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.

(CBS Sports)   Biggest complaint against newer baseball statistics is that if it's not good enough to be on the back of baseball cards who needs it? Topps: Well, about that   (cbssports.com) divider line 109
    More: Interesting, Topps, sabermetrics, D-War, baseball cards, statistics, OPS  
•       •       •

2600 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Jul 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-27 08:33:46 AM  
Will they also be including how many ccs of PEDs were injected into the player in a season?
 
2013-07-27 10:14:46 AM  
I wanna know the types of drug enhancers each player is taking.
 
2013-07-27 10:14:52 AM  
If THAT'S the biggest complaint, I clearly haven't been doing my job here right.
 
2013-07-27 10:22:43 AM  

DeWayne Mann: If THAT'S the biggest complaint, I clearly haven't been doing my job here right.


In fairness, most people that defend the "traditional" stats are, well...      dumb. So it'd probably take a pretty dumb argument to change their minds.
 
2013-07-27 10:24:28 AM  

YoungLochinvar: DeWayne Mann: If THAT'S the biggest complaint, I clearly haven't been doing my job here right.

In fairness, most people that defend the "traditional" stats are, well...      dumb. So it'd probably take a pretty dumb argument to change their minds.


All I can think of right now is the infamous Jeff Francouer quote "If OBP is so important, why isn't it on the scoreboard," which he said while playing for a team that displayed OBP on the scoreboard.
 
2013-07-27 10:26:06 AM  
No, the biggest compliant about the new statistics is that their proponents think they are superior in every way to the old stats and even to the point of totally replacing scouting all together.
 
2013-07-27 10:27:10 AM  
I only buy Topps for the bubblegum.
 
2013-07-27 10:29:47 AM  
The biggest complaint about the new statistics is that casual fans who just want to drink a beer, eat a hot dog, and watch a baseball game in the summertime have to listeen to propellerheads have a dick-waving contest over RBI vs. DVDA.
 
2013-07-27 10:30:33 AM  
*listen
 
2013-07-27 10:31:28 AM  

WTF Indeed: No, the biggest compliant about the new statistics is that their proponents think they are superior in every way to the old stats and even to the point of totally replacing scouting all together.


I don't know of anyone who wants to do away with scouting entirely. But there's a lot of things scouting can't do, and even when it "works", it's still going to result in a lot of failures. Proper stat analysis can fix an awful lot of those problems.

But hey, keep propping up those strawmen.
 
2013-07-27 10:33:48 AM  

The Smails Kid: The biggest complaint about the new statistics is that casual fans who just want to drink a beer, eat a hot dog, and watch a baseball game in the summertime have to listeen to propellerheads have a dick-waving contest over RBI vs. DVDA.


"LOL LOOK AT THESE NERD'S N THERE STOOPID STATS"
"There stats aren't dumb.  In-fact, they're better than what you're using."
"LOLL THIS NERD IS SOOOOOOOOOO MADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"

It's a proven fact that smart vs. dumb always begins when the dumb people are dumb enough to go after the smart people.
 
2013-07-27 10:35:34 AM  

The Smails Kid: The biggest complaint about the new statistics is that casual fans who just want to drink a beer, eat a hot dog, and watch a baseball game in the summertime have to listeen to propellerheads have a dick-waving contest over RBI vs. DVDA.


Then ignore it. Advanced stats are not ruining the game for you, I'm so tired of this argument.

I like both the advanced statistics as well as the scouting side. I watch a lot of baseball, and my favorite team (Chicago White Sox) spends a ton of their time making shiat up (cough Hawk Harrelson cough). When I watch say, an Orioles or Nationals game I get both easy to understand advances stats and a scouting angle.
 
2013-07-27 10:37:24 AM  

WTF Indeed: No, the biggest compliant about the new statistics is that their proponents think they are superior in every way to the old stats and even to the point of totally replacing scouting all together.


I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..
 
2013-07-27 10:38:37 AM  

DeWayne Mann: I don't know of anyone who wants to do away with scouting entirely. But there's a lot of things scouting can't do, and even when it "works", it's still going to result in a lot of failures. Proper stat analysis can fix an awful lot of those problems.

But hey, keep propping up those strawmen.


There are a lot of new stats that a worth folding into the portfolio of a player, especially pitching. However there are several teams, Rockies last year and Astros this year, that have taken the idea that large sample size numbers are equal too or better than scouting and managing. The 75 pitch count starters, strikeouts don't matter, and steals only hurt the team people fail to see the unquantifiable aspects of the game. A fine example is the attempt by many stat geeks to quantify pitch framing by catchers, a skill that most coaches and pitchers have known for 100 years, but now it's magically important because someone is putting a number too it.
 
2013-07-27 10:43:19 AM  

Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..


Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.
 
2013-07-27 10:45:00 AM  

WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..

Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.


Yeah, they were pissed because idiots like you who understand basically nothing were gloating about sticking it to their new-fangled stats...
 
2013-07-27 10:49:56 AM  

YoungLochinvar: Yeah, they were pissed because idiots like you who understand basically nothing were gloating about sticking it to their new-fangled stats...


lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-07-27 10:50:08 AM  

WTF Indeed: However there are several teams, Rockies last year and Astros this year, that have taken the idea that large sample size numbers are equal too or better than scouting and managing. The 75 pitch count starters, strikeouts don't matter, and steals only hurt the team people fail to see the unquantifiable aspects of the game.


Are you seriously using the Astro's major league team to try and make a point?

I am in hell, aren't I?

And I don't know any "advanced stat" guy who liked what the Rockies were doing last year.

WTF Indeed: A fine example is the attempt by many stat geeks to quantify pitch framing by catchers, a skill that most coaches and pitchers have known for 100 years, but now it's magically important because someone is putting a number too it.


No, it's "magically important" now because a GM can actually determine how much it helps, how much better Player A is over Player B, etc. That's a heck of a lot more valuable than "Well, my gut tells me this guy, despite hitting far worse, is probably better for our team because of his catching ability."

Looking at you, Mike Scioscia.
 
2013-07-27 10:51:34 AM  

WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..

Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.


Hey, remember how the Miguel Cabrera fans just started calling everyone racist? Was that the fault of the "Sabr people"?
 
2013-07-27 10:52:59 AM  

WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..

Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.


Meh. I thought Trout should have won but I certainly wasn't going pitchforks and torches when he didn't. It's not like Cabrera was bad.

Agree that only the most extreme want the traditional stuff gone entirely. Ideally teams would do both.
 
2013-07-27 10:53:10 AM  

The Smails Kid: The biggest complaint about the new statistics is that casual fans who just want to drink a beer, eat a hot dog, and watch a baseball game in the summertime have to listeen to propellerheads have a dick-waving contest over RBI vs. DVDA.


No. The biggest complaint about going to the ballpark to just have a hot dog, beer, and watch the game are the drunk fools who scream and yell and act obnoxious in the stands. I would take an entire section of "propellerheads" talking stats ANY day over that crap.

WTF Indeed: quantify pitch framing by catchers, a skill that most coaches and pitchers have known for 100 years, but now it's magically important because someone is putting a number too it


The way I see it, everyone always knew it was important. But by putting a number to it you can now compare and rank different catchers on it. Without putting a number to it, all you have is a scout saying "He's good at it. You know, not great, but good." And what does that actually mean? Creating ways to measure what were thought to be intangibles only helps matters. You still need to see things with your eyes to understand them better. To me they're not competing methods-- they are working together with one providing facts, the other providing context. At least to me.
 
2013-07-27 10:53:16 AM  
The new stats are fine. It's the people trumpeting them are the problem. I don't need War, Era+ or whatever newly invented stat to enjoy the game. Just watch the game for Pete's sake.
 
2013-07-27 11:02:42 AM  

DeWayne Mann: No, it's "magically important" now because a GM can actually determine how much it helps, how much better Player A is over Player B, etc. That's a heck of a lot more valuable than "Well, my gut tells me this guy, despite hitting far worse, is probably better for our team because of his catching ability."


It's magically important to stat guys now. That was the new stat fad, as it were. GMs and scouts have known who is and isn't a good catcher for years.  That's the problem with militant Sabr guys, they are going through baseball and attempting to quantify everything and there are many things in baseball that can't be quantified, or if they are they the sample sizes are too small to make proper assessment.

DeWayne Mann: Are you seriously using the Astro's major league team to try and make a point?

I am in hell, aren't I?

And I don't know any "advanced stat" guy who liked what the Rockies were doing last year.


Yes, because they had a stat guy with an office next the manager in the locker room. He was equal to the manager, the guy you pay to run the team, when it came to day to day baseball decisions.  There were tons of guys who pushed for the 75 pitch limit before the Rockies tried it last year, what happened was they all got silent once they saw how it worked out.  Sabr guys often times divorce themselves from the reality that these players are computer generated, they are made by humans who have issues that can't be quantified.
 
2013-07-27 11:08:02 AM  
"WAR?!? Sounds like a football stat!"

 d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net
 
2013-07-27 11:08:46 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Hey, remember how the Miguel Cabrera fans just started calling everyone racist? Was that the fault of the "Sabr people"?


Omg! A few morons on twitter and comments boards said assholic things! That totally makes Brian Kenney, Joe Posnanski, and FanGraphs writers blowups okay. I thought Posnanski was going to have a stroke because every article he wrote after the vote were like the 12 stages of grief.

FreakinB: Agree that only the most extreme want the traditional stuff gone entirely. Ideally teams would do both.


All the teams do both. Every major league team has had for at least a decade an advanced stat department. Yet if you listen to the militant stat guys you'd think they are still wandering the wilderness hoping to found one day.
 
2013-07-27 11:10:11 AM  

WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..

Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.


I seem to remember a lot of SABR people (see: Keith Law who is a scout by trade) supporting Trout last year because his defense and baserunning was much better, and did so without any advanced stats. Of course if you want to talk awards, remember when Cardinals fans were butthurt (can't remember if it was 2009 or 2010) because Chris Capenter had MOAR WINS!!! but lacked in every other category to the winner (Innings pitched, ERA, Strike outs, etc).

Citing a useless award is pointless anyway. Franchises (except the Phillies) are using a mix of advanced stats AND scouting. And keep in mind those franchises have access to MUCH more data than the public does. And that's really all that matters. The "stats community" won because their shiat is being used to make player decisions. The only "fight" that remains is getting the baseball dinosaurs to realize this.
 
2013-07-27 11:10:45 AM  

WinoRhino: The way I see it, everyone always knew it was important. But by putting a number to it you can now compare and rank different catchers on it. Without putting a number to it, all you have is a scout saying "He's good at it. You know, not great, but good." And what does that actually mean? Creating ways to measure what were thought to be intangibles only helps matters. You still need to see things with your eyes to understand them better. To me they're not competing methods-- they are working together with one providing facts, the other providing context. At least to me.


Yeah, that. No one woke up this morning, went to FanGraphs, and realized "Pitch framing! I never thought of that before!" It's just that there are new a few different ways to look at it - and that's cool
 
2013-07-27 11:12:38 AM  

WTF Indeed: GMs and scouts have known who is and isn't a good catcher for years.


No, they thought they knew. In many cases, they appear to have been wrong.

WTF Indeed: That's the problem with militant Sabr guys, they are going through baseball and attempting to quantify everything and there are many things in baseball that can't be quantified


So you're mad that something you thought couldn't be quantified HAS been quantified?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

WTF Indeed: Yes, because they had a stat guy with an office next the manager in the locker room. He was equal to the manager, the guy you pay to run the team, when it came to day to day baseball decisions. There were tons of guys who pushed for the 75 pitch limit before the Rockies tried it last year, what happened was they all got silent once they saw how it worked out. Sabr guys often times divorce themselves from the reality that these players are computer generated, they are made by humans who have issues that can't be quantified.


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

So, you know what? I'm done here. If you stop making crap up and start posting actual citations and the like, maybe I'll be back. But it's doubtful.
 
2013-07-27 11:14:37 AM  
WAR?

Huh.

Good God.

Y'all, what is it good for?

/Seriously, what is it?
//Doesn't really pay attention to baseball stats
 
2013-07-27 11:19:48 AM  

Orange Rhyming Dictionary: Citing a useless award is pointless anyway. Franchises (except the Phillies) are using a mix of advanced stats AND scouting. And keep in mind those franchises have access to MUCH more data than the public does. And that's really all that matters. The "stats community" won because their shiat is being used to make player decisions. The only "fight" that remains is getting the baseball dinosaurs to realize this.


This is the essence of the Sabr/Old School "fight".  The Sabr people are in every front office in the game, their numbers are taken into account for every move that is made. Yet if you ask them they are still fighting to change the minds of everyone, down to the 70 year old fan who still thinks Wins are greatest stat ever invented.  They still have the "help help we're being oppressed!" mentality and that rubs people the wrong way.
 
2013-07-27 11:21:14 AM  
Let's not pretend that one side was "pure" in that MVP debate. There was plenty of douche going around and it was coming from all sides
 
2013-07-27 11:21:21 AM  
Anyway, good for Topps. I'm holding out for interactive cards (bar codes maybe?) that I can scan and bring up detailed stats, videos and maybe a biography and scouting reports. If they did that, maybe I'd buy baseball cards again, and I haven't bought cards since 1973.
 
2013-07-27 11:23:46 AM  
Also, this is an honest question: Do kids still like baseball cards? I mean, I still like them, but I grew up with them. And I'm also a huge nerd.
 
2013-07-27 11:24:17 AM  

Professor Duck: WAR?

Huh.

Good God.

Y'all, what is it good for?

/Seriously, what is it?
//Doesn't really pay attention to baseball stats


Wins Against Replacement. It distills most every stat into one, that tells you how many more games you'll win using player A over an average replacement player. I'd say it's the Uber-Stat.
 
2013-07-27 11:33:04 AM  

WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: Citing a useless award is pointless anyway. Franchises (except the Phillies) are using a mix of advanced stats AND scouting. And keep in mind those franchises have access to MUCH more data than the public does. And that's really all that matters. The "stats community" won because their shiat is being used to make player decisions. The only "fight" that remains is getting the baseball dinosaurs to realize this.

This is the essence of the Sabr/Old School "fight".  The Sabr people are in every front office in the game, their numbers are taken into account for every move that is made. Yet if you ask them they are still fighting to change the minds of everyone, down to the 70 year old fan who still thinks Wins are greatest stat ever invented.  They still have the "help help we're being oppressed!" mentality and that rubs people the wrong way.


You're the one making the "new stats make the game less fun for me!" argument. Seems as though you're the one who feels oppressed while the counting stats still dominate popular baseball media.

Lets be clear here: You're arguing with someone who pretty much only cares about the scouting element of the game. I understand the advanced stats side, but seriously I can't remember the last time I made a baseball argument that involved WAR XFIP or some other bullshiat. Simply because the crusty old baseball dudes at the bar I argue with don't have a farking clue what I'm talking about, so why piss in the wind, ya know? All I'm saying is to completely dismiss the advanced stats is foolish. You sound like Hawk Harrelson, and that's never a good thing.

I'm just tired of people blaming others for harshing their enjoyment of the game, or whatever. Some like certain elements of baseball (advanced stats) others like something different (prospects and scouting like myself) while others simply enjoy the ebbs and flows of the game. I'm cool with it all, but don't ridicule someone for whatever enjoyment they get out of baseball.
 
2013-07-27 11:43:52 AM  
I was expecting something about their little "Career Chase" feature this year, where they pick some random stat, name the all-time leader and how far the guy's behind... unless it's Pete Rose'shiat record.

"With 2 hits, [Steven] Lerud is 4,254 away from the all-time record of 4,256." It really says that. Better hurry up and buy those tickets, folks, it could be any day now.
 
2013-07-27 11:44:11 AM  

Rex_Banner: Also, this is an honest question: Do kids still like baseball cards? I mean, I still like them, but I grew up with them. And I'm also a huge nerd.


This question intrigued me, so I woke up my 12-year-old nephew and asked him if he or any of his friends collected baseball cards. He didn't know of any kids his age who collected them. Lest you think perhaps that he has no interest in baseball, he was an All-Star the past three years, and plays both Little League and Crush. His season starts in March, and his last tournament is in mid-December. I would have killed for the opportunities to play baseball that are available to him.

I asked him why he doesn't collect cards, and he cited two reasons; cost and randomness. He said he'd love to have the cards of his favorite players, but doesn't want to pay for all the duds and repeats. His argument on cost was specious; I asked him how much he thought a pack of cards cost, and he said, "I dunno, maybe 8 or 10 bucks at Walmart." That can't be right, can it?
 
2013-07-27 11:48:19 AM  

Orange Rhyming Dictionary: You're the one making the "new stats make the game less fun for me!" argument. Seems as though you're the one who feels oppressed while the counting stats still dominate popular baseball media.


No stat debate ever will make the game less fun. What it sounds like to people who like to count the older stats is that Sabr people are saying "You're stats are stupid and worthless and so are you." The Cabrera/Trout to debate boiled down to idea that older stats are useless and new stats are the only ones that are important. Politically, stat guys took the wrong debate framing and when they lost they only reinforced the stereotype they helped created.

The debate should have been, when you take into account ALL the numbers who was better. What it because was a debate over who's numbers are right and whose numbers are wrong on a permanent scale.
 
2013-07-27 11:54:10 AM  
And what does Upper Deck think about this?

Oh, right they got gypped out of the market by Topps' exclusive monopoly on MLB cards through the next five years. Where are the torches and pitchforks for THAT?
 
2013-07-27 11:59:34 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Wins Against Replacement. It distills most every stat into one, that tells you how many more games you'll win using player A over an average replacement player. I'd say it's the Uber-Stat.


Thanks - nothing like an informative article from CBS to explain shiat to people who don't live and breathe sports.

When I saw the headline I figured they were just going to print a big QR code on the back.
 
2013-07-27 12:10:47 PM  

WTF Indeed: What it sounds like to people who like to count the older stats is that Sabr people are saying "You're stats are stupid and worthless and so are you."


I think not so much worthless as inaccurate, or perhaps incomplete. Batting averages, RBIs, and ERA's give you a glimpse through a muddy window at a player's true value. There are infinite ways to skin a cat, but for instance, determining how good a team is comes down to one stat (two actually, wins/losses): runs scored, and runs scored against. RS and RA are the stats that determine whether your team is any good. Not why, just whether.

I understand the value of the advanced metrics, but where I tend to rebel is when it comes to doing the actual math. Most math is drudgery to me, and I'm not going to do it 600 times to determine relative value to the rest of MLB. Fortunately, there's guys out there who will, so I don't have to. But I gotta trust them, and their arcane algorithms to give me the results that I can trust. So I do, but it takes away that spark of discovery firsthand, that you get when you see your guy get a hit and realize that "Hey, Joe Schlabotnik is leading the league in BA with RISP, in day games, on turf, on Tuesdays!"
 
2013-07-27 12:29:46 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: that you get when you see your guy get a hit and realize that "Hey, Joe Schlabotnik is leading the league in BA with RISP, in day games, on turf, on Tuesdays!"


One of the problems is that some of the new stats may not actually be valid. And unless you really really understand stats, you can have people thinking everything is deterministic. It's like the steals thing, someone will scream how only X percent of steals are successful so it's not worth it. What that ignores is the stat does away with individual players and how good they are. If you average out every players' steals stats, well whatever the final value is, half are better, half worse. But if you only focus on the cumulative stat you ignore the reality of stealing. If you use the reasoning some people use in regards to steals, Rickey Henderson would've never been Rickey Henderson.
 
2013-07-27 12:31:27 PM  

WinoRhino: The Smails Kid: The biggest complaint about the new statistics is that casual fans who just want to drink a beer, eat a hot dog, and watch a baseball game in the summertime have to listeen to propellerheads have a dick-waving contest over RBI vs. DVDA.

No. The biggest complaint about going to the ballpark to just have a hot dog, beer, and watch the game are the drunk fools who scream and yell and act obnoxious in the stands. I would take an entire section of "propellerheads" talking stats ANY day over that crap.

WTF Indeed: quantify pitch framing by catchers, a skill that most coaches and pitchers have known for 100 years, but now it's magically important because someone is putting a number too it

The way I see it, everyone always knew it was important. But by putting a number to it you can now compare and rank different catchers on it. Without putting a number to it, all you have is a scout saying "He's good at it. You know, not great, but good." And what does that actually mean? Creating ways to measure what were thought to be intangibles only helps matters. You still need to see things with your eyes to understand them better. To me they're not competing methods-- they are working together with one providing facts, the other providing context. At least to me.


To your first point, you'd empty out 2/3 of fenway and 120% of Wrigley that way.

To your second, to me that stat, and most "advanced" stats in general, are a problem not so much because of anything right or wrong about it, but because there are people who need it because their general ability to understand baseball is nil. I know it sounds hokey, but you could probably use most of these stats to explain why old timers knew what they knew without needing a slide rule. Maybe people are just getting lazier in the internet age or something.
 
2013-07-27 12:31:46 PM  

gfid: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Wins Against Replacement. It distills most every stat into one, that tells you how many more games you'll win using player A over an average replacement player. I'd say it's the Uber-Stat.

Thanks - nothing like an informative article from CBS to explain shiat to people who don't live and breathe sports.

When I saw the headline I figured they were just going to print a big QR code on the back.


Thanks. There are guys posting in this very thread who can explain it better than me, because they understand it better. And there are a few, who (pertaining to baseball) if they told me it was dark at noon, I wouldn't even get up to look, because I wouldn't see anything. Because it would be dark (it galls me to say this, but most any long-time real Yankee or Red Sox fan has baseball encoded in their DNA). I defer to these guys whenever I find myself in disagreement almost always. I tend to come out of these thread with more skin intact that way. :)
 
2013-07-27 12:33:16 PM  

WhyteRaven74: One of the problems is that some of the new stats may not actually be valid. And unless you really really understand stats, you can have people thinking everything is deterministic.


That's why I can't wait until people start following GTWHBWITWALD, or "games that would have been won if things went a little different".  Kinda like WAR, which is a completely valid and objective statistic and not at all asinine , but encompassing the entirety of the team.
 
2013-07-27 12:35:16 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Rex_Banner: Also, this is an honest question: Do kids still like baseball cards? I mean, I still like them, but I grew up with them. And I'm also a huge nerd.

This question intrigued me, so I woke up my 12-year-old nephew and asked him if he or any of his friends collected baseball cards. He didn't know of any kids his age who collected them. Lest you think perhaps that he has no interest in baseball, he was an All-Star the past three years, and plays both Little League and Crush. His season starts in March, and his last tournament is in mid-December. I would have killed for the opportunities to play baseball that are available to him.

I asked him why he doesn't collect cards, and he cited two reasons; cost and randomness. He said he'd love to have the cards of his favorite players, but doesn't want to pay for all the duds and repeats. His argument on cost was specious; I asked him how much he thought a pack of cards cost, and he said, "I dunno, maybe 8 or 10 bucks at Walmart." That can't be right, can it?


I bought a couple packs of Topps' base 2012 football set last season - $5 for ~40 cards at Target, which works out to 8 cards per dollar.  In 1989, when I first started collecting seriously, the price was $.50 per pack of 15.  So the price per card has not quite quadrupled for base cards (then, of course, there's all the bullshiat premium sets).

Upper Deck really ruined the market for kids in the late 80s-mid 90s by driving up collector's interest.  Now adults buy boxes in order to get the game-worn jersey or chrome printing plate inserts that come 1:48 packs or whatever.  I haven't seen many kids buying, just more of the adults who see it as some combination of hobby and investment.  But it's not going to be like the 50s-70s, when moms threw out the shoeboxes when the kids left for college.  They're printing more and people are storing them better, even getting them hermetically sealed.

I'm considering getting back into collecting one set per year, and considering Topps' cards usually look nice and don't skimp on stats, I'll stick with them.  There are a few low-value inserts of reprints of old cards on new, glossy stock (I've got a 2001 reprint of Johnny Unitas' last card, a 73 or 74 Topps with him in a Chargers uniform) or new players on older-style cards.  Those are kind of cool, but I'm not going to sink $300 into getting a bunch of them.  Apparently you can also just buy a factory base set for ~$40, but that does take some of the fun out of it.  I'm kind of surprised the kids aren't interested in the collectible aspect, considering how ingrained CCGs like Magic and Pokemon are in pop culture.
 
2013-07-27 12:37:16 PM  

DeWayne Mann: WTF Indeed: Orange Rhyming Dictionary: I think only the serious kool-aid drinkers still believe that, and even then they're few and far between. Or it's usually the anti new stats crowd that builds the "THEY WANT TO REPLACE SCOUTS ALL TOGETHER" straw man..

Are you joking? The Sabr people were about to tear down the world because the guy with the massive WAR lost to the guy who won the Triple Crown.  After that vote it was two weeks of angry stat journalists and Sabr guys throwing hissy fits a 12 year old girl would admire.

Hey, remember how the Miguel Cabrera fans just started calling everyone racist? Was that the fault of the "Sabr people"?


To be fair, though, there was plenty enough racism getting thrown around.
 
2013-07-27 12:38:15 PM  

WhyteRaven74: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: that you get when you see your guy get a hit and realize that "Hey, Joe Schlabotnik is leading the league in BA with RISP, in day games, on turf, on Tuesdays!"

One of the problems is that some of the new stats may not actually be valid. And unless you really really understand stats, you can have people thinking everything is deterministic. It's like the steals thing, someone will scream how only X percent of steals are successful so it's not worth it. What that ignores is the stat does away with individual players and how good they are. If you average out every players' steals stats, well whatever the final value is, half are better, half worse. But if you only focus on the cumulative stat you ignore the reality of stealing. If you use the reasoning some people use in regards to steals, Rickey Henderson would've never been Rickey Henderson.


Ya know... This is why I had you favorited as "Logical".

/walk steal 2nd, score on a sac fly=RickeyRally!
//you can't explain that!
 
2013-07-27 12:47:53 PM  
WAR is just about the stupidest, most useless stat ever created. Miguel Cabrera has a WAR of 5.6, so the Tigers could dump him and his 21 million salary, replace him with some average scrub and it would only cost them 6 wins a season? Yeah, okay.
 
2013-07-27 12:49:23 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Rex_Banner: Also, this is an honest question: Do kids still like baseball cards? I mean, I still like them, but I grew up with them. And I'm also a huge nerd.

This question intrigued me, so I woke up my 12-year-old nephew and asked him if he or any of his friends collected baseball cards. He didn't know of any kids his age who collected them. Lest you think perhaps that he has no interest in baseball, he was an All-Star the past three years, and plays both Little League and Crush. His season starts in March, and his last tournament is in mid-December. I would have killed for the opportunities to play baseball that are available to him.

I asked him why he doesn't collect cards, and he cited two reasons; cost and randomness. He said he'd love to have the cards of his favorite players, but doesn't want to pay for all the duds and repeats. His argument on cost was specious; I asked him how much he thought a pack of cards cost, and he said, "I dunno, maybe 8 or 10 bucks at Walmart." That can't be right, can it?


I think they're more like $4-5 per pack, right? I only buy maybe 1-2 packs a year, and that's usually on a whim, just to see how the new designs look - so I could be wrong.

I wonder if the internet has become the new baseball card. When I was a kid, if I wanted to see how awesome Mattingly was, I had the couple hours when the game was on TV and I had the back of his baseball card. If I'm a kid today and my favorite player is Buster Posey, I can watch all his games, I can find his stats in 2 seconds on baseball-reference.com, and I can find a bunch of highlights of the guy on MLB.com. I know that's not all of it, but I think it's part of it. I don't think I would have cared as much about getting a Mattingly card if I could watch all of his highlights whenever I wanted. Maybe that's just me though
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report