Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:26 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
nad69dan wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
But while Freddy plays middle infield, Laroche plays first base - the position where players that can hit, but have trouble in the field (Pujols, Giambi, Ortiz, Howard, and on and on) are placed.


I always thought Pujols was moved to 1st because of his elbow problems...

And Scott Rolen


Pujols was not good at third. The Cards tried him in the OF because he was so bad at third, but he had zero range and did not have an OF'ers arm.

I base this on what the Cards did, how Pujols looked, and the fact that he was shuffled around until he was plugged in at first. Pujols was a lousy third baseman but he was such a remarkable hitter that he was going to play.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5139
Location: Pittsburgh
Bucfan wrote:
nad69dan wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
But while Freddy plays middle infield, Laroche plays first base - the position where players that can hit, but have trouble in the field (Pujols, Giambi, Ortiz, Howard, and on and on) are placed.


I always thought Pujols was moved to 1st because of his elbow problems...

And Scott Rolen


Pujols was not good at third. The Cards tried him in the OF because he was so bad at third, but he had zero range and did not have an OF'ers arm.

I base this on what the Cards did, how Pujols looked, and the fact that he was shuffled around until he was plugged in at first. Pujols was a lousy third baseman but he was such a remarkable hitter that he was going to play.

He shuffled between positions because he was good enough to field at all of them. The Cards moved him off of third because they acquired the best defensive third baseman in the league. I'll take the numbers over your judgment on how he looked at third, and the numbers say that he had good range. Those numbers are supported by his gold glove status at first base.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
sisyphus wrote:
He shuffled between positions because he was good enough to field at all of them.


So true. Players who are really good defensively at a position get moved all the time . . . I can't think of one single example right now, but I will not let the facts stand in the way.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5139
Location: Pittsburgh
Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
He shuffled between positions because he was good enough to field at all of them.


So true. Players who are really good defensively at a position get moved all the time . . . I can't think of one single example right now, but I will not let the facts stand in the way.

Bucfan, if you're going to go back to putting words in my mouth again, then please put me back on ignore. You know damned well that I didn't say that Pujols was really good at all those positions because my quote is right at the beginning of your post. I said that he was good enough to field at all those positions. I never called him a gold glover at any position except first base. His range was above average at third. His range was above average in left. That's not my opinion, it's a fact supported by his statistics, which I'll take over anecdotal evidence provided by your biased eyesight. The fact that he was not as good as the best defensive third baseman in the league doesn't make him a lousy third baseman.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:49 pm 
sisyphus wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
He shuffled between positions because he was good enough to field at all of them.


So true. Players who are really good defensively at a position get moved all the time . . . I can't think of one single example right now, but I will not let the facts stand in the way.

Bucfan, if you're going to go back to putting words in my mouth again, then please put me back on ignore. You know damned well that I didn't say that Pujols was really good at all those positions because my quote is right at the beginning of your post. I said that he was good enough to field at all those positions. I never called him a gold glover at any position except first base. His range was above average at third. His range was above average in left. That's not my opinion, it's a fact supported by his statistics, which I'll take over anecdotal evidence provided by your biased eyesight. The fact that he was not as good as the best defensive third baseman in the league doesn't make him a lousy third baseman.


His range was not above average in left. He was bad in left.

Sisy Logic: The Pirates moving of Tim Wakefiled to pitcher from first base had nothing to do with him not being able to hit.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5139
Location: Pittsburgh
Elmer wrote:
His range was not above average in left. He was bad in left.

Sisy Logic: The Pirates moving of Tim Wakefiled to pitcher from first base had nothing to do with him not being able to hit.

Albert Pujols lifetime range factor per nine innings in left field: 1.97

Average ML left fielder range factor per nine innings in the same years: 1.91

Elmer logic: No answer. The phrase is an oxymoron.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:58 pm 
sisyphus wrote:
Elmer wrote:
His range was not above average in left. He was bad in left.

Sisy Logic: The Pirates moving of Tim Wakefiled to pitcher from first base had nothing to do with him not being able to hit.

Albert Pujols lifetime range factor per nine innings in left field: 1.97

Average ML left fielder range factor per nine innings in the same years: 1.91

Elmer logic: No answer. The phrase is an oxymoron.


I put no weight on "range factor" -- watching a guy play the field is the best way to determine his range, imho.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5139
Location: Pittsburgh
Elmer wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Elmer wrote:
His range was not above average in left. He was bad in left.

Sisy Logic: The Pirates moving of Tim Wakefiled to pitcher from first base had nothing to do with him not being able to hit.

Albert Pujols lifetime range factor per nine innings in left field: 1.97

Average ML left fielder range factor per nine innings in the same years: 1.91

Elmer logic: No answer. The phrase is an oxymoron.


I put no weight on "range factor" -- watching a guy play the field is the best way to determine his range, imho.

What are your qualifications as a major league scout?

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:40 pm 
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?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Has anyone.......
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5139
Location: Pittsburgh
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.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 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: 3138
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: 10582
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: 5139
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
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 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