An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
AcidRock23 wrote:how would you play fantasy baseball w/o stats?
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.
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.
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?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.
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
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests