Quote:
Originally posted by mgadfly
If this was aimed at my post, I never claimed to be an expert, only that I understood the argument. As much as I respect James, that doesn't mean that I can't disagree with him, you or Voros.
I said (and this is assuming you were replying to my post) MY ideal engine for a reason. And about Sabermetrics, how many teams have hired Voros and James? There are some teams that still haven't bought into the idea completely (I'm not in their front offices, so I wouldn't claim to know how many).
And also, I generally agree with the direction DIPS takes us, and only posted to suggest that just because it is the most current theory does not mean that it is completely, 100% correct.
|
Italics emphasis is mine.
I'm an advocate of DIPS, but that also doesn't mean that I agree with it 100%. The major sticking point for me, however, is that A) it's taking a significant leap forward in the analysis of pitchers and B) to this date, it's the most accurate way of analysis for pitchers. Neither of those points, however, maintain that the theory is 100% correct - I don't know if it's 100% correct and I'm not sure if anybody knows it's 100% correct. But what I do know is at the very least it's a vital stepping stone into providing an accurate and important means of pitcher analysis. Whether or not it becomes "the" preferred method of pitcher evaluation for the next 20 years or is merely used as a building block for a more accurate method has yet to be determined.