Statheads - The Bane of Baseball - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Statheads - The Bane of Baseball

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Mustangs989 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:42 pm

Couldn't somewhen check the IP of Rico and FatGuy to see if they are in fact the same person :-?
Image
Mustangs989
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5540
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Maybe next year...

Postby wrveres » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:27 pm

AcidRock23 wrote:how would you play fantasy baseball w/o stats?


exactly ...

if we as a group were playing baseball, Mullet would have a point.
But alas, we are not. We are playing 'fantasy baseball' and lo and behold it is based upon ... ... .. ...


stats!

imagine that ?!?!? ;-)
25                "Love the Padres"
Rafael

Dodgers FAIL|Mets FAIL|Canada FAIL
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31773
(Past Year: 758)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:49 pm

Your missing the point. Fantasy baseball players are not robots, no math equation will solve baseball. The human intangible will always come into play in real and fantasy baseball. Maybe a guy isn't happy in the clubhouse and starts not performing to his level. Could your numbers predict that? Or maybe a guy is concerned about something in his personal life and affects him during the game? Can numbers predict that. While I found you annoying at first fat guy, you earned my respect with later posts that were usually well thought out and pretty funny. Sorry to see you go. I wonder if you and Rico the Retard are the same person. Mad, check the IPs. I think Billy Beane is one of the worst things to happen to real baseball, because now everyone thinks you can plug numbers in without ever seeing a guy play and you can have a good team.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Amazinz » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:04 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:I think Billy Beane is one of the worst things to happen to real baseball, because now everyone thinks you can plug numbers in without ever seeing a guy play and you can have a good team.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody thinks this, not even Beane.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that there aren't intangibles involved in predicting a baseball player's success or lack of. Intangibles are, by definition, undefinable and statistics are so intangibles are worthless to us, the fantasy baseball player. Although the intangibles exist that statistical data is far more pertinent.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 pm

I wasn't saying that was Billy Beanes fault, he didnt say that. But just some take his word just a little too far and ignore some of that stuff. Statistcal data is more useful, but to write off intangibles as a non factor, which isn't true, is odd.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Mangey » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:34 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:I wasn't saying that was Billy Beanes fault, he didnt say that. But just some take his word just a little too far and ignore some of that stuff. Statistcal data is more useful, but to write off intangibles as a non factor, which isn't true, is odd.


That's why just about nobody does it. I'd avoid making your general claims considering this is a small sample of analysts.

But it's also ludicrous to think "intagibles" are anywhere near as accurate a success predictor as statistics. They are, by definition, impossible to quantify. They become, as Bill James so eloquently stated, "shitdumps." Basically, people cram things they can't explain into intagibles. Does this mean they are explained away? Not at all.

Of course, baseball players are real people, and need to be treated as such. But you cannot make solid predictors or estimations based on unquantifiable data. Performance statistics have proven to be exceptionally reliable in learning about the game and predicting future trends.

To make an example - take the use of relievers. Explain how inefficient it is to use a closer exclusively in save situations versus the most important situations and you'll typically get this response: "Yeah, but a closer crushes the confidence of the other team." Now, to examine this claim you'd need to survery the mental states of every team in baseball to see if they get afraid when certain closers come in. Next, you'd have to examine how this affects their performance. Quite simply, you can't. Meanwhile, numbers show that a closer protecting a 3 run lead is 99% likely to protect the lead, and an average reliever is 98% likely. But the use of intagibles allows the other party to avoid the matter by insisting that I am underestimating the psychological affect.

Sure, intagibles exist, I agree. I think most statiscians will agree. But, they cannot be quantified, and cannot be explained. Statistics can. As such, we need to use these statistics to explain trends and examine the game, because it is the only data we can form a reliable conclusion based upon.

When it comes down to it, Billy Beane isn't a demi-god or an anti-christ. It's always been a stastical game. Most of what Beane is given credit for started with Branch Rickey. Beane merely looked for what stat had the highest correlation with winning that he could get for cheap (OBP). Beane has a lot more to do with the economics of baseball than people seem to understand. Regardless, the oversimplification of statistically minded baseball fans as people who would barely even watch the game is becoming tiring.
Mangey
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 43
Joined: 5 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Rico The Retard » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:15 pm

just so your wondering i guarantee u im not fatguy go ahead and check the ip addresses if u want i aint him i dunno y he wrote that probably just to make all of you think that i was him or something
fgfdsgdsfdasfd

"Hey honey, ya think KFC's still open"-Will Ferrell

Mark my words: Oliver Perez will be 2005 NL Cy Young Winner
Rico The Retard
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5820
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Magical Valley Of Love And Happiness

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:46 pm

Mangey wrote:
CubsFan7724 wrote:I wasn't saying that was Billy Beanes fault, he didnt say that. But just some take his word just a little too far and ignore some of that stuff. Statistcal data is more useful, but to write off intangibles as a non factor, which isn't true, is odd.


That's why just about nobody does it. I'd avoid making your general claims considering this is a small sample of analysts.

But it's also ludicrous to think "intagibles" are anywhere near as accurate a success predictor as statistics. They are, by definition, impossible to quantify. They become, as Bill James so eloquently stated, "shitdumps." Basically, people cram things they can't explain into intagibles. Does this mean they are explained away? Not at all.

Of course, baseball players are real people, and need to be treated as such. But you cannot make solid predictors or estimations based on unquantifiable data. Performance statistics have proven to be exceptionally reliable in learning about the game and predicting future trends.

To make an example - take the use of relievers. Explain how inefficient it is to use a closer exclusively in save situations versus the most important situations and you'll typically get this response: "Yeah, but a closer crushes the confidence of the other team." Now, to examine this claim you'd need to survery the mental states of every team in baseball to see if they get afraid when certain closers come in. Next, you'd have to examine how this affects their performance. Quite simply, you can't. Meanwhile, numbers show that a closer protecting a 3 run lead is 99% likely to protect the lead, and an average reliever is 98% likely. But the use of intagibles allows the other party to avoid the matter by insisting that I am underestimating the psychological affect.

Sure, intagibles exist, I agree. I think most statiscians will agree. But, they cannot be quantified, and cannot be explained. Statistics can. As such, we need to use these statistics to explain trends and examine the game, because it is the only data we can form a reliable conclusion based upon.

When it comes down to it, Billy Beane isn't a demi-god or an anti-christ. It's always been a stastical game. Most of what Beane is given credit for started with Branch Rickey. Beane merely looked for what stat had the highest correlation with winning that he could get for cheap (OBP). Beane has a lot more to do with the economics of baseball than people seem to understand. Regardless, the oversimplification of statistically minded baseball fans as people who would barely even watch the game is becoming tiring.
Ya I understand that. Statistics are used for trends, but I just dont like the idea that anyone can think they can solve baseball or any sport with a mathmatical equation or just numbers. I mean look at the NFL and look how many guys fall because they had a bad 40 time at the combine. Just sort of angers me when people just plug in numbers instead of also analyzing raw talent. On intangibles, of course they cant be quantified, thats what makes them intangible. When did I ever say that intangibles were as good for predicting as stats? I agree stats are better for projecting over trends obviously. (Im guessing those numbers you used in the reliever example was snatched out of the air. ;-) ) But on a side note, Id like to see the closers averages in non save situations as compared to save situations. Anywhere can I get those numbers?
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Mangey » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:13 pm

Part of it was in response to the more in general thread - and possibly my own extrapolations of it - I didn't intend to imply you stated all that I was reacting to.

In regard to those numbers, I didn't pull them out of the air - but my source may have. Bill James mentions them in the "New Historical Baseball Abstract" - but only offhandedly, so I cannot confirm if they are accurate or invented.

The best available resource I know to figure that out would be time consuming beyond belief, and that would be to use retrosheet.org and do it manually.

On that topic, since you noted you were interested, the key component is that relievers today are used to oftentimes protect 2 and 3 run leads, a situation that any team is unlikely to lose over the course of one inning. Many more games are lost in situations where the teams are tied or only up by 1 run, meaning each run prevented is much more valuable in these situations than in many save situations. I highly recommend the Historical Abstract, it features a great article on the subject, and is in general, great reading.
Mangey
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 43
Joined: 5 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pomplona's finest » Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:24 am

Rico The Retard wrote:just so your wondering i guarantee u im not fatguy go ahead and check the ip addresses if u want i aint him i dunno y he wrote that probably just to make all of you think that i was him or something


Wouldn't it be funny if fatguy and rico were the same person? If you think about their history it sorta all makes sense.

Fatguy seems like a true intellectual who sometimes makes interesting arguments, and other times burst out with stupid comments and strange ideas. Rico is the freewheeling personality if you will, who lets loose and attempts to keep the two identities from merging.

And Rico how do we know you arent using different computers? ;-)
[URL=http://www.imageshack.us]Image[/URL]

AKA IRON CHEF

Member #5 of the Inaugural Yadier Molina Fan Club!!!
pomplona's finest
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 3062
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dirt Farming in Madagascar

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: joiingds and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Baltimore at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Houston at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
San Francisco at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Tampa Bay at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Atlanta at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Seattle at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Kansas City at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Pittsburgh at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Miami at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Diego at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
LA Angels at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
NY Mets at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact