Remember when we thought the world was flat? That was all we needed to know. Until it wasn't. Then we had a better way to talk about the shape of the world... it was a sphere. And then it wasn't. It was an oblate spheroid. Each adjustment allowed you to define it more precisely. That is all the stats do. They let you look at the world of baseball performance more precisely. How you use them is up to you. But whether you're using stats or not, that's still no reason for making claims beyond the evidence at hand. I find that most of the people who get upset by critical analysis (statistical or no) do so because it requires them to face and defend their positions... and they either don't like to or are incapable of doing so.
I'll say this: had the Yankees won, I still would bitch that they left runners in scoring position. You know why? Because they did. And with that, I give up. You have your statistical arguments, and I have my eyes. Interestingly enough, those stats have gone home without gold every year since 2000. I'm tired of lying to my eyes.
see your missing the point again. First of all theres no reason to analyze baseball like early civilizations needed to analyze the erath the y lived on. Baseball is not that complicated a game. Stat people like you love to make wayyyy more of baseball than actually exists. The stats do not tell the whole story dude. And the more stats you create the more you become totally dependent on them to conjur opinions. Take all the stats you want and read them iside and outside....3 years ago in a big spot I would take Papi over Arod in a big spot every fucking time. Arod won the MVP because over the course of the year his numbers were better. Big Papi was a thousand times more valuable than he was that year. But you'd have to watch the games and put the statds aside for a minute to know that. You keep saying the human mind is incapable of keeping proper track of these things. Speak for yourself.
either way, Cappy is correct in saying its too early for this argument a tthis point anyway. Shall we change topics for the time being? Phil Hughes tonight. How was this kid Baseball America's nunmber one prospect two uears ago. Or whoever the agency that had him ranked that high was. Are we all in agreeance NOW that theres no way this kid has 4 "+" pitches? I have never seen 4 pitches from this kid. I argued that with a lot of people......they just dont exists. Is this kid a number 3? a number 4? a number 2?
He'd have been a starter coming out of camp had we not had 3 legitimate Cy Young contenders (at the time) in the front of our pen, Pettitte returning (what are you going to do, send him down?) and Joba getting his real chance in the rotation. So Hughes was sent down to keep starting every 5th day on a normal schedule, just "in case" he was needed, which obviously he was. He's 3-0 with an ERA of 1.86.
fastball (thats 1, and we'll clump the 2 and 4 seamer together) curveball (thats 2) slider (thats 3) changeup (thats 4) cutter (thats 5)
I think you misunderstood. I was told that he had 4 above average pitches. He does not. his curve is for sure. Fastball is ok...good at times, relies on location. Slideer is NOT a + pitch by any means and his change up is non existent.
I've had enough conversations with you to know that you're a smart dude. Smart enough that I'm surprised you're going with the They Haven't Won Since 2000 argument. Do you play poker? Or at least know the rules? Probability comes into play in both poker and baseball. Good poker players get their money in with the best of it far more often than they don't. They don't always win those hands, though. Sometimes, someone else sucks out on them. Sometimes, they're only slight favorites in a hand, winning 55% of the time. But they're still making the right moves, because they're in with the best of it, and will make money in the long run. Baseball is no different. The best of teams win 100 games in a year. Very good to great teams will still win 95 games. Lesser teams win 90 or less. There still isn't very much spread between any two teams in the playoffs. What you are suggesting is akin to a pro poker player changing his game because he got sucked out on four or five hands in a row. Awful comparison (for your point... a good one for mine). David Ortiz's statistics were reasonably close to A-Rod's in 2007. Who is voted more "more valuable" is not really based on statistical analysis of who was more valuable to the team... it's a vote based on subjective opinions of writers who use statistics, often in ways that do little to reflect true value. In fact, it's usually based on HR and RBI, those stats you said were all we need. A closer look would show that Ortiz actually did more with his bat in 2007 than A-Rod did. A-Rod's plus defense might have made him a little more valuable, overall. But of course, you see the Big Papi myth and think that it obviously makes him more valuable. Baseball is a simple game in terms of the results you see. But it is complicated in the number of variables that produce those results. You're like a guy saying the weather is simple. It's either sunny, cloudy, or raining/snowing. What's so tough? And while this is true, you don't then say, "Hey it's been sunny the past five days, it's due to rain." That has no predictive value.
I've been high on Kennedy and Hugues for two + years now. They're both lockdown front of the rotation 20+ game winners/cy young candidates with their talent level. Why Yankee fans are more excited by these guys I don't know. Even Cashman was smart enough to see their talent level wasn't worth trading them for Santana.
It sounds more like you're mixing up the scouting reports on Joba and Hughes. Here's where Hughes was in 06: Plus fastball... he was sitting 92-93 and touching 94-95. It was a plus pitch because of movement more than velocity. Everyone talked about how it had late life on it. His velocity has dropped a tick since then, which has been discussed elsewhere. Some mechanics guru pointed to a change in mechanics which might have caused the drop in velocity (and possible straightened out his fastball a bit). Plus curve. You've seen it. It's nasty. I don't know who was telling you he had a plus slider. Hughes shelved his slider in 2005 at the request of the Yanks, out of injury concerns. Hasn't thrown it since. His changeup was developing, but considered solid. (If you think it's non-existent, go back and watch him make Teixeira look silly on three straight changeups during his no-hit bid in 2007.) He's obviously not had too much of a chance to work on it since then, but reports from the AFL and early this year is that he's been working on it a lot, and it's come a long way. It's a third or fourth pitch now, so he'll throw it 5-10% of the time, tops. What separated Hughes from others was what people said was his plus-plus command of both his fastball and his curve. As for now, his cutter (which was added last year) is supposed really good, as well.
Right. The stats like HR, RBI, and batting average. Hi, and welcome to my point. Nice of you to join me. There are additional stats (the ones you think we don't need) that give you a much clearer picture.
dude im trying to have a conversation with you but you HAVE to start with your wise ass condescending bullshit. Go jerkoff to your elias sports bureau mag.
Lighten up, Francis. It was a joke. Look, did you not see the sentence immediately following the one you bolded? Obviously "stats" don't tell the whole story. Or give the right picture, just by default of being statistics. If I told you David Ortiz had more plate appearances than A-Rod, what does that tell you about them as players? Not much. Batting average tells you a little more. OBP tells you even more. RBI tell you something about not only the player in question, but are also dependent on the hitters ahead of him in the lineup. OPS tells you more still. And so on. The more detailed metrics show Ortiz as being slightly more valuable (offensively) than A-Rod in 2007. You were trying to say that A-Rod won the MVP based on stats, and therefore stats are wrong or don't tell the entire picture. I'm saying that (aside from the fact that the term "valuable" is subjective, depending on the context) the stats the writers use to vote are the very stats you said are all we need. So which is it? Because there seems to be a contradiction in what you are trying to say. So, please, help me understand it.
