rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 4, 2019 8:30:01 GMT -5
What you wrote is that there is a conspiracy theory against the Sharks. If life is just one big conspiracy theory, the world is a dark place to live in. No wonder you seem unhappy.
You cited some good facts. But your conclusion ran amuck from the very beginning.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 4, 2019 8:43:35 GMT -5
What is great about the Sharks is that they've hung in there without 38-goal scorer and captain Joe Pavelski. When you score the first goal of the playoffs with your chin and then suffer an even more devastating injury later, you realize just how tough a sport hockey is. In the playoffs, hockey's players play through incredible injuries.
Joe Pavelski is one of the best players in NHL history to be drafted above #200, and he's truly one of the good guys. And then there's Brett Burns, who is a huge freak in a similar sense to Tim Lincecum's being a tiny freak.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 4, 2019 10:20:00 GMT -5
the facts point to a clear bias...you can't really refute that except to call me a conspiracy theorist. Ive been watching it for so many years now it's pretty frustrating but this year it is particularly angering because the Sharks finally have the roster and the mindset to bring the first major championship to my hometown. But the powers that be have decided that other teams have a more sexy story than the Sharks and should be aided as much as possible. You can hear it in the way the broadcasters blatantly root on Colorado...it makes me sick.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 5, 2019 0:32:16 GMT -5
In case you missed it, another Sharks goal erased by the league on a bullshit call tonight
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 5, 2019 1:25:03 GMT -5
And Colorado's only goal was kicked in...no review
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 5, 2019 12:02:01 GMT -5
If you want to espouse a conspiracy theory against the Sharks, why not start with their not being allowed to draft Eric Lindros in their first year of existence? That was a strange and as far as I know unprecedented one. That bothers me more than random calls and how announcers "sound" to someone.
But it's like I didn't agree with the Kentucky Derby winner's being taken down when I didn't see any significant interference with the horse that was declared the winner. The fact is that the stewards know a whole lot more about it than I, and it would be rather foolish of me to come up with a conspiracy theory based on their decision.
Incidentally, I notice that you haven't said that most of these "questionable" calls are wrong; merely that they've gone against the Sharks. Certainly it did appear that Timo Meier committed a high stick prior to the goal, which should properly wipe it out, shouldn't it?
But since there are going to be questionable calls and some of those are going to go against the team in question, it's easy to come up with a conspiracy theory. And it's truly hard to prove absolutely that one oesn't exist, even if it doesn't.
Perhaps one question to ask is why? Why would the league prefer both the Golden Knights and the Avalanche over the Sharks?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 5, 2019 12:09:56 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 5, 2019 12:47:12 GMT -5
Meier's stick was lifted by Tyson Barrie right into the head of the other dude. No way he could have done anything about it.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 6, 2019 13:39:38 GMT -5
You're the only person I've heard a Sharks conspiracy theory from, but there are tons of conspiracy theories in the NHL. I guess it's just an unfortunate part of human nature.
Dood - here's a popular conspiracy theory...the one that says that just because most baseball organizations have jumped to the fad of using ridiculous analytics, that must mean that it's a winning strategy.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 6, 2019 20:15:32 GMT -5
Dood - here's a popular conspiracy theory...the one that says that just because most baseball organizations have jumped to the fad of using ridiculous analytics, that must mean that it's a winning strategy. Rog -- The thing is that there is a strong correlation between the usage of analytics and playing winning baseball. That's why so many teams have gone that direction. When something is successful, it tends to get imitated. Randy, you really should try to learn more about baseball. You know a lot already, but you're way behind the times. I have tried for years now to learn more and more about our grand old game. There are things you and others here know that I don't. I would like to learn from you guys, but you don't seem to want to share. I realize that you sometimes feel that it is pointless to try to teach me anything because I'm incapable of learning anyway. But in reality, I am very open to learning. You mentioned in a post that I had no idea how it felt to have a barking elbow while trying to pitch deeply into a game, and I mentioned that I had indeed pitched with a sore arm until being told by my coach not to do that. I asked about what was essentially the last time I hurt my arm seriously but didn't even feel any pain until the next time out when I thought I was going to tear my shoulder if I threw hard. I asked about how that might have happened, but no one bothered to reply. Anyway, my point is that I'm willing and in fact eager to learn. I know a fair amount, but I DON'T know everything by any means. But I feel like there are a lot of things I know that others haven't explored, and there just doesn't seem to be much interest in learning here by many others. I'm eager to learn as much as I can, but I feel I don't get exposed to nearly enough new ideas. Others here seem to have a chance to explore new areas, but don't seem to have much interest. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=2#ixzz5nBFGtHaf
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 6, 2019 20:23:03 GMT -5
Then how come the Giants aren't playing winning baseball with the biggest stats geek of them all in charge?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 6, 2019 21:53:06 GMT -5
Then how come the Giants aren't playing winning baseball with the biggest stats geek of them all in charge? Rog -- Now, that's a good question. The first thing I should probably point out is that I don't think Farhan is more stats oriented than many others (not that that would be a horrible thing). Remember, he was in charge of the Dodgers' amateur scouting, and as far as I know, analytics are less informative at the amateur level. But most important is that we should expect a lag time. Remember, Farhan was given something of an unplayable lie. That's something you yourself hinted at when you said the Giants should simply blow it up. That's pretty much what the Astros did -- and Houston won a World Series seven years later. There's a bit of a lag time, especially when ownership is loathe to turn the page,and the rebuild is held back by assets that aren't very valuable and/or are quite difficult to trade. Madison Bumgarner is the biggest trade asset the Giants have, and even if a team traded for Madison today, it wouldn't get a lot more than 25 starts from him the rest of the season -- at which point he can become a free agent. And the team that trades for him can't even make him a qualifying offer to try to keep his signing price down. Any player traded this close to potential free agency becomes exempt from the limitations of a qualifying offer. You would have already traded Brandon Belt. Ignoring that the Giants are pretty short on a replacement, Brandon is owed close to three years at $16 million per. That may not make him overpaid, but it doesn't make him cheap. And he can block trades to a dozen or so teams. How many contenders are there who need a strong two-way first baseman whose power performance has been held in check by his home park? If it's not more than a dozen -- and it probably isn't nearly that many -- Brandon can effectively block any trade that would be reasonable for the Giants. Brandon Crawford has a full no-trade deal, as does Buster Posey. Evan Longoria is owed about $60 million, and why would anyone want to play even two-thirds that much for him? Maybe not even half that much. Will Smith is a valuable chip, but like Madison, he's controllable for only 80% of a season. Tony Watson isn't bad, but he's controllable for only 1.8 seasons. Sam Dyson can become a free agent after the season. The Giants are limited in their trading ability. They DO have potential pitching replacements, and pitching should be in demand. I have confidence that Farhan will be able to make lemonade out of what might be at least in part more flavorable than lemons. But you say to simply blow it up. The amount the Giants could have gotten over the winter for their assets was depressed. I think the value is slowly returning as some of the players are bouncing back from what was almost universally a bad Giants 2018. But while asking why Farhan hasn't yet made the Giants a contender is an intriguing question, when we examine it, we realize that not only would that be asking the near-impossible at this point, even for someone with Farhan's credentials, it's far from a slam dunk heading forward. I'm excited by the trades I feel the Giants will be making over the next year or so, but at least as important is drafting, signing and developing young players for the future. The Astros were very successful in their effort, even though one might argue they didn't face some of the obstacles the Giants now face. But it took them seven years. You've asked for similar results in less than seven months, and that simply isn't reasonable. I think everyone would be elated if Farhan could enjoy the same success Bruce Bochy has enjoyed with the Giants. But we shouldn't forget that Bruce's first season the Giants were 20 games under .500, and the second they were 18. We probably shouldn't forget that Farhan inherited a situation where they were 34 games and 16 games under .500. I think Farhan will become a fine GM. I don't expect him to be a miracle worker. Bruce wasn't a miracle worker, but his time with the Giants will get him into the Hall of Fame. I'd settle for that from Farhan. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=2#ixzz5nCbllv9Y
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 6, 2019 22:26:16 GMT -5
But while asking why Farhan hasn't yet made the Giants a contender is an intriguing question, when we examine it, we realize that not only would that be asking the near-impossible at this point, even for someone with Farhan's credentials, it's far from a slam dunk heading forward
Dood - but you said stats geekery makes a team an instant winner
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 6, 2019 22:51:03 GMT -5
but you said stats geekery makes a team an instant winner Rog -- Actually, Randy, I said the opposite. I pointed out it took the Astros seven years plus from high draft choices to World Championship. Here's something to consider: I believe Farhan's reputation in the industry is on a par with Bruce's reputation when Bruce was hired. If anything, and I don't truly know the reason for this -- I'm a bit surprised -- Farhan's reputation seems to be even better. Now of course he's got to prove he's worthy of the reputation. I have a high level of confidence he will do so. Am I certain? No, I'm not. Life isn't that simple, and Farhan isn't perfect. But my confidence level is high, and that's usually a good thing. Think back to three years ago. Boly, who is one of the smartest baseball men we know, argued that the 2016 Giants were the best team in SF Giants history. I didn't buy into that hype; I could see that the Four A players were somehow heroes day after day, which was something that simply couldn't keep up over the long haul. In the season's second half, I believe the Giants were MLB's second-worst team, and they barely held on to make the playoffs. I didn't get overly excited then, and I don't believe I'm overly excited now. I don't know for sure that the Giants will become truly good, and in a best-case scenario, I expect it to take a fair amount of time. But I am confident that they have the proper guidance to get things turned around. The next several months will have one other very exciting avenue: The Giants need to make a smart choice for their new manager. It will be important that the new manager is analytically oriented, but it will also be imperative he has that traditional baseball knowledge you cherish. I recently realized that my son has a job with Fox Sports that is comparable in some ways to a job that is highly important in MLB. There are many, many differences, but my son learns what management wants and then "translates" that to the techy guys who have to build it. In MLB, GM's agree that a key role of a manager or coaches or preferably more than one is to "translate" the analytics to the players who "build" the baseball product. It doesn't matter how much a player can learn from analytics if he can't be taught how to understand and apply it. It is criticial that there be guys who can put analytics together with traditional baseball and make the combination understandable and able to be applied. When my son called me one Saturday morning from the Giants' dugout in Dodger Stadium (He works for Fox Sports in LA), it had nothing to do with his role as a "translator" for Fox Sports. It had nothing at all to do with the Giants. It had a lot to do with is being a big Giants fan and knowing that his dad was an even bigger one. I was indeed pretty excited to get that call. I recently got to visit my first grandchild for the first time. My grandson is far too young to have any clue what a Giants game would be, but my son was hoping we could visit when the Giants were in LA, and he, my grandson and I could attend our first Giants game. He definitely remembers his first Giants game, even though he was three (I think) or possibly four. He was young enough that I fortunately did a play-by-play to help him comprehend what was going on. Given that it turned out he had congenital cataracts and really couldn't see what was going on, that turned out to be wiser than I ever imagined. He became a huge Giants fan -- until my dad, one of the biggest Giants fans ever -- died. Then he lost interest. Ironically or coincidentally, I invited him to go with me and two of my friends to see Tim Lincecum's debut -- a dozen year ago today -- because as I told him, it was something I thought he might some day want to tell his grand kids about. The unexpected offshoot is that attending the game, including meeting Tim's dad, rekindled his love of the Giants. And led to his call from the Giants dugout two summers ago. Hopefully he'll get another chance to root for a winner. I'm confident he -- and you and I -- will do just that, with patience. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=2#ixzz5nCqXfwSz
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 6, 2019 23:48:49 GMT -5
I believe Farhan's reputation in the industry is on a par with Bruce's reputation when Bruce was hired.
Dood - if you truly believe that you are far more stupid than I thought
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 2:21:41 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 7, 2019 3:18:31 GMT -5
easy....stats geeks will never get it no matter how often you try to explain it...just ask Boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 12:36:04 GMT -5
Randy, I could teach you basic accounting in five minutes. Surely you can explain in a couple of hundred words just what it is that I don't understand.
Your job should be an easy one. I am well aware that there are many things about the game I DON'T know (or at least haven't experienced at a high level), and I'm eager to learn. You've got an eager, captive audience here. Pull me in deeper.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 7, 2019 13:00:46 GMT -5
For the hundredth time, I have tried and tried to explain what you seem hell bent against understanding...so I give up. Boly has also tried at least a hundred more times. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 13:50:21 GMT -5
So you're saying you can't give it 100 more words for a guy who has told you he's eager to learn? If you all of a sudden decided you wanted to learn how analytics might aid you, I'd spend hours to help you. You can't spare 100 words?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 7, 2019 14:30:56 GMT -5
I will give it one more try.
Yes one can understand the game from level if you have never played.
But the key word here is "intellectual" level.
If someone hasn't been on the field, if they haven't been between the chalk lines, if they haven't faced good fastballs, if they haven't faced hard sliders, if they haven't experienced getting a bad hop on a ground ball in the infield, if they haven't tried to catch a line drive knuckleball anywhere on the field, if you haven't been in the Dugout and experienced the player's frustration, if you haven't been on the mound trying to throw strikes in a precise location, understanding the game from an intellectual level is moot. It means nothing.
It would be like me trying to learn sign language from a book and saying I understood sign language.: and what it's like to be a deaf person.
Until I actually get out into the field so to speak, and attempt to sign to someone else to be understood, all of my learning is intellectual.
Sure,I know the rudimentary fundamentals of the language, but that's all I have. The rudimentary fundamentals.
But knowing how to sign does not make me understand what it's like to be a deaf person trying to survive in a world of hearing filled people.
My intellectual knowledge simply is not enough.
And that's what it's like for people who only understand the sabermetrics, the statistics of the game.
They get the intellectual portion of the game but they don't understand the inside part of the game and they never can until they get on the field.
there is simply no other way to explain it Rodger.
That's the best that I can.
You may not agree, but as Randy and I have continually said if you haven't played the game you just don't know.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 16:01:13 GMT -5
I appreciate the explanation, Boly. And I believe I do understand what you're saying. And I believe that just as learning sign language can't help me a whole lot to understand what a deaf person feels like, what you have experienced would allow you to play baseball at a higher level than I, even if we were of equal ability. As they say, there's just no substitute for experience, and direct experience goes far beyond what one can learn from a book when it comes to playing the game well.
But understanding the game as opposed to playing it? I think that's a different ball of wax.
Let me use umpiring as an example. There are things I've experienced as an umpire that you haven't, and that would allow me to call balls and strikes from behind the plate better than you. But that doesn't mean you don't understand the strike zone. That doesn't mean you can't see a missed call, especially with all the replay available.
Now, I'm hoping that if I'm missing something, you and Randy and others can teach me what that is, and its importance. But when I talked to a guy who recently pitched three years in the minors and two years in independent leagues, who played three years of college and coached for USF for three more years, he at first said that, yeah, there probably were things I couldn't understand. In fact, he said he was passionate about it, and since he was at work, could he call me back later to discuss it?
He called back the following night and we talked for perhaps half an hour. I really enjoyed the conversation, but he couldn't really come up with anything specific. Finally he said that it was more intense in college than in high school. Not exactly a revelation.
A minor league trainer talked to my good friend and told him how amazingly well the minor leaguers were at seeing the spin on the ball. Again, not a revelation. Eddie Bressoud told him that it was hard for the fan to understand how fast the game is. In terms of trying to react to a 95 mph fastball, I'm sure he's right. But I have a pretty good idea how fast the game is. If nothing else, umpiring showed me how quickly a fastball in the 90's covers what turns out to be maybe not a lot more than 55 feet.
I have a hard time thinking you understand a lot more IMPORTANT things to understanding the game when you say that you think for instance that Brandon Crawford is a better fielder than Andrelton Simmons. If one watches their highlight films, one sees Simmons make plays we don't see Crawford making, and we don't see many that Brandon makes that we don't see Andrelton duplicating. And we see even fewer plays that Crawford makes that it appears Andrelton wouldn't make if given the same opportunity.
You make the argument that Brandon has better fundamentals, and I won't argue with that. With the exception of perhaps Omar Vizquel, Brandon is about as smooth a shortstop as one will find. But what makes a fielder great is making the plays, and I've seen many plays that Simmons made that Brandon simply hasn't made.
You said that Brandon makes the routine play better than Simmons. I'm guessing you've seen Simmons boot an easy play or two. But while errors certainly aren't anything approaching a complete guage of fielding prowess, they help us see how often a guy misses a routine play.
Despite Simmons' willingness to make unorthodox jump throws that one would think would lead to more throwing errors, his ultra-strong arm (even stronger than Brandon's as exhibited by his being signed as a pitcher) and accuracy have allowed him to make throwing errors no more frequently than Brandon. And when it comes to fielding errors, he's made them about half as frequently as Brandon has.
One might define routine plays as those on which a fielder has a 90% of higher chance of completing the play successfully. Professional observers who have seen every play made by both shortstops show that Brandon has missed 2.2% of those plays, whereas Simmons has missed just 1.3%. Simmons has graded out higher at virtually every degree of difficulty.
I have no doubt that you know more about how to field a grounder than I do. I have no doubt that you know more about how to set yourself for the throw. But there is almost no doubt that Simmons has been a better fielder than Brandon (even tough Brandon has been great), and I don't understand how you can fail to see that, yet still think you see things I can't see that are important to understanding the game.
Everybody here disagreed when I questioned whether it was wrong for Javier Baez to bunt with two strikes in the World Series. But the reason given was that it just wasn't done. And that isn't true. It was done in the World Series by Manny Machado a couple of years later -- successfully. I'm almost positive it had been done previously under the direction of Roger Craig. You guys weren't willing to discuss how Baez was in such a horrible slump that he was swinging and missing at almost everything -- including pitches outside the strike zone. In your minds, what was there to discuss? It simply wasn't done (even though it had and has been).
Now, if I'm missing something important, I don't spend hours each day studying the game not to know what that is. Help me to understand it. But when within the past month I discussed it with a guy who recently has been associated for several years with the game at higher levels than anyone here, he couldn't really come up with anything -- even though at first he thought you guys must be right.
By the way, there are a LOT of things I don't understand fully about football, basketball and hockey, even though I'm a huge fan of those sports and do know a fair amount about them. But I know more about baseball than I know about any other sport. And with you guys helping, maybe I can learn even more.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 7, 2019 16:11:25 GMT -5
OMG line drive knuckleballs...especially low ones that skip and give you a lovely shinburger, as Kruk calls it. I still have marks on me from plays like that.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 16:51:03 GMT -5
You don't have have played at a very high level, Randy, to have had knuckle balls hit at -- and off -- you. That happens even in softball.
As a kid I was lucky in that my dad threw a knuckleball, so I caught and hit them from a fairly young age. Having them hit AT you is definitely a little different though.
But, Randy, just what is it that someone like me can't understand that is critical to understanding the game? If you want to talk strategy, I can talk strategy with you about as well as anyone. If you want to rate players, I can do that too. I can discuss a particular play with you.
Now, I can't tell you how to hit the curve ball, although I can throw one. There are SENSATIONS you have had that I haven't experienced, but I have a pretty good idea what I see when I see it. When we discuss plays here, usually no one goes into the detail I go into.
But again, I'm willing to learn whatever you will teach me. I've had balls hit off my shins, but I'm not sure what that taught me about strategy, or about positioning, or about player evaluation or about when to pinch hit or pinch run, or when to take a pitcher out.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 7, 2019 17:03:14 GMT -5
I can tell you what I see on a piece of canvas...that doesn't make me an artist
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 20:24:25 GMT -5
I can tell you what I see on a piece of canvas...that doesn't make me an artist Rog -- I think you just hit the nail on the head. It most certainly doesn't make you an artist. But if you've studied the theory of art, you might be a good art CRITIC. Let me ask you this, Randy: If you were evaluating a player, what would you be able to see as a player who has played above the high school level that a guy like me, who hasn't played above that level, couldn't see? And then let's bring that back to a guy like Alen Hanson. Boly and I seem to have seen Alen a lot more clearly than you. In Boly's case, he has probably played baseball at an even higher level than you. In my case, that isn't a factor. How then was I able to judge Hanson so much better than you? And if there are things that you can teach me, I would hope that in the future I would be able to evaluate players even BETTER. And that, who knows, maybe I could share some things with you that might help you as well. I think your point about Gary Brown's not having the want-to may be on point with regard to our differences in evaluating him. And the sad and ironic thing is that I believe now that it's too late, he has the want-to. Now he more appreciates what he missed out on. You could look him up online if you want to learn more, or simply look back at some of my posts on Gary. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=2#ixzz5nI9OCDux
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 7, 2019 20:41:31 GMT -5
I believe there are things EACH of us sees that others here don't see. I think that we can each learn from each other.
Where I'm still struggling though is just what it is that I'm missing that keeps me from understanding the game but has allowed me to make a better evaluation of both Gary Brown and Alen Hanson and almost certainly of Andrelton Simmons as well.
The funny thing about Brandon Crawford -- whom I admire a great deal, by the way -- is that while I have admitted that at his peak he was a better hitter than I expected, over his full career his numbers are pretty close to what I thought, and by the time he retires, they'll likely be right on target.
Brandon has become a better fielder than I expected him to be. I have mentioned that at one time, Ehire Adrianza was rated ahead of Brandon as a fielder, although I never liked Ehire's hitting at all and have actually underrated him as a hitter much more than I've underrated Brandon.
Look at some of the other guys like Austin Slater. Boly liked Austin's hitting, and while I hope that Austin will reach Boly's expectations some day (and can see that he has changed his plate approach), Austin hasn't yet become a very good hitter. Let's hope Mac Williamson will provide an example of a guy who changed his approach and it made a huge difference. Prior to his injury last season, that appeared to be the case.
Aramis Garcia is another players I think some here believe is a better hitter than I do. Kelby Tomlinson, as much as I love the way he plays the game. Jarrett Parker. Although I think Randy still UNDERrates Joe, Panik has turned out to be closer to the hitter I expected than to the one Boly thought he saw. Or perhaps a better way to put it with Joe is that I downgraded my opinion more quickly than Boly did.
I overrated Brandon Belt, but after a season I amended my expectations, and since then he's played at right about my new expected level. He has been hurt by Oracle perhaps more than any other hitter, and he's simply a much better player than Randy believes.
I don't believe anyone here was more cautious about Evan Longoria than I. To me, Evan's 2017 season was extremely worrisome. I believed Pablo had a chance when he Giants re-signed him, since he had hit the ball decently his final season with the Red Sox and controlled the plate much better with Sacramento before he was called up.
Hey, I don't want to make it seem that I'm always right. I'm not. But for all this inside knowledge you and Boly say you have, Randy, how is it that I'm able to predict players at least as well as you guys?
Again, I want to learn from you guys. No one here spends as much time learning about the game as I, which would seem to show that I love to learn about it. But I'm just not seeing how the things I don't yet know are preventing me from seeing the game as well as you guys do.
You see things I miss, and I see things you guys don't. Hopefully we can each help each other do better. But I simply don't see how my knowledge hole is so big that it's preventing me from seeing the game as clearly as you guys. Whatever size the hole is, I want to shrink it. But it didn't interfere with my view of Gary Brown or Alen Hanson or Andrelton Simmons or the 2016 Giants, who somehow WEREN'T the best SF Giants team ever despite their fabulous first half.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on May 7, 2019 21:21:37 GMT -5
Let me ask you this, Randy: If you were evaluating a player, what would you be able to see as a player who has played above the high school level that a guy like me, who hasn't played above that level, couldn't see?
Dood - everything...because all you see is numbers and acronyms
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 8, 2019 0:11:30 GMT -5
That was a highly informative answer, Randy. Before, I had no idea what you meant. Now I can clearly see every single item I to learn.
Basically, it appears you're not up to the challenge. Too bad. I was hoping I could learn something.
You could too. We could have a nice exchange of ideas. But it appears you're simply obfuscating.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on May 10, 2019 2:10:19 GMT -5
I can tell you what I see on a piece of canvas...that doesn't make me an artist Rog -- I can tell you what I see during a ball game. That indeed doesn't make me a ballplayer. But it makes me a highly knowledgable fan. There are things you know that I don't, and there are things I know that you don't. So why don't you try to teach me some of the things I don't know? And why don't you start by asking me what I DO know about a particular topic, so you know where to begin teaching me? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5237/thing-rog-agree-on?page=2#ixzz5nVGP1oaV
|
|