If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Matt Moore becomes the youngest pitcher to start 8-0 since some guy named Babe Ruth. That's just nutty   (bloomberg.com) divider line 75
    More: Cool, Matt Moore, Babe Ruth, American League, Rays, guy named, Justin Masterson, Yankees, Joe Maddon  
•       •       •

631 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 May 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 07:31:34 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Nice stat for trends.

So what part of leaving Dempster in too long helped establish a trend?

Forcing a situation to gain a stat is not the same thing as earning a stat normally.


So I tell a story, and you reply with something that has nothing to do with that story? Cool.

bhcompy: If you have a broken ankle and you're short a few at-bats, your coach would be stupid for putting you in to meet the minimum.


Especially since, unless your name is Melky Cabrera and the year is 2012, those ABs are added automatically.
 
2013-05-20 07:44:28 PM
Although, in fairness, if it wasn't for wins, I never would've known about this neat trend:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?t=p&id=parrama01&ye ar =2009#58-61-sum

4 wins in 4 games? He must've been the best pitcher in the game!
 
2013-05-20 07:55:32 PM

DeWayne Mann: Although, in fairness, if it wasn't for wins, I never would've known about this neat trend:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?t=p&id=parrama01&ye ar =2009#58-61-sum

4 wins in 4 games? He must've been the best pitcher in the game!


And who treats wins like that?  Do you treat batting average like that? Home runs? OBP? OPS+? WAR? No, you don't, so quit being a tool.  It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.  Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"
 
2013-05-20 07:59:22 PM

bhcompy: And who treats wins like that?


People that don't think wins are worthless, presumably.

bhcompy: Do you treat batting average like that?


Me? No. Other people? Absolutely.

bhcompy: It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.


Oh, LONG TERM trends.

Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

bhcompy: Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"


Except for all the many, many times that doesn't work, sure.
 
2013-05-20 08:02:59 PM

DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?


Where did I say that? Can you even read?
 
2013-05-20 08:06:12 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?


No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?
 
2013-05-20 08:10:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?


No, you can brush up on your reading comprehension
 
2013-05-20 08:13:12 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

No, I guess I can't read. Because I was pretty sure you said they worked for trends, and yet they don't seem to work for short OR long term trends. So I must've read wrong.

Care to try again?

No, you can brush up on your reading comprehension


Well, I just read and understood 5 words in a row. What a good trend I'm on!

I mean, sure, 3 of them were "a" and the other two were "the." And I got a lot of help from these 9 other guys who explained them to me. But those words totally belong to me.
 
2013-05-20 08:51:19 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?


You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?
 
2013-05-20 08:55:03 PM

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?


Way to show the world that you're an illiterate moron. CLEARLY, what he said was "wins show trends when I want them to but not other times when they don't."

Why can't you see that?
 
2013-05-20 09:15:46 PM

DeWayne Mann: chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: Like how Felix Hernandez has 103 wins in his career, but in the same amount of time, Bronson Arroyo has 109 and Josh Beckett has 106. All equally good, yeah?

Where did I say that? Can you even read?

You said that pitcher Wins illustrate a long-term trend for how a pitcher is doing.  So, since these guys all have about the same amount of Wins over a long term, what does that tell you about them?  All doing about equally well, but Arroyo is the best?

Way to show the world that you're an illiterate moron. CLEARLY, what he said was "wins show trends when I want them to but not other times when they don't."

Why can't you see that?


For the reading impaired: Worthless? Nah.  Nice stat for trends.  Are there better stats? Sure.  But this is an easy stat to understand. It's a simple barometer for a long term trend.  Not definitive, but easy for everyone to look at and say "yea, he's doing alright"

No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".  Reading: So hard.
 
2013-05-20 09:18:50 PM

bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".


Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.
 
2013-05-20 09:21:56 PM

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.


To whom?
 
2013-05-20 09:23:55 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?


Well, let's see.

You can't use them to compare two pitchers.

You can't use them to determine anything about how good a pitcher is.

You CAN use them for some nebulous idea of a "trend," except there are several far better stats that can do that too.

...so I'd say that means they're worthless to everyone.
 
2013-05-20 09:28:28 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?


Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?
 
2013-05-20 09:31:12 PM

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?


Shoot, even that tells me more than wins. Clearly, Bronson Arroyo read the rule book one or twice.
 
2013-05-20 09:37:49 PM

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, you're saying it shouldn't be used "for comparison basis" and that it doesn't indicate "superiority or skill".  So I guess it's worthless.

Let's say you asked me if Felix Hernandez or Bronson Arroyo was a better pitcher and I said "Felix has balked 7 times.  Arroyo only 4."  Wouldn't that be a worthless stat?


All stats have value, it's context that matters, but you knew that.

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: No where does it say that "this stat can and should be used for comparison basis", nor does it say that "this stat should be measured quantitatively as a ranking mechanism to indicate superiority or skill".

Ohhhhhh. Ok, lightbulb on. Everything clicks now.

You're saying that they're worthless. 100% agreed.

To whom?

Well, let's see.

You can't use them to compare two pitchers.

You can't use them to determine anything about how good a pitcher is.

You CAN use them for some nebulous idea of a "trend," except there are several far better stats that can do that too.

...so I'd say that means they're worthless to everyone.


Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less.  It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.  Of course, Moneyball explains this concept quite well.
 
2013-05-20 09:40:58 PM

bhcompy: All stats have value, it's context that matters, but you knew that.


Ok, I'll give wins a value of .000000001, where Quality Starts have a value of 10 and FIP- has a value of 15 billion.

Fair enough?

bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis. Of course, Moneyball explains this concept quite well.


So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.
 
2013-05-20 09:45:36 PM

DeWayne Mann: So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.


Dumb enough to get paid a lot of money to do what you're doing without the armchair.  If those idiots are the ones getting paid hundreds of thousands to millions, how does that reflect on you?
 
2013-05-20 09:50:53 PM

bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.


Well, that must explain why high-strikeout guys like Josh Hamilton, Curtis Granderson, Dan Uggla, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, and Adam Dunn all make the major league minimum, therefore Placido Polanco is automatically President and Reggie Jackson has to sponge bath David Ortiz.

Kyle Lohse had the best winning percentage in baseball last year.  I recall that teams were engaged in a bidding war of epic proportions over him this past offseason.

You are smart and understand how baseball teams make personnel evaluations.  Don't let every person you open your mouth in front of tell you otherwise, sweetie-cakes.
 
2013-05-20 09:51:31 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: So because dumb GMs and a stupid arbitration system exist, wins are a good stat?

Awesome.

Dumb enough to get paid a lot of money to do what you're doing without the armchair.  If those idiots are the ones getting paid hundreds of thousands to millions, how does that reflect on you?


Well, ignoring the fact that I have absolutely no desire to do anything related to baseball as a career...

You know who else got paid millions of bucks? The CEOs of Lehman Bros, Goldman-Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc.

But hey, those guys clearly knew better than everyone warning about things like subprime mortgages.
 
2013-05-20 10:59:24 PM

chimp_ninja: bhcompy: Yet MLB will give 20 game winners more money while giving guys who strike out "too much" less. It's as if you're not employed by every major league team making personnel decisions, or at least that value is variable on a team to team and person to person basis.

Well, that must explain why high-strikeout guys like Josh Hamilton, Curtis Granderson, Dan Uggla, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, and Adam Dunn all make the major league minimum, therefore Placido Polanco is automatically President and Reggie Jackson has to sponge bath David Ortiz.

Kyle Lohse had the best winning percentage in baseball last year.  I recall that teams were engaged in a bidding war of epic proportions over him this past offseason.

You are smart and understand how baseball teams make personnel evaluations.  Don't let every person you open your mouth in front of tell you otherwise, sweetie-cakes.


Are you Ricky Bobby?  Everything is binary with you.  If you aren't first, you're last, apparently.

And for every Hamilton making a quarter billion there's a Dunn making a few tens of million.  Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.
 
2013-05-20 11:02:20 PM

bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.


You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.
 
2013-05-20 11:35:48 PM

DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.

You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.


For a very good power hitter it is respectable, but not great considering all of the players in front of him on the salary scale.
 
2013-05-20 11:41:58 PM

bhcompy: DeWayne Mann: bhcompy: Dunn has a respectable contract, but not a great one by any means considering his comparable non-traditional statistics compared to some of the other names you mentioned.

You are aware that Dunn can't play defense, right? And yet, he's STILL making 4/56.

But apparently that's only "respectable" in your world.

For a very good power hitter it is respectable, but not great considering all of the players in front of him on the salary scale.


And how many of those people play what is quite possibly the worst defense OF ALL TIME?

I mean, shoot. When Adam Dunn signed his contract with the White Sox (which, again, pays him an average of 14 million a year), his career OPS+ was 133, and he was coming off a season with a 138 OPS+.

David Ortiz's career OPS+ RIGHT NOW is 138. And do you know what his highest salary in any season was? 14.575 million (though he has a small chance of making 15 this year).

So how much, exactly, do you think Dunn should be making?
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report