Some Bill James Projections

[wanks1212]

Ohhhh the Colin Cowherd school of baseball analysis/comedy? Yeah, that's "creative." But I don't remember mocking people who do that shit here. Although they absolutely deserve such mocking.

[Bobbob1313]

Whatevs.

Only on topic because of the last post: I think people who rely too heavily on those statistics know nothing about baseball.

That's ridiculous.

[Beef]

That's ridiculous.

Do you rely on those statistics too heavily?

[Bobbob1313]

Do you rely on those statistics too heavily?

I think there are those who have argued that before, but it's a subjective thing anyways. Somebody that says things like "BABIP? More like "LivesInHisGrandmasBasement" would say I do, but SFierceX probably thinks I'm a tobacco chewing 80 year old scout.

I think there should be a healthy balance struck between the eyes and the stats aspects of baseball. That's why I think it's ridiculous to say that anyone who relies too heavily on statistics knows nothing about baseball. It can just as easily be said that anyone who ignores statistical evidence has a completely naive and misguided view of baseball.

If one has to rely more heavily on one or the other, the stats are the way to go to get an accurate view of a player's value. Your eyes and perception can be perceiving, and yes I understand that stats can be twisted and perceived in different ways, but I'll take the static record of the outcome on the field over what I see over a course of 600 ABs.

I think Nny said it yesterday: "I hate watching Dan Uggla until I look at the stat sheet", or something like that. Your perception of somebody may not match up with reality, and that's why I tend to give stats more weight. But it's ignorant to go to either extreme. You can use BABIP and wOBA and all of that shit all you want and have a perfectly fine understanding of the game of baseball. I see the usage of those things as mostly trying to enchance our understanding of the game.

[Beef]

I think there are those who have argued that before, but it's a subjective thing anyways. Somebody that says things like "BABIP? More like "LivesInHisGrandmasBasement" would say I do, but SFierceX probably thinks I'm a tobacco chewing 80 year old scout.

I think there should be a healthy balance struck between the eyes and the stats aspects of baseball. That's why I think it's ridiculous to say that anyone who relies too heavily on statistics knows nothing about baseball. It can just as easily be said that anyone who ignores statistical evidence has a completely naive and misguided view of baseball.

If one has to rely more heavily on one or the other, the stats are the way to go to get an accurate view of a player's value. Your eyes and perception can be perceiving, and yes I understand that stats can be twisted and perceived in different ways, but I'll take the static record of the outcome on the field over what I see over a course of 600 ABs.

I think Nny said it yesterday: "I hate watching Dan Uggla until I look at the stat sheet", or something like that. Your perception of somebody may not match up with reality, and that's why I tend to give stats more weight. But it's ignorant to go to either extreme. You can use BABIP and wOBA and all of that shit all you want and have a perfectly fine understanding of the game of baseball. I see the usage of those things as mostly trying to enchance our understanding of the game.

Yes, perception can be perceiving.

Anyway, I think you should probably argue this one with yourself because I dont disagree that a healthy balance is a good thing.

[Bobbob1313]

I responded to something you said. I'm sorry.

[Metes]

I'm with Beef

[SFiercex4]

Do you rely on those statistics too heavily?

How much is too heavily, in your opinion?
--------------------

I think there are those who have argued that before, but it's a subjective thing anyways. Somebody that says things like "BABIP? More like "LivesInHisGrandmasBasement" would say I do, but SFierceX probably thinks I'm a tobacco chewing 80 year old scout.

I have no idea what this means. I'll take it as a compliment.

If one has to rely more heavily on one or the other, the stats are the way to go to get an accurate view of a player's value. Your eyes and perception can be perceiving, and yes I understand that stats can be twisted and perceived in different ways, but I'll take the static record of the outcome on the field over what I see over a course of 600 ABs.

I think Nny said it yesterday: "I hate watching Dan Uggla until I look at the stat sheet", or something like that. Your perception of somebody may not match up with reality, and that's why I tend to give stats more weight. But it's ignorant to go to either extreme. You can use BABIP and wOBA and all of that shit all you want and have a perfectly fine understanding of the game of baseball. I see the usage of those things as mostly trying to enchance our understanding of the game.

I agree with that. Scouting is important. The problem is when scouts try to apply stats, because they don't seem to know anything about them. Stick to scouting, tell me what qualitatively right/wrong with a player, that information is very important. Just don't tell me any stats, and let people who have a grasp on that aspect handle that side. I won't tell you that some hitter has a hitch in his swing if the scout guy doesn't tell me a guy sucks because he's batting .220 after 100 PA.

[CrimsonCane]

The same can be said about people who throw out statistics haphazardly. A lot of the time they're far to reliant on the authority of the statistic without questioning the source or knowing what went in to creating the stat. Are there actually strong correlations at work here? How rigorous was the statistical analysis? Etc. I've seen a number of stats that sound great but, in reality, don't have very great descriptive or predictive power.

[SFiercex4]

The same can be said about people who throw out statistics haphazardly. A lot of the time they're far to reliant on the authority of the statistic without questioning the source or knowing what went in to creating the stat. Are there actually strong correlations at work here? How rigorous was the statistical analysis? Etc. I've seen a number of stats that sound great but, in reality, don't have very great descriptive or predictive power.

Agreed. Splits data is great example of this. A lot of people (I'd venture to say most people) quote platoon splits from 1-year as if it's true talent, when it takes a lot more PA's to determine true talent platoon splits than one year or even five years worth.