribe to that dogma, and (2) my inclusion of statistics does not mean that I exclude observation. I just prefer to get my observational information from people who have an authority on the subject at hand.

Elmer wrote:
Willton wrote:
Here's a question: when the statistics contradict your observations, who are we supposed to believe? Should we rely on statistics that record the occurences and results of many games, or should we rely on the opinion of a non-expert who relies solely on his observations?


I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.

Really? Then why have you never used statistics to back up your opinions? I know I've never seen it.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:00 pm 
Willton wrote:
Elmer wrote:
Willton wrote:
Fine, then by your own admission, your arguments are weak, as you usually do not have the statistics to back up your opinions.

Not quite. I don't even get into statistical arguments with "stat only" guys because it's not worth the time. You can't see the forest through the trees, lie with stats like politicians, twist stats, misconstrue them, etc.

Says you. I imagine you'll find that a majority of the folks on here disagree with that assertion.

I'm willing to bet that the real reason you don't get into statistical arguments with "stats only guys," whoever they may be, is because you have an inadequate understanding of statistical analysis and are unwilling to even try to understand what such analysis means.

Elmer wrote:
Arguing stats with you serves no purpose. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

But you've never actually tried arguing stats with me, so how would you know? Not once have you supplemented your opinions with statistical analysis. My guess is that you don't know how to responsibly use statistics.

Elmer wrote:
Also, if "by my own admission" my arguments are week, [sic] wouldn't your arguments be just as weak for never making points without them?

No, for two reasons: (1) I don't subscribe to that dogma, and (2) my inclusion of statistics does not mean that I exclude observation. I just prefer to get my observational information from people who have an authority on the subject at hand.

Elmer wrote:
Willton wrote:
Here's a question: when the statistics contradict your observations, who are we supposed to believe? Should we rely on statistics that record the occurences and results of many games, or should we rely on the opinion of a non-expert who relies solely on his observations?


I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.

Really? Then why have you never used statistics to back up your opinions? I know I've never seen it.


As I wrote early, I don't do it because it serves no purpose when talking to you. You view only stats, wont' view the whole picture and do the political "lie with stats" thing. Not worth my time.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:06 pm 
BBF wrote:
Elmer wrote:
I'm not sure because I don't rely solely on observations. I rely on observations AND stats.


So answer the question...what do you do when your observations disagree with the stats? Do you believe the subjective observations of your own eyes or the objective ("cold", in your words) stats? And which should the rest of us rely on? What should carry more weight in an argument?


BBF, to answer your question, when stats disagree with observations, the truth usually lies somewhere in between, imo. Each situation is different.

I don't think either one carries "more weight" ... I think you can't evaluate one without the other, in my opinion.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Elmer wrote:
As I wrote early, I don't do it because it serves no purpose when talking to you. You view only stats, wont' view the whole picture and do the political "lie with stats" thing. Not worth my time.

Won't view the whole picture? Really, Elmer? That's odd, because everytime you ask me to "veiw the whole picture," it's always through the lens of what Elmer thinks.

You always say that "stats aren't everything," but then you never say what the rest of that "everything" is. Further, your mantra "stats say a lot, but they don't say everything" certainly is true, but everytime you say it, you always want to minimize the substantiality of what those stats actually do say, especially when they contradict your positions. That seems to not follow the "stats say a lot" clause of your mantra.

On the contrary, I find that your manifest disregard for stats is what causes you to not "view the whole picture." Because "stats say a lot," and you choose to ignore them, you fail to see everything.

But if you don't want to argue with me, that's fine. Believe me, I've had far more intelligent conversations with the rest of the members on this board.

Oh, and feel free to point out where I "lie with stats." :roll:

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 3929
Location: Zelienople, PA
Craig Wilson is one of the top ten hitters in baseball!

:twisted: :o :x


ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:15 pm 
Willton wrote:
Won't view the whole picture? Really, Elmer? That's odd, because everytime you ask me to "veiw the whole picture," it's always through the lens of what Elmer thinks.


I don't ask you to view anything through the "lens of what Elmer thinks." I'm just giving my opinion, like you are. You can't take the fact that someone disagrees and uses different evaluation methods than you do.

Willton wrote:
You always say that "stats aren't everything," but then you never say what the rest of that "everything" is.


That's a flat out lie. I say all the time what the "rest of everything" is. It is WATCHING BASEBALL instead of the stat sheet. BOTH can tell you something. NEITHER ONE ALONE can tell you everything.

Willton wrote:
Further, your mantra "stats say a lot, but they don't say everything" certainly is true, but everytime you say it, you always want to minimize the substantiality of what those stats actually do say, especially when they contradict your positions. That seems to not follow the "stats say a lot" clause of your mantra.


You're missing my point, then. I'm not minimizing the substantiality of what stats say. Often, you've got that covered. I always make an effort to illustrate the other 50%. The 50% you ignore.


Willton wrote:
But if you don't want to argue with me, that's fine. Believe me, I've had far more intelligent conversations with the rest of the members on this board.


It bothers me zero that you say that, but I do find the fact that you say that amusing. You stand on a moral high horse and preach about 'mean spirited' posts ---- when it benefits you, that is.


Willton wrote:
Oh, and feel free to point out where I "lie with stats." :roll:


Each time you use stats to make a point without acknowledging those things that can't be shown in stats, you are doing the political thing. Plucking out a factual number then building a context around it to make your point instead of viewing a context and looking for facts. I'm not going to argue this with you because, obviously, it's the way your brain is wired.

While I don't agree, I accept and respect that you view things that way. It's a shame you can do the same when someone else has an opinion you disagree with.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
sisyphus wrote:
For example, I often ask No. 9's opinion on catcher defense. I was a catcher myself, but No. 9 was good enough to make it to a higher level than I ever did, so I respect his opinion.


Dude -
Admissions like this absolutely kill your credibility. I'd advise against it.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4558
Location: Pittsburgh
No. 9 wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
For example, I often ask No. 9's opinion on catcher defense. I was a catcher myself, but No. 9 was good enough to make it to a higher level than I ever did, so I respect his opinion.


Dude -
Admissions like this absolutely kill your credibility. I'd advise against it.

No it doesn't. You've never seen me cite any catcher's defensive statistic except maybe the stolen base percentage against him. There is no good statistical measure of a catcher's defense that I'm aware of, and I do respect your opinion. Just from talking about catching with you I'm pretty sure that you had way better coaching on how to play the position than I ever had.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits