The Best team money can buy on the ropes

[sharksrog]

A friend of mine from work -- obviously a Republican -- one told me that if you're not a Democrat when you're young, you don't have a heart, and if you're not a Republican when you're older, you don't have a brain.

Personally, I like being an Independent. Or perhaps I'm a Whig or a Tory.

[sfgdood]

Mark, you're not a liberal for believing that chemistry is unimportant. The flawed logical inference you made is one often used by liberals. Just because there is no statistical matrix that can quantify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not important. If it was so unimportant, why is it that darn near 100% of all winning clubhouses point to it as an important factor?

I'm not going to continue to rebut Rog's closed mind when all he understands is stats. It's a waste of time, both his and mine, and I'm not interested enough to try to educate him even if his mind were capable of opening up to non-statsgeek logic. I've explained my side plenty of times...if you or him are not convinced, so be it.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Just because there is no statistical matrix that can quantify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not important.

Rog -- Try to understand, Randy, this is precisely where you first go wrong in evaluating me with regard to this issue. I have NEVER said that chemistry doesn't exist or that it isn't important. Why do you think I've been studying it for neary 40 years?

Randy -- I'm not going to continue to rebut Rog's closed mind when all he understands is stats.

Rog -- A couple off issues here, Randy. First of all, how is it that I am the one with the closed mind when you are the one who won't answer questions? I myself am happy to answer any questions you may have, especially when you seem to have such horrible misperceptions of how I view things. Second, you keep up with this "all he understands is stats" thing. You couldn't be much more wrong.

It's been over two decades since I've seen him, but right now if you were talking to Chris Speier and mentioned my name, gave him my number and told him I would like to have him call me, he would recognize the name and call me. We could talk a LOT of baseball without ever even mentioning stats.

I know that because I've done so before. If I thought Chris' old cell phone number from Scottsdale were still his number, I would call him myself. Heck, maybe I should try it. My girlfriend keeps telling me we should go to a Reds game (that certainly may change) so I could talk to him. Coincidentally, she herself has sold Dusty Baker patio furniture. He wouldn't remember her, but if she told him she had sold him the patio furniture in Granite Bay, he would know whom she meant.

Until she met me, my girlfriend knew hardly anything about baseball. (She still doesn't know a lot.) This story will so illustrate.

She got a call from a guy who told her he was Dusty Baker and he wanted to get a deal on the patio furniture he had looked at the week before. Her reply was "Who?" He said, "The Afro-American gentleman who was in there last week." Not too many black men go to a patio furniture store in Granite Bay (whose high school baseball team is coincidentally coached by Jim -- Singles -- Barr), so she knew who he meant. But she had no idea who Dusty Baker was.

So anyway, Randy, get over yourself on this stuff that all I understand is stats. I have spent three or four hours in one evening talking with Chris Lincecum without mentioning a lot of stats. It's been a long time, but I have spoken baseball with Chris Speier even before I knew anything about advanced metrics. Just how did I do that, Randy?

As an aside -- and sorry if I'm boring you by repeating this -- I was quite surprised when I heard Chris tell his wife Aleta that he was leaving to go to "work." I had always thought one "played baseball," but of course for Chris, it was his job.

Another piece of irony regarding Chris. I attended his father's funeral, which was officiated by Chris' brother, a minister himself. The irony was that the funeral was held just a few days after the Giants lost the 1987 playoffs to the Cardinals and literally the night before the huge stock market crash that October.

Chris himself was managing in the minor leagues, and his oldest son Justin was in his second minor league season when my dad passed away in 1996. But Chris sent his older daughter and his second-oldest son to my dad's funeral.

The day after my dad died, the Giants put a tribute to him on the Candlestick scoreboard. Had he lived another three years, it is very likely that he would have been the fan on the field presenting Chris his award as the top SF Giants shortstop of in their Candlestick tenure.

One time my dad shagged balls in the outfield of a minor league park in the Phoenix area. There were only four people there. One was a reporter from Newsday. One was Chris, pitching batting practice. The other was the batter, some guy named Michael Jordan.

I have a personalized bat on which Chris wrote that it was from his last game. In his final game, Chris had only three at bats (a single, a double and a double play), so I guess I have one of three. Chris himself? His mom? Maybe the brother who held his dad's funeral? I don't know about the other two.

I'm not saying these things because they're important. In the grand scheme of things, they really aren't. I'm telling you because your opinion of me is so misguided. And even THAT doesn't have a stat in it.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#15987#ixzz2i052ynhO

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#15987#ixzz2i04bqNMO

[sfgdood]

Ok, here's the deal. It's interesting to hear the Speier stories because he was one of my first favorites as a kid. Maybe you should have him explain to you the importance of chemistry in a winning clubhouse and the ways it can help win specific games. I'm pretty sure he can explain it better than me.

Also, I have to say right here that regardless of the dragout brawls we have had on these boards, there isnt a single regular poster, past or present, that I wouldn't thoroughly enjoy watching a game with (trolls like Karaokefun don't count). Yes even you, Rog and Don.

That said...you, Rog, within the context of these baseball boards, are the very epitome of a stats geek. I think I have seen enough of your posts over all these years to have a pretty informed opinion on that. That is why, I refuse to continue on a conversation when nothing short of some sort of metric that doesn't exist will satisfy you. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to beat my head against a wall when you keep asking the same questions I just tried to answer for you.

~Dood

[rxmeister]

Dood, something like team chemistry is impossible to measure, therefore it can only be expressed as an opinion. There is no right or wrong here. As a result, everyone's opinion should be respected. There should be no labeling or name calling here. Even if you weren't actually calling my opinion liberal, the fact that you used the word at all isn't right because you certainly wouldn't have used that word at all if Allen had expressed the same opinion. Doesn't really bother me though, certainly not as much as Boagie's you never played the game comment did. It's just a dismissive comment, akin to me telling someone I'm smarter than them because I graduated college and they didn't. Some of the smartest people in the world were high school dropouts.

[sfgdood]

oh trust me here where I live being called conservative is considered the nasty slur...but I enjoy it. I get into so many political debates that being called conservative and calling my buddies liberal has become second nature to our vocabulary. I wasn't dismissing you, just the inference.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- you, Rog, within the context of these baseball boards, are the very epitome of a stats geek.

Rog -- Given that most "stats geeks" know as much or more about the other parts of the game as you or I, I'll go along with that.

But keep in mind that you're the one making the absolute statements here.

You are the one who said that without chemistry, the Giants couldn't have come back from the two ultimate deficits in the postseason last year, when in reality, there is no way for us to know that one way or the other.

You are the one who when I stated that baseball was the least team-oriented of the major sports and illustrated my point could reply only with something to the effect that I'll never understand. I didn't quite understand how to respond to that.

On the contrary, I have never said that chemistry exists or defined its impact if indeed it does exist. That's because after nearly 40 years of study, I just don't know -- and have freely admitted such here.

You are the one making the absolute statements -- and then accusing me of not understanding anything but stats.

I have asked here many times what it is that posters such as you know that I don't. No one has been able to give me an answer.

Boly knows the mechanics of baseball better than I, and Don knows its history better than I. Aside from that, I'm not quite sure what others here know that I don't.

You say, Randy, that growing up, Chris Speier was one of your favorites. I doubt you would have any trouble talking baseball with Chris, but I also know that I have indeed done so. Same thing with Tim Lincecum's dad. If stats were, as you say, all I understand about the game of baseball, I just don't think that would have happened -- do you? Twice -- once in Bellevue, Washington where Tim was born and once on the phone five days later as I was attempting to get to the SeaTac airport, it was I who had to cut short my converstations with Chris.

I have "taken the place" of a couple of guys involved with Bay Area baseball that you likely know of.

First was Speier, whose ticket he gave me for the All-Star game in Oakland. Aleta was pregnant with their sixth (and last) child, and she didn't want him to go away to the game, even though it merely across the channel between Oakland and Alameda. So it was I who wound up "taking his place."

Second was in a sports context, but not a baseball situation. I filled in for Joe Stiglich -- now the A's insider on CSN Bay Area -- in covering a JC football game.

The other "stand in" wasn't related to baseball (except that the one I have watched many Giants game with and the other once owned the Fresno Giants when Fresno was a Class A affiliate and also was part of the group that bid on the A's but lost out to its present ownership). My best friend -- who sadly recently came down with the symptons of Parkinson's Disease -- grew up as the best friend of Bob Piccinini, the guy who owns the SaveMart and Lucky stores. My girlfriend recently showed me an article in the Sacramento Bee that stated that Bob was now a billionaire.

Again, Randy, none of this is important. But it should give you a little hint about how wrong you may be when you say that all I understand is stats.

I'm not saying I'm as up on every issue as others here. What I am saying is that even without stats, I could stand with pretty much anyone here.

Allen can verify that long before it was known that Pedro Martinez had arm trouble in the 2003 postseason, I told him while watching Pedro pitch on TV that was the case.

Speaking of Allen and Pedro, Allen has repeatedly talked about how Pedro ducked the Yankees on multiple occasions. Now, Allen follows the Yankees, but somehow I think he is a little off on that one.

How could Pedro repeatedly avoided the Yankees and yet pitched 32 games against them -- 12 more than he tossed against any other American League team?

Speaking of Pedro, go to Baseball-Reference and look at his 1997 through 2003 seasons. I'm not sure any starting pitcher has ever been more dominant over a stretch of 7 straight seasons. With the exception of the 1998 season in which his ERA leaked all the way up to 2.89, Pedro's ERA was between 1.74 and 2.39. Let's not forget that during most if not all those seasons, Pedro was facing hitters on (as Allen will verify) steroids.

In 2000, Pedro's 1.74 ERA was more than THREE RUNS lower than the average AL ERA of 4.92. His ERA was 65% LOWER than the league average.

When Bob Gibson set the record with his 1.12 ERA in 1968, his ERA was less than two runs lower than the league average of 2.99. One can say it is far easier to be three runs below a 4.92 average ERA than a 2.99 average, and of course he would be right on the money.

But Pedro's 65% lower than league average is two percent better than Gibby's 63%. In other words, it is quite possible Pedro's 2000 season is he greatest season of any starting pitcher.

Certainly Pedro's 217 innings pale when compared with Bob's 304, but while Bob was very impressive finishing in the top 7.5% of NL starters, Pedro was also rather impressive by finishing in the top 12.5%.

Pedro's all-time record WHIP of 0.737 was more than half better than league average. Gibby's 0.853 WHIP was almost 30% better than league average.

In hit rate, strikeout rate and walk rate, Pedro ranked ahead of Bob even though he was competing with better league averages in all except strikeout rate, which itself was closer than I expected. Only in home runs allowed, where Bob's rate was less than half as high as Pedro's, did Bob prevail (and ERA, of course). But just as the league average ERA was more than 70% higher for Pedro than for Bob, the home run rate was more than double for Pedro.

One other thing to consider was that Bob allowed 11 unearned runs, while Pedro allowed just two.

One could argue for Bob's season being better, but with Pedro having the better WHIP, hit rate, walk rate and strikeout rate despite pitching against much higher league averages, it's hard to argue against Martinez.

Pedro's WHIP remains the record, while Gibby ranks 11th since the end of the 19th century. In fact -- surprise, surprise -- Bob's WHIP wasn't even the best in baseball that SEASON. The Orioles' Dave McNally finished just ahead of Gibby.

Pedro's hit rate is the 4th-best ever, while Gibson's ranks 15th.

Pedro's 1.3 walk rate barely cracks the top 300, but it is clearly better than Bob's 1.8.

Martinez's 11.8 strikeout rate is 10th-best ever, while Bob's 7.9 doesn't crack the top 500.

Bob had the best ERA ever (although Pedro had the better ERA+). Pedro was also in the top 10 seasons all-time in both hits and strikeouts. Bob did have the 15th-best hit rate ever, although even that was clearly behind Pedro's #4 ranking.

ERA, IP and HR to Bob. ERA+, WHIP, H, K and BB to Martinez. One could argue either way, but it's certainly hard to argue against Pedro.

One other stat that probably shouldn't be overlooked is that Pedro posted half an added Win Above Replacement over Bob, even though he pitched 88 fewer innings. That's a bit of a surprise.

Then again, I wonder how many times Pedro ducked the Yankees that season. He pitched four games against them, which was more than he pitched against any other team that season with the exception of the Indians, against whom he pitched the same number of games.

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to say that there have been very few if any pitching seasons better than either Bob's 1968 season or Pedro's 2000 campaign.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2041&page=2#ixzz2i1LdtobJ

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2041&page=2#ixzz2i1LdtobJ

[sharksrog]

Mark -- Some of the smartest people in the world were high school dropouts.

Rog -- Amazingly, Albert Einstein flunked math. Apparently his mind or attention couldn't handle anything that simple.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#ixzz2i1isfTUX

[sfgdood]

Ok, so you're trying to make me see that you're not all about stats...and then you close with over 3000 characters on a completely unrelated subject, including as many stats as possible in that space...wow.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Ok, so you're trying to make me see that you're not all about stats...and then you close with over 3000 characters on a completely unrelated subject, including as many stats as possible in that space...wow.

Rog -- Believe me, I thought about just that when I wrote it. But stop and think about all the characters I had previously written about the Chris's Speier and Lincecum, which didn't involve stats. Think about the characters I wrote about Carlos Beltran, none of which involved stats.

I write a lot about stats because they are facts, Randy. Like you, I love to express my opinions, and I also like to back them up with facts and logic. Most facts in sports are stats or can be better defined by stats.

As an example, when I say that Carlos Beltran has been a very, very good player but is a fringe Hall of Famer. I can't think of a better way to back up that opinion than statistically.

I can say that Brandon Belt has improved his hitting since changing the way he held the bat. Pretty much everyone knows that is true, but stats can help us understand to what extent it is true.

How can I show how much better Sandy Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium than he pitched on the road the same years if I don't do so statistically?

Think about it. If a guy hits .300, we say he's a pretty good hitter. If we didn't keep track of stats (including batting average), how would we know for sure?

When we talk about whether a guy is a good clutch hitter, we don't have to rely on just our memories. Stats tell us how he hit in various situations.

We can say that Tim Lincecum has suffered from a loss of command the past two seasons, but we can look at pitch charts to see to what EXTENT that is true. We can look and see how much speed he has lost, and we can look at how much less -- if any -- his stuff is moving. We can look at how much worse he does when behind the count than when ahead or even.

We can see, for instance, that eighth-place hitters have done much better against him than expected. We can see how much worse he had pitched with runners on base and in scoring position.

I can say, for instance, that Tim has pitched worse the past couple of years with runners on base than he had pitched previously -- that his decline with runners on base has been greater than his decline with no one on -- and I don't think anyone would question me too much.

But it is only with STATS that I can tell you how MUCH worse he has done with runners on base and with the bases empty. It is only with stats that we can tell how much his strikeout rate declines from the first half to the second, and one with stats that we can see on average how poorly he has pitched his last two or three starts each season.

Boly can tell us that Tim's delivery was going to be/is hard to repeat, but only stats can tell us how MUCH his delivery differs from pitch to pitch.

Let's put it this way: Boly can tell us Tim's mechanics are messed up, and while that is an opinion, not many of us would challenge it. But stats are available to show us just how MUCH his mechanics differ. They can show correlations between how certain variables accompany poor results.

Stats can tell us how often a player hits the ball where. They can tell us how often he does so against different types of pitchers and indeed against specific pitchers themselves. They can show how much a hitter's pattern has changed over time.

A scout can tell us the same things -- but not with as much accuracy or speed.

Is there any sport where stats are used more than baseball? Is there any sport that can be better illustrated by stats than can baseball?

In baseball, we can see almost in real time the speed and location of a pitch, now much it moved both horizontally and vertically, and how much rotation is on the pitch. Not that it isn't possible, but can we see that kind of definition on where a football pass goes and precisely how it got there? When a basketball shot misses, do we know how much it missed by right, left, short and long? Do we know how high a rebound was captured, and now far from the basket? Do we know how much a hockey shot missed the net and now fast it was? Do we know in real time how many times a puck was deflected?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#16012#ixzz2i1r5k91e

[sfgdood]

holy crap are you kidding me? If we go to a game together, remind me to bring my Bartman headphones...

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- holy crap are you kidding me? If we go to a game together, remind me to bring my Bartman headphones...

Rog -- The point is that you're criticizing "stats nerds," when 17 major league teams are already using the type of technology I'm alluding to for minor league and/or major league scouting. You're criticizing those who are ahead of -- or at least setting -- the curve.

As the kids would say, you're SO 2009.

I don't know if the Giants are one of the 17 teams using this new technology, but we've been talking about it here for close to five years.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#16030#ixzz2i5HoLXAf

[klaiggeb]

Mark -- Some of the smartest people in the world were high school dropouts.


--boly says---

Mark, you're speaking of exceptions, not the rule.

This has been my profession for over 30 years, and I can tell you, easily 95+% of HS drop outs are far from the smartest people in the world.

That's like saying short people have large place in the NBA. yeah, there are a couple, but the large majority are what I classify as 'genetic freaks;' 6'5 or better.

boly

[klaiggeb]

Randy -- holy crap are you kidding me? If we go to a game together, remind me to bring my Bartman headphones...

Rog -- The point is that you're criticizing "stats nerds," when 17 major league teams are already using the type of technology I'm alluding to for minor league and/or major league scouting. You're criticizing those who are ahead of -- or at least setting -- the curve

---boly says---

Rog, I don't think that's what Randy means.

At least to me, the term "stats nerds" refers to people who don't know much about the game beyond the numbers.

All they see is 'numbers,' and nothing else.

I don't believe he would deny that technology and statistics have a place in the game, but that when people see those stats as more than, or bigger than the people that play it...that is a huge mistake. Those are what I classify as Stats Nerds.

boly

[dk]

Oct 18, 2013 10:13:04 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Randy -- holy crap are you kidding me? If we go to a game together, remind me to bring my Bartman headphones...

Rog -- The point is that you're criticizing "stats nerds," when 17 major league teams are already using the type of technology I'm alluding to for minor league and/or major league scouting. You're criticizing those who are ahead of -- or at least setting -- the curve

---boly says---

Rog, I don't think that's what Randy means.

At least to me, the term "stats nerds" refers to people who don't know much about the game beyond the numbers.

All they see is 'numbers,' and nothing else.

I don't believe he would deny that technology and statistics have a place in the game, but that when people see those stats as more than, or bigger than the people that play it...that is a huge mistake. Those are what I classify as Stats Nerds.

boly[/

dk...I don't know why the modern day stats nerds think they invented something new.....I have been following baseball over 80 years and we always studied stats...however, we didn't combine stats in order to claim new discoveries...we looked at the extra base hits without needing a slugging percentage, we looked at the hits and walks without an OBP....BABIP means nothing...we knew who hit best in certain ball parks...we knew who went opposite field, took pitches, good base runners, etc.teams had advanced scouts who charted pitch location and hit location....managers knew where to move fielders....,

[sharksrog]

Boly -- Rog, I don't think that's what Randy means.

At least to me, the term "stats nerds" refers to people who don't know much about the game beyond the numbers.

All they see is 'numbers,' and nothing else.

I don't believe he would deny that technology and statistics have a place in the game, but that when people see those stats as more than, or bigger than the people that play it...that is a huge mistake. Those are what I classify as Stats Nerds.

Rog -- This is where I believe the misconception sets in. Most of the "stats nerds" I've read know as much as you or I about baseball, and sometimes more. I'll give you credit for knowing more about baseball mechanics than all but a few baseball fans -- but that is true of the scouting types as well as the "stats nerds."

In fact, a fair number of the "stats nerds" talk to scouts all the time and even do some scouting themselves.

Let's think about this logically. Guys who like numbers can go into all kinds of fields. You know from your teaching experience that teachers who can teach math and science are usually in demand. It's tough for liberal arts types to get jobs in today's market, but guys with a BS instead of a BA have a much greater shot.

So why do these baseball "stats nerds" go into baseball instead of the many other fields (most of which involve higher math than it takes to be a baseball "stats nerd)? It's because they have followed baseball all their lives and in most cases played a fair amount of it themselves.

There is nothing to say a scout can't also take advantage of stats. There's nothing to say a "stats nerd" can't take advantage of scouting.

We should ask ourselves this. With all the opportunities for "stats nerds," why do some gravitate to baseball? Is it because they stayed inside with their chemistry sets instead of playing baseball? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

I'm considered the "stats nerd" here. But who on this board has been closer to major league players than I? When we are criticizing a manager's strategy, who posits more plausible theories on what the manager may have been thinking?

Allen in particular has been picking up lately on Tim Lincecum's lack of fielding fundamentals. Who was it that pointed out after his first All-Star game start that Tim made mistakes in covering first base no fewer than three times in the first inning alone?

Who was it that pointed out after Tim Lincecum's first start that Bengie Molina didn't call for enough secondary pitches? (Tim wound up throwing more than twice as many in his subsequent starts.) Who was it that told former Giants reliever Jerry Johnson that he should throw more change ups -- and have Jerry agree?

Who was it that told a scout that Tito Fuentes should switch hit before he began doing so?

My point here isn't to impress you. It is simply to show that your stereotypical view of a baseball "stats nerd" is so far off base you don't know if you're going to second or hustling to get back into first.

You -- and others -- have pooh-poohed "stats nerds," only to see more and more of them be hired by major league teams. I wish you would run into one of these guys and have the opportunity to test his baseball knowledge. Apparently you would be very surprised with what you found.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#16040#ixzz2i8IGNnfs

[sharksrog]

Boly -- At least to me, the term "stats nerds" refers to people who don't know much about the game beyond the numbers.

All they see is 'numbers,' and nothing else.

Rog -- You correctly told Mark that the high school dropout is smart is in the minority. I believe he knew that.

I will say to you that from my own experience, the "no-undertstanding-of-baseball-beyond-the-numbers stats geek" is the exception to the rule that in general, stats geeks know as much about the game as most of us. We may or may not have an advantage in understanding the game non-statistically, but if we do, it's usually pretty darn small. (I'll except you, since you know more about baseball mechanics than any of us, with Don probably being second.)

Just because a guy speaks Spanish doesn't mean he doesn't understand English -- and vice versa. We all make grammar mistakes here, often because our fingers can't keep up with our minds (or in my case, my mind can't keep up with my fingers). That doesn't mean we don't know grammar.

Just because a kid does well in your class doesn't mean he doesn't do well in other subjects.

Again I ask the question: With all the opportunities for guys with math and analytical minds, why do some gravitate to BASEBALL? If they didn't know about the game, why would they LIKE it so much?

I think we're talking about a stereotype here, and like many stereotypes, I think it's inaccurate.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#ixzz2iBLuAJWQ

[Islandboagie]

Just because Alex Trebek has all the answers on cue cards doesn't make him smarter than the contestants. Brian Kenny is the same. They put him in a suit and throw him in front of a camera and to the average viewer he appears as an expert.

Does Rachel Ray know more about cooking than the top chefs in the world? Or even the person who cooks all the time at home? The producers want you to believe she does.

Sure, Brian Kenny knows a little something about baseball, Trebek isn't an idiot, and Rachel Ray can fix a meal. However, thinking that these people are more knowledgeable than viewers who have made it their hobby for most of their lives is ridiculous.

With my experience I can tell you right now Rachel Ray is terrible. But she is perceived as a chef when she's not even close.

[sharksrog]

dk...I don't know why the modern day stats nerds think they invented something new

Rog -- They haven't really invented things, but they have learned to look at them in a more discerning light

Don -- .....I have been following baseball over 80 years and we always studied stats...however, we didn't combine stats in order to claim new discoveries...

Rog -- Again, Don, no discoveries. Simply some more discerning ways of looking at things.

Don -- we looked at the extra base hits without needing a slugging percentage,

Rog -- No question we can tell something by looking at a player's at bats, hits and extra base hits. But we get a more accurate picture from SLG.

Don -- we looked at the hits and walks without an OBP....

Rog -- Most fans didn't pay much attention to walks. Back in those days, baseball was pretty much a BA, HR, RBI and runs scored game. Why was it that so many low OBP guys have led off over the years?

Don -- BABIP means nothing...

Rog -- Almost EVERYTHING means SOMETHING.

Don -- we knew who hit best in certain ball parks...

Rog -- Most fans didn't. Let me ask you this, Don. Without looking it up, did Chuck Hiller have a bigger than average home park split for Candlestick Park or a lower than average split? How about Jose Pagan?

Don -- we knew who went opposite field, took pitches, good base runners, etc.teams had advanced scouts who charted pitch location and hit location....

Rog -- Notice how much better #2 hitters are these days? Far less concern about who hits best behind runners and much more concern about being able to get on base and hit with some authority.

Back in 1923 (I believe you were alive but perhaps not old enough to yet be a baseball fan.) Eddie Collins led the AL with 48 stolen bases. Was he the best base stealer in the league?

Don -- managers knew where to move fielders....

Rog -- Of course they did. But not as well as today's managers do. A scout showed where a player hit the previous series or two, but the manager didn't have a picture of where the hitter had hit the whole season.

People certainly weren't ignorant back then. They simply didn't have as much information readily available to guide them in their decision-making.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#ixzz2iBOLcgKa

[klaiggeb]

Again I ask the question: With all the opportunities for guys with math and analytical minds, why do some gravitate to BASEBALL? If they didn't know about the game, why would they LIKE it so much?

I think we're talking about a stereotype here, and like many stereotypes, I think it's inaccurate.

---boly says---

You're right; we need to draw a distinction.

But the steriotype is a deserved monicker, IMHO.

I don't have enough fingers and toes, and nor do any hundred people that I know, to count the number of "know it all, stats nerds" that I've run into who simply don't have a clue about how the game is played.

This is what Fantasy Baseball has done to the game.

The "Stats Nerds," break it down to numbers and numbers only.

Range and power are things that can be measured, but in so doing, other things get ignored. Movement on a pitch, injuries, the weather, the emotional state of the players involved.

You are labeling it a steriotype, and perhaps, Rog, you haven't run into the sheer unbelievable volumn of people that some have run into who are convinced they "know" the game, but never really played beyond Little League.

Yeah, you can learn and study baseball, and know one heck a lot about it.

But if someone is only going to see numbers attached to players, they're missing the entire point.

Bottom line, as I said before, the steriotype is earned and deserved, IMHO>

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- I don't have enough fingers and toes, and nor do any hundred people that I know, to count the number of "know it all, stats nerds" that I've run into who simply don't have a clue about how the game is played.

This is what Fantasy Baseball has done to the game.

Rog -- I've never played Fantasy Baseball, although I have at least one friend who does. I do help my son pick his fantasy hockey team. He picked his football fantasy team by going with as many Cal players as he could.

The biggest favor I did for my son was a year ago when I kept him from picking a player who was going to play in the KHL instead of the NHL.

My son was at a presentation by NHL Commisioner Gary Bettman a couple of years ago and asked Bettman if the NHL was worried about losing players to the KHL (the Russian professional hockey league), citing Jarmir Jagr as an example. My son felt Gary was being less than truthful when he answered that no NHL team wanted Jagr, who returned after his year away and has played last season and this one, actually playing for the Stanley Cup last season (although he didn't win it).

Jagr is clearly near the end of the line, but he will be a pretty high-level Hall of Famer.

My son has him on his fantasy team this season. I augured against it, but we couldn't find anyone better at the price he could afford after picking the rest of his team.

I told him he should pick Tomas Hertl as his last forward, but Tomas was listed as a center, and Aaron had already picked his centers. (Steven Stamkos and Logan Couture IIRC) By the way, I had no idea Tomas would do nearly as well as he has, but I thought he was a great value at the fantasy price.

I know Randy and maybe Allen follow the Sharks. Teams are beginning to make it a lot tougher for Tomas by paying more attention to him for breakaway passes and playing him more physically, especially in front of the net.

In addition to Couture, my son has fellow Shark Brent Burns on his team. Couture was moderately expensive, but Burns came fairly cheaply.

The Sharks have played as well as any team in the NHL, but we shouldn't forget they also got off to a great start last season before falling back badly. They did rebound late last season though with some rather cheap trade deadline acquisitions, and they're playing well thus far despite a few fairly significant injuries.

If you Sharks fans want something (little) to look forward to, see how Alex Stalock handles the puck once he gets his confidence. Of course, he may not play enough to get his confidence, either. Stalock is a small story in that he has bounced back from a horrible skate injury to his calf.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2041&page=2#16085#ixzz2iD8mtBE3

[allenreed]

Evidently the best team money can buy isn't as good as the best team smart baseball people can develop.

[allenreed]

I was wondering if you ever went to any Sharks games, Rog. I watch them occasionally, but hockey is so much better live than on TV. To me hockey is the only one of the four major sports that doesn't televise well. Baseball didn't used to, but the technological advances in broadcasting has changed that.

[sfgdood]

Bettman is the biggest moron among all the commissioners. Although losing 40 year old players like Jagr to the KHL is not a great loss, especially when young euro stars like Tomas Hertl are coming into the league every year.

Al, going to hockey games IS much better...but if you are a big fan of the sport, tv can still be quite good. I find the tv broadcasters are better in that sport than any other.

~Dood

[allenreed]

The guys for the Sharks are very good. They kep the game at a level a part timer like me can understand, while still enjoying the nuances that might appeal to a more seasoned fan. I went to some games when they had a team in Oakland, and found it very enjoyable.

[sharksrog]

I agree with Randy that hockey is also a fine TV game. Or maybe it's just such a great game, that it's still very good on TV. There is probably no other sport on TV I enjoy as much without having a significant rooting interest in either team.

I know a whole lot more about baseball, but IMO there is no other sport with such a combination of speed, skill, strength, toughness, danger and smarts. We thought Marco Scutaro was tough this past season for playing with such a mangled pinkie, but hockey players frequently play with broken bones -- and get hit. In no sport is there more grit.

Give me a seat at a Sharks game or simply in front of my TV, and I'm a happy man. Is there more suspense in sports than sudden death in the Stanley Cup playoffs?

[allenreed]

I just don't think you can see alot of what goes on in a televised hockey game, and it's hard to see the puck.

Hockey players basically go what NFL players do, three times a week. Although football players rarely get checked into walls, and the grass is probably a bit softer than ice.

[allenreed]

A friend of mine from work -- obviously a Republican -- one told me that if you're not a Democrat when you're young, you don't have a heart, and if you're not a Republican when you're older, you don't have a brain.

Personally, I like being an Independent. Or perhaps I'm a Whig or a Tory.

Allen- I believe your friend was quoting Winston Churchill. Although he substituted Dem and Republican for liberal and conservative,
Fun to see Obama out there like an infomercial huckster trying to goose Obamacare. He's almost as good as the Sham-Wow guy. Almost $400 million and over three years, and they can't make a website work.

[sfgdood]

I find it amazing how often Obama has had to schedule specific PCs just to promote his law that has already been passed and signed. Shouldn't that be a pretty big indicator? America still hates Obamacare and will just hate it more and more once it is fully in place.

~Dood

[allenreed]

There has never been a poll in which a majority of the participants thought Obamacare was a good idea. It was passed without a single Republican vote and with zero Republican input. Everyone predicted it would be a huge fiasco and so far those predictions have come true in spades.
What's interesting about the website is that it will allegedly take your private information, but won't sign you up for insurance. Things that make you go hmmm.