MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[rareair]

andre dawson should be in the hall of fame.

 

stats are "borderline" i suppose but he played a tremendous outfield until he could no longer walk and was a complete class act.

 

although i do not think he ever carried a boy into the dugout for medical treatment which ended up (maybe) saving his life.

 

nonetheless, to Hawk.

[cryptique]

I'm not that worked up. I'm just bored and like arguing. How many times do I have to say this?

 

But seriously you jump in say you're point and then when I actually respond you just cover your ears and say "nope, I'm not really going to discuss this."

 

And you're last sentence is like a celebration of your ignorance. Good job.

I'm deliberately ignorant of all these preposterous statistics because I think they're misguided. I let myself know just enough about them that I can steer clear of them. Kind of like religion. Or a cult.

 

What the members of the Cult of Sabermetrics don't understand is that no matter how hard they try to do so, they will never be able to objectively quantify everything that happens on the field. My previous center-field example (which you ignored) demonstrates what I mean by this. If the Cult really believe they have a way to measure a fielder's value, sorry, but they don't -- because inevitably, the nature of the sport requires that someone, somewhere, makes a subjective decision about a particular play. Did the fielder who just made the catch look routine do so because it was routine? Or because he's that much better of a fielder? No one will ever know for sure, because you can't trot all the other center fielders out to those same circumstances and judge them against each other objectively, putting them under that same slicing line drive, in the same conditions, under the same lights, etc.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you need to use unquantifiable arguments about the actual play on the field, then he can't be a hall of famer.

This really cracked me up. "unquantifiable arguments"? Like whether a player could make plays seem routine that other players wouldn't have even made? Yeah, that kind of thing shouldn't have any bearing on the assessment of a player whatsoever -- because the statisticians have not yet figured out a way to reduce it to cold, hard numbers. It's almost as if they "just cover [their] ears and say 'nope, I'm not really going to discuss this.'"

 

The Cult seem to honestly believe that everything that happens on the field can be described on paper with numbers -- and if it can't, then it's not worthy of their consideration. They guard this notion with a fervor that borders on religion; actually, I think it probably crossed that border a while ago. There's a reason I'm calling it a cult: because it acts like one, and its members have a tendency to lash out when confronted.

 

If there is still any significant facet of the game that cannot be objectively measured, then my point -- that statistics cannot tell you the whole story -- is academic. If statistics cannot tell you the whole story, then you cannot make bold pronouncements about a player's Hall of Fame worthiness based solely on statistics. I'm not talking about what kind of guy a player was, or whether he donated millions to charity -- I'm talking about what happens on the field.

 

My other objection to all these statistics, of course, is that they have drawn so many people into their clutches (y'know ... like a cult) that I now cannot consume any kind of sports-related media without being affected by this stuff. Baseball was a hell of a lot more fun before I ever heard of VORP.

[MattZ]

I like that I added this part, because I know nobody will respond to it, because even though they are basically the same player (Belle was much better for a shorter period, but it pretty much evens out), nobody has childhood memories of Belle that they can't let go of.

 

Come on, twobobs. Spare us your self-congratulation. I will respond to it. Belle was busted for corking his bat, was rumored to have corked his bat for much of his career, and there are many whispers about his use of steroids. I am not taking a position on Belle or whether corked bats improve stats. What I am telling you is that there is a widespread belief in baseball that Belle actively cheated and his (very impressive) stats were the result of that cheating throughout his career. I'd say that's one way he is different than Rice.

 

(And, I am not looking to get into an argument about cheating wtih you. I understand many cheaters have been voted in the HOF. But come on. There is at least a discussion to be had here.)

[bobbob1313]

'tique, wrt to your cfer question: the one play he makes look routine doesn't matter. If, over the course of his career he is as good as you say, then a stat like +/- would bear that out. You have a problem with statistics because you don't know about them and are completely unwilling to find out. Which is fine for you, but don't criticize me for looking beyond just what I see.

 

And you must be watching/listening to some crazy sports media if you hear about vorp on a regular basis. My guess is 95% of the time you've heard of it is from me.

[Guest Jules]

Gammonds said unless you were alive when a player played, you can't argue his HOF merits.

[dondoboy]

I can't wait until Gary Sheffield doesn't get in the hall of fame. That's going to be fun.

He'll probably blame Joe Torre.

[PigSooie]

Or, random white folks.

[cryptique]

'tique, wrt to your cfer question: the one play he makes look routine doesn't matter. If, over the course of his career he is as good as you say, then a stat like +/- would bear that out.

No, chances are, his fielding stats will look worse than they should, because he would have gotten to balls that others wouldn't have, and dropped a few of them, causing errors (by subjective decision of a human agent) that would have been clear-cut base hits in front of other fielders.

 

Sorry, but statistics cannot quantify that objectively, no matter how hard they try.

 

You have a problem with statistics because you don't know about them and are completely unwilling to find out. Which is fine for you, but don't criticize me for looking beyond just what I see.

Incorrect. I have a problem with statistics (or, more accurately, those who revere them) because they falsely assume that statistics can tell the whole story, when they cannot possibly do so. They may be fine for you, but don't criticize me for not wanting to waste that much time and intellectual energy overanalyzing a game, and for holding the opinion that your precious statistics are causing you to believe things that aren't necessarily true.

 

Baseball was never meant to be objective. That's why there are umpires. Next thing you know, the sabermetrics people will be calling for ball-and-strike calls to be made by a machine. That's when I stop watching.

 

And you must be watching/listening to some crazy sports media if you hear about vorp on a regular basis. My guess is 95% of the time you've heard of it is from me.

I don't hear about VORP very often, but I am constantly barraged with useless statistics that mean nothing to someone who doesn't live and die by them. The state of sports journalism was sad enough already without that addition.

[bjorn_skurj]

I'm tellin' ya, it's all fantasy baseball's fault.

[cryptique]

I'm tellin' ya, it's all fantasy baseball's fault.

Pretty much, yes.

[PigSooie]

I'm tellin' ya, it's all fantasy baseball's fault.

 

awesome.

[bobbob1313]

No, chances are, his fielding stats will look worse than they should, because he would have gotten to balls that others wouldn't have, and dropped a few of them, causing errors (by subjective decision of a human agent) that would have been clear-cut base hits in front of other fielders.

 

Sorry, but statistics cannot quantify that objectively, no matter how hard they try.

 

The fact that you just said this horrifies me. I can't put into words how terrible this statement is. You don't understand anything about the statistical community based on what you just said. This is woefully ignorant.

 

I was going to go ahead and explain why fielding statistics have advanced and how useful they can be if you know what to look at, but then I remembered that you aren't interested.

 

Incorrect. I have a problem with statistics (or, more accurately, those who revere them) because they falsely assume that statistics can tell the whole story, when they cannot possibly do so. They may be fine for you, but don't criticize me for not wanting to waste that much time and intellectual energy overanalyzing a game, and for holding the opinion that your precious statistics are causing you to believe things that aren't necessarily true.

 

Baseball was never meant to be objective. That's why there are umpires. Next thing you know, the sabermetrics people will be calling for ball-and-strike calls to be made by a machine. That's when I stop watching.

 

I've never assumed statistics can tell the whole story, but if you are trying to figure out which player was better than another, then there's no better place to look than their statistical record, which is nothing more than a record of their performance on the field.

 

And how am I believing anything that isn't true? We're discussing fucking opinions. My opinion is that Rice doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a fucking true or false statement.

 

You have this mistaken idea that I don't watch baseball, and that I just sit at a computer all day looking up stats instead of watching the game. Far from detracting from my viewing experience, my interest in statistical analysis has increased my understanding of the game immensely. Sure, you can say what is the point of investing so much energy into 'overanlalyzing' a game, but then what's the point of even discussing the game or even watching it. It's just a game after all, so why should you care about any of it? That's a really really terrible point to make.

 

I don't hear about VORP very often, but I am constantly barraged with useless statistics that mean nothing to someone who doesn't live and die by them. The state of sports journalism was sad enough already without that addition.

 

If most of your exposure to statistics comes from mainstream sports media then you have a completely incorrect view of the sabermetric community, which no doubt harbors more ill will towards most sports journalists than you ever will.

[Sir Stewart]

If Rice was on any team but the Red Sox, we would be hearing nothing of your disapproval of his HOF status, bobbob.

[bjorn_skurj]

WHIP is a great stat. I am of the opinion it should replace ERA as a major pitching evaluation metric.

[bobbob1313]

If Rice was on any team but the Red Sox, we would be hearing nothing of your disapproval of his HOF status, bobbob.

 

Bullshit. I've had tons to say about why Andre Dawson shouldn't be in the HOF, and he was a Marlin for a few years for christ's sake. I haven't mentioned his team once, even though I've been tempted to say that it did help him get in.

 

Henderson was a sock too.

[Lammycat]

Henderson was a sock too.

 

Sox.

[bobbob1313]

WHIP is a great stat. I am of the opinion it should replace ERA as a major pitching evaluation metric.

 

Nolan Ryan didn't need no WHIP to know he was the most feared durn'd pitcher in all the land.

[Sir Stewart]

Bullshit. I've had tons to say about why Andre Dawson shouldn't be in the HOF, and he was a Marlin for a few years for christ's sake. I haven't mentioned his team once, even though I've been tempted to say that it did help him get in.

Who would you vote in first: Dawson or Rice?

[PigSooie]

Who would you vote in first: Dawson or Rice?

 

 

Bernie Williams

[bjorn_skurj]

Nolan Ryan didn't need no WHIP to know he was the most feared durn'd pitcher in all the land.

I saw him pitch in 1987, in the back end of a Astros-Mets doubleheader. I was glad to have witnessed him, but he was not that great that day. The two men's peaks did not really overlap, but Bob Gibson I suspect was feared more than Ryan.

 

Edit: Oops, a quick check of Retrosheet indicates that Ryan pitched in the front end of that 7/24/87 twinbill.

[bobbob1313]

Who would you vote in first: Dawson or Rice?

 

That's a tough one.

 

I'd like to say neither, because I don't think either belongs in. Since I'm being forced to pick one, I want to go with Dawson, because he's at least got the intangible stuff on Rice, but Rice was the better player. So Rice.

 

Or Tim Raines. Or Bert Blyleven. Or Lee Smith. Or Mark McGwire.

 

I saw him pitch in 1987, in the back end of a Astros-Mets doubleheader. I was glad to have witnessed him, but he was not that great that day. The two men's peaks did not really overlap, but Bob Gibson I suspect was feared more than Ryan.

 

I'd have been pretty fucking scared of Ryan. 100 MPH fastballs with no control are terrifying.

[cryptique]

The fact that you just said this horrifies me. I can't put into words how terrible this statement is. You don't understand anything about the statistical community based on what you just said. This is woefully ignorant.

You're horrified that I don't drink the same Kool-Aid you do about statistics?

 

I was going to go ahead and explain why fielding statistics have advanced and how useful they can be if you know what to look at, but then I remembered that you aren't interested.

Correct. And I don't care how much they've "advanced," they're still inadequate.

 

I've never assumed statistics can tell the whole story

Really?

 

but if you are trying to figure out which player was better than another, then there's no better place to look than their statistical record, which is nothing more than a record of their performance on the field.

It's a place. It's not the only place. And it's an incomplete record.

 

And how am I believing anything that isn't true?

There's three kinds of lies...

 

We're discussing fucking opinions. My opinion is that Rice doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a fucking true or false statement.

I haven't been talking about Rice for a few posts now. Keep up.

 

You have this mistaken idea that I don't watch baseball, and that I just sit at a computer all day looking up stats instead of watching the game. Far from detracting from my viewing experience, my interest in statistical analysis has increased my understanding of the game immensely. Sure, you can say what is the point of investing so much energy into 'overanlalyzing' a game, but then what's the point of even discussing the game or even watching it. It's just a game after all, so why should you care about any of it? That's a really really terrible point to make.

No, it's an excellent point. People like you look down on people like me, because we have the temerity to enjoy a sport without immersing ourselves in a bunch of numbers we don't care about. You like to call people like me "ignorant" because we prefer to enjoy the game on a basic level without all the statistics. It's OK, I'm used to people looking down on me for ridiculous reasons. And I enjoy the game at least as much as you do.

 

If most of your exposure to statistics comes from mainstream sports media then you have a completely incorrect view of the sabermetric community, which no doubt harbors more ill will towards most sports journalists than you ever will.

I'd say you guys harbor more ill will towards most humans than I ever will. Because we're inferior beings.

[bjorn_skurj]

I'd have been pretty fucking scared of Ryan. 100 MPH fastballs with no control are terrifying.

Sure. But Gibson could dirty-look a batter to death.

[bobbob1313]

Fuck it.

 

It's really not worth it.

[rareair]