Quote:
Originally posted by Plutoro
Really, im shocked...
Any system can win, ANY. You can be a light power hitting, great defence team that runs alot and you can win. If you do not think that you are ignorant and need to watch a baseball game.
|
...It's not looked kindly upon to make ill-informed generalizations of members by saying "If you do not think that, you are ignorant and need to watch a baseball game." First off, check the OT forums for all the different threads involving GForce recently and threads of the past (I think he's cleaned his act up significantly) regarding Bigphesta. No one respects comments like this and they just make you look like an ass. Regardless, it would also put many on this forum into the "ignorant" category, as simply witnessing a baseball game is irrelevant - statistical analysis is how you can determine what will win.
Quote:
Originally posted by Plutoro
Im sorry but you come off as a Bill James kiss ass, no offence as you actually are rather knowledgable.
|
I haven't seen "praise Beane" anywhere in the thread. I still disagree with a few of his philosophies, but on the whole he's done a damn good job, and you should be giving credit where it's deserved.
Quote:
Originally posted by Plutoro
I do actually understand the majority of the systems, and I do not agree with what is favored over what. You need a mix of everything to be extremely successful.
|
If you need a mix of everything, why do the A's not resort to "small ball"?
Quote:
Originally posted by Plutoro
So to simply dismiss any argument against a player you like by saying he has x amount more win shares in a season would make you the ignorant one.
|
I'll agree with that. But it's equally foolish to just dismiss the stat because you don't know how it works. Personally, I don't like win shares all that much. I think it's a good way to analyze a players contribution to his own team vs other players on his team, but I think it's flawed in comparing players between teams. That doesn't mean I'm going to blast anyone who uses it. However, those who do choose to use it should (and for the most part, I think they do) realize it's not the only stat that means anything. It's just one of the stats which takes everything into account, which is why it has become popular.
Quote:
Originally posted by Plutoro
i will GURANTEE you that in 10 years a new favorite stat will apear and OPS will now be considered obsolete. It has happnened countless times before.
|
Yes it will. And the smart ones will move on to that stat. That's not to say OPS wasn't a useful stat, but it can and will be improved upon. It's all about fine tuning. Say you're using a 2 GHz computer now. And in 10 years you're up to... whatever. 10 GHz? It doesn't matter. To say that the 2 GHz computer was meaningless and shouldn't have been used is asinine. At the time, it was the best thing you could be using. There's no reason to stick with a 486 just because technology keeps advancing, just like there is no reason to stick with only primary statistics because sabrmetrics is advancing.