Post by Rog on Sept 12, 2015 6:57:58 GMT -5
It's obvious that you, as many stats geeks, judge a contract by pure individual numbers and how they correlate with the salary paid. I look at it differently. Yes individual numbers matter, but it's equally or more important to me what success the team had and whether or not the player contributed to it.
This is the type of comment where I believe you are unfair, Randy. The above is obvious. If a player contributes to a team's success, it doesn't matter if he does it without a hit.
That said, 90+ percent of the time, the player with numbers IS making a big contribution. Barry Bonds was a jerk, but isn't it obvious he made one of the biggest contributions in Giants history? Some will say, yes, but the Giants didn't win a World Championship with him. Well, how was it that he somehow negatively contributed to three very good Giants relievers' failing in Game 6 in which Bonds homered and the Giants appeared to have won?
How great was Willie Mays? He didn't win a World Championship in his final 19 seasons despite having multiple Hall of Fame teammates and a dozen other very good players as teammates.
I think it would be fair of you, Randy, to realize that aside from stats I likely know as much baseball as you. I will yield to Boly, who has excellent inside knowledge on mechanics, but, honestly, what is it that you and anyone else here knows about baseball that I don't? You know a lot, but my guess is that while it's not quite literally true, Boly, Don and I have indeed forgotten more than you know. And I don't mean that in any way as a slam to your knowledge.
But stop and think about an example here. Why is it that almost everyone else here was pretty confident Pablo did the Giants a favor by not re-signing? You are still hung up on it, but all one had to do was look at Pablo's numbers -- including his weight.
Or look at Gary Brown. Some of the scouting reports questioned his discipline at the plate and his approach to the ball. Yet you ignored them (or didn't know about them) and formed your own scouting report. Then you stuck behind Gary as the negative evidence mounted up, much as you have done with Pablo.
Meanwhile, you take a GOOD player like Brandon Belt and more or less give up on him because he doesn't meet your expectations. I'm not sure he has met ANY of our expectations, but he's been a good ball player.
Some consider the Giants to have the best infield in baseball. How bad can Belt be if he's a quarter of that infield? I may be wrong about this one, but wasn't there a time early in Brandon Crawford's career when you questioned his defense? Back early in the 2011 or possibly 2012 season when he made a lot of errors?
Hey, I have been wrong about Brandon too. He's definitely become a better hitter than I ever expected him to be. On the other hand, he's a career .245 hitter whose OPS is below .700. He's way ahead NOW of where I thought he would be, but over his full career, he's been fairly close to my expectation.
But I'm going to look at Brandon objectively and give him credit for his hitting. I'm also going to give him credit for having his best defensive season, and none of them has been below-average as far as I can remember -- even the year he started out with all the errors.
Anyway, my bottom line here is that you should give me credit for what I know and also get out of the stone age with your ideas about baseball metrics.
I give you credit for having a good baseball mind. I think you've gotten away from it by being defensive and overreacting, but I've always said it's there. If you get rid of your biases and instead of deriding those who disagree with you, instead try to continue improving your baseball knowledge, you can regain what you had.
But if you're going to stick with your biases and defensiveness, you're simply going to be a clanging gong. And this ain't the Gong Show.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3011/duffy?page=1#ixzz3lWW0xE83
This is the type of comment where I believe you are unfair, Randy. The above is obvious. If a player contributes to a team's success, it doesn't matter if he does it without a hit.
That said, 90+ percent of the time, the player with numbers IS making a big contribution. Barry Bonds was a jerk, but isn't it obvious he made one of the biggest contributions in Giants history? Some will say, yes, but the Giants didn't win a World Championship with him. Well, how was it that he somehow negatively contributed to three very good Giants relievers' failing in Game 6 in which Bonds homered and the Giants appeared to have won?
How great was Willie Mays? He didn't win a World Championship in his final 19 seasons despite having multiple Hall of Fame teammates and a dozen other very good players as teammates.
I think it would be fair of you, Randy, to realize that aside from stats I likely know as much baseball as you. I will yield to Boly, who has excellent inside knowledge on mechanics, but, honestly, what is it that you and anyone else here knows about baseball that I don't? You know a lot, but my guess is that while it's not quite literally true, Boly, Don and I have indeed forgotten more than you know. And I don't mean that in any way as a slam to your knowledge.
But stop and think about an example here. Why is it that almost everyone else here was pretty confident Pablo did the Giants a favor by not re-signing? You are still hung up on it, but all one had to do was look at Pablo's numbers -- including his weight.
Or look at Gary Brown. Some of the scouting reports questioned his discipline at the plate and his approach to the ball. Yet you ignored them (or didn't know about them) and formed your own scouting report. Then you stuck behind Gary as the negative evidence mounted up, much as you have done with Pablo.
Meanwhile, you take a GOOD player like Brandon Belt and more or less give up on him because he doesn't meet your expectations. I'm not sure he has met ANY of our expectations, but he's been a good ball player.
Some consider the Giants to have the best infield in baseball. How bad can Belt be if he's a quarter of that infield? I may be wrong about this one, but wasn't there a time early in Brandon Crawford's career when you questioned his defense? Back early in the 2011 or possibly 2012 season when he made a lot of errors?
Hey, I have been wrong about Brandon too. He's definitely become a better hitter than I ever expected him to be. On the other hand, he's a career .245 hitter whose OPS is below .700. He's way ahead NOW of where I thought he would be, but over his full career, he's been fairly close to my expectation.
But I'm going to look at Brandon objectively and give him credit for his hitting. I'm also going to give him credit for having his best defensive season, and none of them has been below-average as far as I can remember -- even the year he started out with all the errors.
Anyway, my bottom line here is that you should give me credit for what I know and also get out of the stone age with your ideas about baseball metrics.
I give you credit for having a good baseball mind. I think you've gotten away from it by being defensive and overreacting, but I've always said it's there. If you get rid of your biases and instead of deriding those who disagree with you, instead try to continue improving your baseball knowledge, you can regain what you had.
But if you're going to stick with your biases and defensiveness, you're simply going to be a clanging gong. And this ain't the Gong Show.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3011/duffy?page=1#ixzz3lWW0xE83