|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Nov 15, 2018 14:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Nov 15, 2018 16:17:05 GMT
This is awesome. But Pedro and Randy J, man. Who knew?
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Nov 15, 2018 18:10:22 GMT
This is awesome. But Pedro and Randy J, man. Who knew? how is Tom Seaver, 1969 season ranked 72, and his 'worse' season in these rankings. he was 25-7! what does these modern stats nerds have against winning? isn't that the point?  |
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Nov 15, 2018 18:26:43 GMT
Pedro in 99 was awesome. I would have ranked Ron Guidry higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2018 19:43:39 GMT
This is awesome. But Pedro and Randy J, man. Who knew? how is Tom Seaver, 1969 season ranked 72, and his 'worse' season in these rankings. he was 25-7! what does these modern stats nerds have against winning? isn't that the point? They're not against winning, there's just more to it than that. Wins, in and of themselves, only tell a portion of the story. THAT'S what "modern stat nerds" are getting into when they look at a picture bigger than just one particular statistic. You should check out Smart Baseball by Keith Law, it's actually a fascinating read that gets deep into both the good and bad aspects of modern day statistics. And no, the point is for the team to win, not for an individual player to get the win. Relievers can give up 5 runs in 1/3 of an inning and get a win. You think that means the pitcher did an awesome job? It doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Nov 15, 2018 20:16:28 GMT
how is Tom Seaver, 1969 season ranked 72, and his 'worse' season in these rankings. he was 25-7! what does these modern stats nerds have against winning? isn't that the point? They're not against winning, there's just more to it than that. Wins, in and of themselves, only tell a portion of the story. THAT'S what "modern stat nerds" are getting into when they look at a picture bigger than just one particular statistic. You should check out Smart Baseball by Keith Law, it's actually a fascinating read that gets deep into both the good and bad aspects of modern day statistics. And no, the point is for the team to win, not for an individual player to get the win. Relievers can give up 5 runs in 1/3 of an inning and get a win. You think that means the pitcher did an awesome job? It doesn't. "Smart Baseball" by Keith Law. on god! lol. tip: smart? if you have to say what something is...it isn't that. as in no one ever needs to tell, or deem, for instance a supermodel that she's beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2018 20:33:41 GMT
They're not against winning, there's just more to it than that. Wins, in and of themselves, only tell a portion of the story. THAT'S what "modern stat nerds" are getting into when they look at a picture bigger than just one particular statistic. You should check out Smart Baseball by Keith Law, it's actually a fascinating read that gets deep into both the good and bad aspects of modern day statistics. And no, the point is for the team to win, not for an individual player to get the win. Relievers can give up 5 runs in 1/3 of an inning and get a win. You think that means the pitcher did an awesome job? It doesn't. "Smart Baseball" by Keith Law. on god! lol. tip: smart? if you have to say what something is...it isn't that. as in no one ever needs to tell, or deem, for instance a supermodel that she's beautiful. If the book were simply called "Today's Baseball" or "Baseball" or "Farts in the Wind," the contents of the book would be the same, and those contents could be useful for those who still refuse to recognize the way analyzing the game has changed in certain respects. It's all fine and good to criticize the new ways in which stats are influencing the game (and I'm on board with some of those criticisms), but to just dismiss them entirely without the benefit of understanding what they mean is something I believe to be foolhardy. |
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
 
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 15, 2018 20:45:02 GMT
"Smart Baseball" by Keith Law. on god! lol. tip: smart? if you have to say what something is...it isn't that. as in no one ever needs to tell, or deem, for instance a supermodel that she's beautiful. If the book were simply called "Today's Baseball" or "Baseball" or "Farts in the Wind," the contents of the book would be the same, and those contents could be useful for those who still refuse to recognize the way analyzing the game has changed in certain respects. It's all fine and good to criticize the new ways in which stats are influencing the game (and I'm on board with some of those criticisms), but to just dismiss them entirely without the benefit of understanding what they mean is something I believe to be foolhardy. I agree. While wins is a "sexy" stat, a lot of times it comes down to where a pitcher is helped by a high powered offense. You can have pitcher A who wins 20+ games but most of his wins are 10-7 games where he gives up 6 runs a game and his offense bails him out. Or you can have pitcher B who goes out and is involved in a lot of 1-0 losses, has a record barely over .500, is very dominant otherwise yet he has a mediocre offense behind him. Who is the better pitcher? |
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Nov 16, 2018 17:33:18 GMT
"Smart Baseball" by Keith Law. on god! lol. tip: smart? if you have to say what something is...it isn't that. as in no one ever needs to tell, or deem, for instance a supermodel that she's beautiful. If the book were simply called "Today's Baseball" or "Baseball" or "Farts in the Wind," the contents of the book would be the same, and those contents could be useful for those who still refuse to recognize the way analyzing the game has changed in certain respects. It's all fine and good to criticize the new ways in which stats are influencing the game (and I'm on board with some of those criticisms), but to just dismiss them entirely without the benefit of understanding what they mean is something I believe to be foolhardy. The whole stats stuff is helpful when trying persuade someone to do something who has no technical knowledge of the subject at hand. ESP. If you can say something like this has a 85% chance of working.... |
|
