Post by sharksrog on Mar 20, 2013 10:01:51 GMT -5
Don -- once more you are completely off base...I can analyze the crap out of a player by looking at him and comparing his raw stats...
Rog -- I think most of us can -- to a degree. But the truth is that almost all major leaguers are good. They simply vary by degrees of good.
A guy who hits .300 is considered a good hitter. A .250 hitter is usually considered mediocre. Yet, the differenced between them is only a hit a week.
The .250 hitter could be better than the .300 guy. Perhaps he hits the ball hard, but has the poor luck of often hitting the ball in similar places, resulting in more hard-hit outs and fewer poorly-hit outs. The .300 hitter may simply be able to find holes more often with poorly-hit balls.
Which player is going to LOOK better? Which player is going to be more effective?
A hitter who strikes out more often may LOOK worse, even though he hits the ball much harder (when he makes contact) than a guy who strikes out half as often. Or a power hitter may hit the heck out of the ball when he hits it, but have that power disguise how often he strikes out.
You may watch a good player when he's cold and think he's a stiff. You may see a poor hitter when he's on a hot streak.
Don -- I don't some nerd to put together a cmbination of stats and trot it out as if it had some real meaning...
Rog -- Even major league teams are finally finding out the best way to analyze is by a combination of scouting and analytics. Your comment appears to show ignorance to that.
Don -- I bet the Cube is known by very few baseball fans and really adds little to understanding the game of baseball..
Rog -- You may be right about the Cube's not being well-known. And mostly all it does is provide a broad base of the most common stats with the broadest base of players and levels of play that I have seen. It provides little analytics.
But someone who understands analytics can indeed do his own work and have it add to his understanding. I realize that isn't the case with you, and it is to your detriment.
Pretty much everybody here thinks he is the best "scout" on the board. Other than perhaps Boly, I think most all of us does a good job there -- although we're not professional scouts. Clearly, anything we can add to what we see with our eyes can give us an added advantage.
Don -- don't put down the old timers...they knew more about the game and how to compare ball players than the modern day nerds who need a computer to tell them the wrong thing....
Rog -- If that were true, teams wouldn't be hiting so-called "stats nerds." Why add an unneccssary expense that doesn't contribute?
Don -- I still remember how accurate the real old timers were in judging how many runs were scored by how long an inning took to complete while watching the scores come in over the Western Electric ticker tape....
Rog -- Pretty easy to be close most of the time. Not many pitching changes back then. But an inning where the bases are left loaded doesn't take much less time than a game in which a grand slam homer is hit, followed by a first-pitch out to end the inning.
When I have gone to games, I often watch the scoreboard's speed in, say, a Dodgers game. And often I am disappointed when the Dodgers' opponent has a long half inning, yet doesn't score or puts up only a single run.
Because of fewer pitching changes and fewer hitters working the count, it was easier to be mroe accurate in the old days. But it was still common to be disappointed by a long half inning that yielded little and to a lesser extent a short half inning that yielded two or three runs.
Remember, Don, I have the advantage of having had a dad about your age who likely knew at LEAST as much as you back in the old days. And I had the advantage of learning from him.
Anyone here who says I am influenced only by stats isn't showing much wisdom.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=3#9629#ixzz2O5hwyRQY
Rog -- I think most of us can -- to a degree. But the truth is that almost all major leaguers are good. They simply vary by degrees of good.
A guy who hits .300 is considered a good hitter. A .250 hitter is usually considered mediocre. Yet, the differenced between them is only a hit a week.
The .250 hitter could be better than the .300 guy. Perhaps he hits the ball hard, but has the poor luck of often hitting the ball in similar places, resulting in more hard-hit outs and fewer poorly-hit outs. The .300 hitter may simply be able to find holes more often with poorly-hit balls.
Which player is going to LOOK better? Which player is going to be more effective?
A hitter who strikes out more often may LOOK worse, even though he hits the ball much harder (when he makes contact) than a guy who strikes out half as often. Or a power hitter may hit the heck out of the ball when he hits it, but have that power disguise how often he strikes out.
You may watch a good player when he's cold and think he's a stiff. You may see a poor hitter when he's on a hot streak.
Don -- I don't some nerd to put together a cmbination of stats and trot it out as if it had some real meaning...
Rog -- Even major league teams are finally finding out the best way to analyze is by a combination of scouting and analytics. Your comment appears to show ignorance to that.
Don -- I bet the Cube is known by very few baseball fans and really adds little to understanding the game of baseball..
Rog -- You may be right about the Cube's not being well-known. And mostly all it does is provide a broad base of the most common stats with the broadest base of players and levels of play that I have seen. It provides little analytics.
But someone who understands analytics can indeed do his own work and have it add to his understanding. I realize that isn't the case with you, and it is to your detriment.
Pretty much everybody here thinks he is the best "scout" on the board. Other than perhaps Boly, I think most all of us does a good job there -- although we're not professional scouts. Clearly, anything we can add to what we see with our eyes can give us an added advantage.
Don -- don't put down the old timers...they knew more about the game and how to compare ball players than the modern day nerds who need a computer to tell them the wrong thing....
Rog -- If that were true, teams wouldn't be hiting so-called "stats nerds." Why add an unneccssary expense that doesn't contribute?
Don -- I still remember how accurate the real old timers were in judging how many runs were scored by how long an inning took to complete while watching the scores come in over the Western Electric ticker tape....
Rog -- Pretty easy to be close most of the time. Not many pitching changes back then. But an inning where the bases are left loaded doesn't take much less time than a game in which a grand slam homer is hit, followed by a first-pitch out to end the inning.
When I have gone to games, I often watch the scoreboard's speed in, say, a Dodgers game. And often I am disappointed when the Dodgers' opponent has a long half inning, yet doesn't score or puts up only a single run.
Because of fewer pitching changes and fewer hitters working the count, it was easier to be mroe accurate in the old days. But it was still common to be disappointed by a long half inning that yielded little and to a lesser extent a short half inning that yielded two or three runs.
Remember, Don, I have the advantage of having had a dad about your age who likely knew at LEAST as much as you back in the old days. And I had the advantage of learning from him.
Anyone here who says I am influenced only by stats isn't showing much wisdom.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=3#9629#ixzz2O5hwyRQY