TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
Well there are quite a few Jamesian stat heads that are baseball writers (actually thats the basic idea of Sabermetrics), they are all over management, and many of them are even fans of baseball. I can't argue with the Veteran's Committee, any group of people whose job it is to appease the dead are ok in my book.
The problem most of us geeks have is the same thing that you have already mentioned.
They vote based on what they interpret to be valuable in REAL baseball.
Awards with such a wide open set of criteria is real easy to criticize. The criteria is one step above "Vote for the pitcher you think has the coolest name". The award criteria doesn't even mention anything about picking the most valuable. Quite often a pitcher will do better in the MVP Award voting than they do in the Cy Young award voting.
While us stat heads have to try and argue things with tangible proof, the REAL baseball fans get to simply hide behind words like valuable.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.
The big difference between the two is not in the absolute number of wins that each got, but in their winning percentages. Clemens won 14 games more than he lost! That just doesn't happen year in and year out. Obviously, he did what he had to do to win the vast majority of the games he pitched. How often does a pitcher post a winning percentage of better than .800?
Granted, if you switched Clemens and Johnson and made them pitch for each other's teams last season, Johnson would have won the Cy Young award. But you can't arbitrarily penalize Clemens just for being on a better team. (And remember, Houston was 4 games under .500 on August 15, and just 22 games over .500 at the end of the season!) 18-4 is still a great season, even on a good team.
You are right you can't arbitrarily penalize Clemens for being on a good team, but you are turning around and arbitrarily penalizing RJ for pitching on a bad team. An .800 WP is really pretty common. Pretty much every year there is at least one player who is over that rate (1989 was the last season without one). How often does a player finish the season with a WP over .500 on a team that finished anywhere near a .315 WP? RJ's wins accounted for nearly one-third of the D-Back's wins. 18-4 is a great season on a good team. 16-14 on one of the worst teams in history is even better IMO.
Tavish wrote:RJ's wins accounted for nearly one-third of the D-Back's wins. 18-4 is a great season on a good team. 16-14 on one of the worst teams in history is even better IMO.
You hit the nail on the head there. I never realized how scary those numbers were until just now. Great points Tavish.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.
Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.
Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.
I'm sure many pitchers would say that it's tougher to pitch well in a meaningless game than it is in a meaningful game. After the trade deadline, Randy was pitching for nothing but pride. He is not a FA, and plus, everyone knows what he can do anyways, so why did he even have to try? Maybe to get to 300 wins, but chances are slim he'll get there. I think he was doing it mostly for pride, whereas Clemens was doing it for a Ring (which is also a good reason).
This is silly. Couldn't you also say, with some merit, that it's harder to pitch for a team going nowhere because: A) you have the pressure to pitch a perfect game every time because your team won't score runs, and B) it's hard to "get up" for it?
Look, RJ, by any measure you can think up, had a better season. If you want to change the award to Most Valuable Pitcher--not best--than I still think Clemens doesn't win.
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.
you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.
Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.
I didnt like the fact that clemens' starts were limited to a pitch count, he rarely got passed the 6th, and his schedule was geared towards pitching at home. He was pampered in my book, which was alright, since it was part of his deal with the stros...over all I thought Roy Oswalt was that team's mvp - he had to pitch through tough innings, high pitch counts and injures.
Randy didn't have such luxuries like clemens had - he started games and intended on finishing them, in short, he did more with much much less. Then ofcourse there's the statistical arguments...
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by pitcherintherye » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:03 am 
