Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
But sabermetrics weighs certain stats as being more important than others, how was that determined. Was that subjective?
Trial and error, determining which stats led to team success and which stats were negligible in that regard.
The first thing you do when you create an advanced stat like WAR or OPS+ or FIP is to run it against previous players and seasons to determine whether or not it truly illuminates the gap between good, bad, and average. A stat that says the top 3 players of all time were Babe, Willie and Barry is a whole lot better than a stat who says the best 3 of all time were Reuben Sierra, Bob Hamelin, and Ron Santo.
I swear we’re dealing with Mavericks backup account or something.
I was perfectly content having a discussion about this but once again clear you get inflamed by a person with a different opinion that you find wrong. Calling me an alternate account. So as much as I dont think you are a troll, I do feel a total lack of respect from you so I will cease our discussion and just block you.
-
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
But sabermetrics weighs certain stats as being more important than others, how was that determined. Was that subjective?
Trial and error, determining which stats led to team success and which stats were negligible in that regard.
The first thing you do when you create an advanced stat like WAR or OPS+ or FIP is to run it against previous players and seasons to determine whether or not it truly illuminates the gap between good, bad, and average. A stat that says the top 3 players of all time were Babe, Willie and Barry is a whole lot better than a stat who says the best 3 of all time were Reuben Sierra, Bob Hamelin, and Ron Santo.
I swear we’re dealing with Mavericks backup account or something.
I was perfectly content having a discussion about this but once again clear you get inflamed by a person with a different opinion that you find wrong. Calling me an alternate account. So as much as I dont think you are a troll, I do feel a total lack of respect from you so I will cease our discussion and just block you.
Oh, guess I was right lmao
-
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
But sabermetrics weighs certain stats as being more important than others, how was that determined. Was that subjective?
Trial and error, determining which stats led to team success and which stats were negligible in that regard.
The first thing you do when you create an advanced stat like WAR or OPS+ or FIP is to run it against previous players and seasons to determine whether or not it truly illuminates the gap between good, bad, and average. A stat that says the top 3 players of all time were Babe, Willie and Barry is a whole lot better than a stat who says the best 3 of all time were Reuben Sierra, Bob Hamelin, and Ron Santo.
Now that actually answers my question and makes complete sense to me. This is exactly the kind of answer I am looking for when I ask a question.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
That or sabermetric values are overrated. Not saying I believe that, but there are always alternative explanations for things.
In the case of Carter, he is probably worth less to his team because his mentality was to put the ball in play rather than to just get on base. Which would indicate high RBI vs low BB total. I will always contest that there is a place for that kind of mentality. I think all stats only tell part of the picture. The stats say everyone who can get on base probabilities are they are going to score runs. But life doesn't always work that way, I think you need a guy like Carter who is going to put the ball in play with a runner on base rather than try and draw a walk.
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
As long as you value more than any one whole stat. That seems to be where this argument gets hung up.
The only people who think sabermetrics are wrong or overrated are people that believe a player was better than he truly was. Often times, metrics prove players were not as good as people remember, and that makes people upset.
You said yourself that you’re old, so it’s only natural you wouldn’t really understand. Humans are stubborn and don’t like new ideas, even if they’re better.
So in making the case for objective metrics, you use subjective logic like "you're old so you don't understand" and "Humans are stubborn and don't like new ideas". Both of those statements rely on experience and anecdotal data and can not be objectively proven.
I mean, it’s not wrong though. It’s been shown many times throughout history that people prefer to stick with ideas they already know, and don’t like change even if it’s for the better. Older people tend to not understand new technology as well as younger people that have grown up with it. There’s nothing wrong about that.
Lol, but surely you see the duplicity in dismissing the "eye test" and deferring to objective stats while simultaneously claiming facts based off observations and anecdotes instead of objective stats.
The very same reasoning that leads to "it's been shown many times in history" also leads to "Carter was a better player because he was an AS x amount of times" or "I watched both Huff and Carter play and Carter was the better player". They all rely on general feelings instead of actual stats.
-
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
That or sabermetric values are overrated. Not saying I believe that, but there are always alternative explanations for things.
In the case of Carter, he is probably worth less to his team because his mentality was to put the ball in play rather than to just get on base. Which would indicate high RBI vs low BB total. I will always contest that there is a place for that kind of mentality. I think all stats only tell part of the picture. The stats say everyone who can get on base probabilities are they are going to score runs. But life doesn't always work that way, I think you need a guy like Carter who is going to put the ball in play with a runner on base rather than try and draw a walk.
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
As long as you value more than any one whole stat. That seems to be where this argument gets hung up.
The only people who think sabermetrics are wrong or overrated are people that believe a player was better than he truly was. Often times, metrics prove players were not as good as people remember, and that makes people upset.
You said yourself that you’re old, so it’s only natural you wouldn’t really understand. Humans are stubborn and don’t like new ideas, even if they’re better.
So in making the case for objective metrics, you use subjective logic like "you're old so you don't understand" and "Humans are stubborn and don't like new ideas". Both of those statements rely on experience and anecdotal data and can not be objectively proven.
I mean, it’s not wrong though. It’s been shown many times throughout history that people prefer to stick with ideas they already know, and don’t like change even if it’s for the better. Older people tend to not understand new technology as well as younger people that have grown up with it. There’s nothing wrong about that.
Lol, but surely you see the duplicity in dismissing the "eye test" and deferring to objective stats while simultaneously claiming facts based off observations and anecdotes instead of objective stats.
The very same reasoning that leads to "it's been shown many times in history" also leads to "Carter was a better player because he was an AS x amount of times" or "I watched both Huff and Carter play and Carter was the better player". They all rely on general feelings instead of actual stats.
Man, you’re really reaching now. They are in no way related.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Which you can see by his 0 all star appearances vs Carter who was a 5 time all star.
Congratulations! You found the one stat (All-Star appearances) even more irrelevant than RBIs!
I am old I am never going to believe that there is any one stat that says a guy is a good or bad player. It's clear from our discussion that you believe that.
That's the thing about WAR. It takes ALL stats into account, adjusting for park effects and era. Even though you're getting a single number, that number is arrived at by looking at numerous stats and compiling them down.
Wow did I say AS meant anything other than a popularity contest? Or that Carter was better for it. What it shows for the time is who people thought was better.
What you guys are saying is ignore any indication of what your eyes or the eyes of everyone around that person at that time say and just look at his on base percentage. I'm sorry I think that is just as faulty as looking at batting average and being done.
How good a player was, how valuable a player was can not be measured with 1 stat no matter how hard you try. I think sabermetrics are extremely valuable and tell me way more about a player than any one attribute, but there is still not one end all be all stat that says player A is better than player B.
To me this sounds like another useless argument that is going to go nowhere.
The point is that people might have thought he was good back then, before we were actually able to measure a player’s value.
We know now that he wasn’t as good as people thought, not even close. The stats aren’t wrong just because they contradict what you’ve always thought in your mind. You’re the one that’s wrong, not the stats.
And like SaveFerris said, WAR and wRC+ factor in many different stats into one clean and easy to understand sta0t. While they are individual stats, they’re different than base stats like Avg and OBP in that they take many more factors into account to give a more accurate and whole measure of a player’s ability.
Again looking for the proof of how I am wrong. I am not saying I am right. But I need more evidence that says sabermetric stats are the end all be all of evaluating players?
How stubborn can you be? Sabermetrics literally take other stats, add in adjustment factors, and give us a single stat. That is why they are much better than base stats.
Without sabermetrics, we wouldn’t be able to tell whether a guy that hits .340 with no power is better than a guy that hits 50 HR with a low average. They allow us to compare those players and see who is the better overall offensive player.
Clearly you would prefer to stick to your outdated ways, which is why you keep trying (and failing) to prove metrics wrong. You can’t teach somebody that doesn’t want to be taught I guess.
The flaw in that argument, is that there is still values attached to which stat should weigh more than others; and that is an eye test too if you get down to it. Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better. There's also relative value to be taken into account for a player's importance in a lineup that depends on other players around him. You don't need to put something down to elevate something else, but that is the arrogance of youth. It goes both ways: you have to embrace change and evolution, but you don't have to throw out experience and erase the past to make room.
Take pace of play: I prefer when players actually put balls in play, when there's stolen bases, when fielding matters and games are played under 3:00, instead of the Three True Outcomes of today. It's not necessarily bad, just less to my taste. You could argue that fielders of today are worse than 30 years ago, because they see a lot less BIPs today. Is it true? Probably not, but there's less incentive to be well rounded than Jr or Bonds were.
-
@yankblan said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Which you can see by his 0 all star appearances vs Carter who was a 5 time all star.
Congratulations! You found the one stat (All-Star appearances) even more irrelevant than RBIs!
I am old I am never going to believe that there is any one stat that says a guy is a good or bad player. It's clear from our discussion that you believe that.
That's the thing about WAR. It takes ALL stats into account, adjusting for park effects and era. Even though you're getting a single number, that number is arrived at by looking at numerous stats and compiling them down.
Wow did I say AS meant anything other than a popularity contest? Or that Carter was better for it. What it shows for the time is who people thought was better.
What you guys are saying is ignore any indication of what your eyes or the eyes of everyone around that person at that time say and just look at his on base percentage. I'm sorry I think that is just as faulty as looking at batting average and being done.
How good a player was, how valuable a player was can not be measured with 1 stat no matter how hard you try. I think sabermetrics are extremely valuable and tell me way more about a player than any one attribute, but there is still not one end all be all stat that says player A is better than player B.
To me this sounds like another useless argument that is going to go nowhere.
The point is that people might have thought he was good back then, before we were actually able to measure a player’s value.
We know now that he wasn’t as good as people thought, not even close. The stats aren’t wrong just because they contradict what you’ve always thought in your mind. You’re the one that’s wrong, not the stats.
And like SaveFerris said, WAR and wRC+ factor in many different stats into one clean and easy to understand sta0t. While they are individual stats, they’re different than base stats like Avg and OBP in that they take many more factors into account to give a more accurate and whole measure of a player’s ability.
Again looking for the proof of how I am wrong. I am not saying I am right. But I need more evidence that says sabermetric stats are the end all be all of evaluating players?
How stubborn can you be? Sabermetrics literally take other stats, add in adjustment factors, and give us a single stat. That is why they are much better than base stats.
Without sabermetrics, we wouldn’t be able to tell whether a guy that hits .340 with no power is better than a guy that hits 50 HR with a low average. They allow us to compare those players and see who is the better overall offensive player.
Clearly you would prefer to stick to your outdated ways, which is why you keep trying (and failing) to prove metrics wrong. You can’t teach somebody that doesn’t want to be taught I guess.
The flaw in that argument, is that there is still values attached to which stat should weigh more than others; and that is an eye test too if you get down to it. Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better. There's also relative value to be taken into account for a player's importance in a lineup that depends on other players around him. You don't need to put something down to elevate something else, but that is the arrogance of youth. It goes both ways: you have to embrace change and evolution, but you don't have to throw out experience and erase the past to make room.
Take pace of play: I prefer when players actually put balls in play, when there's stolen bases, when fielding matters and games are played under 3:00, instead of the Three True Outcomes of today. It's not necessarily bad, just less to my taste. You could argue that fielders of today are worse than 30 years ago, because they see a lot less BIPs today. Is it true? Probably not, but there's less incentive to be well rounded than Jr or Bonds were.
I would argue that is not true in terms of fielding. Especially for the fringe players. You think Adam Engel would be with the White Sox if it wasn't for the fielding? Would Bader be getting another chance to be an everyday CF if he wasn't amazing at fielding? Would Kolten Wong be as valued? Darwin Barney wouldn't have had a 7 year career with his bat. FIelding is still as important as ever.
Baseball has gone back to valuing defense more, we aren't in the "His defense doesn't matter" attitude portrayal in Moneyball anymore.
-
@eatyum said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@yankblan said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Which you can see by his 0 all star appearances vs Carter who was a 5 time all star.
Congratulations! You found the one stat (All-Star appearances) even more irrelevant than RBIs!
I am old I am never going to believe that there is any one stat that says a guy is a good or bad player. It's clear from our discussion that you believe that.
That's the thing about WAR. It takes ALL stats into account, adjusting for park effects and era. Even though you're getting a single number, that number is arrived at by looking at numerous stats and compiling them down.
Wow did I say AS meant anything other than a popularity contest? Or that Carter was better for it. What it shows for the time is who people thought was better.
What you guys are saying is ignore any indication of what your eyes or the eyes of everyone around that person at that time say and just look at his on base percentage. I'm sorry I think that is just as faulty as looking at batting average and being done.
How good a player was, how valuable a player was can not be measured with 1 stat no matter how hard you try. I think sabermetrics are extremely valuable and tell me way more about a player than any one attribute, but there is still not one end all be all stat that says player A is better than player B.
To me this sounds like another useless argument that is going to go nowhere.
The point is that people might have thought he was good back then, before we were actually able to measure a player’s value.
We know now that he wasn’t as good as people thought, not even close. The stats aren’t wrong just because they contradict what you’ve always thought in your mind. You’re the one that’s wrong, not the stats.
And like SaveFerris said, WAR and wRC+ factor in many different stats into one clean and easy to understand sta0t. While they are individual stats, they’re different than base stats like Avg and OBP in that they take many more factors into account to give a more accurate and whole measure of a player’s ability.
Again looking for the proof of how I am wrong. I am not saying I am right. But I need more evidence that says sabermetric stats are the end all be all of evaluating players?
How stubborn can you be? Sabermetrics literally take other stats, add in adjustment factors, and give us a single stat. That is why they are much better than base stats.
Without sabermetrics, we wouldn’t be able to tell whether a guy that hits .340 with no power is better than a guy that hits 50 HR with a low average. They allow us to compare those players and see who is the better overall offensive player.
Clearly you would prefer to stick to your outdated ways, which is why you keep trying (and failing) to prove metrics wrong. You can’t teach somebody that doesn’t want to be taught I guess.
The flaw in that argument, is that there is still values attached to which stat should weigh more than others; and that is an eye test too if you get down to it. Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better. There's also relative value to be taken into account for a player's importance in a lineup that depends on other players around him. You don't need to put something down to elevate something else, but that is the arrogance of youth. It goes both ways: you have to embrace change and evolution, but you don't have to throw out experience and erase the past to make room.
Take pace of play: I prefer when players actually put balls in play, when there's stolen bases, when fielding matters and games are played under 3:00, instead of the Three True Outcomes of today. It's not necessarily bad, just less to my taste. You could argue that fielders of today are worse than 30 years ago, because they see a lot less BIPs today. Is it true? Probably not, but there's less incentive to be well rounded than Jr or Bonds were.
I would argue that is not true in terms of fielding. Especially for the fringe players. You think Adam Engel would be with the White Sox if it wasn't for the fielding? Would Bader be getting another chance to be an everyday CF if he wasn't amazing at fielding? Would Kolten Wong be as valued? Darwin Barney wouldn't have had a 7 year career with his bat. FIelding is still as important as ever.
Exactly! This proves my point of subjectivity, and I could reply that before the early 2000's trio of Arod, Nomar, Tejada and other big hitting SS, you could sacrifice a bat for a glove-centric SS because you had X amount of grounders and DP balls more per game. I don't necessarily believe that, just saying that it's imprudent at worst to make definitive statements about player value.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
That or sabermetric values are overrated. Not saying I believe that, but there are always alternative explanations for things.
In the case of Carter, he is probably worth less to his team because his mentality was to put the ball in play rather than to just get on base. Which would indicate high RBI vs low BB total. I will always contest that there is a place for that kind of mentality. I think all stats only tell part of the picture. The stats say everyone who can get on base probabilities are they are going to score runs. But life doesn't always work that way, I think you need a guy like Carter who is going to put the ball in play with a runner on base rather than try and draw a walk.
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
As long as you value more than any one whole stat. That seems to be where this argument gets hung up.
The only people who think sabermetrics are wrong or overrated are people that believe a player was better than he truly was. Often times, metrics prove players were not as good as people remember, and that makes people upset.
You said yourself that you’re old, so it’s only natural you wouldn’t really understand. Humans are stubborn and don’t like new ideas, even if they’re better.
So in making the case for objective metrics, you use subjective logic like "you're old so you don't understand" and "Humans are stubborn and don't like new ideas". Both of those statements rely on experience and anecdotal data and can not be objectively proven.
I mean, it’s not wrong though. It’s been shown many times throughout history that people prefer to stick with ideas they already know, and don’t like change even if it’s for the better. Older people tend to not understand new technology as well as younger people that have grown up with it. There’s nothing wrong about that.
Lol, but surely you see the duplicity in dismissing the "eye test" and deferring to objective stats while simultaneously claiming facts based off observations and anecdotes instead of objective stats.
The very same reasoning that leads to "it's been shown many times in history" also leads to "Carter was a better player because he was an AS x amount of times" or "I watched both Huff and Carter play and Carter was the better player". They all rely on general feelings instead of actual stats.
Man, you’re really reaching now. They are in no way related.
You're right, the subjects of the discussion may not be related, but the paths of reasoning are the same.
If you say "humans are stubborn" or "older people don't understand new things" because "it's been shown many times in the past" you are not presenting any objective facts to support this conclusion, only a subjective opinion based off subjective observations.
There is no objective stat to determine a person's "stubbornness factor" or "rate of resistance to new things".
If I say "Joe Carter was a better player than Huff, because I saw them both play", I am not presenting any objective facts to support that conclusion, only my personal subjective opinion based off my observations.
The line of reasoning in both cases are the same, therefore the conclusions of both arguments carry equal weight.
-
There seems to be an age gap in mindset here that can't be overcome
-
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Which you can see by his 0 all star appearances vs Carter who was a 5 time all star.
Congratulations! You found the one stat (All-Star appearances) even more irrelevant than RBIs!
I am old I am never going to believe that there is any one stat that says a guy is a good or bad player. It's clear from our discussion that you believe that.
That's the thing about WAR. It takes ALL stats into account, adjusting for park effects and era. Even though you're getting a single number, that number is arrived at by looking at numerous stats and compiling them down.
Well no... not really. It takes on certain stats and arbitrarily says all others aren’t important like ALL clutch stats
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
But sabermetrics weighs certain stats as being more important than others, how was that determined. Was that subjective?
Trial and error, determining which stats led to team success and which stats were negligible in that regard.
The first thing you do when you create an advanced stat like WAR or OPS+ or FIP is to run it against previous players and seasons to determine whether or not it truly illuminates the gap between good, bad, and average. A stat that says the top 3 players of all time were Babe, Willie and Barry is a whole lot better than a stat who says the best 3 of all time were Reuben Sierra, Bob Hamelin, and Ron Santo.
I swear we’re dealing with Mavericks backup account or something.
No just another person who understands stats. Nice to see objective thinking hasn’t completely gone away.
-
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
But sabermetrics weighs certain stats as being more important than others, how was that determined. Was that subjective?
Trial and error, determining which stats led to team success and which stats were negligible in that regard.
The first thing you do when you create an advanced stat like WAR or OPS+ or FIP is to run it against previous players and seasons to determine whether or not it truly illuminates the gap between good, bad, and average. A stat that says the top 3 players of all time were Babe, Willie and Barry is a whole lot better than a stat who says the best 3 of all time were Reuben Sierra, Bob Hamelin, and Ron Santo.
Ok that is a statistical error 101. All stats aren’t good for every situation. Plus a stat correlating doesn’t mean any level of causation
-
@yankblan said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better.
If another stat comes along that's better than the ones that currently exist, I'd be happy to hear it's arguments.
Until then, use the best we've got now. Which is WAR, not "Back in my day, Joe Carter was the ****! Now get off my lawn!!!"
-
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@yankblan said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better.
If another stat comes along that's better than the ones that currently exist, I'd be happy to hear it's arguments.
Until then, use the best we've got now. Which is WAR, not "Back in my day, Joe Carter was the ****! Now get off my lawn!!!"
Why don't you just say "ok boomer" while you are at it.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
No they don’t all the time. There are more of them. Many of which are overused by people who don’t understand them and there limitations
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@abbyspapa said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
That or sabermetric values are overrated. Not saying I believe that, but there are always alternative explanations for things.
In the case of Carter, he is probably worth less to his team because his mentality was to put the ball in play rather than to just get on base. Which would indicate high RBI vs low BB total. I will always contest that there is a place for that kind of mentality. I think all stats only tell part of the picture. The stats say everyone who can get on base probabilities are they are going to score runs. But life doesn't always work that way, I think you need a guy like Carter who is going to put the ball in play with a runner on base rather than try and draw a walk.
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@nflman2033 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
That’s why wRC+ is the better stat. It tells us who is truly the better hitter. Base stats don’t take enough factors into account.
And no, I don’t believe in just using wRC+.
OPS and OPS+ both have a lot of value as well.Also, all star appearances tell nothing about who is the better hitter. Just like RBI tells nothing about a hitters ability.
Not disagreeing, but it tells me how the player was regarded amongst his peers. Lile I said Carter was considered one of the best players of his best position, but Huff never was.
Like I said, I watched them both play and would have never considered Huff better.
Again, that’s the beauty of the stats we have now. They show the true value of players much better than the “eye test”
As long as you value more than any one whole stat. That seems to be where this argument gets hung up.
The only people who think sabermetrics are wrong or overrated are people that believe a player was better than he truly was. Often times, metrics prove players were not as good as people remember, and that makes people upset.
You said yourself that you’re old, so it’s only natural you wouldn’t really understand. Humans are stubborn and don’t like new ideas, even if they’re better.
So in making the case for objective metrics, you use subjective logic like "you're old so you don't understand" and "Humans are stubborn and don't like new ideas". Both of those statements rely on experience and anecdotal data and can not be objectively proven.
I mean, it’s not wrong though. It’s been shown many times throughout history that people prefer to stick with ideas they already know, and don’t like change even if it’s for the better. Older people tend to not understand new technology as well as younger people that have grown up with it. There’s nothing wrong about that.
Ugh that is a just poor thinking it is literally the definition of prejudice. You are pre judging based on age when the truth is the differences within a population can be as drastic as the differences between populations. You need to stop trying to do any form of analysis. Your assumptions, much like sabermetrics are painfully flawed
-
@SaveFarris said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
@yankblan said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Who's to know in 5, 10 or 20 years if a new fWARLGBTQ+commaVBT23-DC stat won't be better.
If another stat comes along that's better than the ones that currently exist, I'd be happy to hear it's arguments.
Until then, use the best we've got now. Which is WAR, not "Back in my day, Joe Carter was the ****! Now get off my lawn!!!"
No....you use multiple imperfect stats to triangulate. You should NEVER use a singular stat no matter how good you think it is. This is the example of pseudoscience and not understanding stats that is prevalent amongst the sabermetrics community.
-
Oh my god SDS just give carter a signature series card so we can stop seeing this stupid post.
-
@pfcorporate said in Aaron Judge did not get a single flashback in MLB 19:
Oh my god SDS just give carter a signature series card so we can stop seeing this stupid post.
Or judge
