www.signstealingscandal.com
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@luv2bDad2013 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
One small detail that I noticed a while back is that Marwin Gonzalez had the best year of his career by FAR in 2017.
144 wRC+
.907 OPS
4.0 fWAR
28.3 in Fangraphs’ Offense statCompared to his next best season:
111 wRC+
.759 OPS
1.5 fWAR
3.0 in Fangraphs’ Offense statQuite the large jump, and for only that one year. Didn’t put up numbers anywhere close to those before 2017, or in the two years following 2017.
The Astros cheated, that is very clear... What really catches my attention is that they ultimately chose to cheat and it resulted not only with them getting caught and in trouble; but it not only did not benefit them one bit, it actually made them worse at the plate.
Even looking at Marwin and his splits, he significantly hit better on the road than he did at home. The Astros had a better record on the road than they did at home. It doesn't excuse them and what happened, but the correlation of a better performance and them cheating is not there.
It definitely is strange that even with cheating they were still better on the road, but who’s to say they wouldn’t have been even worse at home without cheating? We’ll never know because there’s so many small details that can completely change a baseball game. One call can potentially alter who wins or loses, one inch can be the difference between a hit or an out, etc.
Not arguing with you, because you’re right. Just saying the cheating could’ve still possibly benefited them at home.
Marwin’s road BABIP was almost 50 points higher than his home BABIP in 2017, so he was certainly getting luckier on the road than at home.
Years ago, I had a coach tell me one time that my problem was I thought too much. I was analyzing everything and it slowed me down. He told me to stop thinking and just react. That is why we practice and train, so our bodies can react to the way we want it to in a game situation. Professional athletes can do this at a far greater success rate than anybody else.
That is the idea I base my theory on and why their splits were worse at home. The cheating was making them think too much, instead of just reacting by how they have trained their bodies to see the ball, hit the ball. Sure, there were moments of success they had, but the Astros have all the talent to be a great team. That is why they drafted their team, not because they were great at stealing signs, but they were phenomal athletes and baseball players. Then they tried to get cute, and it has hurt them in many ways.
Anyway, just my theory, that's it. There are probably holes in it, but that's what I got for you.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing 
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
To late to get a refund? No one said it was a full analysis. Maybe you can find a discount for a B.A. in Comprehension Skills
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
To late to get a refund? No one said it was a full analysis. Maybe you can find a discount for a B.A. in Comprehension Skills
My guy, you couldn't come up with anything to say back the first time so you tried coming at me for being a Yankee fan and now you reply back saying I have poor comprehension skills....Don't become a Lawyer. Have a great week Chuck.
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
To late to get a refund? No one said it was a full analysis. Maybe you can find a discount for a B.A. in Comprehension Skills
My guy, you couldn't come up with anything to say back the first time so you tried coming at me for being a Yankee fan and now you reply back saying I have poor comprehension skills....Don't become a Lawyer. Have a great week Chuck.
My guy, you keep showing you didn't understand the scope of the website or the intent in posting it. You keep peeing into the wind. For you to continue to cry about this the only logical conclusion was your Yankee fandom.
Today is the Chiefs parade, it's going to be a wonderful year
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
To late to get a refund? No one said it was a full analysis. Maybe you can find a discount for a B.A. in Comprehension Skills
My guy, you couldn't come up with anything to say back the first time so you tried coming at me for being a Yankee fan and now you reply back saying I have poor comprehension skills....Don't become a Lawyer. Have a great week Chuck.
My guy, you keep showing you didn't understand the scope of the website or the intent in posting it. You keep peeing into the wind. For you to continue to cry about this the only logical conclusion was your Yankee fandom.
Today is the Chiefs parade, it's going to be a wonderful year
The point of the website is to show how much bangs per game/per player occurred during the 2017 season, I understand it. The problem is, if you go a step further (which you probably didn't) there are now articles and such being published using that "Analysis" saying Astro hitters only knew 18% of total pitches thrown in the 2017 season so it didn't help them as much as people think...which is completely false. And as a Yankee Fan, this site only proves more that they cheated which any logical person would realize that would make a Yankee fan happy. Clearly this is....going over your head.
LOL, felt the need to thrown in Chiefs during a baseball conversation...got it there Chuck. Enjoy man, great convo. See ya.
-
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
@cvogsfashow said in www.signstealingscandal.com:
Honestly, his research is cool but he totally disregards the fact that a non bang could be a sign for lets say FB. He only discusses when the can is hit....not a great job on his part.
How could you determine if the no bang was for a fastball or possibly they missed the signs and weren't sure?
What he could objectively analyse was the audible trash can bangs. We know they only banged for offspeed per the report, so I'm sure a lot of times it was because a FB was coming. There were times an offspeed pitch came that there were no bangs for though.
He doesn’t take into account a no banging being a sign for something...His analysis is very poorly Done and he makes the stats favor Astros...when that isn’t the case at all and is very notable in true stats.
No, he didn't account for it because he has no way to prove why there was no bang. It's called being objective, only analysing what he could actually quantify.
The data he compiled on the amount of times they banged on the can looks terrible and he acknowledged that.
What I an getting at is, as well done as this is...it was A huge waste of time when you aren’t able to accurately record all pitches being thrown in home games for the Astros. You can’t publicize the percentage of pitches they knew or any of that, and he tried to do that in this analysis. Solid approach poor execution.
Incorrect, you aren't understanding the reasoning behind the research. His goal was to identify every time a trash can bang was heard during Astros home games. He reviewed every game he could find audio for and tabulated the data.
Through his effort you can see several things. How much banging they did, who they were banging for, and who they banged for the most. He started he was only researching the banging because that's all he could accurately review.
He had no way of knowing if the lack of a bang was intentional because a fastball was coming, initial because the sign was missed, or any other unforeseen circumstances.
It's not portrayed as a 100% definitive analysis, but it definitely provides a good look into what was going on.
We are never gonna see eye to eye on this. Sure, I credit him for wasting hours analyzing every home game bang that was heard...kudos. But the research will forever be incomplete and only gives us a portion of true details as far as what pitch was coming.
So we are seeing eye to eye then
It was never presented as a 100% conclusive assessment. Not by the guy who did the research nor by myself who posted about it. The only thing
here is you're still overcome with grief from your Yankees losing There it is....you think I am writing these comments because I am upset the Yankees lost? Nah man, I have a Masters in Mathematics. It bothers me when people don't do a full " analysis" and publish the information thinking they are actually adding value to the conversation.
At least we could win a CS game...
To late to get a refund? No one said it was a full analysis. Maybe you can find a discount for a B.A. in Comprehension Skills
My guy, you couldn't come up with anything to say back the first time so you tried coming at me for being a Yankee fan and now you reply back saying I have poor comprehension skills....Don't become a Lawyer. Have a great week Chuck.
My guy, you keep showing you didn't understand the scope of the website or the intent in posting it. You keep peeing into the wind. For you to continue to cry about this the only logical conclusion was your Yankee fandom.
Today is the Chiefs parade, it's going to be a wonderful year
The point of the website is to show how much bangs per game/per player occurred during the 2017 season, I understand it. The problem is, if you go a step further (which you probably didn't) there are now articles and such being published using that "Analysis" saying Astro hitters only knew 18% of total pitches thrown in the 2017 season so it didn't help them as much as people think...which is completely false. And as a Yankee Fan, this site only proves more that they cheated which any logical person would realize that would make a Yankee fan happy. Clearly this is....going over your head.
LOL, felt the need to thrown in Chiefs during a baseball conversation...got it there Chuck. Enjoy man, great convo. See ya.
We're almost there, the Astros fan has no control over people writing articles and such misconstruing his data collection. I posted the link for people to check it out because the trash can banging was such a big deal. I don't think it was a complete waste of time on his part either.
I'm sure there plenty of "no bangs" that were intentional. However, that isn't really quantifiable simply by rewatching games like this guy did.
-
Honestly I see both sides of your arguments. It's a shame neither of you can.
-
A admin locked this topic on
